What's New in Electric Airplanes?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- At Aero in Friedrichshafen, Germany in April, one full exhibition hall was loaded with electric airplanes and related technology. In this week's AVweb video, Paul Bertorelli takes a look at some of the new stuff on display.
The problem was never the motors. The problem is ALWAYS the batteries.
Yes, but until that is fully fixed, improvements to thermal/propulsive efficiency, weight, and aerodynamics are always welcome.
@danko jones No... No they cannot. Let me spell it out to you, since you are scientifically illiterate.
First, there is no such thing as a graphene battery. They're called Graphene Supercapacitors. Batteries use chemical reactions. Capacitors just hold charge using surface area.
Second, they hold less charge than batteries. What they are good at, though, is not degrading every time you recharge them. You misread whatever article you read or you chose to read articles written by idiots. Their charge doesn't last forever. Their capacity just doesn't decrease. There's a huge difference.
Yes, all the parts are in place so when someone invents a lightweight, high capacity battery, electric planes will take over. Quick charging, like the 20 minute Tesla supercharger, must also be in place. With current batteries it’s just vapor ware.
@@user-do5zk6jh1k Maybe danko jones means they hold their charge for ever until discharged?
@@user-do5zk6jh1k I use to use a rubber band, never had a problem! ;-)
I kept going to the “Do Not Touch” sign on the parallel hybrid Rotax Twin every time Paul touched the motor or engine.
Same lol!!
Same
Want something to get touched put a do not touch sign by it.
The sign is one the firewall, so he's good. Didn't touch the firewall :P
When has sales ever obeyed the rules? Wanna buy an airplane buddy?
Batteries are rightly cited as the limiting factor in development of electric aircraft. But electric motors themselves have several benefits that make them ideal for aviation:
= Electric motors aren't dependent on oxygen density and make the same power at 100,000 feet that they do at sea level, without requring heavy complex compressors.
= Electric motors are one of the most reliable forms of propulsion exceeding the reliability of gas turbines. They are simple with basically two moving parts.
= Electric motor's weight and volume to power ratio are extremely high, this allows for more aerodyamic designs with smaller cowl frontal area and more effective weight/balance for loading the passenger compartment. They are so small and light for their power, they can be stacked in series to increase power and if one of the motors in series were to quit (a highly unlikely event) the other could take over and provide level maintaining or minimal climb power. This would render concerns about failure of the motors themselves completely moot.
= Electric motors, because of their simplicity are incredibly durable. Electric traction motors in vehicles routinely go more than 1 Million miles before overhaul/replacement. Electric motors in aircraft would probably extend TBO times by about 5 - 10x. At that point the Time Between Overhaul essentially becomes equal to the useful life of the airframe. Their routine maintenance needs are minimal to non-existent depending on design.
= Electric motors are extremely quiet and they make less vibration than reciprocating engines or gas turbines. This makes the use of aircraft in populated areas much less problematic (less noise); Greatly reduces pilot fatigue (less noise and vibration); Increases the lifespan of all the other components of the aircraft (less vibration).
= Electric motors are extremely efficient, on the order of 90% - 98% compared to roughly 30% efficiency for reciprocating gasoline engines and even less for gas turbines. They also produce less waste heat than fuel powered engines.
glibsonoran gas turbines are actually very efficient
@@christopherwilson6527 General aviation gasoline piston engines generate more power per gram of fuel consumed (Power Specific Fuel Consumption) than general aviation gas turbine engines: (Reciprocating gasoline: 280g of fuel/KWh; Aviation diesel: 220g of fuel/KWh; Turboprop: 310g of fuel/KWh) This is especially true for the small turbine engines - like the Pratt & Whitney PT6 - used in general aviation, which I was referring to.
Aviation turbines do become much more efficient as they get bigger as in the huge turbofans of large commercial jets. Large, heavy non-aviation gas turbines, especially combined cycle turbines, do even better. But even the most efficient non-Aviation combined cycle gas turbine gets about 60% efficiency, nowhere near that of a electric motor.
The electric motor isn't dependent on oxygen density true, but your propeller and the wings are dependent on air density.
