I flew propeller planes for 17 years – here's why they're making a comeback
I flew propeller planes for 17 years – here's why they're making a comeback
inews.co.uk
I flew propeller planes for 17 years – here's why they're making a comeback
15 comments
-
It is possible to replace a solid chunk of flights with zero emission alternatives within a decade or so. Don't let the fossil fuel lobby convince people otherwise.
-
We should mostly use electric trains and sailboats for traveling long distances while we wait for more developed electric planes.
-
I completely agree. We should build more trainlines under or over oceans, like the channel tunnel but longer.
-
That sounds like an ecological disaster. I love trains and sail boats and mass transport that don’t run on fossil fuels, but we also can’t overlook the ecological implications of building ideas like yours. We’ve fucked enough of marine, coastal and soon, deep sea / sea floor ecosystems already.
-
Fair enough.
-
-
How do you build a train line under or over an ocean
-
I don't know, I'm not a trainologist.
-
-
-
-
Just no.
Just because it's useful for fossil fuel companies doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy from them.
There is a whole litany of reasons why electric flight is not doable, or so hard and unsafe. That is the main reason why we're still flying carbon fuel airplanes.
It's gram for gram the most energy dense, easily being dozen(s) of times denser. You need so many batteries to fly a plane that you won't have (much) space left for passengers
Fuel literally makes the airplane lighter as it burns during flight, making the airplane more efficient. Batteries don't, so no efficiency there
Itis only half the equation in a fire, where as batteries have everything right there to burn everyone to death, also sort of important.
There are more but these three (well, mostly 1&2) already makes it extremely hard and expensive to do electrical flight, if ever possible at all
-
For transcontinental flights yes you are correct: fuel powered jets are the way and they will be for a while. However, right now we are the stage where trainer and small passenger planes can run all electric. Its inaugural Canadian flight happened last year in Campbell River, B.C.
For arctic, island and remote areas we have commercially viable technology at this moment to make planes that can take people around, but only if we let it happen.
It will soon scale to a 10-20 passenger flights, and propellers are fine for filling the regional jet niche. Porter Airlines has been doing that already in Canada with fuel-powered 160 person propeller planes, going to electric doesn't seem too far-fetched in our near future and would be even quieter than their current planes, which would make island residents happier.
Na-ion is still not dense enough for aviation at this moment but if it could with some advanced it would solve much of the combustibility problem.
The conspiracy is about trying to impede on this progress by pretending if at one scale is currently impossible then it will never be possible, rather than trying to tackle it with whatever technologies are available or will become commercially available just over the horizon.
-
You're making loads of wild, bold claims with zero proof.
Arctic flights with electrical engines, even though batteries perform even worse in cold?
There are loads of reasons why airplanes don't fly on batteries and none of them are conspiracies.
Gram for gram, gasoline/kerosine is the most energy dense material we have tonpower machines. Batteries literally get to a fraction of that density. It's the reason why electric cars still have 1000kg batteries vs the 50-60 liter gas tanks for cars, where cars with those gas tanks typically still get more range. Batteries have a fraction of the energy density.
Airplanes burn off fuel in flight, making them lighter and use less fuel. Batteries don't have this advantage either, they stay the same weight
Fuel won't burn by itself. It needs oxygen to do this and while in tanks, it won't burn. This is why airplanes never spontaneously explode mid air. Compare this to batteries that have everything they need for spontaneous combustion right there inside. With an electrical car its easy enough to escape, at 10 kilometers high it's an automatic death sentence. This is also the reason why fore departments have a beef with electric cars because fuel cars are relatively easy to put out where as electric cars simply keep burning until all the energy in the battery is gone. Imagine that in a plane?
Then take the sheer size of the batteries required for even moderate flights, little space and weight will be left for passengers in the first place. This is a pretty fundamental problem too. Gasoline is pure energy, you use all of it and half of the equation you don't need to carry as air is everywhere for aircraft. Batteries, on the other hand, don't have half the weight they can take from the outside air, they need everything inside. They are not pure energy, they have structures that don't do anything but store the energy. You're carrying all that around for nothing. This is amongst the reasons why batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of gasoline and this won't change, barring some revolutionary new physics
There are loads of hard reasons why we don't have battery aircraft, you don't need to look into conspiracies for that
-
I will admit there is some speculation on my part of what will happen in the future. But the proof to my central claim of battery-operated passenger planes that are in operation today is linked right in my previous comment. I'll link it again here in case you missed it:
https://globalnews.ca/news/10567635/canada-first-ever-commercial-electric-flight-bc/
It's not all a pipe dream.
And like I said I agree that fuel is more practical for most flights today, I'm not ignoring the current limitations you state. I do, however, believe that over time these can be overcome, to significant benefit, such as the $2/hr operating cost of the electric plane vs. $172. If you are most worried about airborne hazards, sodium ion batteries are far more stable than lithium and perform better at extreme temperatures, but the energy density does not currently surpass lithium so it's not a practical for aviation yet.
What I want to say is: Just because it doesn't work for most applications now (which you have made clear in your argument), don't rule it out for the future.
-
You oost a link about a tiny two person aircraft. Its nice, its impressive, its also a world away from any commercial aircraft that could, for example, transport 60 people.
You also keep just assuming that tech will fix issues in the future, as if these issues are just problems that just need an already existing solution. That is not how the world works, that is not how physics works.
In the real world you can't ever make batteries that will come even close to 50% of the power density of gasoline, let alone surpasses it for the reasons I already states in my previous post. These are fundamental issues that are extremely unlikely to be solved, ever.
That also ignores the safety issues which you also just handeash away.
Electrical aircraft won't happen, for many of the same reasons we will never have electric rockets either
-
Tell me how much we haven't done because it's impossible, and how much we haven't done because we haven't tried?
There's aspects of each when it comes to electrical aircraft. I know that taking a normal commercial jet, dropping in batteries instead of a fuel tank is not going to work. But there are real aspects that we are making incremental gains, and we will have to sacrifice in other areas, at least initially (e.g. using low-flying propellor planes instead of jet engines, regional range rather than transcontinental). I believe it's you who is jumping to the conclusion that because we can't go from a 2 person electric plane to a 60+ today means we can't, ever, and ignoring all the middle steps.
you assume as if these issues are just problems that just need an already existing solution
There are some solutions that we haven't discovered or put into practice. We'd have to try and find out to know if they would be commercially viable and safe.
What's the formula, study or principle that prevents this physically (i.e.: how could we have both 2-person electric and fuel-powered planes, but designing a bigger one isn't possible due to physics)?
I get that it's difficult, for a larger capacity you need a larger body, a larger body means larger weight, and with today's tech the energy required for takeoff might scale up faster than the space you get from the body after the required batteries are installed (I have no source for this but I imagine this is your thinking). But even if we couldn't improve battery tech at all and doesn't compare to fuel, I am not aware of any physical limits to how either the body and wing layout and shape, propulsion mechanism and other operating aspects couldn't be further optimized given research and tech advancements that would allow us to compensate for that. If there are such limits, do enlighten me. I would also appreciate a linked source.
-
-
-
-
-
Another factor about a fuel-burning plane getting lighter with flight time: Many airplanes have a heavier takeoff weight than landing weight. Taking off is fairly gentle on the landing gear and wings as the load is transferred fairly gently. Landing can be an event; you may not be able to stop above your max landing weight, or the force of hitting the ground could overload the gear or the wing spars.
Battery powered planes don't get lighter with time aloft.
-
-
15 comments