Back to Squawk list
  • 27

Eviation's All-Electric Alice Aircraft Completes First Flight

Submitted
A milestone moment: Eviation's all-electric Alice aircraft completes its first flight. (airwaysmag.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jetpackted
Hal Gates 18
Good for them! Making it to first flight is a major milestone, no matter what the project is.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
But although it’s a first flight for them it’s not the first flight for an all electric plane
https://harbourair.com/harbour-airs-all-electric-aircraft-operates-first-point-to-point-test-flight/?fbclid=IwAR2N58XAkOxM2AQJKAe65WMuladQkx_t0DKtnFVrBf_q1GoFRqsX97-4iHI
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Not even remotely in the same ballpark as transport category.
C172Rpilot
C172Rpilot 10
Until there is a time that you can get the same amount of energy from a battery as you can a gallon of gas, that's when I'll get on one. I applaud the determination and fortitude to keep moving forward with this, one day it will be a no brainer. Still I wonder if this were to happen how it would tax our power grid, this is already in need of a revitalization.
jetpackted
Hal Gates 11
That's a completely valid point about the current state of the grid, and I don't think that the transition would go perfectly smoothly (it never does). Still, optimistically, the demand for early cars drove huge investments in gas stations and roads, so increased demand for EV charging infrastructure can similarly drive improvements in the grid and in energy storage technology.
kearny
William Street 2
Can you imagine the charging station at LA International or a small air port like Salt Lake. We don't have the electrical infrastructure to charge automobiles let alone jet airliners.
We need to move forward but for now lets not push the envelope.
SamHobbs
Sam Hobbs 2
I wonder how much electricity would be used to charge these compared to the amount already used at LAX.

Can this aircraft be used at Whiteman in Sylmar, California? Whiteman is about 5 miles from a major supply of power.
SamHobbs
Sam Hobbs 1
Charging stations for aircraft would only be required at the airports. Presumably trips would be limited to distances that a charge would allow; no recharging during a trip.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 4
The main question remains; aside from the infrastructure to move the electricity through the grid, where will that electricity originate from? Solar and wind? They can't sustain a small city yet. See California. They've been trying for a long time and still have blackouts. Ultimately, to power the extra amount of electricity demand for a 100% EV society we'll need fossils and nuclear. Wind and solar might as well be unicorn farts and skittles. The natural resources alone to build the required supply of both is unfeasible. The copper alone for one wind turbine is ~7000lbs for land and ~63,000 lbs for offshore. Then consider the needs for storage batteries.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 2
Plus, wind turbine blades nor the bulk of batteries are recyclable.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 3
There's some work done with use of grinding up fiberglass turbine blades for use in road bedding. But, there's a huge expense in transport far higher than actual production.

Nothing beats nuclear power when it comes to reliable production and more bang for the buck. Never mind one reactor produces enough to match between 120 and 240 wind turbines depending on the turbine ratings. The spent fuel can be contained in a cask about the size of a forty-foot shipping container. You won't get turbine blades buried in such a small space, even if ground up.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Here in Canada we recycle spent nuclear fuel into new nuclear fuel. Most of the U238 isn’t used up in the reactor and our Candos can run on previously spent fuel. The new generations GEs are actually being designed to use spent fuel so once the USA changes it’s policy on spent fuel these will use up your spent fuel inventories. Sadly politics is holding you back…for now.
whip5209
Ken McIntyre 1
Road bedding? Good grief! All that expense just to bury 'em in a road fill?
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 1
Yes, nuclear power is the most reliable way for a utility to generate electricity in a reliable, safe and cost-efficient way. But this discussion is about electric powered aircraft, and putting a nuclear reactor on an aircraft was explored in the 1950s and rejected on engineering, weight and safety grounds. Unlike Eviation's plane, the nuclear powered B36 never left the ground.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Uh, there's still the issue of having a source to charge electric aircraft, autos and the rest of teh green crap the liberal idiots are pushing.

Have you not been following the news in California? One day, they announce the ban of selling fossil fuel vehicles and the next day they're telling people not to charge their electric vehicles due to a strain on the electrical grid.

