The vast majority of tech startups are just investment scams. The founders of this project knew the limitations of battery energy density before they launched the business and yet they went ahead with it. Tells you all you need to know.
There is still a huge market for regional puddle jumpers and the operating costs are cut in half.As was mentioned $200 flight hours.That market could easily double with those lower fares.
Mr. Skyships.... this was a very well balanced and informative video. I'm a long term subscriber and you do a great job. Glad you're back and hope all is okay.
There are so many technologies that are just waiting for higher density energy storage to reach their full potential. I'm very excited to see what the future holds once we crack that nut.
Higher energy density? Yea its called kerosene, Natural Gas, Hydrogen gas. Nothing new here. Battery tech currently is a joke as shown here... less than half the payload for same weight aircraft, a horrifically cramped fuselage, and far less than half the range using the latest in materials science making it horrifically expensive. What a joke... that is not advancement my friend that is called REGRESSING.
@@millanferende6723 ... because solar panels on wings and body wouldn't generate enough energy to even get their own weight off the ground! Easy calculation!
It’s marvelous to see aviation pioneers do their craft-with great financial risk, the challenge of developing brand-new technology, and no guarantee of success. Wow! Thank you Sky.
Uh, no... this is called venture suckers get drained of their stupid money while the charlatans spouting rainbows and butterfiles get PAID well. The engineers who all know current battery tech is nowhere close as they have to do basic power mathematics in intro do Aerodynamics for payload/range calcs, knew from the start this aircraft would have.... Lets see, less than half the payload for same sized aircraft, a VERY CRAMPED fuselage, and half to a quarter of the range... Oh right, exactly what EVERY engineer has been saying for years... Current batteries are nowhere CLOSE.
To be honest, if true, I think the range of the aircraft is decent even in its current state. 700 km range opens up some reasonable options: from NYC you can now reach Toronto, Buffalo, DC, Pittsburgh, Boston, et al. These routes fall right into the short-haul niche that this aircraft is designed for, and combined with a cheaper fuel cost and significantly lower maintenance costs will hopefully make for a very viable regional aircraft. The only significant issue that I see here from a user comfort standpoint is that of charge timing: upon arriving into an airport, a delay will need to be implemented in order to recharge the aircraft. I started to wonder about electric aircraft this morning, upon realizing that small GA engines (i.e. lycoming O-320) have an easily comparable horsepower to cars such as the Nissan Leaf. I was thinking more along the lines of small GA/trainer/commuter aircraft a.l.a. Cessna 172, with ranges of about 300 km that would be made practical by 30-minute rechange and free fuel. Guess we can go bigger.
Imo however Electric propulsion still require to be significant advancements in battery technology, more so than the motors, for it to be applied to bigger planes. The closest prospect would be Sodium Ion batteries but the weight penalty would still be a contentious topic for debate. It was thought that Hydrogen cells would be the answer but there has been no news ever since the pandemic started.
@@waynewhelan3069 Fair enough, my bad. It allegedly costs around $14 to charge a Tesla, as opposed to $75 to charge my RAV-4 of comparable range. Still a vast decrease in fuel costs. I presume jet fuel will be far more expensive than vehicle gasoline.
The recharging problem could be solved with battery swap. This would be easier, than for vehicles, because you need swap stations just at the airport, and planing is easier as well.
I pulled a load of batteries up to Prescott Arizona for an aviation Alice. I got some pictures, it is an absolutely gorgeous aircraft. It is going to fly between Prescott in Denver in Prescott an LAX
Wendover had an interesting use case for these: short haul luxury airlines like Cape Air. You can see their livery at the end of the video. They fly from NYC to the Hamptons and enjoy large government subsidies that keeps them profitable. With the low maintenance costs of electric aircraft and those subsidies, they could more then double their profit margin.
There are no aircraft being delivered. Eviation has built nothing but three prototypes; the first one never flew, the second flew once (for seven minutes), and the third is not yet complete.
In the eight months since you posted this video, battery technology has already advanced with a potential increase in energy density (which more or less equates to power per kilogram - "bang for your buck'). Advanced battery materials, flow batteries, and solid-state batteries have increased the energy density and reduced the charging times of the latest generation of batteries. The implementation of nanotechnology in battery manufacturing increases the surface and size of battery electrodes - this means they will absorb more energy during charging and increase the energy storage capacity. Since 2022, the average energy density of even Li-ion batteries has increased by about 5 to 10%, and we can expect more improvement in the future. However, I remain dubious about the wisdom of using Li-ion in aircraft given their acknowledged problems regarding their propensity to burst in flames for no apparent reason. The vast, and I mean VAST majority of airliner flights are short range commuter flights with small passenger numbers. They have the greatest impact on the environment as regards emissions, so much so that some countries, such as France, are banning them. But electric aircraft could replace many conventional piston and turboprop aircraft on short-haul flights and there are technical reasons why that could be a good thing. One of the greatest impacts on the life of an aircraft is not, as you might expect, the number of flight hours, but the number of _"pressurization cycles"_ . Each cycle involves a takeoff, a pressurization sequence and a landing. Aircraft on short-haul services undergo a lot of pressurization cycles, but the reason they need to do this is because the engines are more efficient at higher altitudes, so they need to fly higher to be at their most economical. However, electric aircraft have no such constraint. There are no efficiency gains to be had by flying at 20,000 ft instead of 2,000 feet so - in fact, it is probably more efficient for electric aircraft to fly lower. Consequently, there is no need for a pressurization system, and even if there is, they would not need to pressurize to, say 39,000 ft, so the strain on the airframe is reduced. Short haul electric aircraft could fly much lower, meaning no need to waste battery power climbing to high altitudes. I can easily see a small commuter airliner like the Eviation Alice or the Heart Aerospace ES-30 flying a 500km flight from one airport to another at 1,000 ft AGL instead of the usual 20,000 ft by other small commercial feeder liners. Interestingly, the ES-30 will carry two gas turbine APUs to supply extra electrical power, which would only be used in an emergency, or in the case of an aircraft needing to divert to an alternate airfield out of its normal range. Like the APUs on regular airliners, they use aviation jet fuel IMO, we are not yet ready to see large scale electric aircraft commercially, but I don't see it as a false horizon either. I think they are only a few years away. *Edit to Add:* I expect someone will take exception to my statement that _"There are no efficiency gains to be had by flying at 20,000 ft instead of 2,000 feet"_ . Well I confess that is not entirely true. Drag at 20,000 feet is a lot lower than at 2,000 feet. But, its all relative - it is a much smaller part of the equation. Over 80% of the efficiency gains from flying at altitude come from greater engine efficiency. Flying at altitude might give you better drag efficiency, but you have to get there first. Most of those gains are eaten up by the losses incurred in using battery power to get to the higher altitude i.e. it costs more power to climb than it does to fly level, and in the case I am making, short haul, very little of the flight time is spent at high altitude.
To me, unless they allow you airdrop spent battery (which will never happen), electric airplanes will be limited to general aviation or small shuttles… after all when using fuel, the plane gets lighter over time, 747 can land 70 tons lighter compared to takeoff…
Airdrop spent batteries and aerial reloading and you can fly around the globe with current battery technology. It's not a technical problem it's a economic one.
Especially since just using hydrogen would be so much easier to implement. Electric cars only work because most people don't actually use their cars another like to their full potential. Most people drive a few hours at a time. So having a smaller totally range isnt really a big problem. A commercial plane typically flies almost as far as it can go every time. So having all planes lose 50% of their range for a given size and weight and payload is not going to happen, especially not when it takes hours to refuel it.
Remove the radiators under the motors, use the front edge of tail surfaces and wings for cooling systems (also prevent ice for free), the range will increse 5 to 10%.
As shown in the video, the first design uses surface radiators on the wingtip motor nacelles, but the second design uses a radiator in an air duct; obviously the surface radiator design did not work out.
I wonder if they will offer that airframe in a more traditional power plant arrangement. I really like the lines of it and more traditional propulsion options may bring it to market quicker. That of course supposes it can be economically retrofitted with liquid style fuel tanks, engines and associated plumbing.
