This makes a lot of sense for a flight training business, because most flights are only 1 to 1.5 hour and stay close to the airport. The biggest cost component in an hour of flight training is the cost of fuel and engine in a traditional plane like a 172.
The price is 350k per plane, but they're buying twice the fleetsize. Let's assume that's half because of charging time (takes longer than refueling between students) and half because they expect to grow by offering lower cost training. Then the price of 1.5 of these vs 1 traditional is 1.5 x 350 = 525k vs about 400k for the 172. To make up the 125k price difference you need to fly 1562 hours at a 80 dollar/hour cost saving (this works in Norway because electricity is lower cost there than in most of Europe, and aviation fuel prices are high). That's 2 to 3 years for break even in normal flightschool operations (500 to 750 hours / plane / year). Planes in flight school operations last at least 10 years and in some cases many times that.
So expect many more training operations to make the switch in the coming years. Especially if the maintenance cost of electric planes are somewhat proven.
Is the $80/h cost saving also including maintenance? It seems like a 20kg electric motor with basically 1 moving part should be a lot cheaper to maintain than the engine of the 172.
What's the capacity of the battery on the Bye aircraft? The company website did not have specifications. In any case it's amazing how quickly this has progressed.
Different planes require different training (see 737 MAX new recently about trying to avoid this).
Retraining isn't uncommon as a pilot advances throughout their career.
I've only flown 12 hours in a traditional aircraft (piper warrior iii), but there's certainly a few things I'd imagine a pilot would want to know before taking off in something traditional (oil pressure, manifold, switching fuel takes, checking fuel quality, etc.). Maybe just enough training in a traditional aircraft for a few extra hours to be rated properly.
I'm certainly excited for the possibility for electric aircraft, hopefully in my lifetime. Less maintenance, less things to go wrong, cheaper, (quieter/less vibration?) etc.
The basics of flying a plane are the same because the physics are the same. The differences in engine and fuel type will yield different checklists and procedures but that's true for many planes in the same class now.
Today pilots and students get a "class rating" that certifies they know how to fly that general class of airplane such as single engine land. You might learn in a Cessna 150 or 152 and then switch to a 172 for the larger engine and more fuel so you take bigger cross-country legs. Those planes are in the same class so it's an easy transition.
Even so you can't just go rent a 172! You'll need someone to sign off saying you know how to fly the 172 or you'll have trouble renting the plane or possibly with insurance. Insurers want to see some time learning to fly a new model before going solo.
So if you learn to fly an electric airplane in the US you'll still get Private Pilot - Airplane, Single Engine Land (PP-ASEL) but you will require further training to hop in a gas engine plane that's also single engine land.
The "land" part is to distinguish those planes from sea planes (planes which can land on water) which are different enough for their own class.
>Is it an issue that training will be a different sorts of planes than graduates will fly or are the characteristics close enough?
Flight training goes through various phases. Just like traditional education, you have primary, elementary, and secondary. Primary flight training consists of the fundamental “stick and rudder” skills which all pilots from a Cessna to a 747 must posess. In fact, the US Air Force academy starts all fighter pilot candidates out flying gliders for this very reason. Electric flight will absolutely revolutionize this portion of training because the primary limiting factor in one’s ability to perfect those skills is cost. And the overwhelming majority of cost in a single engine aircraft is the engine itself; gas, oil, maintenance, overhauls. All of these things will be obliviated, freeing pilot’s resources to obtain multiple times the amount of hours as is currently the case.
Not only will this be good for pilots, but the industry and public safety as a whole will be greatly enriched by the increase in basic flight skills that have started to slip over the years due to the exorbitant cost of primary training.
Almost every flight school does initial training in single-engine, piston-powered airplanes with fixed landing gear. Even pilots who eventually fly planes as different from a Cessna 152 as a multi-engine, turbine-powered jet liner with retractable gear and other controls like spoilers that training aircraft lack.
Unfortunately, this analysis fails because you are comparing a 4 seat utility airplane with a 2 seat trainer.
A better comparison would be with say the Allegro, $100k, or the Cessna 162, $150 k.
Furthermore please note that the article headline is overly optimistic and misleading... instead of "saves 80%" it should read "hopes to save 80%". I have a feeling that this hope may not be realised.
Edit: Actually the "eFlyer 2" looks almost identical to the Arion Lightning (so similar that I would be surprised that it is not the same airframe), which sells for $120,000 ready to fly.
> The price is 350k per plane, but they're buying twice the fleetsize. Let's assume that's half because of charging time (takes longer than refueling between students) and half because they expect to grow by offering lower cost training. Then the price of 1.5 of these vs 1 traditional is 1.5 x 350 = 525k vs about 400k for the 172.
Why are we comparing 1.5 new planes to 1 old plane? The way I understand your hypothetical division:
- They have x planes.
- They want to replace their x old planes with 2x new planes.
- Of the additional x planes (over the old fleet size), 0.5x are due to (projected) increased demand, and 0.5x are a logistics cost that didn't apply to the old fleet.
- So, the extra logistics cost represents adding 0.5x planes on top of what would have been 1.5x old planes.
Then wouldn't the right cost comparison be 1.33 new planes to 1 old plane?
The move makes sense, the price doesn't. Many modern light planes have a cost starting at $100,000 and it can be as low as $60,000 without the engine (based on Rotax engine price and full price of the plane). The electric engines are by comparison much cheaper, I expect less than $5,000 and the batteries are ... well, Tesla tells how cheap, let's say $20,000 (that is 3 times a Tesla 3, which I seriously doubt). My math goes to ~ $85,000 for the base model, if you add full glass cockpit, leather chairs and even retractable landing gear you get to $120-150,000 price tag.
I am not comparing with a 172 because most of the flying school is done in 2 seaters like the 152. It does not make a lot of sense to use a 4 seater for that.
Pipistrel is has some electric models, but they were heavily pushed back by Siemens and I am not sure if they have a new source of light electric engines.
Unfortunately that's not how aircraft pricing works, due to very low economy's of scale. A 172 definitely doesn't have 400k in parts in it, yet that's what a fairly simple model costs new out of the factory today.
The costs of certification, development and liability insurance are adding a lot to the price.
I know how it works as I am looking to buy my own 2 seater for some years, I fly rented. I am familiar with the US versus European manufacturer pricing differences and I just paid over $1,000 for a new radio a few months ago, the kind of radio that would be $50 if it would not be "aviation".
Presumably there are some reasons for the higher cost, or someone else would come along and sell the radios for much less and take over the market. I expect in aviation higher reliability requirements would add something to the average costs for many things.
People (me included) complain about the same thing when it comes to 'marine' parts - they're often 2 - 3 times higher in price than land-based parts (usually automotive or RV parts). There are actual differences in the items in many cases though - for example, marine engine parts have to ensure they never throw any spark, because explosive fumes in an enclosed engine compartment are a real safety concern that well ventilated automotive engines don't have. That takes extra R & D and different manufacturing processes for much smaller production runs (increasing pro-rated capital costs).
Plus, market forces seem to show that people are willing to pay the higher prices - perhaps that's in part because most of the people buying these things have more money than people buying commodity (automotive etc) parts.
Yes, there is a reason for the higher cost: price gauging. A pair of 7" displays with Android like software and GPS are ~ $10,000, if you want it in 12" you pay another $5,000. There is no competition in the market. This is why so many people use iPads and $100 software instead.
Certified for commercial operations is a very ambiguous term. You can do flying lessons on any plane that is registered and allowed to fly with some exceptions.
Example: Pipistrel Alpha Trainer, base price was around 70,000 when they still had the price list on the site. 2 seater, low fuel consumption, high wing, very light and easy to fly, perfect for a trainer.
Orders and refundable deposits don't mean jack shit for something that hasn't been produced fully yet. A lot of people are willing to put money down on a fantasy.
The company has, like, 1 of these prototype (still experimental class) planes. As commented elsewhere here, certification, etc. is a big hurdle. Clearly they're following Tesla's playbook -- but with something much harder to produce.
The press release's lazy language makes it sound like they already achieved these benefits. Wait until even 1 plane is delivered to see.
I wouldn't say much harder to produce. A small aircraft is mechanically simpler than a car: a few moving surfaces connected by cables, no gear box, simple suspension. Avionics are complicated and expensive, but they'll likely use existing units, so no extra risk there.
The float plane business seems to make a lot of sense in this regard because, at least in the Washington state and BC areas, it involves a lot of small planes and relatively short flights that aren't easily replaced by other modes of transportation, especially for people who essentially use them for commuting and can't live the same lifestyle using a ferry boat instead.
I don't have enough knowledge to know if the technical aspects make sense from an aviation perspective but nothing stands out as unfeasible.
Also, what would say, (for arguments sake) you were to put “wings and a prop” on a tesla - are the rotor motors in a tesla sufficient to spin a prop at the rpm necessary, and then would its battery pack’s weight be an issue in plane format?
35 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 68.6 ms ] threadThe price is 350k per plane, but they're buying twice the fleetsize. Let's assume that's half because of charging time (takes longer than refueling between students) and half because they expect to grow by offering lower cost training. Then the price of 1.5 of these vs 1 traditional is 1.5 x 350 = 525k vs about 400k for the 172. To make up the 125k price difference you need to fly 1562 hours at a 80 dollar/hour cost saving (this works in Norway because electricity is lower cost there than in most of Europe, and aviation fuel prices are high). That's 2 to 3 years for break even in normal flightschool operations (500 to 750 hours / plane / year). Planes in flight school operations last at least 10 years and in some cases many times that.
So expect many more training operations to make the switch in the coming years. Especially if the maintenance cost of electric planes are somewhat proven.
Although a person trained on an electric motor might not be familiar with how to handle gasoline engine issues.
