[HN Gopher] All-electric Cessna Grand Caravan makes maiden flight
___________________________________________________________________
All-electric Cessna Grand Caravan makes maiden flight
Author : prostoalex
Score : 120 points
Date : 2020-05-30 03:59 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightglobal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightglobal.com)
| flyGuyOnTheSly wrote:
| Amazing that the only thing you hear is the wind rustling by.
|
| Silent planes would be welcomed by many people living in densely
| populated cities with high air traffic.
|
| They're almost giving away apartments near Pearson Airport in
| Toronto, for example.
|
| The price per square foot in that area is ~10x lower than the
| rest of the city and for good reason. (You are constantly
| bombarded by the sound of jet engines passing by).
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Not true; the only aircraft that does what you describe is a
| glider. Any propeller will generate a lot of noise, the tips of
| the blades get close to the sound barrier. Disclaimer: pilot
| here, I did fly gliders and I fly propeller planes regularly.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Well, even in a glider all the air moving by does quite some
| hissing, so its not completely silent (judging from the two
| flights I took as a passenger in a Blanik and Super Blanik
| respectively). Still much quieter than a small prop aircraft
| & you can talk with the pilot just fine.
|
| On the other hand from the ground - yeah, a glider is pretty
| much silent. You might sometimes hear some rather earie
| whistling from some types when they are directly above, but
| thats it.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| He said the wind is the only thing you hear. Yes, in a
| glider you hear the air moving, but adding a propeller adds
| a huge amount of noise over that base sound.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| I love the sound of airplanes and all things airplane related.
| I think you may have just given me a great tip as to where to
| buy real estate. Thanks!
| [deleted]
| perl4ever wrote:
| For all that you read about people complaining about airplane
| noise, I grew up only a mile or two from an airport and never
| thought about it nor do I remember anyone else complaining.
| But one of my recurring dreams/nightmares for most of my life
| is of watching a plane overhead and realizing at first
| something is wrong and then that it's going to crash in the
| back yard.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Considering the rate at which the general aviation fleet turns
| over (~none in ~forever), and that the typical Cessna is flying
| around with a World War 2 engine or its closely related
| descendant, I predict that it will be roughly infinity years
| before people who live at the ends of airports stop cursing the
| noises.
|
| Of course, if they just outlaw 100LL avgas and pass some noise
| regulations the problem will solve itself.
| unchocked wrote:
| Those people can curse all they want, but the airports
| predate their homeownership.
| briandear wrote:
| Or maybe people could stop buying houses next to an airport
| that has been around for 80 years and arriving surprised that
| people fly airplanes around airports.
| catalogia wrote:
| The typical non-electric Cessna Grand Caravan doesn't use
| avgas (they have turboprop engines), so outlawing leaded
| wouldn't ground them.
| perl4ever wrote:
| I was never clear on why leaded avgas wasn't banned long ago.
| I know I've run across information on the internet about
| aircraft engines that can run on unleaded.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| They're working on it. Can't ban it since many airplanes
| still require it.
| amluto wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. Ban it
| effective on a fixed date in a few years and introduce a
| favorable regulatory regime to help with replacements. If
| some planes won't be able to fly, so be it.
|
| Alternatively, introduce a Pigouvian tax: charge an
| obscene and increasing amount to burn leaded fuel.
|
| This is kind of like the regulations that permit grossly
| polluting old collectible cars to operate. Sure, they
| have history, but that's not a sufficient excuse to allow
| them to operate unmodified near other people.
| dpe82 wrote:
| Most piston engine aircraft in the country require, by
| regulation, 100LL. Oil companies and the FAA have been
| working for years to develop a replacement and came very
| close a couple years ago, but since the FAA _strongly_
| favors safety and reliability over almost any other
| consideration it takes a very long time to collect enough
| data to have confidence a potential replacement is truly
| equivalent. We have ~80 years of safety data for 100LL.
|
| Generally speaking, airports are reluctant to spend money
| on a second set of tanks, pumps, etc. required during a
| transition period; though some have - particularly in the
| midwest where there are a lot of less regulated homebuilt
| aircraft that can burn alternative fuels.
