Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Electric planes

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
750 Horsepower Electric Aviation Engine Tested By MagniX | CleanTechnica

Our vision at magniX is to connect communities with low-cost, efficient, and clean electric aviation. To start this third age of aviation, the electric age, we have decided to focus on ‘Middle-Mile’ aviation, flights between 50-1000 miles in range. Given today’s battery technology, the shortest path to begin this revolution is with commercial aircraft that are designed to take 5-9 passengers this distance. These are aircraft such as the Beaver, Caravan, Otter, and King Air to name a few. The most prevailing engine that currently powers these types of aircraft is in the 750HP range and thus we selected that power level to begin with.
 
How or will Tesla becomes involved in some capacity with Electric Aircraft?

in terms of global carbon emissions, Aircraft are a significant contributor, so it makes sense given the Tesla mission statement that it would consider entering the Electric Aircraft space.

I know Elon Musk has mused about a supersonic VTOL electric aircraft (see his appearance on the Joe Roger podcast), and IIRC he implied it probably wouldn’t be something he used Tesla to build.

However there are a growing number of Electric aircraft companies in existence, some of which are actually close to launching relatively conventional, reasonably priced, if small, models for airlines to use.

A good example is the Eviation Alice - an 11 seater commuter plane with a 900KW battery and 1000km range: Eviation Alice - Wikipedia

Does it make sense for Tesla to create a similar product, and/or partner with these companies as a battery supplier?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
Good luck on the rating! I've been flying (powered) both professionally and personally for 25 years but have never been in a glider. Earning my glider rating is something I have always wanted to do. Let me know how it works out.

I passed my checkride about 3 weeks ago. It was my examiner's first checkride, so there was an FAA employee there are well to make sure that he followed all the correct procedures. The shocking thing for me comparing ASEL to Glider flying is when you can consider doing the "impossible turn". While you need maybe 600' to consider turning back to the runway you just took off from after an engine failure in a powered airplane, you make the same turn in a glider (after a rope break for example) at just 200' of altitude.

I'd definitely suggest going for a glider flight and/or pursuing your rating. The requirements for an add-on rating are pretty low (get to solo stage; 10 solo flights; 3 dual flights to prep for the checkride). It only cost me about $1,100 for the add-on rating. Looks like there's a glider operation Philadelphia Glider Council | Fly a Glider Plane | Bucks County, PA about 40 miles North of Philadelphia.

I plan on going to the Soaring Society of America Convention SSA Convention in late Feb of this year. The Taurus Electro owner from Texas is going to be there giving a couple presentations on the aircraft and I'm sure there will be other electric self-launch gliders there as well. SSA's latest Soaring magazine had an article on the single-place GP Gliders GP 15 JETA electric self-launching glider. Both a Taurus Electro and GP15 JETA and hopefully other electric gliders should be at the SSA Convention.
 
Elon's thinking IMO is:

1) Need a product that beats the current technology in all areas - that is the VTOL supersonic aircraft. Of all the products Elon has discussed, this one is the most clear in his head - just waiting on battery advances.
2) Given that you are constrained by proximity of airfields, for most shorter journeys you would be better off travelling autonomously by car - he doesn't want to compete with himself
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash and MC3OZ
Elon's thinking IMO is:

1) Need a product that beats the current technology in all areas - that is the VTOL supersonic aircraft. Of all the products Elon has discussed, this one is the most clear in his head - just waiting on battery advances.
2) Given that you are constrained by proximity of airfields, for most shorter journeys you would be better off travelling autonomously by car - he doesn't want to compete with himself

This makes sense to me, a good VTOL design should be very safe, if it has some kind of built in redundancy...... and requires a lot less space for take off/landing ...

Whether or not Tesla would build it depends on priorities, and money, I guess, they still have a lot of products in the pipeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buckminster
This makes sense to me, a good VTOL design should be very safe, if it has some kind of built in redundancy...... and requires a lot less space for take off/landing ...

Whether or not Tesla would build it depends on priorities, and money, I guess, they still have a lot of products in the pipeline.

If Tesla ends up with more battery production than it could make use of, it could potentially do well to start supplying to aircraft manufacturers, particularly if it has an energy density and / or life cycle advantage (aircraft batteries are probably going to need charging multiple times a day potentially.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MC3OZ
Tesla can't just supply aircraft manufacturers with batteries since these would not be FAA certified and they cannot operate at altitudes where high voltage presents very different challenges (check out Paschen's law for starters). In other words, aircraft batteries need to be designed to an entirely different set of specifications.

