5 ms·

Operational costs is the killer advantage here ("..one-fifth the operating costs of traditional twin turboprops...").

tyingq 5y ago
That feels like an extraordinary claim that calls for extraordinary detail and proof. Electric cars have lower operating and maintenance costs than ICE cars, but nothing huge like that...not even "half"...perhaps "3/4". I get that the spread would be larger for aircraft but "1/5" is a big claim. Maybe they are cherry picking the shortish time period before the aircraft needs its first major maintenance event? Edit: It's not the lower cost I'm disputing. It's the 1/5th bit. That's a huge claim that should come with some detail. How much of that is fuel cost, maintenance...over what time period?
- laverya 5y ago
  I think it's quite possible that the maintenance events for an electric airplane are further apart and simpler than for a traditional engine, and those maintenance costs are a very major component of total infrastructure costs.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Oh, me too. Just not to the degree that it would have 1/5th the operating costs. Especially considering the fuel doesn't get lighter as it's spent. One-fifth is a very strong claim.
- andrepew 5y ago
  Engines are complicated and the maintenance and certification requirements on such a complex system in the context of aviation is very expensive. Airplane engines must be rebuilt at set time intervals even if they’re working perfectly because of what is at stake if they fail. Electric motors are vastly simpler devices with far less moving parts. Much less to go wrong, much less to inspect and replace. These are savings even before you get to talk about energy efficiency. These savings aren’t realized in the car market because if the motor of a car fails, it is just an inconvenience. All that extra work doesn’t exist. These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    "These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour." That would be somewhat compelling proof, but you seem to be mixing "price offered to the renting flyer" and "cost incurred by the owner".
  - ericpauley 5y ago
    This seems dubious. Even auxiliary costs of the average plane rental (hangar, insurance) can exceed that rate depending on utilization.
  - Zircom 5y ago
    >These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour. I'm curious, do the training hours on electric planes count towards normal ICE planes? I would assume at they very least they have different operating procedures if not outright handle differently.
- sixothree 5y ago
  Cars don't require a complete rebuild every 2000 hours. Maybe that's the cost they are hoping to eliminate?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- d_silin 5y ago
  For an existing electric aircraft (Pipistrel Alpha), the fuel cost advantage is claimed to be 10x of equivalent ICE-powered model.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    ICE Pipistrel: "Poweredby the Rotax 912 80 HP engine it burns only 2.5 US gal (9.5 litres) of ordinary mogas fuel per hour"[1] $6/gallon would be way on the high side estimate for mogas, so say $15 total, so we're sure to be generous. Electric Pipistrel: "The cost of electricity per hour of flight is roughly between $4 and $6," said Krzysztof Będkowski of Pipistrel Alpha Poland."[2] I can't work out how $4-6/$15 is 1/10. Is is attractive, for sure. Again, I'm not disputing electric is cheaper, but the claim of 1/5th the cost is pretty extraordinary. [1] https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/flight-training/alpha/ https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/flight-training/... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-plane-charges-in-hour-can-cover-160km-2019-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-plane-charges-in-ho...
    - Zircom 5y ago
      Probably referring to total cost savings, not just fuel savings. As mentioned other places in this thread, electric motors have less/simpler maintenance needs than ICE engines and the TOTAL labor/parts/fuel savings is probably where the 1/5 or 1/10 claims come in.
      - tyingq 5y ago
        Possibly. I was responding to "the fuel cost advantage is claimed to be 10x" though.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  With a PC-12 you'll burn around $300 per engine hour in fuel alone, hot section inspections will come up every 1750 hours or so and cost $50k each, the engine overhauls will come up every 3500 hours and cost $350k I wouldn't be shocked if replacing the electric motor costs less than what a turboprop inspection would.
Leherenn 5y ago
That probably doesn't account for replacing the batteries though. I know a flight school that bought one electric aircraft and had to replace the battery within a year or two.

That feels like an extraordinary claim that calls for extraordinary detail and proof. Electric cars have lower operating and maintenance costs than ICE cars, but nothing huge like that...not even "half"...perhaps "3/4". I get that the spread would be larger for aircraft but "1/5" is a big claim. Maybe they are cherry picking the shortish time period before the aircraft needs its first major maintenance event? Edit: It's not the lower cost I'm disputing. It's the 1/5th bit. That's a huge claim that should come with some detail. How much of that is fuel cost, maintenance...over what time period?

laverya 5y ago
I think it's quite possible that the maintenance events for an electric airplane are further apart and simpler than for a traditional engine, and those maintenance costs are a very major component of total infrastructure costs.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Oh, me too. Just not to the degree that it would have 1/5th the operating costs. Especially considering the fuel doesn't get lighter as it's spent. One-fifth is a very strong claim.
andrepew 5y ago
Engines are complicated and the maintenance and certification requirements on such a complex system in the context of aviation is very expensive. Airplane engines must be rebuilt at set time intervals even if they’re working perfectly because of what is at stake if they fail. Electric motors are vastly simpler devices with far less moving parts. Much less to go wrong, much less to inspect and replace. These are savings even before you get to talk about energy efficiency. These savings aren’t realized in the car market because if the motor of a car fails, it is just an inconvenience. All that extra work doesn’t exist. These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour.
- tyingq 5y ago
  "These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour." That would be somewhat compelling proof, but you seem to be mixing "price offered to the renting flyer" and "cost incurred by the owner".
- ericpauley 5y ago
  This seems dubious. Even auxiliary costs of the average plane rental (hangar, insurance) can exceed that rate depending on utilization.
- Zircom 5y ago
  >These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour. I'm curious, do the training hours on electric planes count towards normal ICE planes? I would assume at they very least they have different operating procedures if not outright handle differently.
sixothree 5y ago
Cars don't require a complete rebuild every 2000 hours. Maybe that's the cost they are hoping to eliminate?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
d_silin 5y ago
For an existing electric aircraft (Pipistrel Alpha), the fuel cost advantage is claimed to be 10x of equivalent ICE-powered model.
- tyingq 5y ago
  ICE Pipistrel: "Poweredby the Rotax 912 80 HP engine it burns only 2.5 US gal (9.5 litres) of ordinary mogas fuel per hour"[1] $6/gallon would be way on the high side estimate for mogas, so say $15 total, so we're sure to be generous. Electric Pipistrel: "The cost of electricity per hour of flight is roughly between $4 and $6," said Krzysztof Będkowski of Pipistrel Alpha Poland."[2] I can't work out how $4-6/$15 is 1/10. Is is attractive, for sure. Again, I'm not disputing electric is cheaper, but the claim of 1/5th the cost is pretty extraordinary. [1] https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/flight-training/alpha/ https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/flight-training/... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-plane-charges-in-hour-can-cover-160km-2019-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-plane-charges-in-ho...
  - Zircom 5y ago
    Probably referring to total cost savings, not just fuel savings. As mentioned other places in this thread, electric motors have less/simpler maintenance needs than ICE engines and the TOTAL labor/parts/fuel savings is probably where the 1/5 or 1/10 claims come in.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      Possibly. I was responding to "the fuel cost advantage is claimed to be 10x" though.
FDSGSG 5y ago
With a PC-12 you'll burn around $300 per engine hour in fuel alone, hot section inspections will come up every 1750 hours or so and cost $50k each, the engine overhauls will come up every 3500 hours and cost $350k I wouldn't be shocked if replacing the electric motor costs less than what a turboprop inspection would.

Leherenn 5y ago

That probably doesn't account for replacing the batteries though. I know a flight school that bought one electric aircraft and had to replace the battery within a year or two.