I'm generalizing here of course, but TBH, that's pretty typical about people from that part of the world, I love it, work with some people from that part of the world and you pretty much know exactly where you are standing with them
Thanks, there's no point in not telling it like it is, we want development to move forward. It works well as an aircraft in the early stages of flight training and is a really good start - but as many have already figured out, there is still a lot to do :) Our idea is to use the technology that is available right now. It is not easy to use new technology commercially, but it is interesting and our way of pushing development forward.
@@greenflightacademyI loved the clip and it's really interesting to see all development. I just kept wondering that this works quite well for a small airfield and a single electric plane but what if you've 10 flying around the airfield and ATC has to take them all into account since everyone likes to land when running out of juice. I think that can be quite problematic to organize as ATC.
As an American aviation enthusiast, I really appreciate being able to listen to two Swedes speak in perfect English about this kinda technology. Thank you folks for creating such interesting content in a non-native language. Truly impressive.
@@CommentLikeDescribe Same for Iceland. An interesting discovery when talking to one local who had what was basically a perfect Northeastern US accent - apparently somehow an Icelandic accent + New Zealand accent (they had spent a few years in NZ) when combined are indistinguishable from Northeastern US.
This is interesting to me as a Norwegian. Due to mountains, vast tundra plains and the many fjords, there is an extensive network of short runway airports with subsidized flights, especially up north. The flights are often very short, like the 55 nm flight from Lofoten to Bodø, but this is (in this example) the alternative to a long, very expensive ferry trip over open ocean or a 8-9 hour drive. Just to mention one example. The Norwegian Aviation Administration and a commercial airline company do explore the possibilities for electric aircrafts on such short routes, even more as the Dash 8 machines used today are often sparsely booked. Also, there is a project intending to develop seaplanes (floating hulls) on the route Bergen-Stavanger, from city centre to city centre. Passenger capacity around 10, one pilot. This is a short distance plane route, but a close to five hour drive with heavy road tolls. As the whole flight is close to water, any fjord or lake can serve as an emergency landing spot. Still, this is far in the future.
@@RogerMentol These plans are for new, larger planes to enter service later this decade, far more realistic: Early/mid next decade. Intitial operational startup for the Tecnam P-Volt nine seater land plane (possible range 355 km, operational range 140 km) was set to 2026, but the company has rolled back final release date. The sea plane is so far basically just an advanced study, and there are many experts criticizing the project’s feasibility. Web: el-fly(dot)no
I flew microlite for many years and this reminds me of the pioneering that went into such flight in the early years. To me it seems that battery power is ideal for the first few lessons where you don´t want to be overwhelmed by all sorts of tec-checks and can concentrate on actuell flying. Wish this would have been around 20 years ago.
Hi. I had a very close friend, Aidan de Gersigni, sadly prematurely deceased many yrs ago, who pioneered hangliding in South Africa in abt 1974 ,was SA champ in '78 I think, and went on to build abt 1200 micro lights as Solo Wings. I'll never forget his grit and determination over 3 days on learner slopes around Durban. As his' second'as it were, I watched him wipe out over and over and eventually, on the third day, take off to abt 60 ft over what in SA is called a donga but in America a dry gulch or arroyo I believe. The expression on his face, which my ex caught on a Kodak instamatic is classic! F*! K I'm up!!
Then F*! K how do I get down!? Lol. When Flight SA did a feature on him as the gran'daddy of hangliding in SA, they featured our Pic, from his widow, in their article. Cheers, carl
G'day, Well, if you search YT for "National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!" You may enjoy a recent visit to what I uploaded a dozen years back, "The 8 HP, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !" I was it's 3rd owner, it was my first Aeroplane, it took me for my first Solo..., in 1979 ; I was 17 at the time. In 1992 while being silly I crashed my second Aeroplane, a 22 HP VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider. Last month I bought a Talaria Sting (L1e) Road registered Electric Motocross Bike. The off-road versions have a 6,000 or 8,500 watt motor, with a 2,300 W/Hr Battery. If a spare Sting Motor & Speed-Controller ($1,600) and a spare Battery ($2,000) were built into the VJ-24w, which had a direct-drive 41.5" X 12.5" Propeller running at 4,200 RPM produced only 9 HP of THRUST. At 4.18:1 reduction drive from the Sting Motor and a Propeller Shaft (instead of the 8.35:1 of the Motorcycle rear wheel) then a Propeller Shaft would have 30.5 HP at 1,144 RPM, Running a 96" X 46" Propeller, Engaging 50 sq. ft instead of 9 sq ft of Disc Area - both at 50 mph Airspeed ; for 19 HP of actual Thrust.... For 17 minutes, Leaving enough in the battery for at least one Missed Approach/go around, AFTER diving back down from 11,250 ft, using the Motorcycle's 4-stage Regenerative Braking to Put maybe 20 or 30% of a Charge back into the Battery - Atop the 20% "Reserve" Capacity left at the top of the Climb. Or, take off, climb to the first Thermal, Float around all day, And by thermalling up & diving down, One Might Land with a Full Battery. If I can sell my 2 y.o. electric Bicycle I May have sufficient Spare funds to Suck it And See what Happens (!). Have a good one... Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
It's a minor detail, but I really like how you stabilized the footage on the horizon for the main camera and on the cockpit for the pilot camera. This reduction in movement really helps prevent people get motion sick when watching the video! 👍
Oh my god! I didn't even notice this until I read this post and went back to a random point in the video and checked. 10 internet points for noticing this and another 10 internet points to Mentor Aviation or the editing software for know this is the right way to edit video. You are so right that this simple choice makes watching the video feel so much better. I love wins all round. ❤
This is purely a matter of preference, but I find horizon-stablized videos annoyingly unrealistic. That's just not how it looks when you're flying. I'd much rather see the frame referenced to the aircraft and enjoy the tilting of the horizon. But, each to their own.
It’s incredible to see them flying above our city, you barely hear their electric planes. Such a difference compared to our 1984 piper pa28. That one you could defined hear!
Finally bring the cost of flying for fun down. Particularly now that carbon fiber is the new fiberglass. Easier than fiberglass if you only want your part to be half the weight, instead of a quarter the weight. The dream is to build a trailer for my e-bike that converts my e-bike into a flying e-bike. Also thin film solar for the upper wing material. Probably going to need some inflatable pontoons since I want to go island hopping.
Lower cost flying? Pipistrel Velis Electro - $210,000 Battery replacement - ~$24,000 every 500 hours Motor rebuild - Cost unknown, every 2,000 hours Motor bearing and seal replacement - cost unknown, but the motor must be removed and sent to Pipistrel every 300 hours. Electricity cost - Insignificant Pipistrel Alpha Trainer - $100,000 Engine rebuild - ~$12,000 every 2,000 hours Fuel costs - $20/hr Other maintenance costs - Insignificant The ICE aircraft is easily the far less expensive option.@@jtjames79
That was particularly interesting Petter. Green Flight Academy is very honest in its appreciation of how such an airplane fits within a training program > at this time its fillls the requisites of one stage, one only, but seems to do a great job at it. I'd be interested to see other sustainability choices made elsewhere, so feel free to takes us along ! Thank you again Petter.
As both a private pilot and someone who cares very much about the climate I deeply appreciate your video! The mantra from many in the aviation community is "electric airplanes will never work, let's keep burning the kerosine and avgas". Per your excellent and clear-eyed video, it's true that current battery density is only capable of sustaining short flights in small aircraft, yet here is a perfect example of what CAN be done. Yes, it's a beginning, but it's a cost effective climate friendly beginning, in a town that runs primarily(judging from your video) on green energy. Humanity has always been best served by people who look at a problem and figure out ways of moving forward, not by those who remain entrenched in the past.
Excellent content Petter!! This is the first video I’ve seen of an electric plane actually in flight! Thank you for sharing and asking the questions that we all have!
Thank you. For me, that was one of your best ever videos. Im really interested i sustainable aviation (so that was fascinating) but to see you evaluating a new aircraft and hear your views on it was just great. And you didn't shy away from asking difficult questions about battery faults, life, complexity. Just great. I look forward to when you can work another such flight into your busy schedule.
I tried to fly one last year, it was very interesting. I remember that I was very surprised by how much it was gliding on final and it was pretty tricky to stay on the correct glide path. The VFE flaps 2 was very close to the approach speed too. But Overall a very interesting concept demonstrator. I hope that we will have more of these in the coming years for flyingclubs and flight schools.
It's all interesting but weight management must be a pain in the аss since you can't take a bit less fuel to fit all you need into your max TO weight limits. Also the landing max weight is literally the same as the TO one so I'm curious how challenging it is to land the bird on shorter runways or with no flaps
With solid state batteries coming soon. That shouldn't be a problem. But, alone the ease of getting it ready for going up in the air. That is such a no fuss, from "I wanna go fly" to being in the air, such a short step. And the lower cost for keeping it airworthy is a great bonus.
After all that, not one comment about probably the biggest thing? How *quiet* those airplanes are. A Cessna 172 is noisy - you can barely do things without a headset (you have a speaker and mic in one, so you can still hear ATC, somewhat). It would've been nice to see a comment about how quiet it is without a headset on. Additionally, you should try to check our Harbour Air in British Columbia, Canada, to check out the Electric Beaver. It too is electric, because they have a flight time of 22 minutes for their most popular route.
The biggest thing is actually not dumping lead into the atmosphere since traditional smaller airplanes use leaded fuel and small airports are often near residential areas and people get lead poisoning without even knowing it.
@@mediocreman2 The measured lead hasn't been an issue, even near busy airports, as it's quite spread out. But lead compounds are bad, and should be eliminated, and general aviation is the only large contributor.
The training methodology do make sense. Start with something simple, just to get a feel for it. Then gradually progress to more complex things. Great for preventing information overload in newcomers.
Unfortunately, the infrastructure and power requires here is immense. And, as might be the first time you have heard this, many things do not scale up.
@@orthopraxis235 what infrastructure? they are not building a new runway exclusive for this tiny electric training plane, did they? and it looks like most airfield are connected to the grid, as far as I know they already use electric lights in sweden even for buildings and runways, no more kerosene lamps....
I absolutely adore this video because it resonates deeply with my passion for aviation. Having worked as a helicopter mechanic for a remarkable 21 years, I've always harbored a burning desire to soar through the skies myself. Although I managed to accumulate a few hours of flight time in a Cessna 172, I recently decided to challenge myself by taking lessons on an ultralight aircraft. However, I must admit that transitioning to a stick control felt incredibly unfamiliar and I experienced a sense of forgetting everything I had learned. Nevertheless, your candid discussion about your own lack of stick flying experience served as a powerful motivator for me to persevere on this journey.
I think this is the first time I ever saw Petter actually fly outside of a simulator. Looks like we can continue to trust his knowledge and wisdom! Pedder is the best! Also, my nine year old boy, who shares my love of aviation, says that Pedder's videos are the greatest.
Really enjoyed this! When it comes to Electric aviation, I cant think of anyone I'd rather have show me the tech and how it is improving over time. Thank you. You are a great ambassador for flying!
We have one of these at my flight school. I'm literally BEGGING them to let me try it. Ours is part of the University of Waterloo aviation program. I'm outside of the program, but I still totally want to fly the thing. It taxied out while I was doing a walk around and I didn't even notice until it ran up.
@@jebes909090That's a problem of cheap batteries made with low-quality materials and craftsmanship. Aircraft-grade batteries are obviously going to be much better made, and tested for safety and reliability.
@@jebes909090battery fires don't happen "randomly". Thermal runaway needs quite high temps, far outside the operating range. Shorting is only a thing if you don't maintain your aircraft... But the same is true for gas lines that have cracks in them...
@@Validole except no one going to examimg every single battery in a battery pack for degradation so the only other solution is to replace battery packs at regular intervals. Since you're absolutle dead if it erupts into flames mid air, those battery packs will have to be replaced far more often then in cars to ensure safety. In other words, electric planes will end up being more expensive and carry far less then a traditional aircraft
When these planes get a little more endurance, It’s going to be really exciting to see these more often at flight schools. With the lower cost per hour, why not use it to teach students the basics of flight.
I think that for GA flight schools, training on these would be a disservice to their students. Fine for those going CPL or ATPL where the planes they will be flying are all significantly different anyway. If a PPL were gained on an eletric plane then, until they are more common, the new pilot will have to start flying an ICE plane with little to no experience.
@@richardpayne If I understand it correctly, they agree with you and always augment the initial training with ICE plane training. The BE plane is just used in the earlier phases of training. I'm sure they'll keep doing that until the performance, cost, and availability of BE planes is such that individuals can expect to pilot only BE planes, whether that is general aviation or even eventually commercial.
@@richardpaynemaybe - for people not aspiring to become commercial pilots - training on a BE plane will be like doing your drivers license on an EV with some people in the back saying "but what if you need to drive stick at some point?!" (true in theory but increasingly irrelevant as we're entering a new age of doing things without using fossile fuels)
People keep mentioning the reduced cost of these. There's a couple of places in the UK with these, and I was talking to a guy at Popham and he said the issue is Charging. That great big 1 Megawatt unit at the airfield would have put a massive dent in your hourly rate! Also with such a short endurance at present you can only fly to another field if it is less than 20 miles away or they have their own expensive power station. In the UK there are only 3 places where you can charge them and none are reachable in a cross country as they are very range restricted. Headwinds will cause similar anxiety as range anxiety in EV drivers! The rate quoted for electricity is also way under the European average, most countries are more like €0.30/Kwh, so much more than €1.00 to recharge, and you need 3 phase to do that! Yes you have to start somewhere but it will be a while before we are all buzzing around the skies under electric power! Also, wasn't it Technam who tried a twin engine electric 8 seater for a small commuter plane? Didn't work out surprisingly as the batteries were fried after only a couple of hundred charges as planes, unlike cars, need 100% charge as the range is way too short even with 100%, and charging to full every time is probably what killed their first batteries?
Sweden is so beautiful. What a great video, and I'm so jealous of those who get to live and learn to fly in this area of the world. My first flight was however in the Bay area, I got to fly over Alcatraz and the Golden gate, so that was a great experience, but Sweden is just so pretty.
Awesome! I did not realize that the technology had progressed this far! Almost one hour is as long as most of my training flights with a Cessna 152. The "cross country" aircraft being a bit over the boundary for now, but probably not many more years!
@@ThreeTrillionTrees If by soon you mean 30 years, then yes. The FAA is still struggling to remove lead from fuel, which has been banned for on-road car use since 1975. If they can't figure out an unleaded gasoline solution in 50 years, I guarantee they won't do batteries in any less than a decade. The problem with solid-state batteries for aviation specifically is that they are extremely sensitive to cold temperatures, significantly more so than traditional Li-ion. That (and cost) have to be solved first, then it will be hurry up and wait on certification. Eventually? Maybe. But not soon.
@@ss-tx-rx2860 CATL has announced a hybrid battery with 500 KwH output, dramatically improved operating temperatures, AND 5000 charging cycles with 5% degradation. This will make 4 hour flights a reality.
My guess is that the battery pack (after removal at 500 hours) will be reused in a more conventional installation where absolute efficiency isn't required.
@@niconico3907 Over time the rated hours might improve, I suspect a large amount of battery packs would easily exceed the 500 hours without enough capacity loss/other faults to remain functional. Just that at some point they can't really guarantee reliable operation anymore (with current known data). But one of the packs failing and losing some of your battery capacity is a lot less critical in let's say a stationary application or a wheeled vehicle that stays on the ground. Those can probably even continue functioning just fine until the next maintenance due to weight being much less of restriction. Depending on the design individual cells might also be easy to recover and then ideally recycling the bad cells. Practically not done a lot yet but it's technically possible with existing technology to recover a high percentage of the ingredients, good old it's still cheaper to buy new stuff issue.
@@niconico3907There is plenty of real world data for lithium ion performance and degradation, that's how they're able to give an hour rating to begin with. I think OP meant reusing the old, now less-reliable battery packs in less mission critical applications, like grid storage. The bad cells can be removed, and the rest can be used in an application like that where the battery failing is more of a minor inconvenience of slightly less grid capacity, than a deadly tragedy of a plane going down or electric vehicle failing on the highway.
The battery pack will be designed for high power, but relatively short life. I think after it's reached 500 hours it will be already significantly reduced capacity, and not enormously longer life will still be available.
@@MentourNow Yes that would be ideal but the technology is moving forward. Battery densities have literally doubled compared to the Airbus eFan aircraft which crossed the English channel in 2015.
@@paul756uk2 Depends on the aircraft but servicing too. I would imagine it's less in an electric aircraft and as the technology improves I should think maintenance intervals will increase
@@planespeaking- Link to data? I’ve been involved in high performance electric aircraft since 2006 and commercial battery density is almost still the same as when I started.
I loved this. I'm a Pipistrel fan and am thinking seriously of getting an Alpha or Sinus. I saw another video where they took up an Electro and shut the engine off and let it soar for a while. They can be licensed either way (glider or powered craft) by the manufacturer, but I guess not both. Too bad you couldn't shut off the engine in flight. For me, this seems like the ultimate fun -- a Sinus that I can take up to 15000 feet, shut off the engine and then soar for miles and miles. While I love the idea of an electric plane, I'll wait for the next gen with solid state batteries that can get a few hours aloft. But what I'm really wanting is an electric VTOL that can fly for a few hours and land pretty much anywhere. What people don't realize is this is the first and only certified electric aircraft in the world. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's sort of like the 1903 Ford Model A. The first models got around 25 MPG and were said to have a range of 100 miles. This plane has a similar range of 108 NM. :) (My first car, a 68 Plymouth Fury II, got about 9 MPG and could go around 80 miles per tank.)
You can GLIDE for miles and miles from a lot lower altitude than 15000 feet (AGL) in a Sinus. 15000 feet is just under 3 statute miles up.... and with a 27 to 1 glide ratio, in still air, 3 miles of altitude means about 81statute miles of range before the wheels kiss the runway. And if there's some uplift, you can soar even more. Of course, air is rairly still, and most people can't maintain a max performance 27:1 glide ratio for as long as it would take to fly that far.
@@ssn608 Thanks for the info. I was wondering how far that sort of glide distance in terms of ground coverage might be. I'm in Phoenix, and we're about 1000' on the ground. A lot of people fly to places to the north, which are 4000'-6000', like Payson, Prescott, Sedona, and Flagstaff. So the idea of going way up and then gliding down to the various FBOs without the engine droning on for half the trip seems ideal, and the drop in elevation from 15,000' would only be 10,000' when heading north. Coming back I wouldn't need to go that high for a single ascent that gets me to my destination. (Maybe 2-3 lower-level ascents would be better...) Gliding around areas north of there like the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, etc., is also very inviting. Is there any reason that wouldn't work or be allowed? (I'm asking from the perspective of whether gliders can fly the same routes as GA crafts, or if they have to stick to certain other areas. I don't know much about the practical differences yet.) I've been in a glider and also did a solo skydive once, and what I was most present to was the amazingly beautiful view all around me and how quiet it was; I felt like a bird. That sort of experience is something you can only get in the air. Everybody has their own reasons for wanting to fly, and that would be mine. If I could stay aloft longer and get where I was heading, so much the better, even if it's just catching thermals over the desert. (There are several soaring schools around us, mostly to the south (50-70 miles away from where I live), but they're the ones that require tow planes. A Sinus would let me take off and land at an FBO 10 miles away from me, and probably spend as much time as I'd want in the air.)
@@TheSchwartzIsWithYouToday well, my Sinus flies about as fasf as the Cessna 152 I flew on a couple of occasions. In smooth air, I have no problem traveling at 120 knots. But... if it gets turbulent, i have to hold it down to 108 knots Vno: (Max structural cruising speed) in turbulence). The cruising speeds (with engine running) are roughly on par with a Cessna 152, so flying into the flyways over Grand Canyon probably wouldn't be a problem But doing that engine off? That you would have to ask around about.
2:10 I believe that headrest needs to be raised to provide protection the way it was designed to. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern over my life of passengers not raising the headrests in the rear seat of cars. It’s a small detail, but could provide huge benefits. Safe travels.
These would be SO great in Southeast Alaska. We have no road system and while the ferry is great, it's too infrequent for most villages. The other day I took a twenty minute flight to the next village on a massive jet, which was basically empty. Would LOVE to see these commercially.
There's also electric ferries (already in use) and some experimental modern sail technology that gets brought up here and there. Combining with more frequent ferry service it could be a nice complement to a future electric small aircraft service.
Harbour Air in BC Canada is testing an electric Beaver retrofit to hop between Victoria and Vancouver. They are working on certifying it for commercial use.
@@MentourNow I think this is in reference to your comment at 25:30 because the regional, short-haul airlines like Harbour Air seem to be ideal for commercial electric flight, right now, using existing (or old) technology.
The fun thing is that the power demand and battery requirement scale pretty much linearly. The size doesn't really matter; a bigger plane only needs proportionally more batteries, so you still get roughly an hour of flight time. Now, that one hour of flight time is not nearly enough for more than niche uses.
@@benoithudson7235but imagine what an hour means for feeder services to remote locations in rural Scandinavia or island groups, great improvement and only a starting point.
@@velotillyou’re not factoring in reserves. In commercial aviation you need to have 30 mins (Jets) or 45 mins (pistons) of final reserves that you absolutely cannot plan to use at the planning stage. So that’s already taken most of your useable range/endurance without even factoring in the need for alternate/contingency range unless you only ever want to operate in pristine calm weather. It’s mentioned in this video that they only use the plane to remain in the vicinity of the airport, if they wanted to go further they would pretty much be unable to legally Mentour is spot on- the energy density issue makes electric commercial aviation on any meaningful scale unviable
Useful load is the same as a 1980 Cessna 152 with 1/3 the endurance (3.1hrs plus 45min reserve @75% power for the Cessna vs the 50 minute plus 10 minute times quoted in the video) and 1/3 the reserve (10 minutes vs 45minutes) and nominally 10kts slower, as well. Rate of climb for the 152 is 715fpm and the Velis is 647fpm. The 152 engine is rated at 110hp/82kw and Pipistrel is 77hp/57.6kW and the power loading is 15.2lb/hp for the 152 and 17.1lb/hp for the Pipistrel--as should be expected from the difference in rate of climb. 152s can be had on the used market for sub $40k. I didn't see any used Velis Electros on the usual sites, but AvWeb reported the price for a new on at $209k as of May 2023. US VFR reserve requirements (30min) mean you can't even use this aircraft to complete the cross-country flight training requirement legally, since it cuts the range down below the minimum leg distance (>50nm for 1 segment with a total of 150nm total distance). DarkAero did a good video on the engineering behind electric and internal combustion aircraft--search for video titled "The engineering challenge of electrifying airplanes." And their comparison did its best to favor the electrics. The Otto, Diesel, and Brayton cycles should be sticking around for a while.
it's certainly not a plane for the US, but in Europe it's different. There are some airports under tremendous pressure from neighbours/authorities to make less noise and since this aircraft is 2x quieter than a Rotax for exemple (which is already pretty quiet) it could reduce the noise when doing basic training and traffic patterns by a lot. However I agree with you, we'll still see piston engines GA dominate the skies for a while.
When costing, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a brand new 2023 Pipistral to a 43 year old Cessna any more than you can talk yourself out of buying a new Tesla because you can buy a 1980 VW Rabbit for $200. What's a NEW 2 seat trainer cost?
@@mr-uc4me It is absolutely possible to compare to the 43 year old Cessna when the two aircraft fill the same role and the Cessna is both more readily available and offers better performance. Over 30,000 Cessna 150/152 aircraft were built and there's a large number of them still flying and still available in the marketplace. I've provided the direct comparison in other comments on this video between the Pipistrel Velis Electro and the Pipistrel Velis Club. In summary, the latter aircraft is virtually the same airframe with a Rotax. The Club is about $50,000 cheaper ($209k for the Electro vs $160k for the Club), cruises about 35kt faster, has 4-5 hours of endurance for a range of about 625nm (vs 50min plus 10 min reserve for a range of less than 100nm), and more horsepower (resulting in twice the rate of climb). The Pipistrel Alpha Trainer offers about the same horsepower (80hp Rotax 912 vs 77hp/57.6kW), cruises at 120kt instead of 98kt, has a range of 324nm with an endurance of 3 hours plus 30 min reserve, and climbs at 1220fpm instead of 647fpm, and retails for about $95k...less than 1/2 the price of the Electro.
Harbour Air in Vancouver has converted one of their DHC2 Beavers to electric and hope to use it for short flights to the Gulf Islands. Sounds like certification is a challenge but will be interesting to see how it progresses.
I'm sure it's doable, but I'd really question the economics and greenness of such a move. Those batteries are going to get cycled very deep, very hard and very often. They're going to need to be replaced much earlier than (say) a car battery would. Plus if there's a battery fire on a ground based (or even water based) EV it's bad, but people can escape quite easily. Unfortunately we don't have to imagine what such a fire would be like on an aircraft. It's already happened due to batteries carried as cargo and the results were tragic.
@@peterhoulihan9766 1,300 accidents in just 4 years in aviation due to fuel management. You would be more likely to die from bad fuel management than battery fire. Not only that but humanity is few years away from non-flammable batteries(probably lil further away from mass production for the public). Also none of these companies give a flying fuck about greeness, all they want is to remove fuel from the equation, because even if it goes against your OPINION, damn near all of transportation section is bottlenecked by fuel prices.
@@peterhoulihan9766 Fossil fuels involve impact too - we tend to minimize the status quo, because we have normalized the pollution, not only at the point of combustion, but especially the discovery, mining, refining and transportation of liquid fossil fuels, the way you talk is as if the current harbour air sea planes run on harmless fairy dust, as someone who has been at the harbour when it's busy, noisy and spewing emissions, I can tell you they do not run on harmless fairy dust, they run on fossil fuels, dirty noisy conflict inspiring fossil fuels. Vancouver to Victoria is within the range of a battery plane, Harbour Air have proved it, but in order to get certified, they need a whole new set of rules, because they are going first - someone has to - and I'm very proud it's the ultimate frontier plane of the DHC2 Beavers that are getting electrified. Dig - literally - deeper into how fossil fuels are made before tripping into the 'batteries are bad' tropes, and as others have pointed out, plenty of tragic liquid fuel accidents in aviation, but you have normalized them, battery fires do happen, but they are rare, and a well built battery BMS with per cell temperature monitoring can prevent them and give pilots lots of warning that there is problem. Put this in context, the full context, of existing energy production, risks, and results, before assuming new is always bad. Then picture yourself, standing on a hill, watching the Wright brothers first take to the skies, and wonder, would you have yelled: "This looks dangerous! Stay on the ground! Don't try new things!"