|
| A lot of pilots would love to burn something else. 100LL
| is relatively nasty and builds up in engines, shortening
| their life. It's even actively discouraged to burn 100LL
| in some more modern small aircraft engines like the Rotax
| 912 and pilots like myself who run that engine look for
| non-leaded fuel whenever practical because it's healthier
| for the engine. But well maintained aircraft last just
| about forever and the legacy fleet is absolutely
| enormous.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I'm an owner and pilot of one of the previously mentioned
| planes that run on leaded fuel. The current issue with
| your plan is that for a vast chunk of the GA fleet there
| is no certified alternative to leaded fuel. Some planes
| have supplemental type certificates (STC) available that
| allow them to burn unleaded fuel, but many do not (such
| as my Grumman Tiger). It's not just the engine, it's the
| fuel system in the plane that must be certified- this is
| not just a paperwork drill, there have been failed
| certification attempts because the fuel system couldn't
| deliver enough fuel pressure at certain temperatures.
|
| The FAA is required to evaluate the impact of new
| regulations on the existing fleet. A change that would
| eliminate or place a prohibitively high tax on leaded
| fuel would likely be shown to eliminate half of the GA
| fleet. This will not be approved until the impact can be
| reduced. Developing and certifying new engines and fuel
| system components for all the different aircraft type
| certificates is totally infeasible; a new fuel substitute
| is pretty much the only option.
|
| The FAA has made huge regulation changes before but there
| has always been an alternative. The recent ADS-B mandate
| requires about $5k of new equipment before a plane is
| allowed to fly where Mode C transponders were previously
| sufficient. This is/was expensive for many private
| pilots, but was deemed to be acceptable for the safety
| benefits gained. Some owners have chosen not to add the
| ADS-B equipment and haven't been allowed to fly in some
| parts of the country, but they can still fly most places.
| A fuel regulation that grounds half the fleet with no
| alternative regardless of the price is a completely other
| level of impact.
|
| The FAA and most pilots want an alternative to leaded
| fuel (at least for the assumed cost savings if not for
| the environment). Energy companies are working on
| unleaded substitutes but current options still require an
| STC to burn. You probably won't see leaded fuel going
| away until there is a universally approved replacement
| that can just take the place of 100LL at every airport in
| the country.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Props still make significant noise, especially at takeoff RPM.
|
| A friend of mine owned a house under the approach path to a
| medium-volume reliever airport (KBED). All of the piston
| airplanes that flew overhead were perfectly pleasant (at least
| to me), but the jets were notably more annoying.
|
| Carrying more power/noise, more speed, and more disturbance to
| stay flying while dirtied up, the difference was night and day.
| I suspect the PT-6 powered C208 would already fall on the "not
| so annoying" side of that spectrum (closer to the piston props
| than the turbojets' noise profile), so changing fuel might not
| provide that much relief to those who bought houses near
| airports.
| inamberclad wrote:
| I have a theory that we'll be able to reduce the RPM and
| increase the torque of these engines, versus conventional gas
| turbines and piston engines, thereby reducing the tip speed
| of the blades
| sokoloff wrote:
| Maybe. The PT6A already has a gearbox, so the engineers are
| presumably able to choose a reduction ratio and prop RPM
| quite independently of the gas and power generator
| rotational speeds. (There are still torque limits in the
| gearbox output, though it seems the same constraints would
| face an electric motor.)
| dpe82 wrote:
| In most planes, pilots are already able to chose their
| propeller RPM somewhat independently of torque by varying
| the pitch of the propeller. However, pilots typically
| optimize for rate of climb and not noise in order to get
| out of the low altitude / low airspeed danger zone as
| quickly as possible.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Yes. What GP is talking about though is changing the
| _range of speeds available_ for pilot selection by
| changing the prop length, airfoil, maybe number of
| blades, and other design parameters. IOW, the design
| elements, not so much the operational element. Similar to
| how the C421 cruises at 1800-1900 prop RPM to give a(n
| eerily) quieter cabin.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm skeptical about the $6 of electricity for the 30-minute
| flight, or at least want to see the assumptions there.
|
| Even at super cheap $0.06/kWh rates, and 100% plug-to-motor
| efficiency, that's only 100kWh. For a rated power of 560kW, that
| suggests an _average_ power setting of around 35%.
| darksaints wrote:
| That may be cheap for residential, but commercial and
| industrial rates are much lower. $.015 isn't uncommon.
| [deleted]
| sergeykish wrote:
| We have numbers for
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-57_Maxwell
|
| > maximum flight time of approximately one hour.
|
| > 47 kWh (170 MJ) battery packs weight 860 lb (390 kg) for a
| 121 Wh/kg density.
|
| 47 * 0.06 => 2.82
| latchkey wrote:
| $0.06 isn't super cheap for commercial electric rates, even in
| the US... for that, you're looking around $0.01-$0.03.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| _. . . average power setting of around 35%_
|
| That actually sounds about right. You only need full power for
| take-off.
|
| EDIT: Thanks for the corrections.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| not even close.
|
| Piston planes cruise at about 75% rated power (engine
| manufacturers do not suggest running engines beyond that for
| extended periods of time). Jets closer to 90
| sokoloff wrote:
| Jets typically _can't make_ 90% power in cruise and are
| often flying at 50% or lower fuel flows than takeoff. (You
| might be setting almost 100% N1 speed as your power
| setting, but that's not the same as setting 100% actual
| power in a jet in high-altitude cruise.)
|
| Fuel flow is a good proxy for power. From the Citation II
| flight manual: max cruise thrust settings (104% N1 over 25K
| feet) have a peak fuel flow of 1716 lb/hr at 15K feet vs
| 1083 lb/hr at 35K vs 721 lb/hr at 43K ft. Sea-level takeoff
| fuel flows are not given in the manual, but are around 2000
| lb/hr, so typical low 30s cruise flight is 55-65% power.
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| As a pilot, I fly full power at takeoff, of course. In my
| usual piston plane, I fly at 75% power until it cannot
| maintain that power (due to normal aspiration and no boost
| from, eg, a turbocharger), and then "flat out" beyond that.
|
| I do not think I have ever flown at 35% power except in the
| short time between final and touchdown.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| At the risk of sticking my foot in it even further . . .
|
| _I fly at 75% power until it cannot maintain that power_
|
| Does that not mean that you are actually flying at well
| under 75% of the rated power even if it is the maximum
| power available at that altitude?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Yes, though normally aspirated pistons typically stay
| under 8500 MSL and very rarely exceed 12500 MSL. IIRC,
| you can make 75% power unboosted through around 7000'
| MSL. I'd guess at least 90% of normally aspirated flight
| is under 7000'. It certainly was for me, even though my
| previous airplane could climb higher, it was slower up
| there, so I rarely flew it over 10K unless there was a
| screaming tailwind up high or terrible turbulence down
| low.
|
| If I looked over all my engine monitor downloads for
| power settings under 35% while airborne, I bet the
| average would be under 1 minute per flight and it would
| be between 200' and landing.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| It happens to fly low power, but only in rare occasions. I
| do that when I cross the mountains and I reduce the power
| while loosing altitude from ~ 10k to 200 ft at landing. The
| longest I flew with the engine turned off was ~ 30 miles,
| that was in a motorglider with the propeller feathered.
| These cases are so rare, but still exists.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Like the others, I'm also a pilot and confirm that we cruise
| in the 65-75% of rated power range in piston ops. Turboprops
| do have a larger power reserve / larger spread between rated
| and cruise power, but it's nowhere near 25% in cruise.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| How much would that change if you had a possibly lighter
| engine, and an empty hull (all extra weight disposed off)?
| sokoloff wrote:
| It's only on max range flights that I throttle back as my
| airplane gets lighter. On typical flights, I instead take
| the 3-4% speed increase as the fuel burns off.
|
| Lightness is a hugely important feature in airplanes. I'm
| not sure that current battery tech is poised to deliver
| on lighter aircraft for a given mission range. An
| additional drag (pun intended) for electrics is that
| landing weight is the same as takeoff weight except for
| skydiving ops.
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| That is ridiculous - you wouldn't carry the weight around for
| that power level for such a short flight segment need. If you
| are averaging 35% power you have WAY to big an engine in your
| plane!!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Electric motors are very cheap and light for a given power
| output, especially for forced air cooling, so oversizing
| them doesn't impact the cost or weight too much.
|
| They might use that fact to oversize them giving better
| redundancy (eg. one can fail during takeoff and it not be
| an issue).
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| In aviation where every kilogram matters and where you
| can put more batteries instead of an over-sized engine,
| that logic does not work. There is zero redundancy from
| oversizing the engine.
