Do Electric Planes REALLY Work?! I tried one and here is what I think. 

In Sweden everybody speak fluent English :)

@@cantoressanctimarci Cool.

@@cantoressanctimarci Don't forget Norway, most of Denmark and all of Amsterdam.

@@cantoressanctimarci 'speaks' ;)

@@thespian666 Same for Iceland. An interesting discovery when talking to one local who had what was basically a perfect Northeastern US accent - apparently somehow an Icelandic accent + New Zealand accent (they had spent a few years in NZ) when combined are indistinguishable from Northeastern US.

I noticed that as well.

I'm generalizing here of course, but TBH, that's pretty typical about people from that part of the world, I love it, work with some people from that part of the world and you pretty much know exactly where you are standing with them

Thanks, there's no point in not telling it like it is, we want development to move forward. It works well as an aircraft in the early stages of flight training and is a really good start - but as many have already figured out, there is still a lot to do :) Our idea is to use the technology that is available right now. It is not easy to use new technology commercially, but it is interesting and our way of pushing development forward.

@@greenflightacademyI loved the clip and it's really interesting to see all development. I just kept wondering that this works quite well for a small airfield and a single electric plane but what if you've 10 flying around the airfield and ATC has to take them all into account since everyone likes to land when running out of juice. I think that can be quite problematic to organize as ATC.

It is nice that there was no sugar coating. Also appreciated the joke about free gym memberships.

Hi. I had a very close friend, Aidan de Gersigni, sadly prematurely deceased many yrs ago, who pioneered hangliding in South Africa in abt 1974 ,was SA champ in '78 I think, and went on to build abt 1200 micro lights as Solo Wings. I'll never forget his grit and determination over 3 days on learner slopes around Durban. As his' second'as it were, I watched him wipe out over and over and eventually, on the third day, take off to abt 60 ft over what in SA is called a donga but in America a dry gulch or arroyo I believe. The expression on his face, which my ex caught on a Kodak instamatic is classic! F*! K I'm up!!

Then F*! K how do I get down!? Lol. When Flight SA did a feature on him as the gran'daddy of hangliding in SA, they featured our Pic, from his widow, in their article. Cheers, carl

This is actually a great point. I think this absolutely opens the door to more people actually being able to learn how to fly.

if this had been around 20 yrs ago, imagine how much better things (ie: batteries) would be by now :)

G'day, Well, if you search YT for "National Transportation Museum ; Visiting My First Aeroplane...!" You may enjoy a recent visit to what I uploaded a dozen years back, "The 8 HP, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !" I was it's 3rd owner, it was my first Aeroplane, it took me for my first Solo..., in 1979 ; I was 17 at the time. In 1992 while being silly I crashed my second Aeroplane, a 22 HP VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider. Last month I bought a Talaria Sting (L1e) Road registered Electric Motocross Bike. The off-road versions have a 6,000 or 8,500 watt motor, with a 2,300 W/Hr Battery. If a spare Sting Motor & Speed-Controller ($1,600) and a spare Battery ($2,000) were built into the VJ-24w, which had a direct-drive 41.5" X 12.5" Propeller running at 4,200 RPM produced only 9 HP of THRUST. At 4.18:1 reduction drive from the Sting Motor and a Propeller Shaft (instead of the 8.35:1 of the Motorcycle rear wheel) then a Propeller Shaft would have 30.5 HP at 1,144 RPM, Running a 96" X 46" Propeller, Engaging 50 sq. ft instead of 9 sq ft of Disc Area - both at 50 mph Airspeed ; for 19 HP of actual Thrust.... For 17 minutes, Leaving enough in the battery for at least one Missed Approach/go around, AFTER diving back down from 11,250 ft, using the Motorcycle's 4-stage Regenerative Braking to Put maybe 20 or 30% of a Charge back into the Battery - Atop the 20% "Reserve" Capacity left at the top of the Climb. Or, take off, climb to the first Thermal, Float around all day, And by thermalling up & diving down, One Might Land with a Full Battery. If I can sell my 2 y.o. electric Bicycle I May have sufficient Spare funds to Suck it And See what Happens (!). Have a good one... Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Yep, it’s in use cases like this that I could potentially see electric aircraft. Great point.