So your electric motor can operate at 100,000ft but your propeller isn't going to be working very well or at all.
@Charlie K Care to elaborate?
GREAT Video! love it. One thing: Haven't you heard that an improved battery is ALWAYS three to five years away? It's called the breakthrough horizon. All good wishes!
Love the scene with the "DO NOT TOUCH Thank you" sign... and how many times your hands were all over the motor and clutch. LOL I get it... you had permission (Still funny)
I was looking for this comment as soon as I saw Do Not Touch)
An important goal for the developer ,apart from the technicalities and practical improvement in batteries(of which are many),is of course "COST" not only initial outlay but reducing time cycles in the hybrid reciprocating engine MAINTENANCE which in my opinion is the only real option for electric powered " A/C.that means a redesign in airbreathing engines .
Passenger compartment rigged with heaps of pedals. Passengers who pedal the most generate more electricity and receive reduced fare. You're welcome. 😂😄😄
Darrin Nunyah
Did you ever see the programme where they rigged up a whole load of bicycle generators in a gym to run a house? It took 70 people pedalling hard to run an 8kW electric shower.
ua-cam.com/video/C93cL_zDVIM/v-deo.html
@@q.e.d.9112 My comment was a joke. I realize that an airliner would require much more power than passengers could provide. - Not to mention that lots of them would give themselves a hear attack...
Meet the flinstones
I heard you can recharge an electric airplane in flight by getting struck by lightning.
Refuel like an air tanker operation only it would be an electric boom.
That would be cool of we had anything that could collect a charge that fast lol. We can dream
On serious note if we could even use an electric potential difference from clouds as these lightnings do...
1.21 gigawatts!
@@dalgrim exactly what I was thinking!
The hybrids are hilarious, they just massively reduce the performance of the aircraft while massively increasing the cost. It's like no one did the calculations that are normally done before starting a project to determine if the idea is even viable!
PistonAvatarGuy 100% truth.
Distributing power from 1 engine across multiple propellers increases performance. The propeller is one of the biggest bottlenecks of aircraft performance.
@@yanDeriction Even if that's true, that's not likely to make up for the inefficiency of the hybrid system itself.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Google X-57 DEP etc. Those guys at NASA need to urgently learn from you. Study a bit on aerodynamics and wing construction first, please.
@@Walterwaltraud The X-57 was supposed to fly 2 years ago, the project appears to have stalled. The Pipistrel Panthera Hybrid performs significantly worse than the version which is powered by the most archaic piston engine still currently in production. Equator Aircraft has a DEP system that is double the weight of a typical aircraft engine and is significantly less efficient. Did you think that I made that comment based on absolutely nothing?
Great video as always vary informative Thanks for update
Wider distribution of the propulsion system a big plus, but other things a bit dodgy.
It's good to see they are improving the technology, we will see more and more options, for now small quadcopters for short range travel is one of the possibilities, for long range not so much with the battery tech we got now.
I don't mind the idea of an electric motor driving the propeller. As long as you put a generator on that thing and have it run by some sort of fuel, whether it be diesel or gas, I don't care. You can even have a smallish battery that will be your primary power source but if you're not charging that thing with something that will last longer that what they currently have, and the problems that we already have with automobiles that are electric. I think that depending on a battery while you're out in the middle of flying, you think it's bad when people run out of fuel, and they have to be the ones you put in the fuel and there's a fuel gauge. Batteries can quit functioning as soak an electric motors for no perceptible reason whatsoever.
Great to glimpse the future.
9:40 - it only burns 1.85gph at cruise? That's impressively low!
depends on the speed it achieves, I'd say
We had an electric float plane maiden last year in Canada, short but successful flight.
Generate electricity using steam turbines. The passengers can help shovel coal into the boilers for reduced fare.
all we need now is new battery technology , 4x-6x more energy density , will be game changing
The big problem is 4x to 6x on a kwh/kg basis is next to impossible. At 10x from current tech you get the energy density of TNT. Realistically things might get 30% to maybe 2x better and the 2x is a massive maybe but that does make it viable for some applications :)
Not gonna happen. Batteries are at the top of what physics allows us to do.
