Russ-
When you are in the vineyards cultivating…you need to cultivate the flavor of the grapes a little less, I have for you 2 words: ENERGY DENSITY. The inventor who will stumble upon a “new” battery technology that will allow your dream to…bear fruit (LOL) has not been born yet.
John Caulkins
2 replies
All you have to do is look at the source required to keep all of these batteries charged. I would like to be convinced, I really would, but, I’m not. Energy is not free, it has to come from somewhere. How many batteries and how many chargers do you have scattered around your garage Russ. Batteries, chargers and electric cords now grow like weeds taking over entire work benches and requiring their own dedicated charging tables. Then there is the what do you do with them when they’re wasted. Some last quite a long time, some less than a year. Disposal of lithium batteries and accessories is now an industry. There is no panacea, only trade offs.
I too like the idea of zero mass loss propulsion systems. However, like the prior two commenters indicated, we’re just not there yet. Working at the University of Michigan in the engineering department I finally heard a professor (who is working on next generation batteries) admit that EV’s are THE dirtiest form of transportation we have today. When considering trades, we need to consider not just the vehicle, but the whole process of getting the vehicle into the hands of owner/operators and maintaining them. EVs have a niche for short hops with long stops. But don’t forget the infrastructure. Want to go somewhere new, well that won’t work. So the utility drops precipitately. I don’t own oil company stock, but that technology is very mature and we long ago paid for the infrastructure.
So, we need the novice, hobby, and experimental EV people to press on! Investments in power sources too. But, until we can have the utility of a can of gas, taken wherever we go to get us back, it’s internal combustion for the vast majority of us.
Joby, following Lilium and dozens of other bankrupt battery Rube Goldbergs in its rapid decline: “Why Joby Aviation Stock Is Losing Altitude Today”, October 2024, Motley Fool. Russ, you still have a two-stroke chainsaw? You must be kidding! As with lawn mowers, weed wackers, boat motors, snow mobiles, etc. these all switched to efficient four-stroke motors decades ago. And not to “save the planet” from the non-existent climate crisis, but because they are cheaper and simpler to operate and maintain.
From Russ
Four-stroke chainsaws and weed whackers are available but most use two-stroke engines. I bought mine years ago. Please keep the irrelevant politics out of your posts, Kent.
To answer the title question, a resounding “NO!” Might that day eventually come? Yes, but as stated by others, we don’t have even a hint of the necessary technology.
The revolution is coming and I welcome it. I am on my 4th electric car and I would never go back to ICE. I almost put a deposit on a Bye Aerospace eFlyer 4 but I came to my senses and realized their 2025 projected delivery was likely a fantasy. Still, that airplane - or one like it - is coming. As the engineers point out, energy density is a problem but it is slowly improving. This week, I’ve got to go out to my cold hangar and change the engine oil in my old-timey fossil fuel burning Continental. I long for the day I’ll never have to do that again. The electric future can’t come fast enough for me.
It’s a brave blog you’ve written here Russ. Thank you for risking the blowback you knew would come your direction.
Speaking of chainsaws, the owner of a successful company once told me that he also owned a King Air and Bonanza. He let qualified company employees fly the King Air but not the Bonanza, saying that there were two things in life he did not loan out - his Bonanza and his chainsaw.
By way, what do you tow with your '95? I tow a 21 foot fiberglass product made in Chilliwack.
There may come the day when there is a magical flying unicorn, but that day has not arrived.
I’d welcome a simple and easier to maintain power plant in my plane and car. However I don’t think we will see it in our lifetime at least with the capabilities that we have for our cross country planes. The ambitious projections have proven to be false and barring an amazing breakthrough, will likely continue that way for the foreseeable future
Some folks are sold on eVTOLs as the future of aviation—quieter, cheaper, better. Sounds great in theory, but: batteries are anchors, range is laughable, and hype won’t get you off the ground, let alone keep you there! 
While we may be seeing public acceptance of the electric aircraft concept due to the flood of startup efforts, until someone can actually demonstrate an existing aviation niche being filled by an electric on a practical basis, I find it hard to see any sort of real breakout. Right now, the thinking is we can do it by creating a new aviation niche that can work within the limitations electric imposes, but that niche comes with its own problems of acceptance.
The high voltages and large currents to power the electric motors, not to mention large batteries, scare me. The inflight electrical fires will be spectacular. The energy density problem will severely limit the range and utility of these things. And quite frankly, I think the ICE engines are better for the environment, considering the disposal of batteries and the the mining of considerable minerals to make those batteries.
