Phenomenal - & what a delightful, clearly entirely unflappable chap! Exactly the person you’d want to be flying with on a windy day, or any other, in a lighter than light aircraft. Well done all!
Thank you for featuring our wonderful 'G-OELC' and Deepak with Robert. For those asking the Pipistrel Velis Electro is the first, and currently only type certified aircraft in the world approved by EASA and the CAA UK.
I presume pre-flight checks are still the same length?, since most of the time you are doing other checks while the oil pressure and temp are coming up in a piston plane. Do you have any estimates on how much you will save in maintenance? Does it still have the same maintenance intervals? Do you count hours of operations on the motor and battery separately? or do they come as a unsplittable package?
You can charge Your Piper EV Anywhere a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is ..... The CHAdeMO charger will Allow You to charge the Piper EV via the CHAdeMO charger from a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV...... When running the Mitsi in Charge mode the 80 KVA generator equipped Mitsi PHEV will charge that 20 KVA battery in under an hour.... When the Mitsi PHEV is stationary in 'Charge Mode ' the 80 KVA engine driven generator returns equivalent of 100-140 MPG when stationery via the Atkinson cycle engine 😎👍 ....
Deepak was awesome at Chatteris airfield in Cambridge ....the funniest thing was him giving flight control @ USAF Mildenhall a constant bollocking because the F16 kept buzzing him in his CFM shadow 😂
This turned out well as it was a windy day, which means you were able to demonstrate the abilities of the electric plane in quite difficult conditions. Hats off to everyone involved!
We had the same challenges with our last news feature in Australia.. it was raining and 12 knots of crosswind.. but our trainer bruce made the landing look pro and smooth as butter :)
@@williammeek4078 But the Tesla's are fairly new compared to an old car that may catch on fire. Plus, the part that burns in not right under you backside! They are usually firewalled of in a normal car. so the power goes out for a day or two.... No flying for you.
Having learned to fly 40 years ago in a piston powered aircraft I remember how difficult it was to communicate with my flying instructor. What a treat it would be to have the same experience without engine noise!
Brilliant. As a recreational pilot dreaming of owning their own plane, knowing that fuel is 80% of the hire cost, this is a future I’m really keen to see.
You might want to go back over those numbers. As expensive as it is, fuel is a pretty small portion of operating costs. If that was even remotely accurate, I'd be rolling in so much cash right now that I'd venmo you your first couple lessons just for fun.
@@mojitomaker Operating and flying a fleet of aircraft is literally my business, I know how aviation costs shake out. Every expense incurred for an hour of flight time, and that includes your loan/lease payment, fuel, oil, tires, brakes, engine overhaul, insurance, and a thousand other things, it all adds up to your operating expenses. Fuel makes up anywhere from 10-30% of that depending on not only the type of aircraft, but also how expensive the aircraft is (and with it being brand new and priced higher for electric variants, it becomes more significant). You can put the fuel bill on the renter or the operator can cover it as a wet lease, either way it's a small number. Rental is going to be an expense in addition to the base operating cost per hour, it will never be less without the owner/operator losing money. You still have to pay all of it whether it's you paying for fuel independently or the rental company fueling it up for you and then charging you again. So you need to cover the operating expenses on top of everything else. The only way it could possibly be 80% of what you pay is if you've already separated out how much the renters tack on to their base operating expenses without fuel, and then compare that to fuel expenses, which is a rather silly and inaccurate way to look at it since you still have to pay all of it anyway. An example would be a simple C-172, with 100hrs of flight time averaged out over a year to include yearly expenses, it'll cost you about $18K. Only $4K of that is the result of paying for fuel, which means less than 25% of the total cost of a flight hour is fuel. If $4K was 80% of the total rental cost to the renter, that would mean it costs $5K all up for all expenses included, so if fuel was free it would only cost $1K a year to rack up 100hrs on a 172. You think $1K is enough to pay for an annual inspection, or just the insurance? The oil alone is going to cost you about $200. Yearly hangar payments are probably well over $3K in most places, and if you want to be a peasant and tie your plane down outside, you're still likely to pay close to $1K for that. Most owners who fly their planes even occasionally budget a bare minimum $1K for unscheduled maintenance such as tires and tubes, brakes, cracked fairings, and a million other things that might wear out or break before your next annual inspection. Look at it another way, $1K incurred over a hundred hours means the airplane only costs $10/hr in non-fuel related expenses. Like I said, if that were the case, I'd be rolling in cash that I saved. What's this mean to you, specifically, in regards to renting an electric plane? Most all of those expenses will still be there. That 10-30% you're no longer spending on fuel doesn't amount to much when you have other considerations like the fact that the electric costs for charging your plane is going to take up a significant part of that 10-30% you saved, then the added expense of battery replacements over their short lifespan. Remember, this isn't an electric car where the biggest concern is whether you can go the full 300 mile range or not, this is a certified aircraft that will likely require a new battery once its performance degrades to a measurable degree. If the battery is not able to provide 100% power during takeoff and climbout, and/or your range/endurance is cut in half, it affects the safety of the aircraft. Expect to replace obscenely expensive batteries twice as often as you would an engine. Even if an electric plane saves half of that 10-30% (which is unlikely) averaged out per hour, in the case of the example above, it's only going to shave $2K off of that $18K/yr cost. If you're spending $18K/yr to fly, $2K isn't going to make much of a difference.
If you think about it, a consortium of 4 could raise cash for one of these and then operating costs will be really very low: much less maintenance and as you say, lower energy costs. Great for a casual/recreational pilot.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper do you have any figures on battery life and replacement costs? It was a big concern on early evs but actually batteries have really lasted well. Whilst I agree it won't be a trivial cost, neither is an engine over haul. And overall, EVs including aircraft have much fewer moving parts, and consequentially should be more reliable and require less maintenance. You'd just be doing what you do with a piston engine: swap the motor our and send the old one back for refurb. Same with batteries, they'll be recycled not thrown away.
THAT'S what I'm talking about! This is even better than ground vehicles. As a pilot I've been waiting for this so instead of punching holes thru the sky AND leaving a carbon trail where it counts even more in the atmosphere, it's just the churning of weather.
Not to mention the advance in safety through reliability! With so little that could go wrong this is a superb advance. And given the ability to glide along, surely there must be times when you can harness regeneration through the windmilling of the prop through the air? Not to mention the possibility of adding solar cells to the wings.
@@Barbreck1 I think regen braking may cause the plane to fall out of the sky. The energy going to the battery might have been going to lift the plane from the propeller. I don't know, ask a professional! Well, it's not like you asked me... And yoy commented on a professional pilot's post.
@@موسى_7 Hahahaha, who said anything about "regen braking"?!! Propellors do not provide lift, wings do. When an aircraft is lowering its altitude it does not need propellor thrust to maintain lift and airworthiness, it can effectively freewheel its prop as airspeed due to gravity is providing enough airflow to maintain lift. This permits an opportunity to regain a little energy out of the prop. Obviously, this has to be carefully balanced with the airspeed of the craft to ensure the vehicle doesn't slow to stall, but to control the descent rate to provide some battery regeneration through prop-wheeling is a perfectly reasonable scenario. It certainly won't completely recharge a battery, but it might give a 10% boost to reserves.
FYI the weight advantage does not transfer to long haul aircraft. A long haul aircraft/jet can’t land immediately after takeoff with fuel tanks full. They have to dump fuel for emergency landings. At the destination it’s light enough to land and not damage the landing gear. With batteries however the weight does not change so adding extra energy for long haul flights requires different engineering because it does not get lighter.
It works if you use batteries sequentially, and then drop them on parachutes to lose weight! aka Rocketlab's Electron rocket. Alternatively, electric launchers and tugs that release the plane at altitude could help a lot with range. However, I think we're stuck with avgas for long haul for the foreseeable future, which is OK if it's renewably synthesized, while sequestration is ramped up massively.
