Trying electric flight - Pipistrel Velis Electro 

Yes, contrary to what the Pipistrel Executive was saying, you need more than one hour's duration to complete a PPL program in the United States. Part of the requirement is a Cross Country requirement of at least 150 nautical miles with three full stop landings and one leg of at least 50 nautical miles. Even under ideal conditions that's a 1.5 to 2 hour duration with VFR reserve requirements of 30 minutes. So a 2 to 2.5 hour endurance would be absolute minimum. There are two such cross country flights taken during the US PPL training program, once with the instructor and once solo.

@@glibsonoran - The Regulations don't Prohibit a Lunch Stop, while training, do they? So, with an Organized Airport Group, of 3-6+ Airports, each with Pipistrel Electric Aircraft & Chargers, Restaurants, etc, it's nearly doable now, and really only needs 90 Minutes Endurance, to Setup! At 120 Minutes of Endurance, you have room for Bad Weather Diversion Practice, and Multiple Airport Landings, before a Charging Stop, & Lunch Break! Just as most airports that have Training Activities, also have Fuel Services, we are on the way, to where Charging Services will also be there! However, if you bought 2 Pipistrel Aircraft, one using the Rotax, and one Velis Electro, you are Set, since all initial Training, can be done in the Electro, and only longer Cross Country Flights will need the Rotax one! Plus, with a One Hour Checkout in it, you'd be ready to operate it, after learning to fly, do Air Work, Circuits, Stalls, and such, in the Electro! It won't take much time to get used to the Rotax version, but, it will cost a lot more per flight hour! And, THAT, is the Bigger Problem, in Learning To Fly: The Cost! Actually, you could have 3-4 Velis Electro's, to one Rotax powered Pipistrel or Cessna 150/C-152 - just for the beginning years! Train Multiple Students on the basics, with 1-2 Training Cross Country Flights per Day, in the Fueled Plane, at most! In 5-6 years, the Fueled Plane would just be a Post PPL Rental unit, until even that is not Needed!

​@@robertweekley5926 The cross country requirement does not preclude a fuel stop. But the pipistrel has an 80nm range on a one hour full charge. So you will need a min of two stops and charge for an hour each...and use nearly a whole charge on the 50nm leg. Doubt many will attempt it.

@@speedomars3869 - Agreed! It would not work out well, in places where the trip was actually going to be 200-250 Miles, and at least one "Leg" had Airports that were 140 Miles apart, for example! However, in such cases, a Typical Pipistrel with A Gas Engine, in a training school with, say, 3 Electro's, plus one Fueled (Auto Fuel, or 100 LL), could do up to about 30 or so hours of Training, via the Electro's, and Transition the Students to the Fueled Plane, in preparation of the "Advanced Cross Country" training, for which they would then fly it (The Combustion Engined Pipistrel) for the Extended Cross Country training. But, there are also other Electric planes coming, with Faster Speeds, and longer Endurances, targeting 2.5 Hours, that could fill in the balance of training needs, staying all Electric! (Bye Aircraft)

@@robertweekley5926 I love this idea! seems like you really thought about it makes total sense.👌🏽

It's not the future of flight training. Rotax engines have three times the lifespan of batteries, cost half as much to rebuild as it does to replace the batteries and offer much greater capabilities.

@@PistonAvatarGuy Once this little boi gets 2 hours (1:30 +30 reserve) then rotax light sports will fade away, at least in training. Average rotax 912 eats up about 12-15 liters of fuel, so you're looking at around 20-30 euro running cost then you've got a 1/4 - 1/5 of the price with this plane. Not even mentioning the safety aspect of the reduction of moving parts (no carb heat, no air filter clogging, no fuel filter clogging, no electric fuel pump failures, no evaporation of fuel during hot sunny days, no mixture setting, no CO poisoning, no oil leaks, no fuel line cracking - i'm looking at you rtx912uls, possibility of a battery fire? without collision? I'd gladly take the chances over a Rotax). And I wouldn't count on rotax outliving the batteries necessarily, at this exact moment, sure, but the same was said about electric cars. How come in like 5-7 years EV cells went from replacing packs almost yearly to manage to maintain 90% or more of it's capacity after 100-150k km? The pace of development is increasing rapidly and governments are simultaneously changing their mind on electric propulsion. Largest factor IMO is the lack of charging infrastructure at airfields/airports, although there aren't as many airfields as there are gas stations/charging stations(cars), therefore the it can be built pretty quickly if a company sets it as a goal. For instance in Czech Republic there are 90 civil airports, and just one of the firms that are building charging stations is supposed to build like 300 of them per year. So yeah, not very far fetched, soon to be present.

@@TheBranderCZ "Once this little boi gets 2 hours (1:30 +30 reserve) then rotax light sports will fade away, at least in training." - No, buddy. Not all training flights are short and this aircraft is in no way inexpensive. - "Average rotax 912 eats up about 12-15 liters of fuel, so you're looking at around 20-30 euro running cost..." - In the US (the largest aviation market in the world), 12 to 15 liters of fuel for a Rotax engine costs about 10 to 12 Euros. - "...then you've got a 1/4 - 1/5 of the price with this plane." - The plane is also around double the price of the Rotax powered version of the same plane (IIRC). Your numbers simply don't add up, - "Not even mentioning the safety aspect..." - Batteries and motor controllers can fail outright. - "How come in like 5-7 years EV cells went from replacing packs almost yearly to manage to maintain 90% or more of it's capacity after 100-150k km?" - Because automotive battery packs are not discharged at anything close to 1C, like they are in this aircraft. - "The pace of development is increasing rapidly..." - The only developments that matter in this case are cost and battery energy density (by weight), both have stagnated. - Governments can change their mind all they want, it wont make useless technologies useful. Keep living in your delusion bud, it's not like we're running short of time waiting for people like you to come back to reality.

@@PistonAvatarGuy "No, buddy. Not all training flights are short and this aircraft is in no way inexpensive." -This aircraft is for some countries in Europe considered as LSA and could be an Ultralight in others since it's MTOW is 600kg. If we take a look at both of these licenses and their training syllabus, you will know that by EASA: (2) 6 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 3 hours of solo cross-country flight time with at least 1 cross-country flight of at least 150 km (80 NM), during which 1 full stop landing at an aerodrome different from the aerodrome of departure shall be made. -And for ultralight planes there is a requirement of crosscountry flight 2x 100km flight and 1x 200km flight which both could be easily achieved with 1:30 + 30 minutes reserve. So yeah, in Europe this aircraft is more than suitable for LAPL and ULL licence. How about PPL though, I'm sure you are familiar with the longest exercise being the at least 150NM flight, this one might be a bit tricky but there are 2 full stops required so you could just casually charge up at those two airfields. In total we have an aircraft suitable for PPL, LAPL and ULL training all in all. (However I should mention that I'm not 100% whether this aircraft would be accepted as a trainer for PPL license, but that is a topic for another day) "In the US (the largest aviation market in the world), 12 to 15 liters of fuel for a Rotax engine costs about 10 to 12 Euros." - Lucky you I guess? Electricity still half if not less. "The plane is also around double the price of the Rotax powered version of the same plane (IIRC). Your numbers simply don't add up, buddy" -I'm not your "buddy", I admit that I didn't know how much the plane cost at first but yeah, it is expensive, although new light sport aircraft sell around 75-100k euro so I'm not surprised with the price when it is the first of its kind in the market, simply a matter of time for the wh/kg to increase, then we might see a similarly priced model. It seems to me like when we are talking about the near future, you keep pointing towards this aircraft being too shabby for anything, give like 3-5 years and I bet there will be a real competitor to the current light aircraft market. "Batteries and motor controllers can fail outright." -How likely is that though? Gotta secure the connectors well I guess? You see the point though, two components, it is easier to develop safety features for two components to not fail compared to like what, 900? "Because automotive battery packs are not discharged at anything close to 1C, like they are in this aircraft." -Surely they'll develop some sort of a low weight heater or heat pump. I'm optimistic they'll figure out a way to keep it warm. "The only developments that matter in this case are cost and battery energy density (by weight), both have stagnated." -It didn't stagnate in automobile industry, if they can make 4680 cells with 380 wh/kg, I'm certain they'll get there in aviation industry soon too. "Governments can change their mind all they want, it wont make useless technologies useful. Keep living in your delusion bud, it's not like we're running short of time waiting for people like you to come back to reality." -They might, but not if there is a common goal and international treaties to support these goals. My delusion will soon be your delusion if you want it or not, might wanna crawl out of that cave of yours and breath some fresh air to clear some of that conservationism out of your head.