It also wouldn't really make sense for a business perspective, they'd essentially just be offering a worse Piaggio Avanti and competition in that market is really fierce.
It is totally designed around battery packs and electric motors, it would require complete redesign to fit fuel tanks, not even considering the legal and regulatory problems, which would be enormous.
Well no, they would need to redesign as they would be flying faster as NO ONE wants to fly at 250knots... These aircraft have tried to be sold before MANY MANY TIMES. Why they sell 6-->12 person business jets flaying at Mach 0.7+
Aircraft are usually worked hard, so they would do several such flights per day to hit profit margins. That means several full battery charge-discharge cycles every day. Therefore the batteries would reach EOL several times faster than your average electric car, say after 2-3 years instead of after 10-15 years. Hence the aircraft is likely to need it's batteries replaced several times through it's expected lifetime. Is that factored into the cost of ownership? Electric car owners accept that their range will reduce as their battery ages, is that acceptable for aircraft?
All the proponents of commercial electric vehicles conveniently leave out the fact that batteries are consumables just like fuel only on a longer timescale.
@@bumponalog7164 There is a federal law that mandates a minimum of 8 years or 100K miles battery warranty on EVs in the US. That's about how long most cars last. Some manufacturers provide a 10 year warranty. In 8-10 years batteries are going to be significantly improved just like they are today from 10 years ago.
@@noalear Same federal law that calls for secure borders? My ZERO FX has a 5 year warranty so not sure which law you referring to? Anyhow , the battery on the 12K bike went out after 1500 miles and cost the warranty 5k. EV's are shit.
Thank you. Normally, engineers start with power plant's expected numbers like kWhour, range afforded, and weight of the supply battery pack, and consider load weight and range. Then, it's kind of coasting downhill from there with the air frame design. Looking at your specs, I figured there was going to be a bunch of disappointments in these specs. And, sure there are. I would strongly suggest that they resolve the energy density versus onboard weight of the battery supply and once that target is achieved - what will it take to move a desirable number of passengers to a given distance? Then, they tackle the rest. WW2 studies by Germans (Dornier 335) late in the war, including American studies of the Curtis Ascender XP55, proved that a pusher design causes less drag than a puller (hence more speed).Your aircraft reverted to a puller. Hope this worked for Eviation Alice. We live in exciting times! Great job you did Skyships Eng!
Its called they got sucker stupid people with $$$ wanting a battery aircraft so the engineers said.. uh ok... It will suck ass, but we will build it and get paid while we waste your $$$. Thanks for the nice job!
that is a steal. For a price per hour comparable with small 2-4 seater you get multi engine without engine issues. That is awesome. Its not like those small planes have better range nor speed.
I was gonna say, $200 per flight hour for something equivalent in passenger capacity and speed to a PC-12 or TBM 900 is very impressive. You'd be lucky to rent a C182 for that at some airports.
Two markets that battery tech needs to get far better in density and quick charging performance is Aviation and Motorcycles. Unless someone comes up with a better density to cut the weight, like solid state or graphene, it's going to be at best a niche market. I still think someone needs to figure a way to upscale production of algae aviation fuel. At least the algae absorb CO2 and hopefully is close to carbon neutral.
the Battery performance is a draw back but the business case is still very powerful. The energy to weight ratio of batteries will continue to get better over time for sure and when the Swedes perfect the massless carbon fiber battery you can mold the battery into structural components of the plane.
@@burntnougat5341 What it means is that if you use the battery as a structural component in place of another structural component the battery adds no mass.
Its good to see the start of electrification of planes. With a good engineering workforce we will encounter these problems and devise solutions to work around them just as we did with combustion aircraft. If you get even more money pushing new battery tech we'll see improvements come even faster than we have recently, which will affect nearly every corner of the tech and vehicle sector that is left. Now that we've got one, many more will follow in short order.
All of electric aircraft must have ejectable batteries (same system for quick changes and eject if have fire during flight) its easy, in case of ejection, a parachute will open.
A year ago you said (at 4:53) that the second prototype "could be considered the final version"... but since then they have changed it again. It now (as announced on 2024 Apr 25 as the completion of a "Conceptual Design Review") has a more conventional fuselage; they are calling it their "Production Aircraft design", even though they have not even flown (or built!) a prototype of it.
This final version is a very beautiful plane. The original concept with wing tip props was dangerous. If one wing tip motor shuts down, the plane could go into a spin. Just like the Piaggio Avant, the airfoil shaped fuselage of this plane would generate lift, and even more, because it has a flat belly.
That's not the final version. Since your comment, Eviation has admitted that customers don't want that design, and they have introduced a third version, with a conventional fuselage... it's now just a common type with battery-electric propulsion.
hello skyship, i always watch your videos and i like your of presentation. i have a suggestion, you used to talk about different models of airplanes and the properties of each.. my suggestion is to expand your area and talk about the manufacturers themselves, the different aviation and transport companies, and also the simple gliders.. i'm sure you're smart and can do it perfectly... all the best.
Battery technology keeps electric flight mostly grounded. Can you imagine the horror if a electric aircraft had a battery fire in flight? 10,000 feet in the air...
3.7 tonnes in just battery weight?? Bloody hell. Very cute looking aircraft and nice vision for electric propulsion but as we've seen from electric technology on the ground....I have very little faith that it'll take off in the air😅
It is important to note the many advantages the a fully electric aircraft. I could write an extensive list of them but it is more appropriate to identify the business cases where an electric aircraft offers a competitive advantage over fossil fuel aircraft. In particular the short haul commuter market in the US is one that the Alice could effectively serve. Further, as the first all electric aircraft in it's market segment it is inevitable that many design problems need to be identified and solutions found. The development of the power electronics to run the flight motors has been a complex task indeed. Over time the continued improvement of battery energy density will assist all electric aircraft with meeting performance requirements. Don't forget that liquid fuels have weight too. So why not compare the battery weight to an equivalent fuel load in a similar sized aircraft ?
Everyone associated with these designs has So why not compare the battery weight to an equivalent fuel load in a similar sized aircraft, and the battery is many times heavier for the same range.
What you are missing are integrated solar panels like Aptera. This may give the critical 10-15% extra increase in range with a small increase in weight.
I'm really rooting for this. How dirty are short haul flights? If this succeeds it could really clean things up. Even if it doesn't succeed, battery technology will certainly improve in the near future and perhaps someone else would try again.
I fleet of pilotless cargo aircraft is one of the more realistic applications for this aircraft. There are several smaller airports around the country that could accomodate without requiring DHS fees to be loaded on the flight costs. Passengers require pressurized cabins, DHS inspections and most won't choose flights broken into hops with the way the current DHS guidelines require early check-ins and other time-consuming procedures that discourage traveling.
The battery wraps around the lower half of the cabin. Half the cabin must be pulled out to access it. Far better to have a bolt on battery below the floor so it can be removed and maintained with ease. The cabin height should be about 1.9 metres. the fuselage needs to be another 600 mm to 700 mm taller - it may lose some of the blended wing effect.
You will most likely need to do a structural batter cell with cell-to-pack technology like Tesla will be doing to reduce weight and increase range and performance.
The one and only flight of the Eviation Alice was far from the first flight of a battery-electric aircraft, so it hardly the point that "electricity bursts into the sky". I would understand the hype if Eviation had the most successful electric aircraft, or even the first electric aircraft in commercial service, but they don't - Eviation is now on their third Alice prototype, with thee different designs, and between all of them they only have a single seven-minute flight (of the second prototype).
I am rather skeptical about galvanic batteries or superconducting coils to power vehicles so that is why I am very keen about my solid fueled jet engine and nuclear isotopic fueled engines and even patented lighter than air solids.
The lack of the best energy density batteries is a minor inconvenience. And can easily be remedied later on. The progress with the overall platform is what’s most valuable!
Uh, no. There is nothing special about the platform other than it has a shitty tiny cramped fuselage. There has been nothing new in Aerodynamics for well over 40 years.
