July 2022
I think it would be informative and useful to establish a “betting market” on all of these “vaporware” schemes. Lots of announcements–lots of coverage–little actually certified and used.
Something like “What are the odds that the electric Caravan will be certified for scheduled passenger operations by this date in 2024–as stated?”
The stock markets react to both press releases, and the failure to perform. There are “futures markets” for commodities. You can “short” a stock. Watching the “Markets” on these proposals would be an indication not only of measuring the interest in the announcements, the perception of viability of the proposal by PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME!
1 reply
July 2022
In line with the above, it would be interesting to know if these are NEW Caravans (produced by Cessna) or conversions of OLD Caravans. Will Cessna certify them? (If not, WHY NOT?)–does CESSNA believe there is a market for this aircraft?
I’d be much more confident if a company like Cessna built and certified them, rather than a development company like Amp-Air.
1 reply
July 2022
▶ jimhanson1
I don’t expect Cessna to develop or make anything innovative. Their new Skycourier could have been a product of the '60s.
1 reply
July 2022
▶ 500ks
Like electric airplanes, someone once called Bill Lear a “Pioneer”. His retort–“A Pioneer is a Farmer with an arrow in his ass!”
Lear did pioneer a lot of projects, from radio to autopilots to 8 track tape players to Learjets. He made a lot of money–only to lose much of it with failed products. All had problems along the way–and required years of sacrifice, change, and at the cost of lives to ameliorate.
July 2022
“The company claims the aircraft will use 50-70 percent less fuel depending on the length of the flight.”
What about energy? I assume they will use exactly the same amout of enery to fly the same routes at the same speeds. I’m not sure where any savings are comming from.
July 2022
▶ jimhanson1
Careful there, this “news” story was NOT an accurate quote about the expected STC certification timeline. Ampaire did NOT claim “it expects supplemental type certification for the hybrid system by 2024”
They actually said in their press release “The company is working with the FAA to achieve supplemental type certificate approval in 2024.”
Their actual sentence was obviously carefully scrubbed by their legal team so as to not make a legal Forward Looking Statement but doesn’t mean a darned thing, it just expresses that they will be “working with” the FAA. (So will I and a lot of people. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and they’ll hand out certs for all our projects on Christmas Eve 2024!)
If Ampaire actually had any factual basis to expect certification in 2024 and believed a rational person would draw that conclusion if they were asked to explain their optimism to the SEC when served a subpoena, the sentence would have read something like:
"Based on our progress and ongoing discussions with FAA certification branch
regarding our timeline, by the end of 2024 we expect to earn an STC for this
new-technology powerplant, its installation in B Caravans, operations, associated
power source, controllers and chargers, and required maintenance and inspection
to ensure continued airworthiness in commercial service."
That would still give them a lot of wiggle room, but they obviously chose to say nothing at all and hope no aviation journalist would make the night-and-day distinction.
The “airline” specifically gave no mention of a year they expect to take delivery. According to Ampaire: “Disclaimer: The specifications listed are the performance targets driving our technical development and are subject to change without notice.” So if you call that a firm offer on a plane with no hard specs which offers only literally 61 words of detail from the manufacturer, I’ve got some great business opportunities for you!
Their first flight of this tech (not their push/pull 337 hybrid project) was in Feb. If they get an STC for a product with no defined cert path by 2024, it would a big change for the FAA’s processes that would be quite a shock.
As far as skin, turns out that’s you and me! According to grants dot gov the US taxpayers are multi-million dollar investors in these guys/gals/etc. from NASA award of multiple no-strings-attached aviation sustainability research grants. Have a look at the PowerPoints on nasa dot gov and tell me if you think we’re getting a good deal…
July 2022
There may be incremental gains in efficiency and therefore less energy use but your point is valid considering thermolytic law.
5-7% not 50-70% may be achievable but even that I’d doubt.
And even then less so if you consider energy in manufacture and upkeep and charging.
