bob9
Didn’t the FAA certify a Pipistrel electric plane a couple of years ago - or was tht not Part 23?
Didn’t the FAA certify a Pipistrel electric plane a couple of years ago - or was tht not Part 23?
China is expanding its global influence by shaping a world order that suits its goals, using subsidies to boost its industrial infrastructure and develop dual-purpose technologies like the RX4E, which serve both civilian and military needs. In the U.S., subsidies are often debated, but they’re crucial for innovation and security. The key question is: are U.S. subsidies for general aviation enough to stay competitive and protect against China’s strategic advancements?
1 reply
Ok, let’s see… short haul in areas without good roads?
but, they do have charging stations specific to the requirements of this aircraft. 160 mile range which is really around 130 at best, no wind. Throw in a 30 mile reserve and your down to 100 miles one way to a place that allegedly has a charging station. If not, you have an airplane with a 65 mile no wind range in an area with only dirt roads. No good roads, forgive me… where is this airplane and service facility going to be based in an area without good roads, but, all the necessary facilities and personnel to support it? …
Oh, I forgot, where’s the power grid that’s going to supply these flying wonders in an area where there’s no good roads?
Where do you find this stuff Russ?
2 replies
Quite a step from the Pipistrel. While charging it in the boondocks might not be straightforward lots of places where such a plane would be operated would allow installation of solar panels. Trucking of fuel drums that are a prime target for theft and refueling from them isn‘t hassle-free either.
1 reply
Given Communist China’s dependence on coal for much of its power, this should be called the first Chicom Coal-Powered Airplane. Its span will keep it out of most hangars.
How in the world would subsidizing R&D of a four-seat aircraft that cruises at 120 mph for only 160 miles with a useful load of less than 700 lb (!) be a “strategic advancement” for the USA? I get that we need to work on propulsion systems powered by sustainable energy, but we don’t have to spend a ton of money designing and building a clunker like this to learn it isn’t a viable technology yet. What am I missing?
2 replies
Interesting. Thanks.
One of the things people miss is that making this a 400 mile range and 1000 pound useful load requires no change except batteries. Assuming they designed it with easily replaced battery packs in 10-20 years it could become a useful vehicle. With our fleet containing a plethora of 75 year old aircraft (all with new powerplants?) - this could have decades of actual useful life.
The technology is, well, unremarkable. It’s the certification that is the news. (And clearly hype.) Still, Interesting.
Did China certify an airplane under part 23 or did the U.S certify a Chinese airplane?
The only place I’ve flown that would qualify for “backcountry, no good roads” is between safari camps in Botswana. No trucking of fuel drums required because the planes had sufficient range to make several hops between the back country strips before heading back to a main airport for fuel. I think it’s a stretch to think this plane would work there. Electric aviation, at this point, seems to be chasing a very small, hard-to-define niche. That niche doesn’t seem to be big enough to support much of an industry.
Mark, you’re correct, this four-seat plane with its limitations won’t change aviation overnight. But it’s not about this one “near-aircraft”, it’s about what it represents. Projects like the RX4E are early steps toward big advancements in electric propulsion, lightweight materials, and technologies for larger aircraft, military drones, and future transportation. The U.S. needs to vividly focus, invest more now and guide these innovations with smart subsidies before it’s too late.
Meanwhile, China has become a serious threat. They’re investing heavily in electric aviation, semiconductors, AI, and green energy, using subsidies and centralized planning to dominate key industries. Their strategy ties civilian advancements directly to their military, giving them a major edge.
If the U.S. doesn’t act, we risk falling behind, becoming even more dependent on foreign tech, and losing our leadership in innovation and security. It’s not about this “clunker”, it’s about staying in the race and making sure the U.S. leads the future of aviation and technology. The clock is ticking. Buy “Made in the USA”.
1 reply
I don’t disagree. My point is we don’t need to build a pig like this plane know that the current (no pun intended) electric propulsion technology cannot power an aircraft that’s useful in the real world. What purpose would it serve to subsidize such an effort at this stage?
I have no problem with researching better battery tech and/or more efficient electric motors, although I believe one can make a good argument that investors generally make better decisions about investment risks than government. This aircraft is a good example, IMO.
