The Lilium VTOL Electric Jet

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

As has been said, it's an interesting idea, but not yet a viable commercial package. The wispy undercarriage would need to be replaced with wheels otherwise you'd never be able to shift it once landed! Also batteries need recharging so that takes time as well. bit of a sod if you're on the way to somewhere urgent and you run out of charge halfway along! Green energy isn't as green as many people think.  To charge up electric vehicles, aircraft, etc you need to connect them to a charging point. These are usually powered from the national grid, which, in many countries is still powered by massive coal burning, polluting, power stations! In other words they simply moving their actual emissions elsewhere, (Of course in America this won't happen as the clown prince in charge thinks global warming is fake news so pollution doesn't exist!)  However that said, the rise in solar and wind power sources recently could well make the concept carbon neutral in the future but certainly not just yet. At the moment the vehicle they have their reminds me of that little thing from The Jetsons!

 

[MartinW 0]

15 hours ago, allardjd said:

 

Well, certainly not at any cost.  That's only a valid question if the cost of buying and maintaining the Schpitzen-Schparken 500 Jet FlugZug is comparable to that for a similar-performing conventionally powered aircraft. 

 

The ongoing cost of periodic battery replacements must be included in the maintenance costs as well and that is not likely to be chump-change.  GA aircraft can and often do, if properly cared for, last 3 or 4 decades with no diminishment of utility or performance, so the long term cost of ownership is even more relevant for a light aircraft than for an automobile.  It's not unreasonable to speculate that the battery pack of an electric GA aircraft would require total replacement a number of times during the expected life of the plane.  As with all AC, that kind of serious maintenance must be performed and documented by licensed (read high-priced) people, certified to do so and with replacement parts certified for aviation use.  Only home-builders escape any of this and even in their case, not all of it.  Periodic wholesale replacement of the battery pack in an electric plane is going to be a very significant cost factor over the expected life of the plane.

 

There are some other issues of flexibility that enter in as well.   For example in an avgas aircraft, the pilot has the ability to forego some fuel (and range) in favor of more "stuff" placed aboard.  It happens all the time.  If you fly AirHauler you're no doubt intimately familiar with the concept.  Fill the seats - fill the tanks - fly; pick any two.  On the other hand a flat-on-its-arse battery pretty much weighs the same as a fully charged one.  You don't have that capability to swap some range for some payload.  In the hybrid, there's still some ability to do that but it seems obvious that the amount of fuel carried (and thus potentially left behind in favor of payload) is going to be much less.

 

Re-fuel time is also an issue.  I see some are saying that fast-recharge batteries are in the labs now, but nobody is talking yet where those stack up in terms of power density (KW-hours vs. weight), cost (including disposal cost which you will no doubt be charged for) and overall battery life.  If your AC won't make it all the way to the intended destination without a fuel stop, four hours or more vs. 40 minutes (approach, land, taxi, park, pee, refuel, pay, taxi, take-off) to top off the tank is not going to please you.

 

John

 

 

 

In regard to pure electric aircraft, maintenance and fuel costs are rock bottom. You're talking about $5 an hour operating cost for lets say the "Sun Flyer" (intended for flight schools) compared to $73 an hour for a Cessna 172. The Alpha Electra for example cuts the cost of pilot training by a whopping 70%. Not hard to see why flight schools are so interested. Does that mean we will see a 747 sized aircraft all electric any time soon? No, definitely not. It's been estimated that a 747 sized aircraft, all electric, with today's battery tech would fly for just 10 minutes. It'll be a couple of decades or more before we see revolutionary battery tech that will do that. Unless there's some kind of incredible breakthrough, which is of course unlikely. 

 

It would be great if we could strap a hefty Tesla 1200 pound battery pack under our planes and shoot off in what the company playfully calls "ludicrous mode", like we can in the model S, but clearly that's not possible.  However, what we can do is augment our electric planes with a fuel powered generator, just like we do with our automobiles. And the driving force for such developments is of course the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Now I know some of us will be less than enthusiastic about the need to do that, but the fact is, whether we like it or not, that's the direction we are heading. 

 

In regard to maintenance costs for hybrid aircraft, then clearly this is something that the developers have considered. It would make no sense to save an estimated 30 - 50% on fuel and then have to spend it on maintenance. Pipistrel of course wouldn't develop an aircraft that was so expensive to maintain that no one would buy it. They are in business to sell aircraft and make money.

 

You mention battery cost. As mentioned, the all electric aircraft currently being developed for flight schools are much cheaper to maintain that conventional fuel driven aircraft, and yes, that includes battery cost. The Alpha Electra for example just uses LiPoly batteries, nothing exotic. I don't know how much they cost to replace but a hybrid cars battery pack, according to Toyota, is designed to last 8 years.

 

 

Quote

 AC won't make it all the way to the intended destination without a fuel stop, four hours or more vs. 40 minutes (approach, land, taxi, park, pee, refuel, pay, taxi, take-off) to top off the tank is not going to please you.

 

 

The Electra and as far as I know, all of the aircraft intended for flight schools will come with multiple battery packs you land, slide out the old pack and slide in a fully charged one. you can be in the air way faster than you could ever refuel. And not forgetting of course that hybrid aircraft have much smaller battery packs than all electric and don't require charging. The generator does that.

 

Nice video here. A flight in the Alpha Electra and some technical info re the batteries. As you can see, all ready in the air, not long till the flight schools get their hands on them. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by MartinW

[MartinW 0]

Don't ask me why your quote is at the bottom Alan, I have no idea.

 

Very true, when we charge an electric vehicle it's possible that the electricity is derived from a less than environmentally friendly power station. Internal combustion engines are notoriously inefficient though. Thus, there's still often a saving in terms of emissions as a result of charging from the mains. It's a complex equation, it can depend on the country in question and how they generate electricity, even the time of day the vehicle is charged. In China for example where power is mostly generated from coal it's bad news, whereas in Norway it's good news.

 

 

40 minutes ago, dodgy-alan said:

  To charge up electric vehicles, aircraft, etc you need to connect them to a charging point. These are usually powered from the national grid, which, in many countries is still powered by massive coal burning, polluting, power stations! In other words they simply moving their actual emissions elsewhere, 

Edited June 27, 2017 by MartinW

[MartinW 0]

14 hours ago, allardjd said:

 

Good choice of words - "honest" is the crux of why I AM bothered by them calling it a "Jet".  It goes against their credibility for whatever else they say.

 

John

 

 

 

It's just a sexy name. Choosing a sexy name doesn't imply the company is unscrupulous. I've read a lot about the aircraft in question and company over the last few days. I've not seen anyone cast doubt on the companies credibility based on their choice of the word jet. It is of course your right to have that opinion though, so fair enough.

[MartinW 0]

6 hours ago, allardjd said:

 

 

I'm frankly betting against them.  I don't think pure electric flight is ever going to go mainstream either in GA or the larger aircraft. 

 

 

 

I would disagree with your choice of the word "ever".  Might be 20, 30 years or more but it will happen. 

 

I posted a video above of the Electra. Pretty much done and dusted. The flight schools will be whisking students into the air in no time. So yes, not mainstream as in widespread, but as I mentioned above, we have solid state battery tech on the way that will triple endurance and slash charge time. When that happens electric aircraft will start to infiltrate areas other than just flight schools.

 

Beyond that, pretty amazing advances in the pipeline. Companies and universities all around the world are hard at it. Technologies like lithium air breathing batteries, gold nano-wire batteries, magnesium batteries, solid state lithium-ion and fuel cells of course. It doesn't end there, we have laser made microsupercapacitors, sodium ion batteries, and aluminium graphite that charges to full power in one minute.

 

I could go on and on. But my favourite is the Alfa battery. This guy runs on water and has 40 times the capacity of lithium-ion. How does your electric aircraft look now, with 40 times the current battery capacity?

 

You may be interested to know that a car with an aluminium-air battery recently travelled 1,100 miles on a single charge.

 

 http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/129419-electric-car-with-light-aluminium-air-battery-travels-1-100-miles-on-a-single-charge-take-note-tesla

 

Tesla have just filed a patent for their metal-air battery. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by MartinW

[Andrew Godden 943]

19 minutes ago, MartinW said:

 

I could go on and on.....

 

But you do. 

[MartinW 0]

15 minutes ago, Andrew Godden said:

 

But you do. 

 

 

So does John. That's why I love him.

 

Probably because I suffer from extreme obsessive compulsive disorder. The real deal, not the celebrity version. Glad you were amused anyway.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by MartinW

[Andrew Godden 943]

55 minutes ago, MartinW said:

 

 

So does John. That's why I love him.

 

Probably because I suffer from extreme obsessive compulsive disorder. The real deal, not the celebrity version. Glad you were amused anyway.

 

 

 

Not amused, now just finding this topic extremely boring because it's been over done ad nauseum and it appears you don't understand when enough is beyond ridiculous. Your disorder is your problem, now ours, but unfortunately you seem to think it's OK to subject us to it. You might want to try researching "taking the piss" (the real deal, not the celebrity version) and understanding at which point in this thread responses to your posts were doing exactly that.

 

Have a nice day.

[MartinW 0]

2 hours ago, Andrew Godden said:

 

Not amused, now just finding this topic extremely boring because it's been over done ad nauseum and it appears you don't understand when enough is beyond ridiculous. Your disorder is your problem, now ours, but unfortunately you seem to think it's OK to subject us to it. You might want to try researching "taking the piss" (the real deal, not the celebrity version) and understanding at which point in this thread responses to your posts were doing exactly that.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

My god Andrew. Not again. This has been a friendly discussion, no hassle no issues and again you dive in with your unpleasantness directed at me. Clearly you have an agenda. You are clearly watching intently just waiting for an opportunity to dive in an insult me. The last time it occurred it was just an innocuous post, totally harmless, and you replied with a lengthy diatribe that would rival mine, utterly insulting me. Now you do it again. 

 

I was just attempting to explain to you why it may be that I have a tendency to become obsessive and post somewhat prolifically. That and the fact I find the subject matter interesting of course. At one point my OCD was so severe I almost had a nervous breakdown. 

 

I am stunned that Joe retains you on this forum. Don't you think life would be so much more pleasant with a little tolerance, humility and compassion?

 

All that was required from you was something like... "sorry Martin, no offence intended, was just kidding". My response would then be something like... "Okay Andrew, no problem. That's it, done, all that was required. 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by MartinW

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Pro tip: Don't post in topics that you find boring.

Masters Course Tip: Don't post negativity in a topic you find boring.

God Mode Tip: Be Nice.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Back on topic. Thanks for posting that video about the Electric Trainers. That is a huge Plus for the Entry Level Level Pilot if it will bring training costs down. Can't see any way that could be a bad thing. Even if Electrics remain for a decade as Only Trainers due to range issues...that will still be a good thing for the industry.

High cost of attaining a Pilot's License is exactly why I am only a Sim Pilot.

 

[brett 2,315]

Unless these electric aircraft become totally mainstream why would I want to school in one when I would probably buy an older GA combustion engine plane is a good question I think too.

 

Since I am not rich and will never buy a plane I probably don't care about this subject as much as others. Interesting that the tech is there finally to build something that I read about in Popular Mechanics and Science when I was a pup though. Time will tell how viable the whole shebang is.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I wonder if many buy those older GA aircraft because of the high rental cost for a plane owned by the flight school, and if a flight school fleets up with economical electric aircraft (we shall see if they truly are after battery life and wear and tear is better understood in RL conditions) and manages to bring those rental costs down to near the level of the your initial expense and recurring costs associated with ownership while you train (let alone surprise costs associated with buying *Vintage vehicles)...I think many students might opt for the Rent to Learn option, and plan for ownership/partnership in an aircraft after getting a license in hand with perhaps a better idea of what your Aircraft actual Needs are after school.

 

*Certified Functional Junker.

[brett 2,315]

I can rent a C172 for about $130.00 per hour or buy a used one for about $80,000.00. It would take a lot of rental hours to equal out to the cost of a used aircraft. I would think people but planes for a lot of reasons, pride of ownership among them but I wouldn't think rental costs would be among them.

 

Sooner or later the cost of renting and charging an electric aircraft would still end up equaling the cost that is there now for combustion engines aircraft, it's just simple economics.

 

It is not my purpose to down electric planes, as with all new tech it will take quite awhile for it to be introduced widespread.

[allardjd 1,853]

Some aspiring private pilots do take the buy-instead-of-rent route with the intention of selling the aircraft again after getting their PPL or their instrument ticket.  Well maintained GA aircraft hold their value pretty well and normally the biggest depreciating factor is the time to the next required overhaul, measured in engine hours.  You will invariably find that statistic listed in the sales ads for piston-powered GA aircraft.  It's not unreasonable to expect to be able to unload one for almost what you bought it for if it's still in the same condition.  

 

Adding to the cost of that method are the costs for the required annual inspection if one comes due.  Also, the last I knew, "...aircraft used for training..." require a 100 hour inspection - every 100 engine hours. I don't know how that applies to a privately-owned aircraft - they may be exempt from it.  None, or at least very little of this can be done by the owner.  A licensed A&P mechanic's signoff is need for the aircraft maintenance log.  You are allowed to fuel it, check the oil, add oil, pump up the tires and that's pretty much the extent of it.  Almost anything else requires a licensed A&P guy.

 

Also, of course, if you own it you have to buy the insurance for it and for occupants, which covers your instructor.

 

Financial risk factors of owning vs. renting include accidents, breakdowns and the possibility of one or more ADs (Airworthiness Directives) being issued by the aviation authorities requiring some expensive inspection, component replacement or new limitation for the aircraft type.  ADs can be "before further flight", or have an hours or months time limit, or be tied to the next required inspection or overhaul.  They are almost never cheap.  Pending ADs, issued but not complied with, go against the potential sales price of the aircraft and buyers are almost always savvy enough to check that out.

 

If the plane can be sold again after the training, buy-rather-than-rent option may still be cheaper, but it's not guaranteed, and it's not going to be a cheap evolution, either way.

 

John

[MartinW 0]

Ab initio pilot training will be reduced by 70% according to Pipistrel. 

[brett 2,315]

That's exactly the kind of thing they told me when the natural gas company wanted me to switch from oil heat to their product and now gas heat costs more than oil.

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

They have already used one of these strap on wing things with engines to cross the English Channel and also fly formation with an A380. Pretty soon everyone will have one in the garage and we'll all be able go where we like, when we like, as fast as we like with out a care for anyone else, then the respective governments will realise that they can earn tax revenue from them and bring in tons of regulations to govern their use. A lot of people have built thise giant drone type things that can carry people. when the first of those goes into mass production then a whole new set of rules will come into play to govern such machines. Either way we're screwed.Personally i'm on the lookout for an old Blue Police Box! 

[allardjd 1,853]

42 minutes ago, dodgy-alan said:

Pretty soon everyone will have one in the garage and we'll all be able go where we like, when we like, as fast as we like with out a care for anyone else...

 

Don't hold your breath, Al.

 

John

[brett 2,315]

And we should always care about everyone else.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Speaking of "One in every garage", that reminds me of the good ...cough coff...old (50 years and no...) Moller M400 Aircar. I'm waiting for Paul Moller to strap a Quad Copter to his 50 year failed venture and get it to finally fly...and I'll not hold my breath John.

[MartinW 0]

8 hours ago, Captain Coffee said:

Speaking of "One in every garage", that reminds me of the good ...cough coff...old (50 years and no...) Moller M400 Aircar. I'm waiting for Paul Moller to strap a Quad Copter to his 50 year failed venture and get it to finally fly...and I'll not hold my breath John.

 

 

He's still at it. Not a failed venture really, certainly a snaillike venture. Moller points out that he has a very small team, and that if you look at the man hours and limited funding, it's actually progressing on a very quick timescale. He tells us he's about 3 or 4 years away from FAA certification.  Moller points out that just the V-22's gearbox cost $1.2 billion to develop. Compared with total investment in the skycar over the last 50 years of just $100 million. 

[MartinW 0]

10 hours ago, dodgy-alan said:

They have already used one of these strap on wing things with engines to cross the English Channel and also fly formation with an A380. Pretty soon everyone will have one in the garage and we'll all be able go where we like, when we like, as fast as we like with out a care for anyone else, then the respective governments will realise that they can earn tax revenue from them and bring in tons of regulations to govern their use. A lot of people have built thise giant drone type things that can carry people. when the first of those goes into mass production then a whole new set of rules will come into play to govern such machines. Either way we're screwed.Personally i'm on the lookout for an old Blue Police Box! 

 

 

Some pretty amazing concepts in the works. Including some flying cars that are already in the sky. There are about 5 or 6 flying cars available at the moment, but my favourite is the Aeromobil 3.0. The 4.0 is currently in development. 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by MartinW

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

2 hours ago, MartinW said:

 

 

Some pretty amazing concepts in the works. Including some flying cars that are already in the sky. There are about 5 or 6 flying cars available at the moment, but my favourite is the Aeromobil 3.0. The 4.0 is currently in development. 

 

 

 

Interesting concept but useless for the Tesco's shopping run! No boot space! LOL

 

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Ha, I had the same thought Alan, it would be of similar use to a motorcycle. (Frankly, I'd love to see a flying Motorcycle concept instead of a flying car). I also didn't like the prop hanging down as it does behind the automobile while driving. However, there was one shot of it driving where it appeared to have a three blade prop that tucked behind the tails much better...looked safer/better imo...maybe not enough thrust and they went for a 4 blade?

 

btw...by flying motorcycle I do NOT mean like this idiot: