Please use the correct term for energy density. It is watt hours per kilogram. Watts per kilogram is power density which may be of interest when determining the power available for takeoff and climbing.
Poor Sam has the weakest grip on statistics, data and basic addition and subtraction I have ever seen anyone put on display on a daily basis. I'm sure he's a lovely bloke and works very hard releasing multiple vids' per day. Instead of doing 4 videos per day, maybe he learn some analytical skills instead? Just saying
Three years ago I had a test flight in the Alpha Electro in Perth, Western Australia. We flew around for almost an hour. Battery technology has improved since then. The future for short range flight is without a doubt, electric. It will be cheaper and safer.
So did you recently turn to drugs or was it caused by the illusion that battery technology was improving to the point you’d actually get on a battery powered aircraft?
@@danielpaulsness6951: As if ICE vehicles don't catch fire FAR more often, and as if battery chemistries aren't getting safer. Oh, and as if massive jet fuel fires never occur. But the denialist nonsense never ends.
Not only this. This project will never pass the risk assessment because batteries need cooling! Nowadays batteries are already past for a lot of reasons and hydrogen already replaced the battery technology
This plane (the Elysian E9X) with an 800 km (497 mile) range has a pack energy density of 360 Wh/kg. The cell energy density is 450 Wh/kg, so I assume that they are planning on using something like Amprius batteries, which currently have 450 Wh/kg. With the recent announcement of CATL's "condensed battery" with 500 Wh/kg, they may have a better option in the near future. They say that a battery with a cell energy density of 550 Wh/kg will allow a 1000 km (621 mile) range. What is amazing to me is that its energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer (compared to 159 Wh/km for a Tesla Model 3), so basically it has the same energy consumption per km as an EV with one passenger. The E9X needs a runway of 2000 m, so it cannot be used in many smaller airports that only have 1500 m runways, but its 42 meter wingspan can be folded at the tips for 36 meters so in can be use at gates which are designed for the A320. The E9X is designed to have a top cruise speed of 0.6 mach (460 mph, 741 km/h), which isn't bad for a turboprop. The paper estimates that this electric plane can eliminate 20% of all commercial aviation GHG emissions (assuming that using renewable energy to charge the batteries). Given that this plane consumes 1/5 of the energy of a conventional plane per passenger-km, I would love to see its emergency gas turbine range extender be used to power longer flights, because it should dramatically reduce the CO2 emissions compared to a conventional jet, and unlike a conventional jet, it won't produce condensation trails, which cause 59% of the radiative forcing from aviation (Lee et al 2021). I think the real market for this plane is as a hybrid electric/gas that can handle longer flights, and I would love to see a second model which is scaled up so it can handle double the number of passengers. Another thing that I wonder is whether this plane could be made lighter than 76 tonnes (of which 35 tonnes are batteries) by using a stamped CF-SMC body like Aptera is doing with its EV, rather than a conventional aluminum alloy body. To better understand the engineering, read Aviation Week (2024-01-10) "Dutch Startup Elysian Pursues Large Battery-Electric Airliner" and see Elysian's research paper, "A New Perspective on Battery-Electric Aviation, Part II: Conceptual Design of a 90-Seater" which can be downloaded for free at arc aiaa org (Google it). (I really hate UA-cam's blocking of URLs.)
Thank you for all this info. I was a bit skeptical but I knew about the CATL high wh/kg battery. Seems like we may have electric passenger planes in 2030 if all goes well.
Thanks! Lots of detailed info in this post. The Aviation Week story referenced has even more info, with no paywall. The research paper doesn't appear to be free at aaaa, but was free to download at TU Delft.
@@FortuneOnyeachonam-ps4zw Any vehicle can consume only 167 Wh in constant motion. Even an A380 or Cruise Ship can travel a small fraction of a mm with that much energy.
I don't understand how this isn't a blown wing design, and therefore a short takeoff design. It shares a lot with Electra's ESTOL design, which can take off using a 300' runway.
90 seat commuter planes like this is exactly what is needed. Range and speed will happen the same as its happening for EV's. This is an exciting development. Very good find Sam.
I believe individuals have grown weary of investing in companies that primarily showcase a 3D-rendered image as their sole product. Many startups allocate a significant portion of their budget solely for the creation of 3D renderings to attract investor funds. Take Nikola trucks as an illustration. To secure investor confidence, it's crucial to present an actual product rather than relying solely on a 3D render.
The Elon quote of "400Wh/kg" was for a VTOL plane. My guess is that a lower battery energy density level could be used in a plane that takes off on a runway.
You can only go so fast in a prop aircraft and the fact that a jet engine requires high temperature combustion by it's very nature means that it's unlikely that battery electric could ever do the job. We may have to settle for synthetic fuels for that one, contrails and all.
@@someotherdudeNASA is currently working on turning seaweed into aviation fuel. It sounds ridiculous at first. But growing seaweed is easy, turning seaweed into ethanol isn't overly difficult either. The problem is that right now no one knows how to turn ethanol into aviation fuel. It has been done in multiple labs around the world in small amounts and at sky high prices but it is possible. NASA is currently pursuing a two track approach. They are working on altering ethanol into fuel chemically identical to fossil derived aviation fuel and also working on developing aircraft engines that can run on pure ethanol. It's not clear which path will prove to be the better option. Bio derived methane is a third option. This seems like the path forward for long haul aviation and probably spaceflight as well.
I have never heard anybody refer to jet engines as internal combustion. To have a range of 500 miles, you need enough "fuel" to fly to the destination plus fuel to the alternate plus 45 minutes of fuel plus any contingencies for known delays like holding or excess vectoring or enroute deviations for adverse weather. This guy doesn't have a clue. I spent 36 years flying jet transports, and this will never "fly". You need energy to pressurize the airplane, for heating and cooling, and a de-ice system for the airplane. You also need a way to heat the batteries because the normal outside temperature at altitude is -60F.
500miles… not very useful in the States but in a few situations. Turn-around time on the plane will be one of the big issues. Planes don’t make money sitting on the ground being refueled
Vaporware! Startups make all kinds of claims to get more investors, but until they make even a prototype that can perform what is claimed, I will remain skeptical.
Sam, you may need to check your efficiency numbers. Motor vehicle efficiency is ~25% for petrol, but higher for diesel ~40% ?. However, the high altitude turbo-fan (I believe that is correct definition) with a high by-pass ratio is hitting up to 60% efficiency (partly assisted by -58 Celsius at cruise altitude). Furthermore, you need to be careful comparing efficiency because even though actual battery to propellor efficiency is very high (~85%) the production of energy to charge the battery is not so high, i.e. 25% solar efficiency or ~74% efficiency for a steam turbine. Despite efficiency numbers, the prospect of EV for air travel is very exciting stuff!
Harbour Air in Vancouver is well along experimenting with electric aircraft, given their ideal situation of short local flights. Even so, they aren't rushing into commercial operation just yet.
We already have planes in Europe that do 800 kms in 3 or 4 hours. They don't have wings nor batteries and we call them trains. The advantage is that you don't need transport between city and airport and no 2 hours checkin time.
As someone who professionally stared out of an international airport control tower for years, I am surprised that nobody has yet proposed the use of the many hectares of dead/wasted space outside of the actual flight strips at an airport. Any major airport could easily double as a massive solar farm, and always in close proximity to metropolitan areas - or to supply recharging facilities, if/when electrification of aviation becomes a reality.
Do the math. 8 x 1.5 megawatt engines... 12 megawatts per hour 1 acre of PV panels produce 4.5 to 12 megawatts. On paper it's possible. In reality... probably not.
@@glidercoach my home airport is Melbourne’s Tullamarine. The airport is 5,854 acres, with perhaps a half of that within the flight strips, taxiways and terminal. Therefore potentially 3,000 acres x 10 megawatts = 30k megawatts. Sounds like a substantial, under-utilised resource, to me.
@@petergosney6433 But it would need PV panels at every airport it flies to, not just its base. What about when it's cloudy? 30 megawatts is some major power. A 54 megawatt generator costs €19 million and you would need 1 for each plane at every airport it flies to. My ebike takes 4 to 6 hours to charge. Transferring 30 megawatts takes time and a plane on the ground charging, is lost money. Your only option is a battery swap. So you would need a fully charged battery to swap at every airport it flies to. Do you see how things add up? The electric Viking makes it sound so easy.
