Electric planes

[Ulmo]

I'm happy flying will become environmentally friendly and non-mass transit.

It will open up more areas to live in that have no roads (and offers an opportunity for some entrepreneurs to offer inexpensive abundant ambulance, fire and police services through the air). It will free up a lot of ground congestion experiences for those in the air. It will be more environmental than current fossil fuel jets. It will be safer than mass transit airlines where you could get beat up by thugs (law enforcement and religions of death) and that are dangerous to people on the ground (World Trade Center, Pentagon, etc). It won't take as much time as current mass transit airlines (TSA Security Theatre). You won't have to drive through bad neighborhoods just because that's where the roads already are. If you're late for work to drive there, you could fly there and be there early, even in initial stages when governments don't let us just land on any open air parking lot (we could land in a designated "safe zone" and then Uber in to work), depending on how much access we have to the flying cars near our homes. Eventually, when governments allow taking off and landing anywhere, workers can load their cars with work tools and go anywhere legal to work. I think this is great.

(As someone who believes in giving "skin" to the "body" of our country (in the form of a border), I think strict controls on international flights should be enforced, through tracking and flying after those who go across borders and interviewing them once they land, and costs associated with that being charged to the international travelers. The physical capability to own such a flying device does not bother me, because I think the technical and policy capability to continue this enforcement can exist within decent cost and capability parameters.)

I've been day-dreaming of this for decades. I'm happy to finally see it starting to happen. (I'm talking more about the Liliam Jet type travel thing, not the super-dorky Kitty Hawk type sport thing. Murphy's Law says the super dorky one will succeed and then grow into the other one.)

 

[lolachampcar]

One quick observation...
If ChargePoint has anything to do with it (1) most the flights will be grounded for lack of a working charger and (2) any flights that do occur will be delayed due to slow charging

 

[daniel]

Looks like I was a bit too conservative in my 5 year estimate, and our buddy @daniel was ever further off on his 50 year estimate.

Uber plans flying taxi service in 2020:

Uber unveils plans for electric flying taxis by 2020, ChargePoint will provide charging for first stations

Do you believe that every futuristic plan comes to fruition on schedule, or at all? When I was growing up in the 1950's companies were promising that electricity (from nuclear power) would be free. We'd all have household robots to do all the housework. And, yes, they were promising that we'd all have flying cars way back then.

Around 2006 or 2007 (not sure the exact year) EEStor was promising that they were just six months away from marketing to the general public an ultra-capacitor that would have many times the energy density of lithium batteries, unlimited cycle life, and could be charged in the blink of an eye. An electric car with a thousand miles of range would cost less than a gasoline car and would charge up in perhaps three minutes. A lot of people invested, but they never did demonstrate a working product. Instead they went bankrupt.

Zapcars (maker of the Xebra) announced a really cute little electric sports car (they even had pictures of it) called the Obvio long before the Tesla Roadster. And let's not forget the Aptera, that actually existed in prototype and a lot of folks put down money for reservations.

Uber is planning an air taxi service. There are air taxis now. Air taxis are not a new thing. The prediction that they will become cheap and ubiquitous enough to replace car taxis is far-fetched dreaming. Uber is certainly big enough to get into the air taxi business. And in a couple of decades or so batteries may advance enough for electric aircraft to compete economically with fossil-fuel aircraft. And in a few more decades computing power may reach the point where automated air traffic control can handle hundreds of thousands of aircraft all flying over a single city, taking off and landing wherever they like within the city. But for now what we're going to see is a service for the very wealthy in very-low-density air spaces. The cost and weight of batteries and the charging time will prevent them from becoming affordable for the common man for a very long time, and air traffic control issues will keep their numbers very low.

But yes, they probably will fly a successful flight in Dubai in 2020.

 

[lolachampcar]

Uber got "big" by falling into a model that let them displace low hanging fruit (taxi companies that had to pay their drivers and own the cars). They did not "earn" it in the classical sense of having to build innovative value add solutions over a longer period of time. This tells me they are woefully under equipped to deal with any type of real development or competitive environment. Its like the Google guy doing space anywhere near the level of SpaceX; its highly unlikely.

