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…”
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].
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.
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…
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.
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
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.