@@glidercoach well, for starters, my thought bubble - on the obvious wasted space at large airports in general - distinctly predates this particular aircraft. Nor do I suggest that no further external power input would be required for the whole of aviation to “go electric”. The Electric Viking’s objective is to explore the cutting edge of technology; and he usually places realistic caveats, from my observations. People constantly challenge “Where is all the power going to come from?” when discussing mass electrification. The answer is, as always, incrementally and as and when required. Nothing happens overnight. The predicted oil shortages of the 70’s never eventuated. The predicted Lithium shortages of just 3 years ago have similarly receded. As for the issue of battery densities in general; that has always been a moving target. Developments over the past 5 years have been significant, but literal collective $billions are being spent to push the boundaries in the thoroughly foreseeable future. As for recharging times, I would observe that an Airbus 380 does not refuel through a single hose. If an electric aircraft’s battery pack is compartmented, just as the Airbuses’ fuel tanks are, one could easily use multiple chargers operating simultaneously. It is perfectly conceivable that charging times could be achieved inside of today’s normal turnaround times. As for the dangers of battery fires; you don’t have to make them impossible, just less likely than all the other risks that aviation grapples with, every day since the Wright Brothers started the ball rolling.
@@glidercoach at the risk of getting caught up in the philosophical underpinnings, I’d like to make some observations. Aviation’s short history has been characterised by several massive explosions in development. Each world war had exponential effects, as did the subsequent slower burn of the Cold War. Necessity is the Mother of Invention is both a cliche and a truism. The Climate Crisis - whether real or perceived - is having a similar effect on all forms of transport today. And then overlayed on this, is the Chicken or Egg syndrome. The proliferation of EVs is limited by charging infrastructure, but charging infrastructure will always have to follow the proliferation of EVs. You raised the red herring of solar power and the apparent unreliability of sunlight; but solar power can never be the answer in isolation. Other mitigating factors are national grids - in Australia’s case, over potentially huge areas - short-term local storage, such as big batteries, and alternative sources, such as wind and hydro, not to mention the dreaded gas. And every one of these facets has its very own think-tank. In Australia 25 years ago, both Perth and Adelaide were seen to be forever limited in their growth potential by the availability of a potable water supply. Back then then, desalination was seen as prohibitively expensive. But today, and at least two deep droughts later, both of these cities draw in excess of 50% of their water supply from desalination; it turns out a totally scalable solution to a once intractable problem. First comes the need, then comes the solution. That is the only way it can work.
Silent planes means they can operate far more during the night and their flight paths can be over cities thus making some lights shorter. Airporrs can be placed much closer to cities as well, cutting down travel time.
76 tons take off weight not much more than a jet the same size??? The two most popular 90ish passenger planes currently in use weigh about 50 short tons, So this "it is not that different" difference in weight is over 50% more. To me that is a HUGE difference. Also, the electric aircraft takes off with a full load of batteries (35 tons) and stays at that weight the entire flight. Jets take off with just the full required (plus reserves) which means they planes of this size often are much less than max take off weight to start, And as they fly, they burn fuel and get lighter thus more fuel efficient every second of flight. According to the number quoted in the video, the batteries hold 360 watts per kg. That means they hold 25 MEGAwatts. That is about one day of electricity for 700 homes. Put another way, that is 100 Tesla Supercharges running at max for one hour. How many power lines and transformers will be required to supply this? Now, shall we discuss the question of thermal runaway? Just for reference, an uncotrolled fire on a jet typically gives the crew a maximum of 20 minutes to land or there will be a bad outcome. How long do you expect a plane with 35 tons of batteries last once a thermal runaway has started?
Curious why the batteries would be in the wing. Surely it would make more sense to have them low in the fuselage. This would then allow them to be swapped out ala NIO. Imagine a 4 minute battery swap. The savings on fuel plus recharge time would allow high efficiency on cost per passenger mile. I would love it if we could see new possibilities to drive down the prices, because right now, the cost of travel is just ridiculous.
@@chrishaberbosch1029 No they have fire suppression systems. Trouble with batteries is once they go into thermal runaway, no suppression system will cope. The only safe option is to separate from the aircraft.
Forward looking... back to propellers, down to a few hundred miles range, drop in speed and a very lengthy recharge every trip. This is not advancement by any measure. Should we also look at the issue with a battery that can self ignite? 50% of take off weight battery!!! That is insane. Aircraft manufacturers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make an airliner 3% more efficient, this concept will require 3 aircraft for every 1 jet today, when 1 is flying the other two will be charging, how is that efficient? On top of that for a 2100 mile trip you will need 15 electric aircraft to replace 1 jet. Am I missing anything?
Ya know...when one considers the number of commercial flights that depart every day (to say nothing of private/on-demand), 2.5% of global emissions is remarkably low. Like, what percentage of emissions comes from digging those battery materials out of the ground...?? No one's really talking about that 🤔
the thing I like about this is fuel security, if the plane can be 'refueled' with renewable electricity generated locally, the reliance of refined imported fuel is less.
Renewable energy as in electricity can be generated anywhere in a international power grid (wind, solar, hydro even nuclear can be said to be carbon free) and supplied to the airline charging facility
City of Edmonton installed diesel cabin heaters in their Proterra electric buses. ISA 30,000' ambient temperature is -44.5C. How much battery power will be needed to keep the passengers from freezing?
It seems like using diesel cabin heaters would make sense for passenger aircraft, as well as buses. Jet fuel is similar to diesel, so the heaters would need little or no modifications.
the 45 mins fixed reserve is a legal requirement, and in normal operations, the 45 mins fixed reserve should never be used, if it is, the crew have to declare a fuel emergency. and No, you dont want Boeing buying it.. you want a company run be engineers. Like Airbus.
With todays battery technology aircraft ranges in the 500 miles range are absolutely possible, the idea for providing the 45 minute emergency reserve with a gas turbine is excellent and absolutely make sense, VERY good concept! Fuel savings with electric planes are huge, especially as taxiing uses vast amounts of fuel, as a gas turbine needs at idle almost 50% of full power fuel flow.... alone this savings at taxiing, which is a huge part in short distance flights, absolutely justifies the development of electric planes, they would use a ridiculous minimal fraction of the energy for taxiing compared to a jet or turboprop. Biggest showstoppe for electric planes... certification! It takes ages to get this done, see the canadian electric seaplane that is flying for years now, but still has only experimental certification and authorities take years and years to get stuff done.
@@Trevor_Austin Recent serial battery production has reached 500 watt hous per kilogram, this is enough for electric shortrange plances up to 500 miles, the stuff is already there, but still expensive as production just started, expect 1kWh per kg in 5 to 10 years. Cars usually use batteries with 150 to 180 Wh per kg (LFP) or 200 to 250 (NMC lithium ion) as they are incredibly cheap now and cost a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.
I guess one big question is what is the turnaround time for electric aircraft? One trip is a milestone, but modern jets are often scheduled for as little as 30 minutes from landing to next takeoff several times a day for maximum profitability. When will electrics be able to compete?
Animated aircraft carry zero people. Aircraft concepts are a dime-a-dozen where .0000001% manage to find certification and commercial service. That is probably a generous estimate.
This will get far more support from the commercial aviation industry, than these EVTOL contraptions. Build it and the orders will rush in, as operating costs will become massively lower for the sub 500 mile routes. I mean heck, 500 miles is almost Melbourne to Sydney. Add a avgas generator onboard to get the extra distance, plus reserve, or just make a transfer mid way, whilst the other recharges. If you always have at least one extra aircraft at each leg that can make the return leg, it can work out nicely. You actually only need one extra aircraft per 500 miles and they take turns in recharging. Thus for a 1,000 mile route you simply use two aircraft with one stop over in both directions. You also have extra aircraft at each end, so you have a continual relay of flights for each route. With fast super charging that could be a departure every few hours.
These EV aircraft are already being funded by aviation companies. Others are developing their own version of this type of aircraft. This is the near term future. i.e. before 2030.
I would add that by the time they unload and load the luggage and passengers disembark, they can be 80% recharged. Thus the reasoning of sitting on the ground for excessive periods of time is completely flawed. Major airlines have a steak in these types of designs for regional aviation transport.
At what ambient temperature does the aircraft get these results? EVs apparently can't retain a charge in the teens and low twenties so what's the altitude and temperature restrictions?
@@homloklebenyterapia9790 You people are hilarious. Of course ICE will have advantages over EV's and EV's will have advantages over ICE since the technology is fairly new. We don't live in a perfect world.
I feel like an important feature would be being capable of "ejecting" sections of batteries if a fire starts. They could just fall out of sections of the wing. Obviously there would be issues on the ground, but it would keep 90 people plus crew from falling out of the sky.
Have you ever been exposed to extreme cold when flying in a plane at 35,000 feet.? Of course not yet the distance between the interior of the aircraft and the surface of the skin is not a lot. Has that answered your concern?
I suspect it will have a leading edge boot that expands to save energy (less energy than heating). They could use deicing fluids for the propellers along with heat to also save energy.
There are multiple small electric aircraft going through certification in th US and UK, 6 - 8 seaters just perfect for the business craft, the small business jet is held back due to costs to run, while an electric small plane is not much more expensive to run than a truck
@@kronop8884 True, but enough business people take the expensive train because their budgets do not cover a private jet, but it is claimed that an EV plane ticket would be similar costs to the train, except instead of 85mph you will be flying at 280mph or possibly more
@@kronop8884 a 400 mile flight in 90 minutes for £120 in an EV plane, or 400 miles in an old fashioned business Jet for an hours flight at over a thousand ££$$ each ticket will have their own market segments
90 seats!! And a puddle jumping 500 mile range is a COMMUTER flight lol. So the USA will need 6x more aircraft than we have now which means a now 4 hour flight would mean switching planes too many times to calculate and probably 20+ hours. And BATTERY FAILURE in mid flight because you flew into a cold front ???