Love your first impressions behind the stick. As an ex glider pilot what is the cabin noise like? Big difference to single ICE? Your enthusiasm is up there with any first drive behind the wheel of an electric car.
Is the difference between flying (piloting) such a small plane compared to flying a modern B737 like: a bicycle compared to a car, or more like a car compared to a truck?
Another great video from Mentour pilot, thank you! I feel so proud that I personally know people who invented this airplane and its powerplant and brought it up as first fully certified electric airplane in the world! Its fuselage is actually built almost a stone˙s throw from my house.
Seems a LOT quieter up there. And I'm sure that things like solid state batteries in a few years will make this a lot more practical, for weight and range.
Noise was one of the major factors mentioned in the first video I watched about using the aircraft for pilot training. It allows airfields near population centres to be used due to the lower abatement requirements, and therefore easier for more people to do basic pilot training.
What amazes me, aside from Petter's excitement, is where this aircraft was built - Slovenia. That makes me also a lot curious. Good job you do, thanks for that!
I enjoyed this video thoroughly, from watching Petter go back to the basics, to learning about the progression of pilot training, to learning about this part of Sweden, to electric aviation - the technology, the physical/practical side and the financial side. 1 euro of energy cost for 40 minutes!!! This video really hits. 10/10. Hope to see more like it. 🍻
@@someoneelse7629True, but a) that's still half the cost of a similar class combustion engine plane, and b) battery costs are currently going down an exponential cost curve and up an exponential density curve. In other words, this 44 euros will probably be 22 euros in 5 years, 11 euros in 10 years, etc.
I am absolutely blown away and am so excited about this technology. My Dad flew an ultralight (Weedhopper) for years and I remember how awesome that thing was! Quick and easy. He used to load it up in the back of his pickup truck and take it anywhere. I believe he had a trailer eventually. Lol! We had a field in the back yard he would take off in and it was marked up like the Red Baron. We had such a great childhood.
I'm an avid enthusiast of this channel, and love the way you, Petter, explain sometimes very complicated things in a comprehensive way. Credits to you and your team! But I have recently moved to Slovenia, about half an hour from where this aircraft was built. They are located in Ajdovščina (if you ever need, I can help with the pronunciation 😅) and have followed this amazing companyn for a while. I would have loved if you explained more of the history of Pipistrel, and where they are going with the technology. Maybe something for a future video? ❤ Keep up the good work, and please: make this video on the electric future of aviation and Pipstrel! 🙏
You're doing tons of great videos, but this one was special even for the standards you thought us to expect from you! Congrats! I wonder how much your hands were telling you: just give it a try!?
Definitely are some challenges for electric planes to overcome but I think small light single engine planes could be excellent for training, local area, pattern work, etc. One problem is just the weight of batteries, another is an empty battery still weighs the same as a full battery, but an empty fuel tank doesnt weigh as much as a full tank obviously. But you have more predictable/simple weight and balance/performance calculations I would imagine? One fewer variable. But as battery tech continues to improve it will certainly become more viable! Interesting stuff!
I think even long term for larger aircraft batteries won't ever develop enough to be more efficient than jet fuel, there's just too much of a gulf in power density. But what small aircraft like this are doing is acting as a proof of concept for electric propulsion, and how to certify electric propulsion for flight. Instead the future for larger aircraft will be hybrid power. Imagine a gas turbine generator embedded within the fuselage so it has no impact on drag. The gas turbine is optimised to run at a constant speed which charges batteries during cruise. The batteries power a series of propulsion motors embedded within the wing, rather than hanging below as with current jet engines, to reduce drag. You could take off with pure battery power to reduce emissions over cities. Then you'd get efficiency gains from having a constant speed turbo-generator and reduced drag. All while still keeping the benefit of the high power density of jet fuel. This small electric aircraft is the first step in a really exciting future for lower emissions
there just won't be enough metal supply to electrify cars, let alone planes on top of everything else. it just won't happen. mining has huge impact on the environment (and we're not even talking about CO2), and the amount of (mostly toxic) waste that is created with each kg of new virgin metal keeps increasing over the years. the world will be long buried under actual mountains of toxic trash from mining before cars and commercial aviation succeeds in going fully electric.
I tried the Velis here in France last summer and it was a really nice plane in terms of handling and sensations… once they get the battery autonomy up to 1.5 hours plus 30 minutes reserve they’ll be onto a winner. I’m sure that will happen… look at the progress in electric car batteries.
Unlike fuel tanks, batteries do not get lighter as they are depleted. On these small airplanes 100lbs can make a significant difference in performance. The airplane I trained in climbed almost twice as fast without the instructor on board. I do hope battery tech keeps improving so this tech can be brought to more airplanes.
One thing I find less ideal for a flight school is the recharging time. Im used to seeing the school planes land and 10 minutes later another student starts the engine. Providing your flight in this is about 40 minutes and takes 40 minutes to recharge, it means you need to buy 2 to get the same flight hours / income as one plane would do. I would be curious to know hiw that cost compares 2 electric planes vs the cost of buying a single avgas plane.
Swappable batteries are not very practical for cars but would be perfect for this application. You are not going anywhere, always landing on the same airfield, while flying a second set of batteries is getting charged. Just needs an easy and safe way to swap those batteries.
Considering how much cheaper it is to operate an electric plane, they would still save money even after buying two. And you can always do battery swaps.
That really is surreal, sitting at the end of the runway with the engine stopped, then you tell it to go and you start the roll. It looks like there would be a repeating sensation of "OMG! the engine has quit and it is just windmilling, but we are holding altitude...."
First off, I'm loving on that Tecnam P2010 Diesel (power on / power off, no carb icing, no magneto's). I wished those had been around 30-years ago. Going to look for more videos on that plane. On the premise of this video, I like the idea of this battery electric trainer and the stepped training idea. With the Cessna 172R, there is a lot to learn during initial training whereas with this system, the student first learns flying skills from take-off, maneuvering, and landing without the complexities of mechanical systems and engine management. Let the student learn the fundamentals of flying, get the feel of flight, controlling the aircraft, then move onto engine aircraft and mechanical systems. I love this idea of incremental "stepped" training rather than all-at-once.
Oh, Petter! That was awesome! I it's fascinating that an electric plane has not only been built, but can fly! I bet that was amazing for you! Thank you for, "taking us along!" I love both your channels!
What is nice about these are that they are proving the reliability of the driveline mostly staying close to a runway. As batteries become available with higher energy density, these aircraft will be well tested for longer flights.
@@player400_official I am more concerned about the battery electronics and motor controller. Regardless of the potential for reliability, time in the air is the way to shake out bugs and build confidence.
@@swissaviator04 It will be. I've never suggested or thought otherwise. It is STILL nice that this completely NEW type of aircraft powertrain will have the opportunity to accumulate a lot of hours close to a runway.
Honestly, watching Petter just hop in and feel comfortable at the controls, as an airline pilot who has *never flown* with a stick yoke such as this aircraft...is *mesmerizing* ...this man is a master pilot if I've ever seen one.
I could see these (well, slightly larger obviously for passengers but with similar energy density batteries) being useful for these "shortest flight" type routes you sometimes see in island hopper situations.
Look at the eviation alice. Supposed to be used for flights from Martha's Vineyard to Hyannis by Cape Air at some point. (Hyannis is putting in the charging infrastructure now).
Yeah, maybe if technology advances a lot, battery-electric planes *might* be used for some cross country private jet trips in Europe, but probably nothing more
@@jan-lukas i dont think they will ever get that far. Power density is something musk , for example, has been successfully masking for his cars. but lets see when craft are weight-sensitive meaning power density needs to be high... what happens? this thing has maybe a 20 mile range in the real world.
Thanks for taking us with you for that impressive experience, Petter! I can't wait to see more flight schools adopting these types of aircraft into their training programs, and in general, for the industry to become more sustainable. What's stopping me from getting a PPL is that I don't want to do this in an airplane (and an industry) that is based on burning fossil fuel. So I'm very eager to see more airplanes run off batteries and sustainable e-fuels.
We have one at my home airfield in Schaenis as well. I was told that technically, a windmilling prop *can* charge the battery, but there's some certification issue preventing it from being used. Not a big difference, but just to keep in mind that the issues holding back 'green' aviation are mostly our esteemed regulators, not the technology itself.
@@Validole I am pretty sure freely rotating prob, if with small friction, will airbrake less than a locked one, that would create fair amount of turbulence. Of course if you are not harvesting the energy into battery recharging
This Electric Powered Aircraft Flight was wonderful and a new experience altogether , Clean, Cheap to Fly, and NO EMISIONS AT ALL ! I have only flow a light Piston Engined Aircraft for around 14 Hours , I don,t have a PPL, but I can see how this type of Aircraft which is the Future as far as I can see is very exciting. Thank you Petter for this Video.
I love the velis electro. I've frequently seen it fly and while I haven't flown it myself, I found it great to fly in the full-cockpit simulator. The flaps lever is very strange though, it felt like a car's handbrake.
@@DavidHRyall Controls are push-rods (so all manual) and you have a glide ratio of 1/15 so you can glide twice as far as a Cessna/Piper, so it's very safe in case of an emergency.
The instructor is incorrect when he says it could not recuperate, technically it could, but certification did not allow it. The alpha electro (certified as ultralight) has almost same technology and is able to recuperate, so in the future you could get a little bit of energy back on landing, about 7% of energy that was required to go up.
I have a friend who is in flight school right now flying these (or a similar model). It seems to make that learning curve a bit more linear by not having to learn the engine management immediately. Instead you can just focus on learning how to fly a plane first. For now these planes are a great addition to flight schools. Also, as they are so cheap, they could easily be used to offer marketing and tourist flights which could bring more people into the industry.
Oh, I love this, and would want to never land. I have a dozen questions but will try just a few. How do you deal with limiting battery discharge to no lower than 40-50%? Can you carry a 3rd, lighter weight battery dedicated to solar charging for either emergency backup power or to generally extend flight time? I wondered why it charged so fast before you said you have a kw charging system. Thanks to both of you for sharing this experience with us.
The current batteries leave about 378lb for pilot, passenger, and anything else you want to carry. Considering the FAA assumes the average passenger is between 184-189lb without carryons, two people is equal to the useful load of the airplane. If you kick out one of the two 189lb "average persons" and replace them with an equal weight of auxiliary battery, using Tesla's 4680-type battery energy density of 296Wh/kg (134Wh/lb), that would give a theoretical increase of 25.4kWh. At 75% power, the Velis Electro's 57.6kW engine is consuming 43.2kWh. So that aux battery would buy an additional 35 minutes which translates to 55 nautical miles. Incidentally, this works as long as your lone pilot is a female--the FAA AC 120-27E says the average person is 184-189lb, but the average female is 173-178lb while the average male is 194-199lb. So the average male would exceed the aircraft's max gross with a 189lb battery in the copilot's seat. And battery weight can't be adjusted like liquid fuel to reduce fuel load to compensate for loads--unless you add weight to make the aux battery pack modular, cutting energy density. Now compare to an equivalent internal combustion aircraft. The Velis Club is essentially the same aircraft powered by a Rotax 912. This aircraft burns 4.9gph, so the addition of 180lb of gasoline (30 gallons) would equate to an additional 6 hours of range at 133kts (per the brochure) and that's 800 miles. And the base Velis Club aircraft already has a published range of 625nm. This is the fundamental problem facing electric aviation.
Hey, Velis pilot here, I'll try my best to awnser you: -You have to plan your flight to land with around 30%, so you still have 15 minutes in case of a go-around for exemple, so it's all just planning. -You have a 12V battery which powers the avionics during startup and in case of an emergency, but you can't use it to power the engine because it's not powerful enough and having solar panels would not make sense since you could have at max 1kw of power when you use 25kw in cruise (even though you can lower this number to just under 20) -A charge lasts around 1 hour if you charge with the dedicated charger which has a 32kw charging system and since the total battery capacity is 22kw/h, you can easily understand why it takes that time. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me ;)
@@olpaint71 This aircraft is not meant for long cross-country flights, it's only role is to do the basic training, and you don't have to have a 500nm range just to do some patterns work ;)
@@swissaviator04 Mostly agree, and I appreciate your comments as a pilot of one. But the range is so short on it that any flight school must have a second aircraft, which is no small expense. My local (untowered) airport is far enough from the nearest towered airport (about 50nm) that a student can't get the required flights into controlled airspace without renting the plane for the whole day (assuming the towered airport has a charger). So, it has uses for very specific locations due to the limitations inherent to the current and near future battery technology. I don't deny that a use case can be found--the flight school in this video obviously has one that's working for them--but the contrast between the electric airplane and its conventional competitors is stark.
