[username_my1]

I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range.

This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.

[dillondoyle]

For me only if we figure out how to shorten airport time. Otherwise train in europe is easier - and usually located directly downtown or close instead of an hour in a car with traffic.

[Robotbeat]

Small aircraft can operate from regional airport which are much, much faster to board and disembark from then the large airports that behemoths have to use. I really don’t understand all the hate for a smaller electric aircraft. There are tons of advantages, and the difference in pilot labor costs are practically trivial. (I think a big driver for larger aircraft had been reducing number of engines per passenger as jet engines are expensive to maintain and the larger ones are also more efficient, but this isn’t really applicable to electric motors.)

[marcosdumay]

In principle, smaller planes could have a shorten airport time and use a closer airport.

I don't think it will happen, or at least that it will happen any time soon, but this is one problem that can be solved.

[mastax]

If someone gets a bomb on a train we'll figure out how to lengthen train station time...

[jeltz]

If? Spain has security checks on major train stations which makes it slower than in other countries but still way faster than airports. Trains have way more doors for example and it is easier to get a timeslot to leave than it is to get one to taxi.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

We already have trains, you know.

[iagovar]

Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.

[Milner08]

How long is the flight in comparison? And have you factored in the airport time into that?

I was looking at taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam, and a friend was dismissing it as it took 4 hours where as the flight is ~45 mins. Except its not, the flight its self maybe 45 mins, but you have to get to heathrow (which is further away than St Pancreas) plus get there an hour early. Then we would have to deal with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that.

Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.

[iagovar]

I don't know, but my city airport is small, so it's pretty much arriving and boarding. Now barajas is another history but I doub't ill be there for much more than 30 mins.

[choeger]

It also depends on train stations being accidentally close to where you depart/arrive. Most people don't live closer to a large train station then to an airport, I'd think.

[gspr]

Large train stations are far more common than large airports in Europe, so you got this the wrong way around.

[choeger]

How many of these train stations have been built after 1950? And what defines "large" in both cases?

[iagovar]

? I don't think so? Every large city has both a train station and a large airport.

[Milner08]

I dont think that's true at all. Train stations in Europe are far, far more common than Airports. You may have to change rather than a direct train, but chances are you can get around pretty easily.

[bertil]

Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo.

Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.

[rjsw]

Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.

[bertil]

I feel like you could handle Manchester to Lowestoft by train, then fly over the water The Hague and finish on a train.

Don’t get me started on the distances in Schipol: had too many race to catch tight connections at that airport…

[fogihujy]

Helsinki - Stockholm has too many travellers for a 19-seater. :)

Planes like this will most likely be used for routes from very small local airports to larger regional ones. I'd guess it's more likely to cover things like Rønne - Copenhagen, or Mariehamn - Helsinki.

[Robotbeat]

I wanted to love ekranoplanes, but although they have greater lift for a given span, they don’t have superior lift to drag ratios, which is what limits efficiency.

[bertil]

You could imagine a propulsion or even a lift mechanism closer to what is used for a hydrofoil. Modern sails or kites could improve the propulsion and handle the drag better.

I feel like we can make fast trains really worth it, but it makes the few connections I mentioned under-supported if you want to remain below a certain carbon footprint.

[hutzlibu]

"ekranoplane "

Can't they fly only over flat surface and very close to the ground?

That makes them quite unpractical in my opinion.

[bertil]

That certainly limits their universality, but you can imagine a network of fast trains when there’s ground and boats, or something faster on sea, when there’s none, to substitute to flying.

Ekranoplanes use the ground effect, which requires to be close to a flat surface, indeed, but the larger the place, the further you can be. Something the size of a 747 could be a couple dozen meters above the waves and fly smoothly above moderately rough sea.

[Robotbeat]

Every time someone points out how we “have trains already” it makes me think:

It’ll take less time to have operational electric passenger flights than it would to build a new high speed rail route. Particularly in the US (Europe is admittedly much better than the US in that regard).

[ClumsyPilot]

Small electric planes do not fly as fast as the current passenger Jets, theor speed is going to be comparable to a high speed train.

In fact i'd say europe could avoid airplanes entirely if it could sort out it's rail network, but, alas, going from Londom to Prague I'd have to change like 6 trains. You have to cross many different national signalling systems, gauge sizes and ticket offices.

[iSnow]

Track gauge is the same all over western and central Europe. And Europe is slowly but surely moving towards ERTMS/ETCS() for train control. Different voltages and frequencies are a problem but less than in the past thanks to modern electronics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System