 

[voyager]

Rotor-equipped aerial vehicles will be noisy. Ergo: use designated air corridors that avoid the built environment. They can run parallel to the freeway system for instance, or over waterways. Vertical take off and landing similarly, only to take place at certain heliports or what Uber calls vertiports, at the outskirst of town. What happens in case of a dramatic failure, well, use a big chute. They throw tanks out of military cargo planes equipped with parachutes. Softening the landing of a lightweight aerial vehicle shouldn't be a biggie.

 

[Etna]

Rotor-equipped aerial vehicles will be noisy

I don't think so. Multi-rotors are different from helicopters, they do not have the transonic advancing blade noise issue to deal with, no tail rotor and no turbine engine either. So they can actually be super quiet. Especially if the propellers are shrouded.
The parachute deal has been discussed up-thread, it is tried and proven with BRS (and others) and I have worked with that great company in the past. It is cheap and easy for this kind of speed and weight. Basically off-the-shelf stuff as far as small electric VTOL vehicles are concerned.

 

[Etna]

Do you believe that every futuristic plan comes to fruition on schedule, or at all?

SpaceX.

Tesla.

Maybe not on schedule but that's perfectly fine with me as long as amazing things happen.

 

[daniel]

Airplane ride sharing: An app that connects pilots with people who want to fly somewhere. Uber doesn't have to bu

SpaceX.

Tesla.

Maybe not on schedule but that's perfectly fine with me as long as amazing things happen.

Some folks think that because some amazing things have been done, that anything they care to imagine will happen. SpaceX is a private company, led by a billionaire visionary, doing something NASA has been doing for decades. Tesla took the very latest and best in available batteries and computing power to build high-performance cars.

Flying cars, OTOH, are the stuff of sci-fi, and their proponents ignore the very real issues of air traffic control and economics. Again, we have air taxis today. I'm only pointing out the silliness of thinking that in 5 or 10 years they're going to be ubiquitous. Managing the air traffic control of 100,000 flying cars over a single city is not a trivial matter, and today's computers are not able to handle that. Futurists tend to ignore such practical matters.

Electric planes are in the very early prototype/development stage today, limited to short distance and long charge times with current batteries. They're coming, but mass usage still needs significant technological advances in electoral storage and computing power for collision avoidance. You can take an air taxi today. It's not cheap. And that's all we're really talking about here: Will electric VTOLs make air taxis as cheap as a car? And will there be thousands of them in the skies over every major city in five or ten years? I say no, and no.

But I'll ride in one the first chance I get. If I'm still around, which is unlikely.

 

[Etna]

Well, I am basing my opinion on nearly 30 years of practical experience with new aerospace programs successes and failures.
Historically, new propulsion systems have spurred new transportation systems, and we are witnessing one of these very rare events.
Not only am I excited about all this, but I am actively contributing the best I can on the engineering and creative side. To me there is no doubt that all the pieces are present today to make it happen.
Hopefully you and I will still be around to experience the outcome, that would be nice.

 

[Zoomit]

I don't think so. Multi-rotors are different from helicopters, they do not have the transonic advancing blade noise issue to deal with, no tail rotor and no turbine engine either. So they can actually be super quiet. Especially if the propellers are shrouded.

A primary physical limit for these kind of aircraft is their noise, not automation, materials, battery tech, motor tech, etc. From a design perspective, you can't escape the noise of these high RPM rotors. Think quad-copter noise times 100.

 

[voyager]

If this massive-looking machine can get off the ground on the basis of such small-diameter rotors, even if it's only for a couple of meters, truly lightweight aerial vehicles must be possible...

 

[YoungStranger]

Not quite fully electric. But this technology could be a game changer for short haul mass transit...

ANALYSIS: How LightningStrike is challenging convention

 

[jbcarioca]

I does terrify me (especially when I have my family on board), fortunately starting January 1, 2020 this will no longer be true thanks to the ADS-B mandate.