This looks very likely to succeed and soon be produced based on my decades if Boeing and Aeronautical Engineering experience. It will enable much lower cost tickets and be quiet and pleasant to fly in.
As with EV's, less moving parts in the electric motor drive units, hence the maintenance cost must be much lower! Cost of Gas Turbines maintenance can run into the millions of €/$/£ 🤔
Sam check out the Breguet range equation (for constant weight ie battery powered) the figures given are ridiculous probably even with 90 empty seats. Aircraft designer pilot for over 50 years.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story! When they get density to match the energy required to propel the machine the required distance we can talk.
No, it'd be fine for regional use. Look at Delta's Atlanta hub, with all those small flights to regional airports in a 300 mile radius. Just can't be used for long haul.
I have thought this as well. 29 people died in the Hindenburg and it was too dangerous. Over 50,000 have died in air accidents in aero planes but they're safe.
@@danielstapler4315 Should Airships Make a Comeback? ua-cam.com/video/ZjBgEkbnX2I/v-deo.html Maybe They could even be solar powered and make travel more interesting... Travelling too fast means You do not enjoy the journey...
A 500 mile range sounds good for someone who doesn't know anything about operating in the modern air traffic environment. I tried to find actual performance data on this aircraft, and could find nothing, which tells me that the aircraft doesn't actually exist, and that all performance estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. How much reserve flying time is left after the 500 miles? By the way, we're talking L.A. to San Francisco, that kind of distance. What if you have to deviate around weather? What if there is arrival holding at your destination? Anything less than 30 minutes flying time remaining is considered an emergency. Will electric airplanes be given priority while all of the CO2 spewing jets hold for an extra 15 minutes or so while the electric airplane moves to the front of the line? At 25,000', the ambient air temperature averages -20F, -29C. How will the batteries handle that? At 35,000', the temperature is -50F, -45C. Airplanes get lighter and more efficient as the fuel burns off. A battery weighs the same no matter how "full" it is. Electric commercial aviation (yes there are very short range light aircraft flying), isn't 5-10 years, it's never.
The aircraft needs enough fuel to fly to it's destination, execute an approach, proceed to an alternate airport, which has to have higher weather minimums, and fly for 45 minutes thereafter. You also need to account for any anticipated holding time, which is probable when there is weather at the destination airport. The 30 minutes is when an emergency should be declared, giving you priority handling. A gas turbine would need enough power to supply 100% of the required energy to power the motors, or put another way, to propel the plane by itself. Then you need a place to put the fuel to power it, so much for the baggage compartments. To an airliner, 500 miles is nothing. I've gone that far out of my way just getting around thunderstorms. Yes, I am a retired airline pilot, and I know that commercial battery powered flight is not happening anytime soon, and in my opinion, ever.@@chriswilliams8607
@@johnlebeau5471 commercial electric flight happens already, with small planes, but it's a start. There is no question whatsoever if electric flight on a large scale is happening, the question is when. With current technology only possible for short range, but as batteries impove every year and double capacity is for sure one the horizon (1 kWh per kg), and triple capacity eventuelly possible range will extend to about 800 to 1000 miles, which would be a tremendous benefti for the environment as, and as an airlaine pilot you know that very well, turbine time is excessivly expensive and needs tons of maintenance, while an electric motor does not need any maintenance for years and is not subject to excessive temperatures, so cost reduction will be such a huge factor, that every aircraft producer in the world does research on electric flight for years now. Small electric planes use a technology that is 10 years old as certification takes time, 10 years in electric flight is a huge timespan, check EVs what kind of evolution we have seen in a few years, same will happen to electric planes. Think about it, taxiing energy consumption reduces by 95% against gas turbine, approach energy requirement ZERO, as the electric motors will recuperate energy on descend while a gas turbine still consumes lots of fuel.
EV evolution in the last 13 years. 2010my Tesla Roadster: 244 mile range on a 53kWh battery. 4.6 mi/kWh. 2023 Tesla Model 3: 257 miles on a 57 (useable) kWh battery. 4.5 mi/kWh. Oh yes, I do see the improvement.@@chriswilliams8607
The correct units for Electric Energy density are WATT-HOURS PER KILOGRAM - When you are reporting on a subject, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the terminology and metrics of the subject. That might help to give you some credibility in the matter.
Add in solar like Aptera Motors but on a much larger scale and I think you can reduce the battery size, thus reducing weight and thus increasing range.
Sam - Thanks for all your scanning/review and summarization of possibly significant developments in electrification and renewable energy! I appreciate and completely understand you may not have time to read these comments. But, if you do, please note that battery "Energy" Density is given in units of "Watt-Hours"/kilogram and battery "Power" Density is given in units of "Watts"/kilogram. Power Density and Energy Density are very different battery characteristics / specifications. Sufficient Power Density (W/kg) would be needed for the aircraft to achieve sufficient altitude, while sufficient Energy Density (Watt-Hours/kg) would be needed to achieve a practical range (500 miles, in this case). Likewise, "Power" equals the RATE at which the Energy is discharged or recharged (energy per unit of time). As this Power Rate can be thought of as units of watt-hours or kilowatt-hours/hour; the hours units cancel, so you're left with Watts or Kilowatts for units of Power. Take care of yourself and your family. Thanks again.
I still wonder why they have not made a hybrid.. example one center tail turbine engine.mostly to get plane in the air and up to speed then just Cruz with electric...bet you can go a lot further or carry more weight
Gliders Prove Planes can Fly on Low or No Propulsion. However Crossing the Oceans is a Big task. Short Flight Might be doable so Good Luck to these People.
For short flight commutes sure it could be a possibility but transcontinental flight not really a viable option. Heart Aerospace have been tuning their design based on actual reality and know-how understanding that there is a need for a compromise if this is to become a reality Their ES-30 Tech Specs are Capacity - 30 passengers (typical) Range - 200 km all electric - 400 km electric+hybrid - 800 km electric+hybrid 25pax They also looked at the most likely tech evolution and what it may bring Longer Electric range as batteries evolve Late 2020’s (current design goal) - 200 km electric - 400 km hybrid Mid 2030’s - 300 km electric - 500 km hybrid Late 2030’s - 400 km electric - 600 km hybrid The main problem with electric aircrafts is that takeoff weight will equal the max landing weight reducing the available load of passengers, cargo and luggage significantly compared to the current tech The Gross Landing Weight refers to the weight of the airplane when it’s ready to land. Simply put, it’s the takeoff weight minus the fuel burned en route.
One advantage of a turbo fan is you get your cabin heat for free , and your cabin pressurization. How are they going to pressurize the cabin with electric? Sure you can have an electric pump but that is more energy drain. Without a pressurized cabin you would be limited to a 10,000 ft (3000M ) and would not be able to cruise above weather. Speaking of weather commercial aircraft need to be able to fly though it. Occasionally these aircraft get hit by lightning. Not sure of the impact of a stray current surge in battery packs of that size but have you seen the electric bus fires that have been happening. Being in an electric aircraft if the batteries decide to go into thermal runaway will, without some very interesting engineering mean 100% fatality unless the thing is on the ground when it happens. Finally at 30,000 feet (9000 meters approx.) OAT is −40° C and −57° C. Cold soak is real in fuel and hydraulics in fact in any unconditioned part of an aircraft (current aircraft) . Again insulation and other remedies ( not withstanding the battery will generate heat during operation at high draws like take off) would all add weight and would need to be very carefully designed for ( thermal management) as cruise and decent phases of flight could allow extreme chilling of the outer areas of a battery pack while the inner parts remains warm resulting in current imbalances in cells ( which isn't a good thing).
Pure nonsense. Never happen. And imagine the thermal runaway from a fire. And charging time? Mind boggling long. Maybe one flight a day as long as ground temperatures above freezing. And at 35,000 feet the battery would be consumed heating the plane.
Nice plane! I would never fly in one though until the spontaneous battery fire problem is solved for electric vehicles. Also would never park an ev car or even bike in a garage for the same reason, fires, an underreported problem for this industry with current battery tech.
Spontaneous fires in these aircraft will be incredibly rare. They will be far rarer than engine fires on jet engines. Per mile driven EVs are far less likely to catch fire than their ICE equivalents.
