China has certified a four-place electric aircraft under Part 23 regulations making it the first to qualify for commercial operations beyond flight training. The Liaoning General Aviation Academy (LGAA)'s RX4E, which first flew in 2019, will be marketed globally with a focus on short-haul flights in areas without good roads. The manufacturer says the plane, which is about the size of Cessna 182 but with a much longer 45-foot wing span will have a 90 minute endurance with a range of about 160 miles and a cruise speed of about 120 knots.
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 theyâre crucial for innovation and security. The key question is: are U.S. subsidies for general aviation enough to stay competitive and protect against Chinaâs strategic advancements?
Ok, letâs 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? âŚ
Oh, I forgot, whereâs the power grid thatâs going to supply these flying wonders in an area where thereâs no good roads?
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 isnât hassle-free either.
Given Communist Chinaâs 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 âstrategic advancementâ for the USA? I get that we need to work on propulsion systems powered by sustainable energy, but we donât have to spend a ton of money designing and building a clunker like this to learn it isnât a viable technology yet. What am I missing?
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. Itâs the certification that is the news. (And clearly hype.) Still, Interesting.
The only place Iâve flown that would qualify for âbackcountry, no good roadsâ 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 itâs 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 doesnât seem to be big enough to support much of an industry.
Mark, youâre correct, this four-seat plane with its limitations wonât change aviation overnight. But itâs not about this one ânear-aircraftâ, itâs 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 itâs too late.
Meanwhile, China has become a serious threat. Theyâre 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. doesnât act, we risk falling behind, becoming even more dependent on foreign tech, and losing our leadership in innovation and security. Itâs not about this âclunkerâ, itâs about staying in the race and making sure the U.S. leads the future of aviation and technology. The clock is ticking. Buy âMade in the USAâ.
I donât disagree. My point is we donât need to build a pig like this plane know that the current (no pun intended) electric propulsion technology cannot power an aircraft thatâs 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 â financed by investors and the US DOD.
Rather than becoming âHarry Hair-on-Fireâ and unleashing my keyboard actuators (fingertips), Iâll 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 âplugâ on itâŚ
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.
Letâs compare this with the POH numbers for my 182.
Wing span 36â. 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 5,000â 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 wonât 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.
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 âgreenerâ, 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.
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. Whatâs the payload for a C182 with 1.5 hrs of fuel aboard?
The Joby is a completely different class of aircraft. Thatâs like comparing a C182 with a Robinson R44.
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?
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.