Nice airframe. But batteries are heavy, a severe fire hazard, take a long time to recharge, and need to be replaced before they wear out. I'm not holding my breath for Mr. Fusion to materialize. EVs are a scam that gets milked by grifters who have figured out how to game the system.
The Plane ist pretty perfect, the batteries are evolving quickly, this plane and similar concepts have a great future, if it can reliably reach a range of 400 miles, which would be available with actually existing batterytechnology, than this would be in many places of the world a real environmental improvement. Consider that taxiing time on the ground is extremely cheap and does not eat range compared to turbine AC, this is a huge factor.
At the moment won’t many e-aircraft use electricity created by coal burning power plants to charge their batteries? If so, they are still a wonderful experimental pursuit set to help us in the future when we hope the majority of electricity can be generated cleanly using the sun, wind, water or any means non-hazardous to the environment.
We are a long way from seeing these at your local airports. The battery tech simply is not there ... as they have already found out the hard way. Not only is there a range problem, but there's the elephant in the room that got glossed over ... how long does it take to recharge this beast and who's going to build the charging infrastructure to support it. Airlines make their money by making max use of their planes; a plane sitting on the ground with a minimum 60-90min turnaround time isn't making any money. Then there's the environmental C/B analysis ... has anyone done one? Manufacturing batteries is a dirty carbon heavy business. How many flight hours will it take to pay off the carbon cost of making the batteries? We tend to get OOWWWED, AAWWWED and mesmerized by pretty new tech without really looking deeper at what's really there and what it represents in real terms. It is a VERY pretty bird, but at this stage its just a pretty baby with a long teething period ahead and has yet to prove it can really do anymore more than OOWWW, AAWWW and mesmerized. I'm hopeful and wish them all good fortune. But I'm not holding my breath.😎 None of this is any reflection on you Mr.Skyships; you make DAMNED GOOD videos which I thoroughly enjoy and I'm a subscriber.
It's still too heavy. Consider that at Tesla Model 3 almost weights 2 tons (1.919 kg), with an battery weight of about 625 kg. It has a range of about 350 miles with that. So it needs about 1.78 kg of battery per mile. An A320 needs about 2 to 3 liters of kerosine for 62 miles per passenger. So if we take for example an A320 with 100 passengers and an fuel usage of 2.5 liters per 62 miles, it would need about 250 liters of kerosine per 62 miles. That's an fuel usage of about 4 liters per mile with 100 passengers. An liter of kerosine weights 0.8 kg so we have an fuel weight of 3.2 kg per mile with 100 passengers. Sure the tesla needs less propellant in weight, but you have to consider, that it can only carry 5 passengers for that. The A320 can carry 100 with slightly more propellant weigth. This is a theory and im not a professional in any of this, so correct me if im wrong about anything. Hope i could help you :)
Was wondering what happened to Alice as early as today when I'd seen an old magazine with the wingtip propulsion setup type. Cape Air near NYC were keen on it. Think it was due in service 2022, according to that article.
@@beatreuteler They were presumably counting on the centreline thrust of the rear motor and propeller, and probably only partial failure of either wingtip motor. I don't know whether that turned out to be unacceptable, or other issues with the wingtip propellers (ground strike risk, for instance) forced the design change. The magniX units have two separate sets of motor winding with separate inverters for redundancy. The current magni650 units are essentially two of the smaller units (like the one on the original prototype) mounted on a common shaft, further improving redundancy. They may have decided that each unit must have the higher level of redundancy, so they could only use two (due to either size and cost). harbour Air was forced to go from the single magni350 to the magni650 for redundancy, even though the magni350 was more than powerful enough when operating normally.
if they have electric motors that strong and the batteries are the main issue, why not just use a turbine as an electric powerplant? two-engine airliners already use a third turbine in the tail for power and air
250nm range. Take into account battery wear over time, temperature effects, and weather, taxi, alternate requirements, etc...and your range isn't much. Then you have recharge time. Cape Air, blah blah blah. Guess what? This will require a type rating, and that costs a whole lot more than putting a pilot in the C402 or Tecnam. Sorry folks, technology just isn't here yet.
Nope, this is not happening in the foreseeable future. Perhaps not ever. Battery range that can get you somewhere is not enough in aviation. You need range to fly a missed approach when you get there, range to divert to an alternate airfield, range to stay above it for at least 30 minutes and significant contingency range on top of all this. Just in case. And then you would also need to operate safely with one engine inoperative. So for commercial operations, perhaps redundancy considerations would even need additional batteries in case some are lost in-flight. And Eviation don’t currently have the range to get anyone anywhere. 250 miles?! So the business case is for corporate clients who need to fly executives between their two office locations, which happen to be 5 miles apart and separated by a lava flow?
When there’s a light weight, trustworthy electricity source that would cover everything you mentioned, then electric plane would have future. I think is going to take several more years, but is is still in the realm of possible.
Day VFR range is 250nmi. That covers flight to the destination plus 30 minutes. IFR requires fuel for the flight, diversion to an alternate if required, and then 45 minutes. I would guess that puts the practical IFR range down to around 150nmi. That's not great, but should be sufficient for their launch customer, Cape Air, who operate Cessna 402s and Tecnam P2012s on short hops around Cape Cod and the islands and to Boston and New York. ACK-BOS, their most popular route, is an 80nmi flight.
Like all early adopters, the technology they are working in is very much in its infancy, just like the Wright Brothers, and Tesla Motors, the predominant response from "people in the know" will be begått, and ridiculous milestones will be set for them "not until you are able to pull a five hundred mile extension cord through the desert, will the Tesla be a success" type responses. These commentators all seem to think they have a reputation to protect, and that all will be forgotten when the tech reaches maturity. Only when you have actually developed something that will make a difference, will you discover how full of absolute manure these doomsayers are Eviation's product WILL revolutionize the world of aviation, probably in ways we do not understand yet, even if they are dissolved tomorrow, they will have inspired some person, somewhere to make something worthwhile. Eviation will be back, I just hope their backers don't pull out, and will commit to the long term, this is where the money is, and this is where their market will be, and for the developers behind the scenes, this is where the true impact of their IP will be realised.
Why not have solar panels on the wings to augment the power? In Southern USA, Spain, Egypt and the Sahel this could xubstantially increase the power supply.
The pronunciation of "Magni" (in the company name MagniX and their electric drive unit model names such as "magni650") will have a long "a" as in magnet, not something that sounds like "mog".
There are many potential solutions in the works to improve flight efficiency of planes like Alice. In the pure battery arena, CATL and Northvolt expect to have 500wh/kg available before any of these newer planes can be certified. That's a huge jump from the 300wh/kg available today. Then there are powerful new engines like those being developed by Rolls-Royce and Whisper Aero. And hybrid hydrogen-electric power trains like those using Safran's turbogenerator or hydrogen fuel cell. Heart's ES-30, for instance, has an estimated range on battery alone of 200kn (125 miles) with 30 passengers. That is projected to improve to 800kn ( 497 miles) if the powertrain is hybrid electric propulsion. The same could be expected for Alice.
@@beatreuteler Yeah, that's the immediate goal for Alice (in addition to actually making money). But I was speaking of a whole range of similar short to medium haul planes in development. Battery electric. unless we get the breakthrough battery that is always just around the corner, is only going to get them short haul. I can see them expanding to a hybrid and picking up business in the reginal carrier arena. It's a fun area to watch unfold. But since I'm 75, I just wish it would unfold a bit faster. 😄
@@triplec8375 Me too, would like to see this coming sooner. However patience is one of the most important capabilities in this process. I agree that they will need some hybrids for more than just short haul, but that won't be Alice, because the Alice design is not fit for this more performant purpose.
@@beatreuteler Hmmm... Now I'm curious. Can you tell me in layman's terms what is it about the design would preclude using a hybrid power train? Something about the rear outboard dual engine mounting? Have you heard anything in the last year from Otto Aviation about their Celera 500l? That's another on I want to see happen soon, but Otto doesn't do any PR work so there isn't much info there although their website now shows a rendering for their proposed Celera 800. Slick!