@@rogerphelps9939 Roger. I still have issues after thinking about what you said, and what I see. You said "Per mile driven EVs are far less likely to catch fire than their ICE equivalents.". Your qualifier is "per miles driven". I am most concerned about spontaneous combustion or explosion of an ev battery pack. Based upon your wording, it might also be accurate to say. EVs per every mile parked are far more likely to spontaneously catch fire and cause major property damage aside from destruction of the EV. Let us be real. I have never in 45 years of car ownership ever heard of the gas tank in a parked car suddenly catch fire and consume the vehicle. Yet from electric scooters, bike, cars, and trucks, in the last few years I have seen reports of hundreds of these EV battery packs going nuclear in a flash, sometimes after minor damage to the battery pack from hitting road debris, often just while parked. So what you said may be statistically true regarding "per miles driven" it masks the real safety concern I raise, does it not?
My thing is - do we really need to make them carry a ton of people? I mean yea thats great for larger/longer flights, but from one state to another in the US do they really need to carry 100+ people? What about just 50 people and their stuff? Honstly, if they can make it work between mid west to cali or florida thats all you really need to do. That cuts over half the flights today using fuel. Plus less people = less stress over all for the customers. Even more, you can focus on improving take off with some type of assisted method.
The lithium ion battery market is struggling to cope with the EV market and now we want to add planes which one of them would need more than ten times the energy an average EV would need, what a great era we're going into 😎😎
Not by a huge margin compared to a typical turbo prop, eight propellers vs two as well means that the sound will increase by 3dB every time the number of sound sources doubles 1 Prop -> 2 Props-> 4 Props-> 8 Props so in essence 6 dB higher equivalent sound level for 8 props compared to just two of the same specification, humans perceive a 10 dB increase as a doubling of sound volume
If so much of the weight is in the wings, could we see a revival of a scheme from the 70's, where in an emergency, the wings are jettisoned, and the fuselage descends on parachutes?
The only thing I see in the video, that I don't like, is that it shows have ducted fan tech. instead of props . It looks like it has a fairly long glide length. I would suggest they have a safety system where they can drop the batteries, and glide to a landing. Sound crazy, but it would work.
This could be economical and ecological, Battery improvements would have the biggest effect on a e plane Meanwhile let's get rid of gas gardening equipment & gas motorcycles
You are out of your minds if you get on to a plane that is powered by batteries!!! This has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. This is going to end badly.
More like they're out of their minds to think 360 Wh/kg batteries will propel a 90 seat aircraft to up to 800 km. Come on, even Heart Aerospace knows that it will have to use hybrids to power their ES-30 800 km.
Wow, cool! Now imagine how much more capable it would be with a little bit more energy density in those batteries... that emergency turbo generator in the back must come with a decent efficiency cost as it needs its own fuel storage, engine, exhaust system, generator, ect ect... I mean you are talking some serious horsepower in that engine to be able to add juice to 8-1.5 MW motors even if they are running at a very low power consumption level. Just the controls in the avionics and power control system would have a serious power consumption compared to a car turbo diesel, those cost of converting energy from one type to another really add up...
Well: - The aircraft uses propellers and a more straight wing rather than jet engines and swept back wings. This makes the aircraft more energy efficient - and thus enables it to work with lower energy density batteries - but slower. - CATL some time ago announced their condensed battery cells with a density of 500Wh/Kg, which is reasonably better than what this airplane uses. Solid state batteries, when they arrive, should improve this even more. - Hydrogen by itself might be light and energy-dense, but hydrogen tanks weight a lot. Unless some breakthrough allows making hydrogen tanks a lot lighter I believe high density batteries will be able to match the energy density of a hydrogen tank full of hydrogen even before solid state batteries arrive. Hydrogen tanks are also bulky, which is a problem in aircraft. - Electric aircraft will bring another huge benefit: maintenance. The cost and needed time to complete a C check on electric engines and batteries is likely to be far, far lower than what would cost to do the same check on conventional engines, fuel tanks, and all the systems that an airplane needs in order to move fuel around so the engines keep running and the fuel tanks on the wings remain balanced. - Much of the cost to bring the airplane into production is certification costs. The process of getting authorization for a new kind of commercial airplane is far stricter, longer, and expensive than what would be needed to sell a new car - and here we are talking about a whole new propulsion system to boot, which should make the process even more expensive as many assumptions from conventional planes need to be proved anew.
@@Sonshine70s Likely less than it would take to disassemble, check, and reassemble all fuel tanks, pumps, and related systems in a regular plane. Not to mention how much cheaper it would be to check an electrical engine, which is far simpler, smaller, and lighter than a regular airplane engine.
The big trick in this developement is not reinventing anything that doesn't have to be reinvented. Every component or structure used, that already has certification, is a step closer to production. That is why this airplane looks so 'boringly normal'.
We have all seen videos and photos of Tesla's bursting into flame. Once these batteries catch fire there is nothing that can be done to put out the fire than to let it burn itself out. What would happen to these aircraft if they should crash? I think the victims on the ground would be worse off than a conventional aircraft. Notice the Electric Viking does not compare this electric aircraft to the very efficient jet engines. A much more cost effective and "greener" alternative is to use the technologies invented by Stanely Meyer and Dennis Klien to use resonate frequencies to break of the bonds of the water molecule to produce a burnable oxygen/hydrogen gas. This gasification apparatus could be used on both piston and jet aircraft. The future is waterpower and thorium nuclear energy.
Please use the correct term for energy density. It is watt hours per kilogram. Watts per kilogram is power density which may be of interest when determining the power available for takeoff and climbing.
Poor Sam has the weakest grip on statistics, data and basic addition and subtraction I have ever seen anyone put on display on a daily basis.
I'm sure he's a lovely bloke and works very hard releasing multiple vids' per day.
Instead of doing 4 videos per day, maybe he learn some analytical skills instead?
Just saying
So Wh/kg says what to you?
Three years ago I had a test flight in the Alpha Electro in Perth, Western Australia. We flew around for almost an hour. Battery technology has improved since then. The future for short range flight is without a doubt, electric. It will be cheaper and safer.
Awesome
So did you recently turn to drugs or was it caused by the illusion that battery technology was improving to the point you’d actually get on a battery powered aircraft?
Or a battery that won't catch fire!
Yes Africa already got some short haul electric aircraft
@@danielpaulsness6951: As if ICE vehicles don't catch fire FAR more often, and as if battery chemistries aren't getting safer. Oh, and as if massive jet fuel fires never occur.
But the denialist nonsense never ends.
It's not 380 watts per kg, it's watt hours per kg! This is a vitally important distinction!!
Agree 100%. Sam always gets it wrong.
@@greggpon7466 I doubt that Sam is an engineer. He makes too many fundamental errors.
@@duanehorton4680 agreed. He has a marketing background. Nice guy but facts are not always the forte of marketeers.
He's going to keep getting it wrong, you guys are correcting him on multiple videos, yet he keeps on misunderstanding the issue.....
Not only this. This project will never pass the risk assessment because batteries need cooling! Nowadays batteries are already past for a lot of reasons and hydrogen already replaced the battery technology
This plane (the Elysian E9X) with an 800 km (497 mile) range has a pack energy density of 360 Wh/kg. The cell energy density is 450 Wh/kg, so I assume that they are planning on using something like Amprius batteries, which currently have 450 Wh/kg. With the recent announcement of CATL's "condensed battery" with 500 Wh/kg, they may have a better option in the near future. They say that a battery with a cell energy density of 550 Wh/kg will allow a 1000 km (621 mile) range. What is amazing to me is that its energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer (compared to 159 Wh/km for a Tesla Model 3), so basically it has the same energy consumption per km as an EV with one passenger.
The E9X needs a runway of 2000 m, so it cannot be used in many smaller airports that only have 1500 m runways, but its 42 meter wingspan can be folded at the tips for 36 meters so in can be use at gates which are designed for the A320. The E9X is designed to have a top cruise speed of 0.6 mach (460 mph, 741 km/h), which isn't bad for a turboprop. The paper estimates that this electric plane can eliminate 20% of all commercial aviation GHG emissions (assuming that using renewable energy to charge the batteries). Given that this plane consumes 1/5 of the energy of a conventional plane per passenger-km, I would love to see its emergency gas turbine range extender be used to power longer flights, because it should dramatically reduce the CO2 emissions compared to a conventional jet, and unlike a conventional jet, it won't produce condensation trails, which cause 59% of the radiative forcing from aviation (Lee et al 2021). I think the real market for this plane is as a hybrid electric/gas that can handle longer flights, and I would love to see a second model which is scaled up so it can handle double the number of passengers.
Another thing that I wonder is whether this plane could be made lighter than 76 tonnes (of which 35 tonnes are batteries) by using a stamped CF-SMC body like Aptera is doing with its EV, rather than a conventional aluminum alloy body.
To better understand the engineering, read Aviation Week (2024-01-10) "Dutch Startup Elysian Pursues Large Battery-Electric Airliner" and see Elysian's research paper, "A New Perspective on Battery-Electric Aviation, Part II: Conceptual Design of a 90-Seater" which can be downloaded for free at arc aiaa org (Google it). (I really hate UA-cam's blocking of URLs.)
Thank you for all this info. I was a bit skeptical but I knew about the CATL high wh/kg battery. Seems like we may have electric passenger planes in 2030 if all goes well.
Thanks! Lots of detailed info in this post. The Aviation Week story referenced has even more info, with no paywall. The research paper doesn't appear to be free at aaaa, but was free to download at TU Delft.
It's impossible for a plane that carries 90 passengers to consume 167 Wh in constant flight while an EV consumes almost the same physically impossible
@@FortuneOnyeachonam-ps4zw Any vehicle can consume only 167 Wh in constant motion. Even an A380 or Cruise Ship can travel a small fraction of a mm with that much energy.
I don't understand how this isn't a blown wing design, and therefore a short takeoff design. It shares a lot with Electra's ESTOL design, which can take off using a 300' runway.
90 seat commuter planes like this is exactly what is needed. Range and speed will happen the same as its happening for EV's. This is an exciting development. Very good find Sam.
Accurate
Electric planes have been a failure so far
I'll believe it when I see it.
Yes it is exactly what is needed.
I believe individuals have grown weary of investing in companies that primarily showcase a 3D-rendered image as their sole product. Many startups allocate a significant portion of their budget solely for the creation of 3D renderings to attract investor funds. Take Nikola trucks as an illustration. To secure investor confidence, it's crucial to present an actual product rather than relying solely on a 3D render.
The Elon quote of "400Wh/kg" was for a VTOL plane. My guess is that a lower battery energy density level could be used in a plane that takes off on a runway.
Add hydraulic takeoff assist, regen on decent…. and a lot of opportunities arise.
It’ll still take time and commitment
True. EVTOL requires far more energy density.
@@whodatcattYes. Takeoff consumes a lot of energy.
You can only go so fast in a prop aircraft and the fact that a jet engine requires high temperature combustion by it's very nature means that it's unlikely that battery electric could ever do the job. We may have to settle for synthetic fuels for that one, contrails and all.
....and that could be o.k. if they use ground based equipment to take carbon out of the atmosphere, etc. That would work!
@@someotherdudeNASA is currently working on turning seaweed into aviation fuel. It sounds ridiculous at first. But growing seaweed is easy, turning seaweed into ethanol isn't overly difficult either. The problem is that right now no one knows how to turn ethanol into aviation fuel. It has been done in multiple labs around the world in small amounts and at sky high prices but it is possible. NASA is currently pursuing a two track approach. They are working on altering ethanol into fuel chemically identical to fossil derived aviation fuel and also working on developing aircraft engines that can run on pure ethanol. It's not clear which path will prove to be the better option. Bio derived methane is a third option. This seems like the path forward for long haul aviation and probably spaceflight as well.
I have never heard anybody refer to jet engines as internal combustion. To have a range of 500 miles, you need enough "fuel" to fly to the destination plus fuel to the alternate plus 45 minutes of fuel plus any contingencies for known delays like holding or excess vectoring or enroute deviations for adverse weather. This guy doesn't have a clue. I spent 36 years flying jet transports, and this will never "fly". You need energy to pressurize the airplane, for heating and cooling, and a de-ice system for the airplane. You also need a way to heat the batteries because the normal outside temperature at altitude is -60F.
YES, YOU WILL SEE....MIRACLE BATTERY JUST AROUND THE CORNER...GONNA ELECTRIFY THE WHOLE WORLD! IT IS JUST AHEAD...IN THE FUTURE....ELECTRIC WORLD!
Plus, free beer tomorrow.
Batteries will save us all!
500miles… not very useful in the States but in a few situations.
Turn-around time on the plane will be one of the big issues. Planes don’t make money sitting on the ground being refueled
It will be the UK city Airpot to Paris or business in the Uk
Vaporware! Startups make all kinds of claims to get more investors, but until they make even a prototype that can perform what is claimed, I will remain skeptical.
Sam, you may need to check your efficiency numbers. Motor vehicle efficiency is ~25% for petrol, but higher for diesel ~40% ?. However, the high altitude turbo-fan (I believe that is correct definition) with a high by-pass ratio is hitting up to 60% efficiency (partly assisted by -58 Celsius at cruise altitude). Furthermore, you need to be careful comparing efficiency because even though actual battery to propellor efficiency is very high (~85%) the production of energy to charge the battery is not so high, i.e. 25% solar efficiency or ~74% efficiency for a steam turbine.
Despite efficiency numbers, the prospect of EV for air travel is very exciting stuff!
Harbour Air in Vancouver is well along experimenting with electric aircraft, given their ideal situation of short local flights. Even so, they aren't rushing into commercial operation just yet.
We already have planes in Europe that do 800 kms in 3 or 4 hours. They don't have wings nor batteries and we call them trains. The advantage is that you don't need transport between city and airport and no 2 hours checkin time.
As someone who professionally stared out of an international airport control tower for years, I am surprised that nobody has yet proposed the use of the many hectares of dead/wasted space outside of the actual flight strips at an airport. Any major airport could easily double as a massive solar farm, and always in close proximity to metropolitan areas - or to supply recharging facilities, if/when electrification of aviation becomes a reality.
Do the math.
8 x 1.5 megawatt engines...
12 megawatts per hour
1 acre of PV panels produce 4.5 to 12 megawatts.
On paper it's possible.
In reality... probably not.
@@glidercoach my home airport is Melbourne’s Tullamarine. The airport is 5,854 acres, with perhaps a half of that within the flight strips, taxiways and terminal. Therefore potentially 3,000 acres x 10 megawatts = 30k megawatts. Sounds like a substantial, under-utilised resource, to me.
@@petergosney6433
But it would need PV panels at every airport it flies to, not just its base. What about when it's cloudy? 30 megawatts is some major power. A 54 megawatt generator costs €19 million and you would need 1 for each plane at every airport it flies to.
My ebike takes 4 to 6 hours to charge. Transferring 30 megawatts takes time and a plane on the ground charging, is lost money. Your only option is a battery swap. So you would need a fully charged battery to swap at every airport it flies to.
Do you see how things add up? The electric Viking makes it sound so easy.
@@glidercoach well, for starters, my thought bubble - on the obvious wasted space at large airports in general - distinctly predates this particular aircraft. Nor do I suggest that no further external power input would be required for the whole of aviation to “go electric”. The Electric Viking’s objective is to explore the cutting edge of technology; and he usually places realistic caveats, from my observations. People constantly challenge “Where is all the power going to come from?” when discussing mass electrification. The answer is, as always, incrementally and as and when required. Nothing happens overnight. The predicted oil shortages of the 70’s never eventuated. The predicted Lithium shortages of just 3 years ago have similarly receded.
As for the issue of battery densities in general; that has always been a moving target. Developments over the past 5 years have been significant, but literal collective $billions are being spent to push the boundaries in the thoroughly foreseeable future.
As for recharging times, I would observe that an Airbus 380 does not refuel through a single hose. If an electric aircraft’s battery pack is compartmented, just as the Airbuses’ fuel tanks are, one could easily use multiple chargers operating simultaneously. It is perfectly conceivable that charging times could be achieved inside of today’s normal turnaround times.
As for the dangers of battery fires; you don’t have to make them impossible, just less likely than all the other risks that aviation grapples with, every day since the Wright Brothers started the ball rolling.
@@glidercoach at the risk of getting caught up in the philosophical underpinnings, I’d like to make some observations.
Aviation’s short history has been characterised by several massive explosions in development. Each world war had exponential effects, as did the subsequent slower burn of the Cold War. Necessity is the Mother of Invention is both a cliche and a truism. The Climate Crisis - whether real or perceived - is having a similar effect on all forms of transport today. And then overlayed on this, is the Chicken or Egg syndrome. The proliferation of EVs is limited by charging infrastructure, but charging infrastructure will always have to follow the proliferation of EVs.
You raised the red herring of solar power and the apparent unreliability of sunlight; but solar power can never be the answer in isolation. Other mitigating factors are national grids - in Australia’s case, over potentially huge areas - short-term local storage, such as big batteries, and alternative sources, such as wind and hydro, not to mention the dreaded gas. And every one of these facets has its very own think-tank.
In Australia 25 years ago, both Perth and Adelaide were seen to be forever limited in their growth potential by the availability of a potable water supply. Back then then, desalination was seen as prohibitively expensive. But today, and at least two deep droughts later, both of these cities draw in excess of 50% of their water supply from desalination; it turns out a totally scalable solution to a once intractable problem.
First comes the need, then comes the solution. That is the only way it can work.
Energy density is measured in watt-HOURS per kilogram, not watts per kilogram.
Silent planes means they can operate far more during the night and their flight paths can be over cities thus making some lights shorter. Airporrs can be placed much closer to cities as well, cutting down travel time.
Drones. Noisy as.
You are an aviation engineer are you?@@ozviking8052
76 tons take off weight not much more than a jet the same size??? The two most popular 90ish passenger planes currently in use weigh about 50 short tons, So this "it is not that different" difference in weight is over 50% more. To me that is a HUGE difference.