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| Probably a better way to estimate battery capacity is through
| weight. The article says that the battery weighs "roughly one
| tonne", and li-ion batteries weigh between 150-200 wh/kg at the
| pack level, so the battery is probably between 150 and 200 KWh.
| mceachen wrote:
| From the article: "charging times correlate closely to flight
| times, says Ganzarski. That means the batteries would need about
| 30-40min of charging following a 30min flight. The weight of the
| batteries makes swapping spent cells for fresh cells unfeasible
| between flights, he says."
|
| Does utilization for these short-hop routes correlate to this
| sort of down time?
| eigenvector wrote:
| It becomes more and more feasible the shorter the flight is,
| since the 'turnaround' time on the ground starts to become
| longer than the actual flight time. That's why Harbour Air,
| which operates ~20 minute seaplane flights from Vancouver, will
| probably one of the first airlines to operate electric aircraft
| in commercial service.
|
| https://www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/go...
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| It's probably longer than required for passenger flights. The
| Caravan is 9-13 passengers (depending), plus a little baggage.
| Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn.
| However the question is how many small commuter airlines are
| operating a flight with repeated as-fast-as-possible turn
| around?
|
| Cargo configuration, certainly seems like you could charge it
| faster than a load/unload.
|
| The thing about fast turn around's is that planes only make
| money when flying. However a big part of flying is the expense
| of fuel. So if you can make your hour flight in $12 of
| electricity, that brings the cost way down. That offsets the
| cost of sitting on the ground for an extra X minutes.
|
| Also gotta take into account the electric versions reduced need
| and cost of maintenance. So there is reduced aircraft downtime
| for less maintenance, and it costs less each time. Overall,
| that probably greatly increases the time available to fly and
| therefor the profit potential for the plane.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30
| mn.
|
| Ryanair is probably best at it, executing within time above
| but in a 737. You can hate Ryanair for some things, but I
| admire for how affordable they make flying.
| danielfoster wrote:
| This is amazing for rural communities and student pilots. And if
| it became safely possible to run the plane with just one pilot
| onboard for commercial service, this lower cost plane would have
| even more potential.
|
| Up to 40 minutes for charging could be an issue for airlines who
| want to turn planes around quickly, though I doubt Cessna
| operators are striving for Ryanair economics yet.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| The number of pilots has no correlation with the electric
| propulsion.
|
| For student pilots it is not amazing, in the flight school you
| need to do a raid (this is how it is called on this side of the
| ocean) flying between 3 cities and 500 miles minimum; you
| cannot do it with the electric plane and as a student you are
| not good enough to fly a different plane model (with ICE power
| plant) just for the raid, so you cannot complete the school.
| inamberclad wrote:
| You'll still be able to do most of your pattern work and
| general handling training in vastly cheaper electric
| aircraft.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Then what do you do, transition on a different plane during
| school? At that point you will need a full 45 hours or more
| on the second plane, negating the cheaper first plane.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I think if you were able to get the range up to 250-300 miles
| that would be a very big deal for far flung communities. All of
| those are underserved by air transport. Offhand thought is you
| probably could justify small pilotless freight aircraft.
| ggm wrote:
| How much further could an ePlane fly if it was possible to
| discard spent batteries? (Serious question)
| josephcsible wrote:
| In your hypothetical scenario, do you care whether the
| batteries are recoverable and reusable? If not, then you lose a
| lot of benefit of electrification.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Imagine if there were large fields (or lakes) every few
| hundred miles designated as drop zones where huge battery
| packs would be parachuted down into and recovered every
| couple weeks, from cross-country commercial flights.
|
| I'm sure there are a million problems with it, but you never
| know.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| The Cessna 208 Caravan has an empty weight of 2,145 kg. The
| article states the battery is roughly 1 tonne (1,000 kg). One
| could assume the electrified version is slightly lighter, sans
| batteries, empty due to the lack of need for a lot of the gas
| related items.
|
| So if the plane is now somewhere in the range of 3,000 kg at
| takeoff, clearly shedding up to 30% of the planes weight would
| allow it to fly quite a bit farther. That's one of the
| advantages of gas, as you burn it, you get lighter, you get
| more fuel efficient.
| brent_noorda wrote:
| Even as I bet against electric flight being commercially feasible
| except in extremely limited conditions, I'm excited by any news
| that I might possibly be worng.
| lstodd wrote:
| a range of 100 miles with 4-5 passengers
|
| where the kerosene-powered variant has about a thousand miles
| with ~7 passengers
| war1025 wrote:
| First thought seeing this was of the Dodge Grand Caravan minivan
| we had growing up.