The landing gears are designed to be strong enough (plus safety factor) to land the plane when low on fuel. Landing a plane heavy with fuel is not a normal operation, so the gear does not need to be designed to handle those kind of loads. With electric planes they will simply have to sacrifice payload to add additional strength to the gears so that it can land with the mass of the batteries. Alternatively, I think aircraft with fuel cells and Hydrogen fuel is the one case where Hydrogen might make sense.
General aviation planes can easely land with full fuel tanks. It is'nt even included in most weigt and balance calculation for most "small" aircraft. (Cessna , Piper , ...)
Long haul aircraft are built with MASSIVE amounts of redundancy. This includes the ability to land with loads beyond anything that would ever be required. They literally test them to breaking point. Wings are bent, undercarriages are pummeled into the ground, fuselages are flown at speed into concrete blocks, etc. The reason fuel is dumped for emergency landings is purely to remove flammable liquids from the equation. How hard you land is not simply a matter of weight. You balance thrust, lift and pitch (and yaw in cross winds) to create the smoothest flattest possible trajectory onto the runway. You can have flaps on full for a slower steeper descent or at minimum for a faster flatter approach. As long as your rate of descent is controlled you will have a soft landing. The constant weight of the batteries will make no material difference to landing and take off. In fact, the lack of a liquid that can slosh around in the tanks would make the plane a fraction more stable. Also remember that a plane that is fit to take off at a given weight must be fit to land at that weight as well. To try and balance the tolerances between take off and landing for every flight where the cargo and fuel load will be different is not practical. Far better to know the plane will withstand the maximum fuel load and be left to just focus on having enough juice to stay in the sky.
Great stuff. Pipistrel are a really innovative company. I love their high efficiency streamlined and lightweight gliding airplanes. Just need to make the cockpit 6” wider! It’s also interesting to contrast this design with the rather more extreme Rolls Royce electric development aircraft. In fact that would be a good subject for a follow up programme.
Look forward to the 4 seat Panthera Robert mentioned, although looks like only a range of 200 miles, it looks a very stylish aircraft... Hope certification arrives quickly...
They also have a 2 seat powered glider with an electric motor for take off think that gives around an hour under power, so a climb to altitude for some soaring enough for a cross country and return.
No Piston Motor to Service, which will reduce the Annual Service costs. So yearly Inspections will be much cheaper. This will make long term ownership, or co-ownership much more reachable for those interested.
But unfortunately not as flexible and practical as fuel planes which can be in the air for hours and hours going to very remote places……. Can Cary extra fuel for longer range…….
Deepak's vision of the spiderweb of charging infrastructure in place ready for the expansion of electric aircrafts is brilliant 😃 & I definitely believe that hangars would be ideal locations to be placing solar panels on top of Looking forward to seeing Robert return to test out the 4-seater, 200-mile variant + also eVTOLs (I think eVTOLs are astounding because they don't require landing strips) 🙏🏽
That type of charging infrastructure would be great here in Oz. Some airstrips are 100's of km from anywhere and would need fuel to be flown in prior to any cross country trips. Having some kind of off-grid solar + battery + charger would be so much better.
@@updraft.trance also, you are better placed for that geographically. You are way closer to equator than UK as the result your winter and summer output don't varie as much - day length is more consistent.
As the former owner of a 65 hp Aeronca Chief in the windy state of Kansas, I could relate to the "fun" Robert had in the equally slow and light Pipistrel. I particularly remember flying with the nose at a 30 degree angle to the direction of travel or of going 60 mph on an outbound flight and 110 mph on the return trip. I wonder how involved the American Experimental Aircraft Association has gotten with electric airplanes.
I'm always shocked and amazed that aviation gas is still leaded! Amazing that that's still allowed, but I guess so many planes are old enough that they can't fly without it. Still sucks though.
I loved the sci fi reference, reminds me of my parents born on the early 40s talking about star trek stuff. We now have a LOT of things like they show in star trek only 50 years later. It's only science fiction until we make it science fact. 😁 Was anyone else impressed that on just 24kwhs this plane counting the energy reserve goes even further than most modern evs? 😀 If this somehow had around 100kwhs say of semi solid state around 500wh/kg now it's viable in a whole new way. I give it 3 more year's. It needs ccs charging though imo.
@@rp9674 not for humans at any rate yet. Supposedly they have done teleportation of inanimate miniscule stuff. Maybe in another 20 or so year's after we hit the singularity? Or one of those large hadron collider experiments works out. 🤔
Go for it! There's a global shortage of pilots currently - has been for a while. Of course, good luck trying to find some UK government funding to learn - unlike 90% of the mickey-mouse courses you can get *full* funding for at just about any 'university' in the UK!
Brilliant interview! Was not previously interested in aviation but now has sparked an interest. 300 miles on 3-4 passenger plane maybe followed by internal commercial passenger flight's and then short haul flights. Partially or completely powered by renewables whilst causing minimal noise pollution. Looking forward to the future.
Robert you are a real trooper! You did an amazing job getting in that plane with that much wind but it also show the capabilities of the electric engine under limit conditions. Thank you very much
A-mazing. That flight took nerve, and piloting skill, as the wind clearly was at (or slightly beyond) the limit for such a light aircraft. Good job it was straight down the runway. Anyway, I'd be tempted to resurrect my PPL to have a go in one of them. Slovenia is not only a lovely country, but home to some incredible engineers!
Great to see as I'm sure there'll be a market for this. The ride did look a little choppy and I think Robert did really well. I'd have been green for sure.
Gusts to 32 would have this Cessna 150 owner on the ground. I'd bet that if it had not been for Fully Charged being there, the flight would have awaited better conditions,
Amazing. I live near an airport and my house is on the flight school's flight path. If they could convert to electric it would be a game changer for the neighbourhood.
Just a humble beginning to a new era in aviation, and it's so much quieter. Those petrol planes are still using LEADED fuel. What a contrast. I'm very impressed they have priced this plane the SAME as the dirty fuel equivalent. Cars will be next, where the prices will be the same. Bring it on.
Lovely to see the electric Pipistrel and how beautifully it was flown in some pretty wild conditions. It’s a stunning achievement to add to Pipistrel’s many other firsts and records. It really does demonstrate how essential it is for R&D to improve battery energy density. The plane with the Rotax (petrol) engine has up to eight times the endurance or range. That’s the difference between a flying lesson near the airfield, compared to being a viable means of transport, already cheaper and more efficient than many cars. Clearly, with today’s battery technology, electric flight cannot scale much beyond motor-gliders and small aircraft, but Pipistrel are showing us how to manage the whole process of designing electric powered flight, operations and maintenance. That said, well done Fully Charged for showing this.
HVAC giant Carrier is interested in the heat pump technology--that doesn't use refrigerant gases--invented by Exergyn. That should be a great subject for a video from this wonderful channel.
Great idea , where I live lots of small aircraft disturb your day flying over my house taking videos of the Solent , much more efficient and quiet than ice aircraft, let’s have more of them , should call them clean air 😊😊👍👍
I want one! I want two! This is soooooooo beautiful. More than 60 years ago, I was fortunate to be a passenger in a glider. No noise! Perhaps a little wind noise, that was all... I was absolutely captivated; too bad you had to be towed up, and could, for all in reality, only come down. All right, finding some thermals could extend the time in the air. But this, this is a different kettle of fish, a horse of different colour, the future is here, now!
I looked up if I could take a sightseeing flight in an electric airplane here in the Netherlands, and I can! It's € 245 for a 40 minute flight but I think I might just do that, to have the experience. They sell it as a "first flying lesson" so you fly yourself, too.
Hm, I now see the maximum weight is 90 kg, that may be a problem (by about 10 kg). Maybe I'll just wear very light clothes and they can find me a particularly light pilot? 😉
I was so excited to just sit in the cockpit of this aeroplane when it was at the Fully Charged Show at Farnborough just a few weeks ago. One day. Maybe soon.