Very interesting. That battery replacement cost is the killer. I've done some rough comparative figures in terms of costs with a Cessna 150 which is also a two seater trainer. We recently had the engine zero timed for £38K, full tear-down and rebuild. Giving 1800 to 2000 hours of operation before it needs doing again (all things going well). That equates to £20 / hour for engine rebuild. vs. Pipistrel battery replacement at £38 / hour. Fuel for the Cessna running at around £42 / h vs about £8.40 / hr for the Pipistrel (talking real world here, not with massively subsidised electricity like in that town.) So C150 engine fund and fuel: £62 / hr. Pipistrel "engine" (battery) fund and fuel: £ 46.40 / hr realistically. However, that's before taking the amortisation/depreciation of the asset into account. When you buy a Cessna, you are essentially buying a zero-depreciated shell with an engine attached and it will cost you about £40k-£50k for a "new" engine version, and that is effectively almost all "engine" cost. The Pipistrel is £152k, so your per hour depreciation is going to be pretty severe. Another factor with these lighter ultralight type aircraft is that they are not as ruggedly built as the older Cessnas/Pipers, I've just recently seen a gear collapse on a lighter fibreglass trainer which is renowned for nosegear issues as it's not as ruggedly put together as older trainers. Fine for private owners, not so fine for training environments where aircraft take a hammering. Downtime for charging is another one. So many factors to consider. I think this works fairly OK at the right airport (not busy) but anywhere busy or for advanced training, I think this becomes a restrictive problem. Maybe they can partner with Toyota in the future, who have apparently developed 800 mile car batteries they will be releasing soon. Lastly, no lights or beacon? Did I hear that correctly? That;s peculiar as an LED beacon would cost next to nothing, be superbright and use barely any power. Seems strange, but maybe I misheard?
I'm often skeptical of green initiatives, because they seem to force square pegs into round holes pretty often. Forcing techs before they're ready, in use cases where they're actually not efficient once you look at the whole system. But this completely avoids that. It's a legit use case, and this actually does seem like a very good tool for that use case. There's teething issues, just like any new tech, but they sound very reasonable. I'm digging it. Don't expect them to go crossing oceans any time soon (except maybe as a gimmick), but for roles like this, that's just fine. Good to see this kind of creativity, and good to see it working out well.
Is it considered by the instructor/a person flying this plane that the motor probably has less power available at lower charge percentages? For example, if you have to land this plane somewhere for some reason at 40-45% of charge left, do you even have enough power to take off?
@@vovacat1797 The electronics should accommodate that if well designed and Lithium Ion batteries are pretty consistent down at least to the 20% SOC level.
German planes in the USSR had specially heated "sleeping bags" placed over the engines and cabin glass, so maybe this is an idea for parking something like this outside the hangar in winter ;)
@@thealzp Well, you're right, actually in this case heating the entire engine is probably not that important, because it does not require oil lubrication like a combustion engine. In fact, even users of combustion cars sometimes take the battery home in winter.
@@thealzp Fortunately, this is a rare extreme in my part of Europe, but as for the batteries in the plane, I wondered why they couldn't attach a larger supply of batteries under the wings and then drop the ones without energy by parachute over a predetermined place. This would allow for a longer flight without unnecessary weight.
The smile on your face clearly says everything to me. The technology is still in it's infancy, and it looks like no one is under any illusions of that. It's likely to take another 40-50 years maybe to get the technology up to being able to cope with the commercial side of things. I'm sure that given time and the investment it will happen. But for now, it's enough to know that progress is being made. It will be interesting to see if hybrid engines start to appear, rather than full electric. There's plenty of options and also there is time to make this stuff work. But by far the biggest thing for me, was that smile on your face.
I think you're very wrong about the commercial application in short haul, and i am VERY surprised to be saying that. 90 min with batter packs that can be swapped during cargo load (so zero additional time, no additional field logistics, just a charger in the maintenance area) and slightly lower cargo capacity, in return for literally halving the operating costs of the vehicle, is something that makes a LOT of sense.
Brilliant video and as tech improves it must be feasible to see ranges climb to multi hours - look at electric cars that so quickly have gone from sub 100 miles and now with reasonable cost over 300. Of course where I live I get B52s - that may take a little longer I guess the 2075 re-engine 😂
The latest designs that are in in development (Bye Aerospace is one of note) are aiming at a 4 hour flight time and a range of roughly 400 miles. Also, nearly double the glide ratio at about 20:1. What looks most promising, though, is their 12 passenger business model. If they can make this actually work, most of the small commuter flights might change over. Their brochure says that the cost to operate is about 1/6th that of a normal airplane as there's really nothing to maintain aside from the batteries and normal wear items. I can really imagine 20 or 30 years from now all of the "business jets" are being replaced by electric models simply because the cost to operate drops to essentially pocket change. (imagine under under $50 an hour and virtually no issues about engine maintenance).
Hmm... question about this: Do simulated engine failures behave more realistically if the prop stops spinning with the "throttle" cut all the way out? Every time I do a practice engine out with a new instructor, they always mention that we're actually gliding further than we would in reality because a piston engine at idle is still producing some power. Thanks for the great content, your videos have been a big help in starting my piloting journey!
@@MentourNow I remember a while back watching a video (either Trent Palmer or Mike Patey) where they tried stopping the engine and it made quite a big difference to the glide slope compared to having the engine idling.
For a cattleman with a large property to keep an eye on this would be ideal, same for someone who just wants to fly for the joy of it and has local airfields to hop in and out of and/or a home strip. Tecnam's are also a pretty cool GA aircraft that I'd love a go at.
Рік тому+6
As a commercial pilot Petter, how much do you enjoy a little VFR outing?
seems like a good starter plane to learn. Perhaps regular planes can be adapted to operate as simply. In the first automobiles people had to worry about fluid and pressure levels before hand cranking a vehicle. Now other than an occasional check and sensors to tell you what is happening, starting and driving a car is a breeze.
Keep in mind this is the very early first edition. Also they've yet to adapt things like ducted fans that would greatly increase the prop efficiency. The electric motor is much smaller than a piston engine so you can mount it directly in the duct.
Yes the electric plane is in it's infancy. One may comment usefully on its present status but to comment negatively on its future is a useful as the people who poo pooed the utility of television in the future based on the state of 1930s technology.
@@markfeldhaus1 Most people with electric cars today charge them with electricity from fossile fuel power plants. As long as we are not as green as they are in sweden, or we all move there, fixing the source of electricity is the real problem, not designeng fancy toys for it. Atm electric cars are much worse for the environment then internal combustors are, and electric planes would just be more of the same nonsensical greenwashing. Makes sense in sweden, allmost nowhere else until we fix electricity production.
I learned to fly on a Pipistrel. It is an amazing aircraft. I had a lot of fun learning. I am on my instrument rating now. It has all the capabilities for IFR flight. It is super safe and fun to fly.
It's beautiful. The problem is the flight time, which is extremely short. I think it makes a lot more sense to build a powered glider. That way, using air currents you can fly for longer.
Yes, but if you want to learn to fly and become a commercial pilot, you can't use a glider. By the way this aircraft is an evolution of a motor glider, the Sinus, and I've heard pilots saying they flew a Velis Electro for more than 2 hours when they found some great thermals.
Not worth the weight. At best on wings of that size you're looking at a max charge rate in perfect conditions of about 400-500W, at prob around 40-50lbs (guessing based off what they said about 11' wingspan and mentally chopping up my 120W panels to fit). At cruise that electric motor is pulling 25Kw. @@camrobertson1886
I don't expect batteries to do the job in long haul or medium haul. But short haul in areas like Norway, Canada and Alaska it could actually make a lot of sense. Batteries are improving rapidly, and i think that they can be used as essentially flying taxies between small rural airports that's short distances away from each other soon. The same airplane can increase its range just by replacing a battery with another one with the same weight but more range every few years, increasing the usefulness.
That was fantastic! Great way to get the hours US flight schools should be ordering these by the dozens! An Australian short-haul airline will fly the 9-seater Alice. More coverage on eFlight developments please!
Your guest was honest and didn't sugar coat anything in a way I really appreciated.
I noticed that as well.
I'm generalizing here of course, but TBH, that's pretty typical about people from that part of the world, I love it, work with some people from that part of the world and you pretty much know exactly where you are standing with them
Thanks, there's no point in not telling it like it is, we want development to move forward.
It works well as an aircraft in the early stages of flight training and is a really good start - but as many have already figured out, there is still a lot to do :)
Our idea is to use the technology that is available right now. It is not easy to use new technology commercially, but it is interesting and our way of pushing development forward.
@@greenflightacademyI loved the clip and it's really interesting to see all development. I just kept wondering that this works quite well for a small airfield and a single electric plane but what if you've 10 flying around the airfield and ATC has to take them all into account since everyone likes to land when running out of juice. I think that can be quite problematic to organize as ATC.
It is nice that there was no sugar coating. Also appreciated the joke about free gym memberships.
As an American aviation enthusiast, I really appreciate being able to listen to two Swedes speak in perfect English about this kinda technology. Thank you folks for creating such interesting content in a non-native language. Truly impressive.
In Sweden everybody speak fluent English :)
@@mario_cv Cool.
@@mario_cv Don't forget Norway, most of Denmark and all of Amsterdam.
@@mario_cv 'speaks' ;)
@@CommentLikeDescribe Same for Iceland. An interesting discovery when talking to one local who had what was basically a perfect Northeastern US accent - apparently somehow an Icelandic accent + New Zealand accent (they had spent a few years in NZ) when combined are indistinguishable from Northeastern US.
This is interesting to me as a Norwegian. Due to mountains, vast tundra plains and the many fjords, there is an extensive network of short runway airports with subsidized flights, especially up north. The flights are often very short, like the 55 nm flight from Lofoten to Bodø, but this is (in this example) the alternative to a long, very expensive ferry trip over open ocean or a 8-9 hour drive. Just to mention one example. The Norwegian Aviation Administration and a commercial airline company do explore the possibilities for electric aircrafts on such short routes, even more as the Dash 8 machines used today are often sparsely booked. Also, there is a project intending to develop seaplanes (floating hulls) on the route Bergen-Stavanger, from city centre to city centre. Passenger capacity around 10, one pilot. This is a short distance plane route, but a close to five hour drive with heavy road tolls. As the whole flight is close to water, any fjord or lake can serve as an emergency landing spot. Still, this is far in the future.
Yep, it’s in use cases like this that I could potentially see electric aircraft.
Great point.
But 45min is way too short.
Don't the Norwegian's know: Never mix water with electricity!
@@RogerMentol These plans are for new, larger planes to enter service later this decade, far more realistic: Early/mid next decade. Intitial operational startup for the Tecnam P-Volt nine seater land plane (possible range 355 km, operational range 140 km) was set to 2026, but the company has rolled back final release date. The sea plane is so far basically just an advanced study, and there are many experts criticizing the project’s feasibility. Web: el-fly(dot)no
@@RogerMentol : 45 minutes is plenty for such a short trip, you can go to the destination and divert back home with time to spare.
I flew microlite for many years and this reminds me of the pioneering that went into such flight in the early years. To me it seems that battery power is ideal for the first few lessons where you don´t want to be overwhelmed by all sorts of tec-checks and can concentrate on actuell flying. Wish this would have been around 20 years ago.
Hi. I had a very close friend, Aidan de Gersigni, sadly prematurely deceased many yrs ago, who pioneered hangliding in South Africa in abt 1974 ,was SA champ in '78 I think, and went on to build abt 1200 micro lights as Solo Wings. I'll never forget his grit and determination over 3 days on learner slopes around Durban. As his' second'as it were, I watched him wipe out over and over and eventually, on the third day, take off to abt 60 ft over what in SA is called a donga but in America a dry gulch or arroyo I believe. The expression on his face, which my ex caught on a Kodak instamatic is classic! F*! K I'm up!!
Then F*! K how do I get down!? Lol. When Flight SA did a feature on him as the gran'daddy of hangliding in SA, they featured our Pic, from his widow, in their article. Cheers, carl
This is actually a great point. I think this absolutely opens the door to more people actually being able to learn how to fly.
if this had been around 20 yrs ago, imagine how much better things (ie: batteries) would be by now :)
G'day,
Well, if you search YT for
"National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!"
You may enjoy a recent visit to what I uploaded a dozen years back,
"The 8 HP, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !"
I was it's 3rd owner, it was my first Aeroplane, it took me for my first Solo..., in 1979 ; I was 17 at the time.
In 1992 while being silly I crashed my second Aeroplane, a 22 HP VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider.
Last month I bought a
Talaria Sting (L1e)
Road registered Electric
Motocross Bike.
The off-road versions have a 6,000 or 8,500 watt motor, with a 2,300 W/Hr Battery.
If a spare Sting Motor & Speed-Controller ($1,600) and a spare Battery ($2,000) were built into the VJ-24w, which had a direct-drive 41.5" X 12.5" Propeller running at 4,200 RPM produced only 9 HP of THRUST.