But 45min is way too short.

Don't the Norwegian's know: Never mix water with electricity!

@@robertmendola333 These plans are for new, larger planes to enter service later this decade, far more realistic: Early/mid next decade. Intitial operational startup for the Tecnam P-Volt nine seater land plane (possible range 355 km, operational range 140 km) was set to 2026, but the company has rolled back final release date. The sea plane is so far basically just an advanced study, and there are many experts criticizing the project’s feasibility. Web: el-fly(dot)no

@@robertmendola333 : 45 minutes is plenty for such a short trip, you can go to the destination and divert back home with time to spare.

Bzzzzz 😊

Patreon access confirmed

Finally bring the cost of flying for fun down. Particularly now that carbon fiber is the new fiberglass. Easier than fiberglass if you only want your part to be half the weight, instead of a quarter the weight. The dream is to build a trailer for my e-bike that converts my e-bike into a flying e-bike. Also thin film solar for the upper wing material. Probably going to need some inflatable pontoons since I want to go island hopping.

Lower cost flying? Pipistrel Velis Electro - $210,000 Battery replacement - ~$24,000 every 500 hours Motor rebuild - Cost unknown, every 2,000 hours Motor bearing and seal replacement - cost unknown, but the motor must be removed and sent to Pipistrel every 300 hours. Electricity cost - Insignificant Pipistrel Alpha Trainer - $100,000 Engine rebuild - ~$12,000 every 2,000 hours Fuel costs - $20/hr Other maintenance costs - Insignificant The ICE aircraft is easily the far less expensive option.@@jtjames79

Thank you for mentioning the noise level. I had wondered about that~

That plane is a piece of crap to me :)

@@DavidJohnson-tv2nn no one cares :)

@DavidJohnson-tv2nn , it seems like you are the real piece of crap.

Thank you!

Oh my god! I didn't even notice this until I read this post and went back to a random point in the video and checked. 10 internet points for noticing this and another 10 internet points to Mentor Aviation or the editing software for know this is the right way to edit video. You are so right that this simple choice makes watching the video feel so much better. I love wins all round. ❤

@@MentourNow It would be interesting to know if you're using a gimbal or something like that because the footage is so smooth.

Strangely it's giving me a little bit of motion sickness when unstabilized footage doesn't.

This is purely a matter of preference, but I find horizon-stablized videos annoyingly unrealistic. That's just not how it looks when you're flying. I'd much rather see the frame referenced to the aircraft and enjoy the tilting of the horizon. But, each to their own.

Thats because its basically a powered glider.

It's all interesting but weight management must be a pain in the аss since you can't take a bit less fuel to fit all you need into your max TO weight limits. Also the landing max weight is literally the same as the TO one so I'm curious how challenging it is to land the bird on shorter runways or with no flaps

Yeah.. if I could get 1,5h out of it, I would be seriously considering one.

@@MentourNow I see that happening before the end of the decade. Innovation in battery tech certainly is still going strong

I see that happening even sooner with the present rate of innovation.

Give it two years at the present rate of innovation, and it will also be lighter and better in cold temps.

With solid state batteries coming soon. That shouldn't be a problem. But, alone the ease of getting it ready for going up in the air. That is such a no fuss, from "I wanna go fly" to being in the air, such a short step. And the lower cost for keeping it airworthy is a great bonus.

It was really cool!! I hope people like this kind of videos so I can do more of them!

​@@MentourNowWhat if the battery catches fire? We've all seen how fast the fires develop, and your only choice would be to burn to death or jump! I would not get in that without a parachute. No chance, especially not as you have a family.

The only Electric plane i would even consider flying is an R/C model.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Aviation Gas or Kerosine are flameable, too. Judging from cars, batteries seem to be pretty safe compared to a tank of gas. @@MattyEngland

@@jaws666 It's funny. RC modellers used to say RC electric planes had no future too

Thank you!

none needed😂

I hope it answered a few of your questions 💕💕

The biggest thing is actually not dumping lead into the atmosphere since traditional smaller airplanes use leaded fuel and small airports are often near residential areas and people get lead poisoning without even knowing it.

