I am starting a thread specifically on this topic, since this is the market everybody is aiming for right now.
From here for example:
I think that
which should roughly do the trick for the PPL program when planned properly.
is not yet anywhere near met.
When I remember my PPL training, almost 20 years ago, out of Shoreham EGKA, we had countless students disappear for an extra half an hour or so, while searching around the Sussex countryside for their destination, like a minesweeper. In one case, a student went missing and everyone was getting really worried, but eventually she turned up having burnt the whole tank all over Sussex, landing on vapour at Lydd or some such. These all got their PPLs but none of them flew afterwards. Probably they were smart enough to realise the PPL, done like that, is completely useless.
I know that nowadays the nav uncertainty is taken out (only IF GPS is fully integrated into the PPL and dead reckoning is removed from solo flights) but you need only some bad wx. Needless to say this was before today’s strict UK enforcement of CAS busts, which in this case would get the instructor into hot water…
So the wx minima for PPL training would need to be even more strict than at present. Already in some cases < 10km is banned for solo flight.
An electric plane, landing off-field, is not easily recoverable. You would have to turn up with an exchange battery pack, or a trailer with a large generator. Or just a trailer and take the wings off 
The next gotcha is what do you do about longer trips? You will need to convert to an avgas burner, which is not going to be totally trivial. IMHO most people will just chuck it in at that point.
That is, of course, until there is a network of charging points at loads of airfields.
Pipistrel had a big order (~200 aircraft) for 2 seat trainers from the Indian military and I believe the plan is to use the electric version for circuits and short locals, then the rotax version for navigation and longer flights. It’s a good idea, but assumes the customer is big enough to buy several new planes. From memory it’s about one hour’s flight on a full battery, and about an hour to recharge. It also assumes paying for spare batteries and some infrastructure e.g. electrical work for 3 phase power to charge quickly, and maybe solar panels on the hangar roofs (with the right subsidies ). There’s an Alpha Electro at LFPN, essentially because of the very noise sensitive neighbours.
At least if landing in the wild after running out of charge they shouldn’t need a very big field.
With an endurance of one hour, it’s hard to see how this should be done without a mix of planes, which should be no problem. The question is rather if it’s possible to do that at a lower cost than using only avgas planes. Noise issues could also come into play, as pattern work is very restricted many places due to noise. In those cases it will be a question of operating at a central positioned airfield (attracting lots of pilots) or a much more down scaled operation far away.
Charging the battery on a plane when it’s eventually landed “out” is really no problem. Bring along a 2-3 kW mobile generator (costing € 2-300), and it’s fully charged in 6-7 hours. Bring a towable one and it’s charged in 20 min. Certainly more work and much slower than bringing a jerry can of gas, but how often do you land out?
From a purely instructional point of view I can see that combination work. The only prerequisite would be that the piston and the electrical version behave similar enough. It does not have to be identical, though, there will be ample time to get used to the piston version when cross countey training begins.
By “short locals” they probably mean the typical trip to the training area for some exercises and return to the field, which is feasible assuming they can get 45 minutes to one hour endurance with a real world training profile, and a sensible reserve (not 45 minutes though, reserves need to be lower, possibly augmented with GPS / FMS “bingo battery” warnings to make it safe)
The currently very limited endurance and the low power at which it is achieved means that the entire navigation training will best be done in the piston version. Teaching nav at 60 kt if the piston version il later goes at 100 is pointless, as anyone who has seen students struggle to go fom 80 to 120kt can attest.
All other challenges will be purely economic, but I think the battle “old C150 vs new xxx’ will dominate here – high capital cost, lower oprating cost competing with the old gas guzzlers.
By the way – charging time between sorties will be less of an issue than one might think. In many schools, aircraft are booked in slots which allow for briefing, debriefing and the occasional refuelling, giving an in-day utilisation of 50 percent or so. While that might need a bit of tweaking for charging, with fast charging available this won’t fundamentally change that. And as above – just forget real cross country.
how often do you land out?
Based on the sample of one school with 8-20 aircraft: 3 times in about 15 years. In only one of the three cases the aircraft was undamaged, and in one the instructor and student died.
Whether it is possible to charge an aircraft after landing in a field is simply not a consideration, being able to fly it at all already is a bonus.
I am sure there would be many more “empty tanks” forced landings with electric planes than with avgas planes – simply because the endurance margins are so extremely tight.
With a C150, solo, the instructor will make sure you have full tanks, so you can do a 1hr flight and screw up for 2 more hours before you go down.
In time this will change but it will take some co-operative effort between a number of schools located within an area big enough to do the required PPL cross country flights.
But what’s the point?
Students in training are by definition, operating at the edge of their skill set. Asking them to change from an electric aircraft to an avgas machine (mixtures, tank management, fuel testing preflight, different response of the engine, different inflight FREDA checks) when they are ready to go on a cross country, will undoubtedly set them back, probably reducing significantly any savings to date. In the end, experience will be on two quite different aircraft, and come the skills test, they’ll be less experienced on the aircraft that they will be doing the test in, than they otherwise would be. That in itself probably means more training is necessary.
If all the training is done on electric aircraft, then the student will qualify as a PPL, and be only able to fly an aircraft to an airport 30 mins away, and then back to base, unless that airport has charging facilities. And even if it does, they’ll only be able to fly an hour away. Converting onto an AVGAS machine post skills test will be a big deal, and most probably won’t continue on.
Until an electric aircraft can do a 2-3 hour leg, I think their utility will be limited. They are undoubtedly the future, but they still have a fair bit to go.
When I first learned how to fly in 1979, my training aircraft had an endurance of 6 minutes, except in very favourable conditions. During those 6 minutes, we trained speed control, turns, stalls, and one landing.
Thousands of glider pilots have successfully been taught basic flying skills that way. I am sure some of the solo pilots have landed in a field after getting lost or misjudging the wind and gliding distance back home, but to my knowledge it is not a big issue.
With a little engine and a battery you could fly much longer than 6 minutes, and even train go-arounds and a little bit of navigation.
I am sure the necessary adjustments to training procedures can be handled. But for the high price of electric planes they are still not very practical. Whereas a glider is ready for another launch immediately after landing, an electric plane would need either to be charged or have its battery pack replaced.
My understanding is that reaching an endurance of 3 hrs could be the turning point. With that, the electric plane could be used for completing the LAPL training program and could also be somewhat useful for licensed pilot to make short return trips and local flying and get back with comforting reserves. That is the kind of flying many private pilots fly most of the time as it is.
Some insight here :
It is about the Alpha Electro based in LFPN. The French FFA wanted to train students in it but they can’t because they didn’t get approval. Electric hours can’t be used for an SEP class rating (which sounds logical).
Electric can be used to teach circuits. Each circuit uses 10% of the battery.
The main difference in flying is the lack of engine management (which makes a lot of our tasks). So that has to be taught after the electric hours.
Why don’t EASA create an SEE class ? That would be innovative and a real breakthrough !
Jujupilote wrote:
The main difference in flying is the lack of engine management (which makes a lot of our tasks). So that has to be taught after the electric hours.
With a 912iS and an electric engine, there really isn’t much difference. You have a start button and a throttle (+ pumps, but you don’t need to fiddle with the pumps) The difference between a Lycosaur and an iS is much larger. Then you suddenly have carb heat and mixture, which you absolutely need to fiddle with.