@@TheBranderCZ Why would anyone choose to make use of a more expensive, less capable aircraft for training purposes? You're not making any sense. The lower cost of electricity does not make up for the higher cost of the aircraft, PERIOD. You're my SPECIAL little buddy, buddy. NOTHING about this aircraft will improve significantly enough to make it more desirable than the ICE version of the same aircraft, not in a few years, not in ten years. Battery technology hit a WALL. "Surely they'll develop some sort of a low weight heater or heat pump. I'm optimistic they'll figure out a way to keep it warm." I wasn't talking about temperature, I was talking about discharge rate. A rate of discharge of 1C is a high rate of discharge, but it's necessary in this application because aircraft require a lot of power to fly and they must remain light, which means that relatively small batteries must supply a relatively large amount of power over a short period of time. I know it's complicated, my special little buddy, but that's something that you need to know in order to have a discussion about the viability of electric aircraft. "It didn't stagnate in automobile industry, if they can make 4680 cells with 380 wh/kg, I'm certain they'll get there in aviation industry soon too." As far as I can tell, these aren't available in a production vehicle. The current 4680 cells have basically the same energy density as Tesla's other battery cells. Until a battery is safe enough for mass production, it's irrelevant in this kind of discussion. "My delusion will soon be your delusion if you want it or not, might wanna crawl out of that cave of yours and breath some fresh air to clear some of that conservationism out of your head." Yeah, well, I've heard similar assertions many, MANY times in my life, but reality always manages follow my rationale, so....

Great idea and power is important.

@@SVSky Yes. Obviously a tow plane needs power for two. The Velis seems to have just enough power for itself, which is good. Overpowering a plane ads cost and weight and reduces efficiency. This interferes with the specific use case of the Velis as a trainer. You would need a special tow rated version where you trade cost and efficiency as a trainer for tow capability. This may be very feasible, if you can make a profit out of tow operation in addition to training. But bringing such a tow rated version to market as a certified product may not be economic at the moment.

@@56932982 I mean it seems like a great idea, but imho i think range could be an issue, a normal day at the club the tugs will need to refuel atleast once a day

@@GLee-lk3rf Sure. When I said range is not an issue I meant range from take of to touch down. Every time the tug returns it can be recharged. Charge time equals flight time. (As mentioned in the video. With more advanced chargers, charge time can be reduced. Like it is done with high power electric car chargers today already.) So, for sure, you have to build your launch schedule around recharge requirements. Depending on tow demand, this still may work well and save you a lot of operating cost for towing. Winch launch is still cheaper, but less flexible. If you have a winch at all... For now electric tugs will not be the the solution to all tow problems. It is an additional, new option. Depending on your specific requirements it might be a very good solution, or non at all.

@@56932982 Oh ofc, my fault

@Andrew Hughes You may be right but cars are easier in a way as not so weight critical and can use regen braking, also they still not there yet for touring (without a lot of planning).That siad things are moving forward.

@@flyingkub 300 miles in a car is about my limit for cruising, 5-6 hours, would also be my limit for a touring airplane. Give it a couple years and all this talk of electric Vs petroleum will not be an issue.

Dream on

Yes Bob. It's great to see them succeeding in this long, slog towards low emission flight. One step at a time.

Thanks Steve.

Need better lightweight battery technology. A Tesla weighs 25-50% more than a comparable class vehicle. That is a no-go for airplanes. Unfortunately nothing yet compares with the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. The reliability and operating costs are unbeatable of course. I’m excited for the future of electric aircraft.

@@sircrapalot9954 Battery energy density is still improving at a fair rate and Tesla has hinted at 400Wh/kg being possible within 5 years that's 50% more energy-dense then now. And the price is coming down to

You did get the memo about the uniform??

@@TheFlyingReporter LOL! New EASA regulation pilot wear!

However, CFI's are Riding on the Coat Tails of the Students Budget... ! Students that fly, give CFI's Hours in their Logs, and students that don't, or that Quit Training, do not! So, lowering the cost of training, helps everyone!! 😁

Na, you are looking for www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/taurus-electro/ or www.schempp-hirth.com/en/sailplanes/discus/discus-2c-fes

Similar to BEV - normally 80% fast charge used in 20-40 minutes and balance charge for similar time to 100%. Cold weather will cut duration by up to 30%.