|
| It's interesting how often names get reused.
| Havoc wrote:
| As a workload it sorta makes senses. You want raw output for
| take-off and then steady efficient power for cruise. Both of
| which electric motors can do.
|
| ...just a question of battery weight, which is dropping
| [deleted]
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Piston engines can also do. You want max output for take-off,
| but to maintain the cruise speed you need around 75% of the
| engine output and you fly at "steady efficient power" (75%) for
| cruise; there is no difference here. It's not like cars where
| you brake and accelerate many times.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Wow that's a strange choice for a name. Can't think of anything
| I'd less like to fly in than a caravan. Makes me think of boring
| trips and cheap flimsy tacky boxes liable to be blown away by the
| wind.
| wheels wrote:
| To resolve the confusion: that's British usage. In North
| America, the thing you're thinking of is called a "camper", and
| the association most Americans have with the word "caravan" is
| to a Dodge minivan.
| anamexis wrote:
| If it's any consolation, the Cessna Caravan predates the Dodge
| Caravan by 3 years.
| mr_spothawk wrote:
| we drove a dodge caravan around the country a number of times
| while i was a kid.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't know what a Dodge Caravan is specifically. This is
| what 'caravan' makes me think of though -
| https://www.practicalcaravan.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/02/... - not what you'd want to fly in!
| mr_spothawk wrote:
| this is what i was thinking
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=caravan+waggon&t=brave&iar=images
| &...
| the8472 wrote:
| Why is everyone thinking of cars? There is a far more
| picturesque and older meaning of the word.
|
| http://remarkablejourneys.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2015/09/Day...
| userbinator wrote:
| Because of this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan
|
| They were immensely popular throughout the 90s and early
| 2000s.
| joncp wrote:
| To be fair, Cessna had the name before Chrysler co-opted it
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Caravans have been a thing before either Cessna or Chrysler
| were founded.
| inamberclad wrote:
| Light aircraft aren't really known for having enlightening
| names.
| lallysingh wrote:
| I'm not sure people will be as ready to go back into 200+
| passenger aircraft as before.
|
| Small party flights could become more popular as the range goes
| up.
| ahelwer wrote:
| There's a very long way to go before safety is comparable. Last
| time I looked into it, you have better odds skydiving from a
| small plane than landing in it.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Not at all, skydiving from a plane without a parachute is
| almost always deadly (very few exceptions) while landing with
| an engine failure is something every student practice in the
| flight school (at least in my country).
|
| The smaller the plane, the easier to land it with an engine
| failure, the smaller the plan the fewer pieces that can
| break. yes, the average General Aviation pilot is quite bad,
| that explains the huge accident rate compared to airliners,
| but the reliability of the planes is not bad at all.
| m4rtink wrote:
| That's why I like gliders - one less component to fail (the
| engine) and every landing is an engine out landing, with
| the plane built and pilot trained to do that. :)
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| All pilots are trained to land with the engine out. Some
| are better and most are not, that's not the plane's
| fault. Yes, glider pilots are the best at this :)
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Most small aircraft accidents are completely preventable loss
| of control (either by taking off with too much weight,
| stalling during takeoff, or stalling during landing) or
| flying into IMC (instrument metereological conditions
| including clouds, fog, etc.) and becoming disoriented and
| losing control. Simple engine failure is something that every
| private pilot trains for.
|
| Improvements in training can significantly help with both.
| Instrument training in particular drastically reduces the
| risks of inadvertent IMC. Some technology also assists with
| the latter (eg; synthetic vision on foreflight on aircraft
| with garmin G1000 cockpits gives you references for how the
| plane is positioned and any terrain around you you could
| hit).
| purplezooey wrote:
| _...receives power from a 750V lithium-ion battery system
| weighing roughly one tonne..._
|
| It's like a giant flying battery with a few seats.
| umvi wrote:
| Is it any quieter than gas engines? Last time I flew in a Cessna,
| the propeller was bone-jarringly loud.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Unfortunately the real limitation here is still weight. You can
| get excellent torque and incredible reliability from electric
| motors vs. gas powered engines but the biggest difference is that
| as you fly longer the plane gets lighter with a gas powered
| plane. With an electric plane you're always at full weight and
| that limits your flexibility.
