Electric Airplane Ready For Production

MrSeb writes with news about a production ready electric-hybrid airplane. From the article: "... The four-passenger carbon fiber aircraft isn't really an electric plane but more of a plug-in hybrid plane, much like the Chevrolet Volt. Whatever it is, the Volta Volare aeronautics company of Portland, Oregon says the plane can travel 300 miles on battery power, then a 1.5-liter gasoline engine engages and extends the plane's range to 1,000 miles. The company sees the plane being attractive for its low cost of operation and its environmental friendliness. Aviation gasoline is typically leaded fuel, which has been gone from motor vehicle fuel since the 1980s. On a 200-mile trip in a comparable four-passenger gas-engine private plane, you'd burn $80 worth of avgas, while the electricity to carry the GT4 200 miles would cost only $20 — nice savings, but perhaps a little inconsequential when the plane itself is expected to cost around $500,000. Testing begins this spring on the Volta Volare GT4."

Comments

If you're going to crash

[Ukab the Great]

Do you have to divert power from life support?

Re:If you're going to crash

[L4t3r4lu5]

That seems short-sighted. Unless you can restore life support quickly after avoiding the crash, you'll find yourself suffering quite a protracted and distressing death. I'd take insta-death over asphyxiation any day of the week.

Besides, you know full way that to avoid a collision you reverse the polarity of the tractor beam and divert warp power to the manoeuvring thrusters.

Re:If you're going to crash

[SJHillman]

It has two different power sources - batteries and an engine - I would assume either is capable of providing enough power for the basics on its own. I also don't see a plane this small flying at such an altitude that losing power would lead to loss of life support being a fatal issue before the pilot could descend.

Re:If you're going to crash

[tnk1]

I'm holding out for the model with the beam-core antimatter engine. Antimatter is very expensive, but a little goes a long way.

Re:If you're going to crash

[L4t3r4lu5]

I guess you're not a Star Trek fan.

Re:If you're going to crash

[Stele]

Surely diverting power from the deflector dish would be the better choice.

Re:If you're going to crash

[Sperbels]

Shut up, Wesley. That would take weeks of laying out new circuits.

Re:If you're going to crash

[na1led]

Maybe they can Eject the Core (Battery) to reduce weight in case of emergency.

Re:If you're going to crash

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems short-sighted. Unless you can restore life support quickly after avoiding the crash, you'll find yourself suffering quite a protracted and distressing death. I'd take insta-death over asphyxiation any day of the week.

The agony of typical asphyxiation is caused by the brain generating a distress signal from being unable to aspirate. If you are aspiring normally, albeit with (ultra)low oxygen concentration levels, you will simply slip into unconsciousness due to hypoxia. Your body has no alarm signal to detect oxygen deprived environments, which is why carbon monoxide is so dangerous (besides the fact that haemoglobin binds to carbon monoxide more easily than oxygen or carbon dioxide).

Re:If you're going to crash

[Knackered]

No emergency alarm, maybe, but anyone who's done aviation high altitude training should be able to detect half a dozen symptoms of hypoxia that they might have. Whether you'll detect them in time to do anything about it is another matter.

Mine included: racing pulse, tunnel vision, blue fingernails, inability to do simple maths problems. Some people get aggressive, some euphoric, some break out in a sweat.

Re:If you're going to crash

[X0563511]

You are assuming that the carbon dioxide (what causes the painful suffocation) is being removed. If you cut power to those systems, that won't happen any more - and the CO2 levels will increase and painful deaths will be the result.

That said I never understood why they take power from life support. That can't be using any significant amount of power.

Re:If you're going to crash

[T-Bone-T]

I remember one episode of Voyager where a hologram complained that it took almost 60% of the ship's power just to keep the humans alive.

Re:If you're going to crash

[hackula]

Thanks Commander Data. That was very informative.

Re:If you're going to crash

[CohibaVancouver]

That seems short-sighted

Whoosh!

Re:If you're going to crash

[Ukab the Great]

You can make cheap bio-antimatter from corn, but then you just wind up making food prices higher.

Re:If you're going to crash

[alfredos]

Thanks Commander Data. That was very informative.

I beg to differ, ensign Crusher. Many fatal crashes on small (propeller, single engine) airplanes could be avoided if the pilot had taken gliding lessons. Also, small and low altitude have a high correlation but, as usual, correlation is not causation - many small airplanes out there can fly into altitudes on which loss of pressurization leaves precious little minutes of useful conscience before hypoxia makes the pilot lose it. Unfortunately, high performance requires altitude - that's why the airliners take the trouble to go way up there.

Re:If you're going to crash

[Kelbear]

Maybe that overhead is from running all that gravity plating.

But the best explanation is: who cares about Voyager anyway? That series brought you episodes like "the Fight" and "Threshold".

Re:If you're going to crash

[anyGould]

Maybe they can Eject the Core (Battery) to reduce weight in case of emergency.

While I suspect that won't be a feature (not the least because you're dropping a presumably heavy battery on top of someone), it would be awesome if it did and it worked.

Queue the puns

[jaymemaurice]

Sounds FAN tastic

Solar

[SJHillman]

Could you increase the range by mounting solar panels on the body of the craft? It wouldn't be enough to keep it flying indefinitely, but it might slow the rate of drain on the batteries.

Re:Solar

[jaymemaurice]

I'd think that depends on the weight of the solar panels... they'd have to be more efficient then the cost to carry them. And I'm sure light panels would not make this $500,000 plane any cheaper.

Re:Solar

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The motor at peak power is around 450 KW. While the electric motor is not always operating at full power, the amount of power you would get from solar panels is paltry. At best with solar panels mounted perpendicular to the sun flying at the equator at noon on the equinox with 100% efficiency you would get 1 KW/m^2. In reality your panels aren't perpendicular to the sun, the efficiency is not 100% and you are flying at a higher latitude and less efficient position. You might get 5% of that if you are lucky. And maybe this plane has 2 m^2, so you are adding 100W (0.02% of peak power). You have enough power to turn on the lights--except that it is day.

Re:Solar

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

How about having the prop double as a wind turbine? Then you could fly forever. I'm always telling people about how we could just mount turbines on the roofs of cars and power the engine; they're inevitably enthusiastic about this idea. /sarcasm

Re:Solar

[isopropanol]

It probably would be more beneficial overall if some company would get a piston engine NOT based on the VW bug or a 1970's snowmobile certified for aviation use. A reduction drive is not THAT hard to engineer reliably, especially if it's required to be overhauled every 10000 hours of use.

Consider the Yamaha Genesis series snowmobile engines.... 130HP from 1L, decent fuel consumption, takes unleaded, Dry-sump design, light weight, won't require careful monitoring of temperature/cowl flaps or mixture, just does it's job.

Re:Solar

[captainpanic]

It wouldn't make it any cheaper, but a 1 kW solar panel nowadays only costs only about $4,000 - $8,000, depending where you buy it, and who installs it (and of course how much the sun shines). So, compared to $500,000 for the plane, it isn't gonna make it a lot more expensive either.

And yes, I know that typical airplane engine will use far more than 1 kW (a typical Cessna has 145 hp, or about 110 kW), so it's a marginal amount of energy. Remember that it wasn't my idea to put a solar panel on a plane. I'm just responding.

Re:Solar

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

NASA has done some work with solar-powered electronic aircraft.

They do work, and offer the attractive possibility of months-long loiter time and remote-control movability(in contrast to weather balloons that cost peanuts to send up; but go where the wind does until they pop or satellites that cost a moderately sized fortune to put into orbit); but these aren't exactly passenger aircraft: We are talking small-payload flying wing designs that are happiest above the cloud layer and are specially constructed of just enough fancy structural composites to connect the solar cells to the propellers. Project name is "Helios" if you want the nice pictures.

I suspect that(as with cars) the (really quite substantial) energy demands of a conventional aircraft would swamp the amount of power you could wring out of a solar array that could be managed within the area, weight, and cost constraints.

Re:Solar

[Joce640k]

You're joking of course, the prop is needed to power the aircraft so it wouldn't work.

What you need is small trailing generators - in the airflow no longer needed by the aircraft. Two small generators behind each wingtip and a larger one behind the tail could extend the range by about 20%.

Re:Solar

[Joce640k]

"Cost constraints"? On a $500,000 four-seater?

Re:Solar

[h4rr4r]

2 cycle or 4 on that engine?

The fact that they still uses leaded gas surprised me.

Re:Solar

[LifesABeach]

Wings are not flat, so the solar panel would have to be shaped also; that's not going to be inexpensive. But the one thing I found profoundly missing was a Parachute for the aircraft. Other light aircraft use them, why not for this design?

Re:Solar

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Solar cells can get excitingly upmarket as you start demanding bleeding-edge efficiency and minimal weight and bulk... For terrestrial installations, you can frequently get away with just buying more of the cheapies; but if you have limited wing to work with, and actually want to increase flight endurance, you can't really afford to just throw a load of extra mass and area at the problem. That means you'll be buying the good stuff.

Re:Solar

[Barsteward]

you could make the wing a solar panel, no additional fitting costs then

Re:Solar

[Scarred Intellect]

I know you're being funny, even without the sarcasm tag...but true story:

My fiance's father asked me, on the subject of increasing fuel economy, why we couldn't just put generators on our axles to charge the battery instead of the alternator. Free energy! Then use an electric motor to move the vehicle instead of gasoline, free travel!

Unfortunately, he wasn't kidding.

Re:Solar

[rwise2112]

It probably would be more beneficial overall if some company would get a piston engine NOT based on the VW bug or a 1970's snowmobile certified for aviation use.

Like these deisel engines that can also run on Jet Fuel: DA-42

Re:Solar

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

How about a YouTube vid of these notions failing miserably for all to see? I get no end of hits on a search of course, and but of course most of those are sincere/marketing.