@@triplec8375 The Alice is a 100% electric design. It doesn't offer the necessary additional structures it would take to support the fuel powered portion of a hybrid design. It would be much easier to start off with a current turboprop airframe and add a comparably small electric portion to make it a hybrid than to start off with the Alice dsign.
Modern solar panels wouldn't add a notable amount of range to the flight since its moving so fast. If its in the air for a couple hours around noon then you might add a few kW. The additional range vs the cost of the panels is unlikely to be a profitable move.
I think that the whole industry has made some big strides congratulations but at the same time, there is a tremendous amount of R&D far in the future. I will not trust this technology and toners been tested, tested and tested and proven. I’m old-school, but I am open to this technology if it works and it’s safe, reliable, but I’m sure there are a lot of good people working on it with the same goal in mind or goals. Keep up the good work that you’re doing you will succeed.
They just generate power too slowly to be of great usage. They can extend the range by an very small percentege however. And some small GA electric aircraft already have them fitted
Personally, I still think that our limitations with battery tech is too big for a full EV plane to be viable. Ariel the automotive company recently teased a hybrid sports car where a small turbine acts as a range extender for its massive battery packs. Turbines would work way better in aviation applications since it also provided extra thrust, just like the Spitfire’s Merlin engines.
That was a negligible amount of thrust, and it was only good for one or two miles per hour, and only significant because top speed was the highest priority, and the props were at their maximum ability to make the plane go shut faster, but a jet, even a weak one, would add a tiny bit of speed. The turbine in a setup like that would be tiny, maybe a couple hundred horsepower, and the exhaust thrust would be tiny and acting on slow speed air, where it is the least efficient. Jets work most efficiently at high relatative speeds, which is why airliners use fans. Even Mach 2 military jets aren't fast enough to get full potential out of a pure jet. Modern helicopters use 1,000 even 2,000 or more horsepower turbo shafts and the exhaust doesn't really create any meaningful forward thrust. Hell, turboprops are already have turbine exhaust thrust and it doesn't add anything significant to the thrust even being the primary power plant. What's a little APU-style range extender going to do?
This needs to have an APU generator. Store fuel in the wings. Run the APU to constantly charge while flying with a large multi-cell battery. I hate lithium-ion batteries. We desperately need to find alternatives. Mining lithium and nickel for these batteries are a nasty business and they're highly reactive with oxygen (they explode when punctured). Using a large belly Fluoride batteries, for example, with an APU generator would be fantastic! The APU can run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (which burns much cleaner) then having Fluoride batteries which have very high power density. Hopefully, those batteries will come online soon and this can be a reality.
Exactly. There's nothing sustainable about short haul flights. But then again this may just be a scam to get rich off investor money like so many tech startups are.
Alice is good.... but Electra's 'estol' blown wing plane is a superior concept. Sorry. Their range will beat the Alice concept, and estol/forward flight for the 150' take offs on a fraction of the fuel, combined with the 200 mph cruising speed, 500 mile range and 75 decibel noise level is an absolute win- and their high number of pre-orders shows it.
Lets see, less than half the payload for same sized aircraft, a VERY CRAMPED fuselage, and half to a quarter of the range... Oh right, exactly what EVERY engineer has been saying for years... Current batteries are nowhere CLOSE.
Since the battery consists of hundreds to thousands of individual cells, each of which has at least two welded joints, and in light of the fact that one of the biggest challenges with EVs is failure of the battery resulting in a thermal runaway, who in their right mind would get into an aircraft that is subject to shock and vibration that is much greater than ground vehicles? Its like sitting on a thermal bomb that can kill you at any time. Not for me.
Same problem with all electric aircraft, limited payload,limited range certification.They all quote ranges from full battery to empty battery when in reality all aviation laws require you to land with 20-30 minutes reserve in VFR conditions. In IFR conditions enough fuel ( battery power in this case ) enough to reach your destination fly a missed approach and fly to an ulternate airport plus 20-30 minutes reserve. So if the cloud base and or visibility is low you are going nowhere useful.
Proof that exaggerated claims will get you funded, but that funds can't turn exaggerated claims into reality.
The vast majority of tech startups are just investment scams.
The founders of this project knew the limitations of battery energy density before they launched the business and yet they went ahead with it. Tells you all you need to know.
There is still a huge market for regional puddle jumpers and the operating costs are cut in half.As was mentioned $200 flight hours.That market could easily double with those lower fares.
Agreed, but unlike the vast majority of tech startups are just investment scams, this one at least has proven its concept and airworthy!
Mr. Skyships.... this was a very well balanced and informative video. I'm a long term subscriber and you do a great job. Glad you're back and hope all is okay.
He also has a Russian language channel (same name without the Eng) with a few more videos than this one.
@@ragabara1031 He also has a Spanish language channel. But I try to make most videos here)
I am elated the good Ship is back.
Skyships calls it as he see it. Outstanding!!
There are so many technologies that are just waiting for higher density energy storage to reach their full potential. I'm very excited to see what the future holds once we crack that nut.
If the problem with the batteries is solved, we will soon see a completely different world outside the window
@@SkyshipsEng czcams.com/video/YtZkohZRE_s/video.html
Hot news, capacity doubled per kg ;)
Higher energy density? Yea its called kerosene, Natural Gas, Hydrogen gas. Nothing new here. Battery tech currently is a joke as shown here... less than half the payload for same weight aircraft, a horrifically cramped fuselage, and far less than half the range using the latest in materials science making it horrifically expensive. What a joke... that is not advancement my friend that is called REGRESSING.
I also wonder why they haven't used any flexible solar panels.... those wings and body could accommodate a lot of (unobstructed, unclouded) sunshine!
@@millanferende6723 ... because solar panels on wings and body wouldn't generate enough energy to even get their own weight off the ground! Easy calculation!
It’s marvelous to see aviation pioneers do their craft-with great financial risk, the challenge of developing brand-new technology, and no guarantee of success. Wow! Thank you Sky.
Uh, no... this is called venture suckers get drained of their stupid money while the charlatans spouting rainbows and butterfiles get PAID well. The engineers who all know current battery tech is nowhere close as they have to do basic power mathematics in intro do Aerodynamics for payload/range calcs, knew from the start this aircraft would have.... Lets see, less than half the payload for same sized aircraft, a VERY CRAMPED fuselage, and half to a quarter of the range... Oh right, exactly what EVERY engineer has been saying for years... Current batteries are nowhere CLOSE.
To be honest, if true, I think the range of the aircraft is decent even in its current state. 700 km range opens up some reasonable options: from NYC you can now reach Toronto, Buffalo, DC, Pittsburgh, Boston, et al. These routes fall right into the short-haul niche that this aircraft is designed for, and combined with a cheaper fuel cost and significantly lower maintenance costs will hopefully make for a very viable regional aircraft. The only significant issue that I see here from a user comfort standpoint is that of charge timing: upon arriving into an airport, a delay will need to be implemented in order to recharge the aircraft.
I started to wonder about electric aircraft this morning, upon realizing that small GA engines (i.e. lycoming O-320) have an easily comparable horsepower to cars such as the Nissan Leaf. I was thinking more along the lines of small GA/trainer/commuter aircraft a.l.a. Cessna 172, with ranges of about 300 km that would be made practical by 30-minute rechange and free fuel. Guess we can go bigger.
Imo however Electric propulsion still require to be significant advancements in battery technology, more so than the motors, for it to be applied to bigger planes.
The closest prospect would be Sodium Ion batteries but the weight penalty would still be a contentious topic for debate.
It was thought that Hydrogen cells would be the answer but there has been no news ever since the pandemic started.
Free fuel? Where do you get free electricity from?
@@waynewhelan3069 Fair enough, my bad. It allegedly costs around $14 to charge a Tesla, as opposed to $75 to charge my RAV-4 of comparable range. Still a vast decrease in fuel costs. I presume jet fuel will be far more expensive than vehicle gasoline.
The recharging problem could be solved with battery swap. This would be easier, than for vehicles, because you need swap stations just at the airport, and planing is easier as well.
UH, no. Its range is a pathetic 250nmi. Not 400nmi(700km)
I pulled a load of batteries up to Prescott Arizona for an aviation Alice. I got some pictures, it is an absolutely gorgeous aircraft. It is going to fly between Prescott in Denver in Prescott an LAX
Wendover had an interesting use case for these: short haul luxury airlines like Cape Air. You can see their livery at the end of the video. They fly from NYC to the Hamptons and enjoy large government subsidies that keeps them profitable. With the low maintenance costs of electric aircraft and those subsidies, they could more then double their profit margin.
I saw that and strangely Cape Air also flies subsidized flights here in Montana.
Why would service to the Hamptons be subsidized?
Cape Air is already getting the Tecnam P2012, and has signed an LOI for the Alice.
Cape Air is by no means "luxury". I've flown them a few times.
@@mirzaahmed6589 The federal program is intended to get more flights into small airports. The airports in the hamptons are small enough to qualify.
What makes Alice special is that it is more than a concept; orders are strong and planes are being delivered
There are no aircraft being delivered. Eviation has built nothing but three prototypes; the first one never flew, the second flew once (for seven minutes), and the third is not yet complete.
In the eight months since you posted this video, battery technology has already advanced with a potential increase in energy density (which more or less equates to power per kilogram - "bang for your buck'). Advanced battery materials, flow batteries, and solid-state batteries have increased the energy density and reduced the charging times of the latest generation of batteries. The implementation of nanotechnology in battery manufacturing increases the surface and size of battery electrodes - this means they will absorb more energy during charging and increase the energy storage capacity. Since 2022, the average energy density of even Li-ion batteries has increased by about 5 to 10%, and we can expect more improvement in the future. However, I remain dubious about the wisdom of using Li-ion in aircraft given their acknowledged problems regarding their propensity to burst in flames for no apparent reason.
The vast, and I mean VAST majority of airliner flights are short range commuter flights with small passenger numbers. They have the greatest impact on the environment as regards emissions, so much so that some countries, such as France, are banning them. But electric aircraft could replace many conventional piston and turboprop aircraft on short-haul flights and there are technical reasons why that could be a good thing.
One of the greatest impacts on the life of an aircraft is not, as you might expect, the number of flight hours, but the number of _"pressurization cycles"_ . Each cycle involves a takeoff, a pressurization sequence and a landing. Aircraft on short-haul services undergo a lot of pressurization cycles, but the reason they need to do this is because the engines are more efficient at higher altitudes, so they need to fly higher to be at their most economical.
However, electric aircraft have no such constraint. There are no efficiency gains to be had by flying at 20,000 ft instead of 2,000 feet so - in fact, it is probably more efficient for electric aircraft to fly lower. Consequently, there is no need for a pressurization system, and even if there is, they would not need to pressurize to, say 39,000 ft, so the strain on the airframe is reduced. Short haul electric aircraft could fly much lower, meaning no need to waste battery power climbing to high altitudes. I can easily see a small commuter airliner like the Eviation Alice or the Heart Aerospace ES-30 flying a 500km flight from one airport to another at 1,000 ft AGL instead of the usual 20,000 ft by other small commercial feeder liners. Interestingly, the ES-30 will carry two gas turbine APUs to supply extra electrical power, which would only be used in an emergency, or in the case of an aircraft needing to divert to an alternate airfield out of its normal range. Like the APUs on regular airliners, they use aviation jet fuel
IMO, we are not yet ready to see large scale electric aircraft commercially, but I don't see it as a false horizon either. I think they are only a few years away.
*Edit to Add:* I expect someone will take exception to my statement that _"There are no efficiency gains to be had by flying at 20,000 ft instead of 2,000 feet"_ . Well I confess that is not entirely true. Drag at 20,000 feet is a lot lower than at 2,000 feet. But, its all relative - it is a much smaller part of the equation. Over 80% of the efficiency gains from flying at altitude come from greater engine efficiency. Flying at altitude might give you better drag efficiency, but you have to get there first. Most of those gains are eaten up by the losses incurred in using battery power to get to the higher altitude i.e. it costs more power to climb than it does to fly level, and in the case I am making, short haul, very little of the flight time is spent at high altitude.
To me, unless they allow you airdrop spent battery (which will never happen), electric airplanes will be limited to general aviation or small shuttles… after all when using fuel, the plane gets lighter over time, 747 can land 70 tons lighter compared to takeoff…
Airdrop spent batteries and aerial reloading and you can fly around the globe with current battery technology. It's not a technical problem it's a economic one.
@@RODI____ lol...air refueling is hard enough. You think air dropping batteries is gonna be feasible e economically? Lmao
Just week ago there was anonse of serial production of new battery tech with doubled capacity at the same weight, for abiation market ;)
Especially since just using hydrogen would be so much easier to implement. Electric cars only work because most people don't actually use their cars another like to their full potential. Most people drive a few hours at a time. So having a smaller totally range isnt really a big problem. A commercial plane typically flies almost as far as it can go every time. So having all planes lose 50% of their range for a given size and weight and payload is not going to happen, especially not when it takes hours to refuel it.
Add the 30min IFR reserve and this thing is good for 1 full procedure IMC flight across a small town ;-)
Thanks , as a normal and little engineer I love this educational video for my profession.
I like how this plane has batteries all over the place so there are less places for snakes to hide.
Remove the radiators under the motors, use the front edge of tail surfaces and wings for cooling systems (also prevent ice for free), the range will increse 5 to 10%.
As shown in the video, the first design uses surface radiators on the wingtip motor nacelles, but the second design uses a radiator in an air duct; obviously the surface radiator design did not work out.
And when will the return trip take place?
I wonder if they will offer that airframe in a more traditional power plant arrangement. I really like the lines of it and more traditional propulsion options may bring it to market quicker. That of course supposes it can be economically retrofitted with liquid style fuel tanks, engines and associated plumbing.
Unlikely. Certification is very expensive and time consuming. If you want a plane that looks like the Alice check out the Piaggio Avanti.
@@Saml01 Good point. Thanks for the recommendation. 👍
It also wouldn't really make sense for a business perspective, they'd essentially just be offering a worse Piaggio Avanti and competition in that market is really fierce.
It is totally designed around battery packs and electric motors, it would require complete redesign to fit fuel tanks, not even considering the legal and regulatory problems, which would be enormous.
Well no, they would need to redesign as they would be flying faster as NO ONE wants to fly at 250knots... These aircraft have tried to be sold before MANY MANY TIMES. Why they sell 6-->12 person business jets flaying at Mach 0.7+
Beautiful plane at least
Aircraft are usually worked hard, so they would do several such flights per day to hit profit margins. That means several full battery charge-discharge cycles every day. Therefore the batteries would reach EOL several times faster than your average electric car, say after 2-3 years instead of after 10-15 years. Hence the aircraft is likely to need it's batteries replaced several times through it's expected lifetime. Is that factored into the cost of ownership?
Electric car owners accept that their range will reduce as their battery ages, is that acceptable for aircraft?
All the proponents of commercial electric vehicles conveniently leave out the fact that batteries are consumables just like fuel only on a longer timescale.
@@bumponalog7164 There is a federal law that mandates a minimum of 8 years or 100K miles battery warranty on EVs in the US. That's about how long most cars last. Some manufacturers provide a 10 year warranty. In 8-10 years batteries are going to be significantly improved just like they are today from 10 years ago.
@@noalear Same federal law that calls for secure borders? My ZERO FX has a 5 year warranty so not sure which law you referring to? Anyhow , the battery on the 12K bike went out after 1500 miles and cost the warranty 5k. EV's are shit.
