Electric Aviation is a channel that explores all the electricity powered aircrafts (E-Planes and EVTOL). With the advancement in battery and fuel cell technology, there has been a surge in development of electric aircraft. On this channel we will keep you abreast with all the progress.
Very nice aircraft interesting concept. Price wise a Cessna 172 is about $500,000, and a Cirrus is $1,200,000 so this seems on the cheaper end. Huge saving in running cost and maintenance
Such a beautiful design!! Interference drag at the corners of the box increase that loss category by around 4x. Potentially a small price for all the advantages. John was aware of this and was working to minimize it when I visited his shop nearly ten years ago. Blue sky and God’s speed to this effort. Step changes are sorely needed in GA products.
The electrolysis of water requires energy. The energy to carry out the electrolysis (e.g. fuel or batteries) would have to be carried by the vehicle as well. Collectively, a battery (or fuel) + electrolysis system is likely to be much heavier than a battery (or fuel)-only approach. As a result, the answer to your question is probably 'never' - unless a highly energy dense source (such as nuclear) is used and electrolysing water turns out to be the most effective way to convert that energy to something that can be used for propulsion.
This doesn't make any sense if you can cool down an electric motor to spin very fast the rotor should be small and an electric jet should result not a large dangerous spinning prop that be very worrisome for passenger aircraft
Sad to hear sbout the abandonment or the 500. I am beginning to think that commonsense seems to be always displaced by some profit motive. It just proves that capitalist ideas always result in retrograde technology which does NOTHING for the rest of the 'poored' world. Hopefully some other country will pick up the 500's fantastic use of this emgine and run with it since not all of us have the deep pockets of private jet owners like bezos and his ilk.
My apologies for saying "Cyropop" as "Cyropop" and "Cryogenic" as "Cyrogenic". Thank you to all those who pointed it out. I will try not to make this mistake again.
WTF?!! Superconductivity? Electric motors already have the efficiency and low weight, why are they solving problems that don't exist? 2MW of power, come on teslas have 700hp which is 0.5MW already, what innovation are they talking about?! The only problem with electric aircraft is energy storage, and only that. Hydrogen is a dead end, if you have to use a gas => use methane. It's like fractally wrong, wrong at every level. Airbus is wasting time pretending they are doing something, when they don't.
Electric motors are indeed already efficient and light compared to the equivalent combustion engiine, but the Tesla 700 hp rating is a peak rating that can only be maintained for a limited time before the motor would overheat. In an aircraft application, you need that sort of power continuously, Moreover, the larger the motor is, the more difficult it is to keep it cool (the surface area to volume ratio reduces with increased size) so it becomes more worthwhile to add the cryogenic equipment to minimise losses and waste heat in higher powered systems.
@johnwale2886 good response! I agree the motor should be designed for the application, but cryogenics? It seems like more cooling channels should do the job? Your peak rating argument -- sure, that's correct too, but teslas go around a race track without overheating, which is essentially 100% power interleaved with 100% regen, pretty torturous regime as well, right. Or just going 200 mph or whatever the max speed number is, that's quite intense too. BTW, an aircraft needs full power at takeoff, not all the time.
@@olegklimov3717 Thanks for your answer. Agreed about take-off being the peak power requirement. What I was trying to say was that even a small regional airliner is going to need powers of at least 0.5 MW continuously (e.g. ATR-72 has about 1.6 MW of installed power). In relation to cryogenics, the point at which it becomes worthwhile depends on the size and power levels involved. A car (even a high performance one) will be fine with ordinary liquid cooling, but an aircraft might be large and powerful enough to justify cryogenic cooling.
@@johnwale2886 I would LOVE to see aircraft of a smaller size, smaller than ATR-72, more aerodynamic and efficient, the current air travel sucks! Especially what needs to go is this huge airports, I'd like to use a regional one (for example Reus where I live), or a VTOL pad. A smaller aircraft can go point-to-point, not hub and spokes model which sucks too. For that to happen, an aircraft designer doesn't have to throw everything into the mix, including cryogenics (does that include cooling down for half a day or not?), we need batteries 500 kwh/kg that already exist (CATL condensed battery?), aerodynamics and a feasible way for certification. Airbus can do all that, and instead it researches hydrogen. That's what I find so laughable. I'm sure there's a place for cryogenics somewhere, but not in a small simple certifiable aircraft I think would be a game changer.
The mixing of metric units and imperial units is distracting. For any YT video about technology, the audience will be comfortable with metric (yes, even us Americans).
@@frederikkruger I used to write avionics software for wide-body commercial jets and I've completed the ground portion of flight school, but that's irrelevant. I know more about planes than you, but again that's irrelevant. *This video is clearly not for pilots.*
how does a jet engine differ to a propellor or electric ducted fan? they produce SUPERSONIC exhaust efflux. to "cruise" at 600kmh requires your exhaust eject at at least 1200KMh... something that can NEVER be achieved with plain old propellers, or ducted fans. its called plain old aerodynamics. obviously airbus hires an advertising etam with no idea how planes work. but sure know all the modern "game changing" keywords to spice up their tripe...
Cryo fuels on public transportation. Absolutely ZERO chance for things to go south. Nope! Nope! Absolutely ZERO chance for something to go FREAKING CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG!
100% correct. this sort of BS hype over vaporware requires that no-one appears to know the difference between an EDF, propellor, and a jet engine, and how a jet engine can NEVER be replaced with something electrical... cough cough, ahem...supersonic speeds dont happen in plain old air pushed through pipes... it needs something... EXTRA. like 2400C combustion temperatures and hot gas that wants to release all that heat somehow... back when gustaf delaval was playing with early turbines, this was common knowledge. boyle? pascal? charles? theres a lot of history on work performed with gas... lot of maths... no longer important, its all about "feelings" and "being green"... ha ha.
Since when was powertrain weight the problem? The weight of the ridiculously thick tank to hold a 700 bar (10,000psi) pressure is the main problem. Hydrogen is a half-measure between liquid hydrocarbons and full electric. It is purported to be "green" but when produced renewably it is 3x more wasteful than electric. They should just either stick with hydrocarbons (which can be made renewably) or go full electric. Airbus will waste whatever free money from the government grants to build whatever nonsense the govt tells them to build.
lets not talk about how jet engines manage to achieve higher than supersonic speeds... something NO "electric ducted fan" can pull off... if you wanna go back to flitting around in piper cubs with props at low altitudes... then great, electric is ideal... as long as you dont mind landing every few minutes for a charge. explain how an electric motor of any type can produce thrust, especially at the low pressures where the standard airliner operates...
Thanks for an interesting video from a pilot. Electric? Per hard science, it takes about 68 kilos/150 pounds of battery .... to equal the energy in about 3 kilos/7 pounds of jet fuel. Real life example for the CRJ I flew, a 50 passenger jet: To equal the energy in the CRJ's 14,000 pounds of fuel, would require about 294,000 pounds of battery. Putting the aircraft just a tad over its max operating weight of 53,000 pounds :)
Did you watch the video? Electric motors doesn't imply batteries. Moreover, not all aircraft need to be able to fly for thousands of kilometers without refueling/recharging.
@@alterego3734 why would he watch the video when he could just comment aimlessly like a dumbass. this is the internet after all. Marc might as well be cocky and and clueless; something tells me the smile at the end of the comment means he's right at home with the other terminally overconfident. His gf/wife/partner must be rather disappointed though that 5 minutes is too long for him to put time into.
@@alterego3734 Point was, and is, battery power as an energy source for electric motors isn't a real option in aviation due to weight. Hydrogen is a possible source, for aircraft and cars. We've got 700 years of coal to generate the power to make hydrogen via electrolysis, and 100 years or so of natural gas to make it via Steam-methane reforming (SMR). Of course, once nuclear over regulation is reduced, nuclear power a safe option.
@@MarcPagan ELECTRIC isnt viable for aircraft. how does a jet engine operate, and what makes it different to an electric ducted fan? hint... its about exhaust velocity and TEMPERATURE. why do we no longer have airliners with propellors? how does an EDF or propellor operate at 52,000ft or whatever cruising altitude happens to be? why do we have "altitude ceilings"? if you want to fly below the clouds, at low speeds, then great... go buy your electric plane, good for a quick hop to the closest airfield... then wait a day so you can hop back home again... would love to make an emergency, no gear landing with a full battery pack. would love to overshoot the runway or have no power and wind up sinking into a river with lots of little water-sensitive bombs...
@@MarcPagan Some commercial aircraft can fly 18,000 km without refueling. Batteries are about 50 times less energy dense than fuel. That means an electric aircraft could fly for over 300 km quite easily. That is sufficient for many flights connecting minor airports to major hubs.
13 - 30% to cool it and make it liquid does seem a lot, but then again, if the gains are higher, it's worth it. Same with too much wind or solar, they could just produce H2 and cool it down as well. Thank you 👍💪✌
I'm almost sure electric propulsion for big airplanes doesn't even make any sense, but the hydrogen or any other fuel could be used in a regular turbine or any engine.
@@martinwoollett8468 Have you seen the latest batch from Tesla? They've got quality control problems, whereas the other brands are going strong and are more reliable, like doing longer than Teslas in cold conditions. And the Cybertruck is a mess.
With such innovative laminar flow designs it is the sensitivity of boundary layer to small protuberances such as bugs and dirt that causes a significant increase in drag. Real world effects become a factor in these designs.
I think you should look into using blimps because they could make it a lot safer. I guess you would need a larger blimp and would have to use hydrogen for the lower cost
Von karman Gabrielle requires a very high L/D which in turn requires a high span and aspect ratio neither of which this thing has. Just a basic shortcoming (pun intended)
200 mph and 40 miles per gallon... Why not use terms pilots use for fuel consumption..... 5 gallons per hour. Speculation based on a model. Most prototype models are proportionally faster and more fuel efficient than a full scale developed product. Consider all the propeller aircraft projects in the 1930s and 1940s. The predictions based on prototypes and models were almost universally much better than the real full size vehicle. Cool idea, but their must be some issues if no manufacturer will show real interest.
2:18. i argue the factuality of those statements... the whole concept, really. the only air you perform work upon to accelerate, the only mass with inertia, are the air molecules you ionise. the only air you perform an action upon, and can receive a corresponding REACTION upon the airframe itself. consider that it takes work to force a charge onto the electrode. that charge is transferred to an air molecule, the leakage current. then that air molecule in being repelled has to produce a corresponding reaction. against what? the electrode repelling it. if theres an opposite electrode attracting it, there must also be an equal "pull" for the same reason. the air molecule has inertia and wants to keep doing whatever it was before it was rudely disturbed. if the molecule weighed more than the vehicle, had more inertia... what would move? the air molecules that get "wacked" simply IMPEDE the flow, they get in the WAY of the air you ARE performing work upon. the acceleration of those molecules is caused by the collision of molecules you performed work upon. its like flat earthers thinking rockets dont work in a vacuum as they push on the air behind them... no they do NOT. they work on a pressure imbalance, and perform better when theres nothing in the way to impede flow. they work BETTER in a vacuum! personally, i think everyones got the wrong approach to ionic "thrusters"... should be working on attempting to get an air ass to oscillate... or better yet, ROTATE... simply moving air does not equate to thrust. you have to build PRESSURE. then an imbalance of pressure will create thrust. how does a cyclotron work? could you use that principle somehow, to compress air, to raise its pressure? why isnt anyone applying a magnetic field? electrostatic speakers? you need to perform actual work on the air to make thrust.
There must be very hi angular accelerations when the blade is rotated which would create enormous stresses in the blade. What rotational speeds have been achieved?