Also, the electric aircraft takes off with a full load of batteries (35 tons) and stays at that weight the entire flight. Jets take off with just the full required (plus reserves) which means they planes of this size often are much less than max take off weight to start, And as they fly, they burn fuel and get lighter thus more fuel efficient every second of flight.
According to the number quoted in the video, the batteries hold 360 watts per kg. That means they hold 25 MEGAwatts. That is about one day of electricity for 700 homes. Put another way, that is 100 Tesla Supercharges running at max for one hour. How many power lines and transformers will be required to supply this?
Now, shall we discuss the question of thermal runaway? Just for reference, an uncotrolled fire on a jet typically gives the crew a maximum of 20 minutes to land or there will be a bad outcome. How long do you expect a plane with 35 tons of batteries last once a thermal runaway has started?
Curious why the batteries would be in the wing. Surely it would make more sense to have them low in the fuselage. This would then allow them to be swapped out ala NIO. Imagine a 4 minute battery swap. The savings on fuel plus recharge time would allow high efficiency on cost per passenger mile. I would love it if we could see new possibilities to drive down the prices, because right now, the cost of travel is just ridiculous.
Having fuel or batteries in the wing will help reducing the bending moment (stresses) in the wing.
Also need to be jettisonable in case of fire.
Easy. Change the wings every time
@@nippingshrewdestreets3264just curious, do they jettison engines when they catch on fire?
@@chrishaberbosch1029 No they have fire suppression systems. Trouble with batteries is once they go into thermal runaway, no suppression system will cope. The only safe option is to separate from the aircraft.
As these batteries have problems with the cold. how high do you fly?
Love to see these actually in use!!
Would be cool (no pun) if it could be painted with Solar Paint - might be enough to power the aircon.
Ty only way I would
Get on one is if flying low over a body of water close to shoe so if the thing falls I have a chance of swimming out.
Forward looking... back to propellers, down to a few hundred miles range, drop in speed and a very lengthy recharge every trip. This is not advancement by any measure. Should we also look at the issue with a battery that can self ignite? 50% of take off weight battery!!! That is insane. Aircraft manufacturers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make an airliner 3% more efficient, this concept will require 3 aircraft for every 1 jet today, when 1 is flying the other two will be charging, how is that efficient? On top of that for a 2100 mile trip you will need 15 electric aircraft to replace 1 jet. Am I missing anything?
Ya know...when one considers the number of commercial flights that depart every day (to say nothing of private/on-demand), 2.5% of global emissions is remarkably low. Like, what percentage of emissions comes from digging those battery materials out of the ground...?? No one's really talking about that 🤔
A battery weighing 35 tonnes? So say 15 megawatt hours. How on earth are you going to recharge that thing?? Think about it. It's crazy.
Heart Aerospace in Sweden is much further along the design path for this type of regional plane.
the thing I like about this is fuel security, if the plane can be 'refueled' with renewable electricity generated locally, the reliance of refined imported fuel is less.
Renewable energy as in electricity can be generated anywhere in a international power grid (wind, solar, hydro even nuclear can be said to be carbon free) and supplied to the airline charging facility
Thank you for your relentless efforts and inspiration Sam
City of Edmonton installed diesel cabin heaters in their Proterra electric buses. ISA 30,000' ambient temperature is -44.5C. How much battery power will be needed to keep the passengers from freezing?
It seems like using diesel cabin heaters would make sense for passenger aircraft, as well as buses. Jet fuel is similar to diesel, so the heaters would need little or no modifications.
Stellar example of remarkable ignorance.
Good work there.@@georgepelton5645
the 45 mins fixed reserve is a legal requirement, and in normal operations, the 45 mins fixed reserve should never be used, if it is, the crew have to declare a fuel emergency. and No, you dont want Boeing buying it.. you want a company run be engineers. Like Airbus.
No. The standard IFR reserve is 30 minutes.
With todays battery technology aircraft ranges in the 500 miles range are absolutely possible, the idea for providing the 45 minute emergency reserve with a gas turbine is excellent and absolutely make sense, VERY good concept! Fuel savings with electric planes are huge, especially as taxiing uses vast amounts of fuel, as a gas turbine needs at idle almost 50% of full power fuel flow.... alone this savings at taxiing, which is a huge part in short distance flights, absolutely justifies the development of electric planes, they would use a ridiculous minimal fraction of the energy for taxiing compared to a jet or turboprop.
Biggest showstoppe for electric planes... certification! It takes ages to get this done, see the canadian electric seaplane that is flying for years now, but still has only experimental certification and authorities take years and years to get stuff done.
The biggest stopper is energy density of the batteries. If these things exist why are they not in cars now?
@@Trevor_Austin The cost.
@@Trevor_Austin Recent serial battery production has reached 500 watt hous per kilogram, this is enough for electric shortrange plances up to 500 miles, the stuff is already there, but still expensive as production just started, expect 1kWh per kg in 5 to 10 years.
Cars usually use batteries with 150 to 180 Wh per kg (LFP) or 200 to 250 (NMC lithium ion) as they are incredibly cheap now and cost a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.
It’ll be a nice little island hopper for short distances. 500 miles isn’t that far.
I guess one big question is what is the turnaround time for electric aircraft? One trip is a milestone, but modern jets are often scheduled for as little as 30 minutes from landing to next takeoff several times a day for maximum profitability. When will electrics be able to compete?
Animated aircraft carry zero people.
Aircraft concepts are a dime-a-dozen where .0000001% manage to find certification and commercial service.
That is probably a generous estimate.
This will get far more support from the commercial aviation industry, than these EVTOL contraptions. Build it and the orders will rush in, as operating costs will become massively lower for the sub 500 mile routes. I mean heck, 500 miles is almost Melbourne to Sydney. Add a avgas generator onboard to get the extra distance, plus reserve, or just make a transfer mid way, whilst the other recharges. If you always have at least one extra aircraft at each leg that can make the return leg, it can work out nicely. You actually only need one extra aircraft per 500 miles and they take turns in recharging. Thus for a 1,000 mile route you simply use two aircraft with one stop over in both directions. You also have extra aircraft at each end, so you have a continual relay of flights for each route. With fast super charging that could be a departure every few hours.
Wrong. Extra aircraft sitting on the ground are not what airlines want. An aircraft is making money only when it is airborne.
Dream on.
These EV aircraft are already being funded by aviation companies. Others are developing their own version of this type of aircraft. This is the near term future. i.e. before 2030.
I would add that by the time they unload and load the luggage and passengers disembark, they can be 80% recharged. Thus the reasoning of sitting on the ground for excessive periods of time is completely flawed. Major airlines have a steak in these types of designs for regional aviation transport.
Battery tech is improving at good pace, so this EV aircraft concept is a no brainer.
LAX to SFO = 378 miles. LAX to Las Vegas = 282 miles. Oakland to Lake Tahoe = 282 miles.
Amsterdam to Berlin 363 miles (584km), Geneva to Madrid 635 miles (1022km), Vienna to Rome 475 miles (765km)
Avgas BTW has an energy density of 12,000 watts per kilogram.
Promising stuff! Sam covered other solutions like this, Airbus and Boeing, same for Sandy Munroe
At what ambient temperature does the aircraft get these results? EVs apparently can't retain a charge in the teens and low twenties so what's the altitude and temperature restrictions?
ask the people in Chicago how well their electric cars worked in the recent cold snap. Even the liberal media reported the bad news
Highly unlikely as “challenges” include heavy battery weight, flammability risk and excess energy drain in cold temperatures.
Fuel is more of flammable risk than battery.
@@PyroShieldsbut fuel fire are extinguishable.
@@homloklebenyterapia9790 You people are hilarious. Of course ICE will have advantages over EV's and EV's will have advantages over ICE since the technology is fairly new. We don't live in a perfect world.
@@homloklebenyterapia9790 That's your selling pitch when it comes to ICE? lol.
@@PyroShields my selling pitch on ICE is just cheaper and better.
The use of a turbo generator in lieu of batteries to handle the 45 minute reserve requirement is genius.
I feel like an important feature would be being capable of "ejecting" sections of batteries if a fire starts. They could just fall out of sections of the wing. Obviously there would be issues on the ground, but it would keep 90 people plus crew from falling out of the sky.
Then fall on someone's head 😂😂
@@FortuneOnyeachonam-ps4zw Maybe, but not likely. The wildfire would be a much larger concern and could take far more lives.
Afternoon mate
Hmm where have i heard this 500 mile range before?
Well it can’t cruise at normal commercial aircraft heights as it’s -35 to -50 at those heights. We all know batteries don’t do well in extreme cold
Insulation and thermal control takes care of that, you just have to properly design it to work at those conditions.
battery temperature is no factor here, they need pretty heavy cooling during flight.
Have you ever been exposed to extreme cold when flying in a plane at 35,000 feet.? Of course not yet the distance between the interior of the aircraft and the surface of the skin is not a lot. Has that answered your concern?