@@mediocreman2 The measured lead hasn't been an issue, even near busy airports, as it's quite spread out. But lead compounds are bad, and should be eliminated, and general aviation is the only large contributor.

@@UncleKennysPlaceWhich is quite outrageous given that general aviation is a hobby for the rich for the largest part.

I think it is not an efficiency problem, more a there is not enough real world data to certify these batteries beyond 500H problem.

@@niconico3907 Over time the rated hours might improve, I suspect a large amount of battery packs would easily exceed the 500 hours without enough capacity loss/other faults to remain functional. Just that at some point they can't really guarantee reliable operation anymore (with current known data). But one of the packs failing and losing some of your battery capacity is a lot less critical in let's say a stationary application or a wheeled vehicle that stays on the ground. Those can probably even continue functioning just fine until the next maintenance due to weight being much less of restriction. Depending on the design individual cells might also be easy to recover and then ideally recycling the bad cells. Practically not done a lot yet but it's technically possible with existing technology to recover a high percentage of the ingredients, good old it's still cheaper to buy new stuff issue.

​@@niconico3907There is plenty of real world data for lithium ion performance and degradation, that's how they're able to give an hour rating to begin with. I think OP meant reusing the old, now less-reliable battery packs in less mission critical applications, like grid storage. The bad cells can be removed, and the rest can be used in an application like that where the battery failing is more of a minor inconvenience of slightly less grid capacity, than a deadly tragedy of a plane going down or electric vehicle failing on the highway.

The battery pack will be designed for high power, but relatively short life. I think after it's reached 500 hours it will be already significantly reduced capacity, and not enormously longer life will still be available.

its more of a cert and performance guarantee thing. longer lifetimes will come

Unfortunately, the infrastructure and power requires here is immense. And, as might be the first time you have heard this, many things do not scale up.

@@orthopraxis235 And that is the second elephant in the room.

@@emilschw8924 Very nice. The mind is on.

@@orthopraxis235 what infrastructure? they are not building a new runway exclusive for this tiny electric training plane, did they? and it looks like most airfield are connected to the grid, as far as I know they already use electric lights in sweden even for buildings and runways, no more kerosene lamps....

If you have the chance, go for it, it's really worth it!

until the batteries erupt into flames randomly during flight and you have to jump out

@@jebes909090That's a problem of cheap batteries made with low-quality materials and craftsmanship. Aircraft-grade batteries are obviously going to be much better made, and tested for safety and reliability.

​@@jebes909090battery fires don't happen "randomly". Thermal runaway needs quite high temps, far outside the operating range. Shorting is only a thing if you don't maintain your aircraft... But the same is true for gas lines that have cracks in them...

@@Validole except no one going to examimg every single battery in a battery pack for degradation so the only other solution is to replace battery packs at regular intervals. Since you're absolutle dead if it erupts into flames mid air, those battery packs will have to be replaced far more often then in cars to ensure safety. In other words, electric planes will end up being more expensive and carry far less then a traditional aircraft

With solid state batteries, that could be soon..

@@ThreeTrillionTrees If by soon you mean 30 years, then yes. The FAA is still struggling to remove lead from fuel, which has been banned for on-road car use since 1975. If they can't figure out an unleaded gasoline solution in 50 years, I guarantee they won't do batteries in any less than a decade. The problem with solid-state batteries for aviation specifically is that they are extremely sensitive to cold temperatures, significantly more so than traditional Li-ion. That (and cost) have to be solved first, then it will be hurry up and wait on certification. Eventually? Maybe. But not soon.

THATS true 😂

Well.. you generally would plan better while in a plane. And you could probably do an emergency landing with little to no electricity.

How is this different from regular airplane range anxiety?

@@rowaystarcodepends on how the controls are powered

@@DavidHRyall Controls are push-rods (so all manual) and you have a glide ratio of 1/15 so you can glide twice as far as a Cessna/Piper, so it's very safe in case of an emergency.