From Russ:
Not debating climate change, Dennis
I’m a big fan of my electric landscaping tools & aviation innovation but the Joby photo in this article just looks totally wacked to me. Even the folks back in the distant past figured out that one gas- fired engine was easier to operate & maintain than a team of six horses tied to their wagons.
There have been two potential powerplant game changers that I can remember. From the 1960s through the 1980s, the Wankel engine was supposed to replace the piston engine. Lighter, more compact, few moving parts, cheaper to manufacture, the auto companies all took out licenses and spend billions developing them. John Deere (yes, the tractor people) spent millions on aviation specific Wankels. In the end, the advantages didn’t outweigh the disadvantages. The second was a small turboprop. Millions spent again on ceramic turbine wheels etc. but the problem was still expense and internal aerodynamic scaling issues. So I’m not holding my breath for electric airplanes, except maybe training and other short hop, long wait applications. Energy density is the limiting factor. Oh, and Kent, I’ll counter your comment about Canada becoming the 51st state by offering you to become Canada’s 11 th province. Or maybe Canada’s third territory.
1 reply
I believe that Electric Aviation is coming and I look forward to it. The same questions remain however, specifically what happens to the energy supply grid when everybody in North America comes home late in the afternoon and plugs their cars and airplanes in at the same time. Huge investments in energy generation capacity would be needed. But again, energy density is a key factor. I would anticipate it could be a few generations before we see 15 hour nonstop flights in an electric A380 or 787, if ever.
As for the US becoming Canada’s 11th province,…absorbing most of the states into several new provinces would probably be the better way to go. Keep California and Texas to create another rivalry similar to the Calgary/Edmonton and Ontario/Quebec/Alberta dynamics. Combine a few others, then spin the rest off under President Musk and Vice President Trump…
Fifteen additional provinces sounds about right…
I will also thank Russ for taking on this subject. I also have an electric car and will probably never again buy a vehicle with an IC engine. I also have a collection of Milwaukee battery powered tools including a chain saw along with a battery electric lawn mower. My Chevy Bolt has over 95,000 miles and the only maintenance other than tires and windshield wiper fluid has been to replace the rear wiper blade. It costs me less than 3 cents a mile for energy.
My company (I am retired but was one of the founders and still own a considerable share of the company) manufactures a battery electric high tech agricultural machine. I also advise student at the local university building a battery powered race car (FormulaSAE Electric). Our motor weighs about 17lbs and put out 80 hp with a peak efficiency of 98%. I also consulted for a motor design project sponsored by DARPA and NASA (probably for drones but I did not ask). Anyway, I follow battery and motor technology. We are about to have commercial Lithium Sulfur batteries from several companies. These have considerably higher energy density than the best contemporary lithium-ion batteries along with a lower cost and faster charge rate. We may also have Iron Nitride magnets that do not require “rare” earth elements.
Anyway, I firmly believe that we will have commercial electric flight and not just because it is “greener” and quieter but because will be less expensive and more reliable. I think that Joby will probably be successful and maybe Archer and Beta. I also expect that, eventually, we will have 737-sized electric aircraft capable of flying at least 1000 miles. And just like in a number of other endeavors, there will be a shakeout where a number of companies will fail. Just look at the number of car companies in early 1900s.
There was an article recently which referenced the Oct. 9, 1903 New York Times published editorial, “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly”. This was shortly after Samuel Pierpoint Langley’s flyling machine crashed into the Potomac. They predicted that manned flight would take between one and 10 million years to achieve. Nine weeks later, on Dec. 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers achieved what many thought was impossible. I will leave a link to the article in a separate post…
2 replies
Link to article:
The “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly” story is yet another strong historical proof that the mainstream media (MSM) should not be trusted blindly. The disinformation spread by the MSM therefore has a strong historical background.
$11 billion? While electric tech sounds appealing, the steep costs of battery production, the environmental toll of mining, the hassle of charging times, and the financial struggles of many eVTOL companies make it a tough pill to swallow.
Being a chemical engineer, I fully understand the energy density issues currently facing battery technology. I seriously doubt that the Periodic Table contains any element that will allow a reversible chemical reaction to make our current batteries perform as needed for long-distance flight. But, I would not rule out some different system (solid state batteries, super capacitors, etc.) that is on the horizon, which will solve that issue. Comparing the current state of electric fight to ICE powered aircraft is a waste of time because the modern gasoline and diesel engines have over a century of time and billions of dollars of R&D to get them to where they are now. Serious battery development is less than 1/4 of that. Make no mistake, electric aircraft will come, we just don’t really know when they will hit critical mass. Look at electric cars. At the dawn of the new millennium, they were an expensive curiosity - a rich man’s play toy. Today there are millions of them on the roads with charging stations springing up everywhere. As for practicality, I have a friend who routinely drives his Tesla between Toronto, Ontario, and southern Louisiana with no real limitations on where to stop for charging or comfort breaks. I too, have recently purchased an inexpensive electric vehicle for all those little run-around-town trips. It replaced an aging gas-powered vehicle, and I am very happy with the change. Yes, it fills a niche application, but so will electric aircraft at first. If someone had told me 20 years ago that I would be driving an electric car, I probably would have laughed at them. Never say never…
1 reply
Electric aircraft will find their niche in short hops, air taxis, and cargo, But dreaming of battery-powered jumbo jets is pure fantasy for now. Push innovation, but stay grounded in what’s actually doable. Progress needs ambition, $ure, but it also needs a $olid grip on reality. $11 billion???
As a mechanical engineering, I will admit to liking trains, planes, and automobiles. I also read some technological history. Anyway, some of the naysayer arguments remind me of the arguments regarding steam power in the late 1940s. The last American made steam locomotive was built by Norfolk Western (Now part of Norfolk Southern) in 1953. The last main line revenue run was by Grand Trunk Western (part of Canadian National) in Detroit commuter operations was 7 years later in 1960. The first some-what practical diesel locomotive was built by GE in 1924 with practical main line locomotives coming in the late 1930s so it took a while but the drivers for new technology are always the same – total costs or benefits of operations.
Back to aircraft, Beta out of Vermont, claims a demonstrated range of 336 nm for their Convention Take Off and Landing 5 passenger + pilot electric plane with a recharge time of less than an hour. They also flew it from Vermont to Florida with multiple stops. They also claim a 75% reduction in hourly operating costs. This is going to happen and the driver will be economics. And if we do not do it, China will.
20 to 30 years. I’m on my 3rd electric car. My 2014 (old tech) Model S, which I sold to my brother, has over 300,000 miles on the original battery. My X has over 170K now. I even own a patent for the Power Docking Port (primary use - eVTOLS).
Unless some amazing new discovery is made, unlikely, the current advancement will take close to 20 years to reach the energy density required for 500 mile range EV aircraft to reach a price that the average pilot can swallow. Once it does - what fool would buy a new aircraft with an internal combustion engine and its 1000s of moving parts, when he could drop to less than a dozen parts with a TBO of 20,000 hours? The cost savings will be enormous and will be the primary driver. Airliners? Probably hydrogen. Probably 30 years.
Good article.
Excuse me - but you started your latest scree with condescension aimed the vast majority who do not believe a word of the climate crisis cultists. Try facts for a change. Read “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Less” from Alex Epstein. Two-stroke garden tools are mostly a thing of the past, at least here in the U.S., especially chainsaws. I’m guessing few are used by lumberjacks in Canada, and they sure aren’t using battery powered tools to cut down your forests.
3 replies
Russ, I suggest you then stop the criticism of all who justifiably question claims of a mythical climate crisis. You were asking for a response and you got it. Same for all these stupid eVTOLs and other battery-powered vehicles. None will survive. Mark my words. I am an aerodynamicist and a good one and know what I am talking about. You choose however to print the nonsense fed to you by marketing hucksters. Most of your readers are on my side, something you ought to consider. I do agree with you on two-stroke engines, they suck for all the reasons you mention. Use and maintain them often and I guess they are OK. My relatives are in Regina, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon. One was with the Snowbirds for awhile, as a mechanic I believe. I enjoyed the Snowbirds at OSH this year, first time I saw them. And the Canadian who flew the snot out of an F-18, very impressive.
1 reply
I’ll take my chances, Kent. You know a lot–about airplanes. We’d all like it if you stuck to that.
Flash! Russ pens a nostalgic ode to the internal combustion engine, lighting a fire under readers as he muses on the electric revolution. The essay? A heartfelt mix of personal memories and big-picture industry trends. The crowd? A split jury—innovators cheering on electric dreams, skeptics waving the energy density flag, and a few hecklers tossing barbs from the peanut gallery. The chatter’s rich, the debate’s alive, but beware: a touch of hostility and some scenic detours muddy the waters. Stay tuned—this electric saga is just getting started!
