$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 donât 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 manâs 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 neverâŚ
1 Like
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 whatâs 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 â 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.
1 Like
20 to 30 years. Iâm 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 âFossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural GasâNot Lessâ from Alex Epstein. Two-stroke garden tools are mostly a thing of the past, at least here in the U.S., especially chainsaws. Iâm guessing few are used by lumberjacks in Canada, and they sure arenât using battery powered tools to cut down your forests.
2 Likes
Not true, Kent. There are a few four-stroke chainsaws available but the vast majority are two-stroke. No condescension intended. Just wanted to keep the comments on topic, a concept that eludes you most of the time.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Iâll take my chances, Kent. You know a lotâabout airplanes. Weâd all like it if you stuck to that.
2 Likes
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 juryâinnovators cheering on electric dreams, skeptics waving the energy density flag, and a few hecklers tossing barbs from the peanut gallery. The chatterâs rich, the debateâs alive, but beware: a touch of hostility and some scenic detours muddy the waters. Stay tunedâthis electric saga is just getting started!
2 Likes
A tight, accurate and bright summary as always Raf:)
2 Likes
Yea Raf, youâre the greatest.
1 Like
Russâthe beauty of Capitalism is that THE MARKET RULESâANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE.
Those that donât believe in the hype of âall-electricâ (whether it be with cars, boats, chain saws, or airplanes) vote with their pocketbookâby 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 âall-electricâ promises have been fulfilledâtherefore, no sales of wonder-productsâand only a rash of subsequent bankruptcy sales.
Trying to force consumers to buy a product they donât want or need is like Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22âputting 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 youâLISTEN TO IT.
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 didnât 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 donât 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 hadnât 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 âinvestmentâ 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 âclimate change expertsâ - 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 worldâs dependency on oil? Do you really think Iran would have billions of dollars to fund terrorist groups and develop nuclear weapons if they didnât 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 everyoneâs interest, except for Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
1 Like
Russ, keep the F150 but lose the 302. A 351W is a much better match, especially for towing. And it bolts in. Or better yet, a 408 (bored/stroked 351W). LolâŚ
True Black Hole aviationâmoney goes in one sideâŚ
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 costlyâŚWho 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 3âŚa 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 offâŚ
1 Like
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.