← Back to Squawk list
  • 38

Meet The Wright Spirit: An All-Electric Regional Jet

제출됨
 
Wright Electric this week announced the launch of the Wright Spirit. The Los Angeles-based startup is looking to bring in the first zero-emissions regional airliner with this program. Ultimately, the firm is looking to have a full-electric aircraft in the air by 2026. (simpleflying.com) 기타...

sparkie624
트렌드 세터뉴스 정키최대 수 도달열정자친구우등생 명부ADS-B 피더대변인아마추어 사진사홍보인아나운서자서전 작가

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 4
This would be good ferrying people from Washington Dulles to Reagan National Airport and not much more.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
wmr350
Mark Ryalls 7
An electric jet? Won't be a jet if there is no added thrust from expanding hot gases.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 6
More like A Ducted fan! Like on an RC A/C except in RC we call them as we see them.. "Ducted Fans"
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 2
I agree with you, but taking the RR Trent 1000 as an example, 90% of the thrust is produced by the ducted fan, yet we still call it a jet!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
You take away that 10% Thrust and you have no Thrust! But can you imagine an Engine Failure on one of these Electric Birds.... Put on the swimming Gear!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
wmr350
Mark Ryalls 1
I agree. But if you take a jet engine and remove the "burner cans" and the injected combustible, there would be no additional thrust from expanding gases. It would be just another air flow engine similar to the ducted fan.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 5
If you removed the Burner cans, it would not be an engine.. LOL
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
PFM anyway.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
nasdisco
Chris B 3
The next generation aircraft name is “Wright Stuff”
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
sriklin
Seth Riklin 5
They will require no different flight planning than jets burning Jet-A. By the time they are put into commercial operation more than 50% of your electricity will come from renewables, which provide the cheapest source of electricity by a wide margin in today's world. This delta will only get bigger, as wind and solar equipment costs continue to drop. These regional jets will be recharged in the time it takes to unload and reload passengers, as fast charging systems for cars have become commonplace today. Lithium issues will be gone, as batteries are going to be produced with more common inert metals. By 2050, most transportation will run on electricity substantially generated by renewable sources. I know of what I speak, as I am a jet pilot, who drives a Porsche Taycan, and who develops utility size wind, solar and storage projects in Texas, the oil capital of the USA. Visible proof is that the major oil companies are now purchasing wind and solar projects to insure their relevance in the future.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
cgwng
Alain Duncan 1
Cheapest source of electricity are "renewables" (misnamed, since they are not actually renewable)? Maybe if the government puts a 10000% tax on actual, reliable electricity sources and funnels that money towards these fantasy projects. Oil companies aren't stupid. They are investing in these scams so they can get the government money too.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
rockingh0rse
Stuart Barkley 2
Whatever happened to optimism?
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
VMGR352
Robert Jennings 3
"If God meant for man to fly, He would've given him wings.", said practically everyone on the day prior to September 19, 1783.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
jackpoole
Jack Poole 3
People's imagination and innovation is exceeding technology. I know it is possible but you should not get rid off affordable fuels until the technology allows you to do so.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
rdlink
rdlink 4
When you speak of "affordable fuels" do you take into account the actual cost of the "affordable" fuels? The world is on fire, and you're talking about keeping pennies in your savings account.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
cgwng
Alain Duncan 1
By "keeping pennies in your savings account", do you actually mean "allowing the poor to feed themselves and their families"? Take away affordable fuels and it's the poorest people in the world who will suffer the most.

And what do you mean by, "the world is on fire"? Please explain.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
timcoservice
timcoservice 2
California is known for rolling blackouts or brownouts. That would ground these planes.

They most will have to likely burn fossil fuel to generate electricity. Consider the energy it takes to manufacture the batteries and the waste they will produce when they are disposed.

They didn't mention recharging times between flights. Doesn't sound very practical.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 2
Flights can be booked from KLAZ to KONT. After takeoff, Captain declares "fuel" emergency to get priority handling to ONT. After that, passengers can hopscotch all the way to JFK with 60 mile hops. Very efficient and green too, Greta approved!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
PeterHR
Peter Hardley-Nice 1
Is it a jet if its electric or is it an enclosed fan?
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
It is nothing more than a Ducted Fan.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

n7777r
Derek Vaughn 1
Electrification will play a part in general aviation, but green fuel technology will be the future of commercial aviation.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
adalbert29
adalbert29 1
Applaud the innovation drive instead of second guessing from the armchair that it's not worth it. What's the downside in pursuing this - if it's not adopted you can keep burning Jet A until it's gone. Pretty picture....
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
EtienneDaniels
Etienne Daniels 1
Zero emissions with electricity, why people still believe that nonsense? THey need at least 30 years to offset the emissions caused during construction and from the providers of the electricity :)
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
tlfys1
tlfys1 1
A coal/natural gas powered electric aircraft... how innovative
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
My question is, with the required Lithium Batteries, how are they going to put out a Fire that you cannot extinguish with the removal of O2 and also remember the UPS Crash because of Cell Phone Batteries... Much the same thing, just a lot larger!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 2
For that very reason, Wright are also working on developing aluminium-air fuel cells. See https://newatlas.com/aircraft/wright-airliner-100-seat-aluminum-fuel-cell/
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
jbbooks1
Lewis Tripp 0
Super post, t lol
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
segulin
Tim Segulin 1
Aerial Range Anxiety?
Can you imagine the number of planes desperate to land because they're batteries are nearly drained?

Very early days for non-hydrocarbon propulsion IMHO. Time will tell.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I think that ATC will be up to their eye balls in emergencies, especially during weather holds.... Like in ORD for example where the weather changes every 10 minutes and usually for the worse1
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
RJBrown409
Randy Brown 0
Scam article. Touting non existent technology as being fully functional by a ridiculous time line.
Just another example of the “proof” Great’s handlers use to shame the world over a nonexistent problem.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
gcolive
George Olive 0
Airplanes are going to use hydrocarbons for the next hundred years. Let’s agree on that. But I’m curious, what do you mean by “a non-existent problem”?
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
RJBrown409
Randy Brown -1
“Climate change” is just repackaged “ Global warming, a reinvention of the “acid rain” scare that followed the ‘coming ice age” All of these are politically charged excuses for more and bigger government.
Every “in ten years the world will end” scare has proven false. Over and over again there are scare mongers trying to turn specious (un) scientific “evidence” into excuses for CONTROL.
Fool me one shame on you. Fool you over and over again shame on you.
Chicken little started it and the bigger and bigger government hacks have perfected it.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
SissyPrincess
Sissy Princess 1
It's now called "climate change" instead of "global warming" because of conservative nitwits who don't understand the difference between global climate and local weather -- the ones who think that a winter storm in their town invalidates decades of scientific research data collection.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
n7777r
Derek Vaughn 2
Liberals aren't any more versed about the actual data themselves. They're just aimlessly following the mantra like they are told.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
n7777r
Derek Vaughn 1
Here here^^^^
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
cgwng
Alain Duncan 0
You're 100% right, Randy Brown. It's all about more control in the hands of the criminal elite.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
gomedoc
Jon Schwartz 0
and we need electric because...????
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report
wecsam
David Tsai 2
It'll make flying cheaper!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 2
Because of the potential to reduce carbon emissions.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -2
Don't think of them as Electric Planes... They are Coal Burning or Nuclear powered. A few may be Natural Gas powered... But since there is loss in the transmission of Electrical Energy that makes the plane that much less efficient... I can just see a Gate return now... "I have been off the gate too long, I need to return for a Charge!
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 0
They could have those little charging thingies (like at Starbucks) down at the departure end of runways.... The FO's could jump down the "portable" stairways to insert a credit card. LOL
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report
cgwng
Alain Duncan -1
For the government subsidies, of course.
응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

로그인

패스워드를 잊으셨나요?
계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
FlightAware에 참여하세요
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료