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.
@SkyshipsEng
Жыл бұрын
If the problem with the batteries is solved, we will soon see a completely different world outside the window
@onomatopejaB
Жыл бұрын
@@SkyshipsEng kzitem.info/news/bejne/uqqQ0aOek4R2kqg Hot news, capacity doubled per kg ;)
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
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
11 ай бұрын
I also wonder why they haven't used any flexible solar panels.... those wings and body could accommodate a lot of (unobstructed, unclouded) sunshine!
@st-ex8506
6 ай бұрын
@@millanferende6723 ... because solar panels on wings and body wouldn't generate enough energy to even get their own weight off the ground! Easy calculation!
@rogerpenske2411
Жыл бұрын
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
@kevinheard8364
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ragabara1031
Жыл бұрын
He also has a Russian language channel (same name without the Eng) with a few more videos than this one.
@SkyshipsEng
Жыл бұрын
@@ragabara1031 He also has a Spanish language channel. But I try to make most videos here)
@MrLoftyDreams
Жыл бұрын
I am elated the good Ship is back.
@anthonypropst1818
11 ай бұрын
Skyships calls it as he see it. Outstanding!!
@MadMadCommando
Жыл бұрын
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.
@missano3856
Жыл бұрын
I saw that and strangely Cape Air also flies subsidized flights here in Montana.
@mirzaahmed6589
Жыл бұрын
Why would service to the Hamptons be subsidized?
@mirzaahmed6589
Жыл бұрын
Cape Air is already getting the Tecnam P2012, and has signed an LOI for the Alice.
@mirzaahmed6589
Жыл бұрын
Cape Air is by no means "luxury". I've flown them a few times.
@MadMadCommando
Жыл бұрын
@@mirzaahmed6589 The federal program is intended to get more flights into small airports. The airports in the hamptons are small enough to qualify.
@AaronShenghao
Жыл бұрын
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…
@RODI____
Жыл бұрын
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.
@keriddunk1520
Жыл бұрын
@@RODI____ lol...air refueling is hard enough. You think air dropping batteries is gonna be feasible e economically? Lmao
@onomatopejaB
Жыл бұрын
Just week ago there was anonse of serial production of new battery tech with doubled capacity at the same weight, for abiation market ;)
@justforever96
Жыл бұрын
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.
@lovethytuber4770
Жыл бұрын
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?
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
There are more HEV's but currently not in the air as of yet. They move on the ground.
@davidanderson4091
11 ай бұрын
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.
@francescos7361
Жыл бұрын
Thanks , as a normal and little engineer I love this educational video for my profession.
@lwrii1912
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Saml01
Жыл бұрын
Unlikely. Certification is very expensive and time consuming. If you want a plane that looks like the Alice check out the Piaggio Avanti.
@lwrii1912
Жыл бұрын
@@Saml01 Good point. Thanks for the recommendation. 👍
@hedgehog3180
Жыл бұрын
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.
@justforever96
Жыл бұрын
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.
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
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+
@resQ-av8r
6 ай бұрын
Add the 30min IFR reserve and this thing is good for 1 full procedure IMC flight across a small town ;-)
@R.-.
Жыл бұрын
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?
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
All the proponents of commercial electric vehicles conveniently leave out the fact that batteries are consumables just like fuel only on a longer timescale.
@noalear
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrArcheopteryx
Жыл бұрын
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!
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
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!
@joedirt1965
Жыл бұрын
I like how this plane has batteries all over the place so there are less places for snakes to hide.
@noalear
Жыл бұрын
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.
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
Well, nice. But we haven't one yet. Really.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
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.
@DirkLarien
Жыл бұрын
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.
@jonathankleinow2073
Жыл бұрын
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.
@mofayer
Жыл бұрын
@@jonathankleinow2073 but with 1/3 the range.
@okman9684
4 ай бұрын
@@mofayerit will only increase from here unlike traditional jets who have to do daily fuel price adjustment and expensive overhauling
@sammesopotamia8166
Жыл бұрын
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.