|
| Worse, batteries are still very, very heavy compared to the
| energy they store. I suspect that as battery technology improves
| we'll see a drastic shift toward electric planes being more
| appealing.
|
| For GA aircraft they'd be amazing. Excellent power, significantly
| higher reliability, much lower maintenance costs, and much lower
| cabin noise. But at the weights listed, I can't imagine a Cessna
| 182 going electric anytime soon.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Regular 208 spends 150 kg per hour, which is microscopic by
| aviation standards. A piston An-2 spends the same, but in super
| expensive avgas, and flies half as slow. A more comparable
| DHC-3 flies a bit faster, at 135 kg per hour, again, avgas.
| the-dude wrote:
| Doesn't a full battery carry more electrons and is therefore
| heavier?
| jbotz wrote:
| No. Aside from the fact that the weight of the electrons,
| although not zero, is negligible, they also don't get "lost"
| in the process... they just get moved around, in the case of
| battery power literally from one end of the batery to the
| other. Combustible fuel in contrast, gets turned into gases
| (CO2 and H2O) which are blown out the exhaust and thus lost.
| jcims wrote:
| Think of it like a mousetrap. Two energy states, same mass.
| jedberg wrote:
| Darnit. I saw Grand Caravan and thought it was an all-electric
| minivan.
|
| I've been waiting years for an electric minivan. The moment
| someone comes out with one, I'm turning in my current minivan,
| which I love, for an all electric van.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Toyota, out of all companies, is planning on releasing an
| electric Proace:
|
| https://www.autoevolution.com/news/new-toyota-proace-ev-sche...
|
| Not exactly a minivan and probably won't reach the US, but it's
| a start.
| jedberg wrote:
| At least they'll prove it makes sense! Maybe it will motivate
| Honda to do an electric Odyssey.
| BrentOzar wrote:
| > I've been waiting years for an electric minivan. The moment
| someone comes out with one, I'm turning in my current minivan,
| which I love, for an all electric van.
|
| Bad news: while you can still buy minivans, they're being
| phased out in favor of SUVs. Dodge just put the nail in the
| coffin for the Grand Caravan, and production stops this year:
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/33702/death-of-an-icon-dodge-g...
|
| The investments are in the SUV/CUV segment where profit rates
| are higher.
| jedberg wrote:
| Yeah I noticed that trend too. :( It's a shame because we had
| both and the van is just so much easier for hauling 6 people
| than any SUV out there.
| legitster wrote:
| Same.
|
| The Model X gets pretty close, but is way too gimmicky with
| it's touchscreen everything and cutesy doors.
|
| A modern minivan is already the most sophisticated vehicle on
| the road. I just want one in electric.
| jedberg wrote:
| The Model X sadly does not have nearly the versatility of my
| Honda Odyssey.
|
| And it costs an extra $100K. :)
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The model X is more expensive, but it's not $100K more than
| a new Honda Odyssey. Heck, it's not $100K more than your
| _current_ Odssey! The X starts at $80k, while the Oddysey
| costs somewhere between $30k and $45k.
|
| It's only the top of the line performance trim that costs
| $100K.
| jedberg wrote:
| Maybe I'm misremembering but in 2017 I think the maxed
| out Model X was $138,000 and my Honda was $45,000, so
| almost $100K difference.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I believe you're right, prices appear to have dropped.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Nissan had one since 2012, but only recent oneS have reasonable
| battery sizes
| jedberg wrote:
| Apparently not here in the US. :(
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Ford is launching an electric Transit at the end of 2021 ('22
| models.) We have a larger family, so we're hopeful the range,
| power and cost will be acceptable. Swapping out low MPG large
| commercial and passenger vans for electric will prevent a lot
| of gasoline and diesel usage.
| p1esk wrote:
| Chrysler sells Pacifica Hybrid (which is actually a plug in
| hybrid, so pretty close to all electric in every day
| situations). 2021 Toyota Sienna is also going to be a hybrid
| (but not a plug in).
| jedberg wrote:
| Yeah I looked at that Pacifica hybrid. Sadly the all-electric
| range is too small for our use case.
|
| Didn't know about the Sienna. That could be interesting. From
| what I understand the Toyotas are fairly hackable to turn
| them into plugin hybrids.
| arecurrence wrote:
| Only 6 months after the first commercial airplane electric
| flight. https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-
| announce-s...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-05-30 23:00 UTC)