😂😂😂

That’s exactly what GFA are doing right now.

I think that for GA flight schools, training on these would be a disservice to their students. Fine for those going CPL or ATPL where the planes they will be flying are all significantly different anyway. If a PPL were gained on an eletric plane then, until they are more common, the new pilot will have to start flying an ICE plane with little to no experience.

@@richardpayne If I understand it correctly, they agree with you and always augment the initial training with ICE plane training. The BE plane is just used in the earlier phases of training. I'm sure they'll keep doing that until the performance, cost, and availability of BE planes is such that individuals can expect to pilot only BE planes, whether that is general aviation or even eventually commercial.

​@@richardpaynemaybe - for people not aspiring to become commercial pilots - training on a BE plane will be like doing your drivers license on an EV with some people in the back saying "but what if you need to drive stick at some point?!" (true in theory but increasingly irrelevant as we're entering a new age of doing things without using fossile fuels)

People keep mentioning the reduced cost of these. There's a couple of places in the UK with these, and I was talking to a guy at Popham and he said the issue is Charging. That great big 1 Megawatt unit at the airfield would have put a massive dent in your hourly rate! Also with such a short endurance at present you can only fly to another field if it is less than 20 miles away or they have their own expensive power station. In the UK there are only 3 places where you can charge them and none are reachable in a cross country as they are very range restricted. Headwinds will cause similar anxiety as range anxiety in EV drivers! The rate quoted for electricity is also way under the European average, most countries are more like €0.30/Kwh, so much more than €1.00 to recharge, and you need 3 phase to do that! Yes you have to start somewhere but it will be a while before we are all buzzing around the skies under electric power! Also, wasn't it Technam who tried a twin engine electric 8 seater for a small commuter plane? Didn't work out surprisingly as the batteries were fried after only a couple of hundred charges as planes, unlike cars, need 100% charge as the range is way too short even with 100%, and charging to full every time is probably what killed their first batteries?

Are you on drugs?

🙌🏼

So one pilot and some luggage, that's all there is room for (not a passenger plus luggage), would that really be useful?!

These planes are 2 seaters and luggage is probably not really necessary if you are doing very short hops.@@ErikssonTord_2

This aircraft is too small with not enough load but there are some electric passenger aircraft which could fill the role you describe.

@@thearisen7301 even so good luck finding a charger unless you want to sit on the runway for 3 days

There's also electric ferries (already in use) and some experimental modern sail technology that gets brought up here and there. Combining with more frequent ferry service it could be a nice complement to a future electric small aircraft service.

Omg, how brainwashed are you? 😂😂 You realise CO2 is the gas of life that fuels all plant life on earth?

You are welcome to do you PPL with us 😊🔌🛫

Glad you enjoyed it! I really loved recording it so I hope the audience will tune in

The battery pack lasts 500 hours. How many engine rebuilds would you require in that time?

Yes they are! But they need a bit longer endurance to really do the job. 1,5h would be great.

@@MentourNow Yes that would be ideal but the technology is moving forward. Battery densities have literally doubled compared to the Airbus eFan aircraft which crossed the English channel in 2015.

@@paul756uk2 Depends on the aircraft but servicing too. I would imagine it's less in an electric aircraft and as the technology improves I should think maintenance intervals will increase

@@planespeaking- Link to data? I’ve been involved in high performance electric aircraft since 2006 and commercial battery density is almost still the same as when I started.

Not only practical, but much much safer.

Non self-combusting batteries (think Luton airport fire) will be a huge plus

Noise was one of the major factors mentioned in the first video I watched about using the aircraft for pilot training. It allows airfields near population centres to be used due to the lower abatement requirements, and therefore easier for more people to do basic pilot training.

@@kamakaziozzie3038 There were no self combusting batteries in the Luton multi-story car park fire as far as I know.

​@@kamakaziozzie3038the Luton airport fire that was determined to have been started by a diesel vehicle? Or are you referring to a different one?

That's the idea!