@@rogerphelps9939Actually, the supply of heated air might have something to do with that.
How much battery power will be required for surfaces & propellors for flight in icing conditions?
Loads. Plus a/c and pressurisation and battery heaters.
I suspect it will have a leading edge boot that expands to save energy (less energy than heating). They could use deicing fluids for the propellers along with heat to also save energy.
That's another major issue.
Flying at altitude is cold. Batteries don't like to be cold. Flying at altitude in icy conditions...
@@glidercoach Ambient temperature has nothing to do with battery temperature, batteries must be cooled, so there is no problem with low temperatures.
There are multiple small electric aircraft going through certification in th US and UK, 6 - 8 seaters just perfect for the business craft, the small business jet is held back due to costs to run, while an electric small plane is not much more expensive to run than a truck
However a small business jet will take you long distances at speed which is generally the selling point of a business jet
@@kronop8884 True, but enough business people take the expensive train because their budgets do not cover a private jet, but it is claimed that an EV plane ticket would be similar costs to the train, except instead of 85mph you will be flying at 280mph or possibly more
@@kronop8884 a 400 mile flight in 90 minutes for £120 in an EV plane, or 400 miles in an old fashioned business Jet for an hours flight at over a thousand ££$$ each ticket will have their own market segments
90 seats!! And a puddle jumping 500 mile range is a COMMUTER flight lol. So the USA will need 6x more aircraft than we have now which means a now 4 hour flight would mean switching planes too many times to calculate and probably 20+ hours. And BATTERY FAILURE in mid flight because you flew into a cold front ???
This looks very likely to succeed and soon be produced based on my decades if Boeing and Aeronautical Engineering experience. It will enable much lower cost tickets and be quiet and pleasant to fly in.
Are they going to put a wind turbine on the wings or fuselage for recharging and what will this do to the aerodynamics of said craft ?
That was comedy.
As with EV's, less moving parts in the electric motor drive units, hence the maintenance cost must be much lower!
Cost of Gas Turbines maintenance can run into the millions of €/$/£ 🤔
That was the claim for BEV's, but the cost of repairs has been HIGH. I don't think such assumptions are valid without real experience to back them up.
Sam check out the Breguet range equation (for constant weight ie battery powered) the figures given are ridiculous probably even with 90 empty seats. Aircraft designer pilot for over 50 years.
But can it is recharged in 30 minutes like the current commercial aircrafts?
They could have swappable batteries.
@@petterbirgersson4489seems unlikely since the frame required would add even more weight requiring more batteries… Also it’s another point of failure
Re_charging - he addressed. Not there yet but working on it.
Can the passengers take baggage with them and how long does it take to recharge after each flight?
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story! When they get density to match the energy required to propel the machine the required distance we can talk.
At last, a realist.
SAF is the answer for commercial aviation powered by turbines. Electric primarily for replacing piston engine in general aviation.
I’m sure customers will be lining up to fly in this fantasy plane….
Airline will be selling life insurance as an option.
In a better world where people travel slowly use airships.
No, it'd be fine for regional use. Look at Delta's Atlanta hub, with all those small flights to regional airports in a 300 mile radius. Just can't be used for long haul.
@@AKJammer1 Might also might be the efficient way of moving high value goods. An airship needs less power and is potentially safer.
I have thought this as well. 29 people died in the Hindenburg and it was too dangerous. Over 50,000 have died in air accidents in aero planes but they're safe.
@@danielstapler4315 Should Airships Make a Comeback? ua-cam.com/video/ZjBgEkbnX2I/v-deo.html Maybe They could even be solar powered and make travel more interesting... Travelling too fast means You do not enjoy the journey...
A 500 mile range sounds good for someone who doesn't know anything about operating in the modern air traffic environment. I tried to find actual performance data on this aircraft, and could find nothing, which tells me that the aircraft doesn't actually exist, and that all performance estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. How much reserve flying time is left after the 500 miles? By the way, we're talking L.A. to San Francisco, that kind of distance. What if you have to deviate around weather? What if there is arrival holding at your destination? Anything less than 30 minutes flying time remaining is considered an emergency. Will electric airplanes be given priority while all of the CO2 spewing jets hold for an extra 15 minutes or so while the electric airplane moves to the front of the line? At 25,000', the ambient air temperature averages -20F, -29C. How will the batteries handle that? At 35,000', the temperature is -50F, -45C. Airplanes get lighter and more efficient as the fuel burns off. A battery weighs the same no matter how "full" it is. Electric commercial aviation (yes there are very short range light aircraft flying), isn't 5-10 years, it's never.
Airline Aircraft need to have 45 minutes reserve, as he stated that reserve is provided via a separate gas turbine, which is a good concept.
The aircraft needs enough fuel to fly to it's destination, execute an approach, proceed to an alternate airport, which has to have higher weather minimums, and fly for 45 minutes thereafter. You also need to account for any anticipated holding time, which is probable when there is weather at the destination airport. The 30 minutes is when an emergency should be declared, giving you priority handling. A gas turbine would need enough power to supply 100% of the required energy to power the motors, or put another way, to propel the plane by itself. Then you need a place to put the fuel to power it, so much for the baggage compartments.
To an airliner, 500 miles is nothing. I've gone that far out of my way just getting around thunderstorms. Yes, I am a retired airline pilot, and I know that commercial battery powered flight is not happening anytime soon, and in my opinion, ever.@@chriswilliams8607
@@johnlebeau5471 commercial electric flight happens already, with small planes, but it's a start. There is no question whatsoever if electric flight on a large scale is happening, the question is when. With current technology only possible for short range, but as batteries impove every year and double capacity is for sure one the horizon (1 kWh per kg), and triple capacity eventuelly possible range will extend to about 800 to 1000 miles, which would be a tremendous benefti for the environment as, and as an airlaine pilot you know that very well, turbine time is excessivly expensive and needs tons of maintenance, while an electric motor does not need any maintenance for years and is not subject to excessive temperatures, so cost reduction will be such a huge factor, that every aircraft producer in the world does research on electric flight for years now.
Small electric planes use a technology that is 10 years old as certification takes time, 10 years in electric flight is a huge timespan, check EVs what kind of evolution we have seen in a few years, same will happen to electric planes.
Think about it, taxiing energy consumption reduces by 95% against gas turbine, approach energy requirement ZERO, as the electric motors will recuperate energy on descend while a gas turbine still consumes lots of fuel.
EV evolution in the last 13 years. 2010my Tesla Roadster: 244 mile range on a 53kWh battery. 4.6 mi/kWh. 2023 Tesla Model 3: 257 miles on a 57 (useable) kWh battery. 4.5 mi/kWh. Oh yes, I do see the improvement.@@chriswilliams8607
The correct units for Electric Energy density are WATT-HOURS PER KILOGRAM - When you are reporting on a subject, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the terminology and metrics of the subject. That might help to give you some credibility in the matter.
nicely done!
Thank you! Cheers!
Very interesting! any statements about the velocity they expect these e-prop planes to achieve?
Add in solar like Aptera Motors but on a much larger scale and I think you can reduce the battery size, thus reducing weight and thus increasing range.
Non flammable batteries is a must
" Still technical challenges to overcome " ......Mission Impossible. 😅😅
Sam - Thanks for all your scanning/review and summarization of possibly significant developments in electrification and renewable energy!
I appreciate and completely understand you may not have time to read these comments. But, if you do, please note that battery "Energy" Density is given in units of "Watt-Hours"/kilogram and battery "Power" Density is given in units of "Watts"/kilogram.
Power Density and Energy Density are very different battery characteristics / specifications. Sufficient Power Density (W/kg) would be needed for the aircraft to achieve sufficient altitude, while sufficient Energy Density (Watt-Hours/kg) would be needed to achieve a practical range (500 miles, in this case).
Likewise, "Power" equals the RATE at which the Energy is discharged or recharged (energy per unit of time). As this Power Rate can be thought of as units of watt-hours or kilowatt-hours/hour; the hours units cancel, so you're left with Watts or Kilowatts for units of Power.
Take care of yourself and your family. Thanks again.
Cheers mate
The Jetson era is coming to fruition.
Isn't there a Canadian firm building small ground effect electric passenger aircraft
I still wonder why they have not made a hybrid.. example one center tail turbine engine.mostly to get plane in the air and up to speed then just Cruz with electric...bet you can go a lot further or carry more weight
Amprius made progress, supplier of batteries for aerospace, +1 w/Viking , moving along towards taking flight !!
Their first customers are high altitude observation drone companies.
What about the cold weather up that high ? Problems with cars this winter because if cold weather.
I would guess that if the flight is only an hour and the batteries are preheated on the ground beforehand (using grid power), it's not an issue.
Gliders Prove Planes can Fly on Low or No Propulsion.
However Crossing the Oceans is a Big task.
Short Flight Might be doable so Good Luck to these People.
For short flight commutes sure it could be a possibility but transcontinental flight not really a viable option.
