Electra e-STOL production design has been released.
Posted by pdf27@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 61 comments
Posted by pdf27@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 61 comments
91361_throwaway@reddit
175 knots is pretty slow, wonder how long it takes to charge.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
That's faster than pretty much every bush plane in existence. This thing is like the cargo plane of the bush plane industry.
150ft takeoff and landing requirement. Carries 3,000lb for 330nm and requires zero ground equipment for recharging. It's IFR and has full controls for two pilots and is certified to fly into known icing conditions.
This is a game changer for those parts of the world and it shows considering they already have 2,100 aircraft already on order by 52 different companies.
ecniv_o@reddit
It's great and all, but get back to me when you've set up charging infrastructure in Buffalo Narrows that isn't just a diesel generator!
Also, low capital costs are a huge aspect of many bush operators' purchasing decision.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
Here I am getting back to you. You should at least read a little before you respond.
Again, it requires ZERO charging infrastructure. None. You don't have to plug it into anything.
Here's a link to Stony Rapids if you want to buy some fuel to use in order to recharge your Electra El9 while using absolutely no ground infrastructure at all.
https://fltplan.com/Airport.cgi?CYSF
ecniv_o@reddit
I'm not convinced of the environmental benefits nor economics of buying a new hybrid airplane outweighing buying used Jet turboprops to operate existing routes
snappy033@reddit
They’ll be able to come after bush planes and a lot of helicopter missions.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
Absolutely.
snappy033@reddit
175 kt is not bad once you consider its STOL performance. It can outperform a backcountry STOL like a Husky and can compete with helicopters for a lot of missions that don’t require hovering, sling load, etc. Look up its takeoff vids on YouTube. It’s extremely impressive.
175kt and many hundreds of nm of useful range beats a helicopter taking multiple hops cross country.
workahol_@reddit
It's a fair bit faster faster than an Islander, which I reckon is the nearest comparable aircraft.
IAMZEUSALMIGHTY@reddit
I fly an Islander and I get teased by the tower for how slow I am.
TacTurtle@reddit
Similar speed to a Dehavilland Otter, not much slower than a Cessna 208 which is less STOL-y
SergeantPancakes@reddit
Why do electric planes always have a bunch on tiny propellers and motors as propulsion? Isn’t that more inefficient than a smaller amount of larger propellers?
snappy033@reddit
For aerodynamics on niche use cases, little electric motors are like a scalpel whereas big motors are a sledgehammer.
They’re exploiting specific aerodynamic phenomena by blowing on specific parts of the wing with specialized motors and propellers to achieve extreme STOL. You can’t really do it effectively with a traditional fossil fuel power plant and transmission.
A big propeller is more efficient if you don’t consider that they’re trying to achieve something very specific with this aircraft vs an all round efficient flyer.
FeedMeCrabs@reddit
Good answers here. Just to add, the motors spin very fast and if you don’t want to add gearboxes then you need to reduce the size of the propellers so that they don’t explode at full tilt.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Other way around - smaller propellers spin faster, and you can design an electric motor to turn at any speed you want even without a gearbox. I'm pretty sure those are direct drive motors - most propulsion ones are.
FeedMeCrabs@reddit
Sorry I should’ve been more specific. I meant that prop tip speed is faster with larger props (at the same rpm, ofc). And yes, you can run emotors slower, but it’s not as efficient.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Efficiency is about the same, but slower running motors are a bit heavier overall.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Typically slightly less efficient, but you gain in other ways. In this case they use them to blow air over the wing in order to achieve pretty extreme STOL performance.
series_hybrid@reddit
Aircraft engines are very expensive, but electric motors are not. In this model, there us more money spent on 8 small propellers, compared to one large propeller.
But the 8 electric motors probably do not cost as much as one engine. Plus, aircraft will always benefit from redundancy. If one motor stops working, you have 7 more that are fine to get you home
workahol_@reddit
Great question! Actually this can give you efficiency gains because you're blowing air over the entire wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_propulsion
jojohohanon@reddit
What’s the fuel burn of an electric vehicle?
pdf27@reddit (OP)
It's a hybrid.
jojohohanon@reddit
? I can’t tell whether you are an idiot or a comedian
pdf27@reddit (OP)
If it's a hybrid it isn't an electric vehicle - and fuel burn depends massively on how long your sectors are plus battery SOC before you start.
I actually know the fuel consumption values for the various mission profiles through work, but I'm not enough of an idiot to lose my job by spouting off privileged information on Reddit.
jimtoberfest@reddit
Any caravan pilots in here? What’s cruise power setting in the caravan at a moderate altitude?