There was no training for the first time flying this type of plane 😅

No, it isn't. ICE will be around for the next 100+ years.

👍

Good comments

it's certainly not a plane for the US, but in Europe it's different. There are some airports under tremendous pressure from neighbours/authorities to make less noise and since this aircraft is 2x quieter than a Rotax for exemple (which is already pretty quiet) it could reduce the noise when doing basic training and traffic patterns by a lot. However I agree with you, we'll still see piston engines GA dominate the skies for a while.

When costing, compare apples to apples. You can't compare a brand new 2023 Pipistral to a 43 year old Cessna any more than you can talk yourself out of buying a new Tesla because you can buy a 1980 VW Rabbit for $200. What's a NEW 2 seat trainer cost?

@@mr-uc4me E-planes are just a gimmick, the math never adds up to what the activists and salesmen claim.

@@mr-uc4me It is absolutely possible to compare to the 43 year old Cessna when the two aircraft fill the same role and the Cessna is both more readily available and offers better performance. Over 30,000 Cessna 150/152 aircraft were built and there's a large number of them still flying and still available in the marketplace. I've provided the direct comparison in other comments on this video between the Pipistrel Velis Electro and the Pipistrel Velis Club. In summary, the latter aircraft is virtually the same airframe with a Rotax. The Club is about $50,000 cheaper ($209k for the Electro vs $160k for the Club), cruises about 35kt faster, has 4-5 hours of endurance for a range of about 625nm (vs 50min plus 10 min reserve for a range of less than 100nm), and more horsepower (resulting in twice the rate of climb). The Pipistrel Alpha Trainer offers about the same horsepower (80hp Rotax 912 vs 77hp/57.6kW), cruises at 120kt instead of 98kt, has a range of 324nm with an endurance of 3 hours plus 30 min reserve, and climbs at 1220fpm instead of 647fpm, and retails for about $95k...less than 1/2 the price of the Electro.

A lot!!

Actually electric engines are more reliable than IE in general.

@@player400_official I am more concerned about the battery electronics and motor controller. Regardless of the potential for reliability, time in the air is the way to shake out bugs and build confidence.

@@yzScott the Velis fleet has now about 10,000 hours and no emergency so it seems pretty safe.

​@@swissaviator04 It will be. I've never suggested or thought otherwise. It is STILL nice that this completely NEW type of aircraft powertrain will have the opportunity to accumulate a lot of hours close to a runway.

And 44 euros of battery degradation.....

​@@someoneelse7629True, but a) that's still half the cost of a similar class combustion engine plane, and b) battery costs are currently going down an exponential cost curve and up an exponential density curve. In other words, this 44 euros will probably be 22 euros in 5 years, 11 euros in 10 years, etc.

Yes, I’m aware of their trials.

@@MentourNow I think this is in reference to your comment at 25:30 because the regional, short-haul airlines like Harbour Air seem to be ideal for commercial electric flight, right now, using existing (or old) technology.

The fun thing is that the power demand and battery requirement scale pretty much linearly. The size doesn't really matter; a bigger plane only needs proportionally more batteries, so you still get roughly an hour of flight time. Now, that one hour of flight time is not nearly enough for more than niche uses.

​@@benoithudson7235but imagine what an hour means for feeder services to remote locations in rural Scandinavia or island groups, great improvement and only a starting point.

@@velotillyou’re not factoring in reserves. In commercial aviation you need to have 30 mins (Jets) or 45 mins (pistons) of final reserves that you absolutely cannot plan to use at the planning stage. So that’s already taken most of your useable range/endurance without even factoring in the need for alternate/contingency range unless you only ever want to operate in pristine calm weather. It’s mentioned in this video that they only use the plane to remain in the vicinity of the airport, if they wanted to go further they would pretty much be unable to legally Mentour is spot on- the energy density issue makes electric commercial aviation on any meaningful scale unviable

Probably even more! 💕💕

Glad you enjoyed it! 💕💕

Like a bike compared to a car

You driving phev...... This is full electric you just see so much limitation on this plane...