Thank you. Normally, engineers start with power plant's expected numbers like kWhour, range afforded, and weight of the supply battery pack, and consider load weight and range. Then, it's kind of coasting downhill from there with the air frame design. Looking at your specs, I figured there was going to be a bunch of disappointments in these specs. And, sure there are. I would strongly suggest that they resolve the energy density versus onboard weight of the battery supply and once that target is achieved - what will it take to move a desirable number of passengers to a given distance? Then, they tackle the rest. WW2 studies by Germans (Dornier 335) late in the war, including American studies of the Curtis Ascender XP55, proved that a pusher design causes less drag than a puller (hence more speed).Your aircraft reverted to a puller. Hope this worked for Eviation Alice. We live in exciting times! Great job you did Skyships Eng!
Its called they got sucker stupid people with $$$ wanting a battery aircraft so the engineers said.. uh ok... It will suck ass, but we will build it and get paid while we waste your $$$. Thanks for the nice job!
that is a steal. For a price per hour comparable with small 2-4 seater you get multi engine without engine issues. That is awesome. Its not like those small planes have better range nor speed.
I was gonna say, $200 per flight hour for something equivalent in passenger capacity and speed to a PC-12 or TBM 900 is very impressive. You'd be lucky to rent a C182 for that at some airports.
@@jonathankleinow2073 but with 1/3 the range.
@@mofayerit will only increase from here unlike traditional jets who have to do daily fuel price adjustment and expensive overhauling
The tech for an electric only aircraft of this type is not there yet but I'm asking myself for quite some time now why there are not more HEV's?
There are more HEV's but currently not in the air as of yet. They move on the ground.
Two markets that battery tech needs to get far better in density and quick charging performance is Aviation and Motorcycles. Unless someone comes up with a better density to cut the weight, like solid state or graphene, it's going to be at best a niche market. I still think someone needs to figure a way to upscale production of algae aviation fuel. At least the algae absorb CO2 and hopefully is close to carbon neutral.
Look up Milankovitch cycles with your carbon nonsense.
@@just_one_opinion Milankovitch cycles do not explain the current environmental issues.
the Battery performance is a draw back but the business case is still very powerful. The energy to weight ratio of batteries will continue to get better over time for sure and when the Swedes perfect the massless carbon fiber battery you can mold the battery into structural components of the plane.
Stop FAQUING LYING
@@OgWoot why are you lying? did trump hurt you?
Massless? Is the battery made of photons?
@@burntnougat5341 What it means is that if you use the battery as a structural component in place of another structural component the battery adds no mass.
@@noalear ah I see. If such a battery with enough energy density exists that would be really cool
Its good to see the start of electrification of planes. With a good engineering workforce we will encounter these problems and devise solutions to work around them just as we did with combustion aircraft. If you get even more money pushing new battery tech we'll see improvements come even faster than we have recently, which will affect nearly every corner of the tech and vehicle sector that is left. Now that we've got one, many more will follow in short order.
Well, nice. But we haven't one yet. Really.
All of electric aircraft must have ejectable batteries (same system for quick changes and eject if have fire during flight) its easy, in case of ejection, a parachute will open.
A year ago you said (at 4:53) that the second prototype "could be considered the final version"... but since then they have changed it again. It now (as announced on 2024 Apr 25 as the completion of a "Conceptual Design Review") has a more conventional fuselage; they are calling it their "Production Aircraft design", even though they have not even flown (or built!) a prototype of it.
This final version is a very beautiful plane. The original concept with wing tip props was dangerous. If one wing tip motor shuts down, the plane could go into a spin.
Just like the Piaggio Avant, the airfoil shaped fuselage of this plane would generate lift, and even more, because it has a flat belly.
That's not the final version. Since your comment, Eviation has admitted that customers don't want that design, and they have introduced a third version, with a conventional fuselage... it's now just a common type with battery-electric propulsion.
@@brianb-p6586 Any pictures?
@richardike2342 look for press coverage - articles such as "Eviation Reveals Latest Redesign of Alice Electric Airplane" in AIN Online.
@@richardike2342 look for press coverage - articles such as "Eviation Reveals Latest Redesign of Alice Electric Airplane" in AIN Online.
hello skyship, i always watch your videos and i like your of presentation. i have a suggestion, you used to talk about different models of airplanes and the properties of each.. my suggestion is to expand your area and talk about the manufacturers themselves, the different aviation and transport companies, and also the simple gliders.. i'm sure you're smart and can do it perfectly... all the best.
Battery technology keeps electric flight mostly grounded. Can you imagine the horror if a electric aircraft had a battery fire in flight? 10,000 feet in the air...
Electric planes have a lot of problems right now. But at least they are trying to solve them.
3.7 tonnes in just battery weight?? Bloody hell. Very cute looking aircraft and nice vision for electric propulsion but as we've seen from electric technology on the ground....I have very little faith that it'll take off in the air😅
Wait and see.
Easier maintenance is appealing but the batt tech isn't there yet
I'm skeptic about battery-powered planes. I think hydrogen fuel-cell powered planes are the future for commercial air transport.
It is important to note the many advantages the a fully electric aircraft. I could write an extensive list of them but it is more appropriate to identify the business cases where an electric aircraft offers a competitive advantage over fossil fuel aircraft. In particular the short haul commuter market in the US is one that the Alice could effectively serve. Further, as the first all electric aircraft in it's market segment it is inevitable that many design problems need to be identified and solutions found. The development of the power electronics to run the flight motors has been a complex task indeed. Over time the continued improvement of battery energy density will assist all electric aircraft with meeting performance requirements. Don't forget that liquid fuels have weight too. So why not compare the battery weight to an equivalent fuel load in a similar sized aircraft ?
Did you know there were electric cars in 1830's !!!! that's before civil war in us....HOW MUCH MORE TIME YOU NEED????
Such comparison is not looking good for the electric one. It isn't presented becuase everyone knows....
Everyone associated with these designs has So why not compare the battery weight to an equivalent fuel load in a similar sized aircraft, and the battery is many times heavier for the same range.
What you are missing are integrated solar panels like Aptera.
This may give the critical 10-15% extra increase in range with a small increase in weight.
You apparently have not calculated the output of the panels which could be mounted on this aircraft, and compared that to the power consumption.
I'm really rooting for this. How dirty are short haul flights? If this succeeds it could really clean things up.
Even if it doesn't succeed, battery technology will certainly improve in the near future and perhaps someone else would try again.
I fleet of pilotless cargo aircraft is one of the more realistic applications for this aircraft. There are several smaller airports around the country that could accomodate without requiring DHS fees to be loaded on the flight costs. Passengers require pressurized cabins, DHS inspections and most won't choose flights broken into hops with the way the current DHS guidelines require early check-ins and other time-consuming procedures that discourage traveling.
The battery wraps around the lower half of the cabin. Half the cabin must be pulled out to access it. Far better to have a bolt on battery below the floor so it can be removed and maintained with ease. The cabin height should be about 1.9 metres. the fuselage needs to be another 600 mm to 700 mm taller - it may lose some of the blended wing effect.
very objective analysis!
Thanx
Good for feeder routes and FedEx deliveries to small airports.
Good video, but electric planes are not yet ready for the mass market
Did the price per passenger include the bribe you going to have to pay to get them to get on it?
I think it would really help to stick with the word "motor" for electric propulsion as opposed to "engine" for fuel power.
You will most likely need to do a structural batter cell with cell-to-pack technology like Tesla will be doing to reduce weight and increase range and performance.
The one and only flight of the Eviation Alice was far from the first flight of a battery-electric aircraft, so it hardly the point that "electricity bursts into the sky". I would understand the hype if Eviation had the most successful electric aircraft, or even the first electric aircraft in commercial service, but they don't - Eviation is now on their third Alice prototype, with thee different designs, and between all of them they only have a single seven-minute flight (of the second prototype).
This is where a straightforward paper cal would have shown it has no range, to save it they need to put jet engines on it
I am rather skeptical about galvanic batteries or superconducting coils to power vehicles so that is why I am very keen about my solid fueled jet engine and nuclear isotopic fueled engines and even patented lighter than air solids.
The lack of the best energy density batteries is a minor inconvenience. And can easily be remedied later on. The progress with the overall platform is what’s most valuable!