Take a look at Bye Aerospace's project, the Sun Flyer, it can fly 3-4 hours, depends on the model. I think you would be surprised.
@@flexairz well not with that attitude its not
There is supposed to be a battery in development that can produce 3x potential per weight ratio. Might be size ratio but it's also much cheaper material as well.
Nice job, really good video for a layperson like me who is interested in eviation.
Aviation.
At 4:10 is a 7 motor plane. It's more expensive to build many small motors, rather than one or two larger motors. I have to wonder if the frame is rather weak, so they don't concentrate the forces.
Part of the puzzle, great work guys.
Just after takeoff - This is your captain speaking, I hope you enjoyed your flight, get ready to land, battery empty
great stuff man awesome channel I'll have to look at more.
This is useful for certain aircraft, as all power systems are for all aircraft. Clearly, there are important factors that tailor electric aircraft, but they are practical. For example, a short range flight for a small airport would be a great electric aircraft. That market exists.
It has been done in RC before, it has been done with full scale aircraft before. Electric may be accompanying the future. It’s a big maybe design, as with many other things. Good luck, looks awesome!
Brushless motors with a 3 phase are awesome matched with lipo graphene batteries my rc pylon racer cracks 200ks on 14.8v 772 watts at 48 amps static with a 7" prop and it's only made from epp foam with carbon spars 👍
I would like to see an Electric Stemme s12!
I appreciate Paul's no-nonsense presentation style.
These would be great for motor gliders where they don't need the electric motor the entire flight.
11:22, the R&D project is a great approach; develop the technology and see where it leads.
While some of this is pie-in-the-sky (every pun intended), I’m amazed that an electric two seater/trainer can fly for 45 min to an hour. Won’t suffice for cross country flights, but that’s plenty for pattern work and take-offs/landings. I never thought we would even see an electric plane capable of that. Who knows what we’ll see next.
Thats where I thought the plane at 8:10 was a great idea. Electric for takeoff and power climbs, and a 250cc motor to just keep cruising altitude/speed.
The issue with stacking motors is the weight penalty will begin to exceed the benefit of more power plants. You still have to add passenger and battery weight into the equation. >.>
I'd love to see a 25kts crosswind landing with those wingtip props :D
Longer gear?
Yeah, that would require some veryyyy long gear. It's interesting how they didn't include the landing gear in their display model...
Same technique as large airliners, I don't see them slippping that often, mate :-). (the rest is an insurance case, evidently).
I'd definitely fly one of these when they become mainstream. I'd actually expect somebody like Siemens to work on electric aviation. Bombardier is likely to do the same witch would open commercial electric aviation. Wish great success for everyone working on electric aviation. Now when are we gonna get a tesla plane haha!
Paul, as always, stellar material and great presentation! The future is now - and you are right - the answer is somewhere in the middle. I'm just glad we are starting to see REAL efforts in design and production! Money is being invested and efforts are real! Advancement is imminent!
Thank you for the video.
If the commercial airlines industry utilizes electric motors every seat could have a little bicycle pedal mechanism that could charge the batteries. Your airfare could be reduced by how much you charge the batteries in flight. Sounds like a good idea to me. 🤗
you can have super efficient diesel engine charges the batteries.
@@markuskoarmani1364 Yeah, hybrids make the most sense to me. Have, say, two diesel generators for redundancy, which keep the batteries charged, or can get their output shunted straight to the electric motors if the batteries outright fail. Then you can place however many electric motors with props wherever they make the most sense on the airframe. Battery weight can be kept low, because long pure-electric flights are not the goal. If both engines fail, the plane still has enough stored juice to land safely at a nearby airport. For short flights, the generators might conceivably get shut off entirely after takeoff, allowing recharging on the ground through more efficient means.
This in no way challenges jet airliners, clearly. Strictly a regional prop-driven solution. No is going to want to double or triple their long-distance flight times.
@@markuskoarmani1364 The engines in airliners produce hundreds of thousands of horsepower, you'd need a diesel engine that weighed many times more than the airliner to power them.
-
Edit: The Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C wouldn't even be able to power one engine on a 777, but it weighs as much as 6 fully loaded 777s.
@@joesterling4299 You do realize that we already have a way to power an aircraft with a piston engine which is operating at peak efficiency, right? It's called BOLTING THE PROP TO THE ENGINE.
@@PistonAvatarGuy That engine bolted with a prop is rarely working at peak efficiency. Running it as a generator is actually much more efficient as you can run it at the perfect RPM for maximum output. Also putting a huge metal engine behind your prop is bad for airflow and reduces the efficiency of the propulsion. Electric motors which are much smaller can be mounted on canards and leave much more propwash to push the plane. For airliners we can also use APUs or small jet engines that again are tuned for best efficiency generating power for the main electric engines.
install a wind generator out front to charge the batteries..lol.
Ed Moore you mean like regenerative braking?
Nothing like feeling someone is looking down their nose at you. Seems that a nearly no drag trailing solar sheet behind the wings would be able to add significant solar boosting to the plane batteries.
Really cool. Especially interesting are the hybrids. If LiPO foil batteries could run in series safely, I think Diesel Hybrids could be very successful.
Has anyone noticed that at 3.47, the ASPECT RATIO is given in METERS in the specification!
Can it work like a Prius where you recharge when you descent?
Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't the electric jet be more an electric ducted fan, what would the flying time be 15mins and 20 hours to charge.
Electric motors will never replace IC engines in aircraft, but it may replace towplanes all together in the sport of soaring.
What is going to prevent a fatal flat spin in the event of a wingtip motor failure at low altitude?
You can power down the opposing motor. And it could be automatic. In the 7 motor config it would barely be noticeable anyway.
Steve S
Possibly a non-fatal flat spin?
One thing that could be interesting with this kind of stuff is having two counter rotating propellers if you want more thrust, comes at a cost of more noise though....
But doing that with electric engines is a lot simpler to do the with a mechanical one.
Luredreier
With electric motors it’s probably simpler just to have multiple props or multiple EDF units.
Counter rotating on the same shaft is not as efficient as twin props. One of the benefits of electric is the ability to put motors just about anywhere.
Can you put solar panels on the wings to give a little longer range? I know they will not give the amount of power to run the electric motor but if it will give enough charge to the batteries to offset some of the power needed it would add some more time in the air, maybe 25% more. I have no idea what the power needed to run the electric motor so not sure what 200- 400 watts of solar panels will give.
I’ve been waiting for this story/news since the 1990’s. It just kind of makes sense to me.
I'm optimistic that small to medium size hybrid/electric planes will be the future of regional travel but no one I talk to thinks it'll work because of government regulation.
A fully electric plane would be good for training or hobby flying but that's about it as batteries don't have the energy density for long range flight.
The parallel hybrid at 6:30 would be a good concept to bring into production and could increase safety.
There is Axter Aerospace of Spain who have it commercially available for years. (experimental only iirc). Bit of an oversight not to include them in the reporting.
Really awesome! What are some other good sources for electric aviation news? I thought Pilot magazine has a series on this too.
Delta goes bankrupt when Lance Armstrong flies and they have to cut him a check for the power he generated! :D
Good video, but I wish you had spoken with George Bye about the eFlyer 2 and 4. It was briefly mentioned during the Siemens booth, but Bye Aerospace has a fully-functioning prototype of the eFlyer 2, and the eFlyer 4 will be a 4 seat day/night IFR certified aircraft comparable to the likes of a Cessna 182 or Cirrus SR-20. Operational costs are less then $20/hour, making it disruptively affordable. It will revolutionize and revitalize general aviation.
I'd be absolutely amazed if their airplanes can do what they're claiming they can do.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Why do you say that?
@@airops423 Because they don't have access to magic batteries.
@@PistonAvatarGuy They're not claiming they do.
@@airops423 The only way that their claims make sense is if they're using magic batteries.
Has anyone done a comparison of a Pipistrel versus a C-152 in cost of annual inspection, 25 and 50 hour inspections and overhaul costs/ battery degredation? If they would make quick replace batteries, then it would become feasible, IMO.
VERY nice presentation! Lots of engineering going into those rigs.
1:41 RIP headphone users
Fantastic!! I'm very excited about this tech becoming common.
