How close is Australia's aviation industry to going fully electric?
Multiple Australian companies are pioneering the country's electric aviation industry. So how are green planes powered, how safe are they, and what will it cost?www.abc.net.au
Electric power works tolerably well for small scale aircraft, up to something maybe the size of a Beaver or Otter/Twin Otter, and as long as you're flying short distances of less than 100nmi/190km.
Couple hundred kg payload up to 200km, but 100km is better.The farce that was Alice in wonderland proved that it doesn’t “work(s) tolerably well.”
Electric power works tolerably well for small scale aircraft, up to something maybe the size of a Beaver or Otter/Twin Otter, and as long as you're flying short distances of less than 100nmi/190km. Bigger loads or longer distances, and you can't carry big enough batteries to make the trip.
Connecting islands with small populations seems to be a good niche. The advantages are essential and the disadvantages don't matter.Electric power works tolerably well for small scale aircraft, up to something maybe the size of a Beaver or Otter/Twin Otter, and as long as you're flying short distances of less than 100nmi/190km. Bigger loads or longer distances, and you can't carry big enough batteries to make the trip.
The primary noise source from a propeller-driven aircraft is the prop, not the engines.* These aircraft can shut down their thermal engines and fly on battery power alone for a short period, such as during an approach to a noise sensitive airport.
With all those whirring blades, I think pigeons are the least of your problems.Would be interesting to see how city pigeons are reacting to this (would that create a flight risk?).
Very similar proportionate results to my/our A320 study, except we extended the range with some sizeable wingtip mounted tanks;- max bending relief. Our other study was a mixed fuel Ammonia/SAF A321 which allowed recovery of range and also offered flexibility of fuelling at destination;- to ease the fuel type transition. It’s ammonia’s compatibility with wing storage that’s the key difference with LH2 which has a massive improvement in platform aero efficiency. Despite these advantages over LH2 these were all soundly rejected by the Airbus Hydrogen mafia.There ! Somebody has finally seen the light and made a master study of ammonia for jetliners. A very good reading.
Okay, for an A350 it cuts the range from 16 000 km to barely 6500 km. That's... bad. Yet still enough to cross the Atlantic, or the Pacific with a stop in Hawaii. Just ask Concorde.
Then I wonder, how did people air travelled in the early 1960's, when largest airliner was DC-8-61 ? Scoop: they made refueling stops. If that's the price to pay for de-carboning of airliners, I'm all for it (plus 9200 km Paris - Réunion Island BY NIGHT in an A330 is complete hell, particularly with a 2.5 years old kid.)
It’s ammonia’s compatibility with wing storage that’s the key difference with LH2 which has a massive improvement in platform aero efficiency.
With a commanding 32-meter wingspan, the demonstrator, named Heart Experimental 1 (Heart X1), will serve as a platform for rigorous testing and development of Heart’s ES-30 aircraft.
Initially, the HX-1 will be used for ground-based testing, focusing on charging operations, taxiing, and turnaround procedures. It is scheduled to undertake a fully electric first flight in the second quarter of 2025. In preparation for this flight, Heart will over the coming months, test critical systems by running hardware tests both on and off the airplane.
At least the empennage section looks like they're hand laying composites over the structure there and maybe allowing them to glue to the formers.I’ve been studying at the few very short views given of the aircraft structure during build and it doesn’t look to be a normal flight standard;- there’s squared off holes in the wing ribs (I’d guess these are MDF), there’s no bolt holes or spar extension to take the wing bending loads. no fuel tank sealing, no signs of any flight systems components or mounting points for them, no provision for electrical cables, no signs of strengthen points for higher flight/ground loads (the rudder spar is looks like a piece of thin gauge Al with no hinge points, or driving points). No flanges on the tail fin ribs, so what does the skin attach to? Additionally despite the “all composite” claim, the structure looks typically aluminium but without any signs of rivets. And they’re attaching the skin without a supporting fixture for the ribs & frames? It reminds of the combined wooden/metal mock up (air show standard) we used to make in the late eighties. This is really gonna fly….right?