I'm glad to see they have a contingency plan for not being fully electric.
Airplanes are even simpler using variable pitch props the ICE just runs at it most efficient rpm with no or minimal transmission and nearly zero mechanical losses.
Also a hybrid design is heavier than a direct mechanical and airplanes would seem to not benefit from hybrid advantages such as regenerative braking and 0 rpm torque.
Not the first to say this, but there is zero chance that this startup designs and builds a certified electric airliner in the next decade. I highly doubt we'll have these in 20 years. In ten years, we might have battery technology where it starts to make sense, but the most experienced builders of large aircraft in the world generally spend at least a decade and billions of dollars developing new planes. And this will be with completely untested technologies, new safety procedures, engines, etc. Boeing spent $32 billion bringing the 787 to market. On the smaller end, Bombardier spent ~$5 billion on the C series, which looks comparable to this, and I'd expect costs on this to be MUCH higher since it's a lot of new and untested tech, instead of iterating on decades of prior experience.
This is either appallingly naive on the part of this team and / or their investors, or this is an acquisition play. I doubt the latter makes sense, and I wonder if this is just VCs not having any knowledge of the field or how unrealistic this is.
I'm not clear on how this works out economically.
Gas turbines are more efficient than electric at high altitudes and long distances. So the regional hops are where this could make an impact.
IMO regional hop planes are less efficient at moving cargo than trains (or hyperloops). America just doesn't like high speed trains for some reason.
Between trains and jet turbine planes, I'm not seeing where electric passenger planes like this make a huge image.
Wright Electric likely knows all this and is working on it...a partnership with a low cost airline would surely inform them of what is needed for success. I'm just complaining that the article is not very substantive.
Think SF-LA, there are probably 1000 flights / week between these two areas, and some of those could be handled by a plane like this.
Yes and no. The major problem for electric planes (apart from the fact that the energy density of the best batteries is piss poor compared to Jet-A) is the weight does not decrease throughout the flight. This means you need more robust landing gear as the MTOW and MLW are essentially the same. More robust landing gear = more empty weight = less payload capacity = less paying meatbags/cargo.
There is also the issue of time to recharge. Short flights such as SFO-LAX that you mentioned would not require much in terms of refueling time (on the order of 20 minutes or so maximum). It would take a lot of good engineering to charge a plane this quickly.
Overall, I think all companies tend to underestimate the cost and time associated with designing a new airplane. Bombardier was billions over budget and years behind schedule for their C series.
Same for Airbus with the A350.
Same for Boeing with the 787.
tl;dr - Making planes is hard.
Regarding fuel weight not decreasing - could hydrogen fuel cells be burned and the resulting (h2o, water vapor) simply be left as contrails?
Reference: https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydrogen-give-off-when-burne... "In a flame of pure hydrogen gas, burning in air, the hydrogen (H2) reacts with oxygen (O2) to form water (H2O) and releases heat."
And what about the lifetime?