All aircraft (including general aviation) will be required to be equipped with at least position broadcast (ADS-B out) capability to have access to most airspaces (class A B and C plus many airports): ADS-B – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

True, and other techniques to manage and simplify approach/departure routes (i.e. STAR/SID) can resolve most of these questions.

The larger issues, I think, are ones that require major rule changes. Pretty much worldwide (actually I know US, EU and Brazil regs, none others, but they are all at their core pretty similar ) aircraft are defined in terms of power source (i.e. piston, turbine, glider). At present there is no regulatory basis for electric power. The certification process for the B787 and A350 both required reams of exceptions due to non-established technologies related principally to "more electric" as Boeing described the B787.

Once we have actual electric aircraft there will be serious redefinition of everything from IFR rules (governing alternates and reserves) to certification rules for birdstrikes (will the frozen turkey still be relevant?).
Noise will not be a major issue, I suspect, because production versions will not have tiny mini-drone-like rotors, not least because they will be required to meet power-out glide regulations. Because so many of these will be new categories they'll encounter similar issues to those of tilt-rotor, in which case the history of the AW-609 is relevant. The wiki explains quite well:
AgustaWestland AW609 - Wikipedia

If past history is portent we can expect no widespread electric aircraft with less than a decade following the technical solutions. We need energy density of maybe four times present levels to make practical transport category aircraft and need also fairly massive infrastructure for charging/battery swap/servicing. No matter if the technical issues were all solved today it would still require a decade or more for commercial adoption.

That said Airbus is spending money now and Boeing is experimenting too. I wager we'll see pretty reasonable Experimental category aircraft running about within the next five years.

I hope this happens while I'm still equipped with a medical certificate so I can go get typed on whatever ends out being certificated. In the meantime we ratings hounds must satisfy ourselves with gyrocopter and the bizarre dual rotorcraft/fw arrangements for tilt-rotor.

 

[Etna]

From a design perspective, you can't escape the noise of these high RPM rotors.

I think you can. The Airbus fenestron is a good example of a design specifically tailored for low acoustic signature - and this is old stuff that predates the noise prediction and analysis capabilities of current CFD tools.

So far I haven't seen similarly serious or even half baked attempts in the quad-copter world, so I wouldn't draw conclusions too hastily on what can be done or not.

You rightfully point out a key challenge though.

 

[daniel]

Well, I am basing my opinion on nearly 30 years of practical experience with new aerospace programs successes and failures.
Historically, new propulsion systems have spurred new transportation systems, and we are witnessing one of these very rare events.
Not only am I excited about all this, but I am actively contributing the best I can on the engineering and creative side. To me there is no doubt that all the pieces are present today to make it happen.
Hopefully you and I will still be around to experience the outcome, that would be nice.

I don't doubt that it will happen. I just don't believe it will be soon or cheap. As jbcarioca details above, there are many hurdles to be overcome. The "everything is possible" crowd, in addition to sometimes ignoring real theoretical limitations (e.g. when they imagine FTL space travel), also often ignore the detail work required to design, test, and certify new technologies, especially where safety is a big concern, as with aircraft.

 

[JRP3]

Elon agrees with the skeptics:

According to Musk, the main challenges with flying cars are that they'll be noisy and generate lots of wind because of the downward force required to keep them in the air. Plus, there's an anxiety factor." data-reactid="25">According to Musk, the main challenges with flying cars are that they'll be noisy and generate lots of wind because of the downward force required to keep them in the air. Plus, there's an anxiety factor.

"Let's just say if something is flying over your head...that is not an anxiety-reducing situation," he said. "You don’t think to yourself 'Well, I feel better about today. You’re thinking…'Is it going to come off and guillotine me as it comes flying past?'" data-reactid="26">"Let's just say if something is flying over your head...that is not an anxiety-reducing situation," he said. "You don’t think to yourself 'Well, I feel better about today. You’re thinking…'Is it going to come off and guillotine me as it comes flying past?'