ALPI: DO NOT TOUCH
Paul: eh, what? Laughed my head off!
Can a solar panel be installed to help the battery?
I know this focused mainly on engines but it's mainly new battery technology that's slowly closing the gap between the energy/weight ratio currently provided by combustible fuel.
Have you considered putting solar panels in the wings for continuous battery charging? Not quite sure how much weight that would be by design. Thanks Frank Bagby
Parallel hybrid with a small, efficient ICE sized for slightly more than cruise power can have the best of both worlds- reduced ICE maintenance cost, good range fuel consumption with decent climb performance. Devil in the details, of course.
I just read that Siemens is planning to split off major chunks of it's holdings and operations to focus on alternative energy innovations.
13:10 - Time will tell, of course, but you might be a few years late with that prediction. Orders are already starting to roll in.
What has happened with the Siemens motor used in Hybrid (ICE powered batteries) configuration akin to a Prius?
Thinking much of what we saw here will greatly depend on venture capital influx. I kinda hate projected dreams of the future where you just gota believe and spend. It's hit & miss yet it's hows things are done in the end. Good info and thx.
power management- I've GOT IT!! Now to patent the concept.
Great and interesting, welcome to discuss the details with Krung Angkor
A short-hop electric plane taxi service could work now. It would require infrastructure. The train industry built a rail system. An air taxi service could build routes with a series of short-hop airports where batteries are swapped out. The question is how many passengers per plane would be needed to make routes profitable...
Does it really seam like a good idea to place a spinning mass on the wing tips of an aircraft in an airport scenario ? And what happens when or if an motor fails or a speed controller overheats and causes a sever yaw situation ? And why do they all have to direct drive, why not consider gear boxes to convert power slowing a motor RPM yet increasing the rpm like a constant pitch prop ?
Can't wait for insurance to require Piston Time experience lol
FAA is slower than molasses don't expect any changes in your lifetime. The mechanics test STILL has biplane and sewing questions on it!
Dan Sertich yeah, but you are certified to work on aircraft such as biplanes and fabric covered airplanes, are you not?
You have to demonstrate using the "Modified Seine Knot".
Most ultralights still use fabric.
I personally believe the FAA is feeling the need to support GA. Advancement are most likely welcomed. Also, the experimental market is pushing trends too. Hell, there are some experimentals I'd buy over production. Look at the Raptor getting ready to fly it's prototype. What an exciting aircraft!
@@nicholasboscaino6262 Right!? New LSA and experimental planes now often has better performance and bigger ranges then most GA aircraft on the market
what do you mean the numbers don't pencil out for hybrid electric 12:55 ? that guy said 8:11 the hybrid electric can hold 70 liters of fuel and uses 7 liters per hour in flight. If it can cruise at 100 miles per hour for 10 hours of flight time, that is about 1000 miles of flight distance, not including the electricity from battery of another 45 minutes to give it over 1075 miles of flight distance. Plus you would not be having to fill it with aircraft fuel. You could fill it with standard generator fuel? Someone please correct me where i am off on this.
I would cover the wings and part of the fuselage with solar panels, that would increase the flight capacity during the day
I keep imagining the entire skin of the aircraft collecting both heat and photons. clear panels exist already, so there is potential for collecting from the entire surface of the plane. If solar collectors were integrated within the structural material it could prove to be worthwhile, yielding power for virtually no extra weight. Nano technology is already developed which massively increases the power to weight ratios of solar cells by increasing the collecting surface.
@@kenbellchambers4577 With regard to weight gain, I believe to use purely the solar cell phone and add in the firing material itself and covered with translucent material as being part of it. Unfortunately the greater weight still holds for batteries that still need better development and the engines have capacity and efficiency even better losses of around 10%, which is worth continuing to invest in this technology.
And Paul, that full hall of electric aircraft was there last year too.
Battery development is not going anywhere soon, we have reached maximum performance of what physics allows us to do.
Hybrid solutions seem to be a nice development, but power trains are becoming really complex really fast then.
Except your wrong. There is a proven path to 500Wh/kg batteries over the next 5 years or so. that is nearly double where we are today...
All negative talk about the batteries is to make people dislike electric and go for petroleum but the reality is electric! and that's is in the present and future doing great. My plane is electric and I love it.
Wouldnt a ducted fan electric engine with a variable output put out more thrust ?
This stuff is still pie in the sky at this stage with weight & range being the biggest hurdles but that's why it's called evolution.
A flight school here in Perth Australia has just started commercially flying a Pipistrel Alpha Electro electric aircraft, at this stage they are just offering trial instructional flights to paying students but they plan to offer full private pilot training and certification in the near future.
@@ats-3693 If certified in June plus recognition in Australia, they'll have a headstart.
If batteries can become universal, it might be a good business to get this batteries swappable at FBO's like a gas station. Instead of waiting long hours for charging, just drop used and get a charged set. Of course station should do their job on quality control.
Romy Kim that’s a good idea
Edison invented a battery that was claimed to last ten years, the oil companies bought that patent up real quick and now you will never see it
That's actually how Pipistrel Alpha Electro works already today.
While you fly the second pack can charge. They are heavy, but still swappable. Make sense if you have a pilot training or short sight-seeing business.
@@richardpetek712 Actually.... I was thinking of much larger scale... like nation-wide. It'd be like buying an airplane without battery pack, but keeps exchanging as you fly. Some would buy maybe 2 packs and don't rent, but for many that fly far will benefit from the program... I'd totally dive in and create such if I had money. Like MillionAir(spell?) sells gas at a cheaper price for members you know.
@@turboromy Interesting idea - but it would have to be another plane. Pipistrel Alpha Electro doesn't have a range (and battery) where this would make sense. Keep this as an idea for the future!
Please consider using Graphene Capacitors for energy Storage instead of lead acid or Lithium ect batteries.You will have improvements all the way around,including much less weight.
Baie dankie/ Sehr danke/ Merci beaucoup/ Thanx Paul B. This is fantastic news. The e-plains can't go so far, but with a 250cc Petrol as back-up. Prima. The e-engines are so very small and compact. I like the Baby Siemens e-engine. Its nearly twice my car kw. and I need an reserve engine. You don't have a break-down in Africa - You're going to be lion food... [Siemens 250Kw!!!] Also the Rotax with the Italia e-motor. So when the Microlight engine strike, you will have the Italian - (hoe is on-strike mode)
What I see as the potential future is hydrogen cell batteries that can power electric Motors. You get the power, the convenience of liquid fuel (ie large volume for long duration flights) and an environmentally friendly conversion. You could potentially store the water byproduct to keep the weigh and balance constant!!
that's cool but what about the battery because that's the important part
I want the hybrid system, all the complexity of an internal combustion setup with the weight of the electric motor and batteries to make it even less viable. It's the best of the worst of both worlds! Or you can go with the Pipistrel Alpha Electro right now and get 45 minutes of flight time for a mere $140,000 USD, and if you just buy a few extra chargers at $15K each and locate them everywhere you want to go within a 50 mile radius of each other then you can make 45 minute hops with 2 hour pee breaks in between......
Battery charging, like battery chemistry is rapidly bringing charging times down.Tesla V3 Superchargers will currently do a 25% quicker rate than V2 and eventually 50% less. This means already an EV charges quicker than a human.
ua-cam.com/video/F-SZ7FgK1KA/v-deo.html
@@waynerussell6401 Take off and landing are the most dangerous part of operating an aircraft and faster charging does nothing to increase the flight time of an electric aircraft.
@@PistonAvatarGuy - It Reduces Charging Time, so, yes, it does reduce Flight Time From Start to finish of your trip, if you have faster: charging, fueling, and Customs Clearance, too!
But, a Cessna 150 or 152 Climb rate at 500-700 From, is about Half the Pipistrels' 1,200 From climb Rate!
@@robertweekley5926 A) Teslas have a good (but very heavy) thermal management system for their batteries, which is what makes that charging rate possible. B) No one is going to want to takeoff and land to charge every 45 minutes.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Except for air tours, flight schools, skydiving...