We could then figure out how big the APU is.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Can do better than that! https://www.electra.aero/news/safran
jimtoberfest@reddit
Nice work!
Daniel272@reddit
Does the slipstream over the wing from all those propellors affect anything?
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Main one is lift - that's how they get the extreme STOL performance. There will be others, but I haven't seen anything public domain about them yet.
jojohohanon@reddit
11000 nanometers? That’s a truly astounding range.
notsas@reddit
They only list Ferry Range. I wonder what the Range is at MTOW......
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
Probably around 900 nmi with a 15 minute reserve, given the ferry range has an extra 45 minute reserve.
superuser726@reddit
No way they can manage that much...
annodomini@reddit
Note: this is a hybrid design, not all electric. Electric motors on the props, but powered by batteries recharged by a turbine generator.
callsignhotdog@reddit
Even with a fraction of that range, it'd be a good fit for island service. Take Scotland, the longest likely route is gonna be Glasgow to Shetland and that's under 300nmi. Plenty of wind power in the islands to charge the things. Easy enough to fill the seats especially if you're not paying aviation fuel prices.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
330nm range when loaded to it's 3,000lbs max capacity and it requires zero ground equipment for battery recharging.
Instead of island transport, I was thinking more along the lines of wilderness aviation companies in remote places like Alaska. Air transport is critical in those environments, not only for travel, but also for survivability and emergency services. Getting fuel out in the middle of nowhere it probably a lot easier than getting enough electricity required to charge one of these things. Even if you had to wait overnight for your onboard turbine to recharge enough to get back, it would be way worth it for the amount of cargo you can deliver. It could take weeks or months or simply impossible to deliver 3,000 lbs of cargo to a small village or outpost a thousand miles away in the barren, extremely remote wilderness. It could take the EL9 only three days to get there.
Being able to carry 3,000lbs 330nm in Alaska while requiring zero ground support and only 150ft of landing/takeoff distance is worth it's weight in gold.
TacTurtle@reddit
There is about zero chance an "onboard turbine" could generate enough power to charge the plane overnight unless it is anchored out somewhere with a steady 45-50mph wind... there just isn't enough blade area to extract the necessary power. This is analogous to covering a Cybertruck in solar panels to recharge (would take like a month under perfect conditions).
In rural Alaska, fuel has to be flown in - so running a diesel generator to charge the plane is both inefficient and counterproductive.
The only place this would make sense are closer communities with substantial cheap grid power like Juneau (cheap hydro power) and Vancouver or Seattle.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
It's a gas turbine, not a wind turbine!
TacTurtle@reddit
The onboard gas turbine can generate enough power for cruising, so the range is largely liquid fuel limited. You would refuel this just like a conventional plane. Gas turbine would likely recharge the batteries fully during descent, approach, and taxi.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
"The onboard gas turbine can generate enough power for cruising"
If what you're saying is true, then this must be the reason for the 1,100nm ferry range vs 330nm with max cargo. They can add 3,000 lbs of fuel onboard to allow for the significantly longer range.
Then its just a matter of weight vs range when determining how much cargo you want to carry vs fuel you can carry after the cargo weight has been calculated. The more cargo = less fuel = shorter range. Less cargo = more fuel = longer range.
cstross@reddit
Or, as noted above, the Scottish islands -- Shetlands and Orkney, notably. They've got humongous amounts of offshore wind energy, and extensive wind farms -- Scotland generates enough renewable energy to power itself averaged over a year (although the wind doesn't blow all the time, so there are peaker plants to ensure base load provision).
If this thing can fast charge, then a battery farm at the side of the airfield would definitely make it a viable alternative to the Islander and Trislander STOLs used for interisland air taxi services (and remove the need to aviation fuel tankers on the sea ferry service).
series_hybrid@reddit
The best applications and the new aircraft willfund each other. Then over time they will still improve.
LordLederhosen@reddit
I have no idea what the range is, but it's a turbine-battery hybrid.
jjamesr539@reddit
The 45 minute reserve is required for revenue flights, there’s no point in lowering it.
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
According to their website, it has a range of 330 nautical miles.
UnevenHeathen@reddit
no one is going to fly on that piece of garbage. It's always going to be a stiff headwind away from being grounded. This is just another money grab.
Cheticus@reddit
I won't say the economics of a new plane aren't challenging, but this definitely isn't a "money grab". the company has some real greats. it was started by John Langford (president of the AIAA, founded aurora flight sciences, acquired by Boeing). from what I see, it seems like a lot of good folks from aurora ended up there. they have done some crazy weird wings.
if they keep going, this thing will definitely be a beautiful plane one day. it's a passion project from some of the top dogs in conceptual aircraft design, or at least that's the way I see it.
onymousbosch@reddit
"It can recharge itself using jet fuel" does not sound like an eco flex.
dciskey@reddit
We’re meant to take them seriously when they think cars cruise at 40mph?
SimplyIncredible_@reddit
oh god please no
SuspiciousCucumber20@reddit
They tout the aircraft's "in-flight battery recharging eliminates the need for ground charging equipment". They also claim a 330mn range when loaded to it's max capacity of 3,000lbs.
The details are vague, but if I had to guess, what they're saying is that the aircraft's hybrid system (small turbine engine) not only recharges the batteries in-flight, but can also be used to charge the aircraft while on the ground, thus eliminating the need for any addition ground equipment or specialized charging stations.
I don't have the details on fuel capacity, but I'd have to imagine that the range of the aircraft accounts for both the battery capacity and fuel until both reasonably depleted. It's unclear to me whether the aircraft can be operated on the turbine engine alone and depleted batteries. If I had to guess, the batteries are the main power source while the turbine's main/sole function is to charge the batteries in order to power the electric motors on the wings. I'm just not clear on whether the turbine can power a generator in order to provide enough electricity to operate the wing mounted motors to their full take-off power capacity. If I had to guess, it does not and would require at least a certain about of battery power to provide the required amps necessary for takeoff. But the turbine clearly provides a charging capability that factors into the total range of the aircraft. I'd like to know how much fuel is remaining in the fuel tank upon landing after flying it's max distance. With efficiency being a critical part of maximizing range, I can't imaging that it's going to have an over abundance of fuel adding to the overall weight of the aircraft. I'd like to know how much fuel it needs for max flight range, how much fuel it has left over upon completing a max range flight and how much fuel it would require to run the turbine on ground in order to complete a max distance flight in the other direction.
This is a game changer for people operating in places like Alaska. The EL9 is STOL like most wilderness airstrips require, it can fly into (and is certified) known icing conditions. It's certified to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and it's FAR more easy to get fuel in isolated areas like Alaska than it would be to have some kind of (just for example) Tesla Supercharging Station that would most likely have to be FAA certified anyways. Just have your onboard turbine recharge while you're on the ground. Even if it takes all night to charge that way, being able to carry 3,000lbs of cargo into no-man's land it easily worth time investment. It could easily be used as an Air Ambulance also.
Again, details are hard to come by, but Electra Aero is comparing the EL9's capabilities to that of a helicopter for a cost that far more maintenance friendly and significantly cheaper. They're clearly right, at least in theory, because they already have orders for over 2,100 of them!
TacTurtle@reddit
The website explicitly says the turbogenerator (basically a repurposed APU) generates enough power for cruise, the battery is used to handle the surge power needed for takeoff and climb or as reserve if the generator dies.
pdf27@reddit (OP)
Turbo-generator is pretty big (600kW) - I don't think their battery size is public domain, but a 600kWh battery would be around 2.4 tonnes. That's about a third of the CS-23 limit, big enough to kill their payload capability.
Other point is that similar sized aircraft (e.g. Cessna Caravan) have about the same installed power as this turbo-generator and the Electra marketing material is talking about 2-3 hour sectors, so I would infer that they've probably matched the cruise power consumption pretty closely to the turbo-generator. Battery would then cover boosting for ultra short take-off, short legs, emergencies, etc.
https://www.electra.aero/news/safran
series_hybrid@reddit
Electric motors function well in extreme cold. Batteries might struggle, but a small amount of the batteries capacity can be used to warm the battery before takeoff.
cat_prophecy@reddit
This is exactly how it works.
bubliksmaz@reddit
Why do these startups always gotta make their renders look so scammy, this looks like one of those Nikola trucks they filmed rolling down hills
lonerockz@reddit
Is it just me or is this thing a drug runners dream?
Can basically land and take off anywhere. Can recharge on its own generator with fuel found anywhere.
wolftick@reddit
It's actually a hybrid.
Stegasaurus_Wrecks@reddit
It has to be in the office 2 days a week?
PL_Teiresias@reddit
Three.
LordLederhosen@reddit
Link to their technology page: https://www.electra.aero/technology