Don't know how effective such a demonstration would be; you'd have to have some sort of seal of approval behind it as well for it to carry any import. TED Talk, perhaps? You just can't expect people to grok thermodynamics, any more than you expect the checker at the KFC to be able to enter in "$4.99" on the register instead of stabbing at the button with the picture of an Extra Crispy Bucket. I mean, be real. /sarcasm again

Re:Solar

[na1led]

It doesn't work. You end up creating drag which expends energy to make energy, that's why its only used on braking systems. Same goes for putting a turbine on the roof, the drag costs more energy than the turbine can produce. Sorry, but there is no free energy unless you get it from the Sun.

Re:Solar

[Culture20]

Wings are not flat, so the solar panel would have to be shaped also; that's not going to be inexpensive.

you could make the wing a solar panel, no additional fitting costs then

But... wings are not flat. ?

Re:Solar

[DerekLyons]

A reduction drive is not THAT hard to engineer reliably, especially if it's required to be overhauled every 10000 hours of use.

The problem isn't the basic engineering - it's all the certifications for aviation use. While not quite up there with the medical equipment or being flown to the ISS, getting certified for aviation use is pretty stringent.

Re:Solar

[nschubach]

Solar cells I've seen are made from a series of smaller cells. You'd just need to overlay the wing structure with cells wired up and put a thin membrane over it.

Re:Solar

[mcgrew]

It's been done.

Re:Solar

[GameboyRMH]

Also, do electric planes have an equivalent to regenerative braking? Regenerative falling?

The only time a plane really "brakes" in the air is with air brakes or spoilers. Otherwise it's generally the equivalent of just lifting off the gas. It could be possible to make an air brake that captures energy but they're used very rarely. Only fighter jets and some other military aircraft have actual air brakes (that intentionally cause drag). Sailplanes and airliners have spoilers (which kill lift on the top of the wing and also create a bit of drag themselves - much more drag comes from the increased flare angle of flying with spoilers open). Airliners only use them on landing approach.

Re:Solar

[Catbeller]

Because life is not completely safe. If you fly, and you crash, you usually die... we can't make everything as safe as we'd like. Otherwise why leave the house.

Re:Solar

[icebrain]

There are several problems, though.

First, certification is expensive, not just due to the paperwork (lots and lots and lots of paperwork) but also due to the regulations being overkill for light airplanes--they're geared more for heavy, complex aircraft like airliners, King Airs, business jets, and so on.

There are also liability concerns. Decades-old designs have some level of exemption from liability in civil suits, but new designs put the manufacturer at risk of silly lawsuits (even when they are in no way at fault, like a pilot flying into weather he isn't rated to fly into).

On the technical side, you can't just take a car or snowmobile engine and substitute it in for an aircraft engine of the same horsepower. Airplane engines are designed to produce 75-100% of their rated power indefinitely; most car engines cruise at a much smaller fraction of rated power. Try running your average car engine at 85% power for hours on end, and it won't last nearly as long.

There are also other issues like maneuvering and gyroscopic forces; not only are aircraft likely to experience more variation in g-forces from turns and aerobatics, but there are also thrust and gyroscopic loads from the propeller to worry about. Running a reduction gearbox simply means your gearbox has to take those loads instead, presenting additional challenges.

These problems are not insurmountable--they just take time and money. But right now, the market just isn't there. General aviation sales are tiny compared to car sales, so your R&D costs would have to be spread over far fewer units--driving price up and sales down. That's why progress in the area of small aviation piston engines is very slow, and it's why Lycoming et al are still making engines based on 1930s designs.

Re:Solar

[tompaulco]

The fact that they still uses leaded gas surprised me.
This is not your father's leaded gas. It is 100 Octane Low Lead gas. It is pretty expensive because it is in relatively low demand and so many refineries just do a batch once in a while, and it keeps getting more expensive because more and more refineries consider it not worth the effort.
There are some aircraft engines that have a supplementary type certificate which permits them to run on automotive gas. Lately, there are some newer planes that are running on diesel powerplants.
Small aircraft engines are decades behind automotive engines in terms of technology. Fuel injection and particularly computer controlled fuel injection are relatively new in small aircraft engines. Some of this is to blame on the immense cost of certification. If you have an engine that works and it will cost 45 million to certify a new engine with new technology and you are going to take X years to make up the cost, then it may not be worth the money and time.
Many advances in aircraft engines come from promising young upstarts that get far down the road on investment dollars , go belly up and then are bought up for pennies on the dollar by another company, Kind of like how the telephone and cell system got going.

Re:Solar

[element-o.p.]

2m^2? Typo perhaps? That's about the size for a model airplane's wings, not a four passenger general aviation airplane.

The specifications page calls it 20.9 m^2 (224.8 ft^2, which Google tells me is 20.9 m^2. That means1kW of power from solar, assuming all of your other numbers are correct -- although that still isn't enough output to negate your argument :)

Re:Solar

[element-o.p.]

Aviation engines generally run at rather high compression ratios with significantly less electronic monitoring and control than auto engines, so detonation/knocking is a significant factor. The lead prevents knocking. If you were to look at the engine in an average Cessna or Piper, you'd be appalled at how primitive they are compared to what's under the hood in your car. Magnetos, rather than electronic ignition, carbs or mechanical fuel injection (on later models) rather than EFI...they really are very simple engines.

Re:Solar

[AB3A]

Regarding certification: The rule of thumb that most aviation experts use is that certification isn't over until the weight of all the documentation exceeds the weight of the aircraft. There is more truth in this joke than most people realize.

Re:Solar

[tompaulco]

"Cost constraints"? On a $500,000 four-seater?
I know a half million seems high to the likes of most of us here, but a half million dollar brand new small aircraft is probably the equivalent of a $35,000 new car. Yes, it is higher than average, but it is not even BMW 7 series level. This is why the new aircraft market produces such a small number of aircraft every year. Most people opt for less than $100,000 for an aircraft which is older, but almost always very nearly as capable, or perhaps moreso. Just like older cars that got better gas mileage, many older airplanes are able to fly farther, carry more weight and fly faster than newer aircraft. Regulations, safety improvements, mandatory equipment and whatnot tend to make newer models heavier and less capable than older ones. Plus, you can still put many of the latest gadgets into an older aircraft for far less than the price of a new aircraft with the same gadgets. And there are other legal modifications you can do to many older aircraft which can squeeze more performance, weight or economy out of the aircraft.
The vast majority of the small aircraft fleet is 60s and 70s models. In 2000, the average age of the General Aviation fleet was 30 years. By 202, the estimate it will be 50 years. This means that the median model year was 1970 in 2000, and they expect it to still be so in 2020.

Re:Solar

[icebrain]

Regarding certification: The rule of thumb that most aviation experts use is that certification isn't over until the weight of all the documentation exceeds the weight of the aircraft. There is more truth in this joke than most people realize.

Indeed. These days, I'd almost say it's twice the weight of the aircraft.*

*I am an engineer for an aircraft manufacturer

Re:Solar

[rwa2]

I'm always telling people about how we could just mount turbines on the roofs of cars and power the engine; they're inevitably enthusiastic about this idea. /sarcasm

Actually, no sarcasm necessary, that actually works quite well:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/wind-powered-car-travels-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-the-wind/4322

As an added bonus, the faster you drive into the wind, the more power you get!

(wouldn't really work for airplanes, though)

Re:Solar

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Thanks for not one but two LOLs, first at the pic, then the reveal that that cigar-with-wheels with a prop three times its size grafted on top is made out of foam.

Suppose it'd work if we all moved to the Bonneville Salt Flats. Maybe we could have solar-powered fans blowing air down every street?

Re:Solar

[tlhIngan]

This is not your father's leaded gas. It is 100 Octane Low Lead gas. It is pretty expensive because it is in relatively low demand and so many refineries just do a batch once in a while, and it keeps getting more expensive because more and more refineries consider it not worth the effort.
 

In North America, there is ONE refinery still producing it. And they pretty much only run a batch once a year - an entire day's production is sufficient for an entire year. Something like all the avgas used in a year is equal to all the regular gas used by cars in a day.

And the reason most refineries don't do it? They need special equipment - the equipment handling leaded fuel must be separated from the normal unleaded stuff. And there is only ONE company in the world licensed to handle tetraethyl lead (the lead in leaded gasoline), and they're in the UK.

If it wasn't for the importance of GA and small planes for the economy, it really would be uneconomical to continue producing leaded avgas. (And yes, GA is important - for every idiotic CEO asking for a handout from their multimillion dollar jets, there are hundreds more middle-income people flying for fun/recreation as well as business in little single engine Cessnas and Pipers. Even more with some very neat Light Sport aircraft...).

Small aircraft engines are decades behind automotive engines in terms of technology. Fuel injection and particularly computer controlled fuel injection are relatively new in small aircraft engines. Some of this is to blame on the immense cost of certification. If you have an engine that works and it will cost 45 million to certify a new engine with new technology and you are going to take X years to make up the cost, then it may not be worth the money and time.
 

The problem with aircraft engines is that they're expected to deliver rated power continuously. Car engines don't - that 450bhp monster under the hood of that muscle car would probably break down if you tried to run it at 75+% power for hours on end. It just doesn't take much horsepower for very long to get a car moving and keep it moving down the highway.

And yes, certification is an issue - a lot of promising technology comes from the experimental aviation sector - homebuilts and such - because a lot less certification is required.

Re:Solar

[h4rr4r]

Why not run alcohol instead then?
That stuff loves high compression ratios. It seems like allowing lead in fuel is a bad move in general, considering what we now about the impact of lead on humans.

Re:Solar

[icebrain]

Why not run alcohol instead then?
That stuff loves high compression ratios. It seems like allowing lead in fuel is a bad move in general, considering what we now about the impact of lead on humans.

Alcohol tends to eat away at the seals in an aircraft's fuel system, and IIRC it also likes water (something you don't want in your fuel system). Both of these have been issues for people running airplanes on mogas if they aren't careful to get straight non-ethanol gasoline.

Re:Solar

[samkass]

f you fly, and you crash, you usually die...

Actually, if you fly, and you crash, you die about 25% of the time.

Re:Solar

[Grishnakh]

whoosh...