At 4.18:1 reduction drive from the Sting Motor and a Propeller Shaft (instead of the 8.35:1 of the Motorcycle rear wheel) then a
Propeller Shaft would have
30.5 HP at 1,144 RPM,
Running a 96" X 46" Propeller,
Engaging 50 sq. ft instead of 9 sq ft of Disc Area - both at 50 mph Airspeed ; for 19 HP of actual
Thrust....
For 17 minutes,
Leaving enough in the battery for at least one
Missed Approach/go around,
AFTER diving back down from 11,250 ft, using the
Motorcycle's
4-stage Regenerative Braking to
Put maybe 20 or 30% of a Charge back into the Battery -
Atop the 20% "Reserve" Capacity left at the top of the Climb.
Or, take off, climb to the first Thermal,
Float around all day,
And by thermalling up & diving down,
One
Might
Land with a
Full Battery.
If I can sell my
2 y.o. electric Bicycle I
May have sufficient
Spare funds to
Suck it
And
See what
Happens (!).
Have a good one...
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
No leaded fuel, no mufflers omitted or needed. Very nice.
Thanks for going green Petter!
It's a minor detail, but I really like how you stabilized the footage on the horizon for the main camera and on the cockpit for the pilot camera. This reduction in movement really helps prevent people get motion sick when watching the video! 👍
Thank you!
Oh my god! I didn't even notice this until I read this post and went back to a random point in the video and checked. 10 internet points for noticing this and another 10 internet points to Mentor Aviation or the editing software for know this is the right way to edit video. You are so right that this simple choice makes watching the video feel so much better. I love wins all round. ❤
@@MentourNow It would be interesting to know if you're using a gimbal or something like that because the footage is so smooth.
Strangely it's giving me a little bit of motion sickness when unstabilized footage doesn't.
This is purely a matter of preference, but I find horizon-stablized videos annoyingly unrealistic. That's just not how it looks when you're flying. I'd much rather see the frame referenced to the aircraft and enjoy the tilting of the horizon. But, each to their own.
It’s incredible to see them flying above our city, you barely hear their electric planes. Such a difference compared to our 1984 piper pa28. That one you could defined hear!
Bzzzzz 😊
Finally bring the cost of flying for fun down.
Particularly now that carbon fiber is the new fiberglass. Easier than fiberglass if you only want your part to be half the weight, instead of a quarter the weight.
The dream is to build a trailer for my e-bike that converts my e-bike into a flying e-bike. Also thin film solar for the upper wing material.
Probably going to need some inflatable pontoons since I want to go island hopping.
Lower cost flying?
Pipistrel Velis Electro - $210,000
Battery replacement - ~$24,000 every 500 hours
Motor rebuild - Cost unknown, every 2,000 hours
Motor bearing and seal replacement - cost unknown, but the motor must be removed and sent to Pipistrel every 300 hours.
Electricity cost - Insignificant
Pipistrel Alpha Trainer - $100,000
Engine rebuild - ~$12,000 every 2,000 hours
Fuel costs - $20/hr
Other maintenance costs - Insignificant
The ICE aircraft is easily the far less expensive option.@@jtjames79
Thank you for mentioning the noise level.
I had wondered about that~
Ive heard when electric planes run out of fuel, you can barely hear the crash into a house as well. It's incredible that!
As an electrical engineer I can't stretch enough how fascinating this is! As an avgeek I shouldn't even get started!!!
It was really cool!! I hope people like this kind of videos so I can do more of them!
The only Electric plane i would even consider flying is an R/C model.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Aviation Gas or Kerosine are flameable, too. Judging from cars, batteries seem to be pretty safe compared to a tank of gas. @@MattyEngland
@@jaws666 It's funny. RC modellers used to say RC electric planes had no future too
@@MattyEnglandThere's most likely a very strict certification for aviation batteries and onboard electrical components.
That was particularly interesting Petter. Green Flight Academy is very honest in its appreciation of how such an airplane fits within a training program > at this time its fillls the requisites of one stage, one only, but seems to do a great job at it.
I'd be interested to see other sustainability choices made elsewhere, so feel free to takes us along ! Thank you again Petter.
That plane is a piece of crap to me :)
@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn no one cares :)
@DavidJohnson-tv2nn , it seems like you are the real piece of crap.
As both a private pilot and someone who cares very much about the climate I deeply appreciate your video! The mantra from many in the aviation community is "electric airplanes will never work, let's keep burning the kerosine and avgas". Per your excellent and clear-eyed video, it's true that current battery density is only capable of sustaining short flights in small aircraft, yet here is a perfect example of what CAN be done. Yes, it's a beginning, but it's a cost effective climate friendly beginning, in a town that runs primarily(judging from your video) on green energy. Humanity has always been best served by people who look at a problem and figure out ways of moving forward, not by those who remain entrenched in the past.
Thank you for doing this. I wondered about how these flew and it's nice to get the input of a professional pilot
Excellent content Petter!! This is the first video I’ve seen of an electric plane actually in flight! Thank you for sharing and asking the questions that we all have!
I hope it answered a few of your questions 💕💕
Seeing the enthusiasm Petter has when flying, especially when a new experience is awesome and keeps me following!
Thank you!
none needed😂
Thank you. For me, that was one of your best ever videos. Im really interested i sustainable aviation (so that was fascinating) but to see you evaluating a new aircraft and hear your views on it was just great. And you didn't shy away from asking difficult questions about battery faults, life, complexity. Just great. I look forward to when you can work another such flight into your busy schedule.
I tried to fly one last year, it was very interesting. I remember that I was very surprised by how much it was gliding on final and it was pretty tricky to stay on the correct glide path. The VFE flaps 2 was very close to the approach speed too. But Overall a very interesting concept demonstrator. I hope that we will have more of these in the coming years for flyingclubs and flight schools.
Thats because its basically a powered glider.
It's all interesting but weight management must be a pain in the аss since you can't take a bit less fuel to fit all you need into your max TO weight limits. Also the landing max weight is literally the same as the TO one so I'm curious how challenging it is to land the bird on shorter runways or with no flaps
You can see the joy in his eyes while flying this thing. Not useful for most uses, but you can tell he still wants one 😅
Yeah.. if I could get 1,5h out of it, I would be seriously considering one.
@@MentourNow I see that happening before the end of the decade. Innovation in battery tech certainly is still going strong
I see that happening even sooner with the present rate of innovation.
Give it two years at the present rate of innovation, and it will also be lighter and better in cold temps.
With solid state batteries coming soon. That shouldn't be a problem.
But, alone the ease of getting it ready for going up in the air. That is such a no fuss, from "I wanna go fly" to being in the air, such a short step.
And the lower cost for keeping it airworthy is a great bonus.
After all that, not one comment about probably the biggest thing? How *quiet* those airplanes are. A Cessna 172 is noisy - you can barely do things without a headset (you have a speaker and mic in one, so you can still hear ATC, somewhat). It would've been nice to see a comment about how quiet it is without a headset on. Additionally, you should try to check our Harbour Air in British Columbia, Canada, to check out the Electric Beaver. It too is electric, because they have a flight time of 22 minutes for their most popular route.
The biggest thing is actually not dumping lead into the atmosphere since traditional smaller airplanes use leaded fuel and small airports are often near residential areas and people get lead poisoning without even knowing it.
@@mediocreman2 The measured lead hasn't been an issue, even near busy airports, as it's quite spread out. But lead compounds are bad, and should be eliminated, and general aviation is the only large contributor.
@@UncleKennysPlaceWhich is quite outrageous given that general aviation is a hobby for the rich for the largest part.
The training methodology do make sense. Start with something simple, just to get a feel for it.
Then gradually progress to more complex things.
Great for preventing information overload in newcomers.
Unfortunately, the infrastructure and power requires here is immense. And, as might be the first time you have heard this, many things do not scale up.
@@orthopraxis235 And that is the second elephant in the room.
@@emilschw8924 Very nice. The mind is on.
@@orthopraxis235 what infrastructure? they are not building a new runway exclusive for this tiny electric training plane, did they? and it looks like most airfield are connected to the grid, as far as I know they already use electric lights in sweden even for buildings and runways, no more kerosene lamps....
I absolutely adore this video because it resonates deeply with my passion for aviation. Having worked as a helicopter mechanic for a remarkable 21 years, I've always harbored a burning desire to soar through the skies myself. Although I managed to accumulate a few hours of flight time in a Cessna 172, I recently decided to challenge myself by taking lessons on an ultralight aircraft. However, I must admit that transitioning to a stick control felt incredibly unfamiliar and I experienced a sense of forgetting everything I had learned. Nevertheless, your candid discussion about your own lack of stick flying experience served as a powerful motivator for me to persevere on this journey.
I think this is the first time I ever saw Petter actually fly outside of a simulator. Looks like we can continue to trust his knowledge and wisdom! Pedder is the best! Also, my nine year old boy, who shares my love of aviation, says that Pedder's videos are the greatest.
There is a video of him flying around 4 years ago over Cork in Ireland. That has some amazing views too. It's obvious he loves flying.
Really enjoyed this! When it comes to Electric aviation, I cant think of anyone I'd rather have show me the tech and how it is improving over time. Thank you. You are a great ambassador for flying!
We have one of these at my flight school. I'm literally BEGGING them to let me try it. Ours is part of the University of Waterloo aviation program. I'm outside of the program, but I still totally want to fly the thing. It taxied out while I was doing a walk around and I didn't even notice until it ran up.
If you have the chance, go for it, it's really worth it!
until the batteries erupt into flames randomly during flight and you have to jump out
@@jebes909090That's a problem of cheap batteries made with low-quality materials and craftsmanship. Aircraft-grade batteries are obviously going to be much better made, and tested for safety and reliability.
@@jebes909090battery fires don't happen "randomly". Thermal runaway needs quite high temps, far outside the operating range. Shorting is only a thing if you don't maintain your aircraft... But the same is true for gas lines that have cracks in them...
@@Validole except no one going to examimg every single battery in a battery pack for degradation so the only other solution is to replace battery packs at regular intervals. Since you're absolutle dead if it erupts into flames mid air, those battery packs will have to be replaced far more often then in cars to ensure safety. In other words, electric planes will end up being more expensive and carry far less then a traditional aircraft
When these planes get a little more endurance, It’s going to be really exciting to see these more often at flight schools. With the lower cost per hour, why not use it to teach students the basics of flight.
That’s exactly what GFA are doing right now.
I think that for GA flight schools, training on these would be a disservice to their students. Fine for those going CPL or ATPL where the planes they will be flying are all significantly different anyway. If a PPL were gained on an eletric plane then, until they are more common, the new pilot will have to start flying an ICE plane with little to no experience.
@@richardpayne If I understand it correctly, they agree with you and always augment the initial training with ICE plane training. The BE plane is just used in the earlier phases of training.
I'm sure they'll keep doing that until the performance, cost, and availability of BE planes is such that individuals can expect to pilot only BE planes, whether that is general aviation or even eventually commercial.
@@richardpaynemaybe - for people not aspiring to become commercial pilots - training on a BE plane will be like doing your drivers license on an EV with some people in the back saying "but what if you need to drive stick at some point?!" (true in theory but increasingly irrelevant as we're entering a new age of doing things without using fossile fuels)
People keep mentioning the reduced cost of these. There's a couple of places in the UK with these, and I was talking to a guy at Popham and he said the issue is Charging. That great big 1 Megawatt unit at the airfield would have put a massive dent in your hourly rate! Also with such a short endurance at present you can only fly to another field if it is less than 20 miles away or they have their own expensive power station. In the UK there are only 3 places where you can charge them and none are reachable in a cross country as they are very range restricted. Headwinds will cause similar anxiety as range anxiety in EV drivers! The rate quoted for electricity is also way under the European average, most countries are more like €0.30/Kwh, so much more than €1.00 to recharge, and you need 3 phase to do that!
Yes you have to start somewhere but it will be a while before we are all buzzing around the skies under electric power! Also, wasn't it Technam who tried a twin engine electric 8 seater for a small commuter plane? Didn't work out surprisingly as the batteries were fried after only a couple of hundred charges as planes, unlike cars, need 100% charge as the range is way too short even with 100%, and charging to full every time is probably what killed their first batteries?
Sweden is so beautiful. What a great video, and I'm so jealous of those who get to live and learn to fly in this area of the world. My first flight was however in the Bay area, I got to fly over Alcatraz and the Golden gate, so that was a great experience, but Sweden is just so pretty.
Awesome! I did not realize that the technology had progressed this far! Almost one hour is as long as most of my training flights with a Cessna 152. The "cross country" aircraft being a bit over the boundary for now, but probably not many more years!
With solid state batteries, that could be soon..
@@ThreeTrillionTrees If by soon you mean 30 years, then yes. The FAA is still struggling to remove lead from fuel, which has been banned for on-road car use since 1975. If they can't figure out an unleaded gasoline solution in 50 years, I guarantee they won't do batteries in any less than a decade. The problem with solid-state batteries for aviation specifically is that they are extremely sensitive to cold temperatures, significantly more so than traditional Li-ion. That (and cost) have to be solved first, then it will be hurry up and wait on certification. Eventually? Maybe. But not soon.
@@ss-tx-rx2860
CATL has announced a hybrid battery with 500 KwH output, dramatically improved operating temperatures, AND 5000 charging cycles with 5% degradation. This will make 4 hour flights a reality.
My guess is that the battery pack (after removal at 500 hours) will be reused in a more conventional installation where absolute efficiency isn't required.
I think it is not an efficiency problem, more a there is not enough real world data to certify these batteries beyond 500H problem.
@@niconico3907 Over time the rated hours might improve, I suspect a large amount of battery packs would easily exceed the 500 hours without enough capacity loss/other faults to remain functional. Just that at some point they can't really guarantee reliable operation anymore (with current known data).
But one of the packs failing and losing some of your battery capacity is a lot less critical in let's say a stationary application or a wheeled vehicle that stays on the ground. Those can probably even continue functioning just fine until the next maintenance due to weight being much less of restriction. Depending on the design individual cells might also be easy to recover and then ideally recycling the bad cells. Practically not done a lot yet but it's technically possible with existing technology to recover a high percentage of the ingredients, good old it's still cheaper to buy new stuff issue.
@@niconico3907There is plenty of real world data for lithium ion performance and degradation, that's how they're able to give an hour rating to begin with.
I think OP meant reusing the old, now less-reliable battery packs in less mission critical applications, like grid storage. The bad cells can be removed, and the rest can be used in an application like that where the battery failing is more of a minor inconvenience of slightly less grid capacity, than a deadly tragedy of a plane going down or electric vehicle failing on the highway.
The battery pack will be designed for high power, but relatively short life. I think after it's reached 500 hours it will be already significantly reduced capacity, and not enormously longer life will still be available.
its more of a cert and performance guarantee thing. longer lifetimes will come
The joy in your face, after a good landing, is priceless, Petter. Awesome to see. Flying is the one thing that never gets old.
These are great little trainers and of course you're saving cost over fuel and engine rebuilds/maintenance too.
The battery pack lasts 500 hours. How many engine rebuilds would you require in that time?
Yes they are! But they need a bit longer endurance to really do the job. 1,5h would be great.
@@MentourNow Yes that would be ideal but the technology is moving forward. Battery densities have literally doubled compared to the Airbus eFan aircraft which crossed the English channel in 2015.
@@paul756uk2 Depends on the aircraft but servicing too. I would imagine it's less in an electric aircraft and as the technology improves I should think maintenance intervals will increase
@@planespeaking- Link to data? I’ve been involved in high performance electric aircraft since 2006 and commercial battery density is almost still the same as when I started.
I loved this. I'm a Pipistrel fan and am thinking seriously of getting an Alpha or Sinus. I saw another video where they took up an Electro and shut the engine off and let it soar for a while. They can be licensed either way (glider or powered craft) by the manufacturer, but I guess not both. Too bad you couldn't shut off the engine in flight. For me, this seems like the ultimate fun -- a Sinus that I can take up to 15000 feet, shut off the engine and then soar for miles and miles. While I love the idea of an electric plane, I'll wait for the next gen with solid state batteries that can get a few hours aloft. But what I'm really wanting is an electric VTOL that can fly for a few hours and land pretty much anywhere.
What people don't realize is this is the first and only certified electric aircraft in the world. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's sort of like the 1903 Ford Model A. The first models got around 25 MPG and were said to have a range of 100 miles. This plane has a similar range of 108 NM. :)
(My first car, a 68 Plymouth Fury II, got about 9 MPG and could go around 80 miles per tank.)
You can GLIDE for miles and miles from a lot lower altitude than 15000 feet (AGL) in a Sinus. 15000 feet is just under 3 statute miles up.... and with a 27 to 1 glide ratio, in still air, 3 miles of altitude means about 81statute miles of range before the wheels kiss the runway. And if there's some uplift, you can soar even more. Of course, air is rairly still, and most people can't maintain a max performance 27:1 glide ratio for as long as it would take to fly that far.
@@ssn608 Thanks for the info. I was wondering how far that sort of glide distance in terms of ground coverage might be. I'm in Phoenix, and we're about 1000' on the ground. A lot of people fly to places to the north, which are 4000'-6000', like Payson, Prescott, Sedona, and Flagstaff. So the idea of going way up and then gliding down to the various FBOs without the engine droning on for half the trip seems ideal, and the drop in elevation from 15,000' would only be 10,000' when heading north. Coming back I wouldn't need to go that high for a single ascent that gets me to my destination. (Maybe 2-3 lower-level ascents would be better...) Gliding around areas north of there like the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, etc., is also very inviting. Is there any reason that wouldn't work or be allowed? (I'm asking from the perspective of whether gliders can fly the same routes as GA crafts, or if they have to stick to certain other areas. I don't know much about the practical differences yet.)
I've been in a glider and also did a solo skydive once, and what I was most present to was the amazingly beautiful view all around me and how quiet it was; I felt like a bird. That sort of experience is something you can only get in the air. Everybody has their own reasons for wanting to fly, and that would be mine. If I could stay aloft longer and get where I was heading, so much the better, even if it's just catching thermals over the desert. (There are several soaring schools around us, mostly to the south (50-70 miles away from where I live), but they're the ones that require tow planes. A Sinus would let me take off and land at an FBO 10 miles away from me, and probably spend as much time as I'd want in the air.)
@@TheSchwartzIsWithYouToday well, my Sinus flies about as fasf as the Cessna 152 I flew on a couple of occasions. In smooth air, I have no problem traveling at 120 knots. But... if it gets turbulent, i have to hold it down to 108 knots Vno: (Max structural cruising speed) in turbulence). The cruising speeds (with engine running) are roughly on par with a Cessna 152, so flying into the flyways over Grand Canyon probably wouldn't be a problem But doing that engine off? That you would have to ask around about.
@@ssn608 What's the typical airspeed when these things are gliding? I haven't noticed anybody pointing that out in the videos I've seen.
2:10 I believe that headrest needs to be raised to provide protection the way it was designed to. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern over my life of passengers not raising the headrests in the rear seat of cars. It’s a small detail, but could provide huge benefits. Safe travels.
These would be SO great in Southeast Alaska. We have no road system and while the ferry is great, it's too infrequent for most villages. The other day I took a twenty minute flight to the next village on a massive jet, which was basically empty. Would LOVE to see these commercially.
So one pilot and some luggage, that's all there is room for (not a passenger plus luggage), would that really be useful?!
These planes are 2 seaters and luggage is probably not really necessary if you are doing very short hops.@@ErikssonTord_2
This aircraft is too small with not enough load but there are some electric passenger aircraft which could fill the role you describe.
@@thearisen7301 even so good luck finding a charger unless you want to sit on the runway for 3 days
There's also electric ferries (already in use) and some experimental modern sail technology that gets brought up here and there. Combining with more frequent ferry service it could be a nice complement to a future electric small aircraft service.
Harbour Air in BC Canada is testing an electric Beaver retrofit to hop between Victoria and Vancouver. They are working on certifying it for commercial use.
Yes, I’m aware of their trials.
@@MentourNow I think this is in reference to your comment at 25:30 because the regional, short-haul airlines like Harbour Air seem to be ideal for commercial electric flight, right now, using existing (or old) technology.
The fun thing is that the power demand and battery requirement scale pretty much linearly. The size doesn't really matter; a bigger plane only needs proportionally more batteries, so you still get roughly an hour of flight time. Now, that one hour of flight time is not nearly enough for more than niche uses.
@@benoithudson7235but imagine what an hour means for feeder services to remote locations in rural Scandinavia or island groups, great improvement and only a starting point.
@@velotillyou’re not factoring in reserves. In commercial aviation you need to have 30 mins (Jets) or 45 mins (pistons) of final reserves that you absolutely cannot plan to use at the planning stage. So that’s already taken most of your useable range/endurance without even factoring in the need for alternate/contingency range unless you only ever want to operate in pristine calm weather. It’s mentioned in this video that they only use the plane to remain in the vicinity of the airport, if they wanted to go further they would pretty much be unable to legally
Mentour is spot on- the energy density issue makes electric commercial aviation on any meaningful scale unviable
Useful load is the same as a 1980 Cessna 152 with 1/3 the endurance (3.1hrs plus 45min reserve @75% power for the Cessna vs the 50 minute plus 10 minute times quoted in the video) and 1/3 the reserve (10 minutes vs 45minutes) and nominally 10kts slower, as well. Rate of climb for the 152 is 715fpm and the Velis is 647fpm. The 152 engine is rated at 110hp/82kw and Pipistrel is 77hp/57.6kW and the power loading is 15.2lb/hp for the 152 and 17.1lb/hp for the Pipistrel--as should be expected from the difference in rate of climb.
152s can be had on the used market for sub $40k. I didn't see any used Velis Electros on the usual sites, but AvWeb reported the price for a new on at $209k as of May 2023.
US VFR reserve requirements (30min) mean you can't even use this aircraft to complete the cross-country flight training requirement legally, since it cuts the range down below the minimum leg distance (>50nm for 1 segment with a total of 150nm total distance).
DarkAero did a good video on the engineering behind electric and internal combustion aircraft--search for video titled "The engineering challenge of electrifying airplanes." And their comparison did its best to favor the electrics. The Otto, Diesel, and Brayton cycles should be sticking around for a while.
Good comments
it's certainly not a plane for the US, but in Europe it's different. There are some airports under tremendous pressure from neighbours/authorities to make less noise and since this aircraft is 2x quieter than a Rotax for exemple (which is already pretty quiet) it could reduce the noise when doing basic training and traffic patterns by a lot. However I agree with you, we'll still see piston engines GA dominate the skies for a while.
When costing, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a brand new 2023 Pipistral to a 43 year old Cessna any more than you can talk yourself out of buying a new Tesla because you can buy a 1980 VW Rabbit for $200. What's a NEW 2 seat trainer cost?
@@mr-uc4me E-planes are just a gimmick, the math never adds up to what the activists and salesmen claim.
@@mr-uc4me It is absolutely possible to compare to the 43 year old Cessna when the two aircraft fill the same role and the Cessna is both more readily available and offers better performance. Over 30,000 Cessna 150/152 aircraft were built and there's a large number of them still flying and still available in the marketplace.
I've provided the direct comparison in other comments on this video between the Pipistrel Velis Electro and the Pipistrel Velis Club. In summary, the latter aircraft is virtually the same airframe with a Rotax. The Club is about $50,000 cheaper ($209k for the Electro vs $160k for the Club), cruises about 35kt faster, has 4-5 hours of endurance for a range of about 625nm (vs 50min plus 10 min reserve for a range of less than 100nm), and more horsepower (resulting in twice the rate of climb).
The Pipistrel Alpha Trainer offers about the same horsepower (80hp Rotax 912 vs 77hp/57.6kW), cruises at 120kt instead of 98kt, has a range of 324nm with an endurance of 3 hours plus 30 min reserve, and climbs at 1220fpm instead of 647fpm, and retails for about $95k...less than 1/2 the price of the Electro.
Harbour Air in Vancouver has converted one of their DHC2 Beavers to electric and hope to use it for short flights to the Gulf Islands. Sounds like certification is a challenge but will be interesting to see how it progresses.
I'm sure it's doable, but I'd really question the economics and greenness of such a move. Those batteries are going to get cycled very deep, very hard and very often. They're going to need to be replaced much earlier than (say) a car battery would. Plus if there's a battery fire on a ground based (or even water based) EV it's bad, but people can escape quite easily. Unfortunately we don't have to imagine what such a fire would be like on an aircraft. It's already happened due to batteries carried as cargo and the results were tragic.
@@peterhoulihan9766 1,300 accidents in just 4 years in aviation due to fuel management. You would be more likely to die from bad fuel management than battery fire. Not only that but humanity is few years away from non-flammable batteries(probably lil further away from mass production for the public). Also none of these companies give a flying fuck about greeness, all they want is to remove fuel from the equation, because even if it goes against your OPINION, damn near all of transportation section is bottlenecked by fuel prices.
Well the announcement by Helijet of Vancouver yesterday will really speed things up. BC Coast will be the place to fly electric
@@peterhoulihan9766 Fossil fuels involve impact too - we tend to minimize the status quo, because we have normalized the pollution, not only at the point of combustion, but especially the discovery, mining, refining and transportation of liquid fossil fuels, the way you talk is as if the current harbour air sea planes run on harmless fairy dust, as someone who has been at the harbour when it's busy, noisy and spewing emissions, I can tell you they do not run on harmless fairy dust, they run on fossil fuels, dirty noisy conflict inspiring fossil fuels.
Vancouver to Victoria is within the range of a battery plane, Harbour Air have proved it, but in order to get certified, they need a whole new set of rules, because they are going first - someone has to - and I'm very proud it's the ultimate frontier plane of the DHC2 Beavers that are getting electrified.
Dig - literally - deeper into how fossil fuels are made before tripping into the 'batteries are bad' tropes, and as others have pointed out, plenty of tragic liquid fuel accidents in aviation, but you have normalized them, battery fires do happen, but they are rare, and a well built battery BMS with per cell temperature monitoring can prevent them and give pilots lots of warning that there is problem.
Put this in context, the full context, of existing energy production, risks, and results, before assuming new is always bad.
Then picture yourself, standing on a hill, watching the Wright brothers first take to the skies, and wonder, would you have yelled: "This looks dangerous! Stay on the ground! Don't try new things!"
