4 ms·

The founder of Bye Aerospace goes electric

17 points by prostoalex 7y ago

tectonic 7y ago
Check out NASA's X-57 experimental electric aircraft as well: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-first-all-electric-experimental-aircraft https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-fi... And their Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP) program: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-aircraft-propulsion-eap/ https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-aircraft-p...
- olex 7y ago
  Also, quite similar to the aircraft presented in the article, the Pipistrel Alpha Electro from Slovenia: https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/alpha-electro/ https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/.... Also designed from the ground up as an electric trainer to radically bring down the hour costs at flight schools, with enough endurance for a flight lesson and battery swap capability for quick turnaround.
peter_d_sherman 7y ago
Excerpt: "Bye’s eFlyer 2 has a target certified reach of 238 nautical miles or three hours of range, plus VFR reserves. “When you look at the typical flight-training mission being 1 to 1.3 hours long, and required cross-country flights being 50 and 100 nautical miles long, our eFlyer 2 fits perfectly into that mission. And it costs just $3 to $4 per flight hour for the electric ‘fuel’ to operate,” he says." If this plane can truly fly that cheaply, then there are new markets that this could open up...
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  When I've back of the enveloped electric aircraft the reduction in flight and maintence costs looks is tantalizing. Currently light aviation is kinda stalled because of high costs, safety issues, and noise. You'll never get an electric aircraft with the same range as a piston powered one. But you might also never get a piston powered one as cheap as an electric one.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    > Currently light aviation is kinda stalled because of high costs, safety issues, and noise. That's so vague as to be useless. Part 91 (GA) will always be less safe than Part 121 (scheduled airliners.) Propellers will always be noisy, since theirs tips approach the speed of sound, whether driven by ICE or electric. And cost depends on the mission and certification. It's "kinda stalled" because transportation is a regulated industry and money-making certificated airplanes are expensive. So you might as well say "always stalled." The only practical use cases for the foreseeable future for electric planes are small trainers and consumer-level drones. Flight schools would welcome an electric trainer under $200k, compared to the Cessna 172 currently at $400+k. FYI: most of the small electric plane prototypes you've read about have been destroyed due to electrical fires. I can think of 2 or 3 in the past year. And the recent wire chafing found in 737 and Embraer airliners makes you wonder if tons of batteries is a good idea or not.
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      I looked on the cessna.com and controller.com websites for current Cessna 172 prices. For the first time, I couldn't find any, just "Call for pricing." The price I remember from about a year ago was $398,000. Most (nearly all) of their sales included fairly advanced avionics, and I believe they dropped the steam-gauge version. It's an interesting phenomenon that's documented in aviation news and interviews that people say they want low-priced planes, but actual sales are almost exclusively with the most options.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        You're backing the point that redis_mlc thinks it too vague. The cost of ownership and operation is so high that they're relegated mostly as toys for rich people. And that's a very limited market. The only way to grow revenue is to sell ever more expensive aircraft. Electrics have the potential to reduce operating and maintenance costs enough to escape that trap.

17 points by prostoalex 7y ago

Check out NASA's X-57 experimental electric aircraft as well: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-first-all-electric-experimental-aircraft https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-fi... And their Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP) program: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-aircraft-propulsion-eap/ https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-aircraft-p...

olex 7y ago
Also, quite similar to the aircraft presented in the article, the Pipistrel Alpha Electro from Slovenia: https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/alpha-electro/ https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/.... Also designed from the ground up as an electric trainer to radically bring down the hour costs at flight schools, with enough endurance for a flight lesson and battery swap capability for quick turnaround.

peter_d_sherman 7y ago

Excerpt: "Bye’s eFlyer 2 has a target certified reach of 238 nautical miles or three hours of range, plus VFR reserves. “When you look at the typical flight-training mission being 1 to 1.3 hours long, and required cross-country flights being 50 and 100 nautical miles long, our eFlyer 2 fits perfectly into that mission. And it costs just $3 to $4 per flight hour for the electric ‘fuel’ to operate,” he says." If this plane can truly fly that cheaply, then there are new markets that this could open up...

Gibbon1 7y ago
When I've back of the enveloped electric aircraft the reduction in flight and maintence costs looks is tantalizing. Currently light aviation is kinda stalled because of high costs, safety issues, and noise. You'll never get an electric aircraft with the same range as a piston powered one. But you might also never get a piston powered one as cheap as an electric one.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > Currently light aviation is kinda stalled because of high costs, safety issues, and noise. That's so vague as to be useless. Part 91 (GA) will always be less safe than Part 121 (scheduled airliners.) Propellers will always be noisy, since theirs tips approach the speed of sound, whether driven by ICE or electric. And cost depends on the mission and certification. It's "kinda stalled" because transportation is a regulated industry and money-making certificated airplanes are expensive. So you might as well say "always stalled." The only practical use cases for the foreseeable future for electric planes are small trainers and consumer-level drones. Flight schools would welcome an electric trainer under $200k, compared to the Cessna 172 currently at $400+k. FYI: most of the small electric plane prototypes you've read about have been destroyed due to electrical fires. I can think of 2 or 3 in the past year. And the recent wire chafing found in 737 and Embraer airliners makes you wonder if tons of batteries is a good idea or not.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    I looked on the cessna.com and controller.com websites for current Cessna 172 prices. For the first time, I couldn't find any, just "Call for pricing." The price I remember from about a year ago was $398,000. Most (nearly all) of their sales included fairly advanced avionics, and I believe they dropped the steam-gauge version. It's an interesting phenomenon that's documented in aviation news and interviews that people say they want low-priced planes, but actual sales are almost exclusively with the most options.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      You're backing the point that redis_mlc thinks it too vague. The cost of ownership and operation is so high that they're relegated mostly as toys for rich people. And that's a very limited market. The only way to grow revenue is to sell ever more expensive aircraft. Electrics have the potential to reduce operating and maintenance costs enough to escape that trap.