We haven't even discussed how most homes older than thirty years typically have only sixty-amp service. And, a hundred-amp service on a fully-electric home won't be enough to put an auto on a charger for a full charge during the night, especially on very cold and very hot nights.

Yes, the source of that electricity is very much a concern. Funny how that doesn't get discussed other than the liberal idiots shutting down coal-fired powerplants to get rid of coal fire emissions.
pcal53
Pat Calabrese 2
Hooray! A person who gets it! Good for you! Try flying to Hawaii on an electric plane. I rather swim there!😂
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 5
Harbour Air in Vancouver has been working on electric flight since 2019 which makes total sense for them where most of their flights are seaplane journeys of less than an hour (I think their longest flight is to Seattle). It will a long time before it will be practical beyond short journeys but in this niche area it should work rather well. In some remote areas it might actually be superior because you would not have to truck/ship/fly fuel in but could charge it from solar or wind power.
SorenTwin
SorenTwin 8
Congrats to Greg and all the crew at Eviation. Cheers from everyone at Viking Air!
johntaylor571
John Taylor 4
Electric airplanes? Yeah, that's gonna be a hard no for me. Since you can't pull over when your battery dies or suddenly catches on fire from overheating, it's only fossil fuels for me in the air.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 0
Just curious but what do you do when you run out of fuel now?
n555cf
rbt schaffer 4
Been following battery tech for a while now. Current LiPhFe is maybe 200Wh/kg.. some promising new tech is showing 1000 Wh/kg... Or 5X the power to weight of existing batteries and charge times of 5 minutes... Only a matter of time now that science is devoting time to research.... They laughed at those Wright Brothers
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 4
I expect that long haul electric aviation will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
That presents a volatile risk that makes a firecracker in the palm look like nothing.
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 3
No more risky than carrying tons of Jet A1.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
Charge times of 5 minutes? I have never seen anything like that and can’t imagine the voltage and/or amps it will take to do that. Not to mention the risk of a battery explosion. Either post a link to that claim or I am going to assume you just made it up in which case the rest of your post is irrelevant.
brwitte1
Barry Witte 6
Keeping politics out of it - I just want to say some technical things: When a conventional plane runs out of fuel, it is much lighter than when taking off, so the glide distance and stall speeds improve. In an electric, a dead battery weighs the same as a fully charged one. Please keep that in mind.

Personally, I can't wait to fly an electric GA plane, if the response is as good as a Tesla is on the road compared to a gas car.

I also agree with many posters that long-haul may never realize electric propulsion. Military would never go electric. (Imagine instead of a drop tank, a drop battery?)

Note: No one that I know of is saying that society needs to get to zero carbon - we just need to reduce greatly where we can (and should.) GA and maybe even short hop commuter aircraft make sense to electrify. Consider the maintenance costs!
jetpackted
Hal Gates 3
You're right, like any technical question, the answer is going to be a combination of approaches- long haul and heavy lift missions are pretty different from training and short commute missions and vice versa (why ferrying a Cessna to Hawaii becomes newsworthy- it's not normally meant to do that).
n555cf
rbt schaffer 1
Military will probably have a fleet of those Jewish Space Lasers in orbit. Dial up your GPS coordinates and it'll beam down a recharge in flight....
SamHobbs
Sam Hobbs 1
I wonder how practical it would be for in-flight recharging like they do in-flight refueling. I suppose the charge time would be a problem. In the future at least it will be possible to use drones to do the recharging.
mbrews
mbrews 1
bartmiller makes a good point in this thread. Weights are given in the article -

" 8000 lbs of battery to fly a 16,000 lbs plane? How does that compare to a turboprop with similar performance? "


I'll add Another point : AFAIK, the 8000 pound figure doesn't include weight of 2 electric propulsion motors.

Well, there's no sense calculating a ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) for this model. As Barry points out, the "fuel mass" never changes !

sheepshagger99
Chris Maguire 1
a totally sensible comment - good one Barry
dmboss1021
Dan Boss 5
Electric airplanes are pipe dreams, novelties, and not at all practical. There are not enough specialized mineral resources to make a few percent of the global passenger cars into electrics, let alone to mass produce aircraft if there were a tiny market niche for them. See this evaluation of a certified trainer electric - which has only a 20 minute range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNtLBLveeM (Pipistrel Velis Electro: Cool, But Not For The U S Market)

Suffice to say, you are not going to get passenger aircraft with severely limited range and payloads to be economically viable. Not to mention a loss of 30-50% of battery capacity when it's cold, and a host of other "issues". (like liquid cooling systems for both motor and batteries)
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 4
It's a good thing Orville and Wilber ignored all those who said it couldn't be done.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 4
That is a true statement but neglects the fact that unpowered, winged flight had been going on for quite some time by that point. All they did was put well tested and proven technology, internal combustion engines, to push them along in the air onboard their Wright Flyer.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 0
Also, neither wind turbine blades nor lithium batteries are recyclable.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 2
Ooops, wrong comment. Sorry...
sheepshagger99
Chris Maguire 3
Yep - and they were "Wright" - sustained powered flight was not possible until they got power - until an ICE was invented that could do it..... and, it also made cycled powered attempts redundant.
sheepshagger99
Chris Maguire 1
..... and, that was proven by aviator Richard Pierce - a bit before the Wright brothers did it, in the South Island of NZ
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
History has forgotten Richard Pierce because he didn’t get the press involved.
sheepshagger99
Chris Maguire 8
Yesterday, the Southern hemispheres 1st all Electric passenger ferry just stopped utterly dead, in the middle of Wellington harbour which is not small & prone to extreme weather conditions, everyone had to be taken off & it was towed to shore - nobody is sure why it suddenly did that without any warning - - thank goodness it wasn't an aircraft .....
n555cf
rbt schaffer 5
Read through NTSB accident reports and see how many fuel engines 'stop dead'... Very few moving parts on electric and 95%+ efficient... Be interesting to see future developments.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 4
Engine stoppage on pistons or turboprops are almost entirely caused by fuel exhaustion.
Rainoxer
What is your point? Are ICE vehicles fault-proof?
sheepshagger99
Chris Maguire -1
I'm "just say'n" ....oh, and several days later, they still can't figure out why it just out of the blue, no warning, just plumb up & ceased to work .... utterly & completely powerless ... no flashing red light bulbs, oh, and no rudder ....

And - to your point - ICE engines, hell, an idiot can fix most of them ....
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
If an idiot can fix an ICE why do you need so much training to work on one? Maybe head on down to the shop and ask the idiots working on the plane you are flying in how simple their job is?
Only an idiot assumes that other people are idiots based on their career choices.
jbbooks1
Lewis Tripp 3
Never will I.
pixelvt
Bill Fox 2
for those interested, check out Beta Technologies, also developing and flying an electric aircraft successfully. Based in Burlington, VT (where I used to live), I have seen it flying several times. Their mission is different that Eviation, they are a vertical takeoff aircraft designed for package delivery. I love this stuff, but I still want a gas car, preferable with some guts,, go figure
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7773_en.php 777-300 specs.

max. Takeoff Weight 299.370 kg 660.000 lbs
max. Landing Weight 237.680 kg 524.000 lbs

So, in the real world the delta between MTOW and MLW for a 777-300 is 136,000 lbs.

Tell me how you 'dump batteries' after an engine fail on departure for a reasonable MLW that means the landing gear and associated structure don't have to weigh as much as the batteries!

