All-Electric Alice Aircraft Makes First Flight as Eviation Delays Entry Into Service - FutureFlight 

Let's talk when you can haul 100 passengers across the Atlantic at near-sonic speed.

I'm with you. Push the technology. It will make hybrid vehicles really good some day.

Fuel cells definitely would add to the range and I am a fan for sure. It also adds to the weight and complexity though. I do think until battery storage is where we need it, some for of hybrid is the answer.

Absolutely 110% correct.

Yes, it means that the wings and gear have to be much stronger and heavier than they would be in a fossil fuel powered aircraft - to cope with the heavier landing weights. R

And with only a 250 mile range...once you factor in the mandatory 1/2 hour of reserve the actual planned flight is VERY short. Somehow they were promising energy density in their batteries that they don't have...and just assuming that it would be available in the future isn't a solid bet.

These are valid points. I for one hope the engineers in this field manage to solve them.

@@RalphEllis do you think current aircraft can’t land with full tanks?

Fully agree with you, sir.

A mistake to not allow for fuel cells as way to set apart the company as solely electric. Testing electric driven propellers should be priority over fuel source in going green to lower green house gas in the upper atmosphere.

It doesn't need to compete with jets... Its trying to fill in the market for short regional flights. We haven't seen any breakthrough in battery tech because its all still using li ion as its base. Right now major companies are just starting to roll out solid state batteries that are commercially viable and many new tech has been tested successfully in the labs. It certainly wont happen overnight, but shitting on this prototype plane that JUST MADE its first flight is pretty short sighted and foolish IMO.

@@CrossWindsPat the mass fraction of your powerplant/fuel will drive the viability of the aircraft. Building a plane without having a viable power/battery combination is just for show. In fact one can test that on existing airframes. As someone else commented, since the weight of the batteries is carried through to landing, the net usability is further decreased by needed heavier structures.

@@N91CZ Ohh so there are some flaws... I guess we better stop trying all together and keep burning dinos baby!!!

Ever thought about the battery positioning...?

I could see it working well for places like Long Island, the Great Lakes, island chains, etc. where you have routes that are much shorter by air than road/boat/ferry, or like here in the Great Lakes where the water freezes over.

@SierraLima At the very least, e-planes are currently useful for general aviation trainers. Also, battery swapping addresses charge time issues. At the current place of battery development, it makes sense for aircraft designers to be developing prototypes now. We didn't wait for the invention of the electric starter to find automobiles useful or the invention of a jet engine to find airplanes useful.

So is a Hummingbird but they can't carry my fat @$$

I agree. I cannot believe he didn't ask her what it sounded like? Did it sound like a huge fan?

Yup I think so. There have been a number of smaller planes doing it and I thin kNASA has a large plane that uses a single engine on top of conventional engines for testing, but this is definitely the biggest flying right now.

The concern was presumably with asymmetric thrust in case of a motor failure, but with dual inverters feeding separate stator windings on each motor, and a third motor and prop on centreline in the rear, that shouldn't have been a big issue. Ground handling and prop strikes on takeoff and landing in abnormal roll events may have been greater concerns.

The original design had one propeller on each wingtip, plus one on the tail. That design was changed before the first flying prototype. Also, the earlier design was a tail-dragger (main gear forward, small wheel on the tail) and the current design is tricycle (mean gear rearward, small wheel under the nose). They apparently didn't personally notify you, but there was nothing secret about the changes.

Its plenty of noise lol. Any open prop is gonna be loud AF, regardless of what makes it spin.

About 2/3 quieter than normal planes

The target range of "250" is 250 nautical miles (not "regular" or statute miles), which is 288 miles. That allows for 30 minutes of reserve, and is substantially further than Seattle to Spokane, but whether specific legal requirements for reserve would be met would require confirmation.

​@@brianb-p6586 Thirty minutes of reserve is not enought to meet commercial requirements to transport people. Enough reserve is needed to reach your planned suitable alternate plus 45 minutes of reserve once at the alternate. Fuel enough for flying into a head wind to get to your alternate and enough fuel for a couple of tries at that runway and then enough to divert to a third location with people on board and recover safely, doesn't look like it has the duration. When some moonbat dumps that hopeless fantasy full of people into the woods it will be the end of times for electric airplanes. More batteries more weight, more weight less people, less people less revenue...Bad. Oil is solar power captured and stored by plants. Oil is the future. Oil is green. Got Oil ?😎

A ton of battery packs with a density of 200 WH per kg translates to 200 KWH. So a fully depleted batt will take about an hour on a 350 KW charger which I know they employ (charging is not linear, its fast initially then tapers off). However if using the Tesla Semi megacharger, depending on the cooling apparatus in the packs, this can time be shortened. But batteries are never fully depleted because when losing altitude the propellers and motors can actually charge the batteries 10-15 %.