Though the pilot was enormously skilled, I was worried for you Robert. Not that I doubted the electrification of the plane, but the wind was a BIG factor during your flight, needless to say. I was wondering if a great deal more batteries would add enough weight to enhance passenger comfort? Which would extend the range. Thanks for taking this one for the rest of us!
It’s the same weight as the petrol version. It’s just a light airplane by design. Making the battery heavier requires more lifting power, so probably an other design. The four seater will be heavier, of course.
I expect to see more electric aircraft, especially in the sport/aerobatic segment, because you never have to worry about oil starvation or fuel load imbalance at all. Also, let's not forget the maintenance costs are far, far lower with an electric drivetrain than a piston engine
It helps also in maintaining airfields with higher traffic near settlements because of low to none noise. We have an airfield at the edge of our village, I once asked the owner why there was not pilot training and he said is partially because even today there is resistance and protests when there is a day with more flights around but training aircrafts flying patterns half the day would get the airfield closed due to the noise. An E-plan could change this entirely.
Twenty years ago I was taking flying lessons in Cessna 152s at Biggin Hill. The repeatedly unfriendly weather caused regular breaks in flying and after 90 hours of lessons I had to call it a day. It was getting too expensive to keep restarting after weather created delays. I would love to get back to flying and to do so in an all electric training craft would be mindblowing. I love that these electric Pipistrels, like electric cars, perform just as well as the combustion counterparts for a much lower lifetime cost of ownership. I also love that they use ChadeMo just like my Leaf. Maybe one day they'll make a Nissan Leaf that converts into a light aircraft. I can only dream.
And it would get rid of all the faff of starting the avgas motor (I used to fly a Slingsby T67 and starting it was the trickiest part of the flight), mag checks, periodic applications of carb heat to prevent icing, etc. Just switch it on and go.
This e plane is 30+ knots slower than the 152 you flew. That’s not even close to comparable performance, not to mention the very limited range. However, operating costs should definitely be much lower. Annuals should be very inexpensive, and major overhauls can’t be that expensive when the number of parts is much less than standard aircraft.
Great news about electric aircraft, with better performance statistics and solar charging at airfields light aircraft are much cleaner and less environmentally harmful, good to watch ✌️❤️🇬🇧
@@alanmay7929 We have to start somewhere... There are now cargo aircraft with holds longer than the Wright Brother's first flight... Guess that in 1903 that would not have been considered possible, let alone crossing the Pacific, or popping across ( ;) ) to the moon
@@peterchandler8505 lame comment!!!! The fuel powered cargo can haul such heavy loads on intercontinental because of the awesomeness of fuel energy density the same goes with cars, ships…… batteries still have a seriously long way to evolve even tho batteries powered cars started almost half century before gas cars.
@@alanmay7929 Many BE cars are now practical propositions with ranges far exceeding 'bladder range', or safe driving range, as my career did involve a lot of driving (pension imminent), kept tabs on safety issues where 2 hours is credibly considered a maximum drive before taking at least a 10 minute break, take a more relaxed drink and your BEV has seriously recharged its range. I would consider the comment quite valid as even though ICE cars have been around for well over 100 years, the last decades have seen significant improvements in ICE efficiency, I now get between 2 and neatly 3 times the mpg whilst carrying 500kg in a light van than I did in my similar sized first cars with just me on board! It was I understand range that killed the early BEVs, ranges in many cases are now practical for many BEVs with charging rather more practical with Teslas, ok not perfect yet but changing fast. Even in California, Texas & the like, it looks as though a day in the sun with an Aptera will trickle charge its battery with on board solar cells enough to cover the daily driving needs of roughly half of Californian / Texan drivers (US average about 38 miles, Aptera SEV daily range increase from sitting in the sun all day, 40 miles), hence a practically never plug in to charge battery electric 2 seat car. Technology is not stationary! We are starting to pay a heavy price for the usefulness of fossil fuels, granted the first serious indications were from Svante Arrhenius just before 1900, however the science was absolutely clear by the 1980s.
it occurs to me that these planes will mean that night time restrictions for electric planes will be dropped so making existing airports more efficient. which is a very good thing. ( and bad clearly). a facinating new use for the technology. I can see loads of short, inter island flying where these would be perfect. an excellent video.
@@grahamstevenson1740 not for the little ones, sure but things like cargo flights or London Paris flights could. They could easily be electric so fly 24hours. Especially if they are whisper quiet
@@grahamstevenson1740 How about the Heart Aviation ES19 in the pipeline, or the Eviation Alice, both that seem to be the most developed commuter airliners (both have well over a hundred orders in, Others are not far behind), ok only 12 or 20 passengers for about 500 miles, but you have to start somewhere... there are cargo aircraft now with longer holds than the Wright brothers first flight 120 years ago...
I loved the program - and Deepak was absolutely brilliant - what an advocate! You are brining these small, but significant changes to our attention - thanks for that!
That's DC? I assumed when they said the charger required 3-phase AC that the charge port was 3-phase AC as well. But perhaps what they meant was that there's only a single charger model available and it uses 3-phase.
@@ps.2 It uses Chademo which is DC. I assume it's similar to the 22kW chargers some VW dealerships have which are 22 kW AC to 22 kW DC (CCS). A 3-Phase to 3-Phase charger wouldn't require such a large charging unit, although a similar on board charger would need to be integrated into the aircraft which would add a significant amount of weight.
i thought that also but it does not help the roll our of the vehicle to more airfields. if you could charge it from AC it might be quite easy to get 32 amp single phase sockets installed and people could charge up for a day and then go home.
@@njipods If I'm honest I don't think that aircraft would even be viable if they didn't go this route, a 22kW OBC would just take up so much space and add so much weight.
What a lovely person you pilot is plus that plane cost the same as a ice plane but 1/10th the cost on energy to operate !! WTF this shows that dinosaur juice aviation is on the way to its grave yard along with automobiles, long live electrons.
it's going to be years before anything large and commercial will be flying. 2035 at least. that is the go/no go date published by Airbus. Boeing are waiting to see what Airbus decide.
Depends on how much bigger right now I reckon. 12 seater? Yeah maybe. Airliner? Not any options rn. Ideally we want batteries more power dense but less *mass* dense. I dont know how much further chemistry can really take us in that direction though.
They apparently can get bigger up to a point, but not the big passenger planes as they get too heavy, esp for landing. But I bet there are break-throughs around the corner.
@@dama9150 I wonder if hydrogen combustion (not fuel cells) would work for long-haul airliners. Granted the energy density for volume isn't good for compressed hydrogen, but the energy-to-weight ratio is very good. Most of the weight would of course be in the pressure tanks and extra added for crash safety margin. I'm also not knowledgeable about the fuel-to-air requirements for airplanes at different altitudes that might run on hydrogen combustion.
As a recreational pilot it was obvious to me that Deepak had that beautiful aircraft on the limit. A testimony to his skills and the capability of the aircraft. At least the wind was pretty much straight down the runway.
Great video. The cockpit reminds me of a Cessna 152 - tight. And, having no armrests is a good thing during landings too by the way. I used to get my elbow hung up and would end up flaring right as I pulled back on the yoke until I ended up landing with one wheel off and on the pavement and grass - more times than not. On the upside, I got really good at recovering from flare problems. The composite planes are even bumpier than the aluminum airplanes because any gust takes them easily, but you get used to it pretty darned quick. I can recall a landing strip with a ravine at the start that made landings really "bumpy" in a Cessna 172 (a much heavier 4-seater than this electric plane) with even light winds. We'd just hold our coffees so they didn't make a mess when thrown around and we'd think nothing of it. Flying a small plane is THE perfect cure for fear of flying in large jets.
Amazing little plane. There are a few electrical planes coming to the market in the next few years that have a bit more usable range. The Eviation Alice is one of them and Bye Aviation has a couple of planes in the certification process as well. Particularly for general aviation, the sweet spot will be planes that can do 200-300 miles with some fast charging capability. And of course there are a few converted planes flying in Seattle currently. Also, Pipistrel actually was acquired recently by Textron. That would be the company that also owns brands like Cessna and Beechcraft. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with electric aviation. The key thing to realize is that this is not even state of the art. Because the certification process takes so long, a lot of these planes get certified with batteries from a few years ago. Planes like this would be perfect for using solid state batteries with much higher energy density. Doubling or tripling the range would be a very big deal.
A battery plan is a worse idea then an electric car but for the same reasons it would be hard to travel very far with it because how many airports are going to have the charging system required to charge it in a reasonable time
Brilliant. Great discussion of operational aspects of electric aircraft and importance of infrastructural support development required. Nice to see electric planes are already flying where the infrastructure exists.
That's mostly down to how light it is, so those 32 knot gusts of wind were pushing it all over the place. I expect the 4 person model will have a smoother ride in general, and they could add more batteries to improve this one too (with the bonus of increasing range, but also increasing cost...)
The Antares 20 E was launched in 2003, range in still air by saw-tooth flying (190 km) isn't amazing, but of course that's not really relevant for a high performance sailplane. With a best L/D of 56 and quite a flat speed polar it's capable of going just about anywhere in the right conditions..
Pipistral has a two seat powered glider and used to have single seater. Recently sold to Textron for 242M for 90% of equity and gliders will not be a priority.
That swept area about three foot off the ground? Not designed as a turbine? You'd be lucky to get 1 kWh generated over 10 hours, and that's with the same 20 knot wind that nearly grounded the aircraft, assumes the plane points directly into the wind, and that the wind direction doesn't change. Completely pointless, just like _practical_ cars having solar roofs. In actual fact, flexible thin film solar on the wings would probably be much more useful. Maybe as much as 2 or 3 KWh per hour, but bear in mind that this thing needs 50 kW at cruise speed if I read the specs right. The extra mass would likely outweigh the benefits of the solar.
@@stephen-boddy "practical cars having solar roofs" Sono Sion? Aptera (daily solar range in California / Texas etc exceeds average daily US distance driven)? Lightyear One (for those with the full bank account)?
@@peterchandler8505 I think a key first requirement for a practical car is that I can actually buy and drive it. So far we have a lot of pre-release buzz building claims. Let's wait until independent testers have tried living with them before we get all excited about those claims. Apparently Toyota claims to have self-charging electric cars... Oh wait, they just mean non-plugin hybrids with regen. Even if the solar enabled cars can theoretically generate a useful range from the cells, what about latitude? Cloud cover? Road dirt and dust? In my neck of the woods those panels will be deadweight for a good 6 months of the year, even if I could find a location that was unshaded all day, and where it would not risk getting vandalised or damaged.
@@stephen-boddy He stated 14Kwh @ cruise. If solar panels get light enough you could be looking at a decent range boost. I saw an RC aircraft with solar wings that could fly as long as the sun shone!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Phenomenal - & what a delightful, clearly entirely unflappable chap! Exactly the person you’d want to be flying with on a windy day, or any other, in a lighter than light aircraft. Well done all!
Deepak is a incredibly talented and professional pilot. We are so proud to have him as Head of Flight Operations ✈
Well spoken, and I suspect, a great teacher. Thanks for explaining it so well, Deepak!
Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!
@@deadmanwalking6342 Planes already have various batteries onboard. Planes carry flammable jet fuel ‘ffs’!
For real. 30kt gusts in a light aircraft doesn't make for a relaxing outing.
I'm sure you'll want to visit Pipistrel factory in Slovenia. Let us know when that'll happen so we can meet you there. Greetings from Slovenia!
👋
The question to you: does the plane recuperate energy form gliding and spinning the wing the "wrong way"?
@@pawefiett2468 like regenerative braking in hybrid cars?
I was in Slovenia on holiday last may but was not aware I could visit the factory. Who should I contact next time?
I'll be visiting ajdovščina airport next year, bomo se vidli kmalu
Thank you for featuring our wonderful 'G-OELC' and Deepak with Robert. For those asking the Pipistrel Velis Electro is the first, and currently only type certified aircraft in the world approved by EASA and the CAA UK.
👏 👏 👍 👍
Lovely aircraft, how strange is it not hearing pistons whirring? I've only flown twice without the pistons whirring when the 2Stroke motor stopped 😆
I presume pre-flight checks are still the same length?, since most of the time you are doing other checks while the oil pressure and temp are coming up in a piston plane.
Do you have any estimates on how much you will save in maintenance? Does it still have the same maintenance intervals? Do you count hours of operations on the motor and battery separately? or do they come as a unsplittable package?
I want to come and fly it!
You can charge Your Piper EV Anywhere a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is .....
The CHAdeMO charger will Allow You to charge the Piper EV via the CHAdeMO charger from a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV......
When running the Mitsi in Charge mode the 80 KVA generator equipped Mitsi PHEV will charge that 20 KVA battery in under an hour....
When the Mitsi PHEV is stationary in 'Charge Mode ' the 80 KVA engine driven generator returns equivalent of 100-140 MPG when stationery via the Atkinson cycle engine 😎👍
....
Lead! Piston engine aircraft are the largest emitters of lead into the air in the US b/c they still use leaded gasoline!! (Credit: Veritasium).
The piston equivalent of this type (and most similar modern small 2 seater types) use a rotax engine, which uses unleaded.
@@bencoder Thanks for the info. As electric aircraft evolve, they will hopefully replace more fossil fuel engines, both leaded and unleaded.
I once had the pleasure of flying with Deepak in a CFM Shadow.
A great guy who has contributed so much to microlight flying in the UK
Deepak was awesome at Chatteris airfield in Cambridge ....the funniest thing was him giving flight control @ USAF Mildenhall a constant bollocking because the F16 kept buzzing him in his CFM shadow 😂
He was in the military prior or a civilian transport pilot?
@@1anre No
This turned out well as it was a windy day, which means you were able to demonstrate the abilities of the electric plane in quite difficult conditions. Hats off to everyone involved!
I see what you did at the end there.
Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!
@@deadmanwalking6342 You do realize that an internal combustion engine is 10x more likely to catch fire than the oldest, most fire prone Teslas right?
We had the same challenges with our last news feature in Australia.. it was raining and 12 knots of crosswind.. but our trainer bruce made the landing look pro and smooth as butter :)
@@williammeek4078 But the Tesla's are fairly new compared to an old car that may catch on fire. Plus, the part that burns in not right under you backside! They are usually firewalled of in a normal car. so the power goes out for a day or two.... No flying for you.
This dude is so chill. Love it.
Yeah I was thinking that too, very composed and relaxed. Nice 'energy' 👌
Agreed. Top man indeed.
A very calm guy for sure.
Having learned to fly 40 years ago in a piston powered aircraft I remember how difficult it was to communicate with my flying instructor. What a treat it would be to have the same experience without engine noise!
YES GENERAL AVIATION IS NOISY!
Noise canceling headphones with intercoms make it easy.
Come and give it a try Vincent!
@@TecnamTwin while true, there's a reason a lot of older pilots have hearing loss
@@danweyant707 WHAT
You can sense the future of Aviation within this 18 minutes video.
This the future of light aircraft not aviation
@@DarrellTurnerJr light aircraft first and then aviation.
What an amazing ambassador Deepak is. Also very skilled pilot!
Brilliant. As a recreational pilot dreaming of owning their own plane, knowing that fuel is 80% of the hire cost, this is a future I’m really keen to see.
You might want to go back over those numbers. As expensive as it is, fuel is a pretty small portion of operating costs. If that was even remotely accurate, I'd be rolling in so much cash right now that I'd venmo you your first couple lessons just for fun.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper hire cost != operating cost
@@mojitomaker Operating and flying a fleet of aircraft is literally my business, I know how aviation costs shake out. Every expense incurred for an hour of flight time, and that includes your loan/lease payment, fuel, oil, tires, brakes, engine overhaul, insurance, and a thousand other things, it all adds up to your operating expenses. Fuel makes up anywhere from 10-30% of that depending on not only the type of aircraft, but also how expensive the aircraft is (and with it being brand new and priced higher for electric variants, it becomes more significant). You can put the fuel bill on the renter or the operator can cover it as a wet lease, either way it's a small number. Rental is going to be an expense in addition to the base operating cost per hour, it will never be less without the owner/operator losing money. You still have to pay all of it whether it's you paying for fuel independently or the rental company fueling it up for you and then charging you again. So you need to cover the operating expenses on top of everything else. The only way it could possibly be 80% of what you pay is if you've already separated out how much the renters tack on to their base operating expenses without fuel, and then compare that to fuel expenses, which is a rather silly and inaccurate way to look at it since you still have to pay all of it anyway. An example would be a simple C-172, with 100hrs of flight time averaged out over a year to include yearly expenses, it'll cost you about $18K. Only $4K of that is the result of paying for fuel, which means less than 25% of the total cost of a flight hour is fuel. If $4K was 80% of the total rental cost to the renter, that would mean it costs $5K all up for all expenses included, so if fuel was free it would only cost $1K a year to rack up 100hrs on a 172. You think $1K is enough to pay for an annual inspection, or just the insurance? The oil alone is going to cost you about $200. Yearly hangar payments are probably well over $3K in most places, and if you want to be a peasant and tie your plane down outside, you're still likely to pay close to $1K for that. Most owners who fly their planes even occasionally budget a bare minimum $1K for unscheduled maintenance such as tires and tubes, brakes, cracked fairings, and a million other things that might wear out or break before your next annual inspection. Look at it another way, $1K incurred over a hundred hours means the airplane only costs $10/hr in non-fuel related expenses. Like I said, if that were the case, I'd be rolling in cash that I saved.
What's this mean to you, specifically, in regards to renting an electric plane? Most all of those expenses will still be there. That 10-30% you're no longer spending on fuel doesn't amount to much when you have other considerations like the fact that the electric costs for charging your plane is going to take up a significant part of that 10-30% you saved, then the added expense of battery replacements over their short lifespan. Remember, this isn't an electric car where the biggest concern is whether you can go the full 300 mile range or not, this is a certified aircraft that will likely require a new battery once its performance degrades to a measurable degree. If the battery is not able to provide 100% power during takeoff and climbout, and/or your range/endurance is cut in half, it affects the safety of the aircraft. Expect to replace obscenely expensive batteries twice as often as you would an engine. Even if an electric plane saves half of that 10-30% (which is unlikely) averaged out per hour, in the case of the example above, it's only going to shave $2K off of that $18K/yr cost. If you're spending $18K/yr to fly, $2K isn't going to make much of a difference.
If you think about it, a consortium of 4 could raise cash for one of these and then operating costs will be really very low: much less maintenance and as you say, lower energy costs. Great for a casual/recreational pilot.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper do you have any figures on battery life and replacement costs? It was a big concern on early evs but actually batteries have really lasted well. Whilst I agree it won't be a trivial cost, neither is an engine over haul. And overall, EVs including aircraft have much fewer moving parts, and consequentially should be more reliable and require less maintenance. You'd just be doing what you do with a piston engine: swap the motor our and send the old one back for refurb. Same with batteries, they'll be recycled not thrown away.
My brain saw the wind pushing that propeller around on the ground and said "Built in wind turbine for charging..."
What a nice man, the way he talks and explains things is just what you want for a instructor
Harbour Air in BC Canada should have an electric passenger plane certified soon
THAT'S what I'm talking about!
This is even better than ground vehicles. As a pilot I've been waiting for this so instead of punching holes thru the sky AND leaving a carbon trail where it counts even more in the atmosphere, it's just the churning of weather.
Not to mention the advance in safety through reliability! With so little that could go wrong this is a superb advance.
And given the ability to glide along, surely there must be times when you can harness regeneration through the windmilling of the prop through the air? Not to mention the possibility of adding solar cells to the wings.
Not just leaving carbon trail, but dumping your leaded fuel everywhere.
@@Barbreck1 I think regen braking may cause the plane to fall out of the sky. The energy going to the battery might have been going to lift the plane from the propeller. I don't know, ask a professional! Well, it's not like you asked me... And yoy commented on a professional pilot's post.
@@موسى_7 Hahahaha, who said anything about "regen braking"?!! Propellors do not provide lift, wings do. When an aircraft is lowering its altitude it does not need propellor thrust to maintain lift and airworthiness, it can effectively freewheel its prop as airspeed due to gravity is providing enough airflow to maintain lift. This permits an opportunity to regain a little energy out of the prop. Obviously, this has to be carefully balanced with the airspeed of the craft to ensure the vehicle doesn't slow to stall, but to control the descent rate to provide some battery regeneration through prop-wheeling is a perfectly reasonable scenario. It certainly won't completely recharge a battery, but it might give a 10% boost to reserves.
@@MaxCaud the Rotax engines in Pipistrels use unleaded mogas the same as cars, notice Deepak said "...petrol.." not avgas (100LL).
FYI the weight advantage does not transfer to long haul aircraft. A long haul aircraft/jet can’t land immediately after takeoff with fuel tanks full. They have to dump fuel for emergency landings. At the destination it’s light enough to land and not damage the landing gear. With batteries however the weight does not change so adding extra energy for long haul flights requires different engineering because it does not get lighter.
It works if you use batteries sequentially, and then drop them on parachutes to lose weight! aka Rocketlab's Electron rocket.
Alternatively, electric launchers and tugs that release the plane at altitude could help a lot with range.
However, I think we're stuck with avgas for long haul for the foreseeable future, which is OK if it's renewably synthesized, while sequestration is ramped up massively.
The landing gears are designed to be strong enough (plus safety factor) to land the plane when low on fuel. Landing a plane heavy with fuel is not a normal operation, so the gear does not need to be designed to handle those kind of loads. With electric planes they will simply have to sacrifice payload to add additional strength to the gears so that it can land with the mass of the batteries.
Alternatively, I think aircraft with fuel cells and Hydrogen fuel is the one case where Hydrogen might make sense.
General aviation planes can easely land with full fuel tanks. It is'nt even included in most weigt and balance calculation for most "small" aircraft. (Cessna , Piper , ...)
TIL!
Long haul aircraft are built with MASSIVE amounts of redundancy. This includes the ability to land with loads beyond anything that would ever be required. They literally test them to breaking point. Wings are bent, undercarriages are pummeled into the ground, fuselages are flown at speed into concrete blocks, etc. The reason fuel is dumped for emergency landings is purely to remove flammable liquids from the equation. How hard you land is not simply a matter of weight. You balance thrust, lift and pitch (and yaw in cross winds) to create the smoothest flattest possible trajectory onto the runway. You can have flaps on full for a slower steeper descent or at minimum for a faster flatter approach. As long as your rate of descent is controlled you will have a soft landing. The constant weight of the batteries will make no material difference to landing and take off. In fact, the lack of a liquid that can slosh around in the tanks would make the plane a fraction more stable. Also remember that a plane that is fit to take off at a given weight must be fit to land at that weight as well. To try and balance the tolerances between take off and landing for every flight where the cargo and fuel load will be different is not practical. Far better to know the plane will withstand the maximum fuel load and be left to just focus on having enough juice to stay in the sky.
Very cool Instructor! I'd fly with him.
Agree. He was very chilled and reassuring.
yeah I'm not a fan of those pilots that say stuff like "shit! we're never gonna make it" "watch this!" and "is your left arm tingling?"
we've flown with Deepak. Its a pretty relaxed experience!
From small accorns come mighty oaks. This is the exciting beginning of real change. Congratulations
Great stuff. Pipistrel are a really innovative company. I love their high efficiency streamlined and lightweight gliding airplanes. Just need to make the cockpit 6” wider! It’s also interesting to contrast this design with the rather more extreme Rolls Royce electric development aircraft. In fact that would be a good subject for a follow up programme.
GO SLOVENIA
Look forward to the 4 seat Panthera Robert mentioned, although looks like only a range of 200 miles, it looks a very stylish aircraft... Hope certification arrives quickly...
They also have a 2 seat powered glider with an electric motor for take off think that gives around an hour under power, so a climb to altitude for some soaring enough for a cross country and return.
@@Zigonce Company was sold few months ago to the US company Textron
"Just need to make the cockpit 6” wider! " ...or make the people smaller 🙂
Love this. Deepak comes across brilliantly, I could just listen to him all day long.
No Piston Motor to Service, which will reduce the Annual Service costs. So yearly Inspections will be much cheaper. This will make long term ownership, or co-ownership much more reachable for those interested.
But unfortunately not as flexible and practical as fuel planes which can be in the air for hours and hours going to very remote places……. Can Cary extra fuel for longer range…….
Robert should have covered maintenance costs more?
Robert deserves a medal for keeping his breakfast down - it looked like a rollercoaster!
Deepak is really ahead of the game,for him to chose an electric aircraft to train his students shows a lot of forward thought. Amazing guy
Deepak's vision of the spiderweb of charging infrastructure in place ready for the expansion of electric aircrafts is brilliant 😃 & I definitely believe that hangars would be ideal locations to be placing solar panels on top of
Looking forward to seeing Robert return to test out the 4-seater, 200-mile variant + also eVTOLs (I think eVTOLs are astounding because they don't require landing strips)
🙏🏽
That type of charging infrastructure would be great here in Oz. Some airstrips are 100's of km from anywhere and would need fuel to be flown in prior to any cross country trips. Having some kind of off-grid solar + battery + charger would be so much better.
@@updraft.trance also, you are better placed for that geographically. You are way closer to equator than UK as the result your winter and summer output don't varie as much - day length is more consistent.
As the former owner of a 65 hp Aeronca Chief in the windy state of Kansas, I could relate to the "fun" Robert had in the equally slow and light Pipistrel. I particularly remember flying with the nose at a 30 degree angle to the direction of travel or of going 60 mph on an outbound flight and 110 mph on the return trip. I wonder how involved the American Experimental Aircraft Association has gotten with electric airplanes.
This is brilliant as will also reduce lead pollution from small aircraft fuel
I'm always shocked and amazed that aviation gas is still leaded! Amazing that that's still allowed, but I guess so many planes are old enough that they can't fly without it. Still sucks though.
And noise. Probably more important noise.
@@morellwestermann6897 the prop still generates a lot of noise, I think. Still, electric is definitely superior.
@@linuswalden in flight: inaudible. Departure: Significantly quieter
Look at far electric cars have come in the last 10-15 years. Imagine where these will be in another 10-15 years.
its all about battery tech at this point.
Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!
@@deadmanwalking6342 Jeez, dude just give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Unless new battery tech comes out in the next 10-15 years, you won't have to imagine anything because it won't be any different.
I want an old-fashioned flying boat - but electric ;-) Imagine a Catalina with electric propulsion...
I loved the sci fi reference, reminds me of my parents born on the early 40s talking about star trek stuff.
We now have a LOT of things like they show in star trek only 50 years later. It's only science fiction until we make it science fact. 😁
Was anyone else impressed that on just 24kwhs this plane counting the energy reserve goes even further than most modern evs? 😀
If this somehow had around 100kwhs say of semi solid state around 500wh/kg now it's viable in a whole new way. I give it 3 more year's.
It needs ccs charging though imo.
No transporters tho
@@rp9674 not for humans at any rate yet. Supposedly they have done teleportation of inanimate miniscule stuff.
Maybe in another 20 or so year's after we hit the singularity? Or one of those large hadron collider experiments works out. 🤔
Like any mode of transport, so much better in relative silence.
Robert, you are the man , the government should employ you as a consultant.
That plane is so cool. It makes we want to start flying lessons😅
👍 😄
Had the same thought...
Come and learn on the Velis.
Go for it! There's a global shortage of pilots currently - has been for a while.
Of course, good luck trying to find some UK government funding to learn - unlike 90% of the mickey-mouse courses you can get *full* funding for at just about any 'university' in the UK!
I like the pilot. Very knowledgable and effective communicator.
Brilliant interview!
Was not previously interested in aviation but now has sparked an interest. 300 miles on 3-4 passenger plane maybe followed by internal commercial passenger flight's and then short haul flights. Partially or completely powered by renewables whilst causing minimal noise pollution. Looking forward to the future.
Roberts reaction during the landing was hilarious 😂
bobby, you get to play with all the best tech.
Robert you are a real trooper! You did an amazing job getting in that plane with that much wind but it also show the capabilities of the electric engine under limit conditions. Thank you very much
Love it! Bring on the Age of E-Planes!
That was an outstanding piece of airmanship from that fellow.
What a wonderful man. Well spoken and genuinely interested in the tech and in flying. More kilowatts to him!
Just brilliant. It might have been the music, but I actually had goosebumps watching this. Feels like I’m witnessing a revolution!
Salute to those pioneers who are making our world a better place
What a fantastic gentleman and brilliant project. All the best with electrifying the UK light aircraft.
Wonder of wonders, fantastic, electric flying, who would have thought it possible even 10 years ago, well done humankind!
Outstanding and astounding.
Brilliant Thanks for highlighting this Robert (and crew), and thanks Deepak for showing it off to us.
A-mazing. That flight took nerve, and piloting skill, as the wind clearly was at (or slightly beyond) the limit for such a light aircraft. Good job it was straight down the runway. Anyway, I'd be tempted to resurrect my PPL to have a go in one of them. Slovenia is not only a lovely country, but home to some incredible engineers!
Blooming fabulous video, thank you Robert and FC.
This is ground breaking and great to see.
“Science Fiction becoming Science Fact”
awesome! and on top of all, that thing is practically maintenance free!
Which Robert should have covered!
This is significant, a large part of piston engine aircraft running costs are the engine strip downs, inspections and overhauls.
Impressive seeing such a light aircraft fly in 30-50? Knt. That downwind run looked bumpy haha!
The pilot I extremely competent and chilled , also knowledgeable and forward looking .
Great to see as I'm sure there'll be a market for this. The ride did look a little choppy and I think Robert did really well. I'd have been green for sure.
Gusts to 32 would have this Cessna 150 owner on the ground. I'd bet that if it had not been for Fully Charged being there, the flight would have awaited better conditions,
Amazing. I live near an airport and my house is on the flight school's flight path. If they could convert to electric it would be a game changer for the neighbourhood.
Who was there first, your house or the airport?
Just a humble beginning to a new era in aviation, and it's so much quieter. Those petrol planes are still using LEADED fuel. What a contrast. I'm very impressed they have priced this plane the SAME as the dirty fuel equivalent. Cars will be next, where the prices will be the same. Bring it on.
Lovely to see the electric Pipistrel and how beautifully it was flown in some pretty wild conditions. It’s a stunning achievement to add to Pipistrel’s many other firsts and records.
It really does demonstrate how essential it is for R&D to improve battery energy density.
The plane with the Rotax (petrol) engine has up to eight times the endurance or range.
That’s the difference between a flying lesson near the airfield, compared to being a viable means of transport, already cheaper and more efficient than many cars.
Clearly, with today’s battery technology, electric flight cannot scale much beyond motor-gliders and small aircraft, but Pipistrel are showing us how to manage the whole process of designing electric powered flight, operations and maintenance.
That said, well done Fully Charged for showing this.
Wow it gives us opportunity to learn flying without breaking bank 👍
Keep sharing the journey of electric planes.
HVAC giant Carrier is interested in the heat pump technology--that doesn't use refrigerant gases--invented by Exergyn. That should be a great subject for a video from this wonderful channel.
Thank you Robert! I think you got bonus points for being such a good passenger. No barf bags…
Amazing ! - I am genuinely surprised you can get airborne with such a small battery pack. This has to be good news for the future of flying.
There's a demonstration video of an ultralight plane with a tiny engine versus a performance gas car, the plane easily catches up and passes the car
NICE ONE ROBERT ! 50 knot tail wind !! AWESOME !!!
I love that it is absolutely silent
Won’t be absolutely silent as the prop turning in the air creates a fair amount of noise as well
@@jimparr5412 okay.. thanks for the reply .you are quite thoughtful bro
@@jimparr5412 hence the 30 metres comment
great presentation Robert on clearly a challenging day for flying
Great idea , where I live lots of small aircraft disturb your day flying over my house taking videos of the Solent , much more efficient and quiet than ice aircraft, let’s have more of them , should call them clean air 😊😊👍👍
I want one! I want two!
This is soooooooo beautiful.
More than 60 years ago, I was fortunate to be a passenger in a glider. No noise! Perhaps a little wind noise, that was all... I was absolutely captivated; too bad you had to be towed up, and could, for all in reality, only come down. All right, finding some thermals could extend the time in the air. But this, this is a different kettle of fish, a horse of different colour, the future is here, now!
I looked up if I could take a sightseeing flight in an electric airplane here in the Netherlands, and I can! It's € 245 for a 40 minute flight but I think I might just do that, to have the experience. They sell it as a "first flying lesson" so you fly yourself, too.
Way to go netherlands!
I took a trial lesson there last summer, it was a great experience!
Hm, I now see the maximum weight is 90 kg, that may be a problem (by about 10 kg). Maybe I'll just wear very light clothes and they can find me a particularly light pilot? 😉
@@SolarWebsite diet time? Or is it all muscle
@@gingernutpreacher I'm 1m90 (and it's diet time)
I was so excited to just sit in the cockpit of this aeroplane when it was at the Fully Charged Show at Farnborough just a few weeks ago. One day. Maybe soon.
Though the pilot was enormously skilled, I was worried for you Robert. Not that I doubted the electrification of the plane, but the wind was a BIG factor during your flight, needless to say. I was wondering if a great deal more batteries would add enough weight to enhance passenger comfort? Which would extend the range. Thanks for taking this one for the rest of us!
It’s the same weight as the petrol version. It’s just a light airplane by design. Making the battery heavier requires more lifting power, so probably an other design. The four seater will be heavier, of course.
An enormously skilled pilot always knows when the conditions are not safe and won't fly.
@@qqleq same weight empty or full!
Wow, that's Awesome. Just when I think I've seen it all. Absolutely Magnificent.
I expect to see more electric aircraft, especially in the sport/aerobatic segment, because you never have to worry about oil starvation or fuel load imbalance at all.
Also, let's not forget the maintenance costs are far, far lower with an electric drivetrain than a piston engine
It helps also in maintaining airfields with higher traffic near settlements because of low to none noise. We have an airfield at the edge of our village, I once asked the owner why there was not pilot training and he said is partially because even today there is resistance and protests when there is a day with more flights around but training aircrafts flying patterns half the day would get the airfield closed due to the noise. An E-plan could change this entirely.
Superb! Thank you for sharing this video! Electric is the way to go! Greetings from Papua New Guinea!
Twenty years ago I was taking flying lessons in Cessna 152s at Biggin Hill. The repeatedly unfriendly weather caused regular breaks in flying and after 90 hours of lessons I had to call it a day. It was getting too expensive to keep restarting after weather created delays. I would love to get back to flying and to do so in an all electric training craft would be mindblowing. I love that these electric Pipistrels, like electric cars, perform just as well as the combustion counterparts for a much lower lifetime cost of ownership. I also love that they use ChadeMo just like my Leaf. Maybe one day they'll make a Nissan Leaf that converts into a light aircraft. I can only dream.
And it would get rid of all the faff of starting the avgas motor (I used to fly a Slingsby T67 and starting it was the trickiest part of the flight), mag checks, periodic applications of carb heat to prevent icing, etc. Just switch it on and go.
Give Deepak a call a go and fly electric!
This e plane is 30+ knots slower than the 152 you flew. That’s not even close to comparable performance, not to mention the very limited range. However, operating costs should definitely be much lower. Annuals should be very inexpensive, and major overhauls can’t be that expensive when the number of parts is much less than standard aircraft.
@@allblooz
I would think far fewer moving parts and lack of engine vibrations would lessen metal fatigue and wear.
That's awesome. Onwards and upwards...!
Great news about electric aircraft, with better performance statistics and solar charging at airfields light aircraft are much cleaner and less environmentally harmful, good to watch ✌️❤️🇬🇧
And unfortunately not as practical or useful compared to fuel aircrafts
@@alanmay7929 We have to start somewhere... There are now cargo aircraft with holds longer than the Wright Brother's first flight... Guess that in 1903 that would not have been considered possible, let alone crossing the Pacific, or popping across ( ;) ) to the moon
@@peterchandler8505 lame comment!!!! The fuel powered cargo can haul such heavy loads on intercontinental because of the awesomeness of fuel energy density the same goes with cars, ships…… batteries still have a seriously long way to evolve even tho batteries powered cars started almost half century before gas cars.
@@alanmay7929 Many BE cars are now practical propositions with ranges far exceeding 'bladder range', or safe driving range, as my career did involve a lot of driving (pension imminent), kept tabs on safety issues where 2 hours is credibly considered a maximum drive before taking at least a 10 minute break, take a more relaxed drink and your BEV has seriously recharged its range.
I would consider the comment quite valid as even though ICE cars have been around for well over 100 years, the last decades have seen significant improvements in ICE efficiency, I now get between 2 and neatly 3 times the mpg whilst carrying 500kg in a light van than I did in my similar sized first cars with just me on board!
It was I understand range that killed the early BEVs, ranges in many cases are now practical for many BEVs with charging rather more practical with Teslas, ok not perfect yet but changing fast. Even in California, Texas & the like, it looks as though a day in the sun with an Aptera will trickle charge its battery with on board solar cells enough to cover the daily driving needs of roughly half of Californian / Texan drivers (US average about 38 miles, Aptera SEV daily range increase from sitting in the sun all day, 40 miles), hence a practically never plug in to charge battery electric 2 seat car.
Technology is not stationary! We are starting to pay a heavy price for the usefulness of fossil fuels, granted the first serious indications were from Svante Arrhenius just before 1900, however the science was absolutely clear by the 1980s.
@@peterchandler8505 why do you need to make a bible!? Lol…..
What a great guy! Seems so passionate!
Need more people like him forging a path into the future
it occurs to me that these planes will mean that night time restrictions for electric planes will be dropped so making existing airports more efficient. which is a very good thing. ( and bad clearly). a facinating new use for the technology. I can see loads of short, inter island flying where these would be perfect. an excellent video.
When all flights globally make up like 1% of emissions, I'm sure that's going to make all the difference.
@@oBCHANo 1% of a lot is still a lot
Very few PPLs fly at night. You need a host of special flight ratings to do that. This ultralight won't/can't scale to a true commercial aircraft.
@@grahamstevenson1740 not for the little ones, sure but things like cargo flights or London Paris flights could. They could easily be electric so fly 24hours. Especially if they are whisper quiet
@@grahamstevenson1740 How about the Heart Aviation ES19 in the pipeline, or the Eviation Alice, both that seem to be the most developed commuter airliners (both have well over a hundred orders in, Others are not far behind), ok only 12 or 20 passengers for about 500 miles, but you have to start somewhere... there are cargo aircraft now with longer holds than the Wright brothers first flight 120 years ago...
As someone who lives near a small aircraft airport, I am looking forward to quieter skies over head.
Excellent episode! Learning to fly at present and would dearly love to be learning in a E Pipistral.
Deepak currently offers a 90% Green PPL. Hoping 100% Green could become a reality very soon.
I wonder if you could park it into the wind and let the propeller spin to charge the battery up!
The Welsh double-L is sometimes pronounced as and FL in English, so today, when Bob Llwewellyn FLEW on a place today, he became Robert Fleweflyn.
Brilliant, I have flown into Popham before in a microlight, looks like a nasty gusting 32kt wind!
Cool video guys! Would love to see more about electric aircraft.
plenty online already!
I loved the program - and Deepak was absolutely brilliant - what an advocate!
You are brining these small, but significant changes to our attention - thanks for that!
It's ingenious that they've opted for just DC charging, therefore they save the extra weight of having an onboard charger.
I had the exact same thoughts as I was watching it. :D
That's DC? I assumed when they said the charger required 3-phase AC that the charge port was 3-phase AC as well. But perhaps what they meant was that there's only a single charger model available and it uses 3-phase.
@@ps.2 It uses Chademo which is DC. I assume it's similar to the 22kW chargers some VW dealerships have which are 22 kW AC to 22 kW DC (CCS). A 3-Phase to 3-Phase charger wouldn't require such a large charging unit, although a similar on board charger would need to be integrated into the aircraft which would add a significant amount of weight.
i thought that also but it does not help the roll our of the vehicle to more airfields. if you could charge it from AC it might be quite easy to get 32 amp single phase sockets installed and people could charge up for a day and then go home.
@@njipods If I'm honest I don't think that aircraft would even be viable if they didn't go this route, a 22kW OBC would just take up so much space and add so much weight.
Really interesting - thank you. Bobby really is a national treasure.
What a lovely person you pilot is plus that plane cost the same as a ice plane but 1/10th the cost on energy to operate !! WTF this shows that dinosaur juice aviation is on the way to its grave yard along with automobiles, long live electrons.
Fantastic. More please. What a nice couple of blokes. Bravo 👍
Great video. Hope batteries get more dense. I wonder if a hydrogen range extender for a bigger plane is feasible.
No
it's going to be years before anything large and commercial will be flying. 2035 at least. that is the go/no go date published by Airbus. Boeing are waiting to see what Airbus decide.
Depends on how much bigger right now I reckon. 12 seater? Yeah maybe. Airliner? Not any options rn.
Ideally we want batteries more power dense but less *mass* dense. I dont know how much further chemistry can really take us in that direction though.
They apparently can get bigger up to a point, but not the big passenger planes as they get too heavy, esp for landing. But I bet there are break-throughs around the corner.
@@dama9150 I wonder if hydrogen combustion (not fuel cells) would work for long-haul airliners. Granted the energy density for volume isn't good for compressed hydrogen, but the energy-to-weight ratio is very good. Most of the weight would of course be in the pressure tanks and extra added for crash safety margin.
I'm also not knowledgeable about the fuel-to-air requirements for airplanes at different altitudes that might run on hydrogen combustion.
Absolutely masterful performance Robert. You are such a pro to make the ending with the hat and the propeller work seamlessly with the dialogue.
Come battery/solar companies. Donate some charging infrastructure to airfields :)
Let it grow.
we're on it. - That solar charger at Old Buckenham is ours
@@nuncats8296 👏
Such a knowledgeable & calm demeanor... would love to have Mr. Mahajan as my instructor! Thanks for posting.
As a recreational pilot it was obvious to me that Deepak had that beautiful aircraft on the limit. A testimony to his skills and the capability of the aircraft. At least the wind was pretty much straight down the runway.
Great video. The cockpit reminds me of a Cessna 152 - tight. And, having no armrests is a good thing during landings too by the way. I used to get my elbow hung up and would end up flaring right as I pulled back on the yoke until I ended up landing with one wheel off and on the pavement and grass - more times than not. On the upside, I got really good at recovering from flare problems.
The composite planes are even bumpier than the aluminum airplanes because any gust takes them easily, but you get used to it pretty darned quick. I can recall a landing strip with a ravine at the start that made landings really "bumpy" in a Cessna 172 (a much heavier 4-seater than this electric plane) with even light winds.
We'd just hold our coffees so they didn't make a mess when thrown around and we'd think nothing of it.
Flying a small plane is THE perfect cure for fear of flying in large jets.
Amazing little plane. There are a few electrical planes coming to the market in the next few years that have a bit more usable range. The Eviation Alice is one of them and Bye Aviation has a couple of planes in the certification process as well. Particularly for general aviation, the sweet spot will be planes that can do 200-300 miles with some fast charging capability. And of course there are a few converted planes flying in Seattle currently.
Also, Pipistrel actually was acquired recently by Textron. That would be the company that also owns brands like Cessna and Beechcraft. It will be interesting to see how they move forward with electric aviation.
The key thing to realize is that this is not even state of the art. Because the certification process takes so long, a lot of these planes get certified with batteries from a few years ago. Planes like this would be perfect for using solid state batteries with much higher energy density. Doubling or tripling the range would be a very big deal.
A battery plan is a worse idea then an electric car but for the same reasons it would be hard to travel very far with it because how many airports are going to have the charging system required to charge it in a reasonable time
What a surprisingly interesting episode! 😁
Perhaps electric flight can... take off. (sorry)
Brilliant. Great discussion of operational aspects of electric aircraft and importance of infrastructural support development required. Nice to see electric planes are already flying where the infrastructure exists.
GO SLOVENIA!!! GO PIPISTREL!!!
It did look wobbly, I would still like a go in one. Thanks Robert, best wishes
That's mostly down to how light it is, so those 32 knot gusts of wind were pushing it all over the place. I expect the 4 person model will have a smoother ride in general, and they could add more batteries to improve this one too (with the bonus of increasing range, but also increasing cost...)
Electric gliders have been around for a long time too right? I'd imagine they have amazing range.
The Antares 20 E was launched in 2003, range in still air by saw-tooth flying (190 km) isn't amazing, but of course that's not really relevant for a high performance sailplane. With a best L/D of 56 and quite a flat speed polar it's capable of going just about anywhere in the right conditions..
Pipistral has a two seat powered glider and used to have single seater. Recently sold to Textron for 242M for 90% of equity and gliders will not be a priority.
Wow, Robert! I love your radio voice!
this is great...what if the propeller is allow to spin when it's not in used to recharge the battery?
👍
That swept area about three foot off the ground? Not designed as a turbine? You'd be lucky to get 1 kWh generated over 10 hours, and that's with the same 20 knot wind that nearly grounded the aircraft, assumes the plane points directly into the wind, and that the wind direction doesn't change. Completely pointless, just like _practical_ cars having solar roofs. In actual fact, flexible thin film solar on the wings would probably be much more useful. Maybe as much as 2 or 3 KWh per hour, but bear in mind that this thing needs 50 kW at cruise speed if I read the specs right. The extra mass would likely outweigh the benefits of the solar.
@@stephen-boddy "practical cars having solar roofs"
Sono Sion?
Aptera (daily solar range in California / Texas etc exceeds average daily US distance driven)?
Lightyear One (for those with the full bank account)?
@@peterchandler8505 I think a key first requirement for a practical car is that I can actually buy and drive it. So far we have a lot of pre-release buzz building claims. Let's wait until independent testers have tried living with them before we get all excited about those claims. Apparently Toyota claims to have self-charging electric cars... Oh wait, they just mean non-plugin hybrids with regen. Even if the solar enabled cars can theoretically generate a useful range from the cells, what about latitude? Cloud cover? Road dirt and dust? In my neck of the woods those panels will be deadweight for a good 6 months of the year, even if I could find a location that was unshaded all day, and where it would not risk getting vandalised or damaged.
@@stephen-boddy He stated 14Kwh @ cruise. If solar panels get light enough you could be looking at a decent range boost. I saw an RC aircraft with solar wings that could fly as long as the sun shone!