I'm afraid this is a nonsense.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064842200910041089" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106484220091004108...</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064857220289040384" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106485722028904038...</a><p><a href="https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064911958623903744" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106491195862390374...</a><p>To recap, based on financial statements the company:<p>used to be a "waste management" company that failed and was sold as a "public shell" to enable the formerly private company to go public and sell shares (the waste management business it was engaged in was an effort to commercialize a process to treat low-level nuclear waste developed by Russian scientists)<p>has $64 mil in debt apparently unrelated to aviation<p>has spent $3.8 mil on R&D for this project<p>has 8 R&D employees<p>only 2 of those 8 have any evident experience related to designing aircraft
650 mile range may not be as much as it sounds like. I'm not a pilot but I know there are regulations for reserve fuel.<p>So you need enough fuel (kWH in this case) for taxi, take off, the trip itself, divert to alternate airport, plus reserve for 30-45 minutes of holding, at least one missed approach/go-around, plus maybe more emergency reserve beyond that. It might add up to only 300-400 of practical travel range.
Interesting concept.<p>I’m curious what voltage the pack runs at and how long it would take to charge. Many of these types of aircraft operate in FAR Part 135 on-demand operations. Aircraft and crew utilization are crucial for the business model.<p>Expensive airplanes and pilots don’t make money sitting on the ground. Of course, if operating costs (fuel) are a fraction of a traditional aircraft then margins get better but do they get good enough to offset 2-3x more aircraft and pilots to operate those aircraft to be able to fulfill demand?<p>I hate to sound like the people who constantly naysay electric cars because of charging times but in this industry turn around time is crucial.
These cost reductions are a big deal and they are largely based on energy cost reductions. It offsets some of the inconveniences of not so long range, lack of infrastructure for charging, and having to wait for recharging.<p>For reference, typical business jets or twin props burn hundreds of gallons of fuel on a single trip costing hundreds of dollars. They also need frequent maintenance as there are a lot of things that need to be checked and fixed with such planes. So, the proposition of charging with cheap electricity and getting rid of most of the stuff that needs fixing and maintaining on a regular basis is highly attractive. If it works as advertised, this plane will sell like crazy. Electrical engines basically last a very long time and are easy to check and service. Charging batteries is comparatively cheap to burning fuel and likely to get cheaper in the future.<p>Practically speaking, if you have a home base with charging infrastructure but most other airports do not (yet), effectively you are looking at a 300M range for a return trip unless you are flying to a place with infrastructure to charge. That's still fairly nice.<p>For commercial operations, there are plenty of use-cases that would be well served by a plane like this. A plane like this gets passenger cost down to something that is quite competitive with a train ticket.
Audi also introduced a concept eVTOL with detachable "pod". It's an interesting design choice. Creating modular components that could be shipped across air, sea, and land boundaries.<p><a href="https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/28/audi-demonstrates-pop-up-next-air-taxi/" rel="nofollow">https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/28/audi-demonstrates-pop-up...</a>
For reference: Model 3 apparently has 75 to 100 kWh. This plane seems to spec out - Li-lon - 900 kWh. For a layman, it sounds like 9 times the battery weight of a Model S flying in the sky...<p>Wonder how they made it light enough to be able to fly...<p><a href="https://www.eviation.co/alice/" rel="nofollow">https://www.eviation.co/alice/</a>
The article makes it sound like it is made from commoditised components of today.<p>Given how similar it sounds to that of a Tesla Model S + SpaceX - Battery, Electric motor, propeller and such, Why wouldn't Tesla attempt such a thing based on components they already build for Tesla or SpaceX?
> But this isn’t another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams.<p>Really? So, it's built and demonstrated?<p>> the first planes are being built right now.<p>Oh, so when you say “Eviation’s Alice is an all-electric, nine-person aircraft” you mean “Eviation <i>claims</i> Alice <i>will be</i> an all-electric, nine-person aircraft” and when you say “this isn’t another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams” you mean “this <i>probably is</i> another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams.”
TFA claims electric planes are quieter, but I thought the majority of the noise from a turboprop was caused by the propeller. Does anyone have actual knowledge of the noise difference?
> <i>and they receive power from a 900 kWh lithium ion battery pack.</i><p>Wow! One of the amazing things about EVs is how easy it makes it to reason about the energy usage. That’s about $250 in energy here in CA. I <i>might</i> produce a mW of energy with my solar panels on a good month here.<p>If it actually has a range of 650 miles then that comes out to be about 50c a mile, which would be quite amazing.
Zunum Aero is also working in this space.[1] Learned about them through a recent Breakthrough Institute talk.<p>[1] <a href="https://zunum.aero/" rel="nofollow">https://zunum.aero/</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ioXfa_jpY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ioXfa_jpY</a>
So, Al-air battery. While it may be not practical for a car (even just once in 2000 miles as those prototypes), refueling the plane by reloading with fresh aluminum would be just ok. My bet was on Li- or K-air, yet I'd take the Al one for starters.
Exciting - remember that battery tech is still in the early days, it will only get cheaper, more energy dense, and more reliable. If this company doesn't succeed, it will get better soon.
I do like the v-tail look. Not sure on the pros and cons of the approach, but it's my favorite tail style of aircraft (if one keeps track of such things)