@@BigB29357 that's all reasonable, but the battery will be much larger than 1,000 kg and 200 kWh. Detailed specifications are lacking, but about four times that size has been reported.

@@brianb-p6586 Exactly, details are lacking, details are always lacking with these ethereal fantasy projects. Actual performance and delivery schedules don't meet expectations.

I've been thinking that that is how electric cars should be. Change the battery at a service station, and be on your merry way! Only now, you are not stuck with facing a $20,000 battery replacement, but that comes out of leasing said batteries from the service station!

@@ConvairDart106 Those two ideas are miles apart. The plane battery pack can be tested and swapped by the aircraft or airline's own mechanics. That would be quite feasible if engineered to do so. Cars on the other hand all have different packs. Who would pay to keep many different packs on hand and serviced? Who would swap them? There are many videos on why this is not a viable solution, like this one: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jaLiJQZSews.html.

There is no chance that this aircraft has only a ton (about 2,000 pounds or about 900 kilograms) of battery. The maximum takeoff weight is listed by Eviation as 16,500 pounds, and only 2,500 pounds of that is payload. This is not a 12,000 pound aircraft without battery.

Assuming a constant rate of energy density increase doesn't make sense to me. This isn't information technology; it is bound by physics. Sure, substantial step advances with fundamental changes in the chemistry used are possible and even likely, but continual improvement is unlikely.

Batteries lose capacity with age and use. A battery wearing out is okay in a car but not in an airplane. The promoted range for the Alice aircraft with virgin batteries is a fleeting image once the airplane begins using the batteries regularly, any Prius owner can attest to this. Can the FAA certify an airplane which will not have reliably consistent duration times as batteries continuously degrade due to use and other factors like outside air temperature such as in Alaska, Minnesota or the North East? A kerosene powered airplane CAN meet those duration times consistently and reliably with every fill up. Oil is solar power captured and stored by plants. Oil is a plant based energy source.

@@wicked1172 yes, it can certainly be certified with a battery. The range of allowable charge can be limited, so as the battery degrades the allowed storage capacity stays the same; this is a normal practice in EVs. Eventually the battery will degrade enough that it needs replacement, but that's like any of the many other service items in an aircraft... in this case based on condition rather than operating hours.

@@wicked1172 That is true. However it is not combusted efficiently as in living tissue. It's combusted at high temperatures very inefficiently while releasing nano particles which are extremely harmfull to the human brain.

I can see the FAA being a little more lenient on battery upgrades since in essence its very simple and can be done without effecting the power output of the engines itself. A more efficient battery swap would likely increase range and reliability since its less stress on the batteries. But this is the FAA we are talking about so... yea not gonna be easy lol.

Its dismal but its also BRAND NEW and still in testing... How far do you think the model T got you when it was new? As batteries progress as they have been slowly over time, that range will increase and Im sure the engineers have planned for battery upgrades. Swapping out a battery with more storage but the same output is cake, especially compared to upgrading a new ICE or turbine engine... I do feel in 10 maybe 20 years you will be eating those words.

A prototype has limited legal range under FAA rules... nothing to do with batteries.

God the amount of idiots shitting on THE VERY FIRST FLIGHT of the VERY FIRST ALL ELECTRIC passenger prototype is staggering... This is truly in the infancy and gains are bound to be made.

Might be worth a try. Just saying.

No good. Blimps make no progress in even 20 knot winds. And getting one down and secured safe in same wind was also a downside. There is a reason why they are only used as flying billboards! Also, when you want to get from A to B, would you rather do it at 600 knots, or 60?

Air ships covered by solar panels some kind of somar film, driving electric motors. I would like to travel with 😎👍 And for airplanes, I think that the company who can deliver really good high prestanda batteries There will be an enomous market.

all the naysayers are not getting that zero emissions are here to stay and a hell of a lot of countries,companies and scientists are working on these issues a bit like the first steam engines till the triple expansion engine was born. The same people's grandparents were howling that flying was a fad, the work of the devil that no one would want to fly or that having a horse or a windmill was all one needed. and they still havn't learnt a thing just nodding their heads to the propaganda spewed by politicians and media that is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry . Only two sure things in life death and Change.

@@simonainscough619 LOL... Wake up Simon! The entire concept of "Zero Emissions" not only a physical impossibility, but the biggest scam ever foisted upon mankind. And as for 'climate change", it's not people, but that big hot yellow thing up in the sky. Always has been. Always will be. 8^)

Yes assuming they want to be commercial, that number should include a 45 min reserve.

With VFR reserve, according to the Eviation website.