Re:Solar

[element-o.p.]

In addition to what icebrain noted, alcohol also contains less energy per unit of volume (mass? I don't remember which) than gasoline. Meaning, you have less range with an alcohol-based fuel than with a gasoline based fuel.

Having said that, my airplane, running on a Rotax two-stroke engine, ran just fine on the blended gasoline we get here in Anchorage.

Re:Solar

[BigSlowTarget]

You can fly indefinitely. See: gliders. Some of them already have electric motors too.

Re:Solar

[h4rr4r]

Wow, two-strokes are still legal for aircraft?
Are there any emissions laws about airplanes at all?

Re:Solar

[X0563511]

That's a plane, not an engine. You probably meant to link here, instead.

Re:Solar

[h4rr4r]

You can design around the former problem, the latter seems like it could be a big issue. Either way it seems like there are a lot of ways to get better fuel economy and lead out of avgas if the FAA or industry was so inclined.

Re:Solar

[CohibaVancouver]

the FAA literally makes flying MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE EXPENSIVE

More expensive? Absolutely. More dangerous? That's seems like a bit of a stretch...

Floor level emergency lighting, bird indigestion, de-icing boots, better non-flammable wiring insulation, smoke detectors, lightning hit management, ETOPS, stick-shakers... All are the result of FAA regs - And that's just off the top of my non-pilot head.

Re:Solar

[element-o.p.]

Yes, and not really, respectively ;)

Re:Solar

[LifesABeach]

I'm was thinking of those special times when the aircraft engine(s) stop, and you can't find a place to safely land. That's when you own the sky above, the land below, and the pilot unilaterlly declares "May Day". Access to a parachute for the aircraft could possibly save the occupants. Save the aircraft. And make it easier to locate the black box to find out why things didn't work out the way they should have. As for the surviving Pilot, being violated by the FAA is usually preferrable to impacting this planet in an uncontrolled event.

Re:Solar

[nonsecurity]

tlhIngan wrote

In North America, there is ONE refinery still producing it. And they pretty much only run a batch once a year - an entire day's production is sufficient for an entire year. Something like all the avgas used in a year is equal to all the regular gas used by cars in a day.

Don't suppose you have a reference for that assertion do you? There are several refineries in USA that make avgas, and production is much larger than a day.

In 2009 there were 10 refineries making avgas, this article indicates there "seven or eight" in 2011.

Check out this table , courtesy of the Energy Information Administration, for a summary of regions where avgas is produced.

Re:Solar

[drinkypoo]

Seriously, if you don't know that thin film solar panels are flexible, please don't "contribute" any more to this discussion. Thank you.

P.S. Nanosolar.

Re:Solar

[amorsen]

Same goes for putting a turbine on the roof, the drag costs more energy than the turbine can produce.

Strangely, wind turbines on top of cars CAN work, at least as long as you have a head wind or a side wind.

Re:Solar

[Asic Eng]

Point is: it's theoretically possible to use PV on planes. The costs they add e.g. by increased weight are not necessarily related to the energy they provide - it's dependent on the technology. You'd have to calculate whether it's worth it with a given technology or not.

However if you add a wind turbine you will necessarily slow down the plane by at least the amount of energy it produces, no amount of technological progress will change that. The only way it would help is if you were to recover the energy when braking (like many electric vehicles do).

If you were actually going for "funny" in your post above, that's fine - if you genuinely can't tell the fundamental difference between these setups, then I sincerely hope you don't have an engineering degree.

Re:Solar

[Barsteward]

if you manufacture the skin of the wing to be the solar panel, would that help you?

Re:Solar

[Kelbear]

Does using the electronics in a car cause the alternator to use more fuel?

I don't know much about cars, but I was under the impression that the alternator is always engaged?

If it's always using up the same amount of gas economy whether or not you use the electronics, then using the electronics on your car wouldn't be wasting gas, they're just taking advantage of gas that would otherwise have been wasted on an alternator that was already there.

Re:Solar

[the_other_chewey]

Floor level emergency lighting, bird indigestion, de-icing boots, better non-flammable wiring insulation, smoke detectors, lightning hit management, ETOPS, stick-shakers...

There's one in there that sounds more like it should be a concern for the EPA,
or the Department of Agriculture.

Or is the FAA just responsible for everything that flies?
Do they legislate lead content in bird seed?

Re:Solar

[mattack2]

I hope your kids get your (intelligence-related) genes.

Re:Solar

[element-o.p.]

I haven't followed the aircraft fuels issue all that closely for the last couple of years as I've been shifting my extra-curricular time away from aviation and towards motorcycling (a lot less regulation, hassle and expense), so this might be a bit dated, but the last time I checked, the push for aircraft engines was away from gasoline entirely and towards diesel engines. Diesels solve a number of problems in addition to the leaded fuel problem.

Re:Solar

[demonrob]

no because with hypoxia (see other comments), you can no longer do simple maths, and so the maths of the drag won't affect anything.

Re:Solar

[drinkypoo]

if you manufacture the skin of the wing to be the solar panel, would that help you?

Absolutely. There are already light aircraft (specifically ultralights) which are basically skinned with plastic. It requires regular scheduled replacement but you just pull some strips off and it comes off, then rivet them back on.

Annuals

[vlm]

How do they handle annual inspections? Replace the battery pack every year?

On a 200-mile trip in a comparable four-passenger gas-engine private plane, you'd burn $80 worth of avgas

Who cares, annual inspections for a small plane, assuming no real problems are found, are like $1500 ... every year ... and hanger rental monthly nears the cost of renting a bachelor pad apartment (which makes sense, they're about the same size...)

The standard /. car analogy is its like making economic decisions about buying a Lamborghini primarily based on how much the windshield washer fluid is likely to cost. If you're sweating the cost of fuel, there is no way you can afford the other much larger costs of aircraft ownership. Wait until your first landing light replacement, just like a cars headlight but it costs 10 times as much (because its aviation) and is only rated at a fraction of the lifetime of a car headlight. Insurance is quite expensive too. You may find the cheapest cost of owning an aircraft... is the fuel.

Re:Annuals

[noh8rz3]

Very insightful, thank you. I'm sure that the plug in hybrid plane has other advantages, but it's easiest to sell to the general public on the green aspects. If its really important to you to be green you ca burn your plane on biofuel. There might be some cost differential, but as you say, fuel costs are a tiny component of tco.

Re:Annuals

[SJHillman]

No, hanger. He puts his plane in his closet next to his other clothes.

Re:Annuals

[Doctor Memory]

How did you figure that out? Are you a plane/clothes detective?

Re:Annuals

[CubicleView]

The plane travels at up to 150 mph, using very rough back of the envelope that's about $60 an hour for the gas figure or $15 for electricity. Assuming three 2 hour flights per month for no other reason than it seems a small amount, that’s 72 hours a year. This gives $4320 for gas versus $1080. for electricity

It seems to me that fuel cost is a significant percent of the overall cost per year. However as others have mentioned if you can afford the half million for the plane, saving money on fuel isn’t likely your motivation. Plus I imagine this $20 for 200 miles figure doesn’t factor in battery replacement costs etc.

Re:Annuals

[Richard_at_work]

What about the increased fatigue on the airframe due to the extra weight it has to land with, as battery packs are not burned off during the journey?

Re:Annuals

[Joce640k]

I'm sure that the plug in hybrid plane has other advantages.

It will be very quiet...most light aircraft need you to shout in to microphones to talk to the guy sat next to you so that might be nice.

Re:Annuals

[Lumpy]

Ok, blowing all my moderation to correct some wild innacuracies here.

Hangar costs, Unless you are uber rich you dont have a hangar, but a parking spot / tie down either in the grass or if you are rich, on some tarmac. there are small fields all over the USA and Europe, in fact they outnumber airports 50 to 1 that will let you park your plane for around $50-$150 a month.

Annual inspections, $1500.00 Do you realize how much I pay for monthly inspections on my car? it comes out to far higher than $1500 a year.

I know people that make as little as I do that own and operate a 4 seater aircraft. Contrary to belief, private aircraft can be affordable and safe. In fact most private aircraft are left outside their entire lifetime and only see a hangar when they are in for service like engine overhaul, wing replacement, etc... And those are the high costs you did not mention. You cant ignore a plane like 99% of all car owners do to their cars. The wings have to be replaced after XXXX hours, engine needs to be completely overhauled every XXXX hours... and those numbers are small, most around the 2500 hour mark.

Yes, AVGAS is the cheapest part of owning a plane. You can buy a Piper Warrior II that is in like new condition, pay for all maintaince, parking, service, upgrades, and AVGAS for 10 years for the price difference to this electric plane.

It's the same as comparing a honda civic to a Chevy volt. Identical cars, but you save nothing as the extra cost is more than the gas you would buy over a 10 year period. (and yes they ARE identical. I have parked them side by side and sat in both looking things over. the Volt is a honda Civic with fancy electric drive.)

Re:Annuals

[RogueWarrior65]

Excellent point. My auto mechanic tells me that his hybrid customers refuse to spend $5000 to replace the battery pack when it goes tits-up and just run on gasoline.
For my own purposes, I've been learning a lot about battery tech. Hard core R/C modellers often have a computerized battery analyzer which allows you to plot the performance of the battery and keep a history because they degrade over time and number of charge/discharge cycles. A traditional engine can be repaired but batteries can't.

IMHO, the leaded gas issue is barely measurable compared to millions of cars spewing out lead in the exhaust which illustrates the extreme obsessive/compulsive behavior of the environmentalists. Separate issue, though.

As a matter of interest, Sikorsky has developed and electric helicopter. Apparently they use a Korean-made lithium pack with a 50S3P designation. That's 200 volts. Of course, they've only gotten about 15 minutes flight time so the project will sit on the shelf until battery technology catches up.

Re:Annuals

[LifesABeach]

Wouldn't adjusting the ILS settings help out? Try landing at about 2 to 3 knots above stall and the impact will be lighter. I don't think this aircraft is Carrier Rated.

