News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by Robotbeat on Thursday November 07, 2019 @01:38PM (#21475950)
What doesn't make sense is to use number of passengers as the figure of merit, here. Technically, that's no limit at all. Aircraft scale up just fine from 2 people to 20 to 200 people.[0] "Power" is even less of a concern: fundamentally, electric motors are just as high performance as turbine engines.

The appropriate figure of merit is range and specific energy (i.e. useful energy stored per unit mass), and that IS a limitation, but range of up to 500 miles is feasible for pure electric using existing batteries and structure and aerodynamic efficiency tech. Double or quadruple that is possible with cleverness and more exotic approaches. Even long-haul is possible with certain approaches to pure electric flight (either lithium-air, which has just as high theoretical useful energy as something like gasoline, or staging).

The only way "large aircraft" or "high power" is a limitation is just the speed at which things can be certified. Large passenger aircraft cost billions to bring to market, so companies are super conservative about it. But this isn't a fundamental technical limit of electric flight.

[0]Technically, there are structural scaling laws which detract from efficiency as you get bigger, but they don't become strong until you're very large... And they're countered by perhaps even more important positive Reynolds Number scaling effects, i.e. your lift to drag improves as your scale increases.

Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by londons_explore on Thursday November 07, 2019 @03:11PM (#21476832)
> staging

I'd like to see a prototype of an electric airliner which can fly forever, but every half hour or so a car-sized battery with little stubby wings flies up and docks into the back of the plane.

Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by notahacker on Thursday November 07, 2019 @05:02PM (#21477793)
Not sure about the utility of an airliner flying forever unless you've got passenger pods attached to the flying batteries :D
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by nexuist on Thursday November 07, 2019 @05:45PM (#21478083)
...And now we've invented zeppelins again
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by p_l on Thursday November 07, 2019 @02:29PM (#21476464)
Don't forget that most long-haul planes can't land at their MTOW - so the batteries need to be scaled down apropriately.
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by Robotbeat on Thursday November 07, 2019 @02:38PM (#21476544)
Or more attention must be paid to engineering landing gear and structures to handle high landing weights. One must approach the problem with an eye to identifying solutions or we'll never get anywhere.
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by p_l on Thursday November 07, 2019 @02:59PM (#21476752)
There's more to it than just structural integrity - the heavier plane is generally less safe in an emergency, and despite some ideas proposed around you can't "get rid" of takeoff-power engines unless you drop Go-Around capability.
Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by Robotbeat on Thursday November 07, 2019 @04:46PM (#21477649)
There are other ways to ensure safety during an emergency. Not having flammable fuel on board can help a lot (and requires a non-flammable electrolyte to be developed for lithium batteries, which is already a thing for solid state batteries). Additionally, not all civil aircraft even have go-around capability. Sailplanes don't, for instance, and their safety is approximately the same as other general aviation aircraft.

We'll have to get rid of the fiction that we're going to be able to just plop in electric motors and batteries in existing civil transport vehicles without any change in architecture or operations.

Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by sokoloff on Thursday November 07, 2019 @09:09PM (#21479447)
Are you going to get into a transport airplane that can’t go around? I’m not going to. I’ve been in two low level go arounds on commercial flights in VFR conditions (good weather) and one missed approach (bad weather) in the last two decades. Is that three times that I would have crashed? Maybe not; Delta probably could have stuck the downwind landing in Vegas and USAir probably could have stopped before the airplane that was slow in clearing at BWI. Delta into AMS in the snow and fog probably would have been a crash if they couldn’t execute the missed.

Sailplanes are probably not the right model to go flying IFR to minimums, something that airlines do regularly.

Re:Aviation Is on a Low-Carbon Flight Path by Robotbeat on Friday November 08, 2019 @11:04AM (#21483495)
If it was engineered to be compatible with no-go-arounds safely, then absolutely I would. I've done it.