1 reply
A tight, accurate and bright summary as always Raf:)
Yea Raf, you’re the greatest.
Russ–the beauty of Capitalism is that THE MARKET RULES–ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE.
Those that don’t believe in the hype of “all-electric” (whether it be with cars, boats, chain saws, or airplanes) vote with their pocketbook–by NOT buying the would be wonder-toys. And then there are those that BELIEVE that the unfulfilled promises are all hype, and buy what works instead. I think you would have to agree that none of the “all-electric” promises have been fulfilled–therefore, no sales of wonder-products–and only a rash of subsequent bankruptcy sales.
Trying to force consumers to buy a product they don’t want or need is like Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22–putting chocolate over his unsold cotton and demanding that people eat it in their military mess halls. The REALITY is that despite all the hype and government cajoling, the market has rejected these would-be super-products. The free market is speaking to you–LISTEN TO IT.
1 reply
I am 75 now, and doubt that I will own an electric car, truck or airplane in my lifetime. I strongly object to the current fad in battery tech on environmental/resource allocation grounds, but that and the whole lack of accuracy on climate is a subject for somewhere else at another time. My lack of interest or intent for cars, trucks and airplanes are because I tend to use these things to GO somewhere. If I had a city commute, and if anyone was to develop a battery tech that didn’t so much offend my sensibilities I might be a candidate. Heck, I even OWN an electric manlift so I am not only a fan but a genuine user. I also don’t drive my manlift to visit my grandkids several hours away.
Now, you may think my absolute disgust with the current direction of prime power in aviation has turned is just because I am a grumpy old fart. While the latter may be true, it has nothing to do with why I find this fascination with electric crap so objectionable. In case you hadn’t noticed: these things are happening because the businesses that are hyping this stuff are NOT funded and developed by entrepreneurs and businessmen - they are built by pitch artists who such those billions out of the “investment” market where people speculate to make 100x returns on their money, not businesses that are in it for the long haul of 5 to 10% dividends from making a better product and serving your customer better.
There is a LOT of room left in ICE efficiency that needs to be developed, but the money is all going to pitchmen and “climate change experts” - not to engineers and real scientists who can actually make our lives and our world a better and more sustainable place.
The bottom line is to be sustainable we need to concentrate on how to do a lot less instead of piddling away our time and money making more expensive, more polluting and more resource depleting ways of doing more of the things that put us in peril in the first place.
Putting aside the climate debate for a minute have you ever thought about the geopolitical cost of the world’s dependency on oil? Do you really think Iran would have billions of dollars to fund terrorist groups and develop nuclear weapons if they didn’t have oil revenues to fund these activities? Do you think Russia would be in Ukraine if not for their massive oil revenues? If demand for oil was greatly reduced these two countries, and several others, they would not have nearly the influence they have now, in world events. Reducing worldwide demand for oil is in everyone’s interest, except for Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
1 reply
True Black Hole aviation–money goes in one side…
The electric propulsion systems are well developed; motor and controller.
100 to 600 HP motors are now in production. the EV controllers designs can handle the power needs.
The big problems yet to be solved are the battery energy density, in kWhr per pound.
My Cessna flies at 120 mph on 120 HP. 4+ hours of fuel gets me about 500 miles of range . So, it uses 480 HP- hours. A battery with a capacity of 360 kWhrs would yield the same range.
Today , that battery weighs 3,600 lb. , over 1,000 lb over the allowed gross weight.
So, a battery energy density improvement of of 12 x would have the battery weigh 300 lb, the same as the 50 gallons of av gas, that my Cessna holds, and still allows 570 lb of people.
The other problem is recharging that 360 kWhr battery. Even at 480 volts mains, it would have to source 750 amps to recharge the battery in 1 hour.
That infrastructure is very costly…Who will pay for that at every airport ?
Note that an E-power system like this will require liquid cooling for the motor, controller and battery, as in the Tesla 3…a very complicated cooling system.
So E-power at these power levels are not simple systems.
So, I see long range E-aircraft a long way off…
I would like more power and have thought of looking for a 351.
Russ, I have the answer for starting your 2-stroke chain saw: Ether! Just a little squirt of starting fluid, available at every auto parts store and that little sucker will be screaming and spitting blue smoke.
I use it for my gas trimmer and chain saw.
There are lots of reasons to naysay the switch away from fossil fueled energy but many more and better reasons to be positive about it. In the meantime while the smoke clears there will be teething issues…
ROFL
It’ll be another dotcom bust, over built with naiive and/or shady financials.
Plus the collapse of climate catastrophism, as voters realize the impact on their lives of carbon taxes, subsidies out of their taxpayer pockets, and falseness of doomsday claims.
2 replies
Accurate temperature sensors like weather balloons, satellite sensors, and tide gauges show only a continuation of the slow rate of rise since the end of a cool era circa 1750AD.
(That cool era followed the Medieval Warm Period when Vikings farmed southwest Greenland. Warmer than today yet climate was stable.)
The basic physics of greenhouse gases means the effect of CO2 is small, most of that has already been realized. The ‘saturation’ effect from overlap of spectra of carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide vapour limits temperature rise - it’s an asymptotic rise to a limit.
Yes, some catastrophists claim there is a positive feedback loop. Yet water vapour is decreasing and climate was stable in the warmer MWP.
As much as people may be hyping electric vehicles, it doesn’t take much sense to realize that we’re a long way from them replacing ICE. Take farm tractors for example. The tractor that can pull a 14 row planter for 12 hours is not even in the conceptual state, let alone reality. Same with trucks. Sure, maybe Tesla has one that can haul a light load a hundred miles, but going across the country pulling 40000 pounds? No way. Airliners staying in the air for 18 hours on battery? Get real. There’s a big gap between a 2 seat trainer that will stay in the air for an hour and a practical electric airplane that can be used for serious transportation.
1 reply
A key question is progress made.
Boom Supersonic just received another $200 million, after getting its supersonic demonstrator into lower transonic range (0.95M). Won’t get supersonic this year.
Still a road ahead but they actually built an airplane and flew it.
We need more fossil fuels, not less. There is a very clear and direct correlation in the dramatic rise in human flourishing with the development of coal, oil and gas resources. See Alex Epstein’s best-seller, “Fossil Future”. Thanks to American engineering, directional drilling and fracking are dramatically expanding our known reserves, which is terrific news for aviation.
1 reply
I’d like a powerplant, tomorrow, not 20 years from now, similar to my '21 RAV4 plug in hybrid car I drive, and love. Use both the gas engine and the battery for takeoff, once in cruise a downsized ICE would do the job, regen a bit on the descent, it’s RELATIVELY feasible today, but it’d no doubt be heavy. I’m not holding my breath for a pure EV plane, best I could do would be a E powered light sailplane (they exist) of foot launched paraglider, to get me up to the soaring ridge behind my house.
I’m waiting for your response to what I wrote.
Battery powered hand tools have come a long way in the last 10 years. I recently used the neighbor’s battery powered chain saw and was amazed at how well it worked, how quiet it was and how long the battery lasted. Can’t say the same for electric cars though. About a year ago one of my wife’s friends drove her Tesla model Y to spend the night with us. One of her tires picked up a nail on the road and was flat in the morning. That’s when her husband called and said that he was getting continuous text messages from the Tesla about the low tire pressure. He found out that there is no spare tire or jack provided with the Tesla because it cannot be jacked at a single point due to the weight of the batteries and the stress on the frame. The tires are special heavy duty tires that are wider than standard and pressurized at 42 psi, which my portable inflator couldn’t reach. Anyway, they eventually found a service station about 12 miles away that had a lift compatible with the Tesla to repair the tire. The leak was slow enough that they made it there driving the car before the tire went flat. Battery technology just isn’t there yet to replace internal combustion engines and there are lots of related issues like the tires, location of operational charging stations, charge times and range that limit EV usefulness. There’s no question that electric motors are lighter, simpler and more efficient converting power to mechanical movement than internal combustion engines. If we can ever overcome the issues surrounding the generation and distribution of green hydrogen, then we might see hydrogen fuel cell batteries that overcome the weight, energy density, charge time and range problems with lithium ion batteries. Right now hybrid electric power seems to be the best solution for ground and air vehicles.
1 reply
When an electric powered Vans RV-9A can get me from SC to MI in 4 hours with a fuel stop, I’ll be convinced. Battery technology is getting better but with the current technology there is no math to get there.
It’s New Year’s Day–and I’m at my office at the FBO–it’s cold outside here in Minnesota (will get below zero tonight) and it’s snowing. HARDLY the weather where I’d want to be driving an electric car–let alone an airplane!
Electric vehicles may be OK for urbanites that live in warm climates–but for those of us that live in the northern half of the country–with cold temperatures and snow–and few places to plug in the short-ranged electric vehicles–I’ll stick with vehicles fueled by dead dinosaurs! 
Electric vehicles have their place–(GOLF COURSES are perfect for them–they don’t need range or endurance over an hour or so)–but for those of us who are not “dazzling urbanites” where you are never far from a plug-in–and have to live with the realities off cold temperatures, poor weather, and the need for longer range–they are not a reasonable alternative when lives depend on them. A hybrid might address these problems–but then you have to ask “WHY DEAL WITH THE SHORTCOMINGS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES?” 
The auto industry is in a tug-of-war between electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs). EVs are pulling ahead thanks to big investments, government support, and growing demand, but ICEs aren’t letting go just yet. They’ll stick around for things like heavy-duty trucks, rural driving, and areas where EVs don’t work as well. Over the next 30 years, according to many reputable sources, EVs are expected to take over most of the market. With cleaner energy and better tech on their side, it’s hard to see them losing this tug-of-war. EVs have legs, but electric aircraft? The jury’s still out.
Ships are diesel electric, trains are diesel electric but they don’t run on batteries. Gas electric works for cars. The new generation of electric bicycles are just wonderful until you realize that pedalling a 70 pound bike up a modest hill is a non starter when the battery reaches half charge. Ships and trains can carry tons of batteries with low rolling resistance or water resistance, where are they? If you get your go juice from overhead trolley wires then that works just fine. If you’re delivering a mixed cargo around a city then a diesel truck is the only answer. A battery powered flying pig will not enthuse the aviation community. Lots of snake oil, not much practical application.
Yes, the inability of my Schumacher battery jump pack’s inflator to get above 35 psi surprised me too. So I got a Milwaukee M18 inflator, which is way better. My friend with the Tesla bought one too. He also bought a full size spare tire and jack for the Tesla even though they say you need to put the car on a special lift with disc adapters at the four corners of the frame to change the tire.
The range provided by EVs that are available now is more than adequate for the people who own them. Full recharge of our Hyundai Ioniq 6 gets us about 320 miles. This is plenty for daily use and we recharge overnight with our home-installed level 2 charger. If we should want to drive longer distances, there are charging stations available on major routes which will get us to an 80% charge in about 20 minutes. We have no desire to drive mover 300 miles without stopping. The EVs are so much better in every way than gas-engine cars that I have a hard time explaining it to people who have never owned one. Much more efficient batteries are coming quite soon and will be needed for longer flights by electric-powered aircraft and vehicles which pull heavy loads. I understand the love that many people have for gas-powered cars, but, technology rolls on!
Dear Russ,
What is not so evident here is an understanding of our ability to store electrical energy in a weight efficient manner. The commonplace assumption in our technologically optimistic society is that the battery will obviously mature, and that when it does, it will replace the current energy storage system (fuel tank) in our wings. Also we experience “models” of electric flight through the excellent usage in RC aviation, and “want to believe” that the same advantages will scale up to give similar service. I will refer to these wishes as “Hopium”, and they have zero place in a world were Physics and Engineering have a say.
I need to be up front, and tell you that I am an engine designer, and have worked on all types of engines ranging from 4-stroke chain saws, to aero diesels, 2-stroke, 4-stroke, Wankel, Diesel etc. I have accumulated 35 years experience, and witnessed some of the most difficult projects including the Bugatti Veyron, Formula 1 and even notable (infamous?) aero diesel programs that failed due to foreign collusion.
I recently had a discussion with a notable aircraft engineer (retired) from a significant GA company. I asked him why his company was not jumping on the gravy train, and pursuing electric flight. He said he was asked to do so by management, but countered that the battery energy density technology had failed to improve over a 15year period. In fact, it had barely matured enough to make a reasonable flight. I consider a reasonable flight in my Cessna 182, as being able to carry our passengers and baggage for 3 hours.
Here’s a nice source, and its for 100LL, not diesel, which stores roughly 15% more energy than gasoline.
There’s another source that is telling about why the energy density of a fixed composition battery is so far off. Here’s that one:
https://medium.com/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron-ce1e44d0b961
Simply stated the energy density must be drastically improved to be viable for electric and/or hybrid flight. My conclusion is that its much more feasible to design a light-weight, reliable Diesel, than to place your bets on “hopium”. It can be done, and the engine thermal efficiency will be better than 45%.
1 reply
Opening salvo…“Ease up climate change deniers.”… and then lecture people on keeping politics out of their responses. Makes me think I’m reading the New York Times.