@iyawesome9863
Жыл бұрын
Beautiful plane at least
@burntnougat5341
Жыл бұрын
Easier maintenance is appealing but the batt tech isn't there yet
@claytonpozzer
Жыл бұрын
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%.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
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.
@Marc-so2cd
Жыл бұрын
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😅
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
Wait and see.
@jehiahmaduro6827
Жыл бұрын
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.
@OgWoot
Жыл бұрын
Stop FAQUING LYING
@Island_Line_Rail_Productions
Жыл бұрын
@@OgWoot why are you lying? did trump hurt you?
@burntnougat5341
Жыл бұрын
Massless? Is the battery made of photons?
@noalear
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@burntnougat5341
Жыл бұрын
@@noalear ah I see. If such a battery with enough energy density exists that would be really cool
@twistedyogert
9 ай бұрын
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.
@N1originalgazza
7 ай бұрын
very objective analysis! Thanx
@corneliupopescu400
Жыл бұрын
I'm skeptic about battery-powered planes. I think hydrogen fuel-cell powered planes are the future for commercial air transport.
@DJAYPAZ
Жыл бұрын
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 ?
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
Did you know there were electric cars in 1830's !!!! that's before civil war in us....HOW MUCH MORE TIME YOU NEED????
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
Such comparison is not looking good for the electric one. It isn't presented becuase everyone knows....
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
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.
@andrewday3206
11 ай бұрын
Is this fuesalage laminar flow like the Celera-500L
@claytonpozzer
Жыл бұрын
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.
@michaelosgood9876
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
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.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Horizoneng
Жыл бұрын
Good video, but electric planes are not yet ready for the mass market
@zapfanzapfan
Жыл бұрын
Good for feeder routes and FedEx deliveries to small airports.
@Gargamel-n-Rudmilla
10 ай бұрын
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.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
You apparently have not calculated the output of the panels which could be mounted on this aircraft, and compared that to the power consumption.
@godthunder4732
Жыл бұрын
I would assume it has some lifting body characteristics don’t you agree?
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
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).
@bernardedwards8461
Жыл бұрын
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.
@rapidthrash1964
Жыл бұрын
Would something similar to a Tesla car layout for the batteries help with weight and range?
@birdiessimracing
Жыл бұрын
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 :)
@rapidthrash1964
Жыл бұрын
@@birdiessimracing this has got to be one of the best responses I’ve ever gotten given how detailed and thought out it is
@birdiessimracing
Жыл бұрын
@@rapidthrash1964 Thanks i'm doing my best
@Michael.Chapman
Жыл бұрын
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.
@davidlawand2805
Жыл бұрын
nooo the tri motor one :< i want tri *jets* to come back i really miss planes with 3 engines
@ILIJA26101993
Жыл бұрын
They could put solarpanels on top of the wings.
@noalear
Жыл бұрын
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.
@johnwilson4120
Жыл бұрын
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.
@triplec8375
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Except for the hybrid, which isn't the goal here: The goal is to show it is doable using fully electric power train.
@triplec8375
Жыл бұрын
@@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. 😄
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@triplec8375
Жыл бұрын
@@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!
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrLoftyDreams
Жыл бұрын
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.
@ChristopherEmerson-k3n
2 ай бұрын
it's the future!
@nukethewhale1
Жыл бұрын
Not ready for prime time.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
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".
@vidaett
Жыл бұрын
at that size and passenger capacity this seems more like a private plane than a viable commercial plane.
@tambarskelfir
Жыл бұрын
What about turnaround time? How long does it take to fully charge. lmao
@replica1052
Жыл бұрын
(fly higher, faster and more efficiently - some planes have drop tanks, drop empty batteries as autonomous glider planes )
@KRW628
Жыл бұрын
Range is the killer. They've got to get into electric car territory - 300-350 miles on a full charge.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
Do you know of a car that can get 300 to 350 miles on a full charge OTHER THAN WEBSITES???? that would be great!
@mofayer
Жыл бұрын
@@just_one_opinion easily, Tesla S plaid, lucid air.
@southernmarsh4234
Ай бұрын
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
@Cryptohogg
8 ай бұрын
They should just gone Hybrid electric problem solved, HoneyWell has a 1MW turbine generator. It weighs around 300-500kg
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
Hybrid doesn't solve anything, since that means still burning fuel and the whole point is to avoid burning fuel.
