Electric plane flies at Vancouver

[johnnyreggae]

One of the joys of visiting Vancouver is seeing hearing and quite possibly flying in one of Harbour Air's seaplanes - various Beavers & Otters

Now they have electrified and flown one of the fleet

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/harbour-air-flie...

Bravo !

[Simpo Two]

Seemed to struggle to unstick. Can it take off with a load of passengers?

My guess is that a take-off from water needs more power than from a runway.

[JeremyH5]

Looks normal to me. Having flown in a piston engined one from Seattle from a lake departure they do take a while to break free.

[eccles]

Simpo Two said:

Seemed to struggle to unstick. Can it take off with a load of passengers?

My guess is that a take-off from water needs more power than from a runway.

You do realise for the first 4 minutes it wasn't trying to take off......

[Simpo Two]

eccles said:

You do realise for the first 4 minutes it wasn't trying to take off......

Then they should get a boat, much more sensible!

I was of course referring to the time when it was about 90% away but seemingly stuck. Presumably someone in the back was desperately cranking a handle to generate some more electricity... or maybe the sun went in

[eccles]

Simpo Two said:

eccles said:

You do realise for the first 4 minutes it wasn't trying to take off......

Then they should get a boat, much more sensible!

I was of course referring to the time when it was about 90% away but seemingly stuck. Presumably someone in the back was desperately cranking a handle to generate some more electricity... or maybe the sun went in

I get what you mean, it looked as if it was held there for quite a while.

[dr_gn]

I had a sight seeing trip in a DHC-2 floatplane and at one point I wondered if it was just a novelty boat trip rather than a flight.

The article says it’s the first all electric commercial passenger aircraft, yet it can’t carry passengers because it’s not certified (plus presumably the flight time with passengers would be impractical for commercial use). I guess that kind of makes their claim bullst?

[MarkwG]

dr_gn said:

The article says it’s the first all electric commercial passenger aircraft, yet it can’t carry passengers because it’s not certified (plus presumably the flight time with passengers would be impractical for commercial use). I guess that kind of makes their claim bullst?

Not really - the intention is that it will, any new aircraft needs test flying before it can carry passengers.

[Simpo Two]

Some feedback from a friend in Vancouver:

'The Harbour Air electric plane is pure PR work and little else. Most of their passengers are provincial government officials travelling between Vancouver and Victoria. HA are burnishing there green credentials for their main (green obsessed) customer. The NDP government here depends on the votes of the Green Party to stay in power with a majority of one.'


In addition the weight of batteries means the commercial payload is less which means it can't carry as many passengers which will kill profit - which means it will either be quietly discontinued or the prices will go up to allow for the inefficiency of the amazing new propulsion system....

[dr_gn]

Simpo Two said:

Some feedback from a friend in Vancouver:

'The Harbour Air electric plane is pure PR work and little else. Most of their passengers are provincial government officials travelling between Vancouver and Victoria. HA are burnishing there green credentials for their main (green obsessed) customer. The NDP government here depends on the votes of the Green Party to stay in power with a majority of one.'


In addition the weight of batteries means the commercial payload is less which means it can't carry as many passengers which will kill profit - which means it will either be quietly discontinued or the prices will go up to allow for the inefficiency of the amazing new propulsion system....

Yep, bullst. If it was viable currently (ha ha) The first electric commercial aircraft wouldn’t be a 1940’s airframe with a motor shoved on the front.

[anonymous-user]

dr_gn said:

Simpo Two said:

Some feedback from a friend in Vancouver:

'The Harbour Air electric plane is pure PR work and little else. Most of their passengers are provincial government officials travelling between Vancouver and Victoria. HA are burnishing there green credentials for their main (green obsessed) customer. The NDP government here depends on the votes of the Green Party to stay in power with a majority of one.'


In addition the weight of batteries means the commercial payload is less which means it can't carry as many passengers which will kill profit - which means it will either be quietly discontinued or the prices will go up to allow for the inefficiency of the amazing new propulsion system....