Elon Musk on why he doesn't like flying cars: 'That is not an anxiety-reducing situation'

 

[bxr140]

Its like the Google guy doing space anywhere near the level of SpaceX; its highly unlikely.

I agree with your overall point, but I don't think its a good example. XX years ago one could have made the same statement about google and cars. These days you can't throw a rock without hitting a Waymo (around here, anyway), and they're arguably the industry leaders in autonomous vehicles.

Space? If they wanted, they certainly have the talent and capital to do something similar--its the business model that doesn't close for them.

 

[Etna]

We need energy density of maybe four times present levels to make practical transport category aircraft and need also fairly massive infrastructure for charging/battery swap/servicing. No matter if the technical issues were all solved today it would still require a decade or more for commercial adoption.

There is a very important distinction to make in this thread in order to avoid confusion about what we're discussing: there are electric airplanes for commercial transport with 30+ passengers for 200 - 3000+ miles range and there are one or two passenger autonomous transportation pods with 20-30 miles range.

The energy density for the first category is indeed still many years off, I would even say still hypothetical and dependant on a major breakthrough. If could be 20 years for 200 miles range and never become reality to make 3000+ miles feasible. Maybe a bit sooner, we may start seeing hybrid regional aircraft with electric assist for a few minutes during takeoff and climb.

For the second category, the transportation "air taxi" pods (or some other term but "flying car" is definitely inappropriate), we're talking 5-10 minutes flights typically and 20-30 minutes recharge time. I think we're pretty much there now, or at least I'd say it is reasonable to start working on it today.

Maybe the discussions about electric taxi-pods should be moved to a separate thread. It's really a very different context, both from the technical and regulatory standpoints.

 

[daniel]

I agree that autonomous electric taxi pods are an extremely specialized and narrow subset of the topic of electric airplanes.

BTW, there's a field about an hour's drive from me where people fly electric radio-controlled model airplanes. It's fun to watch, though I don't see myself doing it. And the planes only seem to have a few seconds of power before they go into glider mode.

 

[voyager]

The larger issues, I think, are ones that require major rule changes.

If aviation authorities will allow parcel delivery drones (U.S. will probably be first), why not beef-up the rotors and airlift passengers? Electric rotor technology is constantly evolving, so are lightweighting and battery technology. If we expect cars to ‘2D-maneuver’ autonomously through dense city traffic... then it should be less of a problem to have rotor-equipped vehicles auto-pilot themselves through the air, where there’s lots of 3D space to maneuver. Expect authorities to designate air corridors (running parallel to freeways?).

I don't doubt that it will happen. I just don't believe it will be soon or cheap.

Suggestion: separate the ‘thing’ that goes up (is supposed to lift) and the ‘thing’ that goes horizontally has distinct advantages over fixed two-in-one contraptions like the (click>) Terrafugia and PAL-V that usually need a runway to take off and land. Ditch weight (battery-equipped rolling chassis) to become airborne, take off the rotors when you drive off. See picture below.

Elon agrees with the skeptics: According to Musk, the main challenges with flying cars are that they'll be noisy and generate lots of wind because of the downward force.
Elon Musk on why he doesn't like flying cars: 'That is not an anxiety-reducing situation'

There are ways to reduce the buzzing sound of drones, even big ones that will carry passengers. See picture below.

There is a very important distinction to make in this thread in order to avoid confusion the transportation "air taxi" pods (or some other term but "flying car" is definitely inappropriate), we're talking 5-10 minutes flights typically and 20-30 minutes recharge time. I think we're pretty much there now, or at least I'd say it is reasonable to start working on it today.
Maybe the discussions about electric taxi-pods should be moved to a separate thread. It's really a very different context, both from the technical and regulatory standpoints.

Perhaps the distinction should be made between STOL and VTOL craft. The last category has the most chances of success. The quest is for a proper rotor configuration (power : weight ratio - 'oomph' important during takeoff)... plus a guidance system that will stabilize flight, optimize aerodynamic lift ("trim") during flight and auto-pilot / control functions in both modes.