Cessna Caravan electric airplane
Cessna Caravan electric airplane
Author
Discussion

donkmeister

11,470 posts

122 months

Friday 29th May 2020
quotequote all
That's pretty cool!
I saw some Rolls Royce stuff about JP/electric hybrid engines a while back, effectively taking the PHEV concept to the skies and a step on the way to fully-electric airliners. Very clever. The recent massive staff cuts at RR will undoubtedly have an impact on this, unfortunately... But there are at least two developmental paths away from fossil fuels (electric propulsion and fly-by-algae)

littlebasher

3,915 posts

193 months

Friday 29th May 2020
quotequote all
"The engine maker, magniX, hopes the aircraft could enter commercial service by the end of 2021 and have a range of 100 miles."

Not much margin for error there if a pilot is forced to divert !

Cupramax

10,904 posts

274 months

Saturday 30th May 2020
quotequote all
littlebasher said:
"The engine maker, magniX, hopes the aircraft could enter commercial service by the end of 2021 and have a range of 100 miles."

Not much margin for error there if a pilot is forced to divert !
This was on a news item the other day, that 100 miles was with the required FAA margin for issues, so it would have the same margin as any normal powered plane.

BJWoods

5,018 posts

306 months

Saturday 30th May 2020
quotequote all
fuel vs E

What is the range of Cessna 172?
The flight range of a Cessna 172 aircraft is between 575 and 815 nautical miles, depending on the specific model and whether or not optional fuel is included in the journey. The maximum range of a Cessna 172 plane travelling with standard fuel and 45-minute reserves is 575 nautical miles.

---
Now unless we see a massive increase in energy density for batteries. this is just a gimmick?

aestetix1

873 posts

73 months

Saturday 30th May 2020
quotequote all
There are places were it will be useful, e.g. Nordic countries where there are lots of islands and remote areas that aren't that far away but are difficult and slow to access by boat.

Could also have applications with hub airports, at least for rich people who can afford to avoid the traffic to train to get there.

It's a start, doesn't have to replace the A380 right away.

oop north

1,650 posts

150 months

Saturday 30th May 2020
quotequote all
Scottish islands potentially a great place - lots of renewable energy and short hops between them (albeit you’ll not get to Shetland easily)

Mikehig

952 posts

83 months

Saturday 30th May 2020
quotequote all
According to the BBC report the plane is a modified Cessna 208B which, in standard form, can carry up to 13 passengers and has a range of about 1000 miles.
The modified plane that circled Moses Lake, Washington, "was retrofitted with a 750-horsepower/560 kW Magni500 electric motor that weighs 297 pounds. Power came from a 750-volt lithium-ion battery system that weighs two tons, including cooling equipment. Those batteries took up most of the cabin, leaving little room for passengers," MagniX (engine supplier) CEO Roei Ganzarski told the Seattle Times.
No mention of the charging time for that 2 tonne battery.

Chromegrill

1,134 posts

108 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Quite apart from the impracticality of filling a plane with a battery to store the necessary charge to power it, a significant challenge for electric planes compared to fossil fuel powered planes is that with the latter they get progressively lighter during the flight - indeed the undercarriage isn't designed to cope with the weight of a plane with full tanks making an emergency landing. If possible fuel should be dumped before attempting a landing and if a landing is necessary before there is time to dump - think Hudson Bay where both engines failed - you will probably cause significant damage to the plane. It also means fuel economy improves throughout the flight as the plane gets increasingly lighter. The reason a plane needs so much fuel at take off is to lift the fuel tit needs to get to its destination. In contrast the weight of a battery powered plane stays constant throughout the flight.

So until we have batteries with much better energy density (and yes nuclear powered planes would be one solution, but the risks are too great), I expect we will have to contend with aviation contributing to greenhouse gases for a good while yet.

Teddy Lop

8,301 posts

89 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Don't want to be that guy but Jeremy Clarkson and his LS3 powered shake blender, we all know its technically possible, and we all know why argos doesn't stock them.

aestetix1

873 posts

73 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
You lot sound like the horse and buggy fans back when cars first appeared. The first models were slow and less than ideal but the first version of most things are.

granada203028

1,500 posts

219 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
It is an obvious thing to work on ready for when battery technology gets there, everything sorted accept the battery. I think I read about a converted Bell 47 with an endurance of 15 min. Electric man carrying multi rotors are no better. But will batteries get there? Nothing on the horizon really. It still remains tweaked lithium cobalt oxide or nothing.

2 ton battery is at best 0.5MWh and presumably the motor runs a good fraction of full output most of the time so endurance is only an hour I guess.

Cabin heating, pressurisation?

We need to save and conserve the precious oil for aviation (and rockets) where it is truly difficult to replace. EVs are job done for road transport.