From Russ: What I was trying to avoid was the comments spiralling into a polarizing debate on climate change. Regardless of what any of us think, electric stuff is becoming more mainstream and I want the discussion to be on electric aviation, not climate politics.
Is it Electrical Aviation’s Time? Not Yet—But it’s EV Time.
Big Market vs. Small Market. Over the past decade, EVs have shifted from a niche product to a mainstream choice, driven by advances in technology, lower costs, and strong government support. EV sales have soared from 0.5 million in 2014 (less than 1% market share) to a projected 17 million in 2024 (20% market share). During this time, ICE vehicles have seen their dominance wane, with market share dropping from 99% in 2014 to 80% in 2024. Regions like China and Europe have led the charge, fueled by policies and infrastructure investments, while emerging markets still face affordability challenges and limited charging networks, keeping ICE vehicles prevalent.
By comparison, eAviation (the “small market”) faces greater obstacles, including underdeveloped battery technology, high R&D costs, insufficient infrastructure, strict regulatory hurdles, and public skepticism. While EVs benefit from billions in subsidies and infrastructure investments, eAviation receives far less support. For instance, programs like the FAA’s $291 million FAST grants, while helpful, fall short of the resources needed to achieve significant growth.
To thrive, eAviation will likely need increased government funding, streamlined regulations, and infrastructure development. Until these barriers are addressed, EVs will continue to dominate the mobility revolution, leaving electric aviation struggling to gain altitude.
@John_Caulkins exactly, this is 100% about energy density. EV cars are weighing between 6000 and 8000lbs these days, a Robinson R22 helicopter weighs 880lbs. As an electrical engineer I’d love working on electric flight with if it made sense.
I have observed in my 25 year engineering career is that we often fail to appreciate the scaling challenges. This is the reason why small GA planes don’t have turbine engines, or airliners don’t have nuclear reactors. Rechargeable batteries are great for cell phones, power tools, golf carts and delivery vehicles, but it is a big stretch to think that we will have battery powered Boeing 737s. What we need is an entirely new technology. What that is, I don’t know, but the same battery technology in my cell phone is unlikely to power an airliner any time soon.
“Let me get this straight: it operates with a series of explosions?”
“Yep. 4,000 explosions per minute for the little engines, or 20,000 or so for the big ones. With a four-engined aircraft, you’ll be having almost 100,000 explosions on the wings every minute.”
“It is noisy?”
"I’ll say! After all, they ARE explosions!"
“And it’s powered by gasoline.”
“Yep. A fancy metering device sends a precise mixture of gasoline and air into the engine.”
“And if they ratios are wrong?”
"Well…it either doesn’t run, or it catches fire."
“HOW are the explosions triggered?”
"We have another fancy device that triggers a spark at exactly the right time."
“Exactly the right time? How do you adjust it?”
“Well, you loosen this bolt, and rotate the ignition device back and forth.”
“What happens if it’s wrong?”
“Oh, don’t worry! The engine won’t operate if the ignition device is more than a couple of degrees off the optimal location. Well, it’s possible for the engine to break apart, but we think the operator will detect that in time.”
“Got some fancy instruments to warn him?”
“Nahhh, he should be able to hear it banging.”
"Banging from the gasoline explosions."
“Yep.”
“Where does the gasoline come from?”
“Dead dinosaurs and fossil trees.”
"And how safe is that gasoline?"
“Well, you don’t want to get it on your skin. Might cause cancer. And it’ll burn intensely if the tank is ruptured. Oh, if the conditions are right, it’ll outright explode.”
“Well, at least it’s just the pilot at risk.”
“Ummmm…well, we plan on carrying at least 100 people in the four-engine variety.”
“I see. Would you mind trying on this coat? You’ll note that it has stylish straps that wrap your arms around to your back…”
1 reply
You’ll note that it has stylish straps that wrap your arms around to your back…
The straps wrap around your back, but your arms remain crossed comfortably in front of you.
Don’t ask me how I know.
I count 66 posts on this topic. THREE of them are unabashed fans of electric cars. Another 3 are “lukewarm” about them–“IF ONLY…” and “OK FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRIVING…”
That’s 10% (t best)for the supporters. Is it any wonder why the U.S. is not being over-run with electric cars? As usual, the marketplace is the arbiter of what works, and what is only wishful thinking–(and I haven’t seen a requiem for internal combustion engines yet).
IF anybody is THAT SURE that electric cars are the future for transportation in the U.S. (or even WORSE in Canada, where distances are longer)–they should use that new-found insight to BUY STOCK IN COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE CAR THAT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE CAR-BYING PUBLIC WANTS.
