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

[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

[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).

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

[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

[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

[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.]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[operagost]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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: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: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.