3 ms·
As someone who really would love to get into general aviation but finds the fuel costs off-putting, I'd love for this to be successful. Isn't the big problem wi
by yompers888 10y ago
As someone who really would love to get into general aviation but finds the fuel costs off-putting, I'd love for this to be successful. Isn't the big problem with electric planes supposed to be the energy density per kg? Wikipedia is showing 46MJ/kg for jet fuel, vs only ~1MJ/kg for lithium batteries [1]. Is this a lesser concern than I've been led to believe, is there recent development that improves lithium batteries by at least an order of magnitude in this property, or are they using some different battery technology entirely? I'm disappointed that there's no mention of the battery tech.
- ams6110 10y agoNo, petroleum fuels still have a vastly higher energy density than batteries.
- yompers888 10y agoI believe you're agreeing with me, but there seems to be some confusion.
- csours 10y agoNo, he's agreeing with you.
- sokoloff 10y agoHe was answering your "Is this a lesser concern..." question.
- ams6110 10y agoI am agreeing. The "No" was in answer to your question "Is this a lesser concern..."
- yompers888 10y agoAh, then the confusion was mine. I apologize.
- sokoloff 10y agoAnother issue is that fuel tanks get lighter as the conventional airplane flies. This increases cruise speed, shortens landing roll, decreases energy that needs to be dissipated in the event of a forced landing, allows trading off cabin payload vs fuel payload, and taking off at partial weight for better runway and initial climb performance. I can burn off over 1000# or 1/6 of the ramp weight and still be legal to land, and the airplane picks up 3-5 knots in cruise speed from max takeoff weight to landing with reserves weight. Batteries are just as heavy at landing as they were at takeoff. A reasonable rule of thumb is that fuel costs between 20 and 33% of the total cost of owning and operating the airplane. Battery tech won't materially change the total costs in my estimation/experience. It would be nice to get rid of TEL-doped fuel, but electric trainers are not going to make flying cheaper, especially when compared to a 60s/70s 150/152/172.
- AdrianB1 10y agoCessna takes about 8 gallons per hour to fly; if you want to fly at 3 gallons per hour then go for any Rotax 912ULS plane, most are LSA but you can upgrade the license to PPL adn the flight time on LSA (cheap) is considered for PPL. In the end a Comko Ikarus C42 has similar performance with a Cessna 152 and a Pipistrel Virus SW is lighter and much faster (+30%) than the 152 for less than half the fuel consumption.
- walrus01 10y agoYou can't buy a modern Pipistrel for th price of a 1975 Cessna. A huge % of the light 2 and 4 seat aircraft out there in the c172 and smaller sizes are 25+ years old.
- AdrianB1 10y agoYou are right, but that does not make it right to compare a new electric plane's cost, flying performance and energy efficiency/consumption with a 1975 Cessna except if you have a time machine to send the electric plane back in 1975.
- walrus01 10y agoExcept that 1975 Cessna is much, much more likely to be what a small flight school/rental operator/FBO company can afford to buy. $35,000 and ongoing maintenance vs $175,000+.
- cpncrunch 10y ago>As someone who really would love to get into general aviation but finds the fuel costs off-putting I'm not sure why you think the fuel costs are off-putting. I fly a Cessna 150 which burn 5.5 gallons per hour. If you fill it with unleaded (which can be done with a $150 piece of paper), the fuel cost is less than $15/hr.