aart wrote:
I’m having a hard time imagining a company like Airbus wishing to deal with the GA (training) market. What they could do however is sell the design, once certificated, to an established GA aircraft manufacturer
I think it already is a separate company handling this, as I remember, but at this stage it is not much difference between the research project(s) run by Airbus and the Efan product which is not yet materialized. The final product (Efan 2.0 and 4.0) may very well be produced in several versions, from microlights to LSA to “full EASA” certification with different time schedules.
I’d assumed that aside from the fuel costs there might be an advantage in training to fly airliners in an airbus-lite (fan-driven twin, glass cockpit,?Sidestick)… Certainly more similar to an a320 than a c152.
I’m having a hard time imagining a company like Airbus wishing to deal with the GA (training) market. What they could do however is sell the design, once certificated, to an established GA aircraft manufacturer. Or actually, a clever manufacturer may want to knock on Airbus’ door.. Like LeSving suggests, the main thrust of Airbus doing this may simply be that they want to shape the certification requirements for electric propulsion in aircraft.
The article mention no actual cost. But obviously cost is a factor. Airbus makes a point out of the minimalistic cockpit, and huge cost savings in a training environment. I don’t know, one of the main reasons Airbus is doing this may very well be to be able to shape certification regulations of electric aircraft. The 2.0 is supposed to be certified next year, and it haven’t even flown yet. This sounds a bit optimistic. But where certifying a light aircraft is a huge venture for a smal company (at least that’s what they always say), this is not a big deal if you can pour expert resources behind it, like Airbus is able to, not for a light aircraft. They are also more or less free to create the certification regulations any way they chose. In any case, if the aircraft is postponed for 5 years, they can simply blame EASA for being slow creating regulations.
Why don’t they use fuel cells?
Seems to me that that’s one of the most efficient methods of making electricity… very energy dense as well…
Just waiting for the next quantum leap in battery technology….
Did they give you any idea of the price for the 2.0 and/or 4.0, LeSving?
Yes, a small engine as a range extender would make sense, properly sound proofed to preserve the silence..
Off the top of my head the silence twister can be fitted with one.
The Efan 4.0 is coming in 2019. It’s an Efan 2.0 with a small IC engine used as a “range extender”. What actually that means is a bit unclear, but I would guess the IC engine is only used to extend the range while in cruise. Double the range from 1.5 to 3 h would require only a tiny engine for instance, while a “full hybrid” will require a normal size engine. Such range extending engines are already used in drones. I think Austro makes a small Wankel engine used for this among other things.
Yes, you fit two turbofans and swap the airframe for an a320. Tongue slightly in cheek. There is talk of an aircraft for the American public, but it’s really a trainer for those with little interest in propellers. As such it seems to me probably very well conceived.