A nit, I know, but there are more!
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 1
For aircraft larger than small commuter transports, the power source will likely be hydrogen fuel cells, not batteries. You can dump hydrogen.
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 1
OK....well done for the starship look alike! Question is, how long does it take to charge batteries after 400 nm flight and how much? Just saying!
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
It’s a start but with a range of 440 nm (500 miles) it’s not going to be a very practical commercial aircraft.
flybd5juan
Juan Jimenez 1
This is like Gillette making razors with more and more blades. Eventually they will have 25 blades and there will be reports of people shaving their faces clean off.
kearny
William Street 1
briansfreeman
Brian Freeman 1
I just want to see their extension cord...
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
LOL that would make a good cartoon.
Reality is it won’t be much bigger then the cables used to start jet engines now. The real question is how long are these planes going to be sitting on the ground charging between flights.
owengrzanich
Owen Grzanich 0
I don't think electric is quite logical... what happens if the battery dies??
SorenTwin
SorenTwin 11
Something very similar to when one runs out of fuel.
owengrzanich
Owen Grzanich 0
You also have to mine for lithium so is it saving the envoirment?
SorenTwin
SorenTwin 5
And fuel comes from...... Where?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 5
Fossil fuels come from well below the surface. Battery mineral components are mined ON the surface.
NF2G
David Stark 3
Totally different "mining" techniques. Surface (or strip) mining is arguably more harmful to the environment than deep mining or drilling.
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 7
Yes because the outcome is less CO2 in the atmosphere.
NF2G
David Stark 2
But more water vapor, which is really the NUMBER ONE greenhouse gas. That is the real inconvenient truth for the greenies.
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 2
While it’s true that water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas, it gets precipitated as rain so the amount of water in the atmosphere is basically constant. Carbon dioxide keeps accumulating as we have seen over the past 200 years.
dmboss1021
Dan Boss 2
C'mon, stop drinking the kool-aid! CO2 is the essence of LIFE, as on essential for plants. Plants die at 150 ppm, and we reached 180 ppm at height of the last ice age. It has been as high as 7,000 ppm when the largest explosion of LIFE occurred on this planet, 540 million years ago! Furthermore, CO2 vs temperature in the longer geological record, shows CO2 concentration lags temperature by as much as 800 years. The cause cannot come after the effect! In fact humans releasing some of the huge amounts of sequestered CO2 back from whence it came, the atmosphere is forestalling the extinction of all life, because CO2 has been on a downward slide for several million years and all life dies when plants die at 150 ppm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c&t=1691s (Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?)
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 1
David & Dan, as aviators (which I assume you are), you know that your life depends on those scientists whose work enables us to calculate MTOW, rotation airspeed, minimum runway length, minimum fuel load, etc. etc., yet you choose to believe a few pseudo-scientists like Patrick Moore whose theories have been discredited by the vast majority of climate scientists. These climate scientists are just as educated, dedicated, hard-working, ethical and apolitical as aeronautical scientists. When they warn us that we must cap CO2 levels or condemn our children and grandchildren to irreversible consequences, they know what they are talking about.
NF2G
David Stark 3
Sorry, but scientists follow the funding. Government scientists follow the party line, which is what controls the funding.
owengrzanich
Owen Grzanich 0
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Uh, Patrick Moore applies enough common sense to tell us nuclear power is our best option until such time technology allows us to have a better option.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
LOL I remember when Patrick Moore was the darling of the left. Now because he has seen the effects of his early idealism the left hates him.
I prefer facts over idealism and the simple facts are as Dan said, CO2 is essential to life and historically life has flourished when the Earth had 4 times the amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as it does today. The CO2 from fossil fuel originally came from the atmosphere so obviously it will not kill us all like the fear mongers claim. The earth will get warmer, we will adapt and probably flourish due to increased crop yields and more arable land. So let’s cool it with the fear peddled by con men like Al Gore who are getting rich off this and start preparing for the future. And maybe that future will have electric air travel or maybe not based on the technology changes we embrace.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
LOL I remember when Patrick Moore was the darling of the left. Now because he has seen the effects of his early idealism the left hates him.
I prefer facts over idealism and the simple facts are as Dan said, CO2 is essential to life and historically life has flourished when the Earth had 4 times the amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as it does today. The CO2 from fossil fuel originally came from the atmosphere so obviously it will not kill us all like the fear mongers claim. The earth will get warmer, we will adapt and probably flourish due to increased crop yields and more arable land. So let’s cool it with the fear peddled by con men like Al Gore who are getting rich off this and start preparing for the future. And maybe that future will have electric air travel or maybe not based on the technology changes we embrace.
NF2G
David Stark 1
CO2 accumulation that has been attributed to the Industrial Revolution has recently been found to have taken over twice as long as originally thought. The IR did not "trigger" any catastrophic climate change (at least not in terms of atmospheric carbon). Volcanic eruptions send more particulates into the atmosphere in a few days than the industrialized world does in decades.
kearny
William Street 1
Have you folks seen the lithium ponds there is no way to get rid of the bad batteries. What is worse acid tanks all over the world or a little fossil fuel.
bentwing60
bentwing60 -3
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gavin-newsom-blasted-asking-californians-avoid-charging-electric-vehicles-heat-wave

The new world order mantra that electricity actually comes from thin air, (windmills), and pols., as opposed to the reality of a charging station connected to a natural gas, bulk oil, coal fired, nuclear, water powered turbine generator, (bye bye Vegas, on several counts, Lake Mead is dry), actual producers of billable and utile electricity, rain or shine wind blow or no!