I'm sure it's doable, but I'd really question the economics and greenness of such a move. Those batteries are going to get cycled very deep, very hard and very often. They're going to need to be replaced much earlier than (say) a car battery would. Plus if there's a battery fire on a ground based (or even water based) EV it's bad, but people can escape quite easily. Unfortunately we don't have to imagine what such a fire would be like on an aircraft. It's already happened due to batteries carried as cargo and the results were tragic.

@@peterhoulihan9766 1,300 accidents in just 4 years in aviation due to fuel management. You would be more likely to die from bad fuel management than battery fire. Not only that but humanity is few years away from non-flammable batteries(probably lil further away from mass production for the public). Also none of these companies give a flying fuck about greeness, all they want is to remove fuel from the equation, because even if it goes against your OPINION, damn near all of transportation section is bottlenecked by fuel prices.

Well the announcement by Helijet of Vancouver yesterday will really speed things up. BC Coast will be the place to fly electric

​@@peterhoulihan9766 Fossil fuels involve impact too - we tend to minimize the status quo, because we have normalized the pollution, not only at the point of combustion, but especially the discovery, mining, refining and transportation of liquid fossil fuels, the way you talk is as if the current harbour air sea planes run on harmless fairy dust, as someone who has been at the harbour when it's busy, noisy and spewing emissions, I can tell you they do not run on harmless fairy dust, they run on fossil fuels, dirty noisy conflict inspiring fossil fuels. Vancouver to Victoria is within the range of a battery plane, Harbour Air have proved it, but in order to get certified, they need a whole new set of rules, because they are going first - someone has to - and I'm very proud it's the ultimate frontier plane of the DHC2 Beavers that are getting electrified. Dig - literally - deeper into how fossil fuels are made before tripping into the 'batteries are bad' tropes, and as others have pointed out, plenty of tragic liquid fuel accidents in aviation, but you have normalized them, battery fires do happen, but they are rare, and a well built battery BMS with per cell temperature monitoring can prevent them and give pilots lots of warning that there is problem. Put this in context, the full context, of existing energy production, risks, and results, before assuming new is always bad. Then picture yourself, standing on a hill, watching the Wright brothers first take to the skies, and wonder, would you have yelled: "This looks dangerous! Stay on the ground! Don't try new things!"

Sounds Air in NZ going electric... Wellington Blenheim etc across Cook Strait

Flying is something, due to expense, is something that’s forever out of my reach.

I think even long term for larger aircraft batteries won't ever develop enough to be more efficient than jet fuel, there's just too much of a gulf in power density. But what small aircraft like this are doing is acting as a proof of concept for electric propulsion, and how to certify electric propulsion for flight. Instead the future for larger aircraft will be hybrid power. Imagine a gas turbine generator embedded within the fuselage so it has no impact on drag. The gas turbine is optimised to run at a constant speed which charges batteries during cruise. The batteries power a series of propulsion motors embedded within the wing, rather than hanging below as with current jet engines, to reduce drag. You could take off with pure battery power to reduce emissions over cities. Then you'd get efficiency gains from having a constant speed turbo-generator and reduced drag. All while still keeping the benefit of the high power density of jet fuel. This small electric aircraft is the first step in a really exciting future for lower emissions

there just won't be enough metal supply to electrify cars, let alone planes on top of everything else. it just won't happen. mining has huge impact on the environment (and we're not even talking about CO2), and the amount of (mostly toxic) waste that is created with each kg of new virgin metal keeps increasing over the years. the world will be long buried under actual mountains of toxic trash from mining before cars and commercial aviation succeeds in going fully electric.

I will do my best!

Look at the eviation alice. Supposed to be used for flights from Martha's Vineyard to Hyannis by Cape Air at some point. (Hyannis is putting in the charging infrastructure now).

Yeah, maybe if technology advances a lot, battery-electric planes *might* be used for some cross country private jet trips in Europe, but probably nothing more

@@jan-lukas i dont think they will ever get that far. Power density is something musk , for example, has been successfully masking for his cars. but lets see when craft are weight-sensitive meaning power density needs to be high... what happens? this thing has maybe a 20 mile range in the real world.