Having about 40 hours (and 1/3rd of my training hours) in the Velis , here's a summary of what I think of it: What he can do: circuits, getting out of the aerodrome area to do 15 minutes of exercices and come back, do a 30 minutes sightseeing flight What he cannot do: *literally everything else* The best thing for me is the noise (60dB), and that's for me the big selling point of this aircraft, especially for airfields surrounded by houses. That beeing said, I still enjoy flying on it.
One taxied in front of me at KSMO as I was starting my Cherokee. I just opened the window and stared. It was incredible just how quiet the plane was. It sucks that we haven't figured out the energy density problem yet because if this thing actually had good range, it'd be an awesome plane.
tbf sadly the energy density issue likely will always be there as batteries are nearer the limit of what you can get out of them with current understandings than fuel engines are to there physical limits.
We might have solid state batteries that nearly double range within the next decade, but even then you're still talking about a plane that is only good for 90 minutes. Still only works as a trainer.
I remember seeing a video here on TH-cam where a flight school in Europe had a few for training. Primariliy used for take-off, entering the pattern, and then landing. They would be able to do a few touch and goes before needing to return. This can save the wear and tear on their Avgas planes and keep them ready for students who need to start racking up hours.
Early electric RC airplanes super sucked too! But it got way better. Same is true here. We’re just at the beginning of the innovation. I’m excited to see where it goes. And this is coming from someone whose favorite engine is a R-985. There’s a time and a place to burn 30gal/hr and then there’s a time and place for this.
The RC airplane reference is apt in many ways. As someone who got into general aviation via RC, I consider it more of a giant-scale you can fly from the inside, but still within sight of the field - an RC-pilots' dream, but currently not much more.
One guy set up solar panels at my airport and was just ripping laps in this thing. No runup, no noise abatement procedure, no fucks given. Looked like a fun time.
From a pilot - Thanks for an interesting video. That said - Desire can't overcome the basic Laws of Nature, Energy, etc. It takes about 140 pounds of battery, plus more for required wiring, ....to equal the energy in about 6 pounds of avgas, or about 7 pounds of Jet A. Related - Suggest the Engineering Explained channel His recent video on hydrogen power for boats is excellent. FYI - Vs gasoline, he noted that 13K pounds of battery would be required to power the 9K pound boat used in the study. Hydrogen storage - Would increase weight by about 600 pounds, yet yield only about 25% of the range compared to gasoline.
That is today. It was worse yesterday, will be better tomorrow. Maybe. If it gets to the point where energy density is tripled, electric planes will, um, take off.
to be fair, electric has the small advantage of more efficient engines. so comparing chemical energy per pound (ugh, why aviation, why did you got stuck with imperial) is not really the fairest. Brake-specific enery density would be better, tho it's common knowledge it still would look almost as bad
I always think it's funny when I hear arguments like this, because one could just as easily make the inverse argument about electric motors and gas engines. In fact I hear this very same argument about electric motorcycles. And you're right.... for now. But as battery technology progresses, the anti-electric argument diminishes with every passing year. Meanwhile, there isn't similar progress for engines, with the possible exception of larger bypass ratios for turbofans. General aviation doesn't benefit from this, of course. I get why things look bleak for electric aviation, considering that gasoline has about 100x the gravimetric energy density of lithium ion batteries. But what if we could improve that to just 10x? Suddenly the Velis Electro would go from 50m to 500m -- plenty of time to cruise around without throwing a bunch of waste heat into the sky. This may seem far fetched, but silica-anode batteries have a theoretical energy density of 10x lithium-ion. Things are catching up because suddenly it matters.
@@salmiakki5638 Ah, the imperial vs metric/liter reminds me of the Gimli Glider incident in Canada. Swiss cheese model - many people missed that they got X liters of fuel, not gallons in a 767 ...if I correctly recall.
@@UncleKennysPlace batteries are already nearing physical limits under current chemistry/physics understanding. Its possible a break through happens, but its also possible a new more efficient fuel engine comes along, both are unlikely.
theoretically maintenance should be very low. Lack of vibrations from ICE, way fewer moving parts, and electric motors are very reliable and require almost no maintenance. Not to mention their relative simplicity.
