Electric and Hydrogen aeroplanes - feasibility and issues

Col. Meagher emphasizes that analyzing infrastructure needs is central to the effort and that some charging capacity is being erected at test locations - the cost of which must be added to the price tag for Archer’s aircraft. “If you have this test infrastructure for the vehicles,” he posits, “what else can you use it for on a base that has certain energy needs?”

It appears AFWERX will partner with the Defense Innovation Unit to figure that out using portable energy storage solutions. The portability of electricity is “critical” to how the Air Force will operate such vehicles and part of the calculus for how to approach either pure electric or hybrid systems.
Click to expand...

www.forbes.com

AFWERX Is Shelling Out Up To $142 Million to Evaluate Archer’s Midnight eVTOL - Why?

The Air Force’s technology development arm has contracted with, Archer, for delivery of up to six of its eVTOLs. Why it’s spending so much is a curious question.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
I guess no one was brave enough to fly the prototype a second time and they realized something fundamental has to be changed… So now they might have collected all their cash to let somebody with more experience do the job…
 
Charlesferdinand said:
News from Eviation

Eviation Outsources Design of All-electric Alice Commuter Airplane

Seattle-based TLG Aerospace will design the production configuration for Eviation's Alice.
www.futureflight.aero www.futureflight.aero

So, we had taxiing trials, then months of nothing, a very short first flight in September, months of nothing after that, and now they are outsourcing the design of the production version (whatever that may mean). Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. That is a pity, because I quite like the airplane.
Click to expand...

The fact that they are taking this drastic step late in the program means that they realized their in-house team cannot design an aircraft capable of getting across the finish line and they need help. Could that be part of the reason why the prototype only flew once before being seemingly grounded. I understand that money may be a bit tight for them right now, but if the prototype is already built and fully fitted out with test instrumentation, how much could it cost to do a couple more test flights ? The darn thing runs on electricity. Isn't the main selling point about this aircraft is that it's supposed to be significantly cheaper to operate than other 9 seat aircraft ?

That is the one thing I never understood about this project. Even if funding is tight, the only reason why a prototype would never fly again after just 1 flight is if you are concerned about it being able to safely perform further test flights.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The advantage is that WIGE craft that cannot fly out of ground effect are considered boats, not airplanes. No pilot's license required, much simpler certification requirements, and flat out excellent load carrying capabilities times greatly reduced thrust required once off the water.
Click to expand...

Would folks on this forum willing to be a passenger in a non-FAA certified flying boatsea glider? Genuinely curious.

My main concern is reliability as a mode of transit: presumably WIGE-only aircraft have fussy sea state requirements, which seems like it would absolutely torch your reliability numbers, which is a big-freakin deal, and was one of the original reasons that ground-based aviation was able to afford to build airfields.
 
zevets said:
Would folks on this forum willing to be a passenger in a non-FAA certified flying boatsea glider? Genuinely curious.

My main concern is reliability as a mode of transit: presumably WIGE-only aircraft have fussy sea state requirements, which seems like it would absolutely torch your reliability numbers, which is a big-freakin deal, and was one of the original reasons that ground-based aviation was able to afford to build airfields.
Click to expand...
A WiGE "seaplane"? Sure, I'm game to fly/ride in one. Even a Type B, the ones that can "jump" out of ground effect for a short time.

But yes, the downside of Ekranoplans is much like that of the flying boats: can't take off if the weather is too rough, and "too rough" for an Ekranoplan is a smaller sea state than a flying boat.
 
Guys, tourists don't go at sea when you have rough weather. And Commuters will just revert to ferry.

No, it has the potential to be a game changer in the industry.
 
TomcatViP said:
Guys, tourists don't go at sea when you have rough weather. And Commuters will just revert to ferry.

No, it has the potential to be a game changer in the industry.
Click to expand...
The difference is that "rough weather" for a WiGE is less than Sea State 5, when a ferry isn't even going to notice Sea State 5.
 
Sea planes offer a hugh safety advantage by having almost constantly the biggest airport of the world below them. When the wether is fine, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. Ferries can be quite dangerous too, I did island hopping in Thailand with a small vessel around 25 years ago and my girlfriend and me almost became shark food...
 
Nicknick said:
Sea planes offer a hugh safety advantage by having almost constantly the biggest airport of the world below them.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see any stats on that because my understanding is the opposite. Although you can notionally land on any wet bit, in reality you can't if it's too rough or has debris floating in it (difficult to mitigate this even at specific seaports) And then once you're down you're not in a very seaworthy boat - like design case is to survive sea state 3/4 from my understanding, and even then that is "survive" and the aircraft might be written off.

Increased landplane redundancy and reliability leading up to ETOPs cert seems a "safer" way to go
 
We are talking about short distances like in island hopping, there is no need to fly when the wether is rough. Furthermore, I belive that unsinkable sea planes could be built by using buyancy bodies wherever possible. The batteries as haviest parts should be made droppable when floating.
 
A short distance island hopping flight has to take off and land, just like a long distance flight. Taking off and landing don't become any safer when less time passes between the two :(
 
You are focusing on a minor problem, how many people died in seaplanes due to semi submerged logs??
 
Last edited:
I don't have the numbers. Do you?
My experience with semi-submerged debris is limited to dents in small boats, shallows can be avoided with a proper map and knowing where you are. Avoiding debris - pot luck.
 
at least some numbers about the numbers of accidents.:


Hitting a log will hardly cause a fatal accident, I couldn't find a single one. Also, this type of accidents more typical for unsheduled flying with landing in rivers. For (hopefully) obvious reasons, drifting logs around islands are quit uncommon.

With a regular service, the landing are in rivers can be protected, e.g. by a rope which will stop the logs upstream of the landing area.

Hitting boats is more a concern than hitting floating logs.
 
Nicknick said:
at least some numbers about the numbers of accidents.:


Hitting a log will hardly cause a fatal accident, I couldn't find a single one. Also, this type of accidents more typical for unsheduled flying with landing in rivers. For (hopefully) obvious reasons, drifting logs around islands are quit uncommon.

With a regular service, the landing are in rivers can be protected, e.g. by a rope which will stop the logs upstream of the landing area.

Hitting boats is more a concern than hitting floating logs.
Click to expand...
I know that one lady is looking at federal prison time for driving her boat in the way of seaplanes attempting to take off at Halibut Cove, AK.
 
TomcatViP said:
Guys, tourists don't go at sea when you have rough weather. And Commuters will just revert to ferry.

No, it has the potential to be a game changer in the industry.
Click to expand...

What industry? How often do people go island hopping? I have gone on a day trip to nantucket, and outside of maybe four markets in the US, I just can't imagine a WIGE airplane penciling out (100+ aircraft). I know people fly to the Florida Keys, but that market seems well served by normal airplanes. In terms of floatplanes, my other impression is that the major usage is in remote areas (Alaska etc) where there is significant time flying over land.

Also what about the non-FAA certified part? Folks on this forum seem more informed that most: do any of you value FAA certification?
 
zevets said:
Also what about the non-FAA certified part? Folks on this forum seem more informed that most: do any of you value FAA certification?
Click to expand...
While I do (I'm an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic), I also know that not needing that FAA certification can let people get advanced designs into service faster. FAA certification takes a decade or more.

So any of the Pacific Island nations could likely use WiGE to travel instead of a regular boat or a seaplane. It's about as fast as the seaplanes, but burns about as much fuel as a boat (loosely speaking, it'd be a thirsty boat).
 
Yes. The great advantage of WiG is that they are... Boats.

No stringant certification, robust steel airframe, simpler low altitude engine and scheduled maitenance planned per year and not hours of flight. No pilots also, just your usual captain with local experience of terrain and weather.
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes. The great advantage of WiG is that they are... Boats.

No stringant certification, robust steel airframe, simpler low altitude engine and scheduled maitenance planned per year and not hours of flight. No pilots also, just your usual captain with local experience of terrain and weather.
Click to expand...
I don't believe any of that is true.

While it hurts to type, I will take my innovation-crushing government certification bureaucracy over pretending that a low-flying plane is a boat.
 
Well, if you ever used a 25 m long wooden boat, cramped with cargo and tourist, taking water in the rough sea with a heavy inclination, you might op for the Ecranoplan!
 
zevets said:
Also what about the non-FAA certified part? Folks on this forum seem more informed that most: do any of you value FAA certification?
Click to expand...
What people value doesn't really matter; the law is certification for commercial aviation, which part depends on the details.
 
zevets said:
I don't believe any of that is true.

While it hurts to type, I will take my innovation-crushing government certification bureaucracy over pretending that a low-flying plane is a boat.
Click to expand...
If it cannot leave ground effect except for a limited "jump", it's not a low-flying plane, it's a boat. Per international law.
 
mkellytx said:
What people value doesn't really matter; the law is certification for commercial aviation, which part depends on the details.
Click to expand...
And international law has ruled that only the WiGE that can leave ground effect for long terms are aircraft. If it can only jump it's a boat. If it cannot even jump, it's a boat.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And international law has ruled that only the WiGE that can leave ground effect for long terms are aircraft. If it can only jump it's a boat. If it cannot even jump, it's a boat.
Click to expand...
Thanks for some reason I got the ground effect acronym mixed up with a company name. Serves me right for shooting of something quick.
 
alberchico said:
"Over recent months, Eviation has been honing the aircraft configuration: analysing which parts it can take to a certification-suitable model and which need replacing or updating, for reasons of obsolescence or producibility, for example." So the definitive version will be very different that what we see today.

* "A certification-conforming aircraft will make its debut in late 2025...."
Click to expand...
But this would mean that even after completely abandoning the initial (obviously uncertifiable) configuration with the wingtip motor placement, Eviation has invested years in developing, building and finally flying (briefly) an uncertifiable design! There just has to be more to this story - the months of silence following the 8 minute flight test 'campaign' speaks volumes.
 
alberchico said:
The fact that they are taking this drastic step late in the program means that they realized their in-house team cannot design an aircraft capable of getting across the finish line and they need help. Could that be part of the reason why the prototype only flew once before being seemingly grounded. I understand that money may be a bit tight for them right now, but if the prototype is already built and fully fitted out with test instrumentation, how much could it cost to do a couple more test flights ? The darn thing runs on electricity. Isn't the main selling point about this aircraft is that it's supposed to be significantly cheaper to operate than other 9 seat aircraft ?

That is the one thing I never understood about this project. Even if funding is tight, the only reason why a prototype would never fly again after just 1 flight is if you are concerned about it being able to safely perform further test flights.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
mkellytx said:
What people value doesn't really matter; the law is certification for commercial aviation, which part depends on the details.
Click to expand...
Helicopters are shockingly under used because people view them as dangerous!

If you want to sell airplanes, what people will pay for is the _only_ thing that matters!
 
zevets said:
Ok? The point of the question is what should the standards be - and I think the weak standards are a mistake.

A quick look indicates they allow a 7 minute evacuation time:

Don't get me wrong, I'd try it once, but not a second time.
Click to expand...
Due to just how close the WiGE typically stay to the water, often 1/4 their wingspan or less, they're speed limited. The fairly large A-90 Orlyonok tops out at 220 knots, and I suspect that's at 10kft in a jump, not in ground effect. The bigger Lun-class cruised at 240kts 8ft off the water, max height of 16ft.

They currently run on jet fuel, which isn't particularly flammable. Hydrogen, despite Hindenburg pictures, is not dangerous in that sense; it's so light that it burns above the craft, not IN the craft. Plus, being a passenger-carrying boat, it is supposed to have a certain amount of reserve buoyancy, so that even if sinking it won't go down quickly.
 
zevets said:
Helicopters are shockingly under used because people view them as dangerous!

If you want to sell airplanes, what people will pay for is the _only_ thing that matters!
Click to expand...
Well, their pilot (civilians), often are.
 
www.dlr.de

DLR conducts first flight of HyBird demonstrator

HyBird is a small, hybrid-electric aircraft concept. Its goal is to serve routes of less than 1000 kilometres and with low passenger volumes in a climate-compatible way. DLR has now successfully conducted the first flight of a 1:4 scale demonstrator of HyBird at the National Experimental Test...
www.dlr.de www.dlr.de

This hybrid 9 passenger project is a long way off from flying a full scale prototype, but it looks like an intriguing concept.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom