Last year, United promised to slash its greenhouse-gas emissions by 100 per cent by 2050.

How are they going to offset gasses emitted by passengers on the plane?

Forcibly put the gasses back into the passengers on debarkation perhaps?

So you give a pint of blood on take-off. They put it into a Sodastream and carbonate it. Then pump it back into you while you're strapped down for the landing. Who doesn't want fizzy blood?

Whether the range of electric aircraft could be enhanced by having Aircraft-Carrier type launch systems, so that at least the initial impetus for take-off was partly powered externally? It would not need such high acceleration as on a ship but cold help somewhat.

Not a bad idea. Some sort of ground conveyor would also be useful rathet than burning power on taxiing

Or, remove the wings, power the wheels and have it run along a prepared surface or track. Perhaps even chaining a number together which are travelling at the same time to the same destination ... ?

It's what I think when I see lorries nose to tail on the motorway... if only we could put each of those containers on some kind of chassis, link them all together with just one drive unit... maybe put them all on tracks to make it easier to pull ... maybe even electrify the whole system!

Ah, the wonders that future technology will bring us !

Aircraft are already moving to using batteries / motors for taxiing so that the engines can be started as late as possible (they are not very efficient at idle / low power).

Would putting 19 passengers under 4 Gs be commercially viable?

The launches on aircraft carries only do that due to their small length, with appropriately designed aircraft to cope with the strain.

If this was in an airport, you could have the launcher a couple of km long, so acceleration could be no more than you get now, as you'd have more time to get up to speed. This would also mean no major changes needed for the aircraft design to cope with high Gs.

Another alternative would be to strap a couple of RATOG packs to it...?

Don't know how true this still is, but the same [1]question was asked a while back (3 years ago), and one of the replies includes the maths. This assumed a 250nm range and similar sized aircraft as the one in the reg article. The thing that may have changed is the weight of the batteries, where the linked question assumed a third of the aircraft weight is the batteries, this could be lower now of course with tech improvements.

The TLDR is basically that assuming you accelerated the aircraft to full cruise speed via the launch system, you'd save less than 0.5% of the energy for the total flight (assuming full range), which equates to about 1.19nm extra range (on top of 250nm, so not much really).

The shorter the flight, the worse this gets of course. This could be improved by having lighter batteries, so perhaps needs a tweak for the new aircraft, but I don't imagine this has changed dramatically in the last 2-3 years or so (incrementally probably yes, but not enough to impact things here).

I'd suspect the extra cost and complexity of the launch system, will never out-way the gain you get, especially for short haul aircraft.

[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47816/does-a-take-off-assist-make-sense-for-electric-aircraft

It wouldn't add much to the range per flight, but it would add to the longevity of the batteries making total ownership costs potentially much less for the operator. The batteries wouldn't need to dump large amounts of current over the short periods required on each takeoff, my reasoning for this is drones, if flown in normal mode batteries have a much longer lifespan than if they're flown in sport mode.

At take-off engines are typically at or close to maximum power. The requirement is to accelerate the aircraft to climbing speed, not cruising speed. There was a piggy-back airmail aircraft that was launched on top of a Sunderland flying boat and could cruise and land, but not take off under its own power.

https://www.alamy.com/the-short-mayo-composite-a-piggy-back-long-range-seaplaneflying-boat-combination-produced-by-short-brothers-at-their-works-at-rochester-kent-the-smaller-aircarft-the-mercury-is-placed-on-top-of-the-maia-flying-boat-the-plane-is-expected-to-bring-india-and-new-york-within-days-of-no-stop-flight-12-october-1937-image359628594.html

A typical winch launch for a glider uses about 1mile of 'piano wire' cable and can lift the glider to 1500' in still air.

"At take-off engines are typically at or close to maximum power. The requirement is to accelerate the aircraft to climbing speed, not cruising speed."

Maybe as this is a small aircraft it can take the length of a long airport runway to get to takeoff speed. Then, unlike jets, it won't have to do an initial steep climb before reducing power for noise abatement. An electric plane will be much quieter and hence may have lower and smoother power requirements.