@jeremiahjohnson6082
Жыл бұрын
Tough to find 500 mile extension cord, i guess
@kevinjones2888
Ай бұрын
Who is Alice.....
@southernmarsh4234
Ай бұрын
Mkay
@gauravbhisikar6381
2 ай бұрын
why don't they use hydrogen + electric engine?
@tommydecember812
4 ай бұрын
I have a design that will push you forward while making electricity
@Nafeels
Жыл бұрын
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.
@justforever96
Жыл бұрын
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?
@myronplichota7965
Жыл бұрын
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.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
And oogling dumbasses with no sense to see it for what it is....AGREED!
@thomasjoyce7910
Жыл бұрын
Quieter?
@OctavioGarcíaRamirez-z9x
Жыл бұрын
Why? Why? Why? 440nm to 250nm
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
440 nm ws based on a fantasy about what batteries might be available. 250 nm is based on real batteries.
@אסף-ת9ס
Жыл бұрын
AC/DC-Back In Black (Piano cover by Gamazda )😃
@birdiessimracing
Жыл бұрын
?! ...This has nothing to do with the video
@SanjayGupta-jv9zc
7 ай бұрын
Why they keep calling fuel engine...❎🙅 When they are electric motor...☑️🙋🏾♂️
@ejkk9513
Жыл бұрын
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.
@flyerh
8 ай бұрын
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.
@overbank56
Жыл бұрын
Engineers need to do allot more work on improving lithium ion battery safety.
@pascalcoole2725
Жыл бұрын
my comments, I want one, including an long extension cord
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
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.
@AndrewSheldon
3 ай бұрын
A silent plane can fly 24 hours a day to major cities.
@danielhandika8767
Жыл бұрын
why don't they just put some turboprop to their existing aircraft as money source, then use the profit to research and develop the actual electric plane?
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
Because the objective may be to get rich off of investor money not run a sustainable company.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
What existing aircraft? They have nothing but a single prototype... and it is not designed to accommodate turbine engine or fuel.
@petermgruhn
Жыл бұрын
Why is there a picture of Singapore? Ooo a model airplane was shown in France. And people bought it. "The batteries burst into flames by themselves. Who would have thought." Anybody paying attention. Changes were made to the gosh wow version after they got a ton of money. We don't know why these changes were made. We must be daft. "Its planned range is..." still not its actual range. For what this company appears to be, "planned range is" is the same as "we think it would be cool and maybe we could get some more money if the range were". There we go. Next paragraph : range is lol.
@litestuffllc7249
Жыл бұрын
funny. So what an electric plane; they've been around as toys for 50 years .. they have short range and are basically useless as a result. The hope is for more energy dense batteries to make this more of a viable option, but - did you every notice the catch on fire.. they will need to also be safer and cheaper.
@markdoan1472
Жыл бұрын
I could have done the math and predicted the range failure for a few hundred bucks .. would have been no need to build and waste millions ... Batteries power to weight ratio over Kerosene is 14 / 1 .. meaning you need 14 lbs of battery to match 1 lb of kerosene ... There as of yet is no such thing as a useful electric transport craft and never will be until that ratio is cut in half ... and that conceivably may never happen
@SkyshipsEng
Жыл бұрын
At least they are trying to find a solution. Attempts to create electric planes forces to look for the best batteries for them
@ZhenyaTyoma
Жыл бұрын
if they started to use electrical front wheel for taxing. that would significantly increase its capacity in range. No need to rotate propellers during taxing.
@pumarolz
Жыл бұрын
I hope they can convert the battery space into fuel space for a turboprop conversion
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
There's no goal to do it whatsoever. There are enough designs out there for this. Why adding one more?
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
Just buy a Piaggio P.180 Avanti.
