From a pilots perspective, this video is somewhat misleading. Firstly, the advantage of instant thrust really isn't that important. Since aircraft produce thrust independent of the wheels, you can just hold the brakes while waiting for the engines to get up to speed. And while in the air, instant thrust is only important for combat and aerobatics. Second, the increase of pitch of propeller does load down the motor and decrease rpm, the difference is that the motor can instantly increase it's power to match. Third, the problems with crosswind landing isn't a real problem. The rudder and ailerons are more than sufficient to handle most reasonable crosswinds, and if you run out of rudder authority that airport is probably too windy to land any airplane whatsoever. Differential thrust won't make much of a difference in those extreme conditions, and if you're yawing that much your downwind wing would probably just stall anyways. Lastly, differential thrust is totally possible on most all multiengined aircraft, and there are some cases where it has helped pilots who lost rudder authority in emergency. However, in routine flight, it's probably only useful for again combat or aerobatics. However, I will mention some advantages of electric aircraft not mentioned in the video. First is obviously environmental, but in addition to the reduced carbon emissions from electric aircraft, the climate saving effects are multiplied, as nitrogen oxides emitted by combustion engines operating in the troposphere create tropospheric ozone, which can be a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Second is cost. For General Aviation and small air carriers, fuel can be a significant cost, and the cost per mile of gas vs electric power can yield huge cost savings. Especially considering that aviation gas can cost $5+ per gallon, and these airplanes can burn a dozen gallons of fuel per hour, per engine. I could see electric aviation seriously lowering some of the cost barriers usually present in general aviation. Lastly, is simplicity. At least compared to piston engines, electric engines are much simpler. You can simply set a thrust level for an electric motor, whereas a piston engine can require you to set throttle settings, mixture settings, carberators, as well as continuously monitoring half a dozen engine instruments. This simplicity can also lead to greatly increased reliability and safety.
I agreed with you. This video should compare same size aircraft with the same load capacity for good comparison. Futhermore, modern flight control system already offset the yawing and rolling by their trimming surfaces using computer, so it's not a problem. One more thing, the video showing modern jetliner aircraft which usually use high bypass engine but the explanation about propeller doesn't match with it but if he's talking about turboprop engine, they too still have pitch control, the same concept like mentioned using electric motor there.
Except the green bit that's ignorant. Electric cars are actually more dirty than gass. It causes more pollution to mine and make the batteries than a modern gass car produces in its life. In addition the majority of energy to charge the cars is not from clean energy. It's a fallacy to make people feel good. It don't actually help the environment
You absolutely can exercise differential thrust on jet engines. This is proven by the fact that there are separate thrust levers for each engine in the cockpit.
@@monster2slayer a control surface is way better at this then trying to speed up and slow down a prop that size to vary thrust to stabilize turbulence . Please stop .
@@kayzrx8 i didnt say control surfaces arent better. i said that you dont have milisecond response times on conventionial jet engines. but good job refuting something i didnt say :)
Missing from the video: Cons, short flight distances, limited weight capacity, long charging times. One of my ideas is to add a charging mechanism for the length of the runway that follows the plane until it takes off which uses most of the battery's power to accomplish.
Electric aircraft have cons as well. Batteries are heavy and when they ran out of juice they’re basically dead weight, also propellers lose efficiency at hight speeds so they’re slower as well and don’t forget range, we still have a long way to go to make electric competitive to jets
@@JohnDoe-jh5yr Then it's time to make a video describing the benefits of intergalactic travel. The prerequisites are the same as the fact that batteries will soon become ten times better.
@@_den_ A bit of an absurd leap there yourself, no? We are far closer to solving the problems associated with electric aviation on earth than intergalactic travel.
@@JohnDoe-jh5yr How is it? Even electric cars can barely carry their own weight... And they have already begun to dream of transporting goods on these planes )
A few points are needed to be addressed. 1-Instant thrust is seldom needed during a commercial flight, a rather weak selling point 2-Crosswind handling with differential thrust is also a minor advantage, if at all. Control surfaces are more effective (just compare the leverage distance between two ailerons or the CG-Rudder distance to the aforementioned method). Not to mention torque reaction from different engine outputs will also induce roll in the plane. 3-Battery Thermal Management is a major challenge considering extreme temperatures experienced during a flight. A Li-Ion cell's capacity can diminish to only %5 in minus 20C and a single bad cell could destroy a module and consequently the pack 4-Energy density, maximum take-off load, range, weight distribution, and reliability issues were also overlooked Instead, one could emphasize maintenance, initial/working costs, downtimes, use of solar power, and efficiency benefits. ICEs and gas turbines' thermodynamic and volumetric efficiencies have always been scrutinized. The emission's altitude and its magnifying effect could also be advantageous to combustion engines. No way is flawless, nothing is absolute or pure. Watering engineering down to infomercial-marketing cheap tricks and introducing it as a scientific practice is detrimental to moral, critical, and efficient thinking.
I think one of the main reasons why this isn't viable is the simple fact that the electric plane technology isn't quite there yet. The power output and the battery technology isn't where it should be if we want to replace what we have now with electric planes. Batteries are just too heavy the power trade off isn't nearly as sufficient as gas engines. In order for these to be as effective as jet engines, a revolutionary advance in battery technology would have to be created, along with a more efficient electric engine. Because for sure we won't get there with lithium ion battery technology. It need's to be a battery that functions like a super capacitor, with greater capacity and a faster charge. Perhaps graphene nanotubes or another element used to lengthen the life of a battery.
I don't think battery temperature management can be that hard of a problem since they manage to keep a cabin full of humans quite comfortable. But yes I agree with most points. I think it's still to early for mass adoption until batteries get better, but then again these companies are getting ahead of the game by building specialized craft now and learning and overcoming the roadblocks now.
I am pretty disappointed in Lesics for this one. Most of their videos concerning devices like transmission and electric motors are spot on, and I have learned a ton of information from those videos. But their claims on using differential thrust in a crosswind landing just plain incorrect. In a crosswind, pilots use an uncoordinated maneuver called "slipping" in which the windward wing is lowered using aileron and opposite rudder applied. Alternatively, they can "crab" whereby they use the rudder to angle themselves into the crosswind in order to maintain runway alignment. Using differential thrust at such low airspeeds could bring in all sorts of issues like P-factor, weird slipstreams, and differential torque applied by the each motor. I don't believe aviation is really their expertise, and this video should have been researched more thoroughly.
Joey Sereda - Yup! So many people driving just Automobiles, think they understand Aircraft! Then, there are Single Engine Pilots, vs The Smaller Number of Multi-Engine Pilots! This "Speaking Above their Experience Level", is not uncommon however, as many people in Company Management, have a similar nature and problem!
I think you are hitting them too hard. Your observations are indeed correct for the presented design and for aircraft in general. However, the differential thrust use was actually correct for the previous version of Alice that had wing tip motors. These wing tip motors worked like winglets to increase lift performance. Running one of the tip motors harder or slower would cause Z-Axis torque that would cause the plane to crab as you mentioned. Other Electric aircraft have prop vectoring that can allow for slip like performance without lowing a wing tip. Additionally because they are able to vector they are able to reduce landing speed in high winds. The news is focused on E-VTOL but E-STOL and E-CTOL are also under fast development. ... I have done winter landings on ice with gusting winds. Its not that fun. Being able to thrust vector would have been very pleasant. The Alice aircraft design uses a "Thin Wing" section that is very efficient in cruise but the landing speed is increased so it needs a longer runway. NASA's original concept used a blown wing design that used prop thrust to create additional airflow and lift over the wing. Some of the discussions they had was about using bi-axial prop motor vectoring. This could actually create a tractor effect that would tug the plane into the wind during cross wind landings. This was part of NASA's x57 discussion. There are a lot of really smart people working on this stuff. NASA's Mark Moore did a fantastic job pulling together a wide range of technology experts to roll this out. Additionally the FAA is under Federal Mandate to increase usage of light aviation. We should all see some pretty amazing stuff.
I watched the Lesics one for locomotive electric power supply, and that one looked like someone read the introduction on Wikipedia then guess the rest. There are tons of those videos from different channels with somewhat professional production values that have tons of really very major errors.
Absolutely no evidence that an Aeronautical Engineer was allowed to get within a country mile of this presentation. More an exercise in obfuscation than information although the graphics are definitely worth a mention.
So how many tons of cargo can it carry? Whats the range and speed? How much runway is needed for takeoff and landing at full load? How will it de-ice its wings and heat the cabin? How will cold weather impact the preformance? The price of the aircraft compared to a similar sized aircraft? The empty weight of the aircraft compared to a similar sized aircraft? With the battery low in the fuselage how will a belly landing impact the battery? Whats the charging time? Can the battery be swaped out? Will it carry a backup generator incase there is a failure in the battery? How easy/hard will it be to maintain the aircraft on smaller airports? How many years could be expected from one aircraft to last with regular use?
5:09, I wouldn't say impossible, more difficult, yes, but as the crew of the United Airlines Flight 232 proved, you can control a jet plane with differential thrust, and with underwing engines, to a limited degree the pitch and roll, not just the yaw. Yes they did crash, but it was a survivable crash that happened during final approach, not in the middle some random point near where they lost all hydraulics.nter engine
The biggest advantage is that it doesn't carry fuel so chances of huge explosion or fire is almost nil... until and unless batteries cause fire ..but it wouldn't cause an explosion....
Two major errors in this video. A fundamental property of propellers is that you need fine pitch during takeoff when you're at low speeds. You only use higher pitch angles at higher speeds. Another error is at the end says "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country". That's only true if you live within 200 miles of another country. The fundamental limit is energy density in current battery technology and that won't change dramatically anytime soon. Electric aviation is great if you can reach your destination within an hour.
George Ou - His comment "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country" isn't necessarily an error. Why do you seem so certain that battery tech won't change dramatically anytime soon? It's a rapidly evolving field! New discoveries and technologies are being made at an ever increasing pace! Who knows where battery tech will be in a few years? Hell, even in just a couple years? Cheers!
@@foadrightnow5725 New discoveries don't happen overnight and certainly don't come to market within a few years. We hear promising new battery tech every year only to see them disappear and never go anywhere.
@@jovanleon7 Yes I have, and many other exotic promising battery technologies over the last decade. These new wonder batteries are announced every year it seems all with the promise of revolutionizing the future, yet they all don't seem to go anywhere. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it takes decades even for new promising tech go come to market and that's if they survive development.
@@GeorgeOu - You are not incorrect about hearing of new battery tech and it never going anywhere. But you forget how technology can start progressing exponentially. Which I hope battery tech will. I think it's at the bottom of the curve. But time will tell.
The only hurdle is having an energy source to drive these ideas. Right now we have nothing that compares to the energy density of aviation fuel. Until then these will be extremely limited.
well... one much nicer video did estimate that 3 times more powerful batteries than we have today could work. not long distance but short ones with small aircraft on remote areas or for island hopping. also energy cells to compare as very energy dense source of power.
You absolutely wrong! today we have hydrogen fuel cells , Electric Generators and compressors, gas generators that will allow for long flight times on electric power! People are to focused on battery's and not realizing other alternatives to deliver electric power!
@@BadManPromotions hydrogen on an aircraft ? The last time they tried it, it spontaneously combust while mid-air As much as i love hydrogen, as of now they have no place in aviation since we don't have any good way of containing them
not really. to burn something to produce mechanical power is inefficient. this is the reason electric vehicles is possible despite the battery with little energy vs fuel
Making proper insulation and solar heating system i.e making the body of aircraft top with solar make that power to heat? Just 9 passanger aircraft so could be done think so....
There will probably be a climate controll system on board. You could get hot air from that but electric heating would be the best option because of the transfer to the propellor blades.
@@kaikart123 Electric motors are great, it's powering them that's the problem. Easier to load up cars and boats with batteries than aircraft. How about a blimp covered in lightweight solar panels, I wonder. Maybe that would be a step backwards ;-)
This reminds me a bit of the articles in the magazine Popular Mechanics and Popular Science I used to get in the 70s and 80s. They’d tout an emerging technology, and I’d get all excited about it, only to never hear of it again. The “devil” is in the details. A technology has to be easy and cheap to manufacture (and without many toxic chemical byproducts). It must be priced so that it is attractive to prospective customers. It must be marketed correctly, or no one know about it. It must be copyrighted to protect the technology from theft. (And a considerable amount of time and money must be spent on protecting those copyrights). There are many hurtles a technology must jump before becoming competitive. (And I’m not talking about being competitive with government subsidies. Too often those subsidies become addictive to the companies and they can’t compete without them ever.)
Electric aviation is an incredibly exciting development in the world of transportation, and this video does a fantastic job of explaining why. The potential benefits of electric airplanes are enormous, from reduced emissions and noise pollution to increased efficiency and cost savings. It's fascinating to learn about the various challenges that must be overcome in order to make electric aviation a reality, such as developing more efficient batteries and designing planes that are optimized for electric propulsion. But it's clear that the potential rewards are well worth the effort, and it's inspiring to see so many innovative companies and researchers working to make this vision a reality. I believe that electric aviation will play a crucial role in shaping the future of transportation, and I'm excited to see what the next few years will bring in terms of progress and innovation. Thank you for sharing this informative and thought-provoking video!
Wrong. Batteries are most likely the better option: Costs will decrease much faster than for fuel cells and hydrogen tank systems, System complexity is much smaller compared to fuel cells. Gaseous hydrogen tanks (only option for general aviation) are very heavy too...
yes, but the batteries will always be heavy, so, between similar sized jet vs electric planes, the jet powered one will still be able to carry more cargo. not to mention, batteries take longer to charge than to just fuel up
Would it b possible 2 siphon off excess heat from a jet engine into a generator, 2 create energy 4 electric engine's, & could this greatly reduced fuel consumption , 4 a aircraft propelled by a jet & electric engine's. Sorry if this sounds like a stupid idea
yes... but lets for for short island hopping where price is primary concern and you only need few hops per day its viable option. also change wing and put batteries in hull... new aircraft should be developed quite easy
@@PsilovibeGraham Once the graphene is proven as viable in energy transfer (charging), *AND* we see batteries with 3-4x greater energy density than the absolute best currently available, then you may have a legitimate point. But let's not forget that such rapid charging isn't supported by the grid, so you'll need large scale batteries, receiving constant charge and able to rapidly discharge into said plane batteries to make it all viable, as well. Until those three things become a reality, you're banking on speculative hypotheticals, and not based in reality. You have no business attacking anyone else, hypocrite. Please work on that.
@@PsilovibeGraham And your still likely a 5-10+ years away at minimum till graphene being practically applied, as well as the same or more for carbon nanotubes in wide capacity. This all simple speculation till you get batteries with the same energy density to weight ratio as aviation fuel. I remember reading about graphene 8-10 years ago on a tech website and still waiting for it to be used in anything useful for consumers. Most people simply speak in generalities. " Your comment honestly adds nothing to the conversation. Please work on that." The only thing missing is the clap emoji at the end of the sentence, like on twitter.
Informative but biased, just a quick blurb about the massive underlying con of electric planes that we may never overcome with lithium ion technology. Ultimately we need to accept that electric is not the solution for trucking and aviation unless we can solve the battery problem
Electric can be the solution for trucking. Install power delivery overhead along major highways and have a battery on board for the rest. Edit: And no what I'm describing is not a train and if you think it is then you're stupid. A train runs only on tracks. Plenty of trains run on diesel, does that make them trucks? No. So why would running a truck on overhead electric make it a train?
@@MegaRBN14 That is the point. Transporting freight is the most efficient via railways, but not every cargo is large enough to be economic for trains, so we put them on trucks. Trucks are already small land trains running on fuel just like diesel engines, but unlike trains, trucks can continue their journey when the "rail" ends. We already have trolley buses in Europe it is the same concept.
@@MegaRBN14 The difference between trucks and trains are the tracks not the overhead power delivery. In the beginning railways were constructed without overhead power too, then later they were electrified in high traffic routes. The same should happen with trucks.
5:51. I don't understand your point? A jet engined aeroplane can also use differential thrust, and as the power on final approach is high the engine response is rapid. But there is no need for differential thrust; crabbing with aerodynamic controls is perfectly adequate.
Electric motors have a millisecond response time which makes it easier to use and easier to program autopilot, so pilots have less to worry about. That's why you dont see many jet quadcopters.
He said in the video that jet engines are laggy and less precise at thrust control compared to electric motors. Differential thrust can done automatically on an electric plane without pilot input to keep the plane more stable for a safer, less risky landing.
Due to the long response times of jet engines, you cannot effectively use differential thrust for countering crosswind. That's why the statement is correct.
This video is factually incorrect in at least two things. FINE pitch is used for take-off, not course pitch. Using differential thrust from jets or turbines is more difficult, but not impossible as stated in this video. An experienced pilot is unlikely to use differential thrust during landing, and would never use it for take-off, as maximum performance is used to get an aircraft safely off the runway and to an altitude in which there is a margin of safety in case something goes wrong and an emergency landing is required. While the graphics are nice, I would have thought a UA-cam channel with nearly five million subscribers would have the resources to thoroughly and correctly discover and present the facts.
Thanks, that's what I thought because this is a fundamental property of propellers. Another error is at the end says "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country". That's only true if you live within 200 miles of another country. The fundamental limit is energy density in current battery technology and that won't change dramatically anytime soon. Electric aviation is great if you can reach your destination within an hour.
@@GeorgeOu we can fly to another country now if we are close enough hahahahaha thats not wrong thats just empty statement that means nothing. advertisers will often use it
Not sure why differential thrust is such a big topic for electric planes. One way or another you’re going to have to counter the side slip of a crosswind landing with either yaw or bank to create an equal force in the opposite direction, which can be controlled just as well with control surfaces. It’s not like you can keep the airplane straight and level with the runway by just increasing the thrust on one side.
When animations are the only visual......reality is usually out the window. This presentation is is closer to comedy than reality. This presentation is hilarious in its omissions......primarily the WEIGHT OF THE BATTERIES! The reason planes are not electric right now has nothing to do with motors, drives, BMS, propellors, etc. It is all about the weight of the energy storage system, ie the battery. Until a radical new energy storage concept rolls out with far better energy density - electric planes will remain a novelty. DHL moves cargo and the charge by the pound. An electric plane is extremely weight limited, making them a horrific choice for a cargo carrier.
It's extremely interesting and educational, but a suggestion would be to also briefly mention why regular plane still use jet engines. If one already has some knowledge on how and why things work it is not a problem but, is someone see this without any knowledge on regular airplanes, he could wonder about why we still don't use electric airplanes instead of "normal" planes and this could cause some misinformation.
I am always impressed with your videos ability to clearly and simply explain EV systems and other engineering concepts accurately. You managed to sum up years of what I learned developing electric aircraft perfectly. I’m amazed how clearly you explained the concept and advantages of axial thrust motors, something that was much more difficult to understand at the time! Please keep up the great work
You forgot one of the biggest advantages of an electric airplane which is the motor's ability to be powered by multiple sources. A rechargeable battery is one example but it's not the best because of low specific energy. Fuel cells are a better energy source because they can run on cheaper fuels like methane and hydrogen with higher efficiency compared to turboprop engines. The plane can also use a small rechargeable battery so it can use the propellers as regenerative air brakes. The top of the airplane can be covered in high efficiency thin film solar cells which can increase the range of the aircraft and in case the plane loses it's main power source because of fuel leak or whatever a fast military aircraft can be dispatched to fly above it and beam power using lasers (similar to aerial refueling).
The only concern left about Electric aircrafts is energy density. You can see that the flying range is super low even compared to average light business jets and regional airliners. The passenger capacity is also too low to be considered commercial. But if we can find a battery solution that is almost as energy dense as oil fuels and have a proper durability over climates without costing too much, I would be waiting for electric powered fans instead of propellers for electric airliners.
Lithium has the highest number of movable ions. Making it 'THE' choice for high energy density batteries. Unfortunately, even relatively stable Lithium hexafluorophosphate can (and has many times) result in an uncontrollable fire. So energy density is not the only concern. Un-extinguishable fire is a huge risk and will remain so. Remember, we can shut off fuel to burning engines. We can't shut off the reaction of a burning battery pack. Not surprisingly, Eviation's Alice burned to the ground.
@@demoaccount2392 I used to fly J31 and Fokker 50 aircraft. Variable asymmetric thrust can be selected very quickly but you would not do so except on the ground. And by asymmetric I mean full power on one side (why I don’t know) and full reverse on the other. It takes a little longer on jet (F70/100 and E175/190) aircraft but again, it is possible.
He's not saying it's not possible. He means that it's a lot harder to use since the engines don't respond fast enough to fuel flow rate change. However in electric airplanes, the engines respond instantly. So you can create differential thrust with fuel airplanes, but not that easily.
I use differential thrust all the time in flight simulator on 4 engine planes like A340 or 747. Just shut down and engine on either side and power manage the remaining engines to maintain steady flight. Even in real emergencies Pilots have used differential thrust to execute emergency landings especially when ailerons fail due to hydraulic issues. Interesting video by the way.
The energy density of jet A vs the best available batteries is 15 times grater . A hybrid might be a good solution a small turbine running a generator .
This is a misleading take, IMO. The best turbojet motors see efficiencies of 55%. So of those 39.5kWh/gallon available in kerosene, only ~21kWh/gallon are actually available for doing work. If you use that same math for Li-Ion. The best batteries we have sport some 3kWh/gallon of which only 2.9kWh/gallon are available for doing work with today's tech; reducing the figure you used to functional ~7.5x. Really leveling the two energy storage solutions quite a bit more than your initial figure suggests; and makes the challenge of matching the energy available in fossil fuels much more surmountable, and frankly, realistic.
@@monono954 that math has been beaten to death in the comments. Assuming the highest theoretical energy density for batteries and no improvement in ice efficiency, electric still falls short. By a lot less, but fuel would still have the edge
@@davidrobinson3154 without question! But the point I was trying to convey is that once we apply the numbers more accurately, the picture becomes far less dreary for the future of battery powered flight.
That statistic can however be a bit misleading when efficiencies are taken into account. I think a jet engine at altitude and at max speed giving max efficiency only has an efficiency of about 30% so your "43 times" number is down to 15 times compared to an electric motor close to 95% efficiency. 66% of jet fuel energy is wasted on heat, noise, friction, etc and not used for forward propulsive force.
Nature/Chemistry is pretty well defined already. Battery break through may happen within my lifetime but they will be large cost efficient stationary point of use items. Certainly not going to meet energy density requirements for mobile applications. Large batteries compete for cargo capacity and that's what makes logistics profitable.
Due to the long response times of jet engines, you cannot effectively use differential thrust for countering crosswind. That's why the statement is correct
@@foxx8414 then he should have said at 4:56 "the ability to produce "fast responding" differential thrust" and at 5:08 he should have said: "such an operation is "slower" in jet engines" instead of impossible
@@carholic-sz3qv what makes you think that? You should look up Airfrance flight 296, the delay between changing the thrust setting and the thrust actually changing to the desired value was a big factor in the crash
@@foxx8414 wrong, go inform yourself again mate, that happened in 1988 and the accident was actually due to failure in the recently introduced fly by wire instead of hydraulics as conventional. youre welcome. also aircrafts with multiple gensets have individual throttle control.
thoughts on diesel generators being used to power the electric motors? diesel turbines are a thing batteries, in their current state, simply would not be a good fit.
Rolls Royce are presently designing a new concept called the "turbo generator". Basically a small jet engine connected to an alternator. Used to add power for take off, extend range or provide emergency power when needed. The Heart Aerospace ES30 will have one installed.
Hai sir I am from India ....your explanation is good ...as a postgraduate in electrical engineering it is clearly observed how control motor by changing frequency
Attempting to make an advantage from a nothingburger, in the meantime the weight required in batteries remains constant making landing fully loaded extremely dangerous unless you are only building puddle jumpers. Secondly Charging times will keep planes out of service for periods of time that will be unrealistic for airline service. Airports would be crammed full of parked airplanes that are simply charging their batteries which also means that airlines would be required to buy many more planes just to maintain current passenger loads.
Battery swapping is the way. They can't embedded the battery like this video if they want to avoid the charge. However, the new technology in battery may change the design. I still dream we will create a mini fussion/fission reactor. So, everything like ship, airplane, truck can utilize them LOL
Pure fantasy! 1. On a propellor driven aircraft creating differential thrust by increasing motor speed of 1 motor would cause sympathetic resonance which would be very disturbing for the occupants of the aircraft. Muti-engine aircraft have synchronizers to match engine speeds to prevent this. Varying propellor pitch would give differential thrust without creating sympathetic resonance. This is something that could also be down on a turboprop engine. 2. While turbine engines do have a delay in speed/thrust response to throttle commands this is much more pronounced at idle. To combat this all turbine powered aircraft have a flight idle feature that raises the minimum idle speed while the aircraft is in the air. Many aircraft have an approach idle setting that further increases the minimum idle speed while in landing configuration. Throttle response is still not instant but it is quick enough that the small amount of lag is not an issue. Also as others have pointed out while the electric motor may accelerate almost instantaneously by itself the inertial mass of the propellor will take time to overcome so the motor/propellor combo will not accelerate instantaneously. While there may be a small advantage over turbine engines in acceleration there is little to no operational advantage gained by it. Sort of a solution in search of a problem scenario. 3. Battery technology and even electric motor technology are not where they need to be to match or even come close to the performance of turbine engines. In aviation weight is everything. A single 747 engine produces about 65 megawatts at takeoff. All four engines on the 747 would produce 260 MW. I’m not aware of any motors that put out that kind of power. Now lets look at batteries for the 747. At 5 minutes at takeoff power you would use 21.6MWh. At an as of yet unobtained energy density of 1000Wh/kg (li-ion have an energy density of 50-260Wh/kg) you would need 21600kg of battery just for the first 5 minutes from the beginning of the takeoff roll (A 747 uses about 3000kg of fuel in 5 minutes at takeoff power). This is all assuming that there are electric motors powerful enough. The max power density for axial flux motors is around 10kW/kg so an axial flux motor capable of producing the same power as 747 engine would weigh about 6500kg not counting the propellor, electronic controller or mounting apparatus. A 747 engine weighs about 4300kg. Additionally no axial flux motors of this size have been developed. This video is an exercise in theory largely ignoring the physical restraints of the technology it proposes while making dubious claims of advantages that are in real life insignificant if not absolutely moot.
pretty sure power density of electric motor is higher than 10kw/kg also nobody talks about using batteries on jumbo jet. first internal combustion engine is far heaver so replacing those with electric is first step than doing more steps... electric power gliders are actually better than gasoline ones
It's a start! It will get better over time. Who knows.. we might end up flying in an all electric passanger plane in a few years. I'd be thrilled to work on one of these!
whats the carbon footprint difference from the jet engine to the electric engine? please include everything from battery manufacturing to bolting the thing together. thanks.
I guess you will need to pay him because he will need to do a lot of research to figure that out. It is unlikely he carries that information around with him in the head.
unfortunately, the 787 is one of the first airliners that doesn't use a bleed air starter system anymore but an electric one, making the schematic at 1:06 a bit inaccurate
Electric planes aren’t going to happen any time soon. Not unless there is a complete breakthrough in battery tech. Liquid Fuel will always pack way more power per lb than battery. And unlike battery, the longer you fly, the lighter you get, which means the less fuel you need. Battery will not be able to compete with that. Not for many decades. This was a really bad take.
I personally would like to see the roll out of Hybrids, the advantage of the electric motors seems to great to ignore and to just hook it up to an onboard powerplant would be fine for me.
@@WilliamHelstad Using the airframe as the battery is an intriguing idea albeit an impractical one with any current technology. There is not any current battery technology that has the structural properties necessary to construct an airframe out of.
Yes. That is the intention of a plane like Alice. It is the short haul that can produce so much waste and expense. Look at Cape Air model for this type of airline.
6:45 I hope you are right, because that would mean that either batter energy density has increased exponentially, or there was a major breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cell technology
The reason electric planes are "bad" is that those lithium ion batteries have a poor energy storage as well as they are not recycled because there is no effecient method for doing so.
@@seniorbush7164 well yea, same would happen with any plane, maybe less because it can't leak fuel everyone, but then again kerosene isn't that flammable.
This really is a back to the future solution. This electric technology cannot match the speed and power of the jet engine. We may yet be forced to reintroduce airships, these can be electric powered and can be considered as being very quiet. But apart from the improvements in battery energy storage, this is a technology from the 1930s. It is ironic that children's books of the period envisaged a future dominated by airships and propeller driven aircraft, the concept of jet power did not feature in the scifi of the time, yet it is a technology that, by necessity, may have come and gone, along with faster than sound travel. Without a new revolutionary form of propulsion, our only hope of matching the performance of today's jet engines in the future, is to power them with hydrogen.
Problem is the huge volume of hydrogen, even at a liquid state @ 7°Kelvin. In the time where the Lockheed 1011 was built, Lockheed seriously considered hydrogen fuel. Nothing cheaper than jet A1 fuel, but not good enough for rocket fuel (refined kerosene) RF1 is 5 times more expensive.
@@robinabraham2843 Who is using? You? There is not even an electric private jet sized plane in production so what are we talking about here? Animated pictures only.
Thanks for this interesting production. One slight nitpick with the illustration at 4:16 is that the propeller is rotating backwards. Unless the new technology is able to make aircraft fly in reverse this is incorrect😇. As far as differential thrust goes, in the aeroplane illustrated the thrust differential would have very little effect because both engines are so close to the axis of the craft. The most efficient designs that I have studied for electric aircraft are on the wings especially at the tips where the rotating wash from the propellers can be used to oppose the drag from wingtip vorticies by arranging them to rotate in the other direction. At the wingtip the moment for each engine is much more and can be a useful addition to the armamentarium for control of yaw, just as differential wheel brakes can be used to steer the aircraft on the ground
the original Eviation Alice design (built as a non-flyable prototype) had a tractor propeller at each wingtip, plus a centreline pusher on the tail. Before reaching the flyable prototype stage they switched the current configuration... so the wingtip prop idea didn't make it for some reason (I can think of at least three).
@@brokolosbinala2970 also very important that hydrogen plane can get progressively lighter when they fly like a conventional plane, which is crucial because planes’ maximum takeoff weight is usually greater than landing weight
@@brokolosbinala2970 yes. Compared to a garbage tech (for planes), hydrogen is a better garbage tech. Which is why it will never compete against liquid fuel.
Good concise and simple information. This delivery of simple concise information allows the public to realise that all domestic inland flights throughout Britain can now divest from using fossil fuels to power their systems. We can only hope the companies involved in transporting people via aviation will now work towards improving the aviation infrastructure since they now clearly have an alternative and readily obtainable option available to them. We can now stop poisoning the atmosphere via aviation use. Christ have mercy. God bless
Usually this channel puts out pretty good material This however is garbage... Battery electric planes will NOT be a thing, power density is far too low there is no battery chemistry that gets close to what's neccesary Hydrogen fuel cell electric planes will NOT be a thing, power density (volumetric) is far too low (and factoring the weight of the storage vessel power density by mass is ALSO too low) Hydrogen combustion planes will NOT be a thing (see hydrogen fuel cell) Hydrocarbons of pretty much any sort used as jet fuel have ~45mj/kg and the turbofans we have now are something like 50% efficient, meaning any alternative fuel source needs to be 22.5mj/kg in density at 100% efficiency to come close to conventional planes. There is literally no chemical storage that can get here (nuclear sure but we're not going to have nuclear powered planes for obvious reasons). What most people tend to forget is that electric cars are so much better than regular cars because regular cars are inefficient as fk whereas planes have been optimized to the max over the past 100 years. EVs also excel at energy recovery which is a feature which a car can benefit from massively from it's use case but a plane can't because planes don't ever stop and go, they accelerate ONCE and decelerate ONCE in a flight. Planes are already aerodynamically optimized (another key difference between electric cars and regular cars ... nothing intrinsic about electric cars being more aerodynamically efficient, only that if they were not, they would have a range half that of what they are now and no one would buy them)
I'm surprised at your electric aircraft choice to showcase. Eviation Alice was first designed by people with 0 engineering or aircraft knowledge as a way to get money from gullible investors. The first few iterations were impossible to manufacture, clearly lied on their specs (like range, MTOW, etc.) and were clearly un-certifiable both in the US and in Europe. This last design (the one that you showcase here) still has lots of problems: production costs are going to be prohibitive (how are you going to manufacture the windows? There are no two windows that have the same shape! Or how are you going to build that fuselage shape? Let alone cure the composite materials in an autoclave!), the comfort of the passengers will be similar to a small bus, with probably less than 100km range, and forget about bringing luggage (there is literally no space for it). Moreover, there are still lots of certification problems, range impossibilities due to energy density, and the max airspeed of this aircraft will be comparable to a train. All in all, just a money grab for gullible investors. Maybe two or three iterations down the line this aircraft can have any use, but I'm not really sure if they can manage. Good video, but probably should have focused on the cons of the design (which is almost everything).
@@windowschips pollution my foot... Mining for lithium takes 3 times more pollution and disturbance to land than any other supercar manufacturing..... Considering ev cannot run on 12v conventional battery
Imagine how much faster the world could develop green energy and climate change fighting solutions if it wasn't for intellectual property rights, patents and limitless capitalist greed in general... Let's put solar panels on every home, business and covered parking rooftop and switch to electric vehicles making nearly everything we do solar powered while completely decentralizing our power supply and empowering everyone as power generation owners. Solar power is CHEAPER and electric vehicles are soon to be CHEAPER to make and already are considerably CHEAPER to maintain and operate, especially if charged from your own solar power. A 3-5 year ROI (return on investment) for a solar array that will generate power for decades is a no-brainer and the panels can even be made locally too. #EndFossilFuels #SwitchToSolar #SwitchToElectric #GreenNewDeal #EmpowerEveryone #DEMEXIT #StillSandersPlatform
So we're comparing an electric propeller to a Jet turbine engine. I'm pretty damn sure that fuel propeller engines are also more responsive than jets, but they also have a much lower top speed. Lithium ion batteries are also a barrier technology. Until lightweight solid state batteries come unto production, it's business as usual.
Definitely a biased video. You also don't have a very good understanding of how the propeller systems actually work and why they are used on planes. Changing the pitch allows the propeller to be mpre efficient at different power settings and different flight conditions. Feathering is also a useful thing to have on multi engine planes; feathering is when the propeller blade is inline with the air to remove drag when one of the engines die. There are also other things like de-ice and compression of the fuselage which will make longer distance flights possible, or even make the plane more robust. Ontop of all the advances that need to be made to make this possible, it all still needs to be tested and appeoved by the FAA which throws your "few years" out the window.
@@akiramiller9025 wrong. high bypass turbofans are used for airliners and cargos, fighters use low bypass afterburning turbofans, especially the supersonic ones..
I would love to see a general aviation electric motor airplane. LSAs or even Cessna 172. The gas savings alone would greatly lower the costs to fly and airplane and also the cost of learning how to fly ! Maintenance costs also would be lowers too for the owners. The airplane manufacturers should move in this direction immediately like Tesla has moved forward automobiles.
Someone made one. Can't remember the name, but there is an FAA approved LSA now! Endurance is like 90 minutes, so it's a trainer at best, unless Elon has a fast charging station at your destination FBO. Despite the disadvantages, it is cool that someone has done it. I think we're going to see a lot of advancements in the near future. There's a lot of hurdles to overcome, but the minds of our generation will figure it all out. Super exciting to be a spectator in these times!
ENGINES CAN ALSO RECHARGE BATTERIES DURING FLIGHT! CAN BE DONE EASILY AND RECHARGE BATTERIES WILL BE EITHER NOT REQUIRED OR REQUIRE A LITTLE TO CHARGE AFTER FLIGHT!!!
Great video. You guys forgot one of the biggest main points: Due to the missing high explosive heavy kerosene the plane is by far less vulnerable in emergencies and also easier to maneuver due to less weight (which means its easier to steer against friction in general).
Much like the tesla semi. This will need a revolution of battery technology to make sense. Batteries are heavy, super heavy. Thus limiting range and carrying capacity. This is due to a pardox more weight requires more power, which requires more weight.
From a pilots perspective, this video is somewhat misleading. Firstly, the advantage of instant thrust really isn't that important. Since aircraft produce thrust independent of the wheels, you can just hold the brakes while waiting for the engines to get up to speed. And while in the air, instant thrust is only important for combat and aerobatics. Second, the increase of pitch of propeller does load down the motor and decrease rpm, the difference is that the motor can instantly increase it's power to match. Third, the problems with crosswind landing isn't a real problem. The rudder and ailerons are more than sufficient to handle most reasonable crosswinds, and if you run out of rudder authority that airport is probably too windy to land any airplane whatsoever. Differential thrust won't make much of a difference in those extreme conditions, and if you're yawing that much your downwind wing would probably just stall anyways. Lastly, differential thrust is totally possible on most all multiengined aircraft, and there are some cases where it has helped pilots who lost rudder authority in emergency. However, in routine flight, it's probably only useful for again combat or aerobatics.
However, I will mention some advantages of electric aircraft not mentioned in the video. First is obviously environmental, but in addition to the reduced carbon emissions from electric aircraft, the climate saving effects are multiplied, as nitrogen oxides emitted by combustion engines operating in the troposphere create tropospheric ozone, which can be a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Second is cost. For General Aviation and small air carriers, fuel can be a significant cost, and the cost per mile of gas vs electric power can yield huge cost savings. Especially considering that aviation gas can cost $5+ per gallon, and these airplanes can burn a dozen gallons of fuel per hour, per engine. I could see electric aviation seriously lowering some of the cost barriers usually present in general aviation. Lastly, is simplicity. At least compared to piston engines, electric engines are much simpler. You can simply set a thrust level for an electric motor, whereas a piston engine can require you to set throttle settings, mixture settings, carberators, as well as continuously monitoring half a dozen engine instruments. This simplicity can also lead to greatly increased reliability and safety.
This comment need to be pinned
I agreed with you. This video should compare same size aircraft with the same load capacity for good comparison. Futhermore, modern flight control system already offset the yawing and rolling by their trimming surfaces using computer, so it's not a problem.
One more thing, the video showing modern jetliner aircraft which usually use high bypass engine but the explanation about propeller doesn't match with it but if he's talking about turboprop engine, they too still have pitch control, the same concept like mentioned using electric motor there.
Well said. Rhought the same thing as well
Except the green bit that's ignorant. Electric cars are actually more dirty than gass. It causes more pollution to mine and make the batteries than a modern gass car produces in its life. In addition the majority of energy to charge the cars is not from clean energy. It's a fallacy to make people feel good. It don't actually help the environment
You could also mention the economy gained through fewer repairs needed for an electric motor.
You absolutely can exercise differential thrust on jet engines. This is proven by the fact that there are separate thrust levers for each engine in the cockpit.
He was making the point it can't be used like a rudder due to the slow response times, not that the engines can't be set at different speeds.
Ok. Now do it to respond to gusts of wind with a few hundreds of second response time :)
@Jiham Mabya What the Fu*k
@@monster2slayer a control surface is way better at this then trying to speed up and slow down a prop that size to vary thrust to stabilize turbulence . Please stop .
@@kayzrx8 i didnt say control surfaces arent better. i said that you dont have milisecond response times on conventionial jet engines. but good job refuting something i didnt say :)
Missing from the video: Cons, short flight distances, limited weight capacity, long charging times. One of my ideas is to add a charging mechanism for the length of the runway that follows the plane until it takes off which uses most of the battery's power to accomplish.
Using hydrogen fuel cell ! Solv this.
would not make economical sense. Most energy is used while gainig altitude
I think robot charging sleds will follow the planes taxi-ing keeping them charged until takeoff.
@@robinabraham2843 Look at Real Engineerings video on this. Hydrogen has some issues of its own.
Edit. wrong channel
@@TheSimon253 ok. lithium solid State battery 🔋! Work..?
Electric aircraft have cons as well. Batteries are heavy and when they ran out of juice they’re basically dead weight, also propellers lose efficiency at hight speeds so they’re slower as well and don’t forget range, we still have a long way to go to make electric competitive to jets
They kept silent about this in order to make this absurdity look scientific.
That's what R&D is for.
@@JohnDoe-jh5yr Then it's time to make a video describing the benefits of intergalactic travel. The prerequisites are the same as the fact that batteries will soon become ten times better.
@@_den_ A bit of an absurd leap there yourself, no? We are far closer to solving the problems associated with electric aviation on earth than intergalactic travel.
@@JohnDoe-jh5yr How is it? Even electric cars can barely carry their own weight... And they have already begun to dream of transporting goods on these planes )
Ahhh, been watching your videos for 3 years, this channel always educate me. Keep it up.
A few points are needed to be addressed. 1-Instant thrust is seldom needed during a commercial flight, a rather weak selling point 2-Crosswind handling with differential thrust is also a minor advantage, if at all. Control surfaces are more effective (just compare the leverage distance between two ailerons or the CG-Rudder distance to the aforementioned method). Not to mention torque reaction from different engine outputs will also induce roll in the plane. 3-Battery Thermal Management is a major challenge considering extreme temperatures experienced during a flight. A Li-Ion cell's capacity can diminish to only %5 in minus 20C and a single bad cell could destroy a module and consequently the pack 4-Energy density, maximum take-off load, range, weight distribution, and reliability issues were also overlooked
Instead, one could emphasize maintenance, initial/working costs, downtimes, use of solar power, and efficiency benefits. ICEs and gas turbines' thermodynamic and volumetric efficiencies have always been scrutinized. The emission's altitude and its magnifying effect could also be advantageous to combustion engines.
No way is flawless, nothing is absolute or pure. Watering engineering down to infomercial-marketing cheap tricks and introducing it as a scientific practice is detrimental to moral, critical, and efficient thinking.
I think one of the main reasons why this isn't viable is the simple fact that the electric plane technology isn't quite there yet. The power output and the battery technology isn't where it should be if we want to replace what we have now with electric planes. Batteries are just too heavy the power trade off isn't nearly as sufficient as gas engines.
In order for these to be as effective as jet engines, a revolutionary advance in battery technology would have to be created, along with a more efficient electric engine.
Because for sure we won't get there with lithium ion battery technology. It need's to be a battery that functions like a super capacitor, with greater capacity and a faster charge. Perhaps graphene nanotubes or another element used to lengthen the life of a battery.
I don't think battery temperature management can be that hard of a problem since they manage to keep a cabin full of humans quite comfortable. But yes I agree with most points. I think it's still to early for mass adoption until batteries get better, but then again these companies are getting ahead of the game by building specialized craft now and learning and overcoming the roadblocks now.
I am pretty disappointed in Lesics for this one. Most of their videos concerning devices like transmission and electric motors are spot on, and I have learned a ton of information from those videos. But their claims on using differential thrust in a crosswind landing just plain incorrect. In a crosswind, pilots use an uncoordinated maneuver called "slipping" in which the windward wing is lowered using aileron and opposite rudder applied. Alternatively, they can "crab" whereby they use the rudder to angle themselves into the crosswind in order to maintain runway alignment. Using differential thrust at such low airspeeds could bring in all sorts of issues like P-factor, weird slipstreams, and differential torque applied by the each motor. I don't believe aviation is really their expertise, and this video should have been researched more thoroughly.
Reminds me of a plane that was nick named "The Widow Maker". Unintended Differential thrust was part of the problem with that one.
Joey Sereda - Yup! So many people driving just Automobiles, think they understand Aircraft! Then, there are Single Engine Pilots, vs The Smaller Number of Multi-Engine Pilots!
This "Speaking Above their Experience Level", is not uncommon however, as many people in Company Management, have a similar nature and problem!
I think you are hitting them too hard. Your observations are indeed correct for the presented design and for aircraft in general. However, the differential thrust use was actually correct for the previous version of Alice that had wing tip motors. These wing tip motors worked like winglets to increase lift performance. Running one of the tip motors harder or slower would cause Z-Axis torque that would cause the plane to crab as you mentioned. Other Electric aircraft have prop vectoring that can allow for slip like performance without lowing a wing tip. Additionally because they are able to vector they are able to reduce landing speed in high winds. The news is focused on E-VTOL but E-STOL and E-CTOL are also under fast development. ... I have done winter landings on ice with gusting winds. Its not that fun. Being able to thrust vector would have been very pleasant. The Alice aircraft design uses a "Thin Wing" section that is very efficient in cruise but the landing speed is increased so it needs a longer runway. NASA's original concept used a blown wing design that used prop thrust to create additional airflow and lift over the wing. Some of the discussions they had was about using bi-axial prop motor vectoring. This could actually create a tractor effect that would tug the plane into the wind during cross wind landings. This was part of NASA's x57 discussion. There are a lot of really smart people working on this stuff. NASA's Mark Moore did a fantastic job pulling together a wide range of technology experts to roll this out. Additionally the FAA is under Federal Mandate to increase usage of light aviation. We should all see some pretty amazing stuff.
I watched the Lesics one for locomotive electric power supply, and that one looked like someone read the introduction on Wikipedia then guess the rest.
There are tons of those videos from different channels with somewhat professional production values that have tons of really very major errors.
You lost me at "weird slipstreams." If weird made something questionable then crabbing and slipping would ended the whole aircraft experiment.
Cool can’t wait for this tech to get commercial with development of new batteries and power sources.
Don’t hold your breath ...
Absolutely no evidence that an Aeronautical Engineer was allowed to get within a country mile of this presentation. More an exercise in obfuscation than information although the graphics are definitely worth a mention.
and neither electric engineer was close to this video
Wait until Musk gets a hold of this! Lies until the sun goes down!
I feel sorry for the many who will look at such videos and take a decision without considering the facts. Very one sided presentation.
You are wise.
So how many tons of cargo can it carry?
Whats the range and speed?
How much runway is needed for takeoff and landing at full load?
How will it de-ice its wings and heat the cabin?
How will cold weather impact the preformance?
The price of the aircraft compared to a similar sized aircraft?
The empty weight of the aircraft compared to a similar sized aircraft?
With the battery low in the fuselage how will a belly landing impact the battery?
Whats the charging time?
Can the battery be swaped out?
Will it carry a backup generator incase there is a failure in the battery?
How easy/hard will it be to maintain the aircraft on smaller airports?
How many years could be expected from one aircraft to last with regular use?
I applaud you.
5:09, I wouldn't say impossible, more difficult, yes, but as the crew of the United Airlines Flight 232 proved, you can control a jet plane with differential thrust, and with underwing engines, to a limited degree the pitch and roll, not just the yaw. Yes they did crash, but it was a survivable crash that happened during final approach, not in the middle some random point near where they lost all hydraulics.nter engine
Axial Flux motor are really dope. Can't wait to get my hands on one of those.
Do they have them in India?
I have one for sale. It's a pd18 from protean electric.
@@dann6067 no......no they don't.
The biggest advantage is that it doesn't carry fuel so chances of huge explosion or fire is almost nil... until and unless batteries cause fire ..but it wouldn't cause an explosion....
It's a kind of brushless motor. Brushless motors have been around for a long time.
Two major errors in this video. A fundamental property of propellers is that you need fine pitch during takeoff when you're at low speeds. You only use higher pitch angles at higher speeds. Another error is at the end says "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country". That's only true if you live within 200 miles of another country. The fundamental limit is energy density in current battery technology and that won't change dramatically anytime soon. Electric aviation is great if you can reach your destination within an hour.
George Ou - His comment "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country" isn't necessarily an error. Why do you seem so certain that battery tech won't change dramatically anytime soon? It's a rapidly evolving field! New discoveries and technologies are being made at an ever increasing pace! Who knows where battery tech will be in a few years? Hell, even in just a couple years? Cheers!
You must've never heard of aluminum air battery
@@foadrightnow5725 New discoveries don't happen overnight and certainly don't come to market within a few years. We hear promising new battery tech every year only to see them disappear and never go anywhere.
@@jovanleon7 Yes I have, and many other exotic promising battery technologies over the last decade. These new wonder batteries are announced every year it seems all with the promise of revolutionizing the future, yet they all don't seem to go anywhere.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but it takes decades even for new promising tech go come to market and that's if they survive development.
@@GeorgeOu - You are not incorrect about hearing of new battery tech and it never going anywhere. But you forget how technology can start progressing exponentially. Which I hope battery tech will. I think it's at the bottom of the curve. But time will tell.
Do you realise how delightful it is to watch these videos without the usual awful backing track!? So refreshing! Keep up the good work :)
The only hurdle is having an energy source to drive these ideas. Right now we have nothing that compares to the energy density of aviation fuel. Until then these will be extremely limited.
well... one much nicer video did estimate that 3 times more powerful batteries than we have today could work. not long distance but short ones with small aircraft on remote areas or for island hopping. also energy cells to compare as very energy dense source of power.
You absolutely wrong! today we have hydrogen fuel cells , Electric Generators and compressors, gas generators that will allow for long flight times on electric power! People are to focused on battery's and not realizing other alternatives to deliver electric power!
@@BadManPromotions hydrogen on an aircraft ? The last time they tried it, it spontaneously combust while mid-air
As much as i love hydrogen, as of now they have no place in aviation since we don't have any good way of containing them
not really. to burn something to produce mechanical power is inefficient. this is the reason electric vehicles is possible despite the battery with little energy vs fuel
They can go the way of California and install a wind farm along it's fuselage lol.
People in developed countries can learn much education. Now, you share this to the world, that’s great.
What about de-icing? There is no jet engine warmth to be used and electric heating would use too much power.
Making proper insulation and solar heating system i.e making the body of aircraft top with solar make that power to heat? Just 9 passanger aircraft so could be done think so....
@@sharan9936 so ugh, you do know planes fly at night too right?
@@jamesbizs yea 🤣 thought that too😅 but just idea man
@@jamesbizs Hydrogen based heating system can be made.... ?
There will probably be a climate controll system on board. You could get hot air from that but electric heating would be the best option because of the transfer to the propellor blades.
Some spicy funky jazz would be great in the background of this video. Awesome explanation!
It would be interesting to compare the electric planes with piston engine planes, as they are more similar than jet engines to electric.
@@brianoconnor4269 Yes, I found that a bit strange.
@@brianoconnor4269 No harm done :-)
The biggest cons so far is the battery need space AND cutting cargo capacity. That's already a deal breaker.
@@kaikart123 Electric motors are great, it's powering them that's the problem. Easier to load up cars and boats with batteries than aircraft. How about a blimp covered in lightweight solar panels, I wonder. Maybe that would be a step backwards ;-)
I feel smarter just by subscribing to this channel
This reminds me a bit of the articles in the magazine Popular Mechanics and Popular Science I used to get in the 70s and 80s. They’d tout an emerging technology, and I’d get all excited about it, only to never hear of it again. The “devil” is in the details. A technology has to be easy and cheap to manufacture (and without many toxic chemical byproducts). It must be priced so that it is attractive to prospective customers. It must be marketed correctly, or no one know about it. It must be copyrighted to protect the technology from theft. (And a considerable amount of time and money must be spent on protecting those copyrights). There are many hurtles a technology must jump before becoming competitive. (And I’m not talking about being competitive with government subsidies. Too often those subsidies become addictive to the companies and they can’t compete without them ever.)
Electric aviation is an incredibly exciting development in the world of transportation, and this video does a fantastic job of explaining why. The potential benefits of electric airplanes are enormous, from reduced emissions and noise pollution to increased efficiency and cost savings.
It's fascinating to learn about the various challenges that must be overcome in order to make electric aviation a reality, such as developing more efficient batteries and designing planes that are optimized for electric propulsion. But it's clear that the potential rewards are well worth the effort, and it's inspiring to see so many innovative companies and researchers working to make this vision a reality.
I believe that electric aviation will play a crucial role in shaping the future of transportation, and I'm excited to see what the next few years will bring in terms of progress and innovation. Thank you for sharing this informative and thought-provoking video!
No matter how much batteryheads deny, but the fact that you MUST go to fuel cell technologies if you want to go electric in aviation still remains.
Not for all cases, there's already a niche for electric aircraft in short range flights
Wrong.
Batteries are most likely the better option: Costs will decrease much faster than for fuel cells and hydrogen tank systems, System complexity is much smaller compared to fuel cells. Gaseous hydrogen tanks (only option for general aviation) are very heavy too...
Lesics seems to be my favarite channel on youtube. they are actaully contributing to the future of the world technology.
yes, but the batteries will always be heavy, so, between similar sized jet vs electric planes, the jet powered one will still be able to carry more cargo. not to mention, batteries take longer to charge than to just fuel up
Would it b possible 2 siphon off excess heat from a jet engine into a generator, 2 create energy 4 electric engine's, & could this greatly reduced fuel consumption , 4 a aircraft propelled by a jet & electric engine's. Sorry if this sounds like a stupid idea
yes... but lets for for short island hopping where price is primary concern and you only need few hops per day its viable option. also change wing and put batteries in hull... new aircraft should be developed quite easy
@@PsilovibeGraham Once the graphene is proven as viable in energy transfer (charging), *AND* we see batteries with 3-4x greater energy density than the absolute best currently available, then you may have a legitimate point. But let's not forget that such rapid charging isn't supported by the grid, so you'll need large scale batteries, receiving constant charge and able to rapidly discharge into said plane batteries to make it all viable, as well.
Until those three things become a reality, you're banking on speculative hypotheticals, and not based in reality. You have no business attacking anyone else, hypocrite. Please work on that.
@@PsilovibeGraham And your still likely a 5-10+ years away at minimum till graphene being practically applied, as well as the same or more for carbon nanotubes in wide capacity.
This all simple speculation till you get batteries with the same energy density to weight ratio as aviation fuel.
I remember reading about graphene 8-10 years ago on a tech website and still waiting for it to be used in anything useful for consumers.
Most people simply speak in generalities.
" Your comment honestly adds nothing to the conversation. Please work on that." The only thing missing is the clap emoji at the end of the sentence, like on twitter.
Great Video! Keep up the great work please make more similar to this. Showing NEW Technologies'!...
Informative but biased, just a quick blurb about the massive underlying con of electric planes that we may never overcome with lithium ion technology. Ultimately we need to accept that electric is not the solution for trucking and aviation unless we can solve the battery problem
Electric can be the solution for trucking. Install power delivery overhead along major highways and have a battery on board for the rest.
Edit: And no what I'm describing is not a train and if you think it is then you're stupid. A train runs only on tracks. Plenty of trains run on diesel, does that make them trucks? No. So why would running a truck on overhead electric make it a train?
@@radiosification That's just a train with extra steps
Not biased but hopeful and excited. You should be too.
@@MegaRBN14 That is the point. Transporting freight is the most efficient via railways, but not every cargo is large enough to be economic for trains, so we put them on trucks. Trucks are already small land trains running on fuel just like diesel engines, but unlike trains, trucks can continue their journey when the "rail" ends. We already have trolley buses in Europe it is the same concept.
@@MegaRBN14 The difference between trucks and trains are the tracks not the overhead power delivery. In the beginning railways were constructed without overhead power too, then later they were electrified in high traffic routes. The same should happen with trucks.
Nice feature hope really see electric ⚡ aviation airplane ✈️🛫 very soon 😊
You can buy one from Pipistrel
HAPPY NEW YEARS🤩
How have I never heard of this channel till now?
5:51. I don't understand your point? A jet engined aeroplane can also use differential thrust, and as the power on final approach is high the engine response is rapid. But there is no need for differential thrust; crabbing with aerodynamic controls is perfectly adequate.
Maybe they meant it is more easier and simpler with electric airplanes.
Electric motors have a millisecond response time which makes it easier to use and easier to program autopilot, so pilots have less to worry about.
That's why you dont see many jet quadcopters.
He said in the video that jet engines are laggy and less precise at thrust control compared to electric motors.
Differential thrust can done automatically on an electric plane without pilot input to keep the plane more stable for a safer, less risky landing.
Due to the long response times of jet engines, you cannot effectively use differential thrust for countering crosswind. That's why the statement is correct.
Beaaautifully explained. Keep making such videos please🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
This video is factually incorrect in at least two things. FINE pitch is used for take-off, not course pitch. Using differential thrust from jets or turbines is more difficult, but not impossible as stated in this video. An experienced pilot is unlikely to use differential thrust during landing, and would never use it for take-off, as maximum performance is used to get an aircraft safely off the runway and to an altitude in which there is a margin of safety in case something goes wrong and an emergency landing is required. While the graphics are nice, I would have thought a UA-cam channel with nearly five million subscribers would have the resources to thoroughly and correctly discover and present the facts.
Thanks, that's what I thought because this is a fundamental property of propellers. Another error is at the end says "in a few years we'll probably be able to fly to another country". That's only true if you live within 200 miles of another country. The fundamental limit is energy density in current battery technology and that won't change dramatically anytime soon. Electric aviation is great if you can reach your destination within an hour.
@@GeorgeOu few years is decades away. But some breakthrough will change everything.
@@idzkk Look up the definition of a few.
@@GeorgeOu we can fly to another country now if we are close enough hahahahaha thats not wrong thats just empty statement that means nothing. advertisers will often use it
shhh... nobody told them you need high pitch at high speeds.. hahahaha
Not sure why differential thrust is such a big topic for electric planes. One way or another you’re going to have to counter the side slip of a crosswind landing with either yaw or bank to create an equal force in the opposite direction, which can be controlled just as well with control surfaces.
It’s not like you can keep the airplane straight and level with the runway by just increasing the thrust on one side.
When animations are the only visual......reality is usually out the window. This presentation is is closer to comedy than reality.
This presentation is hilarious in its omissions......primarily the WEIGHT OF THE BATTERIES! The reason planes are not electric right now has nothing to do with motors, drives, BMS, propellors, etc. It is all about the weight of the energy storage system, ie the battery.
Until a radical new energy storage concept rolls out with far better energy density - electric planes will remain a novelty. DHL moves cargo and the charge by the pound. An electric plane is extremely weight limited, making them a horrific choice for a cargo carrier.
This is well produced and informative video. Thank you
It's extremely interesting and educational, but a suggestion would be to also briefly mention why regular plane still use jet engines.
If one already has some knowledge on how and why things work it is not a problem but, is someone see this without any knowledge on regular airplanes, he could wonder about why we still don't use electric airplanes instead of "normal" planes and this could cause some misinformation.
We need more energy dense storage methods for electric. As is it is still far behind jet fuel.
I know... but a lot of people don't
I hear your point.👍
@@johngriffin618 weight is the biggest problem as planes needs to land lighter than when they take off and batteries doesn't provide that.
I am always impressed with your videos ability to clearly and simply explain EV systems and other engineering concepts accurately. You managed to sum up years of what I learned developing electric aircraft perfectly. I’m amazed how clearly you explained the concept and advantages of axial thrust motors, something that was much more difficult to understand at the time! Please keep up the great work
You forgot one of the biggest advantages of an electric airplane which is the motor's ability to be powered by multiple sources. A rechargeable battery is one example but it's not the best because of low specific energy. Fuel cells are a better energy source because they can run on cheaper fuels like methane and hydrogen with higher efficiency compared to turboprop engines. The plane can also use a small rechargeable battery so it can use the propellers as regenerative air brakes. The top of the airplane can be covered in high efficiency thin film solar cells which can increase the range of the aircraft and in case the plane loses it's main power source because of fuel leak or whatever a fast military aircraft can be dispatched to fly above it and beam power using lasers (similar to aerial refueling).
Good ideas for sure.
@@rickwensel2313 LMAO 🤣 🤣🤣
Excellent Video 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
The only concern left about Electric aircrafts is energy density. You can see that the flying range is super low even compared to average light business jets and regional airliners. The passenger capacity is also too low to be considered commercial. But if we can find a battery solution that is almost as energy dense as oil fuels and have a proper durability over climates without costing too much, I would be waiting for electric powered fans instead of propellers for electric airliners.
Lithium has the highest number of movable ions. Making it 'THE' choice for high energy density batteries. Unfortunately, even relatively stable Lithium hexafluorophosphate can (and has many times) result in an uncontrollable fire. So energy density is not the only concern. Un-extinguishable fire is a huge risk and will remain so. Remember, we can shut off fuel to burning engines. We can't shut off the reaction of a burning battery pack. Not surprisingly, Eviation's Alice burned to the ground.
Valuable information 👍👍👍
You realize every twin engine plane (jet, piston, turboprop, etc.) can produce differential thrust, right?
Yes they can, the author of this video is obviously not a aviation fan, he would had known that
It takes a little bit of response time but they can ☺
@@demoaccount2392 I used to fly J31 and Fokker 50 aircraft. Variable asymmetric thrust can be selected very quickly but you would not do so except on the ground. And by asymmetric I mean full power on one side (why I don’t know) and full reverse on the other. It takes a little longer on jet (F70/100 and E175/190) aircraft but again, it is possible.
@@Trevor_Austin Ok, thanks
He's not saying it's not possible. He means that it's a lot harder to use since the engines don't respond fast enough to fuel flow rate change. However in electric airplanes, the engines respond instantly. So you can create differential thrust with fuel airplanes, but not that easily.
I use differential thrust all the time in flight simulator on 4 engine planes like A340 or 747. Just shut down and engine on either side and power manage the remaining engines to maintain steady flight. Even in real emergencies Pilots have used differential thrust to execute emergency landings especially when ailerons fail due to hydraulic issues.
Interesting video by the way.
The energy density of jet A vs the best available batteries is 15 times grater .
A hybrid might be a good solution a small turbine running a generator .
What benefit would you get from a hybrid aircraft? There is not much stop and go in the sky
Great explanation , Thank you !
You might mention that jet fuel stores 43 times the amount of energy/weight.
This is a misleading take, IMO.
The best turbojet motors see efficiencies of 55%. So of those 39.5kWh/gallon available in kerosene, only ~21kWh/gallon are actually available for doing work.
If you use that same math for Li-Ion. The best batteries we have sport some 3kWh/gallon of which only 2.9kWh/gallon are available for doing work with today's tech; reducing the figure you used to functional ~7.5x. Really leveling the two energy storage solutions quite a bit more than your initial figure suggests; and makes the challenge of matching the energy available in fossil fuels much more surmountable, and frankly, realistic.
@@monono954 that math has been beaten to death in the comments. Assuming the highest theoretical energy density for batteries and no improvement in ice efficiency, electric still falls short. By a lot less, but fuel would still have the edge
@@davidrobinson3154 without question! But the point I was trying to convey is that once we apply the numbers more accurately, the picture becomes far less dreary for the future of battery powered flight.
@@monono954 still don't think it's going to happen. It has hard limitations that fuel doesn't with aircraft.
Now trains on the other hand...
That statistic can however be a bit misleading when efficiencies are taken into account. I think a jet engine at altitude and at max speed giving max efficiency only has an efficiency of about 30% so your "43 times" number is down to 15 times compared to an electric motor close to 95% efficiency. 66% of jet fuel energy is wasted on heat, noise, friction, etc and not used for forward propulsive force.
Can't wait until we have low-weight batteries so these become practical in larger planes 🥰
Nature/Chemistry is pretty well defined already. Battery break through may happen within my lifetime but they will be large cost efficient stationary point of use items. Certainly not going to meet energy density requirements for mobile applications. Large batteries compete for cargo capacity and that's what makes logistics profitable.
5:08 this is wrong! jet engines can also produce differential thrust! i am so confused to why such an obvious mistake was made in this video
Due to the long response times of jet engines, you cannot effectively use differential thrust for countering crosswind. That's why the statement is correct
@@foxx8414 wrong the response time is not long,
@@foxx8414 then he should have said at 4:56 "the ability to produce "fast responding" differential thrust" and at 5:08 he should have said: "such an operation is "slower" in jet engines" instead of impossible
@@carholic-sz3qv what makes you think that? You should look up Airfrance flight 296, the delay between changing the thrust setting and the thrust actually changing to the desired value was a big factor in the crash
@@foxx8414 wrong, go inform yourself again mate, that happened in 1988 and the accident was actually due to failure in the recently introduced fly by wire instead of hydraulics as conventional. youre welcome. also aircrafts with multiple gensets have individual throttle control.
What a great video explaining this technology! Also, I will never get on an electric air plane. Ever.
thoughts on diesel generators being used to power the electric motors?
diesel turbines are a thing
batteries, in their current state, simply would not be a good fit.
Or, skip the electric part and get the thrust directly from the turbine!
Rolls Royce are presently designing a new concept called the "turbo generator". Basically a small jet engine connected to an alternator. Used to add power for take off, extend range or provide emergency power when needed. The Heart Aerospace ES30 will have one installed.
Hai sir I am from India ....your explanation is good ...as a postgraduate in electrical engineering it is clearly observed how control motor by changing frequency
Attempting to make an advantage from a nothingburger, in the meantime the weight required in batteries remains constant making landing fully loaded extremely dangerous unless you are only building puddle jumpers. Secondly Charging times will keep planes out of service for periods of time that will be unrealistic for airline service. Airports would be crammed full of parked airplanes that are simply charging their batteries which also means that airlines would be required to buy many more planes just to maintain current passenger loads.
Battery swapping is the way. They can't embedded the battery like this video if they want to avoid the charge. However, the new technology in battery may change the design.
I still dream we will create a mini fussion/fission reactor. So, everything like ship, airplane, truck can utilize them LOL
This video + wendover production's video on the future of airlines make such a fantastic combo.
Pure fantasy!
1. On a propellor driven aircraft creating differential thrust by increasing motor speed of 1 motor would cause sympathetic resonance which would be very disturbing for the occupants of the aircraft. Muti-engine aircraft have synchronizers to match engine speeds to prevent this. Varying propellor pitch would give differential thrust without creating sympathetic resonance. This is something that could also be down on a turboprop engine.
2. While turbine engines do have a delay in speed/thrust response to throttle commands this is much more pronounced at idle. To combat this all turbine powered aircraft have a flight idle feature that raises the minimum idle speed while the aircraft is in the air. Many aircraft have an approach idle setting that further increases the minimum idle speed while in landing configuration. Throttle response is still not instant but it is quick enough that the small amount of lag is not an issue. Also as others have pointed out while the electric motor may accelerate almost instantaneously by itself the inertial mass of the propellor will take time to overcome so the motor/propellor combo will not accelerate instantaneously. While there may be a small advantage over turbine engines in acceleration there is little to no operational advantage gained by it. Sort of a solution in search of a problem scenario.
3. Battery technology and even electric motor technology are not where they need to be to match or even come close to the performance of turbine engines. In aviation weight is everything. A single 747 engine produces about 65 megawatts at takeoff. All four engines on the 747 would produce 260 MW. I’m not aware of any motors that put out that kind of power. Now lets look at batteries for the 747. At 5 minutes at takeoff power you would use 21.6MWh. At an as of yet unobtained energy density of 1000Wh/kg (li-ion have an energy density of 50-260Wh/kg) you would need 21600kg of battery just for the first 5 minutes from the beginning of the takeoff roll (A 747 uses about 3000kg of fuel in 5 minutes at takeoff power).
This is all assuming that there are electric motors powerful enough. The max power density for axial flux motors is around 10kW/kg so an axial flux motor capable of producing the same power as 747 engine would weigh about 6500kg not counting the propellor, electronic controller or mounting apparatus. A 747 engine weighs about 4300kg. Additionally no axial flux motors of this size have been developed.
This video is an exercise in theory largely ignoring the physical restraints of the technology it proposes while making dubious claims of advantages that are in real life insignificant if not absolutely moot.
mW stays for milli watt 0.001W. MW is mega watt, 1 000 000W.
But yes, the comment is valid.
yeah this video is major garbage. So much wrong. Although i think electric planes to play a role in ga. Cold work there i think
pretty sure power density of electric motor is higher than 10kw/kg also nobody talks about using batteries on jumbo jet. first internal combustion engine is far heaver so replacing those with electric is first step than doing more steps... electric power gliders are actually better than gasoline ones
@@jebise1126 Pretty sure? Can you provide an example of one?
It's a start! It will get better over time. Who knows.. we might end up flying in an all electric passanger plane in a few years. I'd be thrilled to work on one of these!
I wonder if you can glide the plane for a bit to charge the battery. I doubt it would be all that significant but it would be cool.
you would lose range.
You could and the Pipistrel Alpha Electro does just that.
“When we focus on our gratitude, the tide of disappointment goes out and the tide of love rushes in.”
whats the carbon footprint difference from the jet engine to the electric engine? please include everything from battery manufacturing to bolting the thing together. thanks.
I guess you will need to pay him because he will need to do a lot of research to figure that out. It is unlikely he carries that information around with him in the head.
@@marviwilson1853 slave
unfortunately, the 787 is one of the first airliners that doesn't use a bleed air starter system anymore but an electric one, making the schematic at 1:06 a bit inaccurate
Electric planes aren’t going to happen any time soon. Not unless there is a complete breakthrough in battery tech. Liquid Fuel will always pack way more power per lb than battery. And unlike battery, the longer you fly, the lighter you get, which means the less fuel you need. Battery will not be able to compete with that. Not for many decades. This was a really bad take.
I personally would like to see the roll out of Hybrids, the advantage of the electric motors seems to great to ignore and to just hook it up to an onboard powerplant would be fine for me.
@@WilliamHelstad Using the airframe as the battery is an intriguing idea albeit an impractical one with any current technology. There is not any current battery technology that has the structural properties necessary to construct an airframe out of.
@@eisenkrieg553 I'd drive a Prius but I wouldn't drive a Tesla.
@@eisenkrieg553 excellent idea
Grazie.
Constant speed props and motors are pretty important in aviation. Swing and a miss on this one lesics
Great effort 👏❤️
It's also better to use Eviation Alice for short haul flights like Nyc to Philadelphia,NYC to Washington,Dubai to Doha etc.
Yes. That is the intention of a plane like Alice. It is the short haul that can produce so much waste and expense. Look at Cape Air model for this type of airline.
@@coug96fan uhmmm... someone's real wendower productions fan here!
It would be even better to have a flying prototype of Alice. Or any prototype.
@@DinoAlberini What makes you think there isn't a prototype ready to fly?
@Airplane What pretty cool of you ask me. Not everything is correct, but pretty close.
6:45 I hope you are right, because that would mean that either batter energy density has increased exponentially, or there was a major breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cell technology
If this is so great, why can't you show us a video of an actual electric plane?
it doesn't exist .....................
@@ealtar this one doesn’t, anyway.
Best ideas .electric motor and propeller airplane 👏👏👏
The reason electric planes are "bad" is that those lithium ion batteries have a poor energy storage as well as they are not recycled because there is no effecient method for doing so.
Dont forget about the thing of blowing up. They are highly unstable and if a crash does appear the chances of survival are very slim
@@seniorbush7164 As opposed to the amazing chances of survival of a hydrocarbon plane
Lithium Ion cells are not thrown away, Robert Lwellyn literally said that in one of his more recent videos
@@crackedemerald4930 I would love to see that to be honest. But if it lands in a city, big chance part of the city is gone.
@@seniorbush7164 well yea, same would happen with any plane, maybe less because it can't leak fuel everyone, but then again kerosene isn't that flammable.
Sangat jenius kawan terbaik👍👍👍
This really is a back to the future solution. This electric technology cannot match the speed and power of the jet engine.
We may yet be forced to reintroduce airships, these can be electric powered and can be considered as being very quiet. But apart from the improvements in battery energy storage, this is a technology from the 1930s. It is ironic that children's books of the period envisaged a future dominated by airships and propeller driven aircraft, the concept of jet power did not feature in the scifi of the time, yet it is a technology that, by necessity, may have come and gone, along with faster than sound travel. Without a new revolutionary form of propulsion, our only hope of matching the performance of today's jet engines in the future, is to power them with hydrogen.
Problem is the huge volume of hydrogen, even at a liquid state @ 7°Kelvin.
In the time where the Lockheed 1011 was built, Lockheed seriously considered hydrogen fuel. Nothing cheaper than jet A1 fuel, but not good enough for rocket fuel (refined kerosene) RF1 is 5 times more expensive.
Cross country travel is not possible even by electric car without recharging.
For aeroplane it seems very far
Any electric airplanes in active service? Tried and tested? I didn't think so. Bollocks!
Rolls roys elctric plane bro plz go and search .
@@robinabraham2843 I ain't your bro. What airline is using it? Oh, wait, it's just an experimental 1 person toy plane with claimed 100 miles of range.
@@Inflator82 we using future lithium solid State battery/ hydrogen fuel cells.more range we got.
@@robinabraham2843 Who is using? You? There is not even an electric private jet sized plane in production so what are we talking about here? Animated pictures only.
@@robinabraham2843 we? lol
Thanks for this interesting production. One slight nitpick with the illustration at 4:16 is that the propeller is rotating backwards. Unless the new technology is able to make aircraft fly in reverse this is incorrect😇.
As far as differential thrust goes, in the aeroplane illustrated the thrust differential would have very little effect because both engines are so close to the axis of the craft. The most efficient designs that I have studied for electric aircraft are on the wings especially at the tips where the rotating wash from the propellers can be used to oppose the drag from wingtip vorticies by arranging them to rotate in the other direction. At the wingtip the moment for each engine is much more and can be a useful addition to the armamentarium for control of yaw, just as differential wheel brakes can be used to steer the aircraft on the ground
the original Eviation Alice design (built as a non-flyable prototype) had a tractor propeller at each wingtip, plus a centreline pusher on the tail. Before reaching the flyable prototype stage they switched the current configuration... so the wingtip prop idea didn't make it for some reason (I can think of at least three).
Hydrogen fuel cell and electric motor seems like the way to go for future aviation
That's true. Although it's not ideal for automobiles, the low weight of hydrogen make's it ideal for aviation
@@brokolosbinala2970 also very important that hydrogen plane can get progressively lighter when they fly like a conventional plane, which is crucial because planes’ maximum takeoff weight is usually greater than landing weight
@@brokolosbinala2970 low weight of hydrogen? Doubt it weighs less than any other fuel, when it comes to how much can produce how much power.
@@jamesbizs compared to battery electric planes hydrogen is lighter
@@brokolosbinala2970 yes. Compared to a garbage tech (for planes), hydrogen is a better garbage tech. Which is why it will never compete against liquid fuel.
Good concise and simple information.
This delivery of simple concise information allows the public to realise that all domestic inland flights throughout Britain can now divest from using fossil fuels to power their systems.
We can only hope the companies involved in transporting people via aviation will now work towards improving the aviation infrastructure since they now clearly have an alternative and readily obtainable option available to them.
We can now stop poisoning the atmosphere via aviation use.
Christ have mercy.
God bless
Usually this channel puts out pretty good material
This however is garbage...
Battery electric planes will NOT be a thing, power density is far too low there is no battery chemistry that gets close to what's neccesary
Hydrogen fuel cell electric planes will NOT be a thing, power density (volumetric) is far too low (and factoring the weight of the storage vessel power density by mass is ALSO too low)
Hydrogen combustion planes will NOT be a thing (see hydrogen fuel cell)
Hydrocarbons of pretty much any sort used as jet fuel have ~45mj/kg and the turbofans we have now are something like 50% efficient, meaning any alternative fuel source needs to be 22.5mj/kg in density at 100% efficiency to come close to conventional planes. There is literally no chemical storage that can get here (nuclear sure but we're not going to have nuclear powered planes for obvious reasons).
What most people tend to forget is that electric cars are so much better than regular cars because regular cars are inefficient as fk whereas planes have been optimized to the max over the past 100 years. EVs also excel at energy recovery which is a feature which a car can benefit from massively from it's use case but a plane can't because planes don't ever stop and go, they accelerate ONCE and decelerate ONCE in a flight.
Planes are already aerodynamically optimized (another key difference between electric cars and regular cars ... nothing intrinsic about electric cars being more aerodynamically efficient, only that if they were not, they would have a range half that of what they are now and no one would buy them)
Also I dont think that any induction motor or synchronous motor can match powe density of jet engine .
Excellent work thanks
I'm surprised at your electric aircraft choice to showcase. Eviation Alice was first designed by people with 0 engineering or aircraft knowledge as a way to get money from gullible investors. The first few iterations were impossible to manufacture, clearly lied on their specs (like range, MTOW, etc.) and were clearly un-certifiable both in the US and in Europe. This last design (the one that you showcase here) still has lots of problems: production costs are going to be prohibitive (how are you going to manufacture the windows? There are no two windows that have the same shape! Or how are you going to build that fuselage shape? Let alone cure the composite materials in an autoclave!), the comfort of the passengers will be similar to a small bus, with probably less than 100km range, and forget about bringing luggage (there is literally no space for it). Moreover, there are still lots of certification problems, range impossibilities due to energy density, and the max airspeed of this aircraft will be comparable to a train. All in all, just a money grab for gullible investors.
Maybe two or three iterations down the line this aircraft can have any use, but I'm not really sure if they can manage.
Good video, but probably should have focused on the cons of the design (which is almost everything).
Cannot wait to live in the future!
Im seriously disappointed in this.... This future 😐😐... No more sonic boom no more turbine noises...
But hey, we won't get as much pollution. If we keep heading with jet planes, you may end up dying from pollution.
@@windowschips pollution my foot... Mining for lithium takes 3 times more pollution and disturbance to land than any other supercar manufacturing..... Considering ev cannot run on 12v conventional battery
@@windowschips where do you expect the resources and the electrify to come from? You people are either ignorant or delusional. Or both.
It's really amazing the age of electric motors... !
Imagine how much faster the world could develop green energy and climate change fighting solutions if it wasn't for intellectual property rights, patents and limitless capitalist greed in general...
Let's put solar panels on every home, business and covered parking rooftop and switch to electric vehicles making nearly everything we do solar powered while completely decentralizing our power supply and empowering everyone as power generation owners.
Solar power is CHEAPER and electric vehicles are soon to be CHEAPER to make and already are considerably CHEAPER to maintain and operate, especially if charged from your own solar power.
A 3-5 year ROI (return on investment) for a solar array that will generate power for decades is a no-brainer and the panels can even be made locally too.
#EndFossilFuels #SwitchToSolar #SwitchToElectric #GreenNewDeal #EmpowerEveryone #DEMEXIT #StillSandersPlatform
And who invent and make all these solutions for free? You? I didn't think so.
Talk about brainwashed.
So we're comparing an electric propeller to a Jet turbine engine. I'm pretty damn sure that fuel propeller engines are also more responsive than jets, but they also have a much lower top speed.
Lithium ion batteries are also a barrier technology. Until lightweight solid state batteries come unto production, it's business as usual.
Definitely a biased video. You also don't have a very good understanding of how the propeller systems actually work and why they are used on planes. Changing the pitch allows the propeller to be mpre efficient at different power settings and different flight conditions. Feathering is also a useful thing to have on multi engine planes; feathering is when the propeller blade is inline with the air to remove drag when one of the engines die. There are also other things like de-ice and compression of the fuselage which will make longer distance flights possible, or even make the plane more robust. Ontop of all the advances that need to be made to make this possible, it all still needs to be tested and appeoved by the FAA which throws your "few years" out the window.
A jet engine is the one used in fighter jets. The engines used in common passenger aeroplanes are turbo-fan engines.
Wrong. While older generation used turbojets, modern fighter jets use turbofans.
@@DanSlotea highbypass turbofans
@@akiramiller9025 wrong. high bypass turbofans are used for airliners and cargos, fighters use low bypass afterburning turbofans, especially the supersonic ones..
I dislike this video ..highly biased
I would love to see a general aviation electric motor airplane. LSAs or even Cessna 172. The gas savings alone would greatly lower the costs to fly and airplane and also the cost of learning how to fly ! Maintenance costs also would be lowers too for the owners. The airplane manufacturers should move in this direction immediately like Tesla has moved forward automobiles.
Someone made one. Can't remember the name, but there is an FAA approved LSA now! Endurance is like 90 minutes, so it's a trainer at best, unless Elon has a fast charging station at your destination FBO. Despite the disadvantages, it is cool that someone has done it. I think we're going to see a lot of advancements in the near future. There's a lot of hurdles to overcome, but the minds of our generation will figure it all out. Super exciting to be a spectator in these times!
Very well explained.
We're going to need more energy dense batteries first, but the future is bright. Let's make it so!
Use hydrogen fuel cell more efficient. More energy .posibel!
@@robinabraham2843 no. Stick with normal fuel.
ENGINES CAN ALSO RECHARGE BATTERIES DURING FLIGHT! CAN BE DONE EASILY AND RECHARGE BATTERIES WILL BE EITHER NOT REQUIRED OR REQUIRE A LITTLE TO CHARGE AFTER FLIGHT!!!
This tech is amazing!
And it's propeller driven!
the good ole "its electric so it must be good" hur durrr
What about maximum/minimum landing weight!? If an emergency occurred it can't dump fuel like jet/turbo prop airplane.
Very Nice Bro. Get Good People!
Great video.
You guys forgot one of the biggest main points: Due to the missing high explosive heavy kerosene the plane is by far less vulnerable in emergencies and also easier to maneuver due to less weight (which means its easier to steer against friction in general).
Guess you never noticed the unprecedented problems when electric vehicles burst into flames.
@@nabirasch5169 obviously I did and I didnt say this is no problem
I was talking about the cos only
Hello. Klasse video 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍. Thanks... Fim 🚂👮♂️✋
The real advantage is adaptability of algorithms for smoothest and effortless maneuvers
That could be applied on a jet engine as well. Its dangerous tho, think about the 737-8 max that had a sort system which cause two planes to crash.
Much like the tesla semi. This will need a revolution of battery technology to make sense. Batteries are heavy, super heavy. Thus limiting range and carrying capacity. This is due to a pardox more weight requires more power, which requires more weight.
Please make more on electric aviation and Hybrid aircrafts and drones where a generator gives power to batteries which then power electric motors.