I was wrong about Electric Airplanes… 

Still has double the emissions per hour of flight than a carb filled with 100ll, or pump 90/91. Power plants don't make energy per Kw unit. All power plants are at a constant 80%-98% capacity. A bunch of scientists have done the math and the math shows that all power plants combined in the USA produce more than double all emissions of every liquid and gas fuelled vehicles on the ground, in the water, and and in the air combined. Not to mention that if the green new deal/great reset takes place not only will you be lucky if you get 10 minutes of electricity a month and you'll still be paying more than $100 a month.

@@DawsonTyson you are so far off on every point. Power plants are several times more efficient than gas engines, which only get about 20-35 percent of the energy out of fuel they burn, and if you take into account transport and refinement, those numbers are even worse. I don't know where you get your information, but you need to look for new sources, because you are being horribly misinformed.

@@JKHtheIII I have many sources which can't be shared here because of Big Brother. You are missing the biggest factor and that is volume. New engines are actually between 45% and 55% efficient. Some engines like the sky activeX are hitting numbers above 60%. Around 86% of energy production in the US is Fossil fuel generated around 2.5% is wind and solar which have a TBF of more than 1000% higher than Fossil fuels and nuclear, the rest of the energy production is a pretty even match of hydro and nuclear.

@@DawsonTyson I don’t even Know where to start with this post, but literally not 1 point is accurate at all. Either very stupid or trolling.

@Michael Sprague lol I'm open to the possibility of lizard people, but no. These are facts based upon available data. Realistically the concern we should have is heavy metal pollution (lithium in the this case). CO2 is plant food. More CO2 means more plants and plants getting bigger. Heavy metals such as cobalt, lead, and lithium cause genetic mutations in both animals and plants as well as make it harder for plants to grow.

Watched it great 👍

I get the impression you're a better pilot for it though!

@@ccrider3435 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

without any "pressure" to learn it you would never have evolved. Any Idiot can drive / fly a fully computer controlled "device" - the REAL MASTER can hardly any automobile / aircraft, no matter how bad it's built, how weak the engine is... DoSsociety a favor. Stay at home on your Playstation.

Hey Jacob! It was great meeting you as well, thank you for saying hello. I’d love to set something up if you’d like to do a video in the future. I still have your email 👍🏻

plenty range futee gets aay beter

This is a completely different market and product lol. But I do agree that thing is gonna be incredible!

Used in sailboats and cars with great results, it might provide small charge but it runs the electronics so there is no drain on battery for power flight at that time, kind like a sail plane with infinite electrical supply..

Agreed, I think that's the main point on everyone's minds. This technology won't have "arrived" until it has a commercial application. And I'm not talking about a 20 minute commuter puddle jump. Until electric can compete with hydrocarbons for power and duration, they're really just toys. And judging by the energy density of hydrocarbons vs batteries as of 2022, electric aviation is not in its infancy, I'd say more like it's embryonic. Keep up the good work everyone, but I'll not pay any serious attention until the above criteria are met.

Graphene batteries are coming in the near future. That should be a huge improvement.

@@willboudreau1187 it has a commercial application in flight training, the first certified Pipistrel Electric was a trainer in Bunbury Western Australia …

More batteries - more weight - aircraft always at "max fuel" weight - you can see where the equation leads...oh - and one more thing, batteries loose a LOT of efficiency in the cold, so I wouldn't take it too high - but that means you don't get the advantages of thin air and higher groundspeed....

​@Ice Fractal higher altitude has less air density so I think the batteries would stay warm.

This aircraft is nearly twice as expensive as its ICE equivalent and has only a small fraction of its capability, how will that make flying more accessible?

@@PistonAvatarGuy Battery innovation. Graphene batteries may be in the near future. I'm not interested in buying an EV, but they are improving a lot.

@@TexanUSMC8089 Don't hold your breath.

@@PistonAvatarGuy dude batteries are improving in range every year . Also the charging time now is 80% in 20 mins. Few more years and you will see double the range and charging time reduced to 10 mins

@@keriddunk1520 CARS are seeing an increase in their range because manufacturers are stuffing more batteries into them, but the batteries themselves aren't improving in any significant way. You can't just stuff more batteries into an aircraft, either, because batteries are heavy and if you make an aircraft too heavy, it wont fly. Charging time is completely irrelevant here and big decreases in charging time come with a need for heavy, high capacity cooling systems that wouldn't even work in aircraft. Aircraft are not cars, period.