The Sunseeker Duo could probably deliver those results

No paint - glass fibre, gel coat?

scratch last, its on the website under FAQs www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/velis-electro-easa-tc/#tab-id-3

@@howardstaple1043 The Alpha Electro has swappable batteries but it looks like the liquid cooling system precludes that on this one. Charge time = flight time for a machine like this is actually pretty damn fast though. By the time an instructor debriefs a flight then briefs the next it should be good to go. Might hurt operations with lots of instructors and tight scheduling a little bit.

@@Rocketpax I think most flying schools operating the Velis will have more then a couple of battery packs to speed up the turn around...

@@KPL400 Negative, their FAQ states that because of the cooling loop they are not quick swap.

Hi Tom. I don't think there's a license issue. It's just a matter of differences training.

If you watch right to the end of the video....

@@TheFlyingReporter Ah, sorry! I switched off after you signed off! Thank you.

It windmills Dan.

Having 2-3 makes sense

Prop gives regen on descent.

I would need to see at least 4-6 hours like modern Rotax LSA's.

until the batteries explode? ICE is here to stay

@@yaris684 engine fire is statistically more likely than a battery explosion. Educate yourself before commenting!

@@ptolomaeer which is why airplanes are all powered by gasoline as FAA refuses to allow battery powered planes. Educate yourself.

@@yaris684 I was referring to your statement that batteries are more likely to explode

If it is the same as cars, then it's years before there is a reduction. Like 10+ years before cars are losing 10% if their battery

if you drive 10k miles a year I guess; But with my poor calculation training aircraft might need new batteries every 2 years.

@@HaykMelikian maybe. But electric vehicles are getting 150k mike's and still have 85-90% battery. The electric battery and drive systems have leaped light years in the past few years.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pOQQTwYkg08.html&feature=emb_logo

I'd imagine the area available wouldn't be enough to significantly improve the endurance

Jav Mustafaev A wing has the greatest area exposed to the sun on a plane, so I wouldn’t dismiss this as a possibility. There are formulas that can easily determine this. Even if the power extends the battery life by 5% to 10% on an hour flight that can be a 6 minute reserve and power the avionics.

@@ArnoldWinters 10m2 wing span means if the whole wing was covered with 10% efficient flexible solar panels, that would be 1 kW on a CAVOK day between the tropics . So you would get 2 mins extra cruising, assuming no weight penalty which is a bad assumption!

Yes, of course. Just the other day I saw some 350 mile long extension cords at Home Depot. All you'd have to do is plug them in at the departure end of the runway, and you're good to go. And, if you get lost in IMC or your avionics go down, you can just fly your cord back home. Brilliant !!

Ideally you would have a removable battery. I dont think that would be too difficult, the battery can't be more than 200lbs right?

@@ThePinkPanth3r I think Alpha had a removable battery. But this one has water cooling so I'm not sure if it is removable as well.

@@bernardvelkaverh7824 yeah its not easy, I think that formula E racing just swaps out entire cars

In training environment planes don't fly non-stop. After flight there is debriefing with student first, then briefing with the next one, preflight check, so downtime for charging should be minimal.

Wouldn't work - you'd loose more energy from the extra drag caused by the windmill and alternator. First law of thermodynamics.

With only a 100hp the A5 is already underpowered and overweight....

@@KPL400 @Codger your comment doesn't have much to do with mine, but since you mentioned, maybe (i haven't read anything about underpower and overweight being an issue considering all the other factors, the plane's purpose, and the price), but the a5 is still more versatile, hands down. the a5 is the perfect small aircraft. it is not, like the iphone, for instance, the best in every single kind of thing in it, but overall, as a package, all things combined, yes.

More versatile, with a much less capable motor? How does that work?

@@PistonAvatarGuy it can land on land and water, it can use regular gasoline, and the wings can be folded so that it can be carried on a trailer on any road. btw, why do you and @Codger say its engine is underpowered? has it caused any problems or is it just the number that doesn't impress you guys?

@@rchrdsn You said that it would be more versatile with an electric motor, but an electric motor would make the A5 completely useless.