Instead, Russ (the editor) derides those that disagree with him–that’s HARDLY objective journalism! Once again–the MARKETPLACE is the ultimate arbiter of what people want. It reminds me of the book “Catch-22”–where Mess Officer tried to feed the troops chocolate-covered Egyptian cotton–they literally gagged on it–nobody wanted it, but the Mess Officer INSISTED that they eat it, just to get rid of it. 
This entire discussion of “what a car should be” reminds me of the East German Trabant car–designed by the government, and FAMOUS for being a car that nobody wanted–even in a country with few cars. Let the marketplace (the consumer) decide.
From Russ:
This is not objective journalism. It is opinion. Something like this would never appear in our news section and you know that Jim. And I couldn’t agree more that the market should decide. All I’m saying is that everything else being equal, electric has merits.
… you started your latest scree with condescension…
i guess I missed that part, and I just reread it.
Two-stroke garden tools are mostly a thing of the past, at least here in the U.S., especially chainsaws.
Don’t tell that to Stihl, one of two favorite brands where I live (San Jacinto mountains in SoCal), or to Husquervarva, the other favorite. Both have product lines which are resplendent with two-strokes - especially with chainsaws.
[I have a pair of two-stroke, top handle Stihls, both current models].
1 reply
I have 6 Stihls, some more than 40 years old. They are two strokes. Not one has failed. Two stroke engines have basically 3 moving parts, not hundreds. Modern two stroke outboard motors are lighter than four stroke engines and burn cleanly, requiring less power to move the boat. Many ultralight aircraft use two stroke engines. Some marine applications use two stroke diesel engines. I remember when Stockholm (Sweden) had 220 volt D.C. current. People were electrocuted then as well. Electrical fires, especially battery ones can be quite nasty. I think economics will keep electric propulsion out of aircraft for a good, long time. Take a look at the Northvolt factory in Sweden and throw them bags of money if you think it’s the future.
1 reply
I think economics will keep electric propulsion out of aircraft for a good, long time. Take a look at the Northvolt factory in Sweden and throw them bags of money if you think it’s the future.
From what I could glean, Northvolt was focused on the automotive market from the start - never on the aviation worlx…
1 reply
Correct. An industry is built on a known or perceived market. If you can’t convince enough people to invest in the new automotive electric battery market, where will you find investors to plunk down bags of gold for an unproven and potentially worthless aviation venture. We know that people can fly via Lilienthal’s gliders and the Wrights’ efforts. Unless you can develop a “virtual” power cord to keep electric propulsion airborne I think better money can be spent developing highspeed rail links between population densities and lower speed rail for smaller communities as most of Europe has done.
You bring up an excellent point here, Steven W … that a diesel cycle engine is typically 15% more efficient than a gasolene 4-stroke engine. I looked through your links; the first one was an excellent primer on battery density. The Ragone plot does show that lithium batteries are the best – current – battery design but still don’t compare with the ICE designs, either way.
So why does the problem Russ is describing have to be ‘black and white’ … ICE vs battery power? As numerous commenters point out, battery energy density ain’t up to the requirement and “hopium – an alloy of unobtanium” ain’t gonna change that any time soon. If gaining efficiency, helping the climate (I ain’t digressing, Russ), reducing maintenance requirements and more are the goal … why can’t we meet in the middle? The most successful EV’s are hybrids. The Prius, et al, proves that. Trying to power an airplane that is orders of magnitude more dependent upon reliable power for safety than a ground vehicle with ONLY a battery is folly at this time except for special purpose machines. Why doesn’t someone build an airplane that combines the best facets of both the ICE and batteries? Why haven’t diesel cycle engines (which don’t need lead, BTW) been more successful at entering our marketplace? If they can’t succeed, how the heck is a pure battery powered airplane gonna do it?
For MY money, IF I were looking for a recreational airplane, I’d be leaning heavily on the Rotax powered machines. Now that the 914, 915 and 916’s are on the scene, I see that as the way to go in everyday applications. Efficient, burn autogas (without lead so that issue goes away) and are proven MODERN designed engines. Maybe batteries – or some other form of storing electrical energy – will evolve into something useful in the future. Short term, I don’t see it and likely never will.
1 reply
OH … I forgot … the answer to the question in the editorial’s Title … for me … NO. That was my point. The Ragone plot shows that clearly.
I’ll resend Steven W’s link … worth a look for all you techno types:
medium.com/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron-ce1e44d0b961