On another topic - refuelling. Do the ground crew come out with a pair of giant caterpillar clips? 20 minute turnrounds won't get that much power back in. Or do they have a quick swap with already charged battery pack?

It would probably have quite an impact but the issue is the resultant physical stresses on the passengers. It is one thing to be strapped into a form-fitting seat that supports you and kicked at 4G than a standard passenger seat.

What is acceptable to the military is probably not viable to the general public.

Whoop-de-do. 250 miles is basically my "might as well drive" range.

Yup. With the travel to/from an airport and the security check-in faff, that is a no-brainer, and "no market here" proposition.

UP to 250, half in real life. But I don't think they realistically expect this to take off (sorry). I think it's just a message: look! look! we! are! green! GREEN! GREEN!

Do they mean 250 mile range including or excluding contingency? You're going to want at least 30 minutes of "spare" battery for missed approaches and other unexpected events.

Yes for most journeys 250 miles is driving range, although it depends on the geography of the specific journey. As it it could be much further and slower to drive if there were mountain ranges, bodies of water etc you have to drive around, that a plane can fly over.

Absolutely, I'm not entirely sure what parts of the US this would apply to, but I can envision a fair few flight routes in Scotland where this could be viable: the likes of Glasgow - Campbeltown (min 3h30 by road with 2 ferries, 5h otherwise), Aberdeen-Orkney (4-5h drive, 2h ferry), Orkney-Shetland (8h ferry).

Range wise, this would work for the likes of Glasgow - Belfast, or Liverpool - Dublin but not enough capacity with 19 seats.

Westray to Papa Westray. 90 seconds by plane, not much other option. Ideal for electric and on the way.

And what if you are already at the airport, landed after a md/long-range flight? And your final destination is just that bit further? Also you are through security. So , wait 30 mins and take a 30-40 minute connecting flight, or a (minimum) 4 hour drive?

Chances are that short hop could be served by a far more efficient train service.

One that doesn't have to lift its batteries into the sky.

And can make multiple stops.

And run all day without having to stop to recharge.

I can see some examples where it's a good idea, such as reaching remote islands, but not the ones they give.

My nearest airport is Leeds. Electric connection to another UK airport or to Schiphol sounds ideal. Much quicker than getting the train or driving.

250 miles is basically my "might as well drive" range.

Wrong use case. The traffic they are anticipating almost certainly is international travelers and/or business trips that depart/arrive at a relatively small number of airports. If you live in New England and want/need to travel to Germany would you rather drive 4 or 5 or 6 hours to Montreal, JFK or BOS, deal with difficult traffic, and pay through the nose for parking? Or would you rather drive 50 minutes to a regional airport, Lebanon, NH perhaps, park for free or at minimal cost, and check in there? Yes, you may spend an extra hour or so hanging out in airport lounges. And yes that is ... ahem ... terminally dull. But if the alternative is an hour or so fearing for your life in Boston's notorious traffic, airport lounges begin to look better and better.

International travellers are rarely on the "short hop" range, especially in the USA.

Since vtcodger lives in Vermont (USA), he is well aware of his international travel options, I often travel to/from New England and I concur with his post.

Plow?! This is an English-speaking organ. Please do it properly

Middle English plouw, plough is a C17 attempt to sound French

No, it isn’t. Middle English didn’t have standardized spelling, and was spoken long before the 17th century. This word’s forms in Middle English included “plough”, “ploughe”, “plouh”, “plouw”, “plow”, “plugh”, and “plughe”. It descends from the Old Norse word plógr , which displaced the native Old English sulh (that -h was pronounced /x/, like the -ch in modern German Bach ). The modern form of sulh , “sullow”, has been relegated to dialectal use.

See title...

(19 offends my OCD)

I'll just fold your coat for you--->

Assuming it's the same layout as I've seen before, it's likely a single isle, with 10 seats down one side, 9 down the other.

The missing seat for the 9 side is due to the door, the aircraft only have a single door on one side, so you can fit an extra seat in on the other side.

19 is probably the limit where you need cabin crew

US Air regulations require cabin crew for 20+ passengers.

Now can we cancel hs2?

HS2 will be replaced by HS3, wich will tunnel underneath England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland.

The main station will be underneath the Isle of Man, and the tunnel walls will be painted in a repeating Union Jack pattern. The station entrance staircases will be carpeted in over-size English flags made out of robust micro-fibers. The production contracts will be handed out on a no-competition basis due to Covid. The whole thing will prove to be an integral part in levelling up the UK.

Surely this where hydrogen would be better as the fuel source or is the fuel-cell not viable in the air? At least then you can stick with well-proven electric motor /propeller technology.

There was a test not that long ago of an electric jet engine but I think the scale was significantly larger than a 19 seat exec jet.

Thinking about 19 seats, what is the maximum number of passengers before cabin crew are needed? This looks to be a perfect replacement for G-ERTI......

Arthur, have you remembered to charge G-ERTI?

Fuel cell becomes viable if you require low power over a long time. This aircraft appears to require the opposite. Assuming that the hydrogen storage issue can be solved, it might be a better solution to modify (simplify) a jet engine to burn H2. While most of the imissions would be H20, there would still be the issue of NOX emissions.

+1 for that :-D

But they'll be recruiting for a pilot now that Martin has defected to be with his princess. And anyway they'd have to change from "MJN Air" to "MEA Air".

(For the uninitiated this is a reference to the Brilliant radio comedy series "Cabin Pressure" by John Finnemore, available from the BBC.)

Sorry, I forgot that 'Herc' joined the crew of G-ERTI at the end of the last series.

As you were.

Nothing to see here, nothing at all. No embarrassment at all. (blushes).

END - SPOILER ALERT

It's not an airline, we only have one plane, you can't put one plane in a line - it's an airdot

Where I live there are already a number of 19 seat aircraft in use as "might as well drive" doesn't apply unless you can drive over the sea!

Currently the airline uses some Dornier 228 NG 19 seaters.

Most of the flights are less than 120 miles (one route is only 25 miles, another is only 30 miles) so potentially the return flights (or even multiple return flights) could be done without recharging.

I imagine that there are a lot of use cases where this aircraft makes sense.

Inter island travel in the Caribbean for instance would be a perfect use case for this type of aircraft.

"up to" 250 miles sounds good but it won't all be in the air - don't forget all that trundling along taxiways and aprons, I assume the engines won't consume power unless actually moving, like for cars? Although I wouldn't be too impressed to see the props keep stopping and starting as we move from terminal to runway...

Any idea how much power will be available for in-flight entertainment? Or even lighting/heating the cabin... Self-loading cargo tends to demand both.

Mines the one with the "I was a Fitter before Pontius was a Pilot" and "We never forget you have a choice" patches...

Sure I see the comments querying the range and practicalities but my view is this;

I guess UA know a little bit more about how these are to be deployed and potential demand than what we do

It's an SBU of United Airlines coughing up the cash. Probably involves tax deductions, government grants etc?

It's 250nm now but come on, progress tells us tech will develop it into something much more useful. 400nm? 500?

We have to start somewhere. Not sure why so many on here lately have been so negative about new stuff, we're a tech forum complaining about innovation...

I'm also assuming these would be quite a bit quieter too would they not?

I'm sure I'll get downvotes, possibly rightly so. There just seems to be so much downplaying about the right steps being made and a focus on the fact these steps aren't already the finished article.

We see it whenever hydrogen is mentioned too (the trains trial reported on the other week as an example). Come on FFS we have to start somewhere right?

"United, Mesa airlines order 200 electric 19-seater aircraft for short-hop flights"

Fucking idiots.

Do electric aircraft have regenerative braking (or Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems?) like electric cars and lorries do?

If your answer is "yes", please show your workings.

For some reason your post made me imagine them using the props as wind turbines while parked, letting them spin in the wind as it were. Put a smile on my face.