The cruise speed is 120 Knots (138 MPH) and the plane has a PAYLOAD of 700 lbs - not useful load. This payload is impressive, especially for the first certification. The range is also more than the Joby — financed by investors and the US DOD.
1 reply
Rather than becoming “Harry Hair-on-Fire” and unleashing my keyboard actuators (fingertips), I’ll let the mighty Paul Bertorelli speak for me in his 20 minute dissertation about the Joby just over three years ago:
Beyond that, I call the readers attention to all the bucks NASA spent on the X-57 Maxwell before pulling the proverbial ‘plug’ on it…
The Chinese would do better to try to build some super efficient diesel powered STOL airplane to service the boondocks and pre-position diesel fuel at the far point.
1 reply
Yawn.
Let’s compare this with the POH numbers for my 182.
Wing span 36’. Max weight 2950 lb. Engine 230 BHP. Max useful fuel 75 gal. Fuel used for taxi, run up, take off, climb to altitude and a 45 minute reserve 11.2 gal. Endurance at 5,000’ 65% power 725 nm, 5.5 h ~134 KTAS.
Convert HP to kw and fuel gal to kg.
172 kW x 0.65 x 5.5 h = 614.9 kWh of real energy used. The theoretical energy content of 100 LL is irrelevant as 230 HP or 172 kW is the real energy delivered to the prop. The theoretical energy content just means that for every 3 kW delivered to 7 kW is waste heat.
The weight of the fuel used for cruise in kilograms is 174.2 kg.
614.9kWh / 174.2 kg = 3.5 kWh/kg This is the real, effective energy density for 100 LL in a O-470 piston engine.
The energy density of lithium-ion batteries is about 0.3 kWh/kg which is why this electric wonder has twice the wing span, goes slower, has a lower useful load and won’t go very far.
Well, batteries get better over time. Not really. The theoretical maximum energy density of lithium-ion batteries is about 0.6 kWh/kg, meaning the best this airplane will ever do is only half as bad.
The only possible hope for an electric 182 is the lithium-oxygen cell which has a theoretical energy density of 5 - 10 kWh/kg, but after about 30 years of trying, nobody so far has been able to make one that actually works in the real world.
1 reply
Spot on! Thanks Larry.
My first adventure with electric cars was when I was a mechanical engineering student at MIT and worked on the the 1968 electric car race between MIT and Caltech (yes, I am old). 3000 lbs of NiCad batteries yielded about 100 miles of range. Not very practical. Now my daily driver is a 2019 Chevy Bolt that I have driven 96,000 miles with the only maintenance other than tires and windshield fluid is to change the rear wiper blade. Internal combustion engines are going to go the way of the steam engine. Forget about the arguments of clean and “greener”, the primary driver will be economics.
The Chinese plane will go 160 miles with what I assume is a Lithium-Ion battery with a nickle manganese cobalt (NMC) cathode. Lyten, a US company, is currently offering samples of a Lithium Sulfur battery that has about 1.95 times the energy density of a Lithium-Ion battery with a NMC cathode and they expect to have about 2.9 times the energy density by 2030. This would give the Chinese plane a range of 460 miles and this is with a plane that does not appear to be that optimized for range performance. Also, not only do these batteries have better energy density, they are less expensive, safer, charge faster, slightly easier to manufacture, and use locally sourced materials.
As a point a reference, the Wright brothers first powered flight lasted 12 seconds, covered 120 feet, and reached a top speed of 6.8 miles per hour. Not very practical. But they and others kept going. As I said before, practical electric flight is coming and sooner than some people think, And if we do not do it , the Chinese will.
1 reply
I stand corrected.
Useful load is payload plus fuel, right? Since this aircraft uses batteries there is no fuel to consider, payload is essentially the same as useful load. 680 lbs is four 170 lb occupants with no bags. What’s the payload for a C182 with 1.5 hrs of fuel aboard?
The Joby is a completely different class of aircraft. That’s like comparing a C182 with a Robinson R44.
1 reply
Doing the math…
Max endurance 90 minutes. Speed 120 knots. Range 160nm. My old E6B says 160nm at 120 knots is 80 minutes. Under what rules is flying paying passengers in an airplane with a 10-minute reserve legal?
It comes with a long power cord.
Mark, you are correct - Payload is useful load minus fuel. In some cases with the jets I fly they use BEW - which is empty weight + crew - then the calculations for fuel / payload are then computed.
For a SR22 for example (lets use a G2) it has a typical useful load of 1050 lbs. It can hold 80 gallons (nominally) so the payload with fuel fuel would be : 1050 - 480 = 570. If for example you wanted to fly for 1.5 hours with a fuel burn of 17 GPH , and VFR reserve of 30 minutes your payload would be: 1050 lbs - fuel (2.0 x 17 = 34 gallons = 204 lbs) = 844 lbs. A C182 would be very similiar - just a lot slower than the SR22 but faster than the Chinese plane.
I use the Joby, which is a great prototype, since it is one of the most popular in the electric aircraft race, albeit a different class.
I’ve flown the electric Pipestral in Europe and for 30 minute flights is it is a blast.
Congratulations on Part 23 certification, China is actually DOING something in electric aviation. Has it reached full potential? No more than the Wright Flyer performance achieved compared to a DC3 compared to an A380 today. But the Wright Flyer did something, the DC3 did likewise including much more culminating at where the aviation world is at today with an A380. All three started a pathway of maturing technology that continues today. Guess what China… has some pretty smart people who can take an idea to useful reality for their culture and needs, even and including meeting US certification! May not meet all our needs as compared to a 182… but still shows promise that will inevitably mature. Maybe instead of economic sanctions, belligerent tariffs, and threatened military Sabre rattling, we say “well done”…can we buy these or your technology and build them here? Gee… getting along…now that’s a novel idea!
1 reply
Having China lean on the FAA sounds like a wonderful idea. Pressure from foreign governments will likely get the attention from Congress for the FAA to move quicker. Likely meaning, hiring more people at the FAA. As a follower of the Jetson 1, 14 CFR part 91.119 needs to be modified for small eVTOLs to land and takeoff in urban areas for metro commuter use to reduce traffic jams around the planet as well as in the US. An ideal condition for the Chinese aviation authority to become involved in to get it done sooner rather than later.
James mentioned lithium-oxygen batteries - great in theory, but no one has been able to make one that works in the real world. One interesting thing about Li-O batteries is that they get heavier as they discharge. That would be fun in a aviation application!
China used U.S. technology and investments to become a manufacturing and technological powerhouse, turning civilian innovations like electric aircraft into military assets and gaining a strategic edge. During the 1980s, American industry fed China’s rise by outsourcing production and sharing technology—what seemed like a good idea at the time to cut costs and expand markets has now turned into a nightmare, as China’s industrial infrastructure has mushroomed into a global force. (Ask the CIA how that worked out.) Meanwhile, the U.S. is scrambling to reclaim lost ground—factories, supply chains, and technological leadership. Efforts to rebuild are underway, but the clock is ticking, and the challenge is enormous. As for “getting along”?..don’t hold your breath.
The plane doesn’t look attractive to myself,and I prefer the roll characteristics of shorter wings,even if they are 60 years old or so.Maybe all the good structural inventions for aircraft more or less were used up 50 or 60 years ago,except for vg’s.But it would be exciting if the Asians would supply more reasonable parts,or even a more efficient and cheaper fuel
Can it be ordered from TEMU?
All of the car talk, whataboutism and misty-eyed bromides about the Wright brothers and steam engines in the world don’t change the fact that something must to be commercially viable to survive in the modern world, and what is essentially an uglier 172 with 90min of endurance is not exactly the image of easily commercially viable.
You guys like numbers. This is only marginally better than the electric Pipistrel, which is rated for 50min + reserve (80min). That plane has two seats and is essentially useless aside from pattern work for and short hops to airports that are less than 100mi apart, this one is advertising that it is roughly equivalent in the range department (90min - 30min reserve = 60 min), and that’s advertising. What’s real world? If it were 90min + reserve, they would have said that, because it’s an increase of a third and that’s more than significant. In the end, its viability outside of its home market with its lax regulations will depend on cost. We’ll have to see what it costs, since it’s Chinese it’ll probably be cheaper than if it were a Cessna, but the 2-seat flying e-bike Pipistrel is $200,000+, and let’s not forget that deep cycling the batteries will significantly shorten their “TBO” vs someone’s babied EV which almost never gets deep cycled and does half of its “charging” over its life off of regen.