Heart Aerospace have been tuning their design based on actual reality and know-how understanding that there is a need for a compromise if this is to become a reality
Their ES-30 Tech Specs are
Capacity
- 30 passengers (typical)
Range
- 200 km all electric
- 400 km electric+hybrid
- 800 km electric+hybrid 25pax
They also looked at the most likely tech evolution and what it may bring
Longer Electric range as batteries evolve
Late 2020’s (current design goal)
- 200 km electric
- 400 km hybrid
Mid 2030’s
- 300 km electric
- 500 km hybrid
Late 2030’s
- 400 km electric
- 600 km hybrid
The main problem with electric aircrafts is that takeoff weight will equal the max landing weight reducing the available load of passengers, cargo and luggage significantly compared to the current tech
The Gross Landing Weight refers to the weight of the airplane when it’s ready to land. Simply put, it’s the takeoff weight minus the fuel burned en route.
Dude why don’t you cover the Lilium jet?
One advantage of a turbo fan is you get your cabin heat for free , and your cabin pressurization. How are they going to pressurize the cabin with electric? Sure you can have an electric pump but that is more energy drain. Without a pressurized cabin you would be limited to a 10,000 ft (3000M ) and would not be able to cruise above weather. Speaking of weather commercial aircraft need to be able to fly though it. Occasionally these aircraft get hit by lightning. Not sure of the impact of a stray current surge in battery packs of that size but have you seen the electric bus fires that have been happening. Being in an electric aircraft if the batteries decide to go into thermal runaway will, without some very interesting engineering mean 100% fatality unless the thing is on the ground when it happens. Finally at 30,000 feet (9000 meters approx.) OAT is −40° C and −57° C. Cold soak is real in fuel and hydraulics in fact in any unconditioned part of an aircraft (current aircraft) . Again insulation and other remedies ( not withstanding the battery will generate heat during operation at high draws like take off) would all add weight and would need to be very carefully designed for ( thermal management) as cruise and decent phases of flight could allow extreme chilling of the outer areas of a battery pack while the inner parts remains warm resulting in current imbalances in cells ( which isn't a good thing).
Pure nonsense. Never happen. And imagine the thermal runaway from a fire. And charging time? Mind boggling long. Maybe one flight a day as long as ground temperatures above freezing. And at 35,000 feet the battery would be consumed heating the plane.
Nice plane! I would never fly in one though until the spontaneous battery fire problem is solved for electric vehicles. Also would never park an ev car or even bike in a garage for the same reason, fires, an underreported problem for this industry with current battery tech.
Spontaneous fires in these aircraft will be incredibly rare. They will be far rarer than engine fires on jet engines. Per mile driven EVs are far less likely to catch fire than their ICE equivalents.
@@rogerphelps9939 Interesting. Thanks.
@@rogerphelps9939 Roger. I still have issues after thinking about what you said, and what I see. You said "Per mile driven EVs are far less likely to catch fire than their ICE equivalents.". Your qualifier is "per miles driven". I am most concerned about spontaneous combustion or explosion of an ev battery pack. Based upon your wording, it might also be accurate to say. EVs per every mile parked are far more likely to spontaneously catch fire and cause major property damage aside from destruction of the EV. Let us be real. I have never in 45 years of car ownership ever heard of the gas tank in a parked car suddenly catch fire and consume the vehicle. Yet from electric scooters, bike, cars, and trucks, in the last few years I have seen reports of hundreds of these EV battery packs going nuclear in a flash, sometimes after minor damage to the battery pack from hitting road debris, often just while parked. So what you said may be statistically true regarding "per miles driven" it masks the real safety concern I raise, does it not?
Wrong. Laptops and mobile phones have been allowed on passenger aircraft ever since they were invented and there have been no incidents.@@Sonshine70s
My thing is - do we really need to make them carry a ton of people? I mean yea thats great for larger/longer flights, but from one state to another in the US do they really need to carry 100+ people? What about just 50 people and their stuff? Honstly, if they can make it work between mid west to cali or florida thats all you really need to do. That cuts over half the flights today using fuel. Plus less people = less stress over all for the customers. Even more, you can focus on improving take off with some type of assisted method.
There’s economy in scale…
The lithium ion battery market is struggling to cope with the EV market and now we want to add planes which one of them would need more than ten times the energy an average EV would need, what a great era we're going into 😎😎
what about landing weight?
When is the first prototype going to fly? And when will they start manufacturing them? And when will they produce the 30th plane?
Never x 3
And quieter.
Not by a huge margin compared to a typical turbo prop, eight propellers vs two as well means that the sound will increase by 3dB every time the number of sound sources doubles
1 Prop -> 2 Props-> 4 Props-> 8 Props so in essence 6 dB higher equivalent sound level for 8 props compared to just two of the same specification, humans perceive a 10 dB increase as a doubling of sound volume
If so much of the weight is in the wings, could we see a revival of a scheme from the 70's, where in an emergency, the wings are jettisoned, and the fuselage descends on parachutes?
The only thing I see in the video, that I don't like, is that it shows have ducted fan tech. instead of props . It looks like it has a fairly long glide length. I would suggest they have a safety system where they can drop the batteries, and glide to a landing. Sound crazy, but it would work.
This could be economical and ecological, Battery improvements would have the biggest effect on a e plane
Meanwhile let's get rid of gas gardening equipment & gas motorcycles
You are out of your minds if you get on to a plane that is powered by batteries!!! This has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. This is going to end badly.
More like they're out of their minds to think 360 Wh/kg batteries will propel a 90 seat aircraft to up to 800 km. Come on, even Heart Aerospace knows that it will have to use hybrids to power their ES-30 800 km.
Using Lamborghini's new TAQ battery, they could drastically reduce the recharge time and probably improve the range while they're at it.
These should be much quieter too, which is a big deal for people near airports.
quieter and no vibration.
Excellent news
good but can you get your own batteries on this plane?
Wow, cool! Now imagine how much more capable it would be with a little bit more energy density in those batteries... that emergency turbo generator in the back must come with a decent efficiency cost as it needs its own fuel storage, engine, exhaust system, generator, ect ect... I mean you are talking some serious horsepower in that engine to be able to add juice to 8-1.5 MW motors even if they are running at a very low power consumption level. Just the controls in the avionics and power control system would have a serious power consumption compared to a car turbo diesel, those cost of converting energy from one type to another really add up...
Just getting an aircraft certified after they've got all the bugs out of it's gonna take 7 to twelve years. So at least twenty years.
Can be much faster if there is a will to do it.
Oh yeah!
Well:
- The aircraft uses propellers and a more straight wing rather than jet engines and swept back wings. This makes the aircraft more energy efficient - and thus enables it to work with lower energy density batteries - but slower.
- CATL some time ago announced their condensed battery cells with a density of 500Wh/Kg, which is reasonably better than what this airplane uses. Solid state batteries, when they arrive, should improve this even more.
- Hydrogen by itself might be light and energy-dense, but hydrogen tanks weight a lot. Unless some breakthrough allows making hydrogen tanks a lot lighter I believe high density batteries will be able to match the energy density of a hydrogen tank full of hydrogen even before solid state batteries arrive. Hydrogen tanks are also bulky, which is a problem in aircraft.
- Electric aircraft will bring another huge benefit: maintenance. The cost and needed time to complete a C check on electric engines and batteries is likely to be far, far lower than what would cost to do the same check on conventional engines, fuel tanks, and all the systems that an airplane needs in order to move fuel around so the engines keep running and the fuel tanks on the wings remain balanced.
- Much of the cost to bring the airplane into production is certification costs. The process of getting authorization for a new kind of commercial airplane is far stricter, longer, and expensive than what would be needed to sell a new car - and here we are talking about a whole new propulsion system to boot, which should make the process even more expensive as many assumptions from conventional planes need to be proved anew.
@@Sonshine70s Likely less than it would take to disassemble, check, and reassemble all fuel tanks, pumps, and related systems in a regular plane.
Not to mention how much cheaper it would be to check an electrical engine, which is far simpler, smaller, and lighter than a regular airplane engine.
The big trick in this developement is not reinventing anything that doesn't have to be reinvented. Every component or structure used, that already has certification, is a step closer to production. That is why this airplane looks so 'boringly normal'.
And you thought range anxiety was bad in a car.....
We have all seen videos and photos of Tesla's bursting into flame. Once these batteries catch fire there is nothing that can be done to put out the fire than to let it burn itself out. What would happen to these aircraft if they should crash? I think the victims on the ground would be worse off than a conventional aircraft. Notice the Electric Viking does not compare this electric aircraft to the very efficient jet engines. A much more cost effective and "greener" alternative is to use the technologies invented by Stanely Meyer and Dennis Klien to use resonate frequencies to break of the bonds of the water molecule to produce a burnable oxygen/hydrogen gas. This gasification apparatus could be used on both piston and jet aircraft. The future is waterpower and thorium nuclear energy.