I flew the petrol version of that, the virus, and it flies really well, despite having the worst ergonomics of all (admittedly few) planes I ever flew. It has negative flaps that you can talk about on the aerodrome bar, which gives it extra points.
Well I bet this one racks up the comments! While I agree 100% with 50% of everything you said, I will add that I'm not aware of a new, warrantied trainer planes that sell for $100,000 to $125,000... Did you mean half or double? Our trainer planes list at Piper for $419,000 if you can get one... so you could actually buy two Pip's and use one while the other charges, and save a HEAP on maintenance. However - it's just not usable with 20 minute flights and 30min reserves. I mean it's not even close. And that is with new batteries... when the battery is at 80% you are down to 10min flights(!!).
Fun fact - the North America dealer for Pipistrel is at the airport of my EAA chapter and regularly invites us to oggle over the planes. All pipistrels are oggle worthy, all evoke different emotions, but this one is the most curious. I too have trouble figuring out what to do with it. I'm more hopeful for fuel cell technology, personally.
Another factor for it being a training aircraft. If a student leaves the master on with a 172 during the walk around, you can usually be fine to start it. If you leave the master on on this thing you've wasted your reserves or the thing could start with turning the prop.
This is a great point, but I wonder if it is true. Perhaps @swissaviator04 could comment. I would think you could leave the master on for 5 days and still have 90% charge left, assuming avionics and lights are off, but I have no idea. Swiss? Also I would point out that if you are the last flight of the day and leave the master on, that is a hundreds if not a thousand dollar mistake. Damages the expensive battery and the first training flight the following day is canceled, and the school misses out of that revenue (assuming no replacement plane is available).
The 30 minute day VFR fuel reserve is only for airplanes (20 minutes for helicopters). It doesn't apply to such aircraft as hot air balloons or gliders, even if the glider has an engine. If it were certified as a motor glider in the US (it hasn't been certified outside of Europe yet), then the fuel reserve requirements wouldn't apply. It still could be used for flight training as the only hours requirements in Part 61 that explicitly specify needing to be conducted in an airplane are the 3 hours of cross-country time, the 3 hours of night flying and the night cross country, the 3 hours of instrument flying, the 3 hours of flight training in preparation for the check ride, and the 10 hours of solo time, half of which needs to be cross-country, anyway. However, the economic realities that you outlined here are another matter entirely.
saw 2 of these do a "aerobatic display" at the air tattoo earlier this year. had to have been the most underwhelming thing in the history of riat. just sounded like an electric whisk was on in a room over.
If they ever figure out graphene batteries, this would be a great trainer to replace 172s for most if not all what a 172 is used for. I'm optimistic for the future but EV tech is just not quite there to be a good gas replacement.
Hello sir Could you please look at owning an Auster IV? I had the opportunity of a lifetime and got to sit in this rare war bird as it taxied to and from the hangar. And helped kids in as part of a static air display. All the best -a war bird fan
Electric airplanes won't take off (pardon the pun) until the energy density of the batteries meets or surpasses that of internal combustion. We're a ways off from that yet.
You’ve got a great channel Mr. Walkaround (can I call you Complete?) and I really love your videos, but much like the now-deleted Avianti video I just felt like this was too much of a hit-job that appeals to the red meat base of aviation “enthusiasts” who won’t let go of their 100LL until you pry it from their cold dead hands. Battery swapping is common in the world of UAS aerial application, I think there is a way to make this thing viable and cost effective as a trainer over time.
Your conclusion feels correct - this is a first, early step, so of course it can't do what the existing products do, but we can not continue burning petroleum so we'd better start improving alternatives now. You comment on how the battery has a finite lifespan... well sure, the batteries in a 2011 Nissan Leaf with no temperature management wore out fast and bad, but today's batteries are a whole other thing, and their useful lives will likely last longer than most cars stay on the road. Take a look at Harbour Air in Vancouver BC, they've got an experimental DHC2 Beaver flying to develop the tech & operations needed for future commercial passenger operations to Vancouver Island. th-cam.com/video/3gliycZGTl0/w-d-xo.html
Fusion power will be a thing before battery powered airplanes. Then you can pull carbon from the air and turn it into gas for carbon negative gasoline without any 🦖 🦴
@ I really wish I had a news letter now. But I meant that as a statement on the viability of battery powered aircraft and not saying fusion is around the corner. But when electricity becomes cheap enough gas will be a battery.
