bambinomartino

The max range isn't anything yet.

All the pretty pictures that accompany the press releases are "artist's renderings". That AC and Saab have pitched in a measly $5 mil each should tell us how serious they are about this.

The electrical equivalent of A220 in 10 years? It's not that simple, and scaling up in size will not automatically translate into scaling up the range to the 6,000km the A220 does now. The Tesla semi has around a 600-mile range, empty. That's only a 50% improvement, roughly, over the Model S. So if this mythical electric airplane could do Calgary to Red Deer in 2028, the even more mythical unicorn ES-220 might go as far as Edmonton, maybe. Wow!!!

And the 200km range, from their press release, is based on "late 2020s" technology. And will double 10 years from then? Anything is possible, I suppose.

Air Canada just trying to get ahead of the curve on this ESG nonsense. What a load of BS.

Adam Smith

Yes (WS seems to block about 30-34 minutes for their Saab 340s, which have 30-34 seats), although I was trying to compare the economics of the BEH operation, which AC abandoned, to potentially operating the same routes with ES-30s. Obviously more pax would bring more revenue, but going to 30 seats also necessitates an FA. A galley and a full lav also presumably add weight and operating cost. So there are a bunch of other factors that will impact the economics.

Obviously these calculations are going to get very complex. They've said the all-electric range is 200 km. They say that includes reserves. But they've also said the generators are there to provide reserves, so that implies that maybe 200 km is the actual limit on battery. In which case, a 163 km flight should deplete over 80% of the battery (I'm assuming consumption is fairly linear, other than during take-off climb). And I was figuring that "30 to 50 minutes" probably meant something like 0-80% in 30 and 0-100% in 50.

It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive economic analysis, just a quick look at how going to ES-30s might impact utilization on this type of route.

Acknowledged many times over. But the farther you fly, the more fuel you burn, the less green it becomes. And at 800 km range, you've now reduced your available inventory by 16%, meaning you're going to need to charge a lot higher price for those seats you do sell.

That doesn't appear to be what they're saying. The more logical interpretation of everything they've put out is they expect it to do 200 km in 2028 at EIS, and maybe future battery tech would improve it later.

The speed of evolution of automobile EVs suggests that timeline is fanciful. Battery technology has not been improving by the huge margins that it needs to in order to compete effectively with fossil fuels in transportation, especially in aviation, where energy density is so important.

Putting this on an automative timeline, we're not in 2010 right now, we're in the late 90s or early 2000s, GM EV1, Honda Insight, that kind of stuff. And Teslas and Volts and Leafs etc are still expensive niche products.

I don't think that's the case. I think the fact they abandoned so many of those routes suggests this is more likely to be a PR exercise than a serious desire to fly things like YVR-YBL.

Frightening from a cost perspective. With cars, at least there's a lot less maintenance, but with four props and two turbo generators, is the ES-30 really going to have a lot less maintenance than a Dash?

CaptHolic

"This can be extended to 400 km with power supplemented by the generators" What a ridiculous statement for an electric aircraft HAHAHA
You can't fly with a lithium battery powered wheelchair but we can charge this plane in 30min and sent it thru the skies no worries...
A worthless aircraft IMO...

bambinomartino

Speaking of frightening, how many people would rush to fly these planes, assuming they ever make it into production. I, for one, would be hesitant at first, to put it mildly.

I also worry about the political pressure on the regulator to allow it into service.

canadiancow

I'd have no concern getting on one once they're approved and the pilots have done their training.

If an engine cuts out, there's three more. And fuel reserves, which likely have a fairly separate drive train (or whatever it's called in this context). And if all four engines cut out, as long as we're not on the initial climb, I'm still not that concerned.

canopus27

You, and all the people who said that they would never fly on the MAX-8's because they were unsafe.

Planes which are, coincidentally, jammed full these days.

They neglected to mention that the remaining 25 passengers will also be required to pedal

tracon

Harbour Air has converted one of it's Beavers to electric.
It regularly does test flights.
Will be doing revenue flights in the next couple years.

EAJuggalo

Is the fuselage heated overnight? If it's -10 to -20 in say YQT, YEG or YWG, isn't that ambient air temp going to affect the battery? How long is it going to take to bring that battery up to ideal operating temperature.
I think it's a great idea, but I think some climates work better than others, those above the say the 45th parallel would be more difficult that those below.

bid.shader

Same. Having said that, post the 737Max issues I expect certifying a new airframe for airline passenger use in North America will be quite a bit slower and more methodical in order (a) ensure thoroughness and (b) more importantly, convince the public it was thorough, and so I'm expecting the 2028 date is sadly optimistic. For all those east coast Canadian routes that now have no service, this airframe is still too far away. I think only a Skycourier or Twin Otter could help YHZ-YSJ in the short term...

The Lev

The Heart design was originally a 19-seater. This article explains why that version didn't "fly". TBD if the 30 is any more realistic...
https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/28/bj...comment-474063

zkzkz

I do wonder about what effect having another aircraft type in the fleet would have on pilot training. It was such a big deal keeping type commonality for the MAX and then adding a new type for a small subfleet like it's no big deal? Wouldn't that create a small pilot cadre that can only fly a handful of routes? If one is sick what do they do, cancel the flights for days until they get better?

expert7700

AC is buying essentially electric assist aircraft. Just like cars, I think Hybrid are a gimmick unless they have stellar range unless gas tank is only used for rare cases. It's a gimmick because if it is needed that rarely or charging infrastructure was so fast/good, why not add batteries where the gas tank and generator would go.

Batteries hate extreme conditions and degrade substantially if run from 100 percent to 0, or even kept at 100% too long (overnight may be too long). ​​​​​​On a brand new Model 3 with "270 miles" of range, 30 miles of driving in 100F temps plus a hour of idling with AC consumed 52% of that battery. A 140 mile drive at slightly cooler.temps took it down from 100% to 6%.
​​​​
How could AC deal with the 30 min to plane/deplane, cabin temps must be maintained, and ground power is often inop.. Throw in two trips to deice and takeoff queue. I picture a LOT of these flights operating using JetA for all but a small portion of flight time.

The regulations will be interesting. codfather ​​​brought upthe alternate airport + (45 min?) fuel reserve. What system engages the generators if primary battery charge is nil.

​​​​​​As far as hard landings go or in flight fire goes, batteries have this nasty tendency to ignite if damaged, can be near impossible to put our for 24+ hours....

I remember the ANA / 787 groundings afrer.Li-Ion fires not too long ago. I think a 30# FAA certified pack in the nose gear. The designers couldn't guarantee a safe battery so they added a heavy sealed steel case so that future fires would self extinguish.

eigenvector

I for one find this new technology exciting and since I fly a lot out of YCD & YQQ could conceivably have my butt on it sooner rather than later.

Yes, the first iteration of the technology isn't very practical. It's like that with everything. Look at the wind turbines that were built at Altamont Pass in the 80s vs the ones we have today. The originals were basically an expensive toy.

For the tech to ever scale, it will need real experience in revenue service. The OEM was smart to make a deal with AC to get aircraft in the air. If they only ever fly to Nanaimo - so what? That route is a perfect testbed.

Joeyjo

I suspect this is being done for lots of reasons and not just for any single reason:

1. Marketing. Low-carbon flying is popular and interesting.

2. Pilot (no pun intended) project to see how electric fleets actually work in real life conditions.

3. An option on running electric planes to hedge if electric technology takes off. We can try to predict what technology will be like 5-10-15 years into the future but sometimes innovations happen that make our predictions widely pessimistic. (And sometimes the opposite).

I suspect none of these reasons would have been enough to pull the trigger but overall it seems like a pretty smart decision. Particularly since it’s a pretty low cost (relative to the company) move at this point.

Also wanted to mention this company: https://www.fleetzero.com/. It’s electrified cargo ships and their approach is to have modular batteries that are swappable so that you avoid the charging time and a bunch of other benefits.

I could imagine this working well for a small airline fleet along a busy route. Will be interesting to see if someone tries this at some point.

shadowspar

From the FAQ on their website: https://heartaerospace.com/faq/

(Granted it refers to their older aircraft, but I can't see the price for the ES-30 charger being hugely different)

The unit price of conventional regional turboprops runs upwards of $20M, and these aircraft certainly wouldn't be any cheaper. So while the half million for each charger isn't exactly chump change, it's probably not a huge concern compared to the price of the aircraft itself.