Sounds Air in NZ going electric... Wellington Blenheim etc across Cook Strait
Love your first impressions behind the stick. As an ex glider pilot what is the cabin noise like? Big difference to single ICE? Your enthusiasm is up there with any first drive behind the wheel of an electric car.
Is the difference between flying (piloting) such a small plane compared to flying a modern B737 like: a bicycle compared to a car, or more like a car compared to a truck?
Like a bike compared to a car
This was absolutely fascinating. Thanks for doing this and sharing with us.
Glad you enjoyed it! I really loved recording it so I hope the audience will tune in
I love how insecure the guy was till he was in the air, confident in the aircraft and really showing the potential it has.
Another great video from Mentour pilot, thank you! I feel so proud that I personally know people who invented this airplane and its powerplant and brought it up as first fully certified electric airplane in the world! Its fuselage is actually built almost a stone˙s throw from my house.
I'm ridiculously late to this video but it was such an absolute joy to watch that I couldn’t not leave a comment ❤ So cool.
Seems a LOT quieter up there. And I'm sure that things like solid state batteries in a few years will make this a lot more practical, for weight and range.
Not only practical, but much much safer.
Non self-combusting batteries (think Luton airport fire) will be a huge plus
Noise was one of the major factors mentioned in the first video I watched about using the aircraft for pilot training. It allows airfields near population centres to be used due to the lower abatement requirements, and therefore easier for more people to do basic pilot training.
@@kamakaziozzie3038 There were no self combusting batteries in the Luton multi-story car park fire as far as I know.
@@kamakaziozzie3038the Luton airport fire that was determined to have been started by a diesel vehicle? Or are you referring to a different one?
Excellent video. Really nice to see you travelling, interviewing and flying. Hope you enjoyed making it as much as we enjoyed watching.
Probably even more! 💕💕
Incredibly satisfying to witness your enjoyment of this aircraft. Congrats to Velis Electro and best of luck to them going forward.
👍
Your channel has a great combination of aviation news, history and modern developments. Keep it coming !
What amazes me, aside from Petter's excitement, is where this aircraft was built - Slovenia. That makes me also a lot curious.
Good job you do, thanks for that!
What a fantastic way to start flying. Keep the work load low, learn the basics and enjoy the experience of flying!
That's the idea!
There was no training for the first time flying this type of plane 😅
I enjoyed this video thoroughly, from watching Petter go back to the basics, to learning about the progression of pilot training, to learning about this part of Sweden, to electric aviation - the technology, the physical/practical side and the financial side. 1 euro of energy cost for 40 minutes!!! This video really hits. 10/10. Hope to see more like it. 🍻
And 44 euros of battery degradation.....
@@someoneelse7629True, but a) that's still half the cost of a similar class combustion engine plane, and b) battery costs are currently going down an exponential cost curve and up an exponential density curve. In other words, this 44 euros will probably be 22 euros in 5 years, 11 euros in 10 years, etc.
I like these non-disaster videos. I learned a lot. Thanks.
I am absolutely blown away and am so excited about this technology. My Dad flew an ultralight (Weedhopper) for years and I remember how awesome that thing was! Quick and easy. He used to load it up in the back of his pickup truck and take it anywhere. I believe he had a trailer eventually. Lol! We had a field in the back yard he would take off in and it was marked up like the Red Baron. We had such a great childhood.
I'm an avid enthusiast of this channel, and love the way you, Petter, explain sometimes very complicated things in a comprehensive way. Credits to you and your team!
But I have recently moved to Slovenia, about half an hour from where this aircraft was built. They are located in Ajdovščina (if you ever need, I can help with the pronunciation 😅) and have followed this amazing companyn for a while. I would have loved if you explained more of the history of Pipistrel, and where they are going with the technology. Maybe something for a future video? ❤ Keep up the good work, and please: make this video on the electric future of aviation and Pipstrel! 🙏
The future of general aviation. High respect to the flight school to have this happen
No, it isn't. ICE will be around for the next 100+ years.
You're doing tons of great videos, but this one was special even for the standards you thought us to expect from you! Congrats!
I wonder how much your hands were telling you: just give it a try!?
A lot!!
Definitely are some challenges for electric planes to overcome but I think small light single engine planes could be excellent for training, local area, pattern work, etc.
One problem is just the weight of batteries, another is an empty battery still weighs the same as a full battery, but an empty fuel tank doesnt weigh as much as a full tank obviously. But you have more predictable/simple weight and balance/performance calculations I would imagine? One fewer variable.
But as battery tech continues to improve it will certainly become more viable!
Interesting stuff!
I think even long term for larger aircraft batteries won't ever develop enough to be more efficient than jet fuel, there's just too much of a gulf in power density.
But what small aircraft like this are doing is acting as a proof of concept for electric propulsion, and how to certify electric propulsion for flight.
Instead the future for larger aircraft will be hybrid power. Imagine a gas turbine generator embedded within the fuselage so it has no impact on drag. The gas turbine is optimised to run at a constant speed which charges batteries during cruise. The batteries power a series of propulsion motors embedded within the wing, rather than hanging below as with current jet engines, to reduce drag. You could take off with pure battery power to reduce emissions over cities. Then you'd get efficiency gains from having a constant speed turbo-generator and reduced drag. All while still keeping the benefit of the high power density of jet fuel.
This small electric aircraft is the first step in a really exciting future for lower emissions
there just won't be enough metal supply to electrify cars, let alone planes on top of everything else. it just won't happen.
mining has huge impact on the environment (and we're not even talking about CO2), and the amount of (mostly toxic) waste that is created with each kg of new virgin metal keeps increasing over the years.
the world will be long buried under actual mountains of toxic trash from mining before cars and commercial aviation succeeds in going fully electric.
I tried the Velis here in France last summer and it was a really nice plane in terms of handling and sensations… once they get the battery autonomy up to 1.5 hours plus 30 minutes reserve they’ll be onto a winner. I’m sure that will happen… look at the progress in electric car batteries.
Partially yes,
Car batteries are not as restricted weight wise as in aviation. The Tesla Model 3 battery is 1,050 pounds. 104 KwH.
@@williamthornton5856 higher density batteries will happen eventually.
Unlike fuel tanks, batteries do not get lighter as they are depleted. On these small airplanes 100lbs can make a significant difference in performance.
The airplane I trained in climbed almost twice as fast without the instructor on board.
I do hope battery tech keeps improving so this tech can be brought to more airplanes.
@@williamthornton5856 Model 3 standard has 62 KwH and 82 KwH on the performance and long range.
Wikipedia says Pipistrel planes are from Slovenia, former Yugoslavia
One thing I find less ideal for a flight school is the recharging time. Im used to seeing the school planes land and 10 minutes later another student starts the engine. Providing your flight in this is about 40 minutes and takes 40 minutes to recharge, it means you need to buy 2 to get the same flight hours / income as one plane would do. I would be curious to know hiw that cost compares 2 electric planes vs the cost of buying a single avgas plane.
Yes, it requires smart scheduling and a little bit of a new thinking. For example, we use the time to brief the students between flights.
Aye, tho a solution would likely be hot swap battery "pods" I feel - so there's always a fully charged pod to swap in after landing.
Yeah there should be swappable batteries. Student lands, batteries are swapped , next student can take the plane without waiting
Swappable batteries are not very practical for cars but would be perfect for this application. You are not going anywhere, always landing on the same airfield, while flying a second set of batteries is getting charged. Just needs an easy and safe way to swap those batteries.
Considering how much cheaper it is to operate an electric plane, they would still save money even after buying two. And you can always do battery swaps.
I'm still backing the guy who built the life size replica of the rubber band wind up toy we all had as children
😂😂😂
That really is surreal, sitting at the end of the runway with the engine stopped, then you tell it to go and you start the roll. It looks like there would be a repeating sensation of "OMG! the engine has quit and it is just windmilling, but we are holding altitude...."
There's a purity in learning the basics of flight in such a great little bridge between a glider and a single engine.
First off, I'm loving on that Tecnam P2010 Diesel (power on / power off, no carb icing, no magneto's). I wished those had been around 30-years ago. Going to look for more videos on that plane. On the premise of this video, I like the idea of this battery electric trainer and the stepped training idea. With the Cessna 172R, there is a lot to learn during initial training whereas with this system, the student first learns flying skills from take-off, maneuvering, and landing without the complexities of mechanical systems and engine management. Let the student learn the fundamentals of flying, get the feel of flight, controlling the aircraft, then move onto engine aircraft and mechanical systems. I love this idea of incremental "stepped" training rather than all-at-once.
Oh, Petter! That was awesome! I it's fascinating that an electric plane has not only been built, but can fly! I bet that was amazing for you! Thank you for, "taking us along!" I love both your channels!
This might be the best video I have ever seen.
Absolutely fantastic is a huge understatement.
Bravo
🙌🏼
What is nice about these are that they are proving the reliability of the driveline mostly staying close to a runway. As batteries become available with higher energy density, these aircraft will be well tested for longer flights.
Actually electric engines are more reliable than IE in general.
@@player400_official I am more concerned about the battery electronics and motor controller. Regardless of the potential for reliability, time in the air is the way to shake out bugs and build confidence.
@@yzScott the Velis fleet has now about 10,000 hours and no emergency so it seems pretty safe.
@@swissaviator04 It will be. I've never suggested or thought otherwise.
It is STILL nice that this completely NEW type of aircraft powertrain will have the opportunity to accumulate a lot of hours close to a runway.
Thanks Mentour & to your host too, this was a real eye opener !
Honestly, watching Petter just hop in and feel comfortable at the controls, as an airline pilot who has *never flown* with a stick yoke such as this aircraft...is *mesmerizing* ...this man is a master pilot if I've ever seen one.
I could see these (well, slightly larger obviously for passengers but with similar energy density batteries) being useful for these "shortest flight" type routes you sometimes see in island hopper situations.
Look at the eviation alice.
Supposed to be used for flights from Martha's Vineyard to Hyannis by Cape Air at some point. (Hyannis is putting in the charging infrastructure now).
Yeah, maybe if technology advances a lot, battery-electric planes *might* be used for some cross country private jet trips in Europe, but probably nothing more
@@jan-lukas i dont think they will ever get that far. Power density is something musk , for example, has been successfully masking for his cars. but lets see when craft are weight-sensitive meaning power density needs to be high... what happens? this thing has maybe a 20 mile range in the real world.
Thanks for taking us with you for that impressive experience, Petter! I can't wait to see more flight schools adopting these types of aircraft into their training programs, and in general, for the industry to become more sustainable. What's stopping me from getting a PPL is that I don't want to do this in an airplane (and an industry) that is based on burning fossil fuel. So I'm very eager to see more airplanes run off batteries and sustainable e-fuels.
You are welcome to do you PPL with us 😊🔌🛫
We have one at my home airfield in Schaenis as well. I was told that technically, a windmilling prop *can* charge the battery, but there's some certification issue preventing it from being used. Not a big difference, but just to keep in mind that the issues holding back 'green' aviation are mostly our esteemed regulators, not the technology itself.
Feels like a waste of (kinetic) energy. Any windmilling is essentially aerobraking, you'd glide farther by locking the prop (just short the windings).
@@Validole The thing is that you may *want* aerobraking as a way to control your glide path on final approach. That's how gliders land.
@@Validole I am pretty sure freely rotating prob, if with small friction, will airbrake less than a locked one, that would create fair amount of turbulence. Of course if you are not harvesting the energy into battery recharging
This Electric Powered Aircraft Flight was wonderful and a new experience altogether , Clean, Cheap to Fly, and NO EMISIONS AT ALL !
I have only flow a light Piston Engined Aircraft for around 14 Hours , I don,t have a PPL, but I can see how this type of Aircraft which is the Future as far as I can see is very exciting.
Thank you Petter for this Video.
I love the velis electro. I've frequently seen it fly and while I haven't flown it myself, I found it great to fly in the full-cockpit simulator. The flaps lever is very strange though, it felt like a car's handbrake.
Range Anxiety takes a whole different meaning now.
THATS true 😂
Well.. you generally would plan better while in a plane. And you could probably do an emergency landing with little to no electricity.
How is this different from regular airplane range anxiety?
@@rowaystarcodepends on how the controls are powered
@@DavidHRyall Controls are push-rods (so all manual) and you have a glide ratio of 1/15 so you can glide twice as far as a Cessna/Piper, so it's very safe in case of an emergency.
Great video. Many thanks as it is useful to see an experienced pilot try an early AeroEV.
It would be really cool if you did more GA stuff on this channel! Love to see you flying.
The instructor is incorrect when he says it could not recuperate, technically it could, but certification did not allow it. The alpha electro (certified as ultralight) has almost same technology and is able to recuperate, so in the future you could get a little bit of energy back on landing, about 7% of energy that was required to go up.
I have a friend who is in flight school right now flying these (or a similar model). It seems to make that learning curve a bit more linear by not having to learn the engine management immediately. Instead you can just focus on learning how to fly a plane first. For now these planes are a great addition to flight schools. Also, as they are so cheap, they could easily be used to offer marketing and tourist flights which could bring more people into the industry.
