I guess in the future we won't need active noise reduction headsets? On another note; a lot of comments about how this is useless because the range is so short... baby steps. You have to start somewhere and improve; just 100 years ago we were flying aircraft made of wood strips held together with animal glue, covered in fabric, powered by rudimentary 20hp engines. Without these early pioneers, improvements will never be made.
The issue with your statement to me is the fact that we’ve worked batteries and motors for a long time already and with the knowledge of aircraft design, it really does seem like a dead end.
@@poochie5543 Not really. The first commercial Lithium-ion battery was only introduced in 1991, that's just 33 years ago. The first highway-range capable EV, the Tesla Roadster only available in 2008, that's just 16 years ago. And unlike cars, the weight of the battery is much more of an issue in aircraft. It really is just a start. But with the proliferation of EVs, the research on high capacity batteries would only increase.
I don't think battery power will every be super useful for aviation, these crafts that get an hour or so of flight time are cool but any plane that needs to carry cargo or stay in the air for a long time will have to use some sort of fuel. Though I'd love to be proven wrong. I personally think it's possible that we'll see hydrogen powered planes eventually, and those will be much more practical. Obviously when using a combustable gas as fuel there are saftey concerns. But I don't think those will be any harder to overcome than they where with liquid fuel. gashious fuel can be dumped safely in a matter of seconds and at any altitude if needed. and hydrgon can be used to generate power WIHOUT combusting it. i don't know exactly how it works but the powerplant of a hydrogen plane would still be electric you would just be generating electricity rather than storing. I'd be willing to bet the primary thing holding hydrogen powered flight back are FAA saftey guidlines.
@@jacob416 I don't think that there is anything to be gained from discouraging exploration of this field by calling it a dead end as you have though. people called the original lightbulb a dead end and said we should continue to rely on candles- the scope of growth in the timeframe of a century cannot even be grasped. this is true not just for lightbulbs but practically every technology in which people cared to invest their time and interest. we live during a time where certain technologies can become outdated only to reemerge decades later and be improved upon or even become the new norm/meta. If you don't much care for electric planes as hydrogen ones or traditional Fossil fuel planes, that's fine. but you never know, within the last 20 years people were amazed at the Prius, And also get to watch the first battery powered plane fly for 50 whole minutes. In the grand scheme of things that's nothing. There's constantly intelligent passionate people at the forefront of these things, and so long as they are allowed to do so, people are constantly making breakthroughs and exposing information that revolutionizes processes.
Keep in mind the batteries used in this plane have an energy density of only 155 Wh/kg, but there's already companies shipping batteries with 3x the density (e.g. Amprius), so we can expect much better range in the near future.
Cool story. But unlike car's, planes are already maxed out on efficiency. Let's take this plane with 50mins flight time. 3 times it's current efficiency is 2.5 hrs. Let's say battery tech maxes out at 3 times that efficiency or 7.5 hrs run time. That's still less than half max range now. Battery tech will have to have a massive novel technological breakthrough to meet current capabilities. Incontinental travel is still possible on smaller distances and mid flight recharging or catapult/recycled launch battery packs/rocket assists for take off as the energy to get to crusing speed is a big hit on range for large passenger A/C especially.
@@jpscharged 2.5 hours flight is very good for many GA use cases. I get you are talking about NY to London style travel and that is something electric is not suited for but if current tech can manage a 2.5 hour flight with the right battery then that's a massive swathe of potential flights that could be fully electric.
And in what applications are they proven to be reliable? Right, they are flying with the absolutely best batteries avalible, there will be better batterys in the future, but that will be atleas 5 years away before they are concidered proven for airplane use.
@@jpschargedWait till we get some Lithium Air batteries! Over 5.2kw/Kg max therotical... If you include air... Luckily we don't have to bring our air! So excluding Air it is over 1.1kw/kg! So say we reach half that we are getting 5,000wh/kg, and that is more than enough for most flights. Batteries have so much potential in getting lighter, charging faster, and energy density. Definitely would be cool to get to a decent range. Electric planes won't be able to hold as many people either. Yet the savings in fuel cost will make a switch so much more enticing. Airliners will just need more planes or more flights. Then you'd have to factor in propulsion. I'm not too knowledgeable on electric jet engines honestly. The one alternative fuel I just don't see becoming a reality is hydrogen... The volumetric density is ridiculous. What is mind boggling to me is water holds more hydrogen per liter than pure liquid hydrogen... Makes no fucking sense.
Can see battery degredation over time being a big issue especially when you've already only got 50mins best case. It'll be interesting to see how this gets regulated. This is really exciting technology though and lowering costs for training would be a great outcome.
One company that has an electric aircract is experiencing extreme battery degradation after some 200 flights, making it a non-starter economically. Apparently the rapid rate of discharge, and charge, really affects the life, not to mention that more energy is used in making of the battery pack than if they just used a normal ICE. Just sayin'......
@@vumba1331 "not to mention that more energy is used in making of the battery pack than if they just used a normal ICE" Please don't spread misinformation.
@@experimentalcyborgplease enlighten us how an aluminum engine is more degrading to the environment than a battery. I just did a quick google search that said that it takes 500,000 pounds (250 tons) just to make on Tesla battery😂
@@poochie5543 It is based on the initial creation of any given battery, but when you consider recycling and its usable life it always offsets the larger upfront cost. I have had 3 EVs and that is a conversation that comes up ALL the time. People just dont want to research all the details and want the fast answer when normally its only 33.33% of the actual answer.
@@Dimrain13 An ICE engine too can be recycled. After TBO they are shipped to meet specifications again and can be given back to the owner to be installed again. Just because you say a battery can be recycled, doesn’t mean that battery the whole thing will be recycled. About 5% of it will be recycled (which is a joke).
As a pilot of the Velis (the certified version of the Alpha in Europe) who has made his 1st solo in it, I have to say that this aircraft is perfect for basic training and patterns works. For my case, I saved around 15% by doing 1/3 of my hours in it. And to be fair, yes the range is pretty bad for an aircraft, even though I can still do some sighseeing flight of about 40 minutes but it seems like in a couple of years we could go twice as far as now with battery technology improvements.
Sadly: No. Batteries have hardly improved the last decade because the limits of the cell chemistry are close, and new cell chemistries with the right combination of properties are not in sight (except 100 miracle battery announcements per year that never materialize). It's a technology dead end. Electric planes will need to wait for H2 fuel cells and tanks that are there, but everything needs generations to get into the GA market that hardly attracts investors. How many extra hours did you need to learn to also fly a SEP plane for the rest of the training? Most likely more that the savings on the 1/3rd electric hours. Sorry to say that, but I fear it's true.
@@BlueSideUphow sure can you be but also wrong at the same time😮 not only that there are many technologies in development, but they are also being implemented / tested while writing this message😊 Sodium batteries are already on the cars and the solid ones are tested + those on oxygen, plastic and air are announced. Leave your mentality behind because there are many possibilities because there are large electric ships and even tanks 😅 Electric is the future not hydrogen because it becomes an ecosystem with what you already use not with what you never had 🎯🍻
@Seventh7Art Tesla is actually a good example. I had one of the first MS in Germany, about a decade ago. It was sold with 8 years warranty on the battery. The 80 kWh weight was about 750kg, a little better than 10 kg per kWh. It was dramatically reduced in charging speed by over the air "update" because it would not have survived 100 kW charging at superchargers for 8 years and Tesla didn't want to be forced to replace the batteries for free on warranty. Since then, there was neither a significant increase in gravimetric energy density or sustained charging speed. To become usable for real flying, a plane with 45 minutes safe endurance would have to increase minimum a factor of 5, and survive charging of that in 30 minutes and still have that endurance after 12 years. That's the battery electric dead end. Progress slows as physical limits are getting close (for the current cell chemistry that fulfills all requirements best), was maybe 20% last decade. A factor of 5 is not going to happen, not even a (useless) factor of 2. And I am the first to clap and cheer if a new cell chemistry is found that is practicable for an airplane and has 2 kg/kWh energy density and charges at 2C from 20%-100% SoC and doesn't burn after a crash and is affordable and is available in terms of resources, and isn't to big in volume, and... if would be nice if the required power plant to charge planes at 500kW each would be at every airport. Sadly...
@@BlueSideUp I passed my SEP with less hours than most of the others student pilots of my flight school so I actually didn't have to do more hours than them. And regarding the battery technology, I'm not saying that in 5 years we'll see electric airliners, and I even think we'll see no battery powered airliner at all, but for the Velis we'll have better batteries, I asked someone who works in the battery industry, and he says that the batteries are in the process of being certified and we'll have between 1h30 and 2 hours of flight time with them.
I guess it is a viable tool for basic training for smaller airfields where you can basically start the training right above the field and don't have to fly several minutes to a training area. But considerung no one (in the broader public) had thought 30 years ago that electric cars would become a practical option, I say lets see what the future brings.
imo in its current state its a great tool for students to save money on shorter one hour lessons. Then for cross country and ifr work you can switch to a gas plane
I'm really liking the focus on a training use case. Easy to set up, fly out, come back, recharge, do it again. Also, electric engines have much finer digital metrics and remote management. The range anxiety would also really push an emphasis on flight planning. Normal planes of this size have multiple hours of flight time.
Stef, I was at Lilydale on Sunday for the Lilydale Flying Club’s monthly BBQ. Korum was there to give us aviators a presentation of the same aircraft. And what was our main question of concern? Range Anxiety! He did well and answered all our questions. That man knows his stuff! It’s primary role as a trainer is where it is well suited. Not so good for longer distances though. Perhaps in times when batteries improve, it will improve its range.
He is very knowledgeable on the aircraft for sure. Also I didn't tell him I was going to ask that question in the air, so his reaction was a very genuine one.
Since my pleasure is flying for the sake of flying, the quiet that an electric motor brings is a game changer who totally compensate the anxiety range.
As a student pilot with only a few hours under my belt this aircraft would be a game changer where I live. We have a beautiful lake about 10 miles away and another airport about 15nm away with a tower. I cant hardly afford the fuel cost right now to go fly and get in my hours. This would speed things up a lot and it would also be less intimidating for beginners not having to worry about mixture and oil pressure and all of the noise associated with the exhaust, and the added benefit of not having to breath in leaded gas fumes. However I love vintage planes and eventually I still want a nice piston plane, but if I could afford one of these I would get one just to go fly around that lake!
@williamk5998 No, I plan on going back up very soon. 4 years ago was when I was flying. I had a lot going on at the time and decided to put it off until I had better mental health. I do see where your coming from though. Regardless, my only option is a 40 year old rickety varga. I'm excited
@@UneducatedEngineer444 I owe you an apology. I was a bit cranky when I wrote that... My anti-EV prejudice was showing. The Varga rocks. I saw one at the Hood River Fly in a few weeks ago in IDF livery. I think the IDF uses them as trainers. Don't let the small things intimidate you though. There are adequate large things to do that. Certainly don't be concerned about leaded Avgas or mixture or noise. Oil pressure, now you should be a little concerned (vigilant) about that ;-) The mixture control is just science and with correct instrumentation nothing to fear. In any event fly on and God bless.
@williamk5998 Haha you know, I was also a bit cranky because I was on the last 5 minutes of my lunch break, I totally get that! I appreciate the kind words. I really want to learn as much as I can
It lays the groundwork for practical use. i.e. pilot training. When the new battery technology hits the market offering double the Wh/Kg, it could lay the groundwork for short range commuter aviation. Also hybrid technology could make it even more viable.
I passed my type rating earlier this year on the Velis Electro. It is a great aircraft to fly in. The availability of power (how quickly it reacts when you apply power) is great. I also love the propeller stopping when you go to idle. The flight school explained that the aircraft is a huge success with eco-conscious aspiring pilots. They said that their customers are not the typical flight students but often older people that always wanted to fly but had an issue with the pollution. The anxiety range is indeed an issue, I remember having a battery issue while working in the pattern. We made a short circuit and landed quickly and safely.
That is pretty asinine considering how environmentally unfriendly mining lithium and cobalt is. Chances are the batteries are also being charged by coal and natural gas.
I flew the same type last year in NZ (ZK-EAL), and i was really impressed by the performance and smoothness. It also reminded me of flying JetA1 Robins with FADEC in Europe, with the ease of engine control. I truly believe this is a way forward, and i won't hesitate flying more electric, if i would get a change.
It's the only positive they can mention. Since he doesn't mind paying 3x higher price for 3x less performance, you might as well not count the cost of the solar array, just call it "free".
I can see the attractions of electric a/c but for now at least surely it's best to train in ICE aircraft where you learn about engine management, magnetos, icing, carb heat, rapid cooling, etc. These are all things you're going to encounter in the current GA world. So once you've got a PPL then yes I can see that's going to be fun, reducing work load, quiet, modern, sexy etc. but to train, no, not yet. Great vdeo though. I defo want one!
Excellent video. There is an electric aircraft in America that can fly two hours as an ultralight, or four hours as a PPL A aircraft. Training in the Electro provides cheaper training up to cross countries then a gas one would be required for the longer trips, but this would save thousands of dollars. As batteries get more capacity, and lighter, the future is very interesting.
Almost there. Probably good for pattern practice. But my lessons were 1.2-1.5 on average. Once the battery can be twice as good, I think it'll "take off".
How much of those lessons were spent in the run-up bay? ;) Since the price is less than half.. just do twice as many lessons. That way you're getting twice as much training for the same price.
@@ElectricPlaneGuy It takes about 5 minutes to check mags, carb heat, and cycle props if you are in a complex aircraft and even less in a 172/152 which 99% of students will be in anyways.
So basically, the entire range of the aircraft is about what one should carry as an emergency load of fuel, above and beyond the estimated requirement for the trip. This is just for flying around the farm, or your airport.
I feel like it would need double the range to be a good trainer. Here in So-Cal it can take 15 minutes easy to just get out of the terminal area and to an un-used training area for practicing manuvers. That only gives us time for like 30 minutes of manuvers before heading back.
Stefan, have a look into the E22Spark from Bader Aero, might be a subject for a future video! Saw it and sat in it at the Adelaide Motorsport Festival. Good to see money being invested in these types of aircraft
As a training craft Stefan, I think this is a good option in the short term until even better technology comes along that doesn't rely so heavily on the electrical grid. However, as a personal craft to own for the longer term, and as much as I love to see innovation in almost all areas of life, this would not appeal to me with earth's weakening magnetic grid, and the likelihood of more issues with electrical components and equipment in general from geomagnetic storms and solar flares. Additionally, as battery life decreases, so too does the range of the craft. Great to see the technology being showcased though, as it may inspire others to create a whole new type of technology that won't rely as heavily on batteries or fuel.
Agreed. This is just the next step but certainly a LONG way from taking over the combustion engine market. The invention of solar panel wings (as mentioned in the video) would probably have to be completed to become competitive. And not to be picky, but paying for electricity to charge the batteries is a "fuel" cost.
@@Design_no It's tripled in the past 10 years and many reports of 4x increase on top in the pipeline. The cost has reduced by 90% over the same period.
@@marksjudgycarI’m gonna need some sort of link to where it says this, no way they took a battery 10 years ago and a one from today and saw those increases.
Excellent video, but respectfully, the title of this video is slightly misleading. $0 fuel cost makes sense because the aircraft is electric, however, it technically costs money to charge the plane, and the plane uses electricity as its "fuel" to fly, so the reality is it costs way more than $0 to operate it. Nice video, though! :)
When I was learning to fly I always had at least 90 mins in the air. This does not include taxi and hold times. That aircraft would be useless for training. How do you do the cross country flights?
Range is real simple , do you fly on 5 % tank of gas? ( i dont know im not a pilot) do you drive on 5 % gas? rarely when i just missed my exit or that gas station is a bit further than expected . the same with electric cars and planes, so a 30% reserve is in my opinion very safe. Im also curious to that charging station , you are holding a standard 3 phase connector meaning there would be a charger on board, the charging station is just a device delivering and limeting that power, yet you say the charging station converts AC to DC , so the charge plugs are completely different from normal charge points, it would make sense to not have a onboard charger, but that limits your charging locations. i think there is some miscommunication about that. Im also very curious about any faults and what happens when 1 cell drops . All in all amazing product, i would love to see more of this.
This one only needed 3 phase powering a AC-DC converter/charger he had in the hanger through the window. Like anything it will be demand driven. Also Airports have so much hangar space with roof tops not being used there is tons of room for solar installations to support this as well. I think as time moves on and opportunities arise, solar and batteries and better infrastructure will come to be anywhere it is needed.
@@Mike_Costellomaybe in a couple decades, still struggling with electric car power stations and now with Tesla falling and huge competition, we might even see different car companies with different charge stations🤷 I personally will never buy an electric plane because to me a running engine is half the fun.
Electricity is free? Batteries don’t perform well in extreme cold. How is the range in the north during the winter and you get up to altitude where it’s colder?
I'd only begin to consider purchasing this plane if the range and endurance of the aircraft was increased... great video though! Love how quiet it is. Cool plane 👍🏻
Doing your PPL you will need to fly a 150 NM x country. Until we can get a 4 hour battery there will be no change but if we can get a 4 hour battery then aviation will change. I personally would like a 4 hour e plane.
The range really isn't there yet, even for training. We have a 45 minute reserve time over here, which is nearly the entire endurance of the battery right now. And in our school, lessons are all 1hr+, even just circuit training clocks an hour. At the rate technology is going, maybe in a few years it'll be a viable intro trainer, but I can't see it getting to being suitable for the cross country lessons.
Consider that the battery technology used in the Alpha Electro is about 10 years old, with todays batteries range would be double, and battery technology improves constantly, research labs expect at least double to triple capacity possible compared to what we have today. There is definitely a huge future for electric aircraft. Insane high efficiency, power can be produced locally with photovoltaics or wind, extremely low maintenance, no regular meaintenance of the engine... imagine what magnitude of savings we are talking about. And off course much less noise and no pollution !
My first EV was a Nissan LEAF. I had to have it shipped in because local dealers were not yet offering it. I would barely make it to/from my office, 55 miles total. Several EVs later, I drive my Tesla wherever I need to go and I honestly can't remember the last time I was worried about my range. I know that airplane progress is going to be slower, but I think that even today the technology is there to give this airplane an extra 30-45 min. So with 1.5 hours plus reserves, it should be able to handle just about any local training flight. Perhaps even a short cross-country if there is a charger at another airport.
I can see the value in this when it comes to training. I guess the only piece left is the chemistry problem leading to more energy density I the battery. So, this being really useful is closer than we know.
Marchetti's constant is the average time spent by a person for commuting each day. Its value is approximately one hour, or half an hour for a one-way trip. People won't spend more than 40 minutes commuting to work anyway, so can you make this thing the size of a van? :-)
I doubt it. Denser batteries = more dangerous batteries, I can imagine suffering a fire in flight would be impossible to recover from if it is a battery fire.
@LaurensPP how would you eject the batteries? It's got to be a manual release that works while on fire. If the batteries are in the wings, then are you ejecting the wings? You need the wings to fly. How much does the ejection mechanism weight? The batteries will be more vulnerable to a fire if they have to be exposed to the outside to allow an ejection.
@@emperorofthegreatunknown4394 I'm not sure i'm convinced. It sounds a bit like the EV fire argument. In that scenario the reality is EVs catch fire 100 times less often than ICE cars and they're not 100 harder to deal with
"0 fuel cost" What is the free source of electricity that you use to charge the plain with? What is the cost of battery replacement? How many years will you get out of a set of batteries? No, it is not "0 fuel cost" It is a very high fuel cost and horribly short range that will get progressively shorter as batteries deteriorate. I wish people would be honest regardless of what narrative they are pushing.
@@Annon89 I understand solar that is why I can't be BSd into believing nonsense. Batteries are very expensive and they have a short life cycle, they take a long time to charge and you don't have charging stations everywhere, they will charge you to recharge your batteries where they exist so it definitely will not be "0 fuel cost".
What happens when you are flying in the winter? My electric car uses an extra 25% in the winter without using the heater. With using the heater, my car uses 40 to 50% more power depending on how cold it is outside. I do like the concept. Hopefully, they can figure out a better battery pack.
I can see a potintial safety risk with the prop stopping. In a gas plane you yell clear prop and start it and anyone with half a brain knows that it’s now a dangerous place to be, but with it stopping people may mistakingly think the aircraft is off and walk up to it just to have it start moving again. Perhaps a safety measure would be to keep it moving slowly, or have lights or sound or something.
Pretty clear that we aren’t there yet. In the us, a cross country flight is regulated to be 50+ nm which this would have a hard time completing. Adding a VFR or IFR reserve regulations and you’re done for. God forbid you run into fog and have to divert. Too low a useful load, too small a range. We’ll get there; but that ain’t soon.
the advantage with planes vs cars is that they fly above the clouds. so they can get full solar power so if they place solar panels on the wings and body of the plane that will surely improve the range while in flight
It's always a problem when someone talks about range on an electric transporter whether its plane, car , bus. But then we look at the technologies we have and the opportunity it gives us and then we realise how much better it is and how range is also the same on all transporter since day one of their creation! GREAT VIDEO by the way!
First up, great content! Had a thought, no much discussion about pilot work load, engine management and so on; looks like it’s less to do. What’s your thoughts?
I like how, while they're in flight, they often gaze out the window or the sides but then suddenly stare at each other as if they don't know where to look.
The other I was at an airfield in sweden where one of those electric plane operate, and one striking element is the noise. There are so quiet compare to traditional petrol engine. But useful load and range remain too small. Excellent video, like always
Thanks Stef for the video! Is this similar to the electric aircraft you flew in SA a little while back? I am optimistic and excited for electric aircraft, I think it’s great what they have developed so far, gotta start somewhere. The distance of the first powered flight was only 120ft!
In my opinion, nowadays, battery technology is not good enough for planes, since weigh is really important, and in the same weigh of a modern lithium battery, you get 5 times more energy from gasoline, and also you need over an hour to charge that battery, were in 15 minutes you can fill both wings of a small plane, so a plane being in the ground for over 1 hour for a fly instruction school is not financially worth, and being able to only fly for only 40 minutes after over an hour of charging time, when you have to accumulate 40 hours of flying time to get a private pilot license (in my country) is not worth it to go for the electric option if it's not really cheap, which of course is not the case, and you would say: "Yes, but you don't have to buy oil and fuel so the maintenance is cheaper" but batteries wear out fast if you put a lot of cycles to them, so lets say that you do 5 training flights a day, that use 80% of the battery capacity, you are putting 4 cycles a day to the battery, and let's say you are doing this training flights 5 days a week, that's 80 cycles a month and 960 cycles a year, and after 1000 cycles your battery degradation will be between 15-20% if it's a top tier battery brand, so you will have to put new batteries every year, which I don't know how much will cost, but maybe is over the price of the fuel, oil and normal maintenance that an internal combustion engine need. When I got my license in a Cessna 152 8 years ago, the training sessions were 3 hours long, 2.5 hours flight time and 30 minutes of ground preflight and taxi, and when the plane land at the school hangar, they had the fuel pump and while the next student did the walk around and preflight, another person filled the tanks in less than 15 minutes, it was really efficient, and the plane was in the air over 7 hours a day.
Really excited about electric aircraft like this and others. As other comenters are saying re: this aircraft's battery energy density vs existing new tech, the flying time can already be greatly improved. A general aviation aircraft that could readily handle 2-3hour hops would mean tons of recreational and shorter range commercial flights could become electric. Thats a lot of flights, to remove leaded aviation fuel burning engines from.
No higher density batteries on the horizon but the ET vehicle secrecy is cracking and looks like it might be unstoppable which means future aircraft will be electric but a very different breed with range beyond this world.
Hi Hazza, for sport aircraft that don't fit the 'Turbine powered' or 'Piston powered Aircraft', the regulations are quite specific. Before the latest revision in 2018, it was actually at 'Pilots discretion', but the latest revision states to refer to the POH for the aircraft you are flying for minimum reserves, which indicates a 30% safe reserve. Given the very low drag high glide ratio of 15:1, this is plenty for safe holding pattern time. Other less efficient planes would require more. You can read up on it all in the reserve requirements section of the CASA plain English guide.
Don`t forget the higher you go the colder it gets, and battery efficiency drops dramatically . More range , more batteries more weight less payload etc.
Jet-A and AVGAS have an energy density of 12,000 Wh/kg. The best batteries out there today have an energy density of 500 Wh/kg. I see the appeal of electric planes for the basics of flight training but as of today they are completely useless for any kind of trip one might want to take. Even were energy density to double they are still weak compared to liquid fuel.
Lets look at the advantages of gas powered planes: 1. about 4 or 5 hours endurance, as opposed to less than 1 2. the fuel when burnt weighs 0 pounds, the battery never loses weight 3. very fast refueling 4. cheapest option, (no battery, purchase fuel as needed) 5. in short, better in every way, (will never be replaced by electric airplanes) For those who like driving Teslas and are bothered by the smell of avgas, this is always an option.
Still at the early phase of electric aircraft, the endurance will get better overtime but I wouldn't expect to be hopping into one anytime soon given I fly piston ac regularly. 60 mins approx just doesn't excite me.
What is the expected life time of the battery. What is the replacement cost? Hi does that compare to a traditional engine in terms of life span and replacement cost?
There is no such thing. Modern batteries won't degrade over your own lifetime to ever need to be replaced. This is 2024, not 2005, kiddo. There is no replacement cost since a battery that would suffer like that would have a detrimental manufacturing error and would be covered under warranty. There are Teslas from 2012 out there with 380,000 miles that have only lost 20% of their battery. LFP EVs will go millions of miles without losing 1% (just about every EV in the last year has LFP tech). There is no cost of maintenance outside of hydraulics and routine testing in an EV plane. The extreme low cost to operate is pretty much the entire point. We are talking about a cost difference in 90th percentile for EVs. This tech is exploding right now, and the plane in the video is working with 10 year old battery tech. Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus already have EV commercial planes in R&D that have similar distances to their jet-counterparts. Not to mention the plethora of companies that have LFP tech in their planes they are developing, that have ranges in the 3-4 hour range on the same fixed-wing platform.
I guess in the future we won't need active noise reduction headsets?
On another note; a lot of comments about how this is useless because the range is so short... baby steps.
You have to start somewhere and improve; just 100 years ago we were flying aircraft made of wood strips held together with animal glue, covered in fabric, powered by rudimentary 20hp engines. Without these early pioneers, improvements will never be made.
The issue with your statement to me is the fact that we’ve worked batteries and motors for a long time already and with the knowledge of aircraft design, it really does seem like a dead end.
@@poochie5543 Not really. The first commercial Lithium-ion battery was only introduced in 1991, that's just 33 years ago. The first highway-range capable EV, the Tesla Roadster only available in 2008, that's just 16 years ago.
And unlike cars, the weight of the battery is much more of an issue in aircraft. It really is just a start. But with the proliferation of EVs, the research on high capacity batteries would only increase.
I don't think battery power will every be super useful for aviation, these crafts that get an hour or so of flight time are cool but any plane that needs to carry cargo or stay in the air for a long time will have to use some sort of fuel. Though I'd love to be proven wrong.
I personally think it's possible that we'll see hydrogen powered planes eventually, and those will be much more practical. Obviously when using a combustable gas as fuel there are saftey concerns. But I don't think those will be any harder to overcome than they where with liquid fuel. gashious fuel can be dumped safely in a matter of seconds and at any altitude if needed. and hydrgon can be used to generate power WIHOUT combusting it. i don't know exactly how it works but the powerplant of a hydrogen plane would still be electric you would just be generating electricity rather than storing. I'd be willing to bet the primary thing holding hydrogen powered flight back are FAA saftey guidlines.
Well said mate
@@jacob416 I don't think that there is anything to be gained from discouraging exploration of this field by calling it a dead end as you have though. people called the original lightbulb a dead end and said we should continue to rely on candles- the scope of growth in the timeframe of a century cannot even be grasped. this is true not just for lightbulbs but practically every technology in which people cared to invest their time and interest. we live during a time where certain technologies can become outdated only to reemerge decades later and be improved upon or even become the new norm/meta. If you don't much care for electric planes as hydrogen ones or traditional Fossil fuel planes, that's fine. but you never know, within the last 20 years people were amazed at the Prius, And also get to watch the first battery powered plane fly for 50 whole minutes. In the grand scheme of things that's nothing. There's constantly intelligent passionate people at the forefront of these things, and so long as they are allowed to do so, people are constantly making breakthroughs and exposing information that revolutionizes processes.
Keep in mind the batteries used in this plane have an energy density of only 155 Wh/kg, but there's already companies shipping batteries with 3x the density (e.g. Amprius), so we can expect much better range in the near future.
Cool story. But unlike car's, planes are already maxed out on efficiency. Let's take this plane with 50mins flight time. 3 times it's current efficiency is 2.5 hrs. Let's say battery tech maxes out at 3 times that efficiency or 7.5 hrs run time. That's still less than half max range now. Battery tech will have to have a massive novel technological breakthrough to meet current capabilities. Incontinental travel is still possible on smaller distances and mid flight recharging or catapult/recycled launch battery packs/rocket assists for take off as the energy to get to crusing speed is a big hit on range for large passenger A/C especially.
@@jpscharged 2.5 hours flight is very good for many GA use cases. I get you are talking about NY to London style travel and that is something electric is not suited for but if current tech can manage a 2.5 hour flight with the right battery then that's a massive swathe of potential flights that could be fully electric.
And in what applications are they proven to be reliable?
Right, they are flying with the absolutely best batteries avalible, there will be better batterys in the future, but that will be atleas 5 years away before they are concidered proven for airplane use.
@@jpschargedIntercontinental 😅not a weak bladder 😅
@@jpschargedWait till we get some Lithium Air batteries! Over 5.2kw/Kg max therotical... If you include air... Luckily we don't have to bring our air! So excluding Air it is over 1.1kw/kg!
So say we reach half that we are getting 5,000wh/kg, and that is more than enough for most flights.
Batteries have so much potential in getting lighter, charging faster, and energy density. Definitely would be cool to get to a decent range.
Electric planes won't be able to hold as many people either. Yet the savings in fuel cost will make a switch so much more enticing. Airliners will just need more planes or more flights.
Then you'd have to factor in propulsion. I'm not too knowledgeable on electric jet engines honestly.
The one alternative fuel I just don't see becoming a reality is hydrogen... The volumetric density is ridiculous. What is mind boggling to me is water holds more hydrogen per liter than pure liquid hydrogen... Makes no fucking sense.
Can see battery degredation over time being a big issue especially when you've already only got 50mins best case. It'll be interesting to see how this gets regulated. This is really exciting technology though and lowering costs for training would be a great outcome.
One company that has an electric aircract is experiencing extreme battery degradation after some 200 flights, making it a non-starter economically. Apparently the rapid rate of discharge, and charge, really affects the life, not to mention that more energy is used in making of the battery pack than if they just used a normal ICE. Just sayin'......
@@vumba1331 "not to mention that more energy is used in making of the battery pack than if they just used a normal ICE" Please don't spread misinformation.
@@experimentalcyborgplease enlighten us how an aluminum engine is more degrading to the environment than a battery. I just did a quick google search that said that it takes 500,000 pounds (250 tons) just to make on Tesla battery😂
@@poochie5543 It is based on the initial creation of any given battery, but when you consider recycling and its usable life it always offsets the larger upfront cost. I have had 3 EVs and that is a conversation that comes up ALL the time. People just dont want to research all the details and want the fast answer when normally its only 33.33% of the actual answer.
@@Dimrain13 An ICE engine too can be recycled. After TBO they are shipped to meet specifications again and can be given back to the owner to be installed again. Just because you say a battery can be recycled, doesn’t mean that battery the whole thing will be recycled. About 5% of it will be recycled (which is a joke).
As a pilot of the Velis (the certified version of the Alpha in Europe) who has made his 1st solo in it, I have to say that this aircraft is perfect for basic training and patterns works. For my case, I saved around 15% by doing 1/3 of my hours in it. And to be fair, yes the range is pretty bad for an aircraft, even though I can still do some sighseeing flight of about 40 minutes but it seems like in a couple of years we could go twice as far as now with battery technology improvements.
Sadly: No. Batteries have hardly improved the last decade because the limits of the cell chemistry are close, and new cell chemistries with the right combination of properties are not in sight (except 100 miracle battery announcements per year that never materialize). It's a technology dead end. Electric planes will need to wait for H2 fuel cells and tanks that are there, but everything needs generations to get into the GA market that hardly attracts investors.
How many extra hours did you need to learn to also fly a SEP plane for the rest of the training? Most likely more that the savings on the 1/3rd electric hours. Sorry to say that, but I fear it's true.
@@BlueSideUp laughs in 4680 Tesla batteries...
@@BlueSideUphow sure can you be but also wrong at the same time😮 not only that there are many technologies in development, but they are also being implemented / tested while writing this message😊 Sodium batteries are already on the cars and the solid ones are tested + those on oxygen, plastic and air are announced. Leave your mentality behind because there are many possibilities because there are large electric ships and even tanks 😅 Electric is the future not hydrogen because it becomes an ecosystem with what you already use not with what you never had 🎯🍻
@Seventh7Art Tesla is actually a good example. I had one of the first MS in Germany, about a decade ago. It was sold with 8 years warranty on the battery. The 80 kWh weight was about 750kg, a little better than 10 kg per kWh. It was dramatically reduced in charging speed by over the air "update" because it would not have survived 100 kW charging at superchargers for 8 years and Tesla didn't want to be forced to replace the batteries for free on warranty. Since then, there was neither a significant increase in gravimetric energy density or sustained charging speed. To become usable for real flying, a plane with 45 minutes safe endurance would have to increase minimum a factor of 5, and survive charging of that in 30 minutes and still have that endurance after 12 years. That's the battery electric dead end. Progress slows as physical limits are getting close (for the current cell chemistry that fulfills all requirements best), was maybe 20% last decade. A factor of 5 is not going to happen, not even a (useless) factor of 2. And I am the first to clap and cheer if a new cell chemistry is found that is practicable for an airplane and has 2 kg/kWh energy density and charges at 2C from 20%-100% SoC and doesn't burn after a crash and is affordable and is available in terms of resources, and isn't to big in volume, and... if would be nice if the required power plant to charge planes at 500kW each would be at every airport. Sadly...
@@BlueSideUp I passed my SEP with less hours than most of the others student pilots of my flight school so I actually didn't have to do more hours than them. And regarding the battery technology, I'm not saying that in 5 years we'll see electric airliners, and I even think we'll see no battery powered airliner at all, but for the Velis we'll have better batteries, I asked someone who works in the battery industry, and he says that the batteries are in the process of being certified and we'll have between 1h30 and 2 hours of flight time with them.
I guess it is a viable tool for basic training for smaller airfields where you can basically start the training right above the field and don't have to fly several minutes to a training area. But considerung no one (in the broader public) had thought 30 years ago that electric cars would become a practical option, I say lets see what the future brings.
imo in its current state its a great tool for students to save money on shorter one hour lessons. Then for cross country and ifr work you can switch to a gas plane
I'm really liking the focus on a training use case.
Easy to set up, fly out, come back, recharge, do it again. Also, electric engines have much finer digital metrics and remote management.
The range anxiety would also really push an emphasis on flight planning. Normal planes of this size have multiple hours of flight time.
How many lessons do flight schools give per day and how long does it take to recharge this plane?
@@robertbrandywineit takes 72 hours to fully recharge.
Stef, I was at Lilydale on Sunday for the Lilydale Flying Club’s monthly BBQ. Korum was there to give us aviators a presentation of the same aircraft. And what was our main question of concern? Range Anxiety! He did well and answered all our questions. That man knows his stuff! It’s primary role as a trainer is where it is well suited. Not so good for longer distances though. Perhaps in times when batteries improve, it will improve its range.
He is very knowledgeable on the aircraft for sure. Also I didn't tell him I was going to ask that question in the air, so his reaction was a very genuine one.
Since my pleasure is flying for the sake of flying, the quiet that an electric motor brings is a game changer who totally compensate the anxiety range.
You can always get a muffler. I'm surprised more planes don't have them. Then it's the volume of a car (plus prop).
Also worth noting lilydale in eastern Melbourne are flying pipistrel electrical planes now for RA training.
As a student pilot with only a few hours under my belt this aircraft would be a game changer where I live. We have a beautiful lake about 10 miles away and another airport about 15nm away with a tower. I cant hardly afford the fuel cost right now to go fly and get in my hours. This would speed things up a lot and it would also be less intimidating for beginners not having to worry about mixture and oil pressure and all of the noise associated with the exhaust, and the added benefit of not having to breath in leaded gas fumes. However I love vintage planes and eventually I still want a nice piston plane, but if I could afford one of these I would get one just to go fly around that lake!
Gas is one of the lesser expenses in aviation.
@williamk5998 No, I plan on going back up very soon. 4 years ago was when I was flying. I had a lot going on at the time and decided to put it off until I had better mental health. I do see where your coming from though. Regardless, my only option is a 40 year old rickety varga. I'm excited
@@UneducatedEngineer444 I owe you an apology. I was a bit cranky when I wrote that... My anti-EV prejudice was showing. The Varga rocks. I saw one at the Hood River Fly in a few weeks ago in IDF livery. I think the IDF uses them as trainers. Don't let the small things intimidate you though. There are adequate large things to do that. Certainly don't be concerned about leaded Avgas or mixture or noise. Oil pressure, now you should be a little concerned (vigilant) about that ;-) The mixture control is just science and with correct instrumentation nothing to fear. In any event fly on and God bless.
@williamk5998 Haha you know, I was also a bit cranky because I was on the last 5 minutes of my lunch break, I totally get that! I appreciate the kind words. I really want to learn as much as I can
@@williamk5998 god bless
It lays the groundwork for practical use. i.e. pilot training. When the new battery technology hits the market offering double the Wh/Kg, it could lay the groundwork for short range commuter aviation. Also hybrid technology could make it even more viable.
Uses old Battery tech. Already @ 3x wh/kg
I passed my type rating earlier this year on the Velis Electro. It is a great aircraft to fly in. The availability of power (how quickly it reacts when you apply power) is great. I also love the propeller stopping when you go to idle.
The flight school explained that the aircraft is a huge success with eco-conscious aspiring pilots. They said that their customers are not the typical flight students but often older people that always wanted to fly but had an issue with the pollution.
The anxiety range is indeed an issue, I remember having a battery issue while working in the pattern. We made a short circuit and landed quickly and safely.
You need a type rating for the Velis Electro?
That is pretty asinine considering how environmentally unfriendly mining lithium and cobalt is. Chances are the batteries are also being charged by coal and natural gas.
@@sierrakilogulf avgas is still several times worse than lithium batteries
I flew the same type last year in NZ (ZK-EAL), and i was really impressed by the performance and smoothness. It also reminded me of flying JetA1 Robins with FADEC in Europe, with the ease of engine control. I truly believe this is a way forward, and i won't hesitate flying more electric, if i would get a change.
$0? Who paid for the electricity?
😂
Was looking for this 😂
It's the only positive they can mention. Since he doesn't mind paying 3x higher price for 3x less performance, you might as well not count the cost of the solar array, just call it "free".
$0 fuel cost, who said anything about electricity?
Been following his Journey introducing this aircraft to Australia looks to be getting traction.
Great update on the Pipestrel Stef, seen a few on it since its been around the UK
Thanks Marvin, appreciate you jumping in early to watch it.
Always see them flying at Jandakot in Perth. They are so quiet, I never realise they are right above me. Great vid too Stef!
I can see the attractions of electric a/c but for now at least surely it's best to train in ICE aircraft where you learn about engine management, magnetos, icing, carb heat, rapid cooling, etc. These are all things you're going to encounter in the current GA world. So once you've got a PPL then yes I can see that's going to be fun, reducing work load, quiet, modern, sexy etc. but to train, no, not yet. Great vdeo though. I defo want one!
Excellent video. There is an electric aircraft in America that can fly two hours as an ultralight, or four hours as a PPL A aircraft. Training in the Electro provides cheaper training up to cross countries then a gas one would be required for the longer trips, but this would save thousands of dollars. As batteries get more capacity, and lighter, the future is very interesting.
Thanks Simon, glad you enjoyed this one.
Which aircraft are you referring to? I want to learn more about that
I'm going for a flight in one of those later this summer. A company called London Airsports operate them from Damyns Hall Aerodrome in Essex.
Great editing once again!
Almost there. Probably good for pattern practice. But my lessons were 1.2-1.5 on average. Once the battery can be twice as good, I think it'll "take off".
How much of those lessons were spent in the run-up bay? ;) Since the price is less than half.. just do twice as many lessons. That way you're getting twice as much training for the same price.
@@ElectricPlaneGuy It takes about 5 minutes to check mags, carb heat, and cycle props if you are in a complex aircraft and even less in a 172/152 which 99% of students will be in anyways.
So basically, the entire range of the aircraft is about what one should carry as an emergency load of fuel, above and beyond the estimated requirement for the trip. This is just for flying around the farm, or your airport.
We just got a Velis at my flight school in Ontario. I want to fly it at LEAST once before I move on from the school.
I feel like it would need double the range to be a good trainer. Here in So-Cal it can take 15 minutes easy to just get out of the terminal area and to an un-used training area for practicing manuvers. That only gives us time for like 30 minutes of manuvers before heading back.
Nice! here in Annecy, France there is one flying around.
Great insights! Thanks for sharing.
Stefan, have a look into the E22Spark from Bader Aero, might be a subject for a future video!
Saw it and sat in it at the Adelaide Motorsport Festival. Good to see money being invested in these types of aircraft
As a training craft Stefan, I think this is a good option in the short term until even better technology comes along that doesn't rely so heavily on the electrical grid. However, as a personal craft to own for the longer term, and as much as I love to see innovation in almost all areas of life, this would not appeal to me with earth's weakening magnetic grid, and the likelihood of more issues with electrical components and equipment in general from geomagnetic storms and solar flares. Additionally, as battery life decreases, so too does the range of the craft. Great to see the technology being showcased though, as it may inspire others to create a whole new type of technology that won't rely as heavily on batteries or fuel.
I'm more on the side of looking at it as a prototype, but it certainly has plenty of potential. Cool video, Steff.
Thank you, glad you found it useful.
Agreed. This is just the next step but certainly a LONG way from taking over the combustion engine market. The invention of solar panel wings (as mentioned in the video) would probably have to be completed to become competitive.
And not to be picky, but paying for electricity to charge the batteries is a "fuel" cost.
Stefan, thank you, this was really amazing. I am a PPL trainee and this inspired me and opened my eyes. Thank you!
Great stuff Stefan … as progress is made to improve energy density in batteries we’ll see more of these in the future
What progress has been made in recent years? Big fat zero.
@@Design_no It's tripled in the past 10 years and many reports of 4x increase on top in the pipeline. The cost has reduced by 90% over the same period.
@@marksjudgycarI’m gonna need some sort of link to where it says this, no way they took a battery 10 years ago and a one from today and saw those increases.
Solid state batteries are here, NASA have just made one.@@Design_no
No we won’t.
Excellent video, but respectfully, the title of this video is slightly misleading. $0 fuel cost makes sense because the aircraft is electric, however, it technically costs money to charge the plane, and the plane uses electricity as its "fuel" to fly, so the reality is it costs way more than $0 to operate it.
Nice video, though! :)
@@Rehunauris That would be ideal...:)
Quite an amazing aircraft...great video Stef!
Thanks for watching.
When I was learning to fly I always had at least 90 mins in the air. This does not include taxi and hold times. That aircraft would be useless for training. How do you do the cross country flights?
especially when doing IFR, where you need 45 minutes of extra cruise “fuel”. impractical
Range is real simple , do you fly on 5 % tank of gas? ( i dont know im not a pilot) do you drive on 5 % gas? rarely when i just missed my exit or that gas station is a bit further than expected . the same with electric cars and planes, so a 30% reserve is in my opinion very safe.
Im also curious to that charging station , you are holding a standard 3 phase connector meaning there would be a charger on board, the charging station is just a device delivering and limeting that power, yet you say the charging station converts AC to DC , so the charge plugs are completely different from normal charge points, it would make sense to not have a onboard charger, but that limits your charging locations. i think there is some miscommunication about that.
Im also very curious about any faults and what happens when 1 cell drops .
All in all amazing product, i would love to see more of this.
Nice work Stef
.
Entertainingly informative; well-presented!
Interesting, I haven't looked into this until now. Thank you for sharing!
Very interesting indeed. Superb for local training.But how many airport will have the charging units/facilities?
This one only needed 3 phase powering a AC-DC converter/charger he had in the hanger through the window. Like anything it will be demand driven. Also Airports have so much hangar space with roof tops not being used there is tons of room for solar installations to support this as well. I think as time moves on and opportunities arise, solar and batteries and better infrastructure will come to be anywhere it is needed.
@@Mike_Costellomaybe in a couple decades, still struggling with electric car power stations and now with Tesla falling and huge competition, we might even see different car companies with different charge stations🤷
I personally will never buy an electric plane because to me a running engine is half the fun.
Electricity is free? Batteries don’t perform well in extreme cold. How is the range in the north during the winter and you get up to altitude where it’s colder?
I'd only begin to consider purchasing this plane if the range and endurance of the aircraft was increased... great video though! Love how quiet it is. Cool plane 👍🏻
Doing your PPL you will need to fly a 150 NM x country. Until we can get a 4 hour battery there will be no change but if we can get a 4 hour battery then aviation will change. I personally would like a 4 hour e plane.
Your gonna need a heavier plane, and that’s gonna cost a lot more money.
Electrification is the future, but it's still a bit hard to grasp.
great video pointing out the positves! thanks
Glad to share this new technology with the community. Thanks.
The range really isn't there yet, even for training. We have a 45 minute reserve time over here, which is nearly the entire endurance of the battery right now. And in our school, lessons are all 1hr+, even just circuit training clocks an hour. At the rate technology is going, maybe in a few years it'll be a viable intro trainer, but I can't see it getting to being suitable for the cross country lessons.
NZ has a couple of them to, but why not hybrid planes would it be the weight of the batteries
Consider that the battery technology used in the Alpha Electro is about 10 years old, with todays batteries range would be double, and battery technology improves constantly, research labs expect at least double to triple capacity possible compared to what we have today. There is definitely a huge future for electric aircraft. Insane high efficiency, power can be produced locally with photovoltaics or wind, extremely low maintenance, no regular meaintenance of the engine... imagine what magnitude of savings we are talking about. And off course much less noise and no pollution !
My first EV was a Nissan LEAF. I had to have it shipped in because local dealers were not yet offering it. I would barely make it to/from my office, 55 miles total. Several EVs later, I drive my Tesla wherever I need to go and I honestly can't remember the last time I was worried about my range. I know that airplane progress is going to be slower, but I think that even today the technology is there to give this airplane an extra 30-45 min. So with 1.5 hours plus reserves, it should be able to handle just about any local training flight. Perhaps even a short cross-country if there is a charger at another airport.
My question is, is training on an electric aircraft to then most likely fly on conventional fuel aircraft really what you want?
50 NM miles is not so bad as a cross-country. I would love to fly one of these, hopefully prices will go down for training now.
Fantastic video!!
How much did it cost to charge your batteries?
I can see the value in this when it comes to training. I guess the only piece left is the chemistry problem leading to more energy density I the battery. So, this being really useful is closer than we know.
The only downside I see to not having a spinning prop while holding short is if this thing doesn't have good AC for when it's 80+F outside.
Marchetti's constant is the average time spent by a person for commuting each day. Its value is approximately one hour, or half an hour for a one-way trip.
People won't spend more than 40 minutes commuting to work anyway, so can you make this thing the size of a van? :-)
Great video! If battery density triples again in the next 10 years it'll be a total no-brainer
I doubt it. Denser batteries = more dangerous batteries, I can imagine suffering a fire in flight would be impossible to recover from if it is a battery fire.
@@emperorofthegreatunknown4394Eject the batteries and do a glide landing would be the only option.
@LaurensPP how would you eject the batteries? It's got to be a manual release that works while on fire. If the batteries are in the wings, then are you ejecting the wings? You need the wings to fly. How much does the ejection mechanism weight? The batteries will be more vulnerable to a fire if they have to be exposed to the outside to allow an ejection.
@@emperorofthegreatunknown4394 I'm not sure i'm convinced. It sounds a bit like the EV fire argument. In that scenario the reality is EVs catch fire 100 times less often than ICE cars and they're not 100 harder to deal with
@@emperorofthegreatunknown4394 Fire is nice understatement, more like explosion.
"0 fuel cost" What is the free source of electricity that you use to charge the plain with? What is the cost of battery replacement? How many years will you get out of a set of batteries? No, it is not "0 fuel cost" It is a very high fuel cost and horribly short range that will get progressively shorter as batteries deteriorate. I wish people would be honest regardless of what narrative they are pushing.
Stolen solar panels, duh
@@Clarence_13x Even then it would not have been truly free, somebody paid for panels.
You must not understand solar. But compared to av fuel yeah I’d say she’s pretty cheap to fly.
@@Annon89 I understand solar that is why I can't be BSd into believing nonsense. Batteries are very expensive and they have a short life cycle, they take a long time to charge and you don't have charging stations everywhere, they will charge you to recharge your batteries where they exist so it definitely will not be "0 fuel cost".
What happens when you are flying in the winter? My electric car uses an extra 25% in the winter without using the heater. With using the heater, my car uses 40 to 50% more power depending on how cold it is outside. I do like the concept. Hopefully, they can figure out a better battery pack.
It's still new technology. Give it time.
Are there safety concerns with battery powered aircraft? Either in terms of batteries failing in-flight, or fire...
what's the most efficient cruising speed to achieve the most range with it?
3:30 bro you got that puppy dog hair
I have battery run yard equipment and battery duration has increased greatly from when they were new, now 3 or maybe 4 seasons old.
I can see a potintial safety risk with the prop stopping. In a gas plane you yell clear prop and start it and anyone with half a brain knows that it’s now a dangerous place to be, but with it stopping people may mistakingly think the aircraft is off and walk up to it just to have it start moving again. Perhaps a safety measure would be to keep it moving slowly, or have lights or sound or something.
Pretty clear that we aren’t there yet. In the us, a cross country flight is regulated to be 50+ nm which this would have a hard time completing. Adding a VFR or IFR reserve regulations and you’re done for. God forbid you run into fog and have to divert.
Too low a useful load, too small a range. We’ll get there; but that ain’t soon.
the advantage with planes vs cars is that they fly above the clouds. so they can get full solar power so if they place solar panels on the wings and body of the plane that will surely improve the range while in flight
Airplanes noise, prop chop, speed picking up, and A bang 💥
👍 Great video! I'd like to see Toyota's tech with hydrogen fuel cells, see if it could improve that range anxiety a bit.
It's always a problem when someone talks about range on an electric transporter whether its plane, car , bus. But then we look at the technologies we have and the opportunity it gives us and then we realise how much better it is and how range is also the same on all transporter since day one of their creation! GREAT VIDEO by the way!
Ramge has actually significantly increased by alot with all the advances in technology, composite Materials, designs, aerodynamics......
Nice story but factually incorrect.
@@carholic-sz3qvI am confusion, electric aircraft aren’t old.
First up, great content! Had a thought, no much discussion about pilot work load, engine management and so on; looks like it’s less to do. What’s your thoughts?
Solar was discounted but what about wind generation at 80 knots??
I like how, while they're in flight, they often gaze out the window or the sides but then suddenly stare at each other as if they don't know where to look.
Zero fuel cost. Unless you figure in the cost it takes to charge...
The other I was at an airfield in sweden where one of those electric plane operate, and one striking element is the noise. There are so quiet compare to traditional petrol engine. But useful load and range remain too small.
Excellent video, like always
The reduced noise is definitely noticeable compared to a piston aircraft. Thanks for watching.
i used to know a guy who flew one of these down to the bahamas and back. I got to fly it a few times and man it is a nice aircraft for sure.
Thanks Stef for the video! Is this similar to the electric aircraft you flew in SA a little while back?
I am optimistic and excited for electric aircraft, I think it’s great what they have developed so far, gotta start somewhere. The distance of the first powered flight was only 120ft!
Yep, same model as the one I flew in Adelaide.
180 feet boss*
looks a lot like the flight design ctls that i fly. only difference is is have 7 hours at 115kts 😭 hopefully we see some battery improvement soon
Eager to know where the airport gets zero cost electricity. My power company says otherwise.
Wicked! Never knew you were at Moorabbin coming next year for flight training.
In my opinion, nowadays, battery technology is not good enough for planes, since weigh is really important, and in the same weigh of a modern lithium battery, you get 5 times more energy from gasoline, and also you need over an hour to charge that battery, were in 15 minutes you can fill both wings of a small plane, so a plane being in the ground for over 1 hour for a fly instruction school is not financially worth, and being able to only fly for only 40 minutes after over an hour of charging time, when you have to accumulate 40 hours of flying time to get a private pilot license (in my country) is not worth it to go for the electric option if it's not really cheap, which of course is not the case, and you would say: "Yes, but you don't have to buy oil and fuel so the maintenance is cheaper" but batteries wear out fast if you put a lot of cycles to them, so lets say that you do 5 training flights a day, that use 80% of the battery capacity, you are putting 4 cycles a day to the battery, and let's say you are doing this training flights 5 days a week, that's 80 cycles a month and 960 cycles a year, and after 1000 cycles your battery degradation will be between 15-20% if it's a top tier battery brand, so you will have to put new batteries every year, which I don't know how much will cost, but maybe is over the price of the fuel, oil and normal maintenance that an internal combustion engine need. When I got my license in a Cessna 152 8 years ago, the training sessions were 3 hours long, 2.5 hours flight time and 30 minutes of ground preflight and taxi, and when the plane land at the school hangar, they had the fuel pump and while the next student did the walk around and preflight, another person filled the tanks in less than 15 minutes, it was really efficient, and the plane was in the air over 7 hours a day.
Really excited about electric aircraft like this and others.
As other comenters are saying re: this aircraft's battery energy density vs existing new tech, the flying time can already be greatly improved.
A general aviation aircraft that could readily handle 2-3hour hops would mean tons of recreational and shorter range commercial flights could become electric.
Thats a lot of flights, to remove leaded aviation fuel burning engines from.
No higher density batteries on the horizon but the ET vehicle secrecy is cracking and looks like it might be unstoppable which means future aircraft will be electric but a very different breed with range beyond this world.
Not sure where the 30% fixed reserve was derived from given the aircraft is saying that's
Hi Hazza, for sport aircraft that don't fit the 'Turbine powered' or 'Piston powered Aircraft', the regulations are quite specific. Before the latest revision in 2018, it was actually at 'Pilots discretion', but the latest revision states to refer to the POH for the aircraft you are flying for minimum reserves, which indicates a 30% safe reserve. Given the very low drag high glide ratio of 15:1, this is plenty for safe holding pattern time. Other less efficient planes would require more. You can read up on it all in the reserve requirements section of the CASA plain English guide.
Don`t forget the higher you go the colder it gets, and battery efficiency drops dramatically . More range , more batteries more weight less payload etc.
Fantastic channel to Stumble on..... Subbed.
That video is the biggest fear of a young dreamer wanting to be a pilot
Are there an data on the battery longevity, and the cost to replace those batteries?
Jet-A and AVGAS have an energy density of 12,000 Wh/kg. The best batteries out there today have an energy density of 500 Wh/kg. I see the appeal of electric planes for the basics of flight training but as of today they are completely useless for any kind of trip one might want to take. Even were energy density to double they are still weak compared to liquid fuel.
So electricity is free?
One cool thing is that you don't loose power as you go up, since oxygen is no longer a necessity given the lack of combustion
How much is battery replacement?
How would this be with a toroidal propeller? Along with a basic generator/ranger extender?
"$0 fuel cost" so I guess electricity is just free now
right
This plane is great for small countries or small islands which will be at home there
Lets look at the advantages of gas powered planes:
1. about 4 or 5 hours endurance, as opposed to less than 1
2. the fuel when burnt weighs 0 pounds, the battery never loses weight
3. very fast refueling
4. cheapest option, (no battery, purchase fuel as needed)
5. in short, better in every way, (will never be replaced by electric airplanes)
For those who like driving Teslas and are bothered by the smell of avgas, this is always an option.
I thought I had range anxiety driving a Tesla 😂
Wow, you can spend an entire 11 minutes in the air. What a time to be alive.
An utter joke of a concept. Will never work.
Satisfying the x-country requirement for a PPL in the US in this plane would be scary.
Not for flight training. My flight training flights are 2.5 hour blocks.. couldn’t even do a block in this.
Still at the early phase of electric aircraft, the endurance will get better overtime but I wouldn't expect to be hopping into one anytime soon given I fly piston ac regularly. 60 mins approx just doesn't excite me.
Is that profile picture your aircraft, looks like a P-28 Cherokee.
@@poochie5543 not mine but yes
@@squidiebah I see a video of a 150, got any relation to GA?
@@poochie5543 not sure what you mean?
@@squidiebah do you do anything related to General Aviation?
What is the expected life time of the battery. What is the replacement cost?
Hi does that compare to a traditional engine in terms of life span and replacement cost?
There is no such thing. Modern batteries won't degrade over your own lifetime to ever need to be replaced. This is 2024, not 2005, kiddo. There is no replacement cost since a battery that would suffer like that would have a detrimental manufacturing error and would be covered under warranty.
There are Teslas from 2012 out there with 380,000 miles that have only lost 20% of their battery. LFP EVs will go millions of miles without losing 1% (just about every EV in the last year has LFP tech).
There is no cost of maintenance outside of hydraulics and routine testing in an EV plane. The extreme low cost to operate is pretty much the entire point. We are talking about a cost difference in 90th percentile for EVs. This tech is exploding right now, and the plane in the video is working with 10 year old battery tech. Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus already have EV commercial planes in R&D that have similar distances to their jet-counterparts. Not to mention the plethora of companies that have LFP tech in their planes they are developing, that have ranges in the 3-4 hour range on the same fixed-wing platform.