Very valid point

But they also make 100% of their power at ALL altitudes, something even jets cant do. Plus that weight can get put anywhere with ease giving engineers a lot more freedom. Obviously this doesn't make up for the absolutely abysmal energy density, but I genuinely believe we will sort that out to the point that its good enough within the next decade.

@@CrossWindsPat the improvement to required energy density wont be something they just "sort out" - it would have to be a radical new battery not seen before.

@@CrossWindsPat higher altutudes mean much coldervyemperatures, and battery efficiency drops substantially as a result. Fuel engine efficiency increases at low temoeratures/high altitudes - which is the best place to be as less air resistance, so much higher speeds for the same drag. Power drops off ti a reasonable extent at high altitude, but fuel efficiency goes up.

@@rinzler9775 Fuel efficiency goes up because the air is thinner and has less resistance. I doubt the temperature of the fuel makes that big of a difference. I will concede at your temperature of the battery though that is definitely a good point. But I have a feeling that the heat of the battery dispersing enough energy to keep itself warm. After all no one really has an issue keeping batteries warm, its usually the opposite...

hybride best

​@@sharonbraselton4302 hybrids are bad. They have too many failure points.

I’d be skeptical about electrifications into ultralights, batteries aren’t known for being that light.

I got a surron ultra bee! E-moto's are incredible!

1 hour + 30 min reserve

@@matthewspry4217 : The last time that I looked it was 50 mins with a 15 min reserve. That they had to get an exemption for that to get its European certification

Electric revolution WILL happen also with the planes, it is just a matter of time. Just wait 10 years and you will see. ;) Also it is totally possible to do electric US cost to cost flight (with hydrogen and fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells planes ARE electric planes). Also there is the statistics that 70 % of flights are shorter than 1000 miles, so atleast 70 % of flights can be made with TODAY's battery technology.

@@drister007 nah electric means battery electric. nuclear electric could be interesting but isn't now either. hydrogen is fuel cells, sure part of it is electric but you wouldn't just say electric for hydrogen and hydrogen has very serious problems on multiple fronts. However a synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuel from green electricity with hydrogen as a middle stage could be interesting. Say methanol through a fuel cell and electric motors. It's not practical with today's batteries to do a 1000mile plane, it might technically be possible but I think it would be a struggle. green fuel is an obvious easy transition. but yes battery flight could take the shorter routes.

Electric at mach 0.7 would have like 5 minutes of range. Lol

Electric self launching sailplanes can do that on a sunny day. Though its a sport, rather than transport. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P96dxQ4qVvM.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-diZN7UHibyQ.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WO_9a2YF_pc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uBA4XeMddMY.html

LOL I'd guess it wouldn't be a good thing. It's a small fair-weather plane though.

charge fkux capitor tkme tavel

Yes but it's a high performance glider, not a general aviation plane. Needs hardly any motor power to fly ok.

The lithium batteries have enough current output for takeoff. Even the best ultracapacitors don't have enough energy density per weight to make them worth considering.

It would shorten the flying time as the generator would take energy from the motor i.e. the battery.

@@karhukivi what about then since its an plane. Where it has high wind volume. Can something as wind turbines as turbos be connected to small generators work that don't produce an whistle sound into the frame work? I know solar panels have been done. They are proclaiming better batteries but we will see about that one. I would love to see one make as far as fuel or even longer.

@@scanadaze Solar panels can generate power to increase the flying time, but a wind-driven turbine will add drag and slow the aircraft slightly which decreases the distance that can be covered by the charged battery. To concentrate more power in a battery will make them similar to explosives in terms of energy density, and the compositions could be dangerous, like caesium and fluorine, for example.

The video somewhat addressed that. When they pull back for power for landing the electricity flow reverses and the battery is charged. Just like an EV car when going downhill.

@@JBoy340a That is potential energy (height) being converted back to chemical energy (battery).

Oh yes, these VERY COMMON situations... *eyeroll* If the end of the world happens, it'll turn into a glider, sure, but I doubt that'll actually be your biggest worry in such an event ^^ (for anyone not sure what he's talking about.... the Carrington solar storm happened in 1859.... and was the largest solar event in recorded human history...)

@@LizMatzelle not exactly. Ancient civilizations recorded larger events they just didn't have the understanding we had then and now. Massive solar events are cyclical and cause great change on all on the planets in our solar system. Our star is in a classification called (recurrent nova star) and has had a mass outer shell ejection every 12k-13k years. We are currently nearing the 13k year mark since the last such event we have found in geological record and coresponds with every magnetic excursion our plant has experienced. Which our planet is currently going through. If you'd like to look into this you can find it in consolidation on Suspicious Observers which is a YT-Ch, and in a book currently available in PDF only due to the paper shortage called "Weatherman's Guide to the Sun" by Ben Davidson. This book contains information obtained through the study of astronomers and geologists from around the world. These same scientists have just added to this pool of information with a new book release. These scientists are in organizations such as NASA, JAXA, ESA, NOAA, and more.

EV cars are going 300K+ miles with no engine work so I don't see that as an issue. Batteries life is an issue though.

@@JBoy340a EV's use eletric motors not engines. Even if the life of a car is easy going the odds of a quality vehicle making it passed 275k without a bearing, ball joint, or tie rod going bad is somewhere around 3.5%. The most enviromentally detrimental mining operations are those that pull lithium, cobalt, nickle, and other heavy metals out of the ground. The other issue is that our power grid and energy production isn't ready for such a demand. Realistically the emissions of all power plants is already double that of all gasoline/diesel/LNG/PP vehicles. Even if our infrastructure could handle it the emissions of those plants and the additional plants that would be needed would be double or more the current levels. California already is having both brown outs and black outs that have risen with the sale of EV's in the state and the power companies have linked it to EV's on the grid.

A Solar storm? I don’t this aircraft even rated to go that high. Also an EMP? Are you using it to drop grenades on Russia?

yes tyàt right chef never garñted cheap aceßs

A Piperius.

That one has the same problem as a PHEV. The worst of both worlds.

The Panthera is going to get both an electric and hybrid version

Hydrogen is perfect for this.

@@nicholasthon973 And you can even smoke hydrogen!

That will take time . I am hoping for 2 hours. That would be a game changer

wéóbg

There are other countries other than the US, dude. It is fully certified in Europe, and UK.

Absolutely. The electric revolution is here! I got an electric skateboard and electric dirt bike! Both have enough range for whatever I want to do RIGHT NOW. In 10 years they will have so much more and its as simple as swapping the battery out.

2 much

@@ski3567CATL wholesale as reported by Reuters 2020 - LFP cells $US60/kWh; NCM $80 - packs ~$100. Tesla 4680 NCA cells ~ $70kWh.

Depends on the mission.

Electric motors run many more hours than a ICE engine without maintenance. And batteries in cars have run over 400,000 miles and still retain 80% of their original charge capacity. Weight and charge capacity are the limitations of batteries in aircraft. But for a trainer that does most of its flying within 100 miles of base it is fine.

@@JBoy340a what electric car had run 400,000 miles?

@@keithsargent6963 I know that Tesla has tested their cars to over 300,000 miles and still had 92% charge capacity. The new 4680 Tesla battery isn't a lithium ion battery though. The 4680 is a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery.

@@JBoy340a It is actually 525,000 miles till 80 % capacity (840,000 km), also there is the statistics that 70 % of flights are shorter than 1000 miles, so atleast 70 % of flights can be made with TODAY's battery technology.

Even NASA?

Orange juice? Key Lime Pie? Gatorade? Air Conditioning? Sunscreen?

There is a new e motor out there that is 12" round and 4" deep that weighs 30 kg and is 330 hp! The Pipestral Panthera is a 4 place e plane (or planned to be e). The prototype has a 250 hp Seimens e motor in it.

Alice from eviation 9 passenger electric powered 500mile range 300mph speed. Hundreds have been ordered already. It should enter service by 2024/25. Airports should get smart and install massive amounts of solar over parking areas hangers etc. And some wind turbines! Ad A few tesla megapacks or other grid scale energy storage systems and boom they could start raking in big buck's on emissions free flying. 😎

çhief has eltrc ç8bcorder

That would not work - the alternator would be poaching energy from the motor, and with the inefficiencies in both motor and generator, the energy available and flying time would be reduced. No such thing as "free energy"!

That makes no sense. Why would you run an alternator off the electric motor, when the batteries are powering the electric motor? If you mean having the plane gliding and the propellor acting like a wind turbine, the plane isn't a glider and probably won't glide very well.

Sure...but what are the cumulative maintenance costs of a standard combustion powered plane over say 5 years?...10 years?...

