At an AirVenture press event, Tecnam reported on two P2006T light twins it has sold to NASA as test beds for its X-57 multiple-motor-placement electric propulsion tests, as well as updating progress on its P-Volt electric aircraft project.
Wow. !00 miles.
Subtract safety margin to proceed to alternate airport if needed and VFR/IFR reserves and you are left with what? A long taxi?
>>Norwegian short-haul regional airline Wideroe, which flies to 41 locations within Norway, with many flights of less than 100 miles<<
100 miles is the length of many of their routes, not the range of the aircraft.
“Current range is estimated at 100 nautical miles per charge, calculated with a battery at 80 percent of its service life.”
That’s nowhere near enough to reach a legal alternate on a typical foggy Cape Cod day.
True, but t least they are reporting range estimates based on an aging battery that has been in service for a while and not some shiny new unit with a 100% charge. Still not an ideal candidate for marginal weather conditions.
I fly a fast RV and love to use it to travel. Even so 90% of my flights are within 100 miles. I used to commute with it - 50nm each way. On the ground it’s 75 miles and typically would take me 3x the time (1.5 hrs vs 30 mins). An aircraft that could do that without even using gas would be amazing! Though I don’t need a twin.
We consistently are seeing these “electric 100-mile transport aircraft” articles as if some great milestone has been passed that makes the concept viable. Are there that many scheduled air transport operators that ONLY fly routes that are comfortably within the ranges these near-future 10-30 pax electrics are going to offer? Or small operators who could afford to maintain special aircraft that can service only their shortest routes? Or can afford the turn-around times recharging at every stop dictates?
My continuing skepticism arises from my own operation profile, which is probably close to that of the shortest short-route operators. I just returned from my regular Friday $100 (OK, that’s in 1989 dollars) breakfast flight with the group, which in the waning years of my flying career is pretty much representative of my flying now. You might think an electric would be right up my alley, but even for this limited mission profile, 100 miles in still air absolutely wouldn’t cut it. As would be the case on a high percentage of our regular excursions, this morning I’d have been electron-dry before getting home. Double that range would still be confining. Methinks there are major hurdles in range yet to be cleared.
I’d rather drive and get there.
Would you fly your RV with 25 miles reserve? Can you imagine landing will all of 2 gallons in the tanks? Would you even take off with only 100 miles in the tanks? In an RV that’s like 8 gallons TOTAL. Never!
I read project, test bed , evaluate, etc.
Why all the continued negativity? Let science and research do its thing. Remember the first EVs with a 54 mile range?
Lighten up, folks.
Does anyone know if that 100nm includes a reserve or not?
Yes, the quoted range includes the required reserve. Electric commuter aircraft will happen for on simple reason – economics. I am with Joe Jetstar – lighten up and let the research continue. Anyone remember how far the first aircraft flew?