For me the e-systems have the same disadvantage as in cars. Why don't they hybridize these systems with a solid oxide fuel cell? Why do they use these internal combustion engines? You can operate a SOFC directly with natural gas or auto gas. There is no need for hydrogen. Of course you need a Li-Ion buffer battery, but this can be very small.
And there is another thing. Why do they use propellers instead of impeller fan systems. Impellers have considerably more efficiency because of the guided air flow. And fast running electric fan motors can be made much smaller compared to high torque motors for propeller drives.
Why isn't a single player considering using thin film solar panels on the wings and fuselage?
Electric makes sense for trainers. I think once flight schools start seeing the cost benefits they will be unstoppable. Cessna needs to get in the game or the bottom will fall out of the new 172 market.
That hybrid motor with the fail safe if the gasoline motor fails is brilliant.. gas motor goes out still got power to make it ok n the ground
I would love to put a smaller 100-130hp motor in my Quickie Q2 500lb (no fuel or pilot) 2 seater Burt Rutan Composite plane. The plane has a 80hp gas engine now that cruises at 150mph Top speed 180mph. The design is safe up to 200mph.
They can recharge it during flight with solar panels
Interesting story. New technology always changes for the better way of life. We have the Hybrid cars and Hybrid airplanes next on the gendre.
I think what folks need to understand is how early this technology is. In 1919 a Curtiss JN-4 would go 75 mph, cruising speed of 60 mph. Top altitude was 6,500 ft. And a range 155 miles, or 2 hours and 15 minutes. The fact that electric cars are superior in everything but range. And that's improving year by year. The Alpha Electro has 45 minutes of endurance 70 miles of range. And a 98 MPH top speed. Otherwise, put in a lot of R&D on algae fuel to be refined into aviation fuel. Give it the kinds of subsidies that Oil companies get.
I really don't like the idea of relying on the electric and combustion engine at the same time, when taking off in a parallel hybrid. Now you got two things of which just one needs to fail to get you in trouble at high density altitude, rather than just one thing.
IMO the best use for electric motors would be in glider configurations. You use the motor to get to altitude and turn it off while you glide, repeat.
Already available. He did not show the gliders at the exhibition.
@@waynerussell6401 I envision a compromise between the long wings of gliders and normal GA short wings would be more of an ideal, where you get the high lift of a glider which allows for a less powerful motor being needed, thus reducing the battery weight needed to operate, yet still having good speed to make it practical for longer trips.
@@RPSchonherr Hi aspect ratio wings and GRP laminar airframes are quite common on electric craft. Pipistrel, who make most of the currently flying electrics are also a sailplane manufacturer.
Sailplanes are so efficient that only a 20kW motor is required for flight (sustainer). Efficiency is maximized by saw-tooth glide paths - climbing and then descending motor off at less than one degree glide slope. A transcontinental electric commercial aircraft would ascend to low drag rarified air and then complete the flight power off.
Pipistrel props are capable of regenerative energy capture on power off.
Gotta love the comment about most of these designs being "aspirational": pending a good power source. The difficulty is that all the recent battery innovations have been "discovered", not created or invented: they have not been predicted. That's the hard part. It's like Edison searching for a lightbulb filament: a slow and painful process. If someone can figure a way to design a great battery straight from theory, they will be immensely successful. Huge resources are being poured into this for years with so far only incremental success. What is needed is a 10X or 100X breakthrough. That would change the world. And it has to be practical and inexpensive. Making one or a handful in the lab for a gazillion dollars doesn't count (except for making breathless headlines). We've had efficient diesel/electric hybrids for 70 years: trains. But there weight is no object. Airplanes are a more challenging 'corner case' of electric or hybrid vehicles. The next couple of decades should be fascinating and maybe in the not too distant future we will all have an affordable, reliable way to fly... If you are curious, attend one of the electric aircraft conferences now happening every few months.
It's a shame that you can't fly for more than an hour on batteries. Maybe a huge rubber band with a lot of turns in it will help?
A lot of focus on motors, not so much on the batteries...
Exactly... progressives just can't help themselves from obfuscating the facts... battery technology sucks... is barely viable for cars, after years and years of research, let alone aircraft...
@@DownTheRabbit-Hole Pattern work.... it's a niche application. For a long time.
