World First! THIS Is How You Power Electric Flight! 

Great to hear someone with all that experience in fossil-fuel based aviation being so open minded and welcoming to new tech. 👍

@@EugeneLambert I avoid all those chemicals after 46 years of being a mechanic they have taken a toll on me.

It's amazing never getting your hands dirty!

This.

assuming they don't pose any "national security threats"

Right now yes. But those planes are running on five year old technology currently. Not even close to state of the art. That Pipistrel plane has a fairly modest wh/kg ratio. Not even close to state of the art. Doubling or tripling its range is very feasible. 500wh/kg is on the market right now but not in anything that has been certified yet. That just takes time. By the time that happens, the state of the art will have moved on to 750/wh/kg or even kw/kg type ranges. So, mostly this is going to take a lot of people by surprise because they aren't following the battery market. But it's basically going to happen on a fairly predictable schedule. In ten years or so, there will be lots of short haul commercial flight that is battery electric. Long haul is going to take a bit longer but it will come as well.

@@JillesvanGurp The aviation industry is extremely slow to make significant changes, especially to develop new planes, mostly because of extremely strict regulations, but also very low production numbers, compared to for example cars. The Cessna 172 is the worlds most produced aircraft, all categories, ever, and some 44,000 units had been produced a few years ago, since 1955, and it is still in production, so now maybe around 50,000 in total, since 1955. That's less than a thousand units per year on average, even if you discount the few years it wasn't produced. The batteries can be changed, easily, whenever there's better batteries available, and the Velis Electro doesn't use the exact same batteries as when it was first developed, which was mentioned in the video. High energy density is great, but there are other aspects that are important, as safety, longevity and charge/discharge rate. The amprius 500 Wh/kg battery has a life expectancy of 150 cycles, and max continuous charge and discharge rate of 0.1C, meaning, you can't use or charge more than 10% of the capacity per hour. That means for the Velis Electro, to be able to use say 25 kW continuously, they would need to have 250 kWh of capacity, at 500 Wh/kg, that's 500 kg. 500 kg is more than that plane weighs, including currently used batteries, and having 500 kg battery cells, plus packaging, would make the payload capacity negative. In other words, a max 0.1C charge/discharge rate means a plane would have to be designed for at least 10 hours of flight for those batteries to be meaningful, that's ballpark 3 times more range per kg of batteries as the Velis Electro. A plane would have to be huge for a given payload to achieve that, and for commercial use 10 hour charge time would require swapping the batteries instead of charging in the planes, and 2 sets of ultra expensive packs for each plane in operation, one in use and one charging. Batteries are getting better, but on average per year, it's a few percent overall improvement that reach the market, except when some some important factors are sacrificed to reach some absurd specific capability. Super low power density, 120 cycles, and probably absurd cost on top of that, and questionable safety isn't great for aircraft, even with 500 Wh/kg energy density on cell level.

It'd be great to see that take off. I'd like to learn to fly, but I've gotten very used to not burning gas most days, and it just feels wrong to start back as a hobby.

@@JillesvanGurp Its not going to take anyone by a surprise because everyone wants better and better battery tech. Even if we had the technology to produce kw/kg batteries today, it would take years to propagate it to mainstream markets so that everyone can reap the benefits of that tech.

​@@robertcowher You should check out electric paragliders. They're getting really popular really fast.

Did my first static jumps there. It was quite funny. The instructors were ex-Royal Marines. One got chatting to my father who was a Para in WW2. The RM suddenly shouted ‘oh s**t’ , vaulted over the fence by the control tower and charged across the DZ to help someone due to land … then! He made it😀

But ... would the charge last that long without a visit to the recharging point?

@@t1n4444 It could visit the recharging point every time it lands, dozens of times a day.

@@The18107j Indeed it could.

I've only jumped out of a plane once, but I definitely remember the noise was an issue. The loud sounds interfere with communication and are unpleasant. An EV plane would make skydiving more enjoyable.

Shame that going to Red Alert meant changing the bulb. 😁

There’s a Fully Charged video on it!

That was BIG NEWS back in 2019. Sadly there seems to be no significant advances since. I just came from their website and had to really dig to even find mention of anything about electric flight, and it was only talking about what they achieved 5 years ago.

Harbour Air signed last year to acquire 50 Magnix engines, and currently hope to obtain Transport Canada certification to operate their fleet from 2026. It's taking longer to get the certification than they hoped, but they're still moving forward.

@@AC-van68 Im in Van too and this is exciting. They have run a couple of years of test flights on the E-beaver. This is perfect for their routes which are short hops. A point of note was the pilots comments on the great torque on the takeoffs...

They are waiting for certification, and the aviation authority postponed them again... it's not a technical problem to get electric airplanes flying, it's our overregulated, sometimes completely absurd way of dealing with new stuff. Compare that with some moron driving 150 miles, crashing, killing 5 people.... a short headline, next day its fogotten and nothing get's changed, but if you want to build an electric aircraft, they torture you with a thousend stupid ideas what you need to proof and what needs to be tested and certified until you are broke, before you can legally fly with it.

Yep. I still remember my 1st gen LEAF, charging all night and then making a pit stop on the way to work to charge more, and it still felt like a futuristic space car. Now I've got a Bolt, and it still hits me sometimes when I see 81 miles of range, because that used to be the "max" number in the old days. Looking forward to seeing where this all goes.

I remember a friend in NSW that used to investigate light air craft crashes, and he told me it is not a matter of if, but when. He also hastily added that most crashes are not that horrendous. He was also a pilot. and I think he still is. ( I hope ) 😃

10-15 minutes is plenty enough for Air RB (;

What about your cross country flights ? You know like the one I did during my ppl training the one that requires a minimum of 150 miles and at least two full stop landings? The fact is that even the best ev aircraft can't perform full training let alone private flight because it's too heavy whereas a 60 year old Cessna 150 can fly for hours so it's not really progress is it when it's worse

@@nickthegriffin Nobody has claimed it's progress in terms of range when compared with an old Cessna 150 (which I have flown). The progress is that it is now demonstrated that you can fly a plane without using fossil fuels. A very limited use aircraft but nevertheless an aircraft that could have some specific economically viable uses even today. No doubt the 150 mile cross country requirement could be met with extra landings.

@@nickthegriffin 1770. Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot builds the first steam-powered carriage, with a theoretical top speed of 4.8 miles per hour, but typically moved at around 2.25 mph. I'll bet people at the time were asking what the point of it is when their horses could pull carriages much faster and for longer distances.

It’s not a public network, the ALIA isn’t certified so for testing only.

True... as long as the plug and socket fit. 😉

Have you heard of CHADEMO? That electricity is different.

@@BikeFlips Strictly speaking, the electricity is the same. You can change voltage and wattage simply enough, but is a major operation to alter diesel, gasoline and kerosene.

@@martythemartian99 - it's OK, I was joking :P

@@BikeFlips AAAAAARGH! I fell for it 😵

There was a solar farm visible on this video ...

@@MrAdopado But that doesn't automatically mean it was the electricity supply for that particular aerodrome.

@@pinkelephants1421 OK ... it was powered by coal. Give me a break.

@@MrAdopado Perhaps you are not from the UK, therefore you would be unaware that coal in this country provides 1% or less of the electricity mix and by the end of 2024, that pose plant will permanently close. That's the most diplomatic way I can think of to counter your ridiculous & massively incorrect assertion.

@@pinkelephants1421 My sarcastic reference to coal was to highlight your own silly points! Of course the UK hardly uses any coal ... we've only one coal power station left and that is due to close later this year (Ratcliffe on Soar). I monitor grid generation on a daily basis so I am fully aware of the coal situation! Let's get back to your comment about the solar farm beside the aerodrome ... if you understand how the grid works you will also know that whether the solar farm is directly owned by the aerodrome or not its power will be being distributed in that locality so the electric plane chargers will effectively be benefiting from solar power. Your first comment in this thread was "These small aerodromes would be perfect for larger sized solar arrays.." and I simply pointed out that there is indeed a solar farm beside the aerodrome and that you could even see it on the video.

That will come in time as battery energy density improves. But, in the meantime, you've got to start somewhere.

I believe there is charger installed there already 👍

Car rapid chargers are CCS in UK and Europe so I would have expected them to be using that ... then literally use the same hardware.

Yes, at bench scale all kinds of amazing things are possible. The vast vast majority of lab developments, no matter how good they sound in press releases, will simply never make it to production. And that can be for any number of reasons including the fact that some things simply don't scale well, all the way to the more practical fact that a step change in technology is often much more easy to implement in existing production facilities than a massive leap, to the fact that some cutting edge technologies are just so expensive to scale that no-one outside of say the Space sector can afford it. CATL can get batteries to production, that is what is important.

@@patreekotime4578 Did you have any wonton soup today???

​@@patreekotime4578 Well let's see if Airbus can throw enough cash at hydrogen R&D to power an airliner. They claim that they will have got one in the air by 2035. Who knows?

@@patreekotime4578 this is a common sentiment but there isn't necessarily a lot of truth in it. Part of it is just people with unrealistic expectations about time scales wanting instant satisfaction after they read about a thing being possible. People are spoiled but some things just take more time. The certification process for aviation is pretty brutal. It takes years. That pipistrel you saw in the video is running on pre-covid technology. That's just how long it takes to get stuff in the air. Those batteries are nothing special compared to most EVs on the road. right now. And those are nothing special to the state of the art which has more than double the energy density at 500wh/kg. And that's stuff that went into production more than a year ago. Imagine that pipistel with a 1000wh/kg battery instead of the

@@tomlakosh1833 Is that some kind of r@cist nonsense?

69dB

On short hops I think electric is safer. Electric motors are very reliable.

Pun intended?! 😂

Or as a glider tow plane perhaps.

Harbour Air in Vancouver you mean? Yes they've been testing their retrofitted E-Beaver for a couple of years with great results. They plan to convert their fleet as they do seaplane short hops.

Totally wrong

Yea, not sure what he was doing. The original plane this was based on is a powered glider. Should be able to cut power soon as runway is made and glide down like a normal light aircraft. Maybe he was floating on purpose to taxi off the end. Or maybe he really wanted a smooth landing for the camera.

Normal for light aircraft. The slight changes in the wind have a larger effect on an aircraft that is both flying quite slow, and is quite light. That means the pilot has to adjust power constantly. Happens in an ICE light aircraft too.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to touch down at a specific spot for the camera. I've be very surprised if the designers had made the plane harder than necessary to fly, and regen braking is a bit pointless on a plane because you don't change speed much.

An earlier version called the Alpha, did have a special prop that allowed regenerative descent which recovered 13% of the energy in circuit flying. Complexity and homologation difficulties made this option not possible on the commercial Velis version.

The airfield near me has about 60kW of solar on the hangars. They don't even have electric aircraft or car chargers.

@@The18107j if the people who do solar walkways and solar roads can diversify into solar runways and solar taxiways then these little airports would have more power than they would ever need.

@@matthewbaynham6286 Putting solar next to the runway would be a better idea. Runways can take a lot of force, and there is a lot of empty space around the runway. Rooftops would also work.

@@The18107j cheaper too

I think some commercial airports already do, although the electricity generated is just used to help power the airport building, not the actual airplanes. On the grassy area between runways, I'm not sure if that would be legal or safe. They have to account for the fact that an errant plane might veer off the runway and smash right into them, which is why this area has no trees in it.

Or some wind turbines between the runways and taxiways. What could possibly go wrong?

There are still redundancy to validate, like drive unit A, B, C, BMS A,B,C but I’m sure it’s all automatic and takes 3 seconds to do so it by the computer. It will be so much easier to maintain

@@1943vermork Yes, reduced engine maintenance costs will be a huge offset to increased costs of the plane itself.

The only problem with that idea that I can see would be if the "braking" would slow the plane down TOO fast.

Panels with less reflectivity would also glean more energy from diffuse sources, too.

I don't think they can replace airliners. you would probably need 100 of them to replace a single day, 1,300 at a airport like Heathrow an that would 103,000 flights a day.

I really dont get that whole thing. I personally dont want to see the skies looking like the roads full of personal transport VTOLs. I would actually rather see better ground transport like high speed rail.

Well said! And what about the advances in the in wheel motor space? Now they can be 10-20+hp per kg and with built in braking systems? Maybe ev planes could use these to taxi&accelerate to takeoff speeds, but also regen massively upon landing? 🤔

By the time you have changed airplane design to enable a rail gun launch, besides all the risks and huge costs involved, you're looking at 10+ years development time (design + testing + approval + implementation). By that time battery density per kg has increased by more than that improvement. Also don't forget that there will be a weight increase on the airplane to enable a safe launch system installed, increasing energy usage. There's also a lot more maintenance required for such a system, there's more risk involved in crosswind and with possible decoupling issues and the amount of airports will be hugely limited. I think money is much better spent in improving the battery technology quicker.

​@@emilenossin5098 Can't see Granny surviving such a takeoff.

@@t1n4444 It doesn't need to be Carrier levels of acceleration. The runways at airports are much longer. Even so, granny may wet herself.😄

I would guess that it's nominally 400 Volts, because that is the most common voltage in electric road vehicles. 800 Volts is beginning to be deployed, but it's still a small part of the market.

All the specs are on their site! "The 57.6kW liquid cooled electric engine provides power to the aircraft. The power is delivered by 345 VDC electric system built around a liquid-cooled in-house developed high performance battery system, which includes two Pipistrel PB345V119E-L batteries connected in parallel, installed in a redundant 2-unit arrangement, total nominal capacity 20 kWh. Crashworthy, thermal runaway inhibiting, HIRF/EMI tolerant. One battery pack is located in the nose of the airplane and the second behind the cabin. This ensures redundancy of the power source: in case of battery failure, the malfunctioning battery would get automatically disconnected from the system. A single battery is capable of standalone operation and has enough power capability to support climbing and continuation of flight."

The charger would take 22kW 3-phase AC from the grid and convert it to 22kW DC for the plane. To save weight, the plane does not have an onboard charger capable of accepting AC.

Building and certifying a new commercial airplane is an extremely long process, most startup companies just can't do it at all and all of the entrenched industry players, which have consolidated down to about four companies, have no interest in going through the full certification when they can try to pass off every innovation as just a variant of an existing model and attempt to bypass it. This is one of the reasons Boeing is in the state it's in.

Stability and controllability especially in the yaw axis are limited in these types of aircraft, especially if you think about smaller aircraft with such design, also visibility isn't great and landing will be way more difficult than a Chesna. Talking about commercial passenger aviation I can imagine the sheer wingspan of the aircraft becoming a problem since it won't be compatible with existing passenger boarding gateways. Also think about pressurization, in a fighter/bomber aircraft you only need to pressurize the cockpit, in a passenger plane you need to pressurize the whole passenger compartment. Last thing is cost, developing a whole new type of aircraft is incredibly expensive and difficult, look at Boing, they can't even develop a proper aircraft, anymore, because they are cutting costs wherever possible.

You're correct; it's hesitancy. The aircraft industry is actually EXTREMELY traditionalist and resistant to change.

@@LastWish90 Adverse yaw problems were solved by adding vertical stabilizers, so there no excessive stability and controllability issues. Visibility issues are no lesser or greater than in conventional aircraft. Wingspan isn't so much an issue with existing airport infrastructure so much as taxing equipment and jet bridges. Area needed to be pressurized in a flying wing's cabin would be lesser or equal to conventional designs. While developing a commercial flying wing that could carry an equivalent amount of passengers to modern airliners would be novel, the designs have been around for many decades and are well refine. The B-2 bomber serves as a good example of this.

@@jamesengland7461 So is the Auto industry as we are discovering with their rejection or back tracking on electrification. One company - start up - is eating their lunch. "I’m so dying to do a supersonic, electric VOTL jet, but adding more work will make my 🧠 🧨" 10:39 AM · Oct 8, 2021 Musk on X. "I have a design for a plane. The exciting thing to do would be some kind of electric vertical takeoff and landing, supersonic jet. The interesting thing about an electric plane is that you want to go as high as possible but you need a certain energy density in the battery pack because you have to overcome gravitational potential energy. Once you’ve overcome gravitational potential energy and you’re at a high altitude, the energy you use in cruise is very low, and then you can recapture a large part of your gravitational potential energy on the way down. The higher you go, the faster you will go for the same amount of energy. And at a certain altitude you can go supersonic with less energy-per-mile - quite a lot less energy per mile - than aircraft at 35,000 feet.” Musk on Rogan interview.