Uh, no. There is nothing special about the platform other than it has a shitty tiny cramped fuselage. There has been nothing new in Aerodynamics for well over 40 years.
Nice airframe. But batteries are heavy, a severe fire hazard, take a long time to recharge, and need to be replaced before they wear out. I'm not holding my breath for Mr. Fusion to materialize. EVs are a scam that gets milked by grifters who have figured out how to game the system.
And oogling dumbasses with no sense to see it for what it is....AGREED!
The Plane ist pretty perfect, the batteries are evolving quickly, this plane and similar concepts have a great future, if it can reliably reach a range of 400 miles, which would be available with actually existing batterytechnology, than this would be in many places of the world a real environmental improvement. Consider that taxiing time on the ground is extremely cheap and does not eat range compared to turbine AC, this is a huge factor.
At the moment won’t many e-aircraft use electricity created by coal burning power plants to charge their batteries? If so, they are still a wonderful experimental pursuit set to help us in the future when we hope the majority of electricity can be generated cleanly using the sun, wind, water or any means non-hazardous to the environment.
Is this fuesalage laminar flow like the Celera-500L
We are a long way from seeing these at your local airports. The battery tech simply is not there ... as they have already found out the hard way. Not only is there a range problem, but there's the elephant in the room that got glossed over ... how long does it take to recharge this beast and who's going to build the charging infrastructure to support it. Airlines make their money by making max use of their planes; a plane sitting on the ground with a minimum 60-90min turnaround time isn't making any money. Then there's the environmental C/B analysis ... has anyone done one?
Manufacturing batteries is a dirty carbon heavy business. How many flight hours will it take to pay off the carbon cost of making the batteries? We tend to get OOWWWED, AAWWWED and mesmerized by pretty new tech without really looking deeper at what's really there and what it represents in real terms. It is a VERY pretty bird, but at this stage its just a pretty baby with a long teething period ahead and has yet to prove it can really do anymore more than OOWWW, AAWWW and mesmerized. I'm hopeful and wish them all good fortune. But I'm not holding my breath.😎
None of this is any reflection on you Mr.Skyships; you make DAMNED GOOD videos which I thoroughly enjoy and I'm a subscriber.
Until you have ice protection and IFR reserve range, it's a pointless endeavour.
Would something similar to a Tesla car layout for the batteries help with weight and range?
It's still too heavy. Consider that at Tesla Model 3 almost weights 2 tons (1.919 kg), with an battery weight of about 625 kg. It has a range of about 350 miles with that. So it needs about 1.78 kg of battery per mile.
An A320 needs about 2 to 3 liters of kerosine for 62 miles per passenger.
So if we take for example an A320 with 100 passengers and an fuel usage of 2.5 liters per 62 miles, it would need about 250 liters of kerosine per 62 miles. That's an fuel usage of about 4 liters per mile with 100 passengers.
An liter of kerosine weights 0.8 kg so we have an fuel weight of 3.2 kg per mile with 100 passengers.
Sure the tesla needs less propellant in weight, but you have to consider, that it can only carry 5 passengers for that. The A320 can carry 100 with slightly more propellant weigth.
This is a theory and im not a professional in any of this, so correct me if im wrong about anything.
Hope i could help you :)
@@birdiessimracing this has got to be one of the best responses I’ve ever gotten given how detailed and thought out it is
@@rapidthrash1964 Thanks i'm doing my best
Was wondering what happened to Alice as early as today when I'd seen an old magazine with the wingtip propulsion setup type. Cape Air near NYC were keen on it. Think it was due in service 2022, according to that article.
The wingtip propulsion wasn't going to fly because of the risk of excessive yaw with one wingtip engine eventually being off due to a failure.
@@beatreuteler They were presumably counting on the centreline thrust of the rear motor and propeller, and probably only partial failure of either wingtip motor. I don't know whether that turned out to be unacceptable, or other issues with the wingtip propellers (ground strike risk, for instance) forced the design change.
The magniX units have two separate sets of motor winding with separate inverters for redundancy. The current magni650 units are essentially two of the smaller units (like the one on the original prototype) mounted on a common shaft, further improving redundancy. They may have decided that each unit must have the higher level of redundancy, so they could only use two (due to either size and cost). harbour Air was forced to go from the single magni350 to the magni650 for redundancy, even though the magni350 was more than powerful enough when operating normally.
Energy density of batteries is gonna need to be about 4-500% more to make it even remotely feasible for commercial aircraft.
There are known concepts to achieve such a rate, but the commercial availability is stressing the nerves of the ones awaiting its appearance.
Oh the idea of an electric passenger plane is not ready yet. Need a radical solution to the problem of battery efficiency
Battery densities have doubled since the airbus efan.
FAQUING LIAR
The radical green solution to short haul flights is trains.
if they have electric motors that strong and the batteries are the main issue, why not just use a turbine as an electric powerplant? two-engine airliners already use a third turbine in the tail for power and air
Then it would be using "jet" fuel, not electrical energy stored in batteries. The point is to not burn fuel.
250nm range. Take into account battery wear over time, temperature effects, and weather, taxi, alternate requirements, etc...and your range isn't much. Then you have recharge time. Cape Air, blah blah blah. Guess what? This will require a type rating, and that costs a whole lot more than putting a pilot in the C402 or Tecnam. Sorry folks, technology just isn't here yet.
Nope, this is not happening in the foreseeable future. Perhaps not ever.
Battery range that can get you somewhere is not enough in aviation. You need range to fly a missed approach when you get there, range to divert to an alternate airfield, range to stay above it for at least 30 minutes and significant contingency range on top of all this. Just in case. And then you would also need to operate safely with one engine inoperative. So for commercial operations, perhaps redundancy considerations would even need additional batteries in case some are lost in-flight.
And Eviation don’t currently have the range to get anyone anywhere. 250 miles?! So the business case is for corporate clients who need to fly executives between their two office locations, which happen to be 5 miles apart and separated by a lava flow?
When there’s a light weight, trustworthy electricity source that would cover everything you mentioned, then electric plane would have future. I think is going to take several more years, but is is still in the realm of possible.
Day VFR range is 250nmi. That covers flight to the destination plus 30 minutes. IFR requires fuel for the flight, diversion to an alternate if required, and then 45 minutes. I would guess that puts the practical IFR range down to around 150nmi. That's not great, but should be sufficient for their launch customer, Cape Air, who operate Cessna 402s and Tecnam P2012s on short hops around Cape Cod and the islands and to Boston and New York. ACK-BOS, their most popular route, is an 80nmi flight.
it's the future!
Like all early adopters, the technology they are working in is very much in its infancy, just like the Wright Brothers, and Tesla Motors, the predominant response from "people in the know" will be begått, and ridiculous milestones will be set for them "not until you are able to pull a five hundred mile extension cord through the desert, will the Tesla be a success" type responses. These commentators all seem to think they have a reputation to protect, and that all will be forgotten when the tech reaches maturity. Only when you have actually developed something that will make a difference, will you discover how full of absolute manure these doomsayers are
Eviation's product WILL revolutionize the world of aviation, probably in ways we do not understand yet, even if they are dissolved tomorrow, they will have inspired some person, somewhere to make something worthwhile. Eviation will be back, I just hope their backers don't pull out, and will commit to the long term, this is where the money is, and this is where their market will be, and for the developers behind the scenes, this is where the true impact of their IP will be realised.
nooo the tri motor one :<
i want tri *jets* to come back
i really miss planes with 3 engines
at that size and passenger capacity this seems more like a private plane than a viable commercial plane.
Why not have solar panels on the wings to augment the power? In Southern USA, Spain, Egypt and the Sahel this could xubstantially increase the power supply.
Hey Skyship, do you have any consideration for an Su-27 video in the future?
Not ready for prime time.
The pronunciation of "Magni" (in the company name MagniX and their electric drive unit model names such as "magni650") will have a long "a" as in magnet, not something that sounds like "mog".
I would assume it has some lifting body characteristics don’t you agree?
There are many potential solutions in the works to improve flight efficiency of planes like Alice. In the pure battery arena, CATL and Northvolt expect to have 500wh/kg available before any of these newer planes can be certified. That's a huge jump from the 300wh/kg available today. Then there are powerful new engines like those being developed by Rolls-Royce and Whisper Aero. And hybrid hydrogen-electric power trains like those using Safran's turbogenerator or hydrogen fuel cell. Heart's ES-30, for instance, has an estimated range on battery alone of 200kn (125 miles) with 30 passengers. That is projected to improve to 800kn ( 497 miles) if the powertrain is hybrid electric propulsion. The same could be expected for Alice.
Except for the hybrid, which isn't the goal here: The goal is to show it is doable using fully electric power train.
@@beatreuteler Yeah, that's the immediate goal for Alice (in addition to actually making money). But I was speaking of a whole range of similar short to medium haul planes in development. Battery electric. unless we get the breakthrough battery that is always just around the corner, is only going to get them short haul. I can see them expanding to a hybrid and picking up business in the reginal carrier arena. It's a fun area to watch unfold. But since I'm 75, I just wish it would unfold a bit faster. 😄
@@triplec8375 Me too, would like to see this coming sooner. However patience is one of the most important capabilities in this process. I agree that they will need some hybrids for more than just short haul, but that won't be Alice, because the Alice design is not fit for this more performant purpose.
@@beatreuteler Hmmm... Now I'm curious. Can you tell me in layman's terms what is it about the design would preclude using a hybrid power train? Something about the rear outboard dual engine mounting? Have you heard anything in the last year from Otto Aviation about their Celera 500l? That's another on I want to see happen soon, but Otto doesn't do any PR work so there isn't much info there although their website now shows a rendering for their proposed Celera 800. Slick!
@@triplec8375 The Alice is a 100% electric design. It doesn't offer the necessary additional structures it would take to support the fuel powered portion of a hybrid design. It would be much easier to start off with a current turboprop airframe and add a comparably small electric portion to make it a hybrid than to start off with the Alice dsign.
They could put solarpanels on top of the wings.
Modern solar panels wouldn't add a notable amount of range to the flight since its moving so fast. If its in the air for a couple hours around noon then you might add a few kW. The additional range vs the cost of the panels is unlikely to be a profitable move.
There is no problem that time and money wont solve.
Range is the killer. They've got to get into electric car territory - 300-350 miles on a full charge.
Do you know of a car that can get 300 to 350 miles on a full charge OTHER THAN WEBSITES???? that would be great!
@@just_one_opinion easily, Tesla S plaid, lucid air.
You going to drive to an airport two hours before flight, go through TSA , risk your life in this flying eggshell for 200 mi. Mkay
They should just gone Hybrid electric problem solved, HoneyWell has a 1MW turbine generator. It weighs around 300-500kg
Hybrid doesn't solve anything, since that means still burning fuel and the whole point is to avoid burning fuel.
I think that the whole industry has made some big strides congratulations but at the same time, there is a tremendous amount of R&D far in the future. I will not trust this technology and toners been tested, tested and tested and proven. I’m old-school, but I am open to this technology if it works and it’s safe, reliable, but I’m sure there are a lot of good people working on it with the same goal in mind or goals. Keep up the good work that you’re doing you will succeed.
Mkay
Tough to find 500 mile extension cord, i guess
How long to charge it up.
Why not just call this the Evanti?
(fly higher, faster and more efficiently - some planes have drop tanks, drop empty batteries as autonomous glider planes )
I have a design that will push you forward while making electricity
why don't they use hydrogen + electric engine?
Did the designers overlook the ability of powered wheels to assist takeoff ?
It is too much additional weight while being useful only during a very short time.
I don't get why an electric plane doesn´t have solar panels... Maybe it would add more weight?
Too little power. Even if the entire plane is covered with solar panels, even if they are weightless, its range will increase by a couple of percent
They just generate power too slowly to be of great usage. They can extend the range by an very small percentege however.
And some small GA electric aircraft already have them fitted
Personally, I still think that our limitations with battery tech is too big for a full EV plane to be viable. Ariel the automotive company recently teased a hybrid sports car where a small turbine acts as a range extender for its massive battery packs. Turbines would work way better in aviation applications since it also provided extra thrust, just like the Spitfire’s Merlin engines.
That was a negligible amount of thrust, and it was only good for one or two miles per hour, and only significant because top speed was the highest priority, and the props were at their maximum ability to make the plane go shut faster, but a jet, even a weak one, would add a tiny bit of speed. The turbine in a setup like that would be tiny, maybe a couple hundred horsepower, and the exhaust thrust would be tiny and acting on slow speed air, where it is the least efficient. Jets work most efficiently at high relatative speeds, which is why airliners use fans. Even Mach 2 military jets aren't fast enough to get full potential out of a pure jet. Modern helicopters use 1,000 even 2,000 or more horsepower turbo shafts and the exhaust doesn't really create any meaningful forward thrust. Hell, turboprops are already have turbine exhaust thrust and it doesn't add anything significant to the thrust even being the primary power plant. What's a little APU-style range extender going to do?
This needs to have an APU generator. Store fuel in the wings. Run the APU to constantly charge while flying with a large multi-cell battery. I hate lithium-ion batteries. We desperately need to find alternatives. Mining lithium and nickel for these batteries are a nasty business and they're highly reactive with oxygen (they explode when punctured). Using a large belly Fluoride batteries, for example, with an APU generator would be fantastic! The APU can run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (which burns much cleaner) then having Fluoride batteries which have very high power density. Hopefully, those batteries will come online soon and this can be a reality.
Sustainability = moving the problem somewhere else and thinking that you are quote saving the planet”, while creating a bigger mess somewhere else
Exactly. There's nothing sustainable about short haul flights. But then again this may just be a scam to get rich off investor money like so many tech startups are.
For a country like Germany 800-1000 km range will be an option.
If politicians took the climate crisis seriously and banned airplanes that run on fossil fuels, Alice would be a very good airplane all of a sudden.
Alice cannot cross an ocean, so banning airplanes that use fossil fuels is quite premature.
Engineers need to do allot more work on improving lithium ion battery safety.
Alice is good.... but Electra's 'estol' blown wing plane is a superior concept. Sorry. Their range will beat the Alice concept, and estol/forward flight for the 150' take offs on a fraction of the fuel, combined with the 200 mph cruising speed, 500 mile range and 75 decibel noise level is an absolute win- and their high number of pre-orders shows it.
Why they keep calling fuel engine...❎🙅
When they are electric motor...☑️🙋🏾♂️
Lets see, less than half the payload for same sized aircraft, a VERY CRAMPED fuselage, and half to a quarter of the range... Oh right, exactly what EVERY engineer has been saying for years... Current batteries are nowhere CLOSE.
If there using Lithium Ion battery, I'm not getting on that plane, Ide wait until they start using Solid State Battery.
Apparently you are not aware that the currently proposed "solid state" batteries are just lithium-ion batteries with a different electrolyte.
Since the battery consists of hundreds to thousands of individual cells, each of which has at least two welded joints, and in light of the fact that one of the biggest challenges with EVs is failure of the battery resulting in a thermal runaway, who in their right mind would get into an aircraft that is subject to shock and vibration that is much greater than ground vehicles? Its like sitting on a thermal bomb that can kill you at any time. Not for me.
A silent plane can fly 24 hours a day to major cities.
What about turnaround time? How long does it take to fully charge. lmao
Same problem with all electric aircraft, limited payload,limited range certification.They all quote ranges from full battery to empty battery when in reality all aviation laws require you to land with 20-30 minutes reserve in VFR conditions. In IFR conditions enough fuel ( battery power in this case ) enough to reach your destination fly a missed approach and fly to an ulternate airport plus 20-30 minutes reserve. So if the cloud base and or visibility is low you are going nowhere useful.
AC/DC-Back In Black (Piano cover by Gamazda )😃
?! ...This has nothing to do with the video
Quieter?