Tesla certainly has the expertise to design a new pack that would meet those specifications, pulling from SpaceX expertise, but we are talking about a considerable expense that they are not going to commit for funny startups or the eVTOL du jour. I just don't see this happening in the near future. When they will be ready, I think they will want to also do the aircraft.
 
Tesla can't just supply aircraft manufacturers with batteries since these would not be FAA certified and they cannot operate at altitudes where high voltage presents very different challenges (check out Paschen's law for starters). In other words, aircraft batteries need to be designed to an entirely different set of specifications.

Tesla certainly has the expertise to design a new pack that would meet those specifications, pulling from SpaceX expertise, but we are talking about a considerable expense that they are not going to commit for funny startups or the eVTOL du jour. I just don't see this happening in the near future. When they will be ready, I think they will want to also do the aircraft.
SpaceX is using Tesla battery packs in new 'Starship' Mars vehicle prototype - Electrek
I am sure changes will be needed but they have years to develop against the requirement.
 
Tesla can't just supply aircraft manufacturers with batteries since these would not be FAA certified and they cannot operate at altitudes where high voltage presents very different challenges (check out Paschen's law for starters). In other words, aircraft batteries need to be designed to an entirely different set of specifications.
Cells are sealed devices, as are the high voltage switching contactors, not sure how altitude would come into play.
 
Cells are sealed devices, as are the high voltage switching contactors, not sure how altitude would come into play.

Right, at the cell level or even the module level it's probably not involving much more than reviewing failure modes. I was more thinking about the pack level. Anything that goes past +/-270VDC is breaking new grounds as far as aircraft certification is concerned, sealed or not.

Not helping is that certification agencies are generally turning apoplectic whenever the word automotive appears as a system source.
 
If planes were electric, and quiet like an EV, then I wouldn't mind living next to a busy airport. It be cool sight to see giant planes flying over your house, but without the noise, so you can sleep when you're done looking at them.

Used to live in a house with a female pilot roommate. She said that at John Wayne Airport, pilots are required to lower engine power to reduce noise levels when going over residential homes.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Brando
@JRP3 the wingtip motors are extremely efficient when rotating opposite the wingtip vortices. But you cannot use these as primary propulsion because of engine out lateral control, as you point out. They only make sense in conjunction with one or more propellers closer inboard on the wing, like the Nasa X-57 Maxwell for example.

I believe I have read that the plan for the Alice is that if either wingtip motor fails, the other will automatically be shut down, and the tail motor will be able to maintain altitude by itself in that case.

It's Electri-Flying: Cape Air Pioneers Flights Without Fossil Fuels has an operating cost estimate.

This article discusses higher energy density batteries that Bye Aerospace is considering using for the eFlyer 2/4; I'm not sure if Eviation is already using planning on using batteries with that energy density, or if those batteries might further extend the range of a plane like the Alice.

https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/10/world-first-electric-seaplane-takes-flight/ reports on a battery powered de Havilland Canada Beaver seaplane having successfully taken off.
 
The higher aspect ratio wings of the Alice Commuter should lower the power demands compared to a more traditional 10 person (9 passengers) aircraft, but would it be enough?

I think I've seen more specific aerodynamic efficiency information about the Bye Aerospace eFlyer planes than about the Eviation Alice. Largest order to date for the all-electric aircraft announced. - Bye Aerospace claims ``The Sun Flyer 2[...]will have[...]a significantly higher lift-to-drag ratio of 20.6, compared to the Skyhawk’s 9.1.'' I think this demonstrates that we shouldn't be assuming electric airplanes will need to apply the same amount of force to a propeller as a similar gasoline airplane. (It's also odd that they're comparing a four seat Cessna 172 to the eFlyer 2; comparing the Cessna 152 to the eFlyer 2, or the Cessna 172 to the eFlyer 4, seems like it might be a more direct comparison.) It also mentions ``The company noted in 2016 that the Sun Flyer’s solar cells will help extend its flight endurance to three hours on a single charge.'' More recent publications don't seem to be mentioning the solar cells, so I'm not sure if they're still planning to include them.

But I'm also wondering if the Manhattan to JFK Airport helicopter flights are short enough that simply removing the liquid fuel burning engine and fuel tank from an existing helicopter and replacing those with an electric motor and batteries would provide enough range for those trips if one is willing to wait for the batteries to recharge after each one way trip. Manhattan-To-JFK Helicopter
 
Last edited: