A 62-year-old seaplane has become the world’s first fully electric commercial aircraft, taking to the skies above Vancouver for its debut flight.
The six-passenger DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver took off from the Harbour Air Seaplanes terminal on Vancouver’s Fraser River, just south of the Canadian city’s international airport. Its 15-minute maiden flight was powered by a 750-horsepower magni500 propulsion system, developed by Australian electric motor manufacturer magniX. Greg McDougall, CEO and founder of Harbour Air Seaplanes, was at the controls.
Plasma actuators could keep all-electric aircraft ice-free
Companies embrace potential of electric aircraft propulsion
According to McDougall, the aircraft will be the first in what he hopes will become an all-electric fleet. Harbour Air operates over 40 aircraft between destinations across British Colombia and Washington State in the northwest US, carrying 500,000 passengers each year.
“Today, we made history,” said McDougall. “I am incredibly proud of Harbour Air’s leadership role in re-defining safety and innovation in the aviation and seaplane industry. Canada has long held an iconic role in the history of aviation, and to be part of this incredible world-first milestone is something we can all be really proud of.”
The partnership between Harbour Air and magniX to create electric commercial aircraft was announced earlier this year, with the magni500 propulsion system unveiled at the 2019 Paris Air Show in June. According to magniX, the magni500 and the smaller, 375-horsepower magni250, both operate at 1900rpm. As well as powering de Havilland Beavers, the larger electric motor is also suitable for other ‘middle mile’ aircraft such as Cessna Caravans, Beechcraft King Airs and de Havilland Otters.
Harbour Air and magniX will now begin certification and approval for the propulsion system and the retrofitting process. Once certification is complete, the technology will be rolled out across the rest of the Harbour Air fleet.
“The transportation industry and specifically the aviation segment that has been, for the most part, stagnant since the late 1930s, is ripe for a massive disruption,” said Roei Ganzarski, magniX CEO.
“Now we are proving that low-cost, environmentally friendly, commercial electric air travel can be a reality in the very near future.”
Some information please.
What is the range of this unit?
What batteries does it use?
How does the weight of motor and batteries compare to the mechanical engine?
What is the recharge time?
‘stagnant since the late 1930s, is ripe for a massive disruption’
Apart from the jet engine
And materials
And aerodynamics
And radar
And control systems
And GPS
Having said that, it is quite cool. Any facts on range and charging times…
Exactly!!! and you can bet that if these figures were good, they would be boasting about them. Petrol has 47.5 MJ per Kg, Lithium ion has about 0.3 MJ per Kg. it might fly, so what, it is the performance comparison between a petrol plane and a battery plane that is important! Engineers need DATA, not headlines, especially claims like this.
You can find out a bit more if you read this
https://douglasmagazine.com/harbour-air-and-the-future-of-flying-electric/
Other references are available!
My wife and I flew with Harbour Air earlier this year. The company is pretty excited by the concept of “electrifying” their seaplanes. Most of their flights are less than an hour in duration, between the islands around Vancouver. As a successful business they won’t be throwing money away without reason. Short haul is all about getting up and getting down with a bit of a cruise in between so the relative wear and tear on propulsion units is more pronounced than with longer flight patterns.
Eventually, for light aircraft around the 15-20 passenger size, the maintenance and replacement costs of battery/electric prime movers (with much fewer component parts) should become economically viable, compared to what we have now.
That area of British Columbia is very conscious of environmental issues. They use seaplanes effectively to connect isolated communities and are trying to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint.
It’s still early days. Don’t be too critical, it’s not a stunt, they really are trying to make a difference.
Same old problem, first it cannot be done, then it is shown that it can be done, then it does not compete with an ICE motor, then it is shown it is competitive, and accepted. There are vested interests that do not want changes to the status quo, which is a very air polluting motor. We have all seen the progress of electric cars, which have passed through the the same process. Twenty years ago battery technology was basic, and electric cars were not competitive, but with improvements in battery technology, electric cars are more than competitive, and will be main stream for new car sales. Congratulation on achieving the first two stages, and with the advances in battery and solar technologies the final stages will be reach within a couple of years.
That’s probably what they asked about the Wright Brothers!
The calls for real information from everyone show exactly why people are suspicious of publicity. A 15-minute flight proves nothing except that it will take off and land – remember the Spruce Goose did something similar and never flew again. When we see the facts we can make proper assessments.
The Wright Brothers comment is kind of ridiculous. Anyone who uses that is proving they are ridiculous and should be ignored. “They laughed at Copernicus” They also laughed at Bozo the clown.
I’m sorry, The Prof, I don’t follow your logic (but then I am not a prof). I was simply saying that the Wright brothers probably faced scepticism over their invention, yet as we know their early prototype has been successfully developed into something today that neither they, nor the scoffers would have considered possible. They did indeed laugh at Copernicus and were proved wrong, but comparing Copernicus to Bozo is not comparing like with like. (I could even say it is a ridiculous comment and should be ignored but then I would be claiming some sort of intellectual superiority.)
The days of fossil fuel powered flight are limited. The final production technology will probably not look exactly like this prototype, maybe we will have fuel cell hybrids in future, but these guys have proved electric powered flight is viable.
I notice that this is a sea-plane, like the old Saunders Roes. Could we develop some of the canals to launch and land small taxi-planes? Would simplify navigation by following canals, and allow city centre access.
John Patrick Ettridge asserts that “electric cars are more than competitive”, but surely this is a triumph of hope over experience. If this were indeed true, the fleets of lorries trundling up and down the motorways would be powered by batteries and electric motors. In truth, the electric car is not likely to be competitive or even reasonably practical for real world driving patterns until we see the future launch of the iphone 9000 with its 6 month charging period. i would welcome the convenience of a practical electric car, the joy of which would undoubtedly match that of the digital camera over its film based predecessor, but the above comment by Phil about the relative energy density of Petrol vs Lithium ion, which apparently has a factor approaching 160 :1 surely illustrates the reality of the situation. Hope cannot triumph over the reality of battery chemistry and of the laws of physics.
Info-bites always raise propagandist suspicions with jaded laymen such as myself, hence I always look for Kipling’s friends in any article. With apologies to Andrew for an otherwise informative article (5 out of 6 ain’t bad), Ed Able’s comment did an admirable job of elucidating possible/probable explanations as to the missing ‘whys & wherfores’ of it (plus additional reference! ), well said and thanks Ed ! Regards.