Cobalt wrote:
Of course once you change to electric propulsion, an entirely new set of aerodynamics come into play, which will make the aircraft more efficient
In some ways it will. You are no longer restricted to just one, or very few drive shafts for propulsion, where they are connected to heavy, hot and vibrating engines that could stop any minute. Electric flight will exploit other aspects of aviation, aspects that are impossible with traditional technology, and will steadily evolve from that point. The Blackfly is already commercial for instance. Learn to fly in 5 minutes, then go flying, at the cost of a SUV. In no way can it compete (today) with traditional aircraft, but it doesn’t have to, and that’s the main point. Comparing it with traditional aircraft in terms of performance is meaningless.
OK, this is terminally cool, but where do you see the price, LeSving? Can’t find it on their website – and I want one!
I don’t remember where I saw/read it, but it’s supposed to cost the “same as a SUV” according to the manufacturer. What kind of SUV? only the producer know 
That sort of thing I actually believe. Also, multicopter passenger transport over short distances are technically feasible, and whether they work or not will depend much more on society than on technology.
I just look in astonishment at these airliner or small passenger aircraft claims, which do not survive even the most basic plausibility check.
Physics is a b!tch – weight matters a lot more if you have to accelerate air downwards to keep the weight up.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t remember where I saw/read it, but it’s supposed to cost the “same as a SUV” according to the manufacturer. What kind of SUV? only the producer know
Bearing in mind that an SUV in Norway (and Denmark) costs about twice what it costs in the rest of Europe
We’re Newton’s Laws obeyed in the making of that video? Or was at least some of it computer graphics?
It looked extremely energy expensive.
I just spent a couple of hours watching the Avinor (Norway) team giving demo rides to all comers in an all electric Pipestrel last week. The mission profile is a 20 min circuit followed by a 20 min recharge. The charger is a 20a 3 phase type. The two identical batteries have (from memory) 8 khw each, giving a 20 min reserve on a 1 hr mission based on typical power profiles from the 85kw motor.
Its worth noting that the demos were being kept to around 20% battery depletion and there are concerns about the impact of deep discharging and recharging as in typical 1 hr training flights on ultimate battery life. Much is made of the battery warranties given by car makers, but as ever the mission power profile and endurance requirement are completely different in aircraft, meaning that aircraft will need at lest 50% depth on every trip, wheras a typical car might only need 10% going to the shops.
Its wondrous to observe the little aircraft shuttling about its business with seemingly few of the tyre kicking antics associated with convetional trainers. Cruising overhead in complete silence (except for little prop noise) is beautiful to behold and it could be a spanner in the works of nimbyism and the tactic of revaluing one’s house now the annoying airfield has been closed).
The same simple operation and cost bonfire supposedly goes for maintence with a one piece wing and fuselage where there’s apparently little to inspect at annual time. The direct drive engine apparently has a 2000 hr overhaul life with not much to do apart from changing 1 ball bearing. Interesting the Volocopter guys were adopting a similar line at CES: there’s nothing to maintain, so who need annuals?
Its a beautiful little aeroplane and it was already fulfilling one GA mission profile: the trial flight, with evidently delighted customers (journos mostly), many of who have not been in a GA aircraft before. (There was even a lady from the London Evening Standard there). At a calculated direct cost of $2 per demo flight and almost no maintenance, this could be the aviation we’ve all been waiting for – apart from the need for gas stations to accept aircaft for recharging at 30 mile intervals and of course a way of laying off the humungeous first cost – a gzillion times that of a clapped out 152. And of course that beat up old Cessna has already returned its first cost over 5, 10 or 15,000 flying hours.
It remains to be seen how many hours these new planes can rack up to offset the high first cost, and based on last weeks continuous up down, up down utilisation, it could work in state fair barnstorming kind of scenario. The future is out there!
I’ve just come back from an aircraft show at KSNA (Orange County / John Wayne) where the Pipistrels were also in attendance. There was no flying display, but the guy I spoke with claimed IIRC 30-45 mins circuit bashing followed by a 35 min fast charge as typical mission profile. I asked why they didn’t make a swappable battery pack, and apparently the concern here is clients physically damaging the battery pack during that operation. He also claimed, that about 80% of initial training could be done in one of the electrics and the rest in the equivalent Rotax-powered trainer (think x-country). Asked about the differences the claim was that aside from the noise level, you wouldn’t notice it, apparently the two machines are extremely similar in flight characteristics. This (and a couple of other electrically powered trainers) could be a real game changer.
Aveling wrote:
Its worth noting that the demos were being kept to around 20% battery depletion and there are concerns about the impact of deep discharging and recharging as in typical 1 hr training flights on ultimate battery life.
We now have cars that are run for several hundred k km with no noticeable reduction of battery capacity. This was a big concern a few years back, but these batteries has proven to hold up much better than even the most optimistic claims 4-5 years ago. My car is 4 years old, run for 70k km, and I often come home with 2-3 km “left” on the battery. Absolutely no reduction in battery capacity whatsoever. The gradual reduction in battery power is a theoretical problem that not a single person has noticed in real life.
The reason is probably a mix of very well designed and built batteries, together with good battery management by the computers in the car. The end result is that the batteries will outlast the car, several times over for most cars.
“I asked why they didn’t make a swappable battery pack, and apparently the concern here is clients physically damaging the battery pack during that operation. "
I was told that the two packs are swappable, and certainly seemed to be made that way, with side access doors. But spanners appeared to be needed. They weigh about 30 Kg each.
