Embraer sees 2024 commercial launch for Uber flying cabs

Electric motors have a much better power to weight ratio than internal combustion engines, literally all we need is lighter batteries
That really doesn't matter much. Like you say, the electric motor is only half of the equation. Powerplant + energy storage = power output. We're getting there, but we're nowhere close yet. It wasn't many years ago that miniaturized internal combustion engines were still more feasible for applications as small as RC airplanes.
 
That really doesn't matter much. Like you say, the electric motor is only half of the equation. Powerplant + energy storage = power output. We're getting there, but we're nowhere close yet. It wasn't many years ago that miniaturized internal combustion engines were still more feasible for applications as small as RC airplanes.

I literally said like 5 times that battery tech is getting better and it’s only a matter of time...
 
Last I checked, we used aviation fuel still because the mass-specific energy content was higher than anything else we could reasonably get our hands on.

But hey, whatever.
 
I literally said like 5 times that battery tech is getting better and it’s only a matter of time...
Right. Theoretically.

Project feasibility based on potential future tech that doesn't exist isn't a great strategy. That's my only point. Otherwise, I'm designing an airliner powered by rubber bands. Sure, the rubber band tech we have now doesn't store that kind of energy, but hey, it might in the future.
 
Right. Theoretically.

Project feasibility based on potential future tech that doesn't exist isn't a great strategy. That's my only point. Otherwise, I'm designing an airliner powered by rubber bands. Sure, the rubber band tech we have now doesn't store that kind of energy, but hey, it might in the future.

Literally read what I wrote - if batteries aren't going to work, fuel cell tech may pick up the pace. hell, we may end up using some sort of weird hybrid tech in the interim - who knows. What I'm saying is that eventually, we almost certainly will move away from using fossil fuels to power our aircraft. If (and this is a big "if") literally nothing in technology changes, no breakthroughs are made, and we only have 3% growth, a lithium battery presently at 9.0 MJ/kg will be just as good as a Jet-A at 42.8 MJ/kg when you can extract the same amount of work out of in "not that long."

Think about it like this, the thermal efficiency of a gas turbine engine is less than a piston engine - the mechanical efficiency is higher, but the the thermal efficiency is lower. Gas turbine engines are at most around 40% efficient. In the same link you'll see that lithium batteries are around 80% to 90% efficient. Let's say that they're 80% efficient. Note now, that the larger the electric motor, the greater efficiency, so it's totally plausible that an electric motor could be somewhere around 95% efficient (they're actually between 90 and 99.9% efficient depending on design), for the sake of argument let's say that we have a crappy motor and it's only 90% efficient.

We lose 20% on the batteries, and we again lose 10% at the motor, that means that of the lithium 9.0 MJ/kg, we're only really getting access to 6.48 MJ / kg. Similarly, with the gas turbine engine, we're getting at most 40% efficiency (realistically, probably much less in actual aircraft) - so we're only getting access to 17.12 MJ /kg. So, if literally nothing changes and there's no new battery technology (which is unlikely, because the technology is the same as what's used in your phone, so there's insane financial motivation to throw money at battery tech), and the current rates of improvement continue on, we match it in just over 32 years*. This is basically the worst case scenario.

The reality is probably much quicker. We have Tesla and many others pushing the edge of battery tech, we have a wide array of institutions pushing for this. On the other side of the equation are "blue sky" tech like super-capacitors, or graphene, or whatever crazy materials science of the day is pushing the boundaries stands to jump us forward. If we average 7% growth we reach parity in 13 years. Regardless this is coming - and quicker than you'd think.

The changeover point may actually happen sooner for other reasons - it might be more cost effective (efficiency aside) to use electric motors much sooner because of the sheer lack of maintenance costs associated with electric motors - they basically don't break, don't have hardly any moving parts, and cost next to nothing to build - this is especially true for smaller airplanes with less range. If you could take 6 people 200 miles with an electrical motor you'd start to see adoption in the GA world almost immediately if the acquisition costs weren't too high.




*dM/dt = (0.03)M

This is a separable diffy q

dM/M = (0.03)dt

Integrate both sides

ln M = (0.03)t + C

let c = e^C

so M = ce^(0.03t)

M(0) = 6.48 , so M = (6.48)e^(0.03t)

So, let's find where the efficiencies match up.

17.12 = 6.48 e^(0.03t)

ln (17.12/6.48) = (0.03)t

t ~= 32.38 years.

17.12 = 6.48 e^(0.03t)
 
I show up at the airport:
Does the airplane work?
Yes... proceed to gate.
No... proceed to Starbucks.
 
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/embraer-sees-2024-commercial-launch-055151490.html

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - A network of electric aircraft Uber Technologies Inc is developing with Embraer SA is likely to launch commercially in 2024, the Brazilian planemaker's chief executive said on Friday, adding a year to the latest forecast from the ride-hailing company.

Embraer Chief Executive Paulo Cesar de Souza told journalists the business model and financial commitments of the partnership have not been defined. Uber Chief Product Officer Jeff Holden said last month that a paid, intra-city flying taxi service could start in 2023.

Souza said the companies would soon determine specifications of the proposed vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

Engineers are projecting one-tonne vehicles transporting a pilot and four passengers at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 meters (2,600-3,300 feet), Souza said. The aircraft will be powered by batteries that can charge in as little as five minutes between flights, he added.

The project has provided an outlet for engineering resources at Embraer, whose newest planes — a military cargo jet and a new generation of passenger jets — are well into their flight testing campaigns.

Some 65 international delegations have shown interest in the KC-390 military transport aircraft that will enter the Brazilian Air Force next year, Souza said.

The transition to a new commercial jet line-up is pressuring operations, but Souza said Embraer would meet the bottom end of its 2017 profit margin and aircraft delivery targets.
I guess this means we only have 6 years to save for retirement since we'll all be out of jobs no? Time to renegotiate the contracts!
 
Right, but like I said, it’s not static, battery tech is getting better.
Battery Tech, just like combustion engine Tech, is not going to increase linearly in efficiency. That curve is going to flatten out to where only marginal gains will be made, and will come at the expense of simplicity and reliability (which may be a reasonable sacrifice in auto tech, but not aviation). I’m not sure how close we are to that point, but to assume that battery efficiency will increase at the same rate even over the next 5-10 years is imho foolishly optimistic.
 
It doesn’t really matter how good battery tech gets, there is one advantage to liquid fuel: when I’m flying CLT to AVL, I can carry less fuel and more people/stuff. When I fly CLT to OKC, we’ll carry a lot more fuel, but may be limited on how many people we can carry.

Or talk about leaving something to get off a short runway.

Batteries weigh almost exactly the same full or empty. For an A320 that may not be the biggest problem. But the smaller you go (Uber air taxis, anyone?), the bigger the weight problem. When they figure that part out, then I’ll believe we have electric small planes to fly around in the near future.
 
Using the heater in an electric car halves it's range. Imagine how winter would go having to keep heated wing anti ice on plus range is reduced due to just being cold out.

Yep I just don't see long range electric airplanes happening in our lifetimes, but short range cab type ones I can see. But then, they're basically helicopters.

Technology has changed a lot on the surface but look underneath and not much has changed in 30 years. We still get up, make breakfast, drive to the office, drive home and eat dinner and watch TV. It's easier to do things these days, like make a phone call from anywhere, but the basic concepts haven't changed.
 
Unless someone has invented the Shipstone, no one is going to do anything useful (that means transporting a BUNCH of people/stuff a profitable distance) with electric powered vehicles in the near future. That goes for cars as well. Sure, the Tesla is wiz bang, and the Bolt goes a LITTLE bit farther, but until you get some kind of breakthrough that is an ORDER of MAGNITUDE better than current battery tech, and not just in absolute capacity but in ease of use as well, the electric stuff is just for show....like Hero's Steam Engine, it just spins around, makes some noise and doesn't really do anything useful. The only thing about electric right now making money are the people trying to SELL it to people.

This isn't about being a cranky old curmudgeon, or poo pooing new tech, or anything like that...it's just math. And part of that math is the ability to make money at doing something.

Right now, the most efficient fuel looks to be hydrogen...hydrogen with a bunch of carbons attached to it so it forms little strings and rings. You can literally pour an assload of energy into your personal vehicle at room temperature in five minutes or less and go 400 miles. Anything that comes down the pike has to compete with THAT.
 
Unless someone has invented the Shipstone, no one is going to do anything useful (that means transporting a BUNCH of people/stuff a profitable distance) with electric powered vehicles in the near future. That goes for cars as well. Sure, the Tesla is wiz bang, and the Bolt goes a LITTLE bit farther, but until you get some kind of breakthrough that is an ORDER of MAGNITUDE better than current battery tech, and not just in absolute capacity but in ease of use as well, the electric stuff is just for show....like Hero's Steam Engine, it just spins around, makes some noise and doesn't really do anything useful. The only thing about electric right now making money are the people trying to SELL it to people.

This isn't about being a cranky old curmudgeon, or poo pooing new tech, or anything like that...it's just math. And part of that math is the ability to make money at doing something.

Right now, the most efficient fuel looks to be hydrogen...hydrogen with a bunch of carbons attached to it so it forms little strings and rings. You can literally pour an assload of energy into your personal vehicle at room temperature in five minutes or less and go 400 miles. Anything that comes down the pike has to compete with THAT.
Agree and disagree. There’s some applications that make a lot of sense for electric vehicles (so long as the electricity is sourced elsewhere than burning fossil fuels, which is a whole nother discussion entirely). Take for example your average 9-5er. Drive 30-60 minutes, park the car all day at work, drive 30-60 minutes home with maybe a couple errands on the way, then park the car at home all night. Perfect application for an electric vehicle. Long haul trucking OTOH? Yeah, something big needs to happen for that to be a thing.
 
Agree and disagree. There’s some applications that make a lot of sense for electric vehicles (so long as the electricity is sourced elsewhere than burning fossil fuels, which is a whole nother discussion entirely). Take for example your average 9-5er. Drive 30-60 minutes, park the car all day at work, drive 30-60 minutes home with maybe a couple errands on the way, then park the car at home all night. Perfect application for an electric vehicle. Long haul trucking OTOH? Yeah, something big needs to happen for that to be a thing.

Problem is most 9-5 people also use their car to get out of town, family trips and do other things with it besides the commute back and forth to work. While some people MIGHT buy a "commuter car" for that purpose, most won't and certainly not spend a buttload of coin to go electric unless they're trying to make a statement or generate a cloud of smug.

Right now, batteries are a sponge. Takes a while for water to soak in, takes some effort to squeeze it out, even when soaked they don't hold all that much. Eventually over time they get ratty in the process and don't hold as much. Sure, you can tweak it in the margins, but it's still a sponge.

What we need batteries to be is a energy bucket. Pour energy in, pour it out, holds a lot and they last almost forever. We need something SO different from batteries you probably couldn't even call them that.

Electric cars come with a LOT of handwaving and caveats. You really need some smudgy glasses to look through to not see the details. They remind me of those little "solar ovens" that you built in elementary school: "oh, wow! This made my hotdog almost warm!".

Electric anything else (air transportation) come with such ridiculous parameters that it's like that James Bond Jetpack. Looks cool, flies cool, but ooops, you got 45 seconds of fuel, so better be on the ground by then. You can tweak the airframe and systems all you want, but we obey the law of thermodynamics on this planet, and you only get SO much by doing that. The gap between that any possible energy storage is simply too huge a gap to jump. These people are putting the cart SO before the horse it's almost comical, and reminds me of my professors putting buzzwords in their grant applications just to generate looks.

What we need is the battery equivalent technology leap like Lockheed did with the trailer mounted fusion reactor....oooops, we haven't done that either, so never mind.

Don't get me wrong. Electric motors are awesome, and we've done some really cool things with them over the past 20 years. But we should be solving the REAL problem, not picking out the drapes.
 
Back
Top