Nice and lighthearted video and excitement about trying something new! 🤟😎
Surprised how many people reacted negatively in the comments 😑
Well, people get a bit touchy about these things for some reason..
I feel like at least top comments are realistic more than negative, merely pointing out the current limits blocking wider use of this tech
Oh, I love this, and would want to never land. I have a dozen questions but will try just a few. How do you deal with limiting battery discharge to no lower than 40-50%? Can you carry a 3rd, lighter weight battery dedicated to solar charging for either emergency backup power or to generally extend flight time? I wondered why it charged so fast before you said you have a kw charging system. Thanks to both of you for sharing this experience with us.
The current batteries leave about 378lb for pilot, passenger, and anything else you want to carry. Considering the FAA assumes the average passenger is between 184-189lb without carryons, two people is equal to the useful load of the airplane. If you kick out one of the two 189lb "average persons" and replace them with an equal weight of auxiliary battery, using Tesla's 4680-type battery energy density of 296Wh/kg (134Wh/lb), that would give a theoretical increase of 25.4kWh. At 75% power, the Velis Electro's 57.6kW engine is consuming 43.2kWh. So that aux battery would buy an additional 35 minutes which translates to 55 nautical miles.
Incidentally, this works as long as your lone pilot is a female--the FAA AC 120-27E says the average person is 184-189lb, but the average female is 173-178lb while the average male is 194-199lb. So the average male would exceed the aircraft's max gross with a 189lb battery in the copilot's seat. And battery weight can't be adjusted like liquid fuel to reduce fuel load to compensate for loads--unless you add weight to make the aux battery pack modular, cutting energy density.
Now compare to an equivalent internal combustion aircraft. The Velis Club is essentially the same aircraft powered by a Rotax 912. This aircraft burns 4.9gph, so the addition of 180lb of gasoline (30 gallons) would equate to an additional 6 hours of range at 133kts (per the brochure) and that's 800 miles. And the base Velis Club aircraft already has a published range of 625nm.
This is the fundamental problem facing electric aviation.
Hey, Velis pilot here, I'll try my best to awnser you:
-You have to plan your flight to land with around 30%, so you still have 15 minutes in case of a go-around for exemple, so it's all just planning.
-You have a 12V battery which powers the avionics during startup and in case of an emergency, but you can't use it to power the engine because it's not powerful enough and having solar panels would not make sense since you could have at max 1kw of power when you use 25kw in cruise (even though you can lower this number to just under 20)
-A charge lasts around 1 hour if you charge with the dedicated charger which has a 32kw charging system and since the total battery capacity is 22kw/h, you can easily understand why it takes that time.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask me ;)
@@olpaint71 This aircraft is not meant for long cross-country flights, it's only role is to do the basic training, and you don't have to have a 500nm range just to do some patterns work ;)
@@swissaviator04 Mostly agree, and I appreciate your comments as a pilot of one.
But the range is so short on it that any flight school must have a second aircraft, which is no small expense. My local (untowered) airport is far enough from the nearest towered airport (about 50nm) that a student can't get the required flights into controlled airspace without renting the plane for the whole day (assuming the towered airport has a charger). So, it has uses for very specific locations due to the limitations inherent to the current and near future battery technology.
I don't deny that a use case can be found--the flight school in this video obviously has one that's working for them--but the contrast between the electric airplane and its conventional competitors is stark.
@@olpaint71 Yep, it has a niche in which it's great, but that's about it (for now at least)
This was really cool thank you mentour
Glad you enjoyed it! 💕💕
Very interesting. That battery replacement cost is the killer. I've done some rough comparative figures in terms of costs with a Cessna 150 which is also a two seater trainer. We recently had the engine zero timed for £38K, full tear-down and rebuild. Giving 1800 to 2000 hours of operation before it needs doing again (all things going well). That equates to £20 / hour for engine rebuild. vs. Pipistrel battery replacement at £38 / hour. Fuel for the Cessna running at around £42 / h vs about £8.40 / hr for the Pipistrel (talking real world here, not with massively subsidised electricity like in that town.)
So C150 engine fund and fuel: £62 / hr.
Pipistrel "engine" (battery) fund and fuel: £ 46.40 / hr realistically.
However, that's before taking the amortisation/depreciation of the asset into account.
When you buy a Cessna, you are essentially buying a zero-depreciated shell with an engine attached and it will cost you about £40k-£50k for a "new" engine version, and that is effectively almost all "engine" cost.
The Pipistrel is £152k, so your per hour depreciation is going to be pretty severe. Another factor with these lighter ultralight type aircraft is that they are not as ruggedly built as the older Cessnas/Pipers, I've just recently seen a gear collapse on a lighter fibreglass trainer which is renowned for nosegear issues as it's not as ruggedly put together as older trainers. Fine for private owners, not so fine for training environments where aircraft take a hammering.
Downtime for charging is another one. So many factors to consider. I think this works fairly OK at the right airport (not busy) but anywhere busy or for advanced training, I think this becomes a restrictive problem. Maybe they can partner with Toyota in the future, who have apparently developed 800 mile car batteries they will be releasing soon.
Lastly, no lights or beacon? Did I hear that correctly? That;s peculiar as an LED beacon would cost next to nothing, be superbright and use barely any power. Seems strange, but maybe I misheard?
I'm often skeptical of green initiatives, because they seem to force square pegs into round holes pretty often. Forcing techs before they're ready, in use cases where they're actually not efficient once you look at the whole system.
But this completely avoids that. It's a legit use case, and this actually does seem like a very good tool for that use case. There's teething issues, just like any new tech, but they sound very reasonable.
I'm digging it. Don't expect them to go crossing oceans any time soon (except maybe as a gimmick), but for roles like this, that's just fine. Good to see this kind of creativity, and good to see it working out well.
Is it considered by the instructor/a person flying this plane that the motor probably has less power available at lower charge percentages? For example, if you have to land this plane somewhere for some reason at 40-45% of charge left, do you even have enough power to take off?
Yes you do. I did touch and go’s down to a 30% charge without a problem.
Energy and power are different. Charge level in the battery is an energy measurement, not a power measurement.
@@LTVoyager I know, but I also know that Li-ion batteries really drop their max power output on lower levels of charge.
@@vovacat1797 you have a regualator inside the battery so until 15% you see no power changes, and below that, well you never want to go below that😅
@@vovacat1797 The electronics should accommodate that if well designed and Lithium Ion batteries are pretty consistent down at least to the 20% SOC level.
I really loved this video! I could tell how much fun you were having flying this aircraft and it makes me want to get my pilot's license!
Flying is something, due to expense, is something that’s forever out of my reach.
German planes in the USSR had specially heated "sleeping bags" placed over the engines and cabin glass, so maybe this is an idea for parking something like this outside the hangar in winter ;)
Or easy removable batts - to store in hangar.
@@thealzp Well, you're right, actually in this case heating the entire engine is probably not that important, because it does not require oil lubrication like a combustion engine. In fact, even users of combustion cars sometimes take the battery home in winter.
@@Zbigniew_Nowak Most of users in cold regions take batts every night :)
@@thealzp Fortunately, this is a rare extreme in my part of Europe, but as for the batteries in the plane, I wondered why they couldn't attach a larger supply of batteries under the wings and then drop the ones without energy by parachute over a predetermined place. This would allow for a longer flight without unnecessary weight.
@@Zbigniew_Nowak I wonder, why we still have same "60 min" as 10 years ago ? (pipistrel alpha electro 2014).
The smile on your face clearly says everything to me. The technology is still in it's infancy, and it looks like no one is under any illusions of that. It's likely to take another 40-50 years maybe to get the technology up to being able to cope with the commercial side of things. I'm sure that given time and the investment it will happen. But for now, it's enough to know that progress is being made. It will be interesting to see if hybrid engines start to appear, rather than full electric. There's plenty of options and also there is time to make this stuff work. But by far the biggest thing for me, was that smile on your face.
I think you're very wrong about the commercial application in short haul, and i am VERY surprised to be saying that.
90 min with batter packs that can be swapped during cargo load (so zero additional time, no additional field logistics, just a charger in the maintenance area) and slightly lower cargo capacity, in return for literally halving the operating costs of the vehicle, is something that makes a LOT of sense.
Brilliant video and as tech improves it must be feasible to see ranges climb to multi hours - look at electric cars that so quickly have gone from sub 100 miles and now with reasonable cost over 300. Of course where I live I get B52s - that may take a little longer I guess the 2075 re-engine 😂
The latest designs that are in in development (Bye Aerospace is one of note) are aiming at a 4 hour flight time and a range of roughly 400 miles. Also, nearly double the glide ratio at about 20:1. What looks most promising, though, is their 12 passenger business model. If they can make this actually work, most of the small commuter flights might change over. Their brochure says that the cost to operate is about 1/6th that of a normal airplane as there's really nothing to maintain aside from the batteries and normal wear items. I can really imagine 20 or 30 years from now all of the "business jets" are being replaced by electric models simply because the cost to operate drops to essentially pocket change. (imagine under under $50 an hour and virtually no issues about engine maintenance).
Nice video! You gotta keep up the good work!
I will do my best!
Hmm... question about this: Do simulated engine failures behave more realistically if the prop stops spinning with the "throttle" cut all the way out? Every time I do a practice engine out with a new instructor, they always mention that we're actually gliding further than we would in reality because a piston engine at idle is still producing some power.
Thanks for the great content, your videos have been a big help in starting my piloting journey!
In the air, the prop would windmill on this aircraft to
@@MentourNow I remember a while back watching a video (either Trent Palmer or Mike Patey) where they tried stopping the engine and it made quite a big difference to the glide slope compared to having the engine idling.
I'm guessing a stopped engine in this would simulate a seized gas engine so the prop can't spin
I enjoyed that episode, one of your best.
For a cattleman with a large property to keep an eye on this would be ideal, same for someone who just wants to fly for the joy of it and has local airfields to hop in and out of and/or a home strip.
Tecnam's are also a pretty cool GA aircraft that I'd love a go at.
As a commercial pilot Petter, how much do you enjoy a little VFR outing?
As it turns out, a lot!!!
seems like a good starter plane to learn. Perhaps regular planes can be adapted to operate as simply. In the first automobiles people had to worry about fluid and pressure levels before hand cranking a vehicle. Now other than an occasional check and sensors to tell you what is happening, starting and driving a car is a breeze.
Keep in mind this is the very early first edition. Also they've yet to adapt things like ducted fans that would greatly increase the prop efficiency. The electric motor is much smaller than a piston engine so you can mount it directly in the duct.
Ducted fans are less efficient in most flight regimes; best only for slow flight. The added weight and complexity exclude them from most uses.
Yes the electric plane is in it's infancy. One may comment usefully on its present status but to comment negatively on its future is a useful as the people who poo pooed the utility of television in the future based on the state of 1930s technology.
@@markfeldhaus1airships were 1930s technology. Fires put off the public. Not every promising development makes it to widespread adoption.
@@markfeldhaus1 Most people with electric cars today charge them with electricity from fossile fuel power plants. As long as we are not as green as they are in sweden, or we all move there, fixing the source of electricity is the real problem, not designeng fancy toys for it. Atm electric cars are much worse for the environment then internal combustors are, and electric planes would just be more of the same nonsensical greenwashing. Makes sense in sweden, allmost nowhere else until we fix electricity production.
*Great Insight into this new technology*
I learned to fly on a Pipistrel. It is an amazing aircraft. I had a lot of fun learning. I am on my instrument rating now. It has all the capabilities for IFR flight. It is super safe and fun to fly.
It's beautiful. The problem is the flight time, which is extremely short. I think it makes a lot more sense to build a powered glider. That way, using air currents you can fly for longer.
Indeed.
Yes, but if you want to learn to fly and become a commercial pilot, you can't use a glider. By the way this aircraft is an evolution of a motor glider, the Sinus, and I've heard pilots saying they flew a Velis Electro for more than 2 hours when they found some great thermals.
Not worth the weight. At best on wings of that size you're looking at a max charge rate in perfect conditions of about 400-500W, at prob around 40-50lbs (guessing based off what they said about 11' wingspan and mentally chopping up my 120W panels to fit). At cruise that electric motor is pulling 25Kw. @@camrobertson1886
I did my flight training in a Remos GX, which looks identical to this plane. Fun little airplanes.
Nice landing sir.
I don't expect batteries to do the job in long haul or medium haul.
But short haul in areas like Norway, Canada and Alaska it could actually make a lot of sense.
Batteries are improving rapidly, and i think that they can be used as essentially flying taxies between small rural airports that's short distances away from each other soon.
The same airplane can increase its range just by replacing a battery with another one with the same weight but more range every few years, increasing the usefulness.
Exactly. Plus, next gen lightweight flexible solar panels on the wings to provide slow charging on the ground and continuous top up in the air.
It depends if there are willing paying passengers for the price
That was fantastic! Great way to get the hours US flight schools should be ordering these by the dozens! An Australian short-haul airline will fly the 9-seater Alice. More coverage on eFlight developments please!
Thank you, I'll see what I can do!
I don't think the plane has been approved in the US yet. One was at an airshow and I think it was registered as an experimental plane for now.
Time to learn more about something I don’t know anything about 😎. Thank you!
Hope you liked it!