Compared to a 172 yes. Compared to a 1914 aircraft, it's not far off, just lousy range. We're eventually going to run out of prehistoric swamp goo. So looking at all alternatives seems smart. Not every step in aviation is clear cut. But research into new ideas is always useful.
@@MatheusLB2009 Yes because ICE engine powered aircraft have 120 year head start. Once again this is very early days. And it's quite possible until energy density and weight improve it may or may not improve. I applaud companies and researchers looking for ways to try to find alternatives. So comparing it to older tech makes sense because that's where we are R&D wise.
Having about 40 hours (and 1/3rd of my training hours) in the Velis , here's a summary of what I think of it:
What he can do: circuits, getting out of the aerodrome area to do 15 minutes of exercices and come back, do a 30 minutes sightseeing flight
What he cannot do: *literally everything else*
The best thing for me is the noise (60dB), and that's for me the big selling point of this aircraft, especially for airfields surrounded by houses.
That beeing said, I still enjoy flying on it.
Gruezi in die Schwitz
60 dB sounds extraordinary low! Is it 60 dB on the ground while the airplane is at 1000 ft ASFC or something?
How much was the hourly cost for you?
One taxied in front of me at KSMO as I was starting my Cherokee. I just opened the window and stared. It was incredible just how quiet the plane was.
It sucks that we haven't figured out the energy density problem yet because if this thing actually had good range, it'd be an awesome plane.
tbf sadly the energy density issue likely will always be there as batteries are nearer the limit of what you can get out of them with current understandings than fuel engines are to there physical limits.
We might have solid state batteries that nearly double range within the next decade, but even then you're still talking about a plane that is only good for 90 minutes. Still only works as a trainer.
I remember seeing a video here on TH-cam where a flight school in Europe had a few for training.
Primariliy used for take-off, entering the pattern, and then landing. They would be able to do a few touch and goes before needing to return.
This can save the wear and tear on their Avgas planes and keep them ready for students who need to start racking up hours.
Early electric RC airplanes super sucked too! But it got way better. Same is true here. We’re just at the beginning of the innovation. I’m excited to see where it goes. And this is coming from someone whose favorite engine is a R-985. There’s a time and a place to burn 30gal/hr and then there’s a time and place for this.
The RC airplane reference is apt in many ways. As someone who got into general aviation via RC, I consider it more of a giant-scale you can fly from the inside, but still within sight of the field - an RC-pilots' dream, but currently not much more.
Just wanted to say, your art is very pretty
A great (and I’d say, fair) summary of the Electro
Great take on this. Thanks!
One guy set up solar panels at my airport and was just ripping laps in this thing. No runup, no noise abatement procedure, no fucks given. Looked like a fun time.
Pipestrel makes some of the coolest planes out there.
From a pilot - Thanks for an interesting video.
That said - Desire can't overcome the basic Laws of Nature, Energy, etc.
It takes about 140 pounds of battery, plus more for required wiring,
....to equal the energy in about 6 pounds of avgas, or about 7 pounds of Jet A.
Related -
Suggest the Engineering Explained channel
His recent video on hydrogen power for boats is excellent.
FYI -
Vs gasoline,
he noted that 13K pounds of battery would be required to power the 9K pound boat used in the study.
Hydrogen storage -
Would increase weight by about 600 pounds,
yet yield only about 25% of the range compared to gasoline.
That is today. It was worse yesterday, will be better tomorrow. Maybe.
If it gets to the point where energy density is tripled, electric planes will, um, take off.
to be fair, electric has the small advantage of more efficient engines. so comparing chemical energy per pound (ugh, why aviation, why did you got stuck with imperial) is not really the fairest. Brake-specific enery density would be better, tho it's common knowledge it still would look almost as bad
I always think it's funny when I hear arguments like this, because one could just as easily make the inverse argument about electric motors and gas engines. In fact I hear this very same argument about electric motorcycles.
And you're right.... for now. But as battery technology progresses, the anti-electric argument diminishes with every passing year. Meanwhile, there isn't similar progress for engines, with the possible exception of larger bypass ratios for turbofans. General aviation doesn't benefit from this, of course.
I get why things look bleak for electric aviation, considering that gasoline has about 100x the gravimetric energy density of lithium ion batteries. But what if we could improve that to just 10x? Suddenly the Velis Electro would go from 50m to 500m -- plenty of time to cruise around without throwing a bunch of waste heat into the sky.
This may seem far fetched, but silica-anode batteries have a theoretical energy density of 10x lithium-ion. Things are catching up because suddenly it matters.
@@salmiakki5638
Ah, the imperial vs metric/liter reminds me of the Gimli Glider incident in Canada.
Swiss cheese model -
many people missed that they got X liters of fuel, not gallons in a 767
...if I correctly recall.
@@UncleKennysPlace batteries are already nearing physical limits under current chemistry/physics understanding. Its possible a break through happens, but its also possible a new more efficient fuel engine comes along, both are unlikely.
theoretically maintenance should be very low. Lack of vibrations from ICE, way fewer moving parts, and electric motors are very reliable and require almost no maintenance. Not to mention their relative simplicity.
WHAT OMG IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
Thank you for doing this video, Christmas has come early this year!
I flew the petrol version of that, the virus, and it flies really well, despite having the worst ergonomics of all (admittedly few) planes I ever flew. It has negative flaps that you can talk about on the aerodrome bar, which gives it extra points.
Well I bet this one racks up the comments! While I agree 100% with 50% of everything you said, I will add that I'm not aware of a new, warrantied trainer planes that sell for $100,000 to $125,000... Did you mean half or double? Our trainer planes list at Piper for $419,000 if you can get one... so you could actually buy two Pip's and use one while the other charges, and save a HEAP on maintenance. However - it's just not usable with 20 minute flights and 30min reserves. I mean it's not even close. And that is with new batteries... when the battery is at 80% you are down to 10min flights(!!).
Fun fact - the North America dealer for Pipistrel is at the airport of my EAA chapter and regularly invites us to oggle over the planes. All pipistrels are oggle worthy, all evoke different emotions, but this one is the most curious. I too have trouble figuring out what to do with it.
I'm more hopeful for fuel cell technology, personally.
Another factor for it being a training aircraft.
If a student leaves the master on with a 172 during the walk around, you can usually be fine to start it.
If you leave the master on on this thing you've wasted your reserves or the thing could start with turning the prop.
This is a great point, but I wonder if it is true. Perhaps @swissaviator04 could comment. I would think you could leave the master on for 5 days and still have 90% charge left, assuming avionics and lights are off, but I have no idea. Swiss? Also I would point out that if you are the last flight of the day and leave the master on, that is a hundreds if not a thousand dollar mistake. Damages the expensive battery and the first training flight the following day is canceled, and the school misses out of that revenue (assuming no replacement plane is available).
The 30 minute day VFR fuel reserve is only for airplanes (20 minutes for helicopters). It doesn't apply to such aircraft as hot air balloons or gliders, even if the glider has an engine. If it were certified as a motor glider in the US (it hasn't been certified outside of Europe yet), then the fuel reserve requirements wouldn't apply. It still could be used for flight training as the only hours requirements in Part 61 that explicitly specify needing to be conducted in an airplane are the 3 hours of cross-country time, the 3 hours of night flying and the night cross country, the 3 hours of instrument flying, the 3 hours of flight training in preparation for the check ride, and the 10 hours of solo time, half of which needs to be cross-country, anyway.
However, the economic realities that you outlined here are another matter entirely.
Pipistrel being acquired by Textron likely killed the Panthera. Sad.
Yes but was it ever really alive?
saw 2 of these do a "aerobatic display" at the air tattoo earlier this year. had to have been the most underwhelming thing in the history of riat. just sounded like an electric whisk was on in a room over.
also think we could get a vid on the dh chipmunk please
If they ever figure out graphene batteries, this would be a great trainer to replace 172s for most if not all what a 172 is used for. I'm optimistic for the future but EV tech is just not quite there to be a good gas replacement.
Hello sir
Could you please look at owning an Auster IV? I had the opportunity of a lifetime and got to sit in this rare war bird as it taxied to and from the hangar. And helped kids in as part of a static air display. All the best
-a war bird fan
a new walkaround, oooooOOOOOOOoooooo.....
Is it quieter?
Quite
Quieter + you don't have to run the engine when you aren't moving
Would love to see a Waco YMF-5 video!
Do the costs to own and maintain a Boeing 747 and other big airliners such as the 787 and A350 etc
The training school that uses them over here swaps the batteries over, I’d also doubt the battery cost at $20k (especially as it’s only 24kwh).
I'm full support in full electric but man we need better batteries
Please do Shark UL
Electric airplanes won't take off (pardon the pun) until the energy density of the batteries meets or surpasses that of internal combustion. We're a ways off from that yet.
Aero Commander when?
One revolution in battery tech and they could take over.
But, that revolution may never happen.
Imagine only being able to fly for 20 minutes before you exceed your vfr reserve
I literally couldn't even get out of the Class-C and to the training area in 20 minutes.
The BA Lightning experience minus all the performance
Sounds like an RC plane you can get in
(i live your videos)Video idea: Cost to own a boeing 747 private jet
You’ve got a great channel Mr. Walkaround (can I call you Complete?) and I really love your videos, but much like the now-deleted Avianti video I just felt like this was too much of a hit-job that appeals to the red meat base of aviation “enthusiasts” who won’t let go of their 100LL until you pry it from their cold dead hands. Battery swapping is common in the world of UAS aerial application, I think there is a way to make this thing viable and cost effective as a trainer over time.
Your conclusion feels correct - this is a first, early step, so of course it can't do what the existing products do, but we can not continue burning petroleum so we'd better start improving alternatives now. You comment on how the battery has a finite lifespan... well sure, the batteries in a 2011 Nissan Leaf with no temperature management wore out fast and bad, but today's batteries are a whole other thing, and their useful lives will likely last longer than most cars stay on the road. Take a look at Harbour Air in Vancouver BC, they've got an experimental DHC2 Beaver flying to develop the tech & operations needed for future commercial passenger operations to Vancouver Island. th-cam.com/video/3gliycZGTl0/w-d-xo.html
Looks like a 162, but worse. Hopefully v2 will bring some improvement one day.
Fusion power will be a thing before battery powered airplanes. Then you can pull carbon from the air and turn it into gas for carbon negative gasoline without any 🦖 🦴
I wish to subscribe to your news letter
@ I really wish I had a news letter now. But I meant that as a statement on the viability of battery powered aircraft and not saying fusion is around the corner. But when electricity becomes cheap enough gas will be a battery.
@@Fred-rv2tuWith fusion we'll still have batteries ya. Or will we have fusion reactors in training aircraft 😉
Damn that plane sucks
Compared to a 172 yes. Compared to a 1914 aircraft, it's not far off, just lousy range. We're eventually going to run out of prehistoric swamp goo. So looking at all alternatives seems smart. Not every step in aviation is clear cut. But research into new ideas is always useful.
@leftcoaster67 "not when compared to a 100yo plane" really?
Sure these things can improve. Not by much, is my bet. But I wouldn't be a beta tester
@ look at evolution of aviation. This is early days of using electric. It might not pan out. Aviation has lots of twists and turns.
@@MatheusLB2009 Yes because ICE engine powered aircraft have 120 year head start. Once again this is very early days. And it's quite possible until energy density and weight improve it may or may not improve. I applaud companies and researchers looking for ways to try to find alternatives. So comparing it to older tech makes sense because that's where we are R&D wise.
EV airplanes do suck. Maybe another 50 years of development it can replace a 60 year old Cessna.
not first
First!