Re:Annuals

[CubicleView]

My guess would be that the increased fatigue would not be hugely significant as the plane would be specifically designed with that in mind. It's different to the situation with say a 747 that has to land with a full fuel tank. If I recall correctly they generally require an inspection of some sort after a hard landing like that because they're not supposed to be landing with all that extra weight. Though I'm basing this on comments I heard from an instructor more than 15 years ago...

Re:Annuals

[operagost]

Monthly car inspections? I don't know of any US state that requires it more than once a year.

Re:Annuals

[Richard_at_work]

The problem is, the energy density of a battery is lower than that of any gasoline based fuels, so the battery pack would be as heavy at least as a full fuel load - lugging that around and then routinely landing with it is going to make the airframe much heavier, and thus less efficient.

We arent talking about a little bit heavier here, we are talking about pushing it toward the maximums - max land weights and max takeoff weights.

Re:Annuals

[colesw]

Just wondering where you live that you have monthly inspections on your car? Or are those voluntary inspections?

Re:Annuals

[wvmarle]

You cant ignore a plane like 99% of all car owners do to their cars. The wings have to be replaced after XXXX hours, engine needs to be completely overhauled every XXXX hours... and those numbers are small, most around the 2500 hour mark.

I'd wager only the electrical engine and its battery pack need these checks - and I have the feeling that the overhaul/inspection of an electrical engine is much cheaper than that of a gas engine. The gasoline engine of this plane is not flight critical. Without it you just have a very short range but it won't cause you to fall out of the sky.

Re:Annuals

[wvmarle]

Excellent point. My auto mechanic tells me that his hybrid customers refuse to spend $5000 to replace the battery pack when it goes tits-up and just run on gasoline.

And lose air-worthyness certification? It seems the electrical part is what keeps the thing flying. The gas engine is no way powerful enough to power that plane on its own. It's fine for cruising, but won't do for take-off or for any other manouvres that require a power boost.

Re:Annuals

[Jeremi]

engine needs to be completely overhauled every XXXX hours... and those numbers are small, most around the 2500 hour mark.

Of course, when your plane can run off of battery for the first 300 miles, it's going to take the engine much longer to reach the 2500-hours mark, since it won't be running much of the time. Dunno how much that would impact maintenance costs, but it seems like it would help.

Re:Annuals

[noh8rz3]

If its really important to you to be green you ca burn your plane on biofuel.

bahaha s.b. "run your plane on biofuel." Don't go burning your plane! That wouldn't be very green. FTFM.

Re:Annuals

[chill]

Basically the same thing my instructor told me 2 days ago, when I was asking about rated take-off weights vs landing weights.

Short of a life-or-death emergency, the big planes don't land with full tanks. They'll either fly around in circles to burn off fuel, or dump it -- and deal with a nightmare of EPA paperwork.

Re:Annuals

[icebrain]

Going the homebuilt route saves significant cash (both on acquisition and maintenance) since you aren't having to pay for the embedded certification costs and build labor, and you don't have to use certified parts (e.g., you can use auto headlights if you want instead of aviation landing lights). If you built the airplane, you can also do your own annual inspections.

Of course, you pay for it in labor (your own, unless you buy used), utility (you can't use homebuilts for commercial purposes), and risk (which varies by design and the builder).

Re:Annuals

[AB3A]

Quiet? Hardly. Yes, the engine does make some noise, but it's actually the slap of air from each pass of a propeller blade that makes the most noise.

Re:Annuals

[serviscope_minor]

as battery packs are not burned off during the journey?

According to TFA, they're Li-Po, so not burning off during the journey shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Annuals

[vlm]

Short of a life-or-death emergency, the big planes don't land with full tanks. They'll either fly around in circles to burn off fuel, or dump it -- and deal with a nightmare of EPA paperwork.

We're well into anecote land, but a former coworker who was a copilot at a major airline before 9-11 had some commentary about during a crash landing you can't be burned by fuel you dumped minutes ago, so if you've got time you dump fuel. Also your landing speed and maneuverability depend on weight, so there seems little point in landing with full tanks if you can avoid it.

Re:Annuals

[davids-world.com]

Then there's the proposed $100 per flight user fee. And insurance. At $500k insured hull, you're looking at quite a substantial figure. My guess from my own insurance premium would be $13k. And we have capital cost, which, at a low 4.5% interest rate, amounts to $22,500 a year for half a mill. There's nothing cheap about owning an airplane. (I own a glider, and even there, the insurance and some minimal maintenance cost add up to a rather high per-flight cost...) You don't own an aircraft because you're trying to save money!

Re:Annuals

[vlm]

My auto mechanic tells me that his hybrid customers refuse to spend $5000 to replace the battery pack when it goes tits-up and just run on gasoline.

I cry bogus on that. My wife has a seven year old prius and as far as I know that's the most expensive hybrid pack out there, and brand new from the dealer its $2200. Note this is the same dealer that sells an oil filter for $30, or an interior rearview mirror for $35, everyone knows a "fair price" is 1/2 to 2/3 dealer cost for everything including batteries. I know online you can get used pulls from crashes for around $1K and remanufactured (supposedly) for about $1500. Also most battery failure modes the car simply will not run at all, fails the automotive equivalent of POST BIOS boot checks. Can't even blame labor, its not like replacing a heater core, you just pop the back seat and remove about 50 screws (I was thinking of running an inverter off the traction battery... see ham radio QST magazine some years back for details from people who've done this... this is NOT for the faint of heart or pocketbook so I did not do it, but I thought about it). The final nail in the straw is the feds made the battery part of the emissions control parts, mandatory 10/150 if sold in CA or 8/100 guarantee if sold anywhere else in the USA. I would not pay a mechanic $5K either, especially not for a 2002 model, thats probably not worth $5K if sold, and $5K is not a fair price for a new battery at all. I would question the wisdom of putting a brand new "200K battery" in a car that is probably near its end, just like I'd question putting a brand new engine in an ancient old fashioned car.

I also know for a fact from a buddy that the Insight pack is cheaper than the Prius pack, but labor is way way higher due to some peculiarity of the design, so it ends up costing about the same, although supposedly only 200 Insight packs have ever been replaced worldwide, so its all kind of fuzzy math there.

Re:Annuals

[vlm]

Of course, you pay for it in labor (your own, unless you buy used), utility (you can't use homebuilts for commercial purposes), and risk (which varies by design and the builder).

And resale value. Inevitably a 32 year old Cessna sells for about the same as a 30 year old Cessna, so your depreciation cost was pretty low. Used homebuilts usually don't sell that well, the regs are very complicated to prevent "amateur airplane builder" industry from forming. Its been a long time since I studied the regs before giving up on flying, but at least a long time ago it was something weird, like the only people who can do maint on an experimental are the builder and a licensed A/P mech so unless your sale contract includes lifetime maint, a A/P needs to do all further maint work, and in practice relatively few would sign off on someone elses construction, so it was... an issue. Like you were better off pulling out everything that can be pulled (instruments, avionics, engine, etc) and build a new experimental airframe with new registration number using old parts. I believe this was the 51% rule at work, the new owner obviously didn't do 51% of the construction, so...

For small Cessnas, etc, years ago, last time I looked, no one seemed to care much about airframe age in years, it was all about the TSMOH or TSOH or whatever the abbreviation is for hours since major overhaul. A "newer" airframe 100 hours from major sold for less than a "older" airframe that just got major'd.

Re:Annuals

[CubicleView]

I'm not arguing about the reduced efficiency of the plane due the constant weight, I agree with what you’re saying. My point is that I don't think fatigue will be especially worse for, and hence a hidden cost of the hybrid design. It's a relatively small plane to begin with and the weight of the batteries must have been factored in by the designers.

Re:Annuals

[FlyingGuy]

You forgot the $20,000.00 engine overhaul monthly contribution.

Oh how I dream of an annual where nothing was found to be: chafed, worn, broken, bent, misaligned, out of spec, to dim, to bright, to loud, to soft, to loose, to tight, overinflated, under inflated, corroded, pitted, to smooth, not smooth enough, smelled like gas, didn't smell like gas and the cute girl in the front office of the FBO handing me a bill for well over $1500.00

Re:Annuals

[mcrbids]

I own a timeshare in a Cessna 182. I pay far less for it than I do my car, though the cost-per-trip to fly the 182 is about 1.5x to 2x the cost of driving the same trip.

Really, it's rather reasonable. But the idea that gas is the cheapest part is simply wrong. In an average trip, about 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost is for fuel. ($100/hour, 11 GPH burn rate, gas costing $6-ish per gallon, more in bigger cities)

Re:Annuals

[RogueWarrior65]

My point is that it's not cost-effective. A gas engine repair is likely to be far less expensive than replacing a battery pack that's guaranteed to lose discharge capacity over time. And how do they know that the pack is healthy enough to execute a takeoff? You can usually tell that a gas engine needs service on the ramp.

Here's another example of an idea ahead of its time. Bad Boy Buggies makes electric side-by-side ATVs. They have a 20-mile range. A gas side-by-side has well over five times that range and should you run out of gas, carrying an extra can or getting a can from another person is easy. You can't charge a big battery in the middle of stinking nowhere.

But perhaps that's a sub-rosa element to the green/electric/environmentalist agenda. Many of these people would prefer that humans be kept sequestered in high population density urban areas and close off the wilderness to human activity. By forcing limited operating range and no supply in rural/wilderness areas, that goal is achieved.

Re:Annuals

[arisvega]

but it's easiest to sell to the general public on the green aspects.

Thank you. Because, really, I need to establish how many people bite in this "green" paraphernalia.

Is it green because it doesn't burn much? Because it runs on electricity? What about the means and methods that this electricity was made, before it was pumped into the battery? Where those methods green? How do they compare in their "carbon footprint" (the universal measure for anything green these days) with electricity generated from other means? How about the battery's material itself, and the material of the rest of the aircraft? How much water was contaminated, how much ore was mined, how much synthetic material was produced, and did the machines that mined and processed all that ran on fossil fuel, or on soyabeans and rainbows?

