7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You may be right, perhaps I should have put in a disclaimer about no technical problem that cannot be solved eventually. I am finding it difficult to envisage a battery-powered clone of an A380 carrying 500 passengers from London to Singapore, though.

I'd like to see a return to large airships ( using helium ) for long distance travel. They are large enough to put solar panels on them to power the motors and of course they fly above the clouds.

Those 500 passengers might get there a bit slower, but with increased comfort.

I thought this thread was about the new electric powered helicopter using drone technology. The current model has only 2 seats and no large luggage, but has potential.

I am a bit worried that they want to make it pilotless though. What could possibly go wrong with that?

21 hours ago, RandolphGB said:

I was a sceptic of green technology until living in Bangkok and choking on the fumes from buses and motorcycles. 

 

Electric is the future.

Thailands electricity comes mostly from gas fired power stations, the rest are fossil fuels so a long way to go yet.

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I can't see an electric aircraft making it from Melbourne to Los Angeles. It's like electric cars, which are much better suited to urban travel.

True, as pointed out in @billd766's post, this aircraft carries "nine passengers and two crew" and as the quoted article further states, "55% of airline flights [...] fall within its 565 nmi (1,050 km) range ..."

 

So it definitely isn't intended to replace conventional aircraft on long-haul routes but it could probably handle a decent number of commuter routes that represent a large proportion of flights.

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by GroveHillWanderer

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

True, as pointed out in @billd766's post, this aircraft carries "nine passengers and two crew" and as the quoted article further states, "55% of airline flights [...] fall within its 565 nmi (1,050 km) range ...

 

So it definitely isn't intended to replace conventional aircraft on long-haul routes but it could probably handle a decent number of commuter routes that represent a large proportion of flights.

It would just make Melbourne to Sydney, or Auckland to Wellington. Melbourne to Perth, no.

Air travel is all about bums on seats, I doubt nine passengers would be viable in terms of return on capital.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It would just make Melbourne to Sydney, or Auckland to Wellington. Melbourne to Perth, no.

Air travel is all about bums on seats, I doubt nine passengers would be viable in terms of return on capital.

Fuel costs are a major airline expense. And the unpredictability of fossil fuel pricing is a huge problem. It's far cheaper to fuel an electric powered plane than a fossil fuel powered one.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gabrielleigh/2019/12/12/electric-airplanes-are-here-will-we-soon-say-goodbye-to-jet-fuel/?sh=df963bb6869e

And keep in mind that this article was written before the drastic spike in fossil fuel prices.

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Fuel costs are a major airline expense. And the unpredictability of fossil fuel pricing is a huge problem. It's far cheaper to fuel an electric powered plane than a fossil fuel powered one.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gabrielleigh/2019/12/12/electric-airplanes-are-here-will-we-soon-say-goodbye-to-jet-fuel/?sh=df963bb6869e

And keep in mind that this article was written before the drastic spike in fossil fuel prices.

I don't disagree electricity is cheaper than jet fuel, although it's worth noting electricity costs are going through the roof in Australia too. As Australia is still 70% reliant on fossil fuel, the pollution is simply being transferred somewhere else.

Economy of scale is the problem. The cheapest one-way fare Melbourne to Sydney is currently $70. A conventional jet carrying 300 passengers makes $21,000 on the flight, out of which fuel, pilot wages, ground staff and airport fees have to be paid. Nine passengers would bring in $630. The two pilots alone would cost the airline about $200. There's no room left to make a profit on those numbers, unless the airline is charging a much higher ticket price for the privilege of flying electric.

IMO, competing with regional aircraft carrying a similar amount of passengers would be much more viable. The flight from Moorabbin to King Island would be ideal.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

It would just make Melbourne to Sydney, or Auckland to Wellington. Melbourne to Perth, no.

Air travel is all about bums on seats, I doubt nine passengers would be viable in terms of return on capital.

IMHO a lot will depend on the type of aircraft, hourly flying cost, whether it is bought or leased and the number of pax carried per leg.

 

If you use a Boeing 787 on a commuter leg with only for example, 8 pax it will be a money drainer.

 

If you need to transport 16 pax it looks more viable, but would it be cheaper to use 2 small electric aircraft?

 

That takes us back to the overall cost per seat mile, which is why they employ bean counters.

 

Australian Airline companies

 

http://alineport.com/seeresult-australia-airline-companies.php#:~:text=Virgin Australia%2C Jetstar Airways%2C Qantas,Airlines%2C Airnorth%2C Alliance Airlines.

 

Most operators seem to use a mix of pure jet or turboprop aircraft in their fleets.

Edited November 15, 20223 yr by billd766

22 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

there's almost 8 billion humans?

Today a symbolic birthday of the 8th billion.

Congratulations and quickly sweep THE no. 1 problem under the carpet.

Heaven help if they would all try to consume as much materials, energy, water ... like the "first world" countries.

 

Electric planes: without a miracle jump in battery technology just a toy.

A battery for a long haul passenger jet would weigh hundreds of tons.

Energy content of kerosine is xx times more than same weight in LiIon battery.

(try to find the correct number, remember something of about 70 times)

5 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

Today a symbolic birthday of the 8th billion.

Congratulations and quickly sweep THE no. 1 problem under the carpet.

Heaven help if they would all try to consume as much materials, energy, water ... like the "first world" countries.

 

Electric planes: without a miracle jump in battery technology just a toy.

A battery for a long haul passenger jet would weigh hundreds of tons.

Energy content of kerosine is xx times more than same weight in LiIon battery.

(try to find the correct number, remember something of about 70 times)

Somebody just paid good money for 20 of these. Tell that to them.

And as pointed out earlier, there's a lot of promise in flow battery technology.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It would just make Melbourne to Sydney, or Auckland to Wellington. Melbourne to Perth, no.

Air travel is all about bums on seats, I doubt nine passengers would be viable in terms of return on capital.

Looking at the figures in the article quoted by @billd766

it sounds economically viable.

 

"Based on U.S. industrial electricity prices, the direct operating cost with nine passengers and two crew, flying at 240 kn (440 km/h), is claimed to be $200 per hour, which compares to $600–1,000 per hour for existing aircraft of similar purchase price such as the Cessna 402s, Pilatus PC-12 and Beechcraft King Air, for operations on routes under 500 nmi (930 km)."

On 11/14/2022 at 1:27 PM, giddyup said:

How is that electricity being generated? 

Not on the middle of Bangkok!

On 11/14/2022 at 4:23 PM, giddyup said:

What are you going to do with those panels when they reach their shelf life? Do you know if and where they can be recycled?

Was this ever a reason not to buy a car, a fridge, a washing machine, a bottle of beer….?

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd like to see a return to large airships ( using helium ) for long distance travel. They are large enough to put solar panels on them to power the motors and of course they fly above the clouds.

Those 500 passengers might get there a bit slower, but with increased comfort.

There actually has been talk of using them to transport cargo. But helium is in short supply now.

On 11/14/2022 at 1:45 PM, KhunLA said:

"Researchers pinpoint a potential guideline: to keep things sustainable, everyone on Earth should limit their carbon footprint to a grand total of 2.3 metric tons per year.

 

As for a private jet? It emits 2 metric tons of carbon dioxide per hour."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesliefinlay/how-celebrity-private-jet-emissions-affect-environment

 

ok I'll stop using mine ..Sorry