Comment box Scope: summary, personal reaction Tone: neutral Opinion: some Sarcasm/humor: none From the WSJ, archive link here if you can't view it. One of my most recent flights was on a super...
One of my most recent flights was on a super tiny regional aircraft seating about 7 people. Does this particular plane contribute massively to climate change? No. Do I still wish it were an electric or hybrid aircraft? Yes, because the per-capita, per-mile emissions from that flight were pretty high compared to a huge jet airliner seating hundreds of people. Also, emissions are still emissions.
Sweden’s Heart Aerospace is developing a 30-passenger plane, the ES-30, with two traditional turboprop engines and two all-electric engines driving propellers. The plane runs solely on electric power for as long as possible, then the combustion engines take over. The aircraft could fly up to 124 miles on electric power, says co-founder and CEO Anders Forslund. Running the combustion engines along with electric power could extend the range to about 500 miles.
Fuel savings would be as high as 95% on shorter flights; on the longest, they would dip to 34% because of the increased use of the gas-turbine engines, according to the company.
I'd take a 34-95% fuel reduction over current levels. In addition to the environmental benefits, less fuel use also means a cheaper ticket price.
Co-founder and CEO Kevin Noertker expects fuel savings of roughly 50% on average. Ampaire will start by retrofitting popular models of planes that have long been in service. It aims to get a modified nine-seat Cessna Grand Caravan to customers within two years and a 19-seat De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter around a year afterward. NASA is testing the all-in-one strategy, too, retrofitting a roughly 30-passenger Saab 340 plane by replacing one of its two turboprop engines with a GE Aerospace hybrid engine.
Whisper Aero is developing a 19-passenger plane with this technology, with a range of 230 miles on battery alone, and 500 miles if the generator is used. That’s for 2034. The company plans to retrofit a traditional nine-seat model to get to market in five years. It recently released a concept for a series hybrid electric jet that could handle 100 passengers and over 700 miles. But that is at least 20 years away.
The Electra plane uses batteries only when extra power is required, such as takeoff, allowing it to run a smaller combustion engine-generator combo than would otherwise be needed, for promised emission savings of 40%.
In the coming months, Electra will unveil the design of its nine-seat production-level plane—with a range of 500 miles—which it aims to deliver to customers in 2028.
2028 is just around the corner. Flying on less polluting engines would make me feel a lot better about travel to small regional airports. Looking forward to more advances in this technology.
Only if the actual cost over the lifetime of the plane is lower once you account for the cost of the batteries, electric motors, maintenance, testing, etc. Less fuel use is 100% a noble goal, but...
less fuel use also means a cheaper ticket price
Only if the actual cost over the lifetime of the plane is lower once you account for the cost of the batteries, electric motors, maintenance, testing, etc.
Less fuel use is 100% a noble goal, but it isn't necessarily a financial benefit in all cases.
Comment box
From the WSJ, archive link here if you can't view it.
One of my most recent flights was on a super tiny regional aircraft seating about 7 people. Does this particular plane contribute massively to climate change? No. Do I still wish it were an electric or hybrid aircraft? Yes, because the per-capita, per-mile emissions from that flight were pretty high compared to a huge jet airliner seating hundreds of people. Also, emissions are still emissions.
I'd take a 34-95% fuel reduction over current levels. In addition to the environmental benefits, less fuel use also means a cheaper ticket price.
2028 is just around the corner. Flying on less polluting engines would make me feel a lot better about travel to small regional airports. Looking forward to more advances in this technology.
Only if the actual cost over the lifetime of the plane is lower once you account for the cost of the batteries, electric motors, maintenance, testing, etc.
Less fuel use is 100% a noble goal, but it isn't necessarily a financial benefit in all cases.