A long revered Icon from none other than newsome ville once said,

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."

https://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/t/john-wayne-on-stupidity/
btweston
btweston 4
So we’re destroying our planet, so we should destroy it more? And something about John Wayne.

I bet you tell the best stories down at the Elks lodge.
Jason1st
Crandall Jason 2
If you can’t counter any of your opponents comments……. call him names.
bentwing60
bentwing60 0
A gas lighter, extraordinaire!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Do you have any clue of the harm done to the world by the mine pits being dug to harvest the minerals used in batteries?

We've been digging for decades for use of these minerals in lubricants. But, now massive use in auto batteries has stepped up the demand so much that I've seen seven wholesale price increases in the industrial lubricants I sell, all since January 2021.
jbbooks1
Lewis Tripp 2
Absolutely.
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
8000 lbs of battery to fly a 16,000 lbs plane? How does that compare to a turboprop with similar performance?
dmboss1021
Dan Boss 3
It looks like the Piaggio Avanti:
http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/
The Avanti carries 8 passengers and 2 crew, has a max takeoff weight of 12,100 lbs; carries 2,800 lbs of fuel; cruise speed is 400+ knots; ceiling is 41,000 ft; range is 1,490 nm; power plants are Pratt-Whitney PT6A-66B engines = 850 Shaft horsepower each (634 kw each)

With max fuel of 2,800 lbs, it has a net payload of 1,300 lbs.
mbrews
mbrews 1
Thanks for the clear posting, Dan. Similar passenger count. Similar HP / kW engine rating
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Thank you Dan. That is a fair comparison with this Electric Plane that weighs 16,500 lbs and a range of 440 nm.
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 1
when the gov't is the issuer of license, what need is there of comparison?
mbrews
mbrews 2
You might want to read this long article about FAA review of the electric engine type -

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/27/2021-19926/special-conditions-magnix-usa-inc-magni350-and-magni650-model-engines-electric-engine-airworthiness

IMHO - the reviewer brushes aside many industry comments, grants an approval with conditions, and punts some concerns to the airframe review stage.

KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Pete the Idiot, who cannot fix potholes in his little city, is running the FAA under Biden. Any question presented by the seasoned commercial pilot actually heading the FAA will be overturned by Pete.

This joke of a plane will get approved in a way that makes the 737 Max scandal look harmless.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane -2
This excuse for an aircraft and a King Air 250 aren't even comparable in capability and endurance.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 3
You are right, they are not.

But I would caution against dismissing a concept entirely based on its very first implementation. If the company survives (and that’s not a given), they will eventually produce new models with improved performance. That’s how progress is made, and there will come a day when aircraft based on electric propulsion will be competitive with turboprops and even jets.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane -3
I'm betting the idiots voting down my comments are clueless on aircraft performance and voting purely based on liberal stupidity and the green bullcrap. They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Wile I disagree with bringing politics into the discussion of aircraft performance it would be interesting to see those who downvoted your comment post an argument as to why they think you were wrong.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Yep. The liberal idiots are running wild.

They're too stupid to have a cogent argument.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
Not a chance in hell!

There are too many batterie fires associated with autos.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Liberal idiots cannot counter my remarks so they vote them down.
NF2G
David Stark 0
So, back to propellers is progress?
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 12
Propellers never went away. Most of the thrust from a fanjet comes from its (ducted) propeller.
jetpackted
Hal Gates 5
In fact, propellers have distinct advantages for certain missions- why the Caravan is so successful for STOL work, for example.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
There is a difference between an advantage of turboprops verses electric motors. Endurance is significantly less on the latter. The more speed you demand and/or torque to carry the weight, the less endurance. Those demands are less effect on fuel use than an electric power cell.
NF2G
David Stark 0
Speed is not one of them. Want to go back to 22 hours KORD-PHNL?

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss