[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 51 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: images (66).jpg (6 KB, 300x168)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
Electric planes. Are they able to work? Will they replace the short hauls? What about the wide Bodies?
>>
>>1962008
>Are they able to work?
No
>Will they replace the short hauls?
No
>What about the wide Bodies?
No
Catalog
>>
>>1962008
No, until something happens with battery storage, or idk, fuel cell whatever tech. Or maybe solar tech even, because LEDs are 60% efficient, yet solar panels are just 20% efficient which is not ideal
>>
Blimp train
>>
>>1962008
We already have them.

https://harbourair.com/harbour-airs-all-electric-aircraft-operates-first-point-to-point-test-flight/
>>
>>1962023
> no links
> no reasons for answers
> no examples
Congrats! You’ve contributed absolutely nothing, and made a fool of yourself in the process!
>>
File: 1696505486117492.jpg (89 KB, 1024x1024)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>1962089
nta but he's right
>are they able to work
no, according to NASA (and tacitly by all three major civil aircraft manufacturers) battery technology to store the necessary amount of energy for it to be worth the switch is 50+ years away, and United/Air Canuckistan/whomever is just virtue signalling to get ESG points for a pipe dream
>will they replace short hauls
MAYBE extremely short flights, like interisland or in the Northeast US, again the turnaround time and infrastructure required is an order of magnitude more difficult than electric cars
>what about widebodies
lmao no

If I were a betting man I would go all in on biofuels or hydrogen, easier to retrofit multibillion dollar aircraft fleets and the stored energy potential of hydrocarbons blows electric out of the water
>>
>>1962052
>test flight
>last year
oh no no no no no
>>
When batteries discharge they don't lose (much) mass.

When fuel tanks empty, the fuel is combusted and the resultant waste is exhausted, thus you lose mass as go.


I can't see electric planes EVER working unless you can efficiently turn your fuel into electrical power with very minimal losses.
>>
>>1962089
https://harbourair.com/earth-day-eplane-update/
harbour air update from this year. I actually saw telhe test aeroplane flying around Nanaimo
>>
File: ZenairCH701C-GBRT01.jpg (101 KB, 750x563)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>1962008
for large vehicles NO
electric sucks for anything big unless its a train
for small vehicles its great
i think one day electric microlights will be extremely popular
imagine pic related but electric
imagine...
>>
>>1962038
its possible there could be some breakthrough in engine tech that could allow for less batteries needed
but yeah some kind of breakthrough would be necissary for electric to not be an absolute meme
>>1962050
real
>>
>>1962008
>Are they able to work?
Yes. Large passenger ones are still tough to make. Single props like Rolls-Royce ACCEL and Extra 330LE do extremely well.

>Will they replace the short hauls?
Unlikely. Considered the current tech issues.

>What about the wide Bodies?
Never. Short range planes can (and usually are) turboprops, which is something electric can do. Long and medium range airliners are jets. No way there.
>>
>>1964556
Single props like Rolls-Royce ACCEL and Extra 330LE do extremely well.
>>
>>1962194
>I actually saw the test aeroplane flying
Damn. I live near the waterfront. I was hoping to see it. Very curious to hear how it sounds.
>>
>>1962185
>18650 rain
>>
>>1962008
Hybrid planes unironically have potential. You need the most power on takeoff, for the rest of the flight you need a fraction of that, but you have to carry the extra engine and deal with its less than ideal efficiency. A smaller more efficient cruise engine supplemented with a plug-in electric assist would ultimately be cheaper to operate, not suitable for something that has back to back flights but for less frequent flyers it'll be perfectly suited.
>>
>>1962008
Today it's mostly demonstrators, a few are already in certification stage but it will take a few years until even small electric aircraft will be casually used in commercial aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft#General_aviation
>>
>>1962183
>hydrogen
Never. The energy density is too low even at 10k psi. For example, to power a 748 on hydrogen alone would take more than the entire internal volume of the wings and fuselage to get the equivalent range.
>>
>>1965682
but you win range because it is lighter
>>
>>1965860
>to get equivalent range
>>
>>1962185
>When batteries discharge they don't lose (much) mass.
Any mass.
>>
The challenge in developing electric commercial airplanes lies in energy density. Jet fuels need much higher energy per unit mass, than our current lithium batteries. Current batteries only manage around 0.9 megajoules per kilogram but we need 43. While battery technology is constantly evolving, the maximum potential of lithium-ion cells still sits at a modest 1.44 to 1.8 megajoules per kilogram.

Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph240/segal1/
>>
>>1965860
How about we use so much hydrogen it actually starts lifting the aircraft?
Then we can use conventional engines to push it forward
>>
>>1965877
https://youtu.be/EwQdK4Y1Pkg?si=bufAeiL76Da0OpcB


It's really not a lot
>>
>>1962008
A decade ago everybody was sure electric cars are just a meme and could never ever work. Then Elon Musk came up with TESLA and changed the world.
>>
>>1967059
>literally just E=m*c^2 so more E means more m
Why are you like this?
>>
>>1967142
epic elon musky owns le world like a boss
>>
>>1967147
Particles have mass though, if they didn't something like a solar sail wouldn't be possible.
>>
>>1967349
The same number of electrons coming out of the anode are coming into the cathode.
>>
>>1962008
No. Same reason why battery electric commuter locomotives don’t work *100
Batteries are really fucking heavy, maybe after a real room temperature superconductor it might be possible. Keyword might.
>>
>>1962008
Maybe with wirelessly transmitted energy, but currently the energy density is too low to be reliable.
It could be reliable as a ground effect vehicle cause those benefit from having more weight, gaining stability and efficiency, but also electricity and water don’t go together very well so there’s a pretty big safety risk there. At best currently electricity could feasibly replace ultralights, and light aircraft because they have more emphasis on gliding and not needing to fly forever, and also they are owned by autists much like the people on this board and myself so there’s no shortage of enthusiasm towards flying.
>>
>>1964556
>breakthrough in engine tech
Nope. BEV Engine is already pretty good. Just run them at okay cruise speed gear ratios and you get +95% or whatever the actual metric is for effective performance.

'Breaktrough' just means a few % savings somewhere in the pipeline, which isn't cumulative % points.
And Aviation is about weight to lift ratio, which isn't happening on Lithium cells.
>>
>>1962038
Electric planes with batteries are retarded stupid idea. There are experiments with electric drive planes with fossil fuel generators, like a diesel electric train but haven't heard much from them since. Probably stupid idea and needless extra weight.
>>
>>1965878
You'd need less megajoules per kg than 43 to be on par with aircraft, maybe half.

>Any heat engine is only gonna reach the theoretical max efficiency of 65%
> Aircraft engines have a bigger drag co efficient because they are larger
>Aircraft engines are heavier
>Heavier engines need more support on the wings
>It's easier to double prop electric engines for a slight efficiency boost
>>
>>1968515
You are still off by at least an order of magnitude. There is no way.
>>
>>1962008
even if the technology were proven the aviation industry moves so slow it'd take forever for a new standard to be established
>>
>>1962089
Do a web search and report back to the class
>>
>>1964556
however engine you can have will enjoy the energy being fed into it from a generator using actual fuel much more as long as it's larger than a commercial quadcopter
>>
>>1968525
Depends on the pace of battery technology development, already there are theoretical batteries (albeit ones with major flaws) like lithium air that have a capacity of 40MJ/kg. I personally think it will be decades down the line that we ever see batteries with even half the specific energy.
>>
>>1962008
No. Batteries are prohibitively heavy. They would need to be exponentially lighter in order to even get close to the performance of jet fuel. Unless that happens, the furthest aircraft electrification will likely get is some sort of hybrid system.
>>
>>1967036
>/n/ invents the blimp
>>
File: 1374933569118.gif (2.95 MB, 390x357)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB GIF
>>1962038
and that shit is impossible because batteries are fundamentally energy sinks. you have to waste all that heat and energy into making the damn things, transport them, and install them if they're big.

then the don't even generate energy as electricity. you waste heat having to transfer that, which would be used to rotate props or whatever dumbass shit you think is gonna happen here. not to mention how fucking heavy lithium batteries are.

you already have storage dumbass. it's fuel. oil is literally the best battery we got and you nerds wanna play with expensive rocks all day.
>>
>>1962023
catalog deez nuts nigga
>>
So uh I don't know much about batteries but I remember electric cars getting way less range in basic bitch winter temperatures.

Isn't jet fuel in airliners at cruise routinely -30 to -40 degrees Celsius?
>>
>>1965656
You could do back to back flights with battery swapping
>>
>>1971199
Yeah, I think everyone agrees lithium ion battery planes are impossible but there are other battery chemistries being researched that could work
>>
What if the power came from a small modular reactor?
>>
>>1971781
I mean there was a look at that back in the 50s but it was mostly the AEC chairman's attempt to get a molten salt reactor tested on the ground and generating electricity. If I remember correctly it used the expansion of heated air after it passed through a conductive heat chamber from the reactor(no or little contamination).

You could probably use a pu 238 powered thermoelectric reactor like NASA uses, but there is very little pu-238 available these days.

Also generally speaking having an operating reactor on an aircraft would make pretty much everyone concerned.
>>
>>1962023
/thread
>>
>>1971781
The problem with Nuclear is that its:
1. Strictly not civilian tech due proliferation FUD
2. Therefore smaller designs are not tested
3. Therefore the amount of people who had real work experience and craftmanship over the reactors is miniscule

If proliferation FUD wasn't around, there would most likely have been some civilian attempts at it in the 70s or 80s. It might even have panned out for more exotic purposes like global shipping, and maybe bigger planes.
But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the most important thing is for the nuclear power plants to produce weapon material, and experimentation isn't being done since that could lead to proliferation.
>>
>>1962008
> commercial aircraft
> need to be as light as possible to carry a useful amount of cargo
> stuff them with the heaviest batteries imaginable
> needs its own powerplant just to charge in time for the next flight

it doesn't take a genius to figure out why it will never work
>>
Big electric planes suffer from the same problem as electric trucks. You have to hold so many batteries that your capacity becomes shit.
Small planes already exist as do cars, but the moment you scale up, you're just transporting yourself, making it unviable.
>>
>>1971816
Need to wait for fusion.
>>
File: 1454036021416.gif (118 KB, 182x202)
118 KB
118 KB GIF
>>1971816
civilian nuclear reactors don't make HEU or weapons grade plutonium. you don't need to lie or be willfully retarded on /n/ of all places about nuke proliferation. impotent terrorist states like iran and north korea will toast LEU to get to ~20%, but you're running gaseous diffusion plants to get the good uranium & plutonium to make actual warheads.

i agree with you about all the euros and australians spazzing out about the savannah fucked everyone for shipping. we could have a fleet of nuclear container ships and not have to burn bunker fuel anymore. electrified rail run by reactors would also mean all heavy shipping would not be tied to burning fossil fuels too.
>>
>>1973636
>civilian nuclear reactors
Is a thing that do not exist due proliferation anon.
Proliferation works in a sense, because it means there are very few states that do become Nuclear states. But its also from a era where it was the only option to run nuclear power.

I'd genuinely want to wait for the people burn in the 70s to die of old age, and we might be able to try again.
>>
>>1973639
what the fuck are you talking about. i can work with you a bit here because we all know that nuclear power came about because of the manhattan project, but then there was division between civilian nuclear power and the production of highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium for bombs.

you don't run a nuclear reactor tied to the grid to enrich uranium to make HEU. no one uses plutonium for civilian electricity production. that's all military and it's gaseous diffusion to make HEU and military reactors to separate the 90% and up pu-239 for plutonium warheads.

of course i want all the fucking hippies to die so we can get past this, but you're captured by the same anti-fission propaganda pretending like all nuclear fission is done in an effort to make bombs. that's straight out of the sierra club playbook from the 60s to conflate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons production.
>>
There is no reason it can't work for short haul and training. In fact its perfect for that.

Long haul? No, it will be petrol or biofuels. But that's fine. Long haul air travel should not be cheap or easily accessible for most humans. Boomers and their kids were really the only generation to experience cheap long haul air travel. It will never be that cheap ever again.
>>
File: 1293328101050.gif (797 KB, 290x218)
797 KB
797 KB GIF
>>1973644
As said, there exists no "Civilian" nuclear technology in the world.

Everything is either tied to the Military Industrial Complex or ran by state. If Lockheed Martin lose their status as a participant in the MIC: they won't be able to build reactors anymore. The same is true of the Chebol firms in Korea making reactors, they are essentially in the same position as Lockheed Martin and a bunch of other companies in the same position.
I think you are either ignorant, or are very confused over the words the field and politics picked to describe the field.

Even if one of the companies that want to build smaller modular reactors manage to do it, that is by itself not "Civilian" by any definition either. A friendly government can then buy some black boxes that is most likely cost effective, and you will still have to fly in experts working in the Military Industrial Complex for maintenance and expansion.
Civilian use != Civilian ownership
>>
>>1962023
fpbp
>>
>nuclear for anything that's not either military or controlled by it

i once came across a great story linked from HN about how US federal marshalls wanted to arrest some guy on a nuclear plant and much to their dismay, the guards there informed them that
>1. no, you are not permitted to bring any firearms onto the facility
>2. should you attempt to do so, you will be shot dead immediately
even the the FBI's top dogs learn their fucking place in comparison to nuclear agencies.
>>
File: 1464221700467.gif (3.67 MB, 636x477)
3.67 MB
3.67 MB GIF
>>1973650
you've kinda gone off the deep end and unified to two halves that don't interact with each other anymore. i could roll with this if the AEC were still a thing, but it's not and the disparate parts don't work in the same step.

sure, this is american in bias, but it's not like Centrus has its business plan given to it by NNSA and they just make nothing but HEU for subs, carriers, and whatever weird shit they work on they don't want us plebs to know about. they're reopening piketon because all that free russian uranium from megatons to megawatts has dried up. ukraine doesn't help either.

lockheed isn't a one to one here because there's no flight utility that operates a monopoly service of transportation that i have to pay into if i want to make my feet work so i can walk. none of the usual MIC guys (boeing, raytheon, northrup grumman, etc) are invovled in that way.

if you want to talk huntington, booz allen, and honeywell and about the navy's reactors, we can. that's a different game run by the NNSA, rather than utilities that are shuttering civilian reactors because of the vre-natural gas scheme that wins in RTO's. that's the distinction i'm trying to make here and i can't tell if i'm retarded or if we're just talking past each other.

in any case, the battery plane is stupid and can't scale because they're too fucking heavy.
>>
>>1973661
>Centrus has its business plan given to it by NNSA and they just make nothing but HEU for subs, carriers, and whatever
Yes, but if you buy a cargo ship, you can't buy a reactor of Centrus to retrofit it. You won't be able to buy the patents or IP either, or claim ownership of it long term.
A large allied state owned shipping company could try to thread the red tape, but not civilian.

Post USSR you could most likely roll up there and buy a ship, a reactor, and a maintenance crew who could build you more. But that window passed, and would not fly in the west either.
Then again
>reddit spacing
>being completely blind on the subject aside from industry names locally
>>
>>1962089
Sir, please show us an example of how one should correctly contribute to this discussion.
I am expecting no less than a world class essay on the potential large-scale implementation of electric planes.

Thank you in advance.
>>
>>1967142
Electric cars still don’t work.
>>
File: zapast.jpg (138 KB, 1200x600)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>1974553
>>
File: The Temple Torpedo.jpg (265 KB, 1312x1008)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
https://www.nicap.org/docs2/660323_cufos_greenwood.pdf

anyone happen to know what the designation "TL-4786" or some similar combination of letters might be as an identifying marker on a military or experimental aircraft? The pilot had US Army Seargant chevrons on the sleeves and was wearing an air force mechanic's hat with bill turned up, if any of that context can help with the id. thanks a trillion if you help.
>>
File: IMG_0125.jpg (1.57 MB, 4032x3024)
1.57 MB
1.57 MB JPG
>>
File: IMG_0126.jpg (2.27 MB, 4032x3024)
2.27 MB
2.27 MB JPG
>>
File: sparkle.jpg (2.6 MB, 2032x1139)
2.6 MB
2.6 MB JPG
>>
>>1968606
>If I just lie hard enough, it'll come true!
>>
>>1962038
For anyone looking for a battery breakthrough, find a periodic system and look up a material lighter than lithium than has an ion to spare.
>>
>>1979308
Only a tiny proportion of lithiums potential is used currently, looks at lithium when it is combusted in this graph.

The theoretical limit of 11kwh/kg for lithium air batteries, imagine the weight savings when it's also triple as efficient than combustion engines.

Already we have lithium batteries that are 3 times as much energy per weight than we did in 2008.
>>
>>1979956
>>1979308
Pic related
>>
>>1965656
Interesting idea. I'm imagining a return to tri-jets where the center engine is the electric cruise engine.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.