@sammymanuel5609
3 ай бұрын
Just doesn't have the torque
@someoneelse7629
Жыл бұрын
You can never base your calculations and promises on future improvements, as the whole electric vehicle industry does. Heart Aero had to give up on their electric plane, NASA cancelled their electric X-plane and this became a turd... You can only make promises that existing tecnology can meet and HOPE for another revolution in batterys that will make it even better
@none941
Жыл бұрын
Given the cramped layout alone, I would not want to ride in this vehicle. This is a seriously dead end!
@ohutchie
Жыл бұрын
The layout is not cramped compared to similar turbine-powered planes. The cabin is larger in both dimensions than a Pilatus PC-12, the current standard for 9-seat executive turboprops, and with the wide cross-section, it's likely to feel more like a midsized jet than a turboprop.
@rogerpenske2411
Жыл бұрын
Sustainability = moving the problem somewhere else and thinking that you are quote saving the planet”, while creating a bigger mess somewhere else
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
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.
@domesticcat5069
8 ай бұрын
🗨️😽
@fayzemourie6829
16 күн бұрын
THIS IS ISRAELI UNTECHNICAL TECHNOLOGY
@planespeaking
Жыл бұрын
Some real debbie downers in the comments. I remember people saying the same about electric cars
@burntnougat5341
Жыл бұрын
Electric cars have their own set of problems
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
The real problem is people who think they can consume their way out of climate change and resource depletion.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
Ooooh promised 350 miles but get 140 miles range in winter with no heater on...sounds great!
@rapidthrash1964
Жыл бұрын
Too bad we couldn’t just develop a tiny lightweight nuclear reactor to stick on board because nobody except me would be willing to fly on such a plane.
@oadka
Жыл бұрын
I'll join :)
@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter
Жыл бұрын
That "tiny lightweight nuclear reactor " would need a few hundred tons of concrete to protect you from radiation. We'll have to wait for fusion reactors that are always 10 years away.
@birdiessimracing
Жыл бұрын
This was actually tried by the US airforce. But the radiation shielding for the crew was just way too heavy to have an efficent airframe. This was just one of many problems with the design.
@foxracerdrew
Жыл бұрын
Cleaner? hahahaha, right... LiPo batteries?? hahahaha......incidents of in flight fires are going to go through the roof. But hey ho, keep on dreaming.
@brianb-p6586
4 ай бұрын
No, not lithium-polymer batteries. Lithium-ion, but details of the battery have not been provided.
@alfazeta8
Жыл бұрын
Electric plane, but how is electricity produced? It's only trendy but not truly environmentally friendly...
@flyerkiller5073
Жыл бұрын
Classic controversy. Electricity is not a completely green solution. But it's greener than fuel
@alfazeta8
Жыл бұрын
@@flyerkiller5073 greener? In what ways? Can I have evidence please?
@planespeaking
Жыл бұрын
Electric motors are way more effecient tha dinosaur fuel regardless of how you generate the power, electric motors use less energy.
@birdiessimracing
Жыл бұрын
@@planespeaking but the "fuel" weight is way higher
@planespeaking
Жыл бұрын
@@birdiessimracing That doesn't make the motors less efficient though, which was the original point.
@kenbellchambers4577
Жыл бұрын
High altitude heat deposition from jet aircraft is the most likely candidate for producing severe, abnormal weather events worldwide. Combustion zone temperatures in a jet turbine reach as high as 2300 degrees C, and the stratosphere is between minus 30 to 50 degrees C. Also, jets fly in the jet stream to save time and money. This means that the jet stream is being heated and expanded by the jet exhaust, as well as having to endure the reaction caused by the force of the jet thrust, which is in the opposite direction of the jet stream. It will take many years for the jet stream to recover, and the ozone layer, terribly depleted by jet traffic, to be renewed. We urgently need to get electric planes in service asap. Go Alice.
@noalear
Жыл бұрын
I completely support going fully electric across the board for a plethora of reasons, but the effect is, volumetrically, relatively insignificant compared to the jet streams. The heat captured by the annual output of coal and natural gas power plants production of CO2 is an order of magnitude or ten higher than the heat from jet exhaust. Demolish the coal and natural gas plants and replace them with almost anything else and we've made substantial progress towards net zero. Nearly the rest of CO2 production from cars, planes, trains, rockets, and animals can be captured and repurposed, especially if fusion takes off, since our power capacity would be significantly improved. Could even convert CO2 to O2 and use the carbon to make graphene for a light solar shade to get us back to our nominal temperature in our cycle.
@kenbellchambers4577
Жыл бұрын
@@noalear There are a million people in the air 24 hours a day. The jet engine requires 16.8 tonnes of atmosphere to combust one tonne of Jet A. That is a lot of superheated smog in a sensitive area. This volume of gas, heat and pressure at thirty thousand feet will have a far more massive effect than surface-based heat sources. By the time heat from a gas fired plant reaches the stratosphere it is cold. Not so with jet exhaust. Gas plants are an excellent interim power source, and the low-grade heat that they produce as a by-product is useful. Low grade heat is being exploited more as we discover how easy it is to use.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
Holy krap, this he/him/she/blm went there....HAHAHAHAHAHA
@johannesbols57
Жыл бұрын
And if you have to get somewhere that's a thousand miles from where you are now, are you going to walk? No, wait... you'll wait for an electric powered aircraft to take you there!
@kenbellchambers4577
Жыл бұрын
@@johannesbols57 We have to move towards electric planes. The damage done by jets is more than you imagine. We should be shying away from unnecessary jet travel wherever we can use the net instead. One day we will have fast cool-running electric planes, so I am just hoping to make that sooner rather than later. Personally, I love to fly, but I will try very hard to not do so again, if possible, until electric planes are available.
@EspHack
Жыл бұрын
replace battery with gas generator and it'll circle the globe on a tank, but oh no, ideals first
@ecliptix5436
Жыл бұрын
High torque APU driving a generator to provide engine power, smaller battery array for backup.
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
It's far better to just use the fuel to drive the prop directly. Every time energy is converted there are losses.
@tachyon5321
8 ай бұрын
Dumb technology
@SpankMyFace
Жыл бұрын
Energy density of batteries is gonna need to be about 4-500% more to make it even remotely feasible for commercial aircraft.
@beatreuteler
Жыл бұрын
There are known concepts to achieve such a rate, but the commercial availability is stressing the nerves of the ones awaiting its appearance.
@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter
Жыл бұрын
Proof that exaggerated claims will get you funded, but that funds can't turn exaggerated claims into reality.
@bumponalog7164
Жыл бұрын
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.
@joebrenner4428
11 ай бұрын
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.
@ecoideazventures6417
6 ай бұрын
Agreed, but unlike the vast majority of tech startups are just investment scams, this one at least has proven its concept and airworthy!
@ML-xp1kp
Жыл бұрын
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.
@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf
Жыл бұрын
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
Жыл бұрын
Free fuel? Where do you get free electricity from?
@ML-xp1kp
Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@aron68on_etoro95
Жыл бұрын
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.
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
UH, no. Its range is a pathetic 250nmi. Not 400nmi(700km)
@iq-ride9329
Жыл бұрын
And when will the return trip take place?
@leftcoaster67
Жыл бұрын
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.
@just_one_opinion
Жыл бұрын
Look up Milankovitch cycles with your carbon nonsense.
@theemperorofmankind3739
Жыл бұрын
@@just_one_opinion Milankovitch cycles do not explain the current environmental issues.
@Glen.Danielsen
Жыл бұрын
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.
@w8stral
Жыл бұрын
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.
@elcheapo5302
Жыл бұрын
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.
@Baaddu
Жыл бұрын
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...
@SkyshipsEng
Жыл бұрын
Electric planes have a lot of problems right now. But at least they are trying to solve them.
@DRGrosch
Жыл бұрын
Until you have ice protection and IFR reserve range, it's a pointless endeavour.
@JoeyBlogs007
5 ай бұрын
There is no problem that time and money wont solve.
@alanmorrison3598
Жыл бұрын
Why not just call this the Evanti?
@briangman3
Жыл бұрын
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
@dana-pw3us
14 күн бұрын
cool engineering, but all done in hope of break-through in batteries capacity... Yea, and if it happens, imaging yourself flying over Atlantic on props...
@johnthompson9483
3 ай бұрын
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.
Пікірлер: 270