To potential trolls & ACs: No, I am not astroturfing for Lockheed Martin (though I probably wouldn't mind doing so, since they kick some serious ass)

"All things Green" argumentation: OF COURSE it makes sense to assess environmental impacts of *pads, washing machines, aircraft, sextoys- resources are expended, water is poisoned and humanity may very well soon drown in its own excrement. But spitting out some "carbon footprint" number along with a smiley green logo appeals to the vanity of the potential driver and his release of guilt, not towards responsibly stating the amount by which the planet was f*cked in order for this aircraft to be produced.

Re:Annuals

[X0563511]

2 to 3 knots? That's not much leeway. Catch a breeze from the rear and you're dirt.

Re:Annuals

[X0563511]

What, you think it magicks the electricity into motion? What do you think turns the propeller?

Re:Annuals

[asylumx]

The gasoline engine of this plane is not flight critical. Without it you just have a very short range but it won't cause you to fall out of the sky.

The same could be said of the electric engine... You don't fly a plane if it has a known engine malfunction -- regardless of if it has a second or backup engine. That plane never gets past preflight, if the PIC is doing his job correctly.

Re:Annuals

[LifesABeach]

You don't fly do you?

Landing a light aircraft is a powered stall. Also, you land heading into the wind. But if there is a Cross Wind, then things change, the pilot has to compensate. That's why its always good to scan the Wind Sock, and be ready in case there is a Cross Wind.

Flying an aircraft is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

Re:Annuals

[icebrain]

like the only people who can do maint on an experimental are the builder and a licensed A/P mech so unless your sale contract includes lifetime maint, a A/P needs to do all further maint work, and in practice relatively few would sign off on someone elses construction, so it was... an issue.

Picking a nit... the only people who can do the yearly condition inspection (it isn't called an annual with homebuilts) are the builder and an A&P. Regular maintenance, and even major modifications, can be conducted by anyone. But you still need the builder or an A&P for the yearly inspection.

Re:Annuals

[joe_frisch]

I have pretty accurate cost numbers for a beechcraft bonanza (have one in a partnership and we've tracked the actual costs for 5 years). The bonanza carries 4 passengers and luggage with a ~800 mile range. Costs about $700K new, the one I am flying is worth about $90K. Cruise speed is about 180mph (at the fuel burn I am quoting).

Fixed costs: $12K/year (this is what it would cost to keep it in a hanger, insurance, all inspections done, etc, but not flying).
Non-fuel flying costs are $65/hour (wear and tear on engine, inspections, etc).
Fuel burn is 12gph costing about $80/hour

If the electric plane really only costs $20/hour in energy costs, that would be a big win. I'm a bit skeptical though until they publish detailed performance numbers - I've seen too many "concept" planes that ended up no where near their originally claimed performance.

It would not be too difficult to modify aircraft engines to run on auto-gas, but the certification is expensive, and auto-gas may not have the low vapor pressure required for use at high altitude. You would probably need to drop the compression a bit and that would somewhat reduce performance and efficiency.

BTW: aviation is slow to accept new technologies because of the safety issues. If the engine in your car seizes, you are in for an expensive repair and a delay. If the engine in your aircraft seizes, there is a significant chance that you and your family will DIE. Its a strong motivation to be very conservative. \

Re:Annuals

[X0563511]

No, not in real life. No way I could afford even getting my license, let alone a plane.

I do like simulators though, but I should mention I tend to play with experimental/fanciful/military craft, not general aviation or airliners (those, to me, are yawn. probably not in person, but in a simulator?) (I use x-plane)

Re:Annuals

[sociocapitalist]

Very inaccurate. Fuel is a considerable part of the cost of operating a private aircraft.

http://ben.com/flying/costown.html

Re:Annuals

[LifesABeach]

All Hail X-Plane!

Then consider the 3 F's, "It if Floats, Flys, or ... Fornicates; rent it." But go to Ground School first! It pays off, big time. Local junior colleges are good place to get ground school rolling for you. And you can do what I did, put some money aside, and when you hit the $5,000,(cough), you should have enough. It took me 8 years. Wife and children are expensive.

Re:Annuals

[Jeremi]

What, you think it magicks the electricity into motion? What do you think turns the propeller?

When in electric mode, it would be the electric motor that turns the propeller. Not the gas engine.

Re:Annuals

[fatmal]

2 to 3 knots above stall is VERY dangerous. The usual formula is 1.3 x stall speed, so if your stall speed is 40knots, your approach speed should be 52knots. This provides enough leeway for low-level wind shear, and the extra speed contributes to control responsiveness - at stall your controls are FAR less effective than at speed. Landing at 2 knots over stall speed, if your wheels are 10mm off the runway would indeed make for a light and smooth landing - if you're at 10 meters then your landing will be anything but smooth.

Re:Annuals

[wvmarle]

Of course, when there's a known problem you fix that first.

But if your petrol engine breaks down (or won't start) in-flight, it's not an emergency. It's just a reason to go to the nearest airfield for repairs.

This in contrast to the electrical part of the system, which is critical, and should be treated as such.

Re:Annuals

[drinkypoo]

If a car hasn't been in a collision you replace all the bushings, rebuild the engine and trans, and drive it for another 300,000 miles or whatever. Unless you're a wasteful fuck. Like most people.

Replaced my headlight doors today. Replacing rear springs, shift bushing, wastegate signal line, and steering damper tomorrow. Oh yeah, and the driver side braking support rod bushing.

Re:Annuals

[X0563511]

... and you expect the electric motor and the... (don't know, going with "transmission") transmission that allows inputs from either source is going to be cheap to maintain? The end result is probably the same or more in maintenance costs, as opposed to the "just a combustion engine" design. You know, added complexity and all that.

Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[Jeff DeMaagd]

$500,000 is a lot of money, but it might be in the ball park with competing aircraft, because aircraft can get very expensive very quickly. I would be interested to see how this shakes out, because fuel is easily more than half of the cost of flying an airplane, at least as far as I recall.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[SJHillman]

The article says it's a step above the Cessna 182. I couldn't find the price of a new Cessna but a used 2007 or 2008 Cessna 182 goes for around $310,000-$370,000. I would imagine a brand new one would approach the $500,000 figure. If all other costs of ownership are comparable, the fuel savings might be worth it for frequent short range flights.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[SJHillman]

I should add that commuter flights - twice a day, five days a week between two cities within the range of this thing and growing more popular in the South - might save as much as $32,000/yr per plane.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[Will.Woodhull]

I'd also like to see a comparison of amenities between this plane and its competition. With an electric motor and pusher prop, it probably cruises in silence. The pusher prop configuration probably also allows a more comfortable cabin. This might be the first luxury yacht of air travel.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[uigrad_2000]

A 2012 Cessna 182T Skylane costs $398,100, and the turbo version is a little more.

But, I don't think it's a fair comparison. The Cessna has a 230hp engine, and can carry a useful weight of 1140 lbs. This means you can carry luggage, and get to your destination quickly.

There's not a lot of details on this electric canard, but I'm pretty sure that it's not going to have nearly the horsepower. Instead of cruising at 190mph, you'll probably max out around 120mph, and won't be able to carry any luggage if all 4 seats are full.

I don't know of any other canards (planes with the funny 2 wings in the front) that can be bought commercially, until you get into the luxury areas. The closest I can find to a fair comparison would be a common homebuilt design, like the Cozy Mark IV, which actually looks quite similar to the concept drawing. Looking quickly at trade-a-plane.com, I see a clean 1998 Cozy Mark IV for $50,000, and my guess is that is on the high end. Despite the name, a Cozy has pretty good power. I'd be shocked if this "green" plane could come close to competing.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[deapbluesea]

won't be able to carry any luggage if all 4 seats are full

Unfortunately, that's true of almost any certified 4 seat airplane.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[tompaulco]

With an electric motor and pusher prop, it probably cruises in silence.
Most of the noise of a propeller driven airplane is prop noise. Making it electric may drop it a few decibels, but it would hardly be silent.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If it were the same type, I might agree, but pusher type aircraft tend to be considerably quieter than puller type, at least that I recall. The prop turbulence doesn't hit the aircraft, because it's behind the aircraft.

It sounds interesting. I think it's at least an interesting idea, we'll see if it pans out. There is very little to compare it against.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[tompaulco]

Pushers are quieter, that's for sure. The prop noise is behind you and you are traveling away from it. Also, there is no prop wash over the cabin. Of course, pushers have their disadvantages as well. The main one being the same disadvantage as jets. With a puller, propwash flows over the wings and aids in lift, allowing both slower takeoff and landing speeds, and also near instance response to changes in power. In a jet, or a pusher prop, the control surfaces are completely dependent upon lift generated by speed alone, which takes longer to build up. This is also why you rarely see T tails in small planes. They look sexy, but being above most of the propwash, the control surfaces don't become effective until the airplane has a good amount of speed.

Re:Need comparison with competitive aircraft

[Will.Woodhull]

Good points.

The loss of efficiency of using a pusher prop will be mostly offset by the gain in efficiency in using a canard wing. Traditional tails adjust the angle of attack of the lifting wing by exerting negative lift to pivot the plane around its center of lift. Canards use positive lift to adjust the angle of attack of the primary wing. IIRC, in a standard airplane on take off, the tail increases drag by something like 15%, enough to require a bigger engine than is needed for level flight. But a canard wing increases lift by usually around 20%, and putting the two together you can get a lot more performance out of a much smaller engine.

Not to mention the safety factor: canards can be designed to stall before the main wing does, resulting in porpoising rather than making like an auger.

Also IIRC, the main difficulty with canard designs has always been managing the control systems, which has required much more complex mechanical linkages than a traditional plane. But if you go to fly by wire, the computers would handle all of that (naturally you would have redundant computers).

One benefit planes have over cars

[neokushan]

Is that they're typically a lot bigger and capable of carrying heavy loads. I wonder, using similar technology, how far a jet such as a 747 could go if it was filled with batteries instead of cargo/passengers. I know that's relatively pointless, but it'd be interesting to know.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[jaymemaurice]

Or better yet... how about a cargo ship... they at least don't need to stay in the air.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[Chrisq]

Is that they're typically a lot bigger and capable of carrying heavy loads.

Compare like with like, a Cesna with a car, a small passenger plane with a coach and a large one with a train. Then work out how far each of these could go if packed full of batteries. (this is also pointless but not relatively so compared to parent post)

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[Richard_at_work]

As you said, it would be relatively pointless, but something to consider when thinking about it is this - fuel gets burned off, batteries do not.

A Boeing 747-8 can carry over 200 tons of fuel - at its destination, it could be carrying as little as 10 tonnes of fuel (or less). The more fuel that gets burned off, the higher the aircraft can cruise, and the longer it can fly because the lighter it gets the more efficient it is at producing lift.

So you would need a much more efficient battery system to counter the effect of still carrying all those batteries the entire distance of the journey - plus the effect of landing an aircraft that would still be at the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW), which isn't great on the airframe (the Maximum Landing Weight is typically fairly lower than the MTOW, which is why aircraft in emergencies dump fuel or circle to burn off fuel).

In cars, the weight difference between a full fuel tank and an empty fuel tank is near enough negligible to be discounted, but in an aircraft its a real factor.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[es330td]

I know that weight decrease efficiency comes into play with commercial passenger aircraft but I question its relevance in general aviation flight. I have flown from Destin, FL to near Houston, TX in a C182 non-stop. While I definitely notice that my performance improves as I reach the latter part of a long flight due to the decreased fuel load, the difference is not enough to include in flight planning. I am very curious to know if any piston GA pilots go that far in their flight planning. Maybe this matters up in the Class A airspace, but down in the 7,000-10,000 foot altitudes I fly it simply doesn't matter enough.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[PPH]

Sailboat. Engines are only needed for maneuvering into and out of harbors and docks. The batteries can be charged from a small genset also used for electrical loads or PV panels.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[Richard_at_work]

The simple rule is, the bigger the aircraft, the more it matters because it does have an appreciable effect on range and efficiency - Airbus and Boeing are always looking to cut a tonne here and there out of their aircraft, because it gives them an immediate range increase (for example, cutting a tonne out of an A380s OEW weight gives you anther couple of hundred miles of range - that can make the difference when we are talking about Singapore to LA for example - or it means less fuel need be carried, more payload over the same distance).

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[davids-world.com]

Actually, that's not true. You can load a lot into a regular-size family sedan, and usually even add a trailer. With a full fuel tank and 3 or 3.5 passengers that all want to take some light luggage, you're quickly up against max gross in a typical 150HP or 180HP Cessna.

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[davids-world.com]

(Note - I'm saying this because we're originally talking about a small single-engine plane intended for private passenger operation - and not some of the largest jets you can find.)

Re:One benefit planes have over cars

[X0563511]

Nowhere. You can spin those fans all you want, but without combustion in those things it's not going to produce any useful thrust.

Reasonable price?

[drinkypoo]

I hunted around and it seems that a new four-seater with decent avionics will regularly run a half million dollars, so shrug.

Ahh No it isn't

[LWATCDR]

Wow what a load of fantasy.
1. They have not even built the prototype yet.
2. 300 mile range on battery? Not a chance.
Until they fly it at Oshkosh or Sebring and get FAA certified it is pure fantasy.
Rule one of general aviation is never get excited over a rendering or illustration of a new plane. 9 times out of 10 it will never see the light of day.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[Chrisq]

2. 300 mile range on battery? Not a chance.

The trick is in the "can go", after all people have flown 3,008 km without any power at all,

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[wvmarle]

I don't agree with you on the specs. The numbers definitely do add up.

This plane (concept, exists only on the drawing board, etc) is supposed to fly all-electrical for 300 miles, but with the 1.500 cc petrol engine it should be able to reach 1,000 miles. So the petrol engine alone is enough to power the plane.

The plane is supposed to cruise at some 160 mph, so 300 miles that's about 2 hrs battery-only. That doesn't sound unreasonable when compared to modern hybrid/electrical cars, and hybrids have a petrol engine of similar size. The batteries supply the power boosts needed to take off, the petrol engine can do more than needed to keep in the air. The additional 4-5 hours on petrol is then also very reasonable.

But can such a small engine keep that plane cruising at a speed higher than the four-seater Cessna 182 (I take that one as it's been mentioned here more)? It seems plausible again.

That Cessna has an 8.874 cc engine, producing 230-350 hp depending on the version (source: Wikipedia). Half the 600 hp this plane's electrical engine can do, at peak. Googling for the power output of a typical 1500 cc car engine gives me numbers of around 100-120 hp, so 1/3-1/2 of the Cessna engine. That sounds very reasonable: peak power you only need for take-off only. For cruising at altitude you need far less. And from the artists impression it looks a lot more streamlined than the Cessna so should need less power to maintain speed.

Whether the plane will ever see the light of day, that's a totally different matter. But from the face of it, the power specs are really plausible, suggesting it could be made.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[wvmarle]

Oh and I should add: the gasoline engine doesn't have to be so over-engineerd and über-reliable as the one of the Cessna. It's not flight-critical, so regular (and nowadays highly reliable) car engines could be used, saving a lot of cost. It kicks in at 25% battery power, so if failing still 25% battery or some 75 miles of flying left. With such a range it shouldn't be too hard to find a place to land.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[uigrad_2000]

Even at Osh'Kosh, you can't spit without hitting someone's dream of the next big idea for an affordable consumer plane. It will be parked there, looking all beautiful, and some guy will hand you a brochure stating how affordable it will be, once it is finally available.

I've always wondered how many of these actually go into production. My guess is that they underestimate how expensive it will be to put a new design into production. Not only are the insurance costs astronomical (yes, something like 50% of a Cessna's cost is for insurance for the builder), but you have years of waiting for the FAA to approve any new designs on parts.

If you really want to get into aviation, a home-built is still the best way. Finding one light enough to qualify as an LSA, and learn on that. Then, if you are filthy rich, consider getting a 4-seater that has power.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[demonbug]

Wow what a load of fantasy.
1. They have not even built the prototype yet.
2. 300 mile range on battery? Not a chance.
Until they fly it at Oshkosh or Sebring and get FAA certified it is pure fantasy.
Rule one of general aviation is never get excited over a rendering or illustration of a new plane. 9 times out of 10 it will never see the light of day.

Yeah, that was my favorite part of this article. "Ready for production, and here's an artist's impression to prove it!" Sorry, but "Ready for production" does not mean you have a drawing and a dream; it means you have built a prototype and proven the systems and performance.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[LWATCDR]

Lots of your assumptions are wrong.
If it is certified then the engine will also have to be certified so you can just not throw a car motor in. Also car engines are not rated like aircraft engines. An aircraft engine produces full power at every take off and climb out. Aircraft cruise 75% to 55% power not at the 10 to 15% that a car does.
Also you have the problems of RPM most aircraft engines produce their peak power at much lower RPMs because you must keep the prop tips subsonic. A 3500 RPM engine is a high revving aircraft engine while 6000 plus is common for car engines. You can gear it down but aircraft gear boxes are not very simple because of the loads that a prop puts on them.
Now lets do the math.
600HP=477 KWatts per hour
The Tesla roadsters battery pack stores only 53kWatt Hours and has a mass of 445kg
So using the same tech as the tesla figuring an average cruse of 75% power the battery pack alone will weigh 6000kg.
A Cessna 182 has a groos weight of only 14kg
BTW you cruse in most aircraft at 75% to 55% power not at around %10 but let's just for argument say that the plane can cruise at only 20% power you still have a 1200kg battery pack. Then add in a back up power plant fuel for the back up power plant, the electric motor and...
Yea no happening without a massive improvement in battery tech over what Tesla can do. And I am using a 100% efficient motor in these calculations.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[MarkRose]

If you're willing to accept a 2 seat self-launching electric glider (which can glide that far in the right conditions), such a plane is already in production.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[asylumx]

A Cessna 182 has a groos weight of only 14kg

Are you sure you don't mean 1400kg? (and btw a C182's empty weight is 1,970kg)

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[LWATCDR]

sorry typo but on Wikipedia it has it as 1411kg for gross and 894kg or 1970 lbs empty. You looks as if you confused lbs with kg.
Doesn't really matter since both numbers are a heck of a lot smaller than the battery weight needed for that airplane.

Re:Ahh No it isn't

[asylumx]

Yes, you are correct, the number I reported should have been in lbs.

Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[nickberry]

So, you want to fly a plane that is green, and you want to power it from electricity?! WTF is wrong with people, burning one fossil fuel instead of another is not green.... The majority of America and the world's electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels, the difference is the energy comes across miles of wire instead of the combustion engines we currently use. Electric vehicles are not more green than combustion engines, the pollution is just offset to a different location instead of your tailpipe...

Re:Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[SJHillman]

Power plants are generally more efficient than combustion engines, so it is relatively more green - just means its not from renewable green power. As new designs get built and more of the grid power comes from nuke/solar/wind/hydro that becomes even more the case.

Re:Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[Richard_at_work]

Its easier to sequester the output from one powerstation than it is from a thousand homes or vehicles - running vehicles off of energy produced centrally can certainly be cleaner than running their own internal combustion engines.

Re:Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[vipw]

Then why not power it with hydro or nuclear power? It's a possibility for many people, maybe not for you.

And for an airplane it's pointless, but for a car it's very good to not pollute out of the tailpipe. Combustion byproducts are bad for human health, so it's good to not expel them in the middle of urban areas where many people breathe.

Re:Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[Jeremi]

Electric vehicles are not more green than combustion engines, the pollution is just offset to a different location instead of your tailpipe...

Except when they are. Just because you use fossil fuels to generate electricity doesn't mean everyone does. Certainly someone who can afford a $500,000 aircraft might also be able to afford a solar array to charge it.

And even for us plebeians, the public utility grid gets greener every year -- which means your surrender-dorothy argument gets weaker every year as well.

Re:Fossil Fuel pollution displacement.

[nickberry]

How many people have groaned, complained and had nuke, wind and hydro station plans shut down? Then we've got MidAmerican in Iowa attempting to pass on the risk of potentially building a nuclear plant on rate payers, instead of the business by charging surcharges for the building of a nuclear plant that the company may or may not build. So many people cry not in my backyard, we're shutting down coal capacity every year, and electricity rates can do nothing but go up, but we want to rely on electricity to move our society, there is something with that picture.

Bad comparison;

[jklovanc]

Record Glider; single seat; relies on thermals (not present at night) or topographical features (not present on the prairies) for lift, spends much of it's time circling in lift to gain altitude, average speeds much lower than 160 knots(re record glider had a best LD speed of 51 knots), large wing span, no cargo capacity, one off custom prototype, relied on other aircraft for takeoff and initial altitude.
Aircraft in article; 4 seats, independent of atmospheric lift, 160 knots, much shorter wing span, production aircraft.

Gliders work in certain areas under specific conditions while the aircraft in the article is supposed to work anywhere an time. A glider is as different from this aircraft as a World Solar Challenge vehicle is different from the average passenger sedan.

Some reality checks

[million_monkeys]

It's definitely cool to see this in development, but there's a lot of suspect claims going on. And of course no talk of the downsides of being electric.

The GT4 uses an array of 236 off-the-shelf lithium-polymer batteries weighing 900 pounds. The company says the battery pack and 600 hp (peak) electric motor weigh less than the internal combustion engine on a comparable plane,

so 900 pounds of batteries + ? pounds the electric motor (i guess we're ignoring the weight of the backup gas engine plus the 140 pounds of gas to fuel it) weighs less than the engine on a "comparable plane". Here are some planes and engines:

Cirrus SR22 (4 person, 180 knot cruise) engine: Continental IO-550-N (~450-500? pounds)
Cessna 182 (4 person, 140 knot cruise) engine: Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 (~450 pounds)
Cessna 210 (6 person, 190 knot cruise) engine: Continental Motors TSIO-520-R (~450 pounds)
Diamond DA40 (4 person, 150 knot cruise) engine: Lycoming IO-360-M1A (~300 pounds)

Full fuel for most of them is would add ~550 pounds, so total ~1000lbs, barely more than the batteries alone on the electric one. It seems like they pulled this weight savings out of their ass.

Volta Volare says low maintenance costs will be a big attraction. The gas engine on a private plane needs an annual inspection that could cost several thousand dollars. In comparison, the GT4 could get by with a simple diagnostic checkup by laptop: Just plug in a USB cable to the electric motor.

Not in the USA it won't, at least if they want the FAA to certify it. I wish I could be there when they propose that just to see them get laughed out of the building. This is the same agency that will declare a plane unairworthy because it doesn't have a sticker saying what kind of fuel it uses. And again, they are ignoring the backup gas engine. Even if they let the USB thing slide, the backup gas engine's gotta be inspected just like every other gas engine. I'm doubtful of the massive savings they are implying

Some of the electricity-not-gasoline savings are nice but still dwarfed by the purchase price that is likely to be over $500,000.

That sounds like a lot, but new planes are expensive. The cost (new) of the planes listed above, not including various optional equipment:

Cirrus SR22: $600K-$700K
Cessna 182: $400K-$450K
Cessna 210: out of production, but likely around $550K-$600K
Diamond DA40: $350K

Would it be better at higher elevation?

[damn_registrars]

Internal combustion engines tend to become a lot less efficient at high elevation where the air is less dense. Being as the electric engine isn't burning anything, it might not be as hindered by this (although of course it still needs to move air). If they want to make a gas-electric hybrid, why not use the gas for takeoff, climbing, and landing, and then use the electric for level flight at higher elevation?

Re:Would it be better at higher elevation?

[wvmarle]

Most of the power use of a plane will be for cruise. Take-off uses a lot of horsepower but that's fairly short.

Electrical engines and battery packs do very well when it comes to delivering a power boost, like you need to get a plane off the ground. That's also why a hybrid car can do with a much smaller petrol engine than a similar petrol-only car: the petrol engine needs to provide the cruise-level power only in a hybrid, no need to be able to output the peak requirement.

Cruise is when you want the petrol engine to run: steadily humming away running at its optimal pace, charging the battery pack that in turn powers the prop.

Indeed at lower air pressure a petrol engine has a problem. But couldn't you design your petrol engine to expect lower air pressures (again mostly running at cruise altitude) or add an air compressor in the intake to compensate?

Re:Would it be better at higher elevation?

[damn_registrars]

Indeed at lower air pressure a petrol engine has a problem. But couldn't you design your petrol engine to expect lower air pressures (again mostly running at cruise altitude) or add an air compressor in the intake to compensate?

That is why a lot of engines currently in use for aviation are either supercharged or turbocharged.

Re:Would it be better at higher elevation?

[rcw-home]

Internal combustion engines tend to become a lot less efficient at high elevation where the air is less dense.

Not necessarily. Lower air density reduces maximum available power, but the air is also much colder up there, and heat engines become more efficient as you increase the hot side vs. cold side temperatures, so it becomes a matter of whether this increased efficiency can make up for the friction losses of pumping a larger volume of lower pressure air around.

Electric engines are quiet

[Manfre]

If the plane is deemed to quiet and must create an artificial engine noise, I really hope it has the option to sound like the jetson's craft.

Re:Electric engines are quiet

[GameboyRMH]

I think the X-wing noise would be fun on a stunt plane. Combined with the music from the channel attack scene XD

Re:Electric engines are quiet

[Jeremi]

If the plane is deemed to quiet and must create an artificial engine noise, I really hope it has the option to sound like the jetson's craft.

If you're worried about hitting unsuspecting pedestrians, you're flying too low :^)

AC/DC

[DarthVain]

Why bother when you can just recharge VIA lighting strikes!

Seriously, Volta Volare? I can think of way better names surrounding Thunder, Lighting, heck throw in Thor or Zeus for good measure!

The Thor Hammer Thunder Zeus Lighting Bolt 3000 for example! Way more manly than the Volta Volare, which sounds like a pansy french philosopher, drinking mincey Chardonnay whilst giving looks of condensation/indignation.

Re:AC/DC

[nschubach]

Why not "Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust"?

Re:AC/DC

[GameboyRMH]

One word: ThunderZeusLightningBird

Re:AC/DC

[GungaDan]

"Volare" already has its own theme song. Not to mention that it can't get much cooler than sharing a name with this: http://atlantaip.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/volare.jpg?w=450&h=299

Re:AC/DC

[anyGould]

Why bother when you can just recharge VIA lighting strikes!

I suppose when time travel is invented, we'll see DeLoreans driving around, where instead of a map there's a timetable of future lightning strikes labeled "fueling stations"

Re:AC/DC

[dontclapthrowmoney]

After reading your suggestion and the GP's, all I could hear in my head was "I, Jackie Moon, will wrestle a bear."

I'm not rich... Experimental is the way to go...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I owned a Piper Cherokee for ten years. It cost me $27K to purchase and I sold it last year for the same amount (I did some upgrades over the years like panel mount GPS, new radios, stereo intercom, speed mods, etc). It had a brand new paint job and interior when I bought it, and still looked like a new one when I sold it... because I always kept it hangared and out of the weather. Keep a plane outdoors very long and they'll all deteriorate rapidly, no matter whether they're made of metal, fiberglass, wood or rag & tube.

I'm not rich either, and did not spend the majority of my disposable income on flying. My hangar rent was $125/month and I guess I spent about as much on aviation as I would have if I bought a brand new full-size fully loaded 4x4 extended cab pickup truck every 3 or 4 years like so many of the folks do here in rural northern Texas that make less salary than I do. My annual inspections ran from $500-1000 each year, and the Cherokee burned 8.5 GPH and would cruise at 125 MPH at 75% power. It would literally get you to most destinations in the 200-500 mile range in literally half the time, or better, than driving, and it got the equivalent of around 14 MPG, and was STC'ed to burn unleaded auto gas too.

I'm now in the middle of buying by 2nd airplane, this time it will be an experimental. I rarely needed the 4 seats of the Cherokee, and want to go much faster, so I'm buying a Van's RV-6 experimental that will cruise at 190+ MPH @ 75% on the same 8.5 GPH fuel burn.
Experimental is the only way to go, but the purchase price is considerably higher but I can legally do all the maintenance and mods I wish myself, and not be shackled by the FAA regs that restrict what you can and can't do to mod a factory airplane. My annual "condition inspections" can be done by someone with only an A&P cert, they do not need an AP/IA, so my A&P buddy will essentially do them for me for free. I've helped build 4 of these Vans RV kitplanes over the years, so I probably know more about maintaining and inspecting them than the A&P does.

Key information missing

[Jawnn]

If we're going to argue about the economics of the thing, a key piece of information is missing. What is the TBO on the power plant? What is involved in an overhaul and what will that cost. I can imagine the fuel savings being huge on a frequently used aircraft of this type (think traffic reporter), but if that's eaten up in maintenance costs, what's the point?

Wait, what?

[wonkey_monkey]

Electric Airplane Ready For Production

Yay!

The four-passenger carbon fiber aircraft isn't really an electric plane

Aw.

Hmm , batteries provide 600hp ? Really?

[Viol8]

That seems a hell of a lot for a 900lb pack that can take the plane 300 miles. And even if that is the case then the plane won't be going anywhere near as fast or high when the batery runs out and its running on 1.5L engine alone, because short of being turbo charged to within an inch of its life a la F1, it won't be producing anything like 600hp!

Re:Hmm , batteries provide 600hp ? Really?

[GameboyRMH]

Turbos have been banned in F1 for decades now. They still do that in pro drifting though (see: Ken Gushi's FR-S)

Re:Hmm , batteries provide 600hp ? Really?

[Pontiac]

I think the 600hp was a mistake..
http://www.voltavolare.com/specifications
The Volta web site shows the motor as 300hp..
The backup gas generator is 180hp

Re:Hmm , batteries provide 600hp ? Really?

[mister_playboy]

The F1 comparison is apt since 1.5L was the capacity allowance for the turbo engines. They were V-6s or inline-4s.

At the peak level in '86, they were getting 900+ for the race and perhaps up to 1500 for qualifying. With a rev limit of 7000 rather than 13000, 600hp seems like consistent armchair math. :)

Seems crazy to me

[bobbied]

This idea seems crazy to me. Where I am all for "being green" in situations where it makes sense, I don't see how this idea can be made workable.

The main issue with small aircraft is useful payload. You may have 4 seats, but there is no way you can safely fly them with 4 adults, bags and full tanks because you will be way over the max takeoff weight. In most 4 seat aircraft If you take a full fuel load, you are going to have to limit yourself to 2 adults with minimal baggage. Or you can take half the fuel and 4 adults with no bags. My flight instructor was known to say "There is nothing more worthless than the runway behind you, the altitude above you, and the fuel you left in the truck" so when going long distances it's safer to put as much fuel in the tanks as you can, stay as high as you can, and always start and land as close to the end of the runway as possible..

In the case of this aircraft, 900 lbs of batteries means that they have traded 150 Gal of fuel or 4 adults, or a huge pile of baggage for batteries. Unless they can save nearly all that weight in their removal of the piston engine, useful load is going to be a HUGE problem. Aircraft engines in the horsepower range they are describing don't weigh anywhere near 900 lbs so I don't think they are going to get enough weight savings to make this work. This tells me that they are unlikely to have 4 seats worth of working payload and there will be no way to leave anything but 23 gal of fuel behind.

Additionally, their claim about leaded AvGas being a huge problem is untrue. Many aircraft engines can be and are legally and safely operated on the same 87 octane unleaded fuel you put in your car. Many aircraft are operated on either 110 octane Low Lead AvGas or 87 octane unleaded. However this is more due to the cost and availability of 110 LL and not environmental concerns.

Finally, the yearly inspection requirement will not go away with an electric powered aircraft. I find it hard to come up with a way that this yearly inspection is going to be any cheaper just because the aircraft has an electric motor. The airframe will still require inspections and I'm sure the FAA will have a list of things you must look at for the electric motor and battery systems. I'm also sure that these things will include stuff that you simply cannot test using a computer, but must actually LOOK at like we do now.

This is an interesting idea, but I am sure they are crazy if they think they can engineer an aircraft that will meet the advance billing. There is little hope of this idea being practically possible even in a modern carbon fiber airframe. They are not likely to be able to produce an aircraft that has a useful payload when compared to gas powered models. I'm pretty sure that their 500K price tag will not be possible on a carbon fiber airframe, unless they intend to loose money on these things. My guess is that this whole thing is an attempt to attract investors who don't know any better and who want to invest in something "green" and who will be separated from their "green" by the scam.

Panders to Idiots

[rubycodez]

Environmentally unfriendly low-density batteries with very limited capacity, plus a gasoline engine that can efficiently go over 2x the range and emits water and carbon dioxide. who needs the expensive electrical system, braggers? Small planes are not even a minor source of pollution compared to fossil power plants, automobiles, and ground transport.

Re:Panders to Idiots

[asylumx]

Agreed, but we shouldn't ridicule people who pursue new technology. Just because the first iteration doesn't make sense doesn't mean its descendants won't.

Re:Panders to Idiots

[rubycodez]

Gas engines emit almost entirely CO2 and water, and the other stuff is of no import since small planes a completely negligible source of pollutants. A hideously expensive electric small plane thus serves no purpose other than bragging rights.

Re:Panders to Idiots

[rubycodez]

I ridicule people who pay 4X or more what the sensible alternative would cost, to solve a problem that doesn't exist (nonexistent problem being pollution by small planes)

Eventual savings

[PPH]

The interesting aspect of this technology could be the savings on required periodic maintenance once this type design has established some reliability statistics.

Initially, the FAA might mandate a pretty thorough and frequent check schedule. But given the simpler construction of electric motors, this could be significantly relaxed after some time. Likewise, the batteries will need to be checked and replaced. But here too, battery failures could prove to be gradual, with a reduction of capacity being an indicator of needed replacement. And as this craft has an alternate power source, the combination of the reliability of both could relax the criticality of either one by itself.

If the manufacturer is smart, they will have established a certification program with the FAA to develop these new guidelines. And they may subsidize the initial higher costs during this program in order to attract customers.

Re:I'm not rich... Experimental is the way to go..

[deapbluesea]

I can legally do all the maintenance and mods I wish myself, and not be shackled by the FAA regs that restrict what you can and can't do to mod a factory airplane

Not true. If you build the aircraft yourself (51% rule), and you apply for and hold the aircraft repairman certificate, then you can do whatever you want to that plane. If you buy it from someone else, you cannot obtain the repairman certificate for it, and any maintenance that would require an A&P on a certified aircraft would require that same A&P on your experimental aircraft.

You go on to say that in the next few sentences, but I thought it was important to be very clear on the difference since most of the people reading this thread don't know the difference between a C-150 and 747.

Re:I'm not rich... Experimental is the way to go..

[BigSlowTarget]

I'm sure someone has done an experimental electric kit too.

Top Gear!

[DarthVain]

LOL I just watched that episode, maybe it was subliminal!

I don't get it... :-(

[spaceyhackerlady]

I don't get the point of a hybrid airplane in the first place.

Hybrid cars work well in stop-and-go city traffic (almost all the taxis here are hybrids, as are all the new transit buses), but drone along on their engines on the highway like any other car.

An airplane engine runs at constant speed, constant load, usually a fairly high percentage of its maximum output (65 to 75%). I see no advantage here.

Am I missing something?

...laura, PA28 and C152 pilot

Re:I don't get it... :-(

[bobbied]

Very good point. It's not like you can fly in stop and go traffic and turn the motor into a generator to make you slow down. Aircraft engines in aircraft of similar size do run at 100% power output during takeoff and initial climb. After that they are routinely called on to run at 75% power for hours at a time and only during approach get throttled back much. Cars hardly ever run above 75% power for more than a min or two, and never run 100% power for more than a few sec.

However, to be fair... They are only claiming fuel savings based on the amount of energy in the batteries and how far they can get you without the on board charger. Then you "save gas" by finding a place to plug in the thing and recharge the batteries when you get there. Of course this is assuming you can find a place to plug in while you are tied down on the transit ramp at the FBO..

Another thought... I wonder how long it will take to charge the battery? I'm just guessing, but it seems like this will be similar to charging electric cars where it can take a few hours with the right charging setup, to many hours when limited to a 15A 120V circuit. I'm thinking "Range Anxiety" will be a real problem for folks trying to make a two hop cross country and don't have 2 days to kill when making the trip. Then heaven forbid you get diverted to some field where the nearest plugin is half a mile away and your extension cord is only a hundred feet.

Polymer Solar Coating

[sanman2]

There are photovoltaic coatings now, which admittedly aren't as efficient as standard solar panels, but nevertheless could charge up your plane over time, if it was just sitting out in the open under a sunny sky. How often does one fly anyway?

Re:Inspection != Maintenance

[deapbluesea]

I stand corrected. Here's more discussion to include some FAR references since the parent relies on his own authority.

The FAA regulates maintenance through FAR part 43. Far 43.1 states that the rules of that part do (b) "...not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had been previously issued".

In effect what this means is that any person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, overhauling or alternations to an experimental aircraft, unless that aircraft had previously held another type of airworthiness certificate, i.e. standard, utility, acrobatic, transport, etc. If it is an amateur built aircraft, then anyone can do the maintenance.

However, all experimental operating limitations contain additional limiting factors. You will nearly always find a statement worded something like "This aircraft cannot be flown unless it has received, within the preceding 12 calendar months, a condition inspection conducted in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D of part 43, and the inspection is recorded in the aircraft records." Further, the limitations usually also say "Only the builder, when certificated as the repairman, mechanics holding an A & P rating, and appropriately rated repair stations may conduct the condition inspection required by the operating limitations". If the aircraft is turbine powered, or surplus military, there may be additional limitations which mandate a licensed mechanic perform the work.

The net effect, and to answer your question, is: 1. The operating limitations will tell you who can do the work. 2. If amateur-built, you probably can do the work, except for the annual "condition inspection". and 3. That condition inspection will probably have to be done by an A & P, since there are no "appropriately rated repair stations" for non-certified experimental aircraft that I know of.

Do Facts Matter?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Aviation gasoline is typically leaded fuel, which has been gone from motor vehicle fuel since the 1980s

How about since 1975? Or doesn't accuracy matter here?

Only $80 in fuel?

[pubwvj]

Only $80 in fuel? That's very good. Our truck is about that, just a little better but a lot slower. Of course, our truck can carry 10,000 lbs of pigs, live. I probably don't want them running around inside the airplane. And the truck only cost me $6,500.

See http://smf.me/ for what we put in our truck.

Re:White House Fees for Electric Planes

[Pauldow]

The biggest hurdle is that the Obama White House wants to put a $100 per flight fee on any electric aircraft flight within controlled airspace in the US. Uncontrolled airspace is defined as the area below 1200' above the ground. It's 700' above the ground in higher congested areas. In sparsely populated areas of the western US there are areas where uncontrolled airspace goes up to 18,000 feet, but the bottom line is that almost all of the places any aircraft flies is considered controlled.
The way FAA regulations are written is that everything is prohibited unless it is specifically allowed. The Obama White House proposes to have that $100 fee per flight on all flights except those operated by the government or ambulances. There is also an exception (for now) for piston powered aircraft. That means that the $100 per flight fee applies not only to jets, but it applies to electric aircraft, gliders and hot air balloons.
Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
Page 33 of the file = page 23 on the numbered pages.

Wow.. new definition of "Range Anxiety"..

[doccus]

I have an electric bike, that's too heavy to push if it runs out of power, however, at least it doesn't fall out of the sky if the battery dies..