@@mauricepowers8079 not the point, this plane is purely for training you can’t do any normal legs or 300nm

@@WattsUpDev actually that IS my point...overall costs for a training plane I believe have been reduced substantially. Add in the safety factor of massively reduced mechanical failure in the power plant. So what if it is only good for an hour...most lessons are an hour at a time until you get to cross country flights. Battery life will improve over time...it is inevitable. This is a great option for overall cost effective investment.

@@mauricepowers8079 The batteries need to be replaced about 2 to 3 times as often as the engine in an ICE aircraft needs to be rebuilt, and they're significantly more expensive than the cost of rebuilding an ICE engine, so this aircraft not only costs more to buy, but it also costs more to maintain.

@@mauricepowers8079 Agreed

LOL I think that was a scam or click bait story. No one has solid state batteries yet. The next improvement will probably be graphene, not solid state.

My biggest fan

Switching battery packs is easier to write about than actually achieve in a practical way. So many people have tried, yet there is not yet a commercially successful implementation. In general, it adds weight which is probably the biggest barrier in the context of an aviation application.

This has been tried with cars. There is one of having the infrastructure to store and charge batteries. And since batteries degrade in capacity based on use patterns and age, do you want to swap for someone else's battery that may be degraded from your battery so has less power and less range.

That’s extra weight.

The battery pack on a Telsa covers the entire floor. It's not a hand swap option. LOL

Nio EV cars do this today. Airplanes can, too 😎

In the world of innovation.....this is called a baby step. There really is no issue with solar or wind generation.....the biggest limitation right now is storing energy. There is a lot of money and effort pouring into energy storage and only a matter of time before the the attributes cross. No one knows if that is 10 years or 30 years.....but it will only happen if baby steps like this are pursued. Early electric cars were horrible. Modern electric cars are amazing. Early airplanes were horrible - could hardly carry anything. A few decades later, airplanes were over 1,000,000lbs gross weight. Early jet engines were horrible - a few years later they completely replaced pretty much any new aircraft over 10 passengers.

@@Factory400 In the world of innovation.... this is called an enormous step backward. There is absolutely nothing which guarantees that electric aircraft will improve much beyond this point. Money and time don't allow the laws of physics to be broken.

@@PistonAvatarGuy Improving energy density in batteries defies physics?

@@Factory400 Absolutely no one is doing that in any significant way.

@@PistonAvatarGuy Uhhhhhh.....energy density has been steadily improving for a very long time. It continues to improve. We are not at the fringes of physics....we are only at the fringes of our present knowledge.

chef can bateries 10 t8me 750 mie rabge kots pf place chef àrea 75 miles sane eltric rv range

chuef has 6200 nioes 6500 míke eltrc olanes

wr9ng

Bingo.

The schools that use them in Europe have a fleet of them where they are charged by renewable energy from from their own solar field. When you want to have another lesson you just hop into another aircraft from the fleet and off you go.

You mean in the winter cold?

If you watched the video, you just SAW it in its commercial application: flight school. This is the very first commercially approved electric aircraft, and it's already a great value proposition for flight schools.

@@ransomweaver5416 It's a toy, that's about it.

@@ransomweaver5416 I agree. When I was getting my pilot's license I spent hour after hour flying in the pattern learning and local airwork (stalls, spin avoidance, etc.)

@@ransomweaver5416 There is no practical application for electric aircraft. This aircraft is nearly twice as expensive as the Rotax powered version of the same aircraft, its batteries are significantly more expensive than an engine rebuild for the ICE version of the same aircraft and they must be replaced 2 to 3 times as often. No one in their right mind would buy this thing to use for flight training.

thats forrundr batrries earth dint have naj earh tyoe 1

Good for you

If you were RB211 you would be a Rolls Royce jet engine.

@@DrewWithington You're right on the money! I intended to use RB 211 but got the engine model designation wrong. RB211 was the engine used on the airplane when I took my first trip on a jet in 1970...brand new shiny L-1011. The ironic thing about that trip was after flying the first leg in a brand new state of the art jet for the Chicago-Miami leg, I boarded a DC-3 for the last leg to Naples, FL. Both airlines I flew on that trip are gone now. Eastern Airlines for the first leg and Provincetown Boston Airlines for the second leg. PBA donated one of their DC-3s to some museum...the airplane had around 95,000 hrs on it. I flew on the L-1011 when it was just entering service, and ironically by chance was on one of the very last flights of the airplane in 2000 when I flew from Atlanta to West Palm Beach, FL on Delta Airlines when they were retiring them.

wrong eltric place 650 mioes