@@DownTheRabbit-Hole The battery technology is barely viable for cars??? Here are some battery ranges for 2019 electric vehicles:
Tesla Model S Long Range - 375 miles
Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 348 miles
Tesla Model X Long Range - 315 miles
Jaguar i-Pace - 292 miles
Kia e-Niro - 282 miles
Hyundai Kona Electric - 279 miles
Audi e-Tron - 241 miles
Nissan Leaf e+ - 239 miles
BMW i3 - 193 miles
Renault Zoe - 186 miles
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Solar panel carport style covered parking areas are going to become popular if these e-planes take off (pun partially intended).
I have heard that the electrics are really quite and very low vibration. But, I might end up missing all the smells and fluid messes.
Putting engines at the wingtips makes no sense as it would cause a severe yaw due to asymmetric power during an engine failure. That’s why engines are close to the fuselage.
Also, placing weight at the wingtips generate extra stress loads during turbulence.
Cuts the wingtip vortex that creates drag.
With a tail engine it shouldn't be any worse than a twin engine failure, and is likely to be better. Plus, electric engines are hugely reliable, which makes them very attractive for general aviation.
Actually you're wrong. Placing loads out at the wing tips would reduce bending moment in turbulence.
Biggest problem I can see with wingtip props is risk of prop strike during landing. Looking at that plane it seems you’d only need about 5° of roll during landing to get a strike. Even a heavy landing with some wing flexing might be enough. Otherwise I can see how it might reduce wingtip vortices.
These hybrids looks front heavy. I wonder what's the center of balance on the manual.
Remember those front and rear propeller planes? What if u have 1 gas engine in 1 side and a electric motor on the other side. Maybe that would balance out and offer a better system
The work needed is in the batteries.
headphone warning, outrageously loud guitar riff between whispering europeans...
Airplane advertising always includes some kind of obnoxious rock n' roll music.
@@tonynes3577 Leaps and bounds better than obnoxious EDM
It's not us that's whispering, it's you guys who can't stop shouting
Weight is the enemy of airplanes...more weight means high wing loading & reduced aerodynamic efficiency. Unlike fuel which is normally stored in the wings and burns off during flight reducing weight improving aero efficiency, batteries takes up space (fuselage) & is ever present...dead weight as the the energy is used & flight progresses. Regarding hybrids, they add to the complexity of the propulsion system...that's another story! Manufacturers should go full electric or not at all.
Yeah, weight is an issue, but I never understood the "diminishing weight" argument. Yeah, fuel tanks reduce in weight as you fly, but they are the heaviest during the most critical time - takeoff. Weight is much less of an issue during cruise flight, or during landing (unless a go around is required), which is when a fuel tank would be the lightest. Seems like a pretty minor advantage fuel tanks have, especially in comparison to the general issue which is simply comparing 4 hours of fuel vs 4 hours of battery.
All aircraft metrics are usually taken at max weight anyways
Not to mention the added expense of the hybrid system.
An extra boost at pattern work, better noise abatement, is useful for some missions. It's just physics, for some missions it's great, for others not. What's great for Rutan's "Voyager" is bad in crop dusting etc. Insurance premiums for some new aircraft will be telling: If that boost at engine failure gets you one pattern with a soft "dead engine dead stick but not dead motor" landing, you'll have that answer by actuarians.
@xpeterson.
I'm all for innovation & a proponent of ideas that work efficiently! Unfortunately the electric propulsion systems for aircraft will only work for recreational flying but not a viable alternative for commercial transport. No doubt these airplanes (on this video) use the best battery technology available today but are yet to give us the range we would like. Moreover they can not offer that vital security necessary when "in flight" because of the constant "decay of propulsive energy" from the battery! Very much unlike a petroleum powered craft..."constant power"! This can be unnerving even with electric cars running low on "electrons"! Just imagine what the feeling would be in an airplane!
I should float the idea to these ambitious (pioneer) builders that it may be worth considering wings covered with solar cells for obvious reasons. Even though the improvement might be small it could possibly make their product more attractive to the recreational flyer with lot's of disposable $$$!
If you thought range anxiety was bad in a car...