The X1 aircraft is comparable in size to a small regional airliner and can achieve a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 25,000 pounds with the help of four wing-mounted electric motors. The battery-electric propulsion system delivered more than one megawatt of power during the maiden flight.

  • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    at this point, the obstacles to electrification are not technical, the obstacles are in the white house

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        That is not an option for islands or sometimes a train has to go the long way around, due to large bodies of water. Korea - Japan or something like Greece - southern Italy are interesting flights for example.

      • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        you can’t cover the ground with rails. air travel does have uses trains cannot meet.

          • Scheisser@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Have you lived next to a track where trains travel frequently? The noise is mostly ok, however the vibrations are not. I would not live closer than 1 km or so from the track, otherwise you feel the house vibrate every time a train passes. Good luck if the trains pass each hour, especially during the nights.

            Airports are worse tho, I’ll give you that.

            • I have spent my entire childhood in a house at a mere 125m away from the train tracks, with trains passing 8 times per hour (excl. freight which also passes every now and then). You could faintly hear them if you were in the garden, but never in a bothersome way. I have not once felt anything vibrate from a passing train. Maybe this is different for poorly built houses? But it really shouldn’t be an issue.

              • Scheisser@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Could be that the house or ground type is different. I also lived there for only a few months, which could be too short to get used to it. Would not choose to live close to frequently used tracks again though.

                I would think that house was from the cheaper end though, which could explain things.

          • budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            In London people moan about public transport being awful, but plenty of rich people and celebrities take the train anyway. There was a newspaper article a few years ago about a court case that finished and both parties and their lawyers and the judge all ran into each other at the train station again.

            • igmelonh@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              For me personally, not including the travel to Chicago, it would be 225USD for a less than 5 hour flight from Chicago to Seattle, while the smallest cabin (“roomette”) on an Amtrak would cost 1400USD and take over 46 hours. Even the coach is 280USD.

              Edit: I’m seeing the bit about short trips now; I thought that the comment I was replying to was about travel in general. Chicago to Detroit would only be 35USD for ~6h on Amtrak coach (no cabin offered), flight price would be the same as Chicago-Seattle. Train would be cheaper in this case, though without a cabin.

  • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Curious how much fuel would have cost for a comparable flight. Could this make short flights significantly cheaper than they are currently? Or open up the possibility of flying with many short hops in some cases.

    • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      A 4-seat Cessna 172 burns 8 gallons of 100LL fuel per hour, so 4 gallons in 30 minutes. That fuel costs $7 per gallon at best. 4 gallons times $7 means it costs $28 for 30 minutes. That’s roughly $1 per minute for the lightest aircrafts.

      Some fuels are cheaper but they also get burned at a higher rate, so exact numbers depend on many variables.

      • budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        The electric engines are easier to maintain than jet engines. Far less parts, especially not having to deal with fuel pumps and all the safety issues around fuel storage. Not having to withstand the huge temperature differential between the engine combustion and the high altitude air probably helps too.

      • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Pretty sure fuel is still a fairly big part of the cost of flying. I wonder how the maintenance compares on an electric plane engine compared to jets too.

        Planes are already cheaper than other options for short distances anyway, going electric would be great for that.

      • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        If you skip the plane and go with a drone style you can drop all the complex hydraulics and just have a dead simple electric motor. A large version with a flying wing shape could work well.

    • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If it works you can have a range extender medium size drone at the start and finish for mid air refueling by cable.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This plane has a max range of 125 miles. What’s the point. It’s faster and easier to drive 2 hours in an EV. You spend more than 2 hours just fucking around the airport.

    • Rimu@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Batteries get better all the time. In 10 years things could be quite different.

    • cron@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      When there is a road to where you are planning to go. But islands or remote areas exist.

      But in principle, I agree with you. With such a short range, it will probably not be sold by the millions ;)