Yep, bullst. If it was viable currently (ha ha) The first electric commercial aircraft wouldn’t be a 1940’s airframe with a motor shoved on the front.

This, unfortunately.

Aviation is coming even more under the spotlight regarding carbon emissions BUT people will always want to travel reasonably quickly around the world.

Somethings got to happen, we either need cleaner air travel or people not to be worried about emissions from the aircraft were likely to have for the next decade.

[Simpo Two]

El stovey said:

Somethings got to happen, we either need cleaner air travel or people not to be worried about emissions from the aircraft were likely to have for the next decade.

Or they learn to stay at home and holiday on their own countries - like 50+ years ago. Or maybe the climate change thing is a teensy bit over-exaggerated and we are not all going to die.

[bloomen]

Simpo Two said:

Seemed to struggle to unstick. Can it take off with a load of passengers?

My guess is that a take-off from water needs more power than from a runway.

Electric cars have ludicrous excesses of power as a result of their batteries. I assumed it would be the same here and the pilot reported needing to ease off.

I'll be amazed if we get long range electric aircraft before I'm dead but I can well believe things like the Loganair Islander will happen soon.

[Simpo Two]

bloomen said:

Electric cars have ludicrous excesses of power as a result of their batteries.

Cars don't have to fly... As for public transport, whether a bus weighs 10 tons or 15 tons isn't very important. But add 5 tons to a small aeroplane and it's going nowhere.

[GliderRider]

dr_gn said:

Yep, bullst. If it was viable currently (ha ha) The first electric commercial aircraft wouldn’t be a 1940’s airframe with a motor shoved on the front.

The golden rule in aviation is to not try and start with a new airframe and a new powerplant at the same time (think of Richard Noble's ARV2 withe Hewland two stroke engine, amongst many others). By using the proven Beaver airframe, only the motor certification plus any necessary airframe modifications need addressing.

Of course duration is going to be limited, however 1/2hr harbour tours are an ideal way of proving the concept. Its do-able with current technology, and the passengers won't be needing to carry baggage, so the loss of some payload capacity is less of a concern.

Not every commecial aeroplane flies London to Sydney in one hop, so why not start with the one for which the flight time and payload can be achieved with today's technology?

Battery technology is only going to get better with time.

[TheFinners]

It's odd, because while electric cars, for all their many talents bore me to tears, I am actually really fascinated by electric aircraft. Will be watching this closely.

[Kent Border Kenny]

I like the idea of a small plane for fun, or for a bit of travel, and the thought of it being electric is quite appealing.

Despite knowing full-well that the petrol engines are very reliable I still find myself drawn to the idea of a motor with only a handful of moving parts.

[dr_gn]

Kent Border Kenny said:

I like the idea of a small plane for fun, or for a bit of travel, and the thought of it being electric is quite appealing.

Despite knowing full-well that the petrol engines are very reliable I still find myself drawn to the idea of a motor with only a handful of moving parts.

In 32 years of driving petrol cars, I’ve been stranded twice. Both times were electronic failures rather than mechanical. Electric motors are relatively simple, their control electronics and battery conditioning systems less so - plus a small fault there often means a shut-down of the entire system.

[JuniorD]

Yesterday was the 116th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first powered flight at Kitty Hawk. It lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 ft. Later that day they managed 59 seconds over a distance of 852 ft. There were probably guys watching it, or reading about it in the paper a few days later, thinking "what a load of bullst, just a publicity stunt!"

[dr_gn]

JuniorD said:

Yesterday was the 116th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first powered flight at Kitty Hawk. It lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 ft. Later that day they managed 59 seconds over a distance of 852 ft. There were probably guys watching it, or reading about it in the paper a few days later, thinking "what a load of bullst, just a publicity stunt!"

Not saying the concept of an electric aircraft is bullst, it's the spin that's put on this particular story that, at first glance, seemed to say that there's a commercial aircraft operating with electic power - as if they've simply replaced the i/c engine with an electric motor and it's a like-for-like operation. It's nothing like that, and never will be until battery (or equivalent) technology makes a massive step forward.