70 kW * 1 h / 200 Wh/kg = 350 kg
I've only flown 12 hours in a traditional aircraft (piper warrior iii), but there's certainly a few things I'd imagine a pilot would want to know before taking off in something traditional (oil pressure, manifold, switching fuel takes, checking fuel quality, etc.). Maybe just enough training in a traditional aircraft for a few extra hours to be rated properly.
I'm certainly excited for the possibility for electric aircraft, hopefully in my lifetime. Less maintenance, less things to go wrong, cheaper, (quieter/less vibration?) etc.
Today pilots and students get a "class rating" that certifies they know how to fly that general class of airplane such as single engine land. You might learn in a Cessna 150 or 152 and then switch to a 172 for the larger engine and more fuel so you take bigger cross-country legs. Those planes are in the same class so it's an easy transition.
Even so you can't just go rent a 172! You'll need someone to sign off saying you know how to fly the 172 or you'll have trouble renting the plane or possibly with insurance. Insurers want to see some time learning to fly a new model before going solo.
So if you learn to fly an electric airplane in the US you'll still get Private Pilot - Airplane, Single Engine Land (PP-ASEL) but you will require further training to hop in a gas engine plane that's also single engine land.
The "land" part is to distinguish those planes from sea planes (planes which can land on water) which are different enough for their own class.
Flight training goes through various phases. Just like traditional education, you have primary, elementary, and secondary. Primary flight training consists of the fundamental “stick and rudder” skills which all pilots from a Cessna to a 747 must posess. In fact, the US Air Force academy starts all fighter pilot candidates out flying gliders for this very reason. Electric flight will absolutely revolutionize this portion of training because the primary limiting factor in one’s ability to perfect those skills is cost. And the overwhelming majority of cost in a single engine aircraft is the engine itself; gas, oil, maintenance, overhauls. All of these things will be obliviated, freeing pilot’s resources to obtain multiple times the amount of hours as is currently the case.
Not only will this be good for pilots, but the industry and public safety as a whole will be greatly enriched by the increase in basic flight skills that have started to slip over the years due to the exorbitant cost of primary training.
A better comparison would be with say the Allegro, $100k, or the Cessna 162, $150 k.
Furthermore please note that the article headline is overly optimistic and misleading... instead of "saves 80%" it should read "hopes to save 80%". I have a feeling that this hope may not be realised.
Edit: Actually the "eFlyer 2" looks almost identical to the Arion Lightning (so similar that I would be surprised that it is not the same airframe), which sells for $120,000 ready to fly.
Why are we comparing 1.5 new planes to 1 old plane? The way I understand your hypothetical division:
- They have x planes.
- They want to replace their x old planes with 2x new planes.
- Of the additional x planes (over the old fleet size), 0.5x are due to (projected) increased demand, and 0.5x are a logistics cost that didn't apply to the old fleet.
- So, the extra logistics cost represents adding 0.5x planes on top of what would have been 1.5x old planes.
Then wouldn't the right cost comparison be 1.33 new planes to 1 old plane?
https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/...
https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/...
The costs of certification, development and liability insurance are adding a lot to the price.
People (me included) complain about the same thing when it comes to 'marine' parts - they're often 2 - 3 times higher in price than land-based parts (usually automotive or RV parts). There are actual differences in the items in many cases though - for example, marine engine parts have to ensure they never throw any spark, because explosive fumes in an enclosed engine compartment are a real safety concern that well ventilated automotive engines don't have. That takes extra R & D and different manufacturing processes for much smaller production runs (increasing pro-rated capital costs).
Plus, market forces seem to show that people are willing to pay the higher prices - perhaps that's in part because most of the people buying these things have more money than people buying commodity (automotive etc) parts.
What planes are you referring to? I'm not familiar with models in that price range that are certified for commercial operations.
The company has, like, 1 of these prototype (still experimental class) planes. As commented elsewhere here, certification, etc. is a big hurdle. Clearly they're following Tesla's playbook -- but with something much harder to produce.
The press release's lazy language makes it sound like they already achieved these benefits. Wait until even 1 plane is delivered to see.
Tesla is aiming at mass manufacturing. This is somehow different from Tesla since the number of units is much smaller.
This is more similar to Model S sans Gigafactory.
Maybe so, but the consequences of a failure of the design or the implementation are much higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher#Wing_mod...
Can anyone think of a car recall that required 32 hours per unit to fix?
https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-partner-to...
The float plane business seems to make a lot of sense in this regard because, at least in the Washington state and BC areas, it involves a lot of small planes and relatively short flights that aren't easily replaced by other modes of transportation, especially for people who essentially use them for commuting and can't live the same lifestyle using a ferry boat instead.
I don't have enough knowledge to know if the technical aspects make sense from an aviation perspective but nothing stands out as unfeasible.
Also, what would say, (for arguments sake) you were to put “wings and a prop” on a tesla - are the rotor motors in a tesla sufficient to spin a prop at the rpm necessary, and then would its battery pack’s weight be an issue in plane format?
(I also want to put a tesla pack in boat form)