On May 25, 1994, my wife, Deb, and I departed from Spokane, Washington (KGEG) and flew non-stop in our Beech Baron to Grand Forks, North Dakota (KGFK).
SkyVector reminds me that leg is 822 nautical miles. We covered that distance in 5.1 hours, according to my logbook.
As of Jan. 8, 2025, I’m not aware of any electric aircraft that can fly the same route non-stop.
According to eVTOL News, the Joby has a max cruise speed of 200 mph, a range of 100 miles (including energy reserves), and a 1,000 pound max payload.
And BETA Technologies states its ALIA CX300 CTOL, an all-electric aircraft, has a max cruise speed of 135 knots, a range of 336 nm, and 1,000-1,400 pound max payload (depending on interior configuration).
Archer Aviation’s Midnight will cruise at 150 mph for 20 to 50 miles, per eVTOL News and have a max payload of 1,000 pounds.
I’ve read many comments from readers critical of electric aircraft. They often cite the lack of energy per pound of battery compared to a pound of 100LL as a huge challenge.
And they’re right. 100LL packs a lot more energy per pound than a battery. And that’s just one argument against our new-ish powered lift siblings.
But is that a reason to believe electric aircraft don’t have a future? Any future?
A ground-bound parallel
In 1930 Alexander Winton wrote an entertaining story for the Saturday Evening Post about his reflections on his time as the automobile first came into existence.
“To advocate replacing the horse, which had served man through centuries, marked one as an imbecile. Things are very different today. But in the 1890s, even though I had a successful bicycle business, and was building my first car in the privacy of the cellar in my home, I began to be pointed out as ‘the fool who is fiddling with a buggy that will run without being hitched to a horse.’ My banker called on me to say: ‘Winton, I am disappointed in you.’”
Or this, via DangerousMinds.com, “According to Horatio’s Drive, a 2003 PBS documentary by Ken Burns, Vermont passed a law requiring a person to walk in front of the car waving a red flag, which rather defeated the purpose of using the car in the first place. In Glencoe, Illinois, someone stretched a length of steel cable across a road in an effort to stop ‘the devil wagons.’ Some cities banned automobiles outright.”
We all know how the automobile story ultimately turned out.
What’s your mission?
Many years ago I enjoyed a long and winding conversation with a recruiter from Empire Airlines. We were exhibit neighbors at the Arlington Fly-In in Washington. It was a slow Sunday and we discussed the lifestyle and perks of being an Empire pilot.
I’ve thought of that conversation many times over the years.
Assuming operations are the same, Empire pilots depart Sea-Tac International Airport (KSEA) in a company Cessna Caravan in the morning and fly to one of five Puget Sound-area airports and check into a hotel until they fly back to KSEA in the afternoon. At that point, their day is done. Two legs. One out, one back.
Not one of the five airports are more than 100 nm from KSEA. The furthest is Bellingham (KBLI) at 81.1 nm. Via road, KSEA to KBLI is 107 miles and more than two hours (if you don’t hit traffic).
From the Cessna website, the Caravan boasts a 186 ktas max cruise speed, a 1,070 nm max range, and a full fuel payload of 1,081 pounds. The benefit of a Caravan, in this case, is if you want to carry more load, don’t fill the fuel tanks. The Caravan has max payload of 3,070 pounds. But you won’t likely get very far. Plus, you’ll benefit from decades of experience and thousands (3,000 as of early 2023) of airframes in the fleet, both of which count for a lot.
Depending on the average payload, the profile of the Empire KSEA route structure meets the ALIA 250’s mission pretty well. Short flight followed by a lot of time on the ground. Perfect for charging the batteries.
But that is commercial aviation, not personal aviation.
If I only needed to fly 80 to 100 miles and carry 1,000 pounds (or less) of payload, I might seriously consider an electric aircraft.
Alas, that doesn’t fit my mission. But it doesn’t mean it won’t work.
All E-aircraft need is a ‘Mister Fusion’ from Back to the Future. Until then they will haul around a ‘ton’ of batteries and require some very expensive charging infrastructure to replenish the energy.
Until then, I’ll continue to enjoy burning some avgas in my old Cessna with all it’s analog instruments and wind up clock, and the sound of it’s 6-cylinder Continental, GO-300.
The ability to change fuel load to meet a given loading scenario is a great advantage to conventionally-powered aircraft. Developing new electric aircraft is expensive, and you might think that retrofitting existing airframes with new propulsion systems is the answer. However, I’d expect that to be challenging to put into actual operation (vs. proof of concept). Most aircraft today have landing weight limitations which assume the consumption of fuel. You can’t take advantage of that design approach with batteries, so existing airframes are immediately hobbled by this limitation.
Commercial operators and flight schools likely have the best outcomes for electric airplanes as they can set up for the battery swap method vs. charging in the aircraft. It will be interesting to see what use cases are successful.
I love to read about new planes, the ones where marketing people want it to go 200 kts and 1,000 NM and carry 1,900 pound of cargo. However, when (and if) these planes ever make it to production they never seem to have those numbers.
This has nothing to do with acceptance of electric propulsion for vehicles or aircraft. Electric self-launching gliders have been around for decades. The very first cars were powered by batteries – over a century ago. This is about the laws of physics. There is nothing that comes close to the energy density, efficiency, and portability of liquid fossil fuels, ie gasoline and diesel. Listen to the engineers like me and not the fake scientists and climate crisis hucksters.
Kent, I am not sure we read the same article. There was no mention of climate or hucksters that I saw? Electric motors are in fact MORE efficient than any combustion engine, are much cheaper to run, arguably more reliable, and require less maintenance, so there’s that. Yes, what you said about portability, energy density, absolutely, I agree, and Ben suggested same regarding his trip to Grand Forks years ago. The point was there is a place for it NOW with a specific mission in mind, not ALL missions, but a specific mission. Harbour Air in Vancouver is in a similar situation, hence the title of the article and the specifics about the limitations of the present technology…..
I think that the exploration of different energy options is a good idea, even though some options may not immediately seem to be anything but folly. I am a bit surprised that aviation has not done more with roll-on roll-off battery or fuel cells. I can imagine landing at an FBO and have a robot controlled energy system remove the fuel cell and replace it with a new fully charged fuel cell while the cargo is being offloaded.
This ro-ro method may not be economical for Li-ion batteries but it might be perfect for hydrogen or other alternative fuel cells.
Perhaps Tesla has done the analysis of the ro-ro method of refueling and decided that charging stations were the better option for now. However, the ro-ro option seems to fit the American style of travel much better. Imagine pulling into an energy station that has sent you a signal that they have fuel cells ready. You pull in, and instead of waiting an hour to charge your Tesla or airplane, the robot pulls your nearly depleted fuel cell and re-installs a fresh fuel cell in less than one minute.