Too many problems. It's the least dense substance in the universe, so compressing enough of it into a fuel tank to be useful requires extreme refrigeration (costing energy, constantly trying to boil off) or pressure (requiring very strong heavy fuel tanks to avoid bursting) and then it's trying really hard to escape. And being such tiny molecules it's an escape artist leaking thru seals, gaskets, even straight thru solid steel (making the steel brittle). At which point it's very dangerous, easy to ignite - while say gasoline or ethanol only ignite in a narrow range of fuel vapor to air ratios (no fire if the mix is too rich or too thin) and need significant energy from a spark plug, hydrogen ignites easily in a wide range of ratios, from just background static electricity. Plus the cheapest way to make hydrogen is from methane (natural gas) but partway through you get methanol which is by far a more practical fuel so you should just stop there - it takes much much more energy to turn that methanol into hydrogen, so environmentally and economically it's not worth it. If we're using internal combustion engines I'd say go with biofuels.

@@IrishCarney Wow. Thank you for that insight. :)

Lighter to store??!??! Im not sure you understand what it takes to actually store hydrogen. They require massive pressurized tanks and since hydrogen is well, hydrogen it tends to leak out of everything since its molecules are smaller than anything else. Not to mention how much energy goes into producing it in the first place. Id love to see a hydrogen future but when you look at the full picture, its just not feasible... EDIT: Irish Carney nailed it in the previous reply!

@@CrossWindsPat Thanks. I have already agreed to IrishCarney.

Well one is a canard design and one isnt so fundamentally very different. But I do see the resemblance

ironically enough (though certainly no correlation to the air worthiness of Eviation's design) the very first Piaggio Avanti just CRASHED down Costa Rica way with a famous German fitness mogul aboard. whole family lost with 6 fatalities in total (5 passengers and 1 pilot).

@@phillyphil1513 I was shocked! I had to look up what type of plane, after reading about Gold’s Gym Owner and Family…Tragic! Then to see it was a Piaggio P-180 Avanti…They just don’t Drop out of the Air! I can’t even Imagine what happened…So sad.

@@sickheadache9903 re: "They just don’t Drop out of the Air!" correct so long as you stay above stall speed for a given configuration they do not (in partial defense of Eviation) with proper design, not even one's carrying 1 to 2 tons of batteries will just "up" and do this. one can climb a low wing Piper Archer or Cherokee up to 5,000ft and then pull power all the way back to IDLE and the plane KEEPS flying. the CFII's and CFI's at my Flight School do it all the time as part of regular training. technically it's a slow decent but at that altitude (and no reference points, with 2 on board, and a full fuel load) one appears to be "just hovering". and as we see the fuselage of the Eviation is clearly even more of a LIFTING BODY than the P-180 (ref: Space Shuttle). sadly like with all crashes we now just have to wait and see what the investigators come up with.

How is it futile? Why should companies that know nothing about batteries try to take the torch when there is literally billions being flowed into cutting edge battery tech by battery specialist? Both Toyota and VW have signed massive deals with solid state battery producers and they are just now rolling out commercially viable solid state packs. New tech takes time... They can design the plane the best they can and swap in better battery packs at any time.

cooling...

Id bet they want to make the batteries easy to swap since they are predicting higher energy density down the road.

This will also require oodles of time, too. I don't remember exactly how long the Honda Jet took to get certified for the GA market, nut it was 10 to 15 years. This plane will also require certification for commercial use and passenger service.

@@stevecunningham6821 Honda Jet was certified 12 years from the date of first flight by the FAA. Good point.

The aircraft which Eviation just flew is the same as the one in the drawings currently on their website (in the "aircraft" page of the Eviation site). It is not the same as their first model, which was a three-prop configuration, but the design changed a while ago. Are you comparing the current aircraft to old drawings?

@@brianb-p6586 That’s not true. Look carefully. The aircraft in the drawings on the website has major differences. With the aircraft that has flown. The drawings show a much larger tail, propulsors moved forward, larger winglets and a totally different wing. You can see the Alice that flew by using web archive, but the current drawings are not what has been built.

@@jwholmes2 I wondered if you were looking at the old 3-prop design, but apparently not. I do see the differences that you have identified, but these are features that can be expected to evolve during development. The drawings shown for promotional purposes on the website could easily just be an earlier version than the flying prototype. If I were promoting a vehicle that was still in prototype version in a competitive market, I don't think that I would publish drawings to scale of the actual current design. The rendering on the "company" page of the site matches the prototype, rather than the line drawings. While the company is very far from production, and there may be several more prototypes, I don't think that illustrations on their website are any indication that the current prototype couldn't be taken through certification to production. The admitted lack of a sufficiently viable battery is the real concern with ability to put the current prototype into production.

Cobalt is not required

There will be deaths as we transition to this technology. So many flight factors are opposite of what the flying community fly by. Today, jet airliners and even light single pistons, can climb higher as fuel burns off. You will not have that advantage with electric motors. Weight will remain constant as power falls off high over the mountains. The only solution to the problem is deciding who to throw out first! And who wants to try flying this in hard IFR? Imagine being told to divert to your alternate, and there are icing conditions en-route requiring prop and windshield and wing deice which draws even more power which will decrease thrust even further and now you encounter a headwind.....

The tech is here now for cars for all but the most vanishingly rare and extreme use cases. EVs were able to handle everyday local driving and commuting over a decade ago. And now at this point they can handle all but the most demanding road trips -- the kind that you'd probably be better off just flying if you're that concerned about how long it would take.

Hybrid is definitely a smart approach as we wait for battery tech to catch up.

@@ConvairDart106 Dude are you just copy and pasting the same reply to everyone down the thread?

There will be deaths as we transition to this technology. So many flight factors are opposite of what the flying community fly by. Today, jet airliners and even light single pistons, can climb higher as fuel burns off. You will not have that advantage with electric motors. Weight will remain constant as power falls off high over the mountains. The only solution to the problem is deciding who to throw out first! And who wants to try flying this in hard IFR? Imagine being told to divert to your alternate, and there are icing conditions en-route requiring prop and windshield and wing deice which draws even more power which will decrease thrust even further and now you encounter a headwind.....

@@ConvairDart106 Oh my God man, you have HAMMERED this so hard. I hadn't thought of icing condidtions, so common in commercial aviation. Icing is a killer and it requires large amouts of energy to de-ice leading edges, propellers and wind screens adding to the regular load on the battery. These guys promoting on here are engineers who know this stuff and are keeping quiet about it in an effort to win an argument and BS people. Notice how they haven't replied to you. Great points you make.

I want to take you seriously but when you say shit about oil trying to portray it as a green energy source, you make your biases clear as day. Battery degradation can be calculated and tracked pretty easily and im sure the engineers have plans to swap out new packs when necessary.

@@CrossWindsPat Oil...IS...a Green energy. Oil is also carbon neutral. Follow me here, Plants are green are they not? Plants have used SOLAR energy to capture CARBON from the atmosphere in the form of lipids (oil). The carbon is returned to the atmosphere when the lipids, (oil) is/are burned, where other plants can recapture (recycle) the carbon using solar power to do so. It is a wonderful system provided to us by Nature. Woke culture is the latest form of Marxism. Oil is green energy.

@SierraLima We have been had cars that you can charge overnight, drive over 300 miles in range and NEVER have to pull into a gas station again but yea tell me how they are VASTLY inferior... Of course its not gonna be a direct replacement over ICE overnight but saying its vastly inferior is very simple minded... Electric engines are like 98% efficient and batteries are 90% but even the best ICE is only 50%. Sure it wont replace long haul travel but even in aviation a big chunk of flights use vehicles whose maximum range waaay exceeds what is actually required. Also I am sure you arent wrong about these companies using green language to grift and get funding but you know 100% there were people just like you talking shit about ICE or cell phones or whatever new tech back in the days...

Thank you for having no faith in the near future of NON polluting aviation. Perhaps one day we won't worry about aviation fuel being dumped in our yards due to a forced early landing by those safe, reliable, fuel burning, pollution generating REAL Airplanes. Park your plane in the hanger with engines running and close all the doors. No? Why? Oh, airplane exhaust is deadly. Go outside then

@@r.a.monigold9789 I am all for developing alternative power. Should we not be concentrating on the hundreds of millions of cars used daily, before a plane used 100 hours per year? An electric plane will take off at gross weight, and remain at gross until it lands. Meanwhile, power is decreasing! I have been flying since 1970. At home, I have over 30 RC planes. A mix of electric, gas, and glow. I notice the differences right away as some get lighter, and others get heavier. Now, guess which? o you want to be a passenger over mountains when that plane begins to lose power? We will get their eventually, but airplanes are so expensive because unlike cars produced in the millions, only a few hundred planes are being built today. Get it right in the automobile, and then we can take what we learn and apply it to aviation. At the moment, piston engines are the safer bet when my ass is in the sky! Also, a 250 mile range is ridiculous considering that planes are meant to fly far and long. No sense having a fast plane that has to recharge every 250 miles. Faster to take the bus!

@@ConvairDart106 don't worry...they'll have enough power to make it all the way to the crash site! I'm with you! Battery tech is terrible currently and I see no great breakthrough on the horizon. Then, factor in a chemical fire at 30k feet. I'm in RC planes too. I'm sure you've see what happens to a Lipo when you introduce the incredible flammable source of....air! Now, add in the fact that the more you use a battery the worse it gets. So, airlines will be replacing battery plants how often at what cost? Hell over half the cost of a Tesla is the batteries. No... talking about putting the cart before the horse. Worst of all, I haven't been convinced that a warmer planet will be necessarily bad for humans. This is all politics and not science or tech. It's not only wrong, it's evil and cruel.

The model t wasn’t that great either but it was a beginning. Certainly you wouldn’t think it’s a fair comparison to look at the first thing of something and then judge what could come in the future. Thinking like this we would never venture to new things.

@@Alexs1234 You missed my point. Aircraft are produced in such small numbers, that it is greatly more efficient and cheaper to develop through the much larger automotive industry. I have some electric RC planes that are extremely powerful, powered with li-po batteries. You ever see one catch fire? And if I recall, in 2010, there was a UPS 747 brought down in flames from a lithium battery! More research is needed before I sit my ass on a pyrotechnic device. Exposure to any amount of oxygen alone, will set it off! Hope they never get a rat onboard when hauling fruits and veggies!

Let us see how your comment will age, the same was said about electric cars, now look Teslas model Y is the best sold car (no matter whether ICE or EV) in several markets. The gravimetric energy density of batteries did already improve constantly year over year and will continue to do so.

How about this, battery electric aircraft for short flights, and hydrogen fuel cell aircraft for long flights. That seems pretty fair

You people need to realize money is being in invested in EV battery technology. EV's have won and hydrogen has lost. Like it or not that how it is.

@@nilsfrederking62 Accu technology is stop gap solution and it will remain a stop gap solution until the H2 solutions are ready. The resources needed to keep up the "battery"/accumulator production isn't sustainable. Accumulator are a rather inefficient use of resources. And yes, right now the whole automotive industry is riding the eVehicle wave. It will change, when you can refuel your vehicle with hydrogen like you did it with gasoline. No waiting for getting your batteries charged no more! What is even worse with accumulators is the capacity loss over time. There you drive your Tesla model Y for ten years, and then you have to replace the accumulators in your 10 years old Tesla for thousands and thousands of cash! It's ridiculous!

@@PyroShields You're in for the short time. Widen your horizon and will see, that industry and regulators are getting ready to deploy the infrastructure needed for H2 technology. Also, I call the energy storage an accumulator. For me a battery is a one time use article and then it has be dumped into the recycling bin. The widespread use of accumulators will come to an end, when the H2 technologies are ready to be used in consumer goods. The moment you can fill up your car in the next Hydrogen tanking station accumulators will disappear.

ReeeeeeeeeeeeeEeEeEeEeEeeEeEeEeEeEEeeee

Turn on the Disney channel, it sounds like that.

@@crnkin2 BWAHAHAHAHAHA 😂🤣😂🤣😂LOL, good one!

Like a really big electric fan. Seriously - it's the same aerodynamic noise. There are videos of the Harbour Air eBeaver flying with the same MagniX engine. While they have background noise (confusingly including other aircraft), it's about what I would expect from a propeller without engine noise.

@@brianb-p6586 yeah but it takes less time just to type ReeeeeeeeeeeeeEeEeEeEeEEEEEeeEee

Probably not but quieter than a conventional turbo prop. Its still a big prop spinning in the air.

No gas please. No burning of fuel in an inefficient manner. Every airfield can generate zillions of power beside runways and taxiways over hangars and workshops.

It's not a hybrid, but for span-covering propellers you should have a look at NASA's X-57 Maxwell project.

@@BigB29357 We’re not going to be able to make the switch to all-electric for a while (except really short haul). For medium range, it makes sense to consider hybrid. You can get the safety of a multi with most of the cost benefits of a single. It’s also helping to develop electric powertrains for aircraft and, as battery tech improves you reach a point where the engine supplies less energy than its own weight in batteries. You’ve got a fully electric plane, ready to go, at that point.

@@BigB29357 Hybrid is a great idea... Sure its not totally green like we would want, but it would GREATLY increase the range and therefor safety until we get the energy storage breakthrough we need

Let’s call it a Range Extender instead of a hybrid… similar to what BMW have done with the i3 model. It’s a great concept, which really helped to bring usable EVs to the market almost a decade earlier than if it was a pure electric. Even with just about 100km range for their first model years, you can drive it without using any gas for 99% of the time, depending on your commute, but still feel safe it won’t leave you stranded, even if you find a charger along your route is broken or occupied. It could serve the same purpose for the first generation of electric aircraft.

You mean, like your brain? Or... sense of humour? It will be an island hopper for a while, relax. And then it will vitalize small airports.

That makes sense

@@gurumage9555 drop tanks solves weight issues and airports have plenty of room for solar panels

Drop heavy batteries? LOL tf are you smoking?

@@PyroShields put wings on the drop tank batteries and let them fly to wherever you want them to

@@replica1052 Dumb idea but hey you tried.

True. My complaint is that it's going to be insanely difficult to scale this to commercial size. Also, long distances since you're not consuming fuel you weigh the same from start to end. Limiting distance you can fly.

Generally the reported range is what it could fly not counting the additional energy required for taxi and reserve requirements.

Well if you want to drive there go ahead and drive there personally I would rather fly in an electric airplane

It will have a very limited use, as is the case with all new technology. But it would be excellent for hopping from island to island. Or maybe you want to drive instead.

You gonna drive around the ocean when island hopping? You gonna drive around mountains where a 200 mile drive takes 6 hours? This is THE FIRST built from the ground up all-electric passenger plane on Earth, of course its not gonna immediately take out all regional flights.. Cmon man... You sound just like the guy bashing the car and saying "id rather ride my horse!"

😂

Yes, in commercial operation it would be required to meet normal flight standards including reserve. The 250 nm range quoted is stated by Eviation as with VFR reserves.

I don't see aircraft like this or bigger in service anywhere near. The batteries have not significantly improved during the last years. And they massively lack of energy per wheight. It's always told a new super battery is coming up in a few months. I have been hearing this for at least the last 15 years. - And nothing happend. So, my expectations aren't too high for this kind of experimental aircraft. It's just what can be done now. And that is not a lot. All these concepts miss to tackle the showstopper. There are no efforts with the batteries. This should be the main perspective. Improve the batteries or find a new way of energy storage. Otherwise this won't make any sense.

Laws of physics will not allow it!

@@donraptor6156 what law, specifically, do you think is the issue?

@ Brian: electrochemical voltage series or simply mass of energy source by exergy for example...

@@XFIR_OS neither of those are laws which would be violated by higher battery energy density.

The truth would chase away any future cash investment. In the end most of these dream projects turn out to be nothing more than money pits/regular paydays.

you know nothing of the weight distribution of this plane which is determined mainly by battery weight and placement. The thin design has everything to do with no integrated fuel tanks and reduction of drag.

@@BigB29357 We have a pretty good idea of the weight distribution based on the location of the wings, since they have to be just aft of the CG. I believe what the OP is referring to is the high wing loading based on the weight of the aircraft and the total wing area (roughly estimated by the proportions of the aircraft), not the frontal cross section. These are of course all guesses based on the similarities and differences from other aircraft designs and common laws of physics they share

@@BigB29357 Budiness Jet Guru (BJG) is making a lot of sense here. The industry will want an inherently stable airplane for controlability in a wide range of situations.

Wing thickness (section depth) has nothing to do with aircraft length or balance, so presumably you mean the short chord length. Even chord length doesn't seem relevant; are you expecting the centre of lift to shift with pitch changes to compensate for loading changes so it would fly more tail-down with a more aft weight distribution? It's not a boat.

There will be deaths as we transition to this technology. So many flight factors are opposite of what the flying community fly by. Today, jet airliners and even light single pistons, can climb higher as fuel burns off. You will not have that advantage with electric motors. Weight will remain constant as power falls off high over the mountains. The only solution to the problem is deciding who to throw out first! And who wants to try flying this in hard IFR? Imagine being told to divert to your alternate, and there are icing conditions en-route requiring prop and windshield and wing deice which draws even more power which will decrease thrust even further and now you encounter a headwind.....

@@ConvairDart106 how many kilowatts do you think a windshield defroster takes? Propulsion requires hundreds of kilowatts, making accessory loads relatively insignificant.

@@ConvairDart106 Thou shalt not wory, it will start with Barstow to whereever, Martha's Vinyard to wherever and at some point Rotterdam - London City Airport or Biggin Hill. Short sweet hops, until the range picks up, and then it will revitalize decentralized local airfields. It will happen, the question is will they sell 200 a year in 2029, 2033 or 2037.

@@brianb-p6586 Well, let's see now. I had to upgrade the alternator on my plane when I switched to a glass panel. Those instruments that were previously operated by free suction power are now electric. How about boosted control surfaces? Are those now electric or electro hydraulic? How about de-ice boots that require an air compressor? Regardless of what you say, propeller and windshield de-ice draw a lot of power. Those also require bigger alternators to handle the load. My 40 KW generator on my boat can run just 30 hair dryers at max load and 6 gallons per hour! I also have a couple dozen RC planes. My Pawnee requires three separate ni-cad batteries. One for the receiver, one for the smoke pump, and one for the ignition. Why? Because turning on the smoke pump killed the ignition or the receiver, making three separate systems heavier, which required a bigger engine to recoup the lost performance due to weight. We are getting there, but it will take much more time before it will be safe for mass transport. Also, will they be able to fly in the stratosphere above the weather, or down with the rest of general aviation operating in the "triposphere" as we refer to the troposphere, where all the VFR pilots are operating, and not talking to anyone? I would not like to think of what happens when they start mixing the two. More power will be required to operate in the thin air encountered in the flight levels.

@@ConvairDart106 lots of details of this specific aircraft have not been shared by Eviation, such as the method used for control surface actuation. I would guess it is fly-by-wire (rather than a boosted mechanical connection), but whether they are fully electric or electric-over-hydraulic, I have not heard. I don't think you understand what "a lot of power" is in this context. The little 24 volt accessory systems are nothing compared to propulsion power. If compressed air is needed (for deicing boots), an electrically driven air compressor will be used. I don't know why there would be a concern with altitude. The altitude considerations are just like any other aircraft, but without a loss of power due to lower air density into an engine.

Why ?

LMAO why not? Electric engines are by far the most reliable form of engines out there and so are batteries... They may severely lack the range but from a safety standpoint, they kick ass.

Saving money on fuel is theater? Electric motors are about three times as efficient as internal combustion engines.

Glad to hear your electron source is cheap and without carbon by-product. Odd that not everybody has abandoned internal combustion vehicles...

@@wolcottwu756 The US grid is is roughly 40% natural gas, 20% coal, 20% nuclear, and 20% renewables (hydro, wind, solar). So, it's 40% non-carbon right off the bat. On top of that, an electric motor is about 3x more efficient than an internal combustion engine. So, you're saving even more. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions, not eliminate them overnight. So, I wouldn't expect ICE vehicles to be completely abandoned anytime soon. But, there are a lot more BEVs on the road. Whenever I go out on the road, I now typically see dozens of EVs, while a few years ago I might see one or two. The change is very noticeable.

As a person owning a Tesla and the stock, I am cognizant of the fact that the car symbolizes sophistication and are the best fun one can have with your clothes on. My electron source is gas and coal. The West is now decommissioning nuke and dams without commensurate clean replacement. Enviros blocking wind and solar of scale. The source of my lithium batteries a horror story. The widely used assertion that my Tesla is "clean" is theatre. A full accounting of every electron and material/manufacturing impact to determine if it is net/net "cleaner" is for more qualified people than myself to dispute.

Ohh god not this propaganda again... Even if they were being charged by fucking coal plants, the over all energy efficiency is better than any ICE engine can be, and seeing that most of our power in the US comes from natural gas and nuclear its WAY more efficient than an ICE would be... Take your shill bullshit elsewhere.

Was that the crazy German prototype coal powered airplane?!!?! I saw that on Dark Skies but apparently it was vaporware and was being pushed by its designer so he could stay in Hitlers favor.

The way to go is to have stand-by batteries and do battery swaps while passengers board in and out.

800 volt 450+ kw charging is in early use on cars just adopt that tech.....

Excellent point about fire risk increasing with energy density of batteries. Thus, even if more dense batteries were to materialize, they may not have an acceptable safety profile for aviation. It's exasperating to see these projects be hyped despite being non-certifiable because of inadequate range. I suspect that most are simply stock promotion schemes. Annoyingly, even the presenter on the AOPA web show promotes these contraptions, furrowing his brow while nodding and assuring us (baselessly) that "ELECTRIC is the future of aviation".

@@paulo7200 Yes. They really need to take electric cars to the next level of safety and endurance before electric aviation can be taken seriously.

Also have to factor in efficiency. Electric motors are about three times more efficient than internal combustion engines.

@@dansanger5340 I did say electric is more efficient but I implied the use of turbines which already have a very high efficiency in aircraft applications. I am not writing electric off. Just saying it will be challenging.

@@GSimpsonOAM So you did. Yes, it will take a long time, starting with very short range flights, and maybe eventually extending to medium range. Absent some breakthrough, it's probably safe to assume that energy density will double around every decade. Not exactly Moore's Law, but significant over a long enough time period.

You realize you’ve just described a perpetual motion machine which we all know is a fantasy that violates the laws of physics?

@@lorendjones if something like this could be done we would not need fuel to run our airplanes the propellers and generators are always keeping the batteries charged to keep the plane in the air i know we are still far away but soon it will happen

@@DanO530.8 no, simple physics tells us it is impossible. It's as likely as us being able to wish ourselves across the ocean and suddenly being there. Yeah, it would be way cool....but it will NEVER happen!

Sorry. Conservation of energy wont allow. It sucks but just reality.

Ah yes, the ol' turbine bolted to the roof of your car. Genius.

I think your greatly over exaggerating the loss of energy density of current batteries. They are capable of thousands of cycles and still maintain 70-80% of their capacity. Now the fire situation is a real issue but I think most battery fires happen when the battery overheats. If they engineer proper cooling (which shouldn't be too hard seeing as any flight at altitude is super cold) I doubt it would be that big of a risk. Also maybe they can allow a quick drop system like they do with fuel tank. Although dropping a flaming 1 ton chunk of li ion from the air is definitely some crazy shit... As far as bird strikes and taxi impacts, I don't see that being affected since the battery will most likely be deep in the structure of the planes body and near the center of its wings IE the strongest part of the plane... Conventional planes bump into shit all the time and don't burst into flames right? (although sometimes they actually do since you know, half the plane is a flammable fuel...)

@@CrossWindsPatPerhaps but, when looking at the lifetime if these batteries...the energy it takes to produce them, their effecti lifetime... and the fact that they are highly caustic and not simple to dispose if all has to be factored into it. Not to mention that you spend hours charging and in turn only get a fraction of that time to drain them. I know Tesla has fast charger now but again, there's a trade off. The more you fast charge them the shorter the life. I agree, battery technology has increased a great deal since I was a kid in 70s, teen in 80s. However, to my point....unless some miraculous breakt happens, which doesn't look likely, physics dictates that we're pretty much up against the wall here. We can't go much further with the chemical battery as we know them today. Now, I know there is a great deal of research going on and I've looked at some ideas being worked on getting away from chemical and new directions but these possibilities are just that. They are in their infancy and are a long way off from feasibility. I've spent a lot of time looking into this as someone interested in it but someone that uses batteries in hobbies and IoT circuit design and so on. I'm not an expert but repeating what many experts have said. Just watched a video and read a couple papers on an outfit that is developing a battery system for the power grid type of application using CO2... of all things that looks really interesting and promising but, it's a huge system with no application in say cars or planes. Now, I'm not sure if I mentioned in posts on this video or not but.. I'm interested in seeing what the engineers are coming up with in this and other planes. They have some huge problems. Engineers are crazy smart and I'm not saying that because I'm a communications engineer lol. Wish I went into mechanical engineering or really... aviation engineering. But again... fuel has really proven to be very safe outside of say a crash. Even so, fuel can be much easier to extinguish compared to a chemical fire. A small battery has already brought down as least one commercial aircraft and it was tiny in comparison to what would be needed in an all electric plane. Add to it the fact that simple air can set them off and you have a really big issue on your hands. So...I hear ya and appreciate the civil debate. Maybe I don't disagree with you as much as I'm much more skeptical and admittedly...Likely more cynical and jaded lol. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I just can't see it yet. I can't see this as a viable solution. Especially when I'm not convinced that any of these green tech to a so called problem I'm not convinced we have or... if it is a problem, they results of it will do all that much harm. I just can't take anyone seriously when they say one thing and one thing only is responsible for global climate change. So... maybe we can get together in 10 years and see how things pan out lol. Like I said, I'm pulling for you😋. Cheers!

@@Sabotage_Labs Well thank you for your nuanced response. I also might be too optimistic myself! It is definitely quite the hurdle and is certainly not the solution to all problems. I for one think neutral carbon fuels are gonna be the only thing that can maintain the range and speed we are used to today for long haul flights. But I do think electric planes can fill a gap in short regional travel that currently is being done by planes that are massive overkill for the applications.

Pilot was terrified. Thing barely got off the ground - he was probably using WAY more throttle and elevator to keep it in the air. Cool fans though.

Like perpetual motion ...

It would a great application for sure!

Uh no. They're destroying the climate, plus oil's monopoly on moving things props up a rogue's gallery of tyrants and terrorists. "Drill Baby Drill" doesn't work because US oil is inherently more expensive (being in extreme locations like the Arctic, shale beds, and under the sea floor) and needs heavy sulfur removed in refining. The Saudis have only a fraction of US extraction costs. The faster we use up our "cheapest" oil the faster we end up with even more expensive oil as the "cheapest" we have left then, handing the bad guys an even bigger price advantage. Renewable biofuels in internal combustion engines are the best solution at least in the interim.

The problem is one of energy density. To compete with hydrocarbon fuels the battery will require a fifty-fold improvement in energy density. Never going to happen.

"When it enters service." Should have been... IF it enters service.

Its nautical miles so its close to 500 KM. More than enough for most feeder routes. Note that the fuselage is totally unchanged meaning the concept is finalised. Whats missing is battery density which is improving by 8% annually or fifty over five years. My decade old Fluence or leaf could only go 110-120 KM. My daughters Tesla can go four times that. In a decade.

@@BigB29357 Yes engineers should boldly design around electric power because its only going to get better. we don't even know what the future holds.

@@morthomer5804 The green fanatics (and many gen z) simply can't distinguish between reality, CGI graphics, and baseless claims.

@@BigB29357 Battery technology is limited by Thermodynamics and Chemistry. There is no way a battery can ever rival the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.