• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Smithsonian
    Journeys
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Smithsonian
    magazine

AirSpaceMag.com

  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • History of Flight
  • Flight Today
  • Military Aviation
  • Space Exploration
  • Need to Know
  • How Things Work
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Blogs
  • Flight Today

The Electric Airplane

Quiet, smooth, dependable—shouldn’t we be flying these by now?

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email | More
  • By Peter Garrison
  • Air & Space magazine, August 2009
View More Photos »
Sonex models are just right for the team’s electric propulsion kit but Monnett and Buck hope to line up customers flying any 80-hp aircraft. Sonex models are just right for the team’s electric propulsion kit, but Monnett and Buck hope to line up customers flying any 80-hp aircraft.

Sonex Aircraft, LLC

Photo Gallery (1/10)

A 14-motor Helios.

See more photos from the story


It’s just 55 miles from my home airport in Los Angeles to the Tehachapi gliderport where Pete Buck has his hangar, but it’s usually a jarring flight through torrents of wind that tumble eastward off the mountains like whitewater. Not today. The air is perfectly still. The hundreds of huge windmills that dot the ridges are motionless, the sky is without clouds, the visibility without limit. I’ve pulled the rpm way back, so that the grumble of the engine, through earplugs and a headset, recedes into the distance. The airplane seems to slide along frictionlessly, like a skater coasting, hands in pockets, on a pond of infinite blue.

An engineer with a youthful manner and a day job at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Buck, 51, is waiting on the ramp when I taxi in. As we walk to his hangar, only our voices, and the occasional chirp of a bird, disturb the universal calm.

I’ve come to talk with Buck about a novel airplane he’s developing. It’s an electric airplane—common enough in RC modeling, but still an oddity in the passenger-carrying world. Electric flying is going to be something like my flight this morning: not trying to get somewhere far off in a hurry, but just the beautiful sensation of being suspended in the air, of flight for its own sake. It’s often said that every great advance in aviation begins with a new kind of engine; I suppose that putting electric motors into airplanes is such an advance, but in a somewhat backward direction: toward lower power, slower airplanes, less noise and stress, and a return to those jolly early days when merely to rise up into the air made you feel like some sort of god.

Electric flight goes back surprisingly far. In the 1880s a couple of French army officers named Renard and Krebs gave a hydrogen-filled dirigible, La France, huge batteries and an 8-horsepower electric motor that enabled it to do what no balloon had done before: return to its launch site at the end of a flight.

After that early triumph, however, all went quiet on the man-carrying electric-aircraft front and remained so for about 90 years. The current renaissance began with Robert Boucher, who pioneered the use of electric motors for model airplanes and in the early 1970s built a couple of pilotless solar-powered aircraft under contracts with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In 1979, the late Paul MacCready, whose Gossamer series of human-powered airplanes had brought him international fame, began working with Boucher. MacCready’s company, AeroVironment, first tested an electric version of the piloted Gossamer Penguin, then went on to build Solar Challenger, whose two tandem wings were covered with more than 16,000 solar cells. Boucher’s company, AstroFlight, whose principal business today is miniature motors and related gear for RC modelers, supplied the five-horsepower motor. Solar Challenger had no batteries; it collected sufficient energy from sunlight—4,400 watts—to take off, climb to 14,000 feet, and cruise at 40 mph. In 1979 it made a five-hour, 170-mile flight across the English Channel, consuming no fuel whatever. Today it resides, deservedly, in the Smithsonian.

AeroVironment later built a series of ever-larger, unmanned solar-powered airplanes, culminating in the 247-foot, 14-motor flying-wing Helios, which, when it flew, resembled a phalanx of semi-inflated air mattresses bobbing on rough water. The eventual aim of the project was to circle for days as a sort of low-level observation or communications satellite, collecting and storing sufficient energy during daylight hours to sustain itself through the night. AeroVironment was never quite able to achieve that goal; the latest iteration in its long-running quest for “eternal flight,” Global Observer, is powered by a hybrid system in which a highly efficient hydrogen-burning reciprocating engine drives a generator that in turn powers four electric motors. It is expected to be able to remain aloft for five days, in part because hydrogen has three times as much oomph, per pound, as gasoline. But the idea of an airplane that consumes no fuel continues to intrigue experimenters and adventurers; in Switzerland, one team has just crossed the Alps on solar power alone, and another has announced plans for an airplane, Solar Impulse, that is intended to circle the globe.
 
When Pete Buck “started poking at an electric airplane,” as he puts it, he visited the same man Paul MacCready turned to: Robert Boucher at AstroFlight. “He mentored me in the design of the motor,” says Buck, who, besides working at Lockheed Martin, is the chief engineer of Sonex, an Oshkosh, Wisconsin aircraft kit manufacturer. Buck and Sonex founder John Monnett are working on an electric conversion for one of the company’s kits, an aluminum, V-tail two-seater called Waiex (pronounced “Y-X”). Replacing a gasoline engine with an electric motor and some batteries sounds like a simple matter—those are familiar technologies, after all—but it turns out to be harder than it looks.

The project began a decade ago, when Buck and Monnett tossed around a whimsical idea for an electric airplane they called Flash Flight. It would have stayed aloft for 10 minutes on a bunch of D cells, and might have had potential for an ad campaign. Today, Buck dismisses it: “We finally decided it was silly, and it wouldn’t work anyway.” But he had caught the electric bug. He and Monnett outlined a more ambitious project: a genuine airplane, one that could stay aloft at least 20 minutes and, preferably, an hour and a half.

Their electric motor, a small cylinder bristling with cooling fins, is typical of the class of motor suitable for aviation: a 270-volt, 72-hp brushless DC unit with samarium-cobalt rare-earth magnets—the kind you would need a chisel to pry off your refrigerator door.

Magnetic forces—attraction and repulsion—cause the rotor (an electromagnet) of an electric motor to spin. Some types use two metal tabs, or brushes, with opposite charges; during each revolution, the rotor comes into contact with first one brush, then the other, each time switching its polarity. To perform the same function, a brushless electric motor relies on a solid-state switching device called a controller. Rapid switching of high-voltage currents, however, turns out to be difficult. The currents have momentum, just like moving water, and a random surge can quickly vaporize even quite massive transistors. Another problem is more mundane: The motors are hard to start.

“The controller is really where it’s at,” Buck says. “It should be cookbook, but it’s not that easy. None of us recognized the complexity. There are only a few people who know how to do it, and they aren’t talking.”

The battery pack consists of a stack of thin lithium-polymer cells that resemble foil-wrapped legal pads. “We always thought the batteries would come to us,” Buck says—meaning that they sized the airplane and motor for batteries that didn’t yet exist. “There are batteries out there that have five times the energy density of those we can buy today, but they’re only in the lab.” And the Sonex team wanted the electric airplane to be comparable in price to the aircraft now being built from the Waiex kits. “We’ve always believed in an airplane that would be available at a price the average pilot could afford,” says Buck, “so that the whole airplane, including the engine, would cost about the same as a new car, around $26,000.”

Batteries are, in the final analysis, the key to the whole project. Controllers are tricky but feasible; motors are delicate and expensive, but technically straightforward. It’s really on batteries—developing ones that are powerful, durable, and not prone to burst into flame if mistreated—that the future of electric airplanes hangs.

A gasoline powerplant, with its fuel, accounts for about a quarter of an airplane’s takeoff weight. An electric powerplant is somewhat heavier to begin with; it adds 75 pounds to the weight of the Waiex because the batteries alone weigh 200 pounds. The big disadvantage is that the energy available from all those batteries is equivalent to only a couple of gallons of gasoline. Observes Buck: “We pilots would consider that ‘unusable’ ”—the technical term for dregs in the bottom of the fuel tank that may not be available in all flight attitudes.

Buck aims at an airplane of conventional dimensions—with a little more wingspan than most, but able to be tucked comfortably into an ordinary hangar—and having climbing and cruising capability comparable to that of a gasoline-powered airplane in every respect except, perhaps, duration of flight. In other words, he and Monnett want to prove that an electric airplane can look and fly just like a gas-powered one.

Greg Cole sees things a little differently.

Cole, 46, is a freelance aeronautical engineer. His Oregon company, Windward Performance, produces a carbon-fiber sailplane called the SparrowHawk, which, at 155 pounds empty, weighs less than many of the pilots who fly it. Cole is a bit of a visionary. He is concerned not just about the price of gasoline, but also about aviation as a whole—the possibility that the cost and the complexity and stress of flying modern airplanes might drive people away from flying. He is not just an engineer; he is a reformer. Cole, like Monnett, is preparing to manufacture an electric two-seater. The wingspan of his design is a glider-like 51 feet—a rather cumbersome size for taxiing, parking, and hangarage at many general-aviation airports. The longer an airplane’s wingspan, though, the less power it needs to lift a given weight. Cole’s motor, similar in design to Buck’s but smaller, is rated at just 40 hp. If he can keep his airplane’s empty weight below 500 pounds or so—the SparrowHawk demonstrates his ability to engineer very light, yet strong structures—he will be able to climb at 660 feet a minute and cruise at 70 mph on the electrical equivalent of one gallon of gas per hour. “We need to get into lower-power airplanes,” he says. “We need to do smaller.” He brushes aside objections that his design will not mesh easily with existing infrastructure. Electric—smooth, quiet, non-polluting, and with motors that will never fail or wear out—is “a completely viable way to revolutionize aviation.”

The aviation he is talking about is recreational: “I’m not looking beyond two seats.” His airplane will cost $50 an hour to operate; $30 of that is a reserve for replacing the battery pack after 500 to 1,000 charging cycles. Because the airplane itself has very low drag and is highly efficient, the cost of the electric “fuel” is negligible. Cole’s ultimate vision of sustainability is right out of the Whole Earth Catalog: A couple of small wind-powered generators on the roof of a hangar would, with sufficient wind, provide power for one or two flights a week. In a pinch, he concedes, “You could always top off from [an electric socket in] the wall.”

Cole has made little effort to publicize his project; Monnett, on the other hand, announced his “E-Flight Initiative” in 2007 at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s annual Oshkosh fly-in and displayed a mockup of the new powerplant. But a 59-year-old retired jeweler and self-taught engineer from New Jersey, Randall Fishman, stole a march on both Monnett and Cole. In 2008 Fishman, whom his friends used to call Doctor Gizmo, flew his single-seat electric airplane in front of cheering crowds at Oshkosh. The airframe is a discontinued Moni motor glider (built from a kit designed, coincidentally, by John Monnett before he started Sonex), modified and refitted with an 18-hp electric motor. It can cruise at 70 mph, using just 6 hp to stay aloft. A 90-minute flight consumes 5.6 kilowatt-hours of electricity—about 70 cents’ worth, at present rates. It recharges from a wall outlet in six hours.

“I used to like to fly ultralights, but they were powered by Rotax snowmobile engines,” Fishman says. “They were so loud. And after you flew for a while and landed, your body would still be vibrating.” In his pursuit of quiet, vibration-free flight, Fishman has been honored by the EAA, which recognized his contribution to light aircraft design with the 2008 August Raspet Award. (John Monnett is a previous winner, as is Pete Buck, though not for their work in electric power.) And this year the Lindbergh Foundation awarded him a $10,580 grant.

Like the Wright brothers, Fishman started with a bicycle. He used to have to pedal uphill to get to his jewelry store, and he didn’t want to arrive sweaty. When he saw an ad for an electric bicycle motor, he thought: That would be nice. More than 20 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and several electric conveyances—a scooter, an ultralight Trike, and the
ElectraFlyer-C—later, Fishman is working on a two-place electric airplane he says will be ready to fly this fall. With motor experts, he has developed an electric propulsion kit including 100-hp motor, battery pack and battery management system, and throttle to control the speed at which the batteries discharge.

“We’re using a lot of very inefficient, crappy technologies to waste the gas that we can get so cheap,” says Fishman. “Six-thousand-pound cars to move around people who weigh about 80 pounds. It seems normal to us. This is not the way we should be doing things.”

The irony of electric airplanes is that their economies are tiny. Since electric powerplants are confined, at least for the foreseeable future, to small, light, and slow airplanes that don’t require a lot of energy in the first place, the savings to be realized from using electricity—which is roughly equivalent to $1.50-a-gallon gasoline—is rather small (see “Miles per Kilowatt,” below) . Conventionally powered airplanes with the performance of electric ones use only one or two gallons of fuel an hour, so the difference in direct operating cost is negligible in comparison to the difference in initial outlay: for an airworthy gasoline engine, $100 per horsepower; for an electric powerplant, $400 or more per kilowatt. Greg Cole points out that in 10 years the price of gasoline will probably be “somewhere between bad and horrible.” Besides, the price of fuel isn’t everything; smoothness, quiet, reliability, and freedom from maintenance have value, as would the environmental benevolence of an airplane fueled entirely by locally harvested sunlight or wind.

Outside his hangar, Pete Buck and I survey the rows of tied-down airplanes, sailplanes, and sailplane trailers. Nobody is flying today, because there’s not enough air movement to keep a glider aloft. I reflect upon the dubious economics and ask him point-blank why anybody would buy an electric airplane.

“Stupidity,” he laughs. “It’s just like a hybrid car. You can’t justify a hybrid car economically. You never get the price differential back. Just pump gasoline—there’s nothing better!”

Obviously, he’s kidding. For Buck and Cole and Fishman and others like them, there’s more to it than just a bad bargain. It’s more like a love affair. And if they can fall in love with an idea like this, other people can too. There has to be a reason why, when I’m back in Los Angeles and driving home from the airport, it seems as if every other car I see is a Toyota Prius.

Peter Garrison has flown across the Pacific in a homemade single-engine airplane, but he is afraid of electricity.

It’s just 55 miles from my home airport in Los Angeles to the Tehachapi gliderport where Pete Buck has his hangar, but it’s usually a jarring flight through torrents of wind that tumble eastward off the mountains like whitewater. Not today. The air is perfectly still. The hundreds of huge windmills that dot the ridges are motionless, the sky is without clouds, the visibility without limit. I’ve pulled the rpm way back, so that the grumble of the engine, through earplugs and a headset, recedes into the distance. The airplane seems to slide along frictionlessly, like a skater coasting, hands in pockets, on a pond of infinite blue.

An engineer with a youthful manner and a day job at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Buck, 51, is waiting on the ramp when I taxi in. As we walk to his hangar, only our voices, and the occasional chirp of a bird, disturb the universal calm.

I’ve come to talk with Buck about a novel airplane he’s developing. It’s an electric airplane—common enough in RC modeling, but still an oddity in the passenger-carrying world. Electric flying is going to be something like my flight this morning: not trying to get somewhere far off in a hurry, but just the beautiful sensation of being suspended in the air, of flight for its own sake. It’s often said that every great advance in aviation begins with a new kind of engine; I suppose that putting electric motors into airplanes is such an advance, but in a somewhat backward direction: toward lower power, slower airplanes, less noise and stress, and a return to those jolly early days when merely to rise up into the air made you feel like some sort of god.

Electric flight goes back surprisingly far. In the 1880s a couple of French army officers named Renard and Krebs gave a hydrogen-filled dirigible, La France, huge batteries and an 8-horsepower electric motor that enabled it to do what no balloon had done before: return to its launch site at the end of a flight.

After that early triumph, however, all went quiet on the man-carrying electric-aircraft front and remained so for about 90 years. The current renaissance began with Robert Boucher, who pioneered the use of electric motors for model airplanes and in the early 1970s built a couple of pilotless solar-powered aircraft under contracts with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In 1979, the late Paul MacCready, whose Gossamer series of human-powered airplanes had brought him international fame, began working with Boucher. MacCready’s company, AeroVironment, first tested an electric version of the piloted Gossamer Penguin, then went on to build Solar Challenger, whose two tandem wings were covered with more than 16,000 solar cells. Boucher’s company, AstroFlight, whose principal business today is miniature motors and related gear for RC modelers, supplied the five-horsepower motor. Solar Challenger had no batteries; it collected sufficient energy from sunlight—4,400 watts—to take off, climb to 14,000 feet, and cruise at 40 mph. In 1979 it made a five-hour, 170-mile flight across the English Channel, consuming no fuel whatever. Today it resides, deservedly, in the Smithsonian.

AeroVironment later built a series of ever-larger, unmanned solar-powered airplanes, culminating in the 247-foot, 14-motor flying-wing Helios, which, when it flew, resembled a phalanx of semi-inflated air mattresses bobbing on rough water. The eventual aim of the project was to circle for days as a sort of low-level observation or communications satellite, collecting and storing sufficient energy during daylight hours to sustain itself through the night. AeroVironment was never quite able to achieve that goal; the latest iteration in its long-running quest for “eternal flight,” Global Observer, is powered by a hybrid system in which a highly efficient hydrogen-burning reciprocating engine drives a generator that in turn powers four electric motors. It is expected to be able to remain aloft for five days, in part because hydrogen has three times as much oomph, per pound, as gasoline. But the idea of an airplane that consumes no fuel continues to intrigue experimenters and adventurers; in Switzerland, one team has just crossed the Alps on solar power alone, and another has announced plans for an airplane, Solar Impulse, that is intended to circle the globe.
 
When Pete Buck “started poking at an electric airplane,” as he puts it, he visited the same man Paul MacCready turned to: Robert Boucher at AstroFlight. “He mentored me in the design of the motor,” says Buck, who, besides working at Lockheed Martin, is the chief engineer of Sonex, an Oshkosh, Wisconsin aircraft kit manufacturer. Buck and Sonex founder John Monnett are working on an electric conversion for one of the company’s kits, an aluminum, V-tail two-seater called Waiex (pronounced “Y-X”). Replacing a gasoline engine with an electric motor and some batteries sounds like a simple matter—those are familiar technologies, after all—but it turns out to be harder than it looks.

The project began a decade ago, when Buck and Monnett tossed around a whimsical idea for an electric airplane they called Flash Flight. It would have stayed aloft for 10 minutes on a bunch of D cells, and might have had potential for an ad campaign. Today, Buck dismisses it: “We finally decided it was silly, and it wouldn’t work anyway.” But he had caught the electric bug. He and Monnett outlined a more ambitious project: a genuine airplane, one that could stay aloft at least 20 minutes and, preferably, an hour and a half.

Their electric motor, a small cylinder bristling with cooling fins, is typical of the class of motor suitable for aviation: a 270-volt, 72-hp brushless DC unit with samarium-cobalt rare-earth magnets—the kind you would need a chisel to pry off your refrigerator door.

Magnetic forces—attraction and repulsion—cause the rotor (an electromagnet) of an electric motor to spin. Some types use two metal tabs, or brushes, with opposite charges; during each revolution, the rotor comes into contact with first one brush, then the other, each time switching its polarity. To perform the same function, a brushless electric motor relies on a solid-state switching device called a controller. Rapid switching of high-voltage currents, however, turns out to be difficult. The currents have momentum, just like moving water, and a random surge can quickly vaporize even quite massive transistors. Another problem is more mundane: The motors are hard to start.

“The controller is really where it’s at,” Buck says. “It should be cookbook, but it’s not that easy. None of us recognized the complexity. There are only a few people who know how to do it, and they aren’t talking.”

The battery pack consists of a stack of thin lithium-polymer cells that resemble foil-wrapped legal pads. “We always thought the batteries would come to us,” Buck says—meaning that they sized the airplane and motor for batteries that didn’t yet exist. “There are batteries out there that have five times the energy density of those we can buy today, but they’re only in the lab.” And the Sonex team wanted the electric airplane to be comparable in price to the aircraft now being built from the Waiex kits. “We’ve always believed in an airplane that would be available at a price the average pilot could afford,” says Buck, “so that the whole airplane, including the engine, would cost about the same as a new car, around $26,000.”

Batteries are, in the final analysis, the key to the whole project. Controllers are tricky but feasible; motors are delicate and expensive, but technically straightforward. It’s really on batteries—developing ones that are powerful, durable, and not prone to burst into flame if mistreated—that the future of electric airplanes hangs.

A gasoline powerplant, with its fuel, accounts for about a quarter of an airplane’s takeoff weight. An electric powerplant is somewhat heavier to begin with; it adds 75 pounds to the weight of the Waiex because the batteries alone weigh 200 pounds. The big disadvantage is that the energy available from all those batteries is equivalent to only a couple of gallons of gasoline. Observes Buck: “We pilots would consider that ‘unusable’ ”—the technical term for dregs in the bottom of the fuel tank that may not be available in all flight attitudes.

Buck aims at an airplane of conventional dimensions—with a little more wingspan than most, but able to be tucked comfortably into an ordinary hangar—and having climbing and cruising capability comparable to that of a gasoline-powered airplane in every respect except, perhaps, duration of flight. In other words, he and Monnett want to prove that an electric airplane can look and fly just like a gas-powered one.

Greg Cole sees things a little differently.

Cole, 46, is a freelance aeronautical engineer. His Oregon company, Windward Performance, produces a carbon-fiber sailplane called the SparrowHawk, which, at 155 pounds empty, weighs less than many of the pilots who fly it. Cole is a bit of a visionary. He is concerned not just about the price of gasoline, but also about aviation as a whole—the possibility that the cost and the complexity and stress of flying modern airplanes might drive people away from flying. He is not just an engineer; he is a reformer. Cole, like Monnett, is preparing to manufacture an electric two-seater. The wingspan of his design is a glider-like 51 feet—a rather cumbersome size for taxiing, parking, and hangarage at many general-aviation airports. The longer an airplane’s wingspan, though, the less power it needs to lift a given weight. Cole’s motor, similar in design to Buck’s but smaller, is rated at just 40 hp. If he can keep his airplane’s empty weight below 500 pounds or so—the SparrowHawk demonstrates his ability to engineer very light, yet strong structures—he will be able to climb at 660 feet a minute and cruise at 70 mph on the electrical equivalent of one gallon of gas per hour. “We need to get into lower-power airplanes,” he says. “We need to do smaller.” He brushes aside objections that his design will not mesh easily with existing infrastructure. Electric—smooth, quiet, non-polluting, and with motors that will never fail or wear out—is “a completely viable way to revolutionize aviation.”

The aviation he is talking about is recreational: “I’m not looking beyond two seats.” His airplane will cost $50 an hour to operate; $30 of that is a reserve for replacing the battery pack after 500 to 1,000 charging cycles. Because the airplane itself has very low drag and is highly efficient, the cost of the electric “fuel” is negligible. Cole’s ultimate vision of sustainability is right out of the Whole Earth Catalog: A couple of small wind-powered generators on the roof of a hangar would, with sufficient wind, provide power for one or two flights a week. In a pinch, he concedes, “You could always top off from [an electric socket in] the wall.”

Cole has made little effort to publicize his project; Monnett, on the other hand, announced his “E-Flight Initiative” in 2007 at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s annual Oshkosh fly-in and displayed a mockup of the new powerplant. But a 59-year-old retired jeweler and self-taught engineer from New Jersey, Randall Fishman, stole a march on both Monnett and Cole. In 2008 Fishman, whom his friends used to call Doctor Gizmo, flew his single-seat electric airplane in front of cheering crowds at Oshkosh. The airframe is a discontinued Moni motor glider (built from a kit designed, coincidentally, by John Monnett before he started Sonex), modified and refitted with an 18-hp electric motor. It can cruise at 70 mph, using just 6 hp to stay aloft. A 90-minute flight consumes 5.6 kilowatt-hours of electricity—about 70 cents’ worth, at present rates. It recharges from a wall outlet in six hours.

“I used to like to fly ultralights, but they were powered by Rotax snowmobile engines,” Fishman says. “They were so loud. And after you flew for a while and landed, your body would still be vibrating.” In his pursuit of quiet, vibration-free flight, Fishman has been honored by the EAA, which recognized his contribution to light aircraft design with the 2008 August Raspet Award. (John Monnett is a previous winner, as is Pete Buck, though not for their work in electric power.) And this year the Lindbergh Foundation awarded him a $10,580 grant.

Like the Wright brothers, Fishman started with a bicycle. He used to have to pedal uphill to get to his jewelry store, and he didn’t want to arrive sweaty. When he saw an ad for an electric bicycle motor, he thought: That would be nice. More than 20 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and several electric conveyances—a scooter, an ultralight Trike, and the
ElectraFlyer-C—later, Fishman is working on a two-place electric airplane he says will be ready to fly this fall. With motor experts, he has developed an electric propulsion kit including 100-hp motor, battery pack and battery management system, and throttle to control the speed at which the batteries discharge.

“We’re using a lot of very inefficient, crappy technologies to waste the gas that we can get so cheap,” says Fishman. “Six-thousand-pound cars to move around people who weigh about 80 pounds. It seems normal to us. This is not the way we should be doing things.”

The irony of electric airplanes is that their economies are tiny. Since electric powerplants are confined, at least for the foreseeable future, to small, light, and slow airplanes that don’t require a lot of energy in the first place, the savings to be realized from using electricity—which is roughly equivalent to $1.50-a-gallon gasoline—is rather small (see “Miles per Kilowatt,” below) . Conventionally powered airplanes with the performance of electric ones use only one or two gallons of fuel an hour, so the difference in direct operating cost is negligible in comparison to the difference in initial outlay: for an airworthy gasoline engine, $100 per horsepower; for an electric powerplant, $400 or more per kilowatt. Greg Cole points out that in 10 years the price of gasoline will probably be “somewhere between bad and horrible.” Besides, the price of fuel isn’t everything; smoothness, quiet, reliability, and freedom from maintenance have value, as would the environmental benevolence of an airplane fueled entirely by locally harvested sunlight or wind.

Outside his hangar, Pete Buck and I survey the rows of tied-down airplanes, sailplanes, and sailplane trailers. Nobody is flying today, because there’s not enough air movement to keep a glider aloft. I reflect upon the dubious economics and ask him point-blank why anybody would buy an electric airplane.

“Stupidity,” he laughs. “It’s just like a hybrid car. You can’t justify a hybrid car economically. You never get the price differential back. Just pump gasoline—there’s nothing better!”

Obviously, he’s kidding. For Buck and Cole and Fishman and others like them, there’s more to it than just a bad bargain. It’s more like a love affair. And if they can fall in love with an idea like this, other people can too. There has to be a reason why, when I’m back in Los Angeles and driving home from the airport, it seems as if every other car I see is a Toyota Prius.

Peter Garrison has flown across the Pacific in a homemade single-engine airplane, but he is afraid of electricity.


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email | More
 
Comments (20)

It would seem to me that the major issue is the battery weight. There has to be a electrical storage device that is much lighter than today's batteries. What is it?

Posted by Don Williams on July 18,2009 | 08:07 PM

This is certainly a fascinating concept that deserves serious attention. I am looking forward to the announcement that Pete Buck and Sonex Aircraft are scheduled to make on July 27th at the Airventure airshow in Oshkosh, WI. Hopefully we will have new information on this exciting innovation in recreational air travel.

Posted by Brad Strand on July 19,2009 | 01:38 PM

I'm sorry if I missed any mention of this while skimming the article... but, isn't this the same thing that has already been achieved by the "Electraflyer C"?

Posted by John on July 20,2009 | 03:02 PM

look at small calculator batteries they last forever...almost. i have one that's over ten (10) years old an it's used every day.

Posted by ron curren on July 20,2009 | 03:42 PM

This is proof just how far technology has advanced. Lipo batteries are currently the highest discharge batteries out there, and can outperform older battery technology by far.

In the future, say a couple years, lithium battery technology may be lighter, so that extra 75 pound weight from the batteries may disappear, and instead the plane may save weight, yet still produce the same power and fly LONGER!

Posted by Tanner on July 22,2009 | 06:43 PM

The comment on the calculator battery caused me to think of my Texas Instruments calculator, which I purchased in February 1983. I have never changed the battery despite almost constant use, which means it is now in its 26th year of service. I don't know what kind of battery this thing uses, but maybe this sort of technology might be of use in electric airplanes.

Posted by David Richardson on July 23,2009 | 07:41 PM

I was amazed to find that this article doesn't include any mention of Eric Raymond and his Sunseeker. The latest version, Sunseeker II, uses a combination of battery and solar power. He recently flew it across Europe, crossing the Alps along the way!

http://solar-flight.com/

Eric Raymond has been working on solar and electric flight for years and his accomplishments speak for themselves (see his website for details). It seems like a major omission to leave this amazing electric airplane out of the article and makes me question the quality of the rest of information in it.

Posted by Steve K. on August 3,2009 | 01:20 AM

Calculator batteries? Seriously? How many miles can your calculators fly?

The "secret" to how they last so long is that calculators with non-backlit LCD displays hardly use any power.

Posted by Guy on August 6,2009 | 01:53 AM

I salute those innovators who put a battery in an airplane but the current cost is just too high.

They need to make a model that an average person can buy that can be recharged from a wall outlet.

Some consideration can even be given to unicopters, hovercraft or mini-cars with wings that are affordable.

Posted by Norm on August 10,2009 | 03:44 PM

I don't know what English Channel the Solar Challenger took five hours to cross in 1979, but the one between Britain and France is only about 20 miles wide from Dover to Calais. Bleriot did it faster 100 years ago.

Posted by Joseph Harriss on August 13,2009 | 04:55 AM

A very interesting article. I am a boat builder and designer and recently set a record for the fastest electric boat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yNu2_LlO9s. A high power brushless motor with controller is an expensive technology at the moment so we went with a brushed motor and lithium batteries. Most brushless setups cost between $20,000-$30,000 currently, I think we could well see this price more than cut in half in the next five years its just going to take mass production and so far no large automobile manufacturers have been willing to step up. I applaud what Elon Musk is doing with his Tesla car company, he's going out on a limb with a lot of his own money, I hope his company succeeds. From what I hear the car is selling very well and their owner love them.

Posted by Mike Bontoft on August 15,2009 | 02:21 AM

i own a small eco turism company on the north end of lake okeechobee in south florida. we use airboats to navigate throough the marsh. my intreste is converting an airboat with a 300 hp gas engine with an electric equivalent less horse power im sure and an average run time of 30-45 min before changing out batteries or giving it a quck charge some day we put 6-8 hrs on a boat (6-8 one hour trips with approximately 20- 30 min of dawn time between each trip) i dont think there is a bettery souce that will accomidate me at this time thats why i suggested a short charge or a change of batteries. I'm very ignorant on this subject so any help would be great.

Posted by jason ferrell on November 21,2009 | 04:07 PM

The down side to electric: The juice from the outlet is not free and it comes from fossil fuels. Any load like going up a hill pulls extra amps. Recharging from brakes does little on open road driving.
The upside: There are 2 huge sources for power that are usually over looked. Gravity and up drafts in wind curents. Both are powerfull and free.
We are developing a system which capitalizes on both. Electric has more power than gas for a take off and climb. A fuel cell can maintain steady flight. The up draft is the elevator in the sky. The gravity is the charger. When gliding down - the fuel cell offers enough power to the prop to maintain air speed while the prop charges a small amount too charge the battery pack for the next lift off. A smaller pack is needed and no tow plane is required. Our system will be applied to an amphibious sailplane.

Posted by Don Lineback on January 2,2010 | 06:09 PM

I am very anxious to find power & batteries required to take off & fly at least 15 minutes in a moderate preformanc sailplane with gross less than 600 lb & 40 ft span. And of course, cost !!!!

Ed Yung PE (reg prof engineer) & 4600 hour pilot holding most available ratings & licenses.

I really want to get a sailplane in the air on batteries; lead acid if at all possible. Whatever it takes.

Regards,

Ed Yung

Posted by Ed Yung on February 21,2010 | 04:47 PM

We can take the motorglider AC-5 ( or 'Russia', weight is 140 kg, L/D 32 ) and maintain Electraflyer's Kit in its motor compartment instead of the engine.Who is ready to cooperate with me ?

Posted by Evgeny on March 7,2010 | 07:30 PM

Several comments: 1) The short duration of an electric aircraft, though perhaps not ideal for the typical general aviation mission, may be perfect for communting to work if work is near an airport or VTOL electric aircraft become practical. The fast response of electric motors compared to gas engines allows "tighter" control for fly-by-wire applications in small aircraft. This may enable reliable, controllable VTOL aircraft. 2) Electric motors are much more efficient than gas. Yes, electricity comes from fossil-fueled generation, but I haven't seen anything on the economies of scale of large fossil-fuel plants compared to the distributed consumption of individual gas powered vehicles. A case study of overall efficiency would be very helpful. 3) Advances in technology often come from inventors (at least in the US) fiddling with new tech. A system capable of successfully powering aircraft has all of the features you'd want in an electric car - high power density, duration, light weight. I'm glad there are people with the passion to pursue such dreams.

Posted by dmeekins on March 17,2010 | 12:02 AM

A recent info release mentioned a radical new type of electrical storage development that is expected to be marketed within 2 years. Vastly lighter & possibly very eonomical. Sounded more like a radical variation of a capacitor, which is obviously AC va DC (except for a single spike).

As for mini calculator batteries. Only advantage of larger batteries is packaging. Lighter to make large ones than to series-parallel many small ones in terms of amp hour capacity. Small ones made in large quantities of course, so may be cheaper per A-H capacity.

Posted by Ed Yung on April 10,2010 | 12:11 AM

The idea of electric vehicles is pointless if you miss The Main Issue....Fossil Fuel is Unsustainable. That is true both environmentally and economically. First off environmentally ....Politicians are LIARS. Period. They represent Special Interests who have a huge financial stake in selling OIL. Scientists are the better bet and a far overwhelming majority of them agree that CO2, Pollution, and various toxins from burning oil will kill the higher species on this planet. Sure the rock and some kind of life forms will remain, but mankind will NOT. Period. The second issue is the reality that fossil fuel is being exhausted at a rate of around 100 million barrels a day worldwide (almost 20 million barrels a day in the US alone). W ARE running out. The Oil Era is Passing. We are in the Peak Oil period now. The liquid light sweet crude is already mostly gone and now we're left with the thick tar muck in between layers of shale and in the tar sands of Canada...which is factually even more polluting to "extract". SO, if you consider either of those realities then electric cars, the Prius and other hybrids and electric airplanes make great sense!! And with a good BMS, a lithium pack is good for many more than just 1,000 recharges. Many articles are written by gas engine proponents and disbelievers, so they present many false details. There are some of us who fully believe the scientists. We are happily giving up living on dead dinosaurs. I have a friend who converted is truck to an all electric vehicle in 1993. He has not bought any gasoline in 18 years. Do the math. How much would you have saved in 18 years not buying gasoline??? He has solar panels on a roof rack to recharge his batteries all the time. It works. That is why the Prius is Toyota's second best selling car....and GM had to be bailed out. (they killed the EV-1)

Posted by on May 17,2011 | 07:43 PM

The "ELECTRIC AIRPLANE" will hasten the day that light weight electric energy storage source will be perfected. Even as I peck out this brief missive there is talk of a "Super Capacitor" (not to be confused with the Flux Capacitor".
This item will be able to store huge amounts of electrical energy, and be recharged endlessly(practically)in minutes not hours.
check this out on Supercapacitors:
www.gizmag./com/nanoscale-supercapacitor11297/

Posted by John Hardman on September 24,2011 | 10:12 PM

Why not build a electric turbine full sized passenger airplane that can be supersonic?

Posted by bob on June 23,2012 | 11:30 AM

Post a Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  • Topics
  1. Area 51: Origins
  2. The 727 that Vanished
  3. Inside a Flying Fortress
  4. 10 Great Pilots
  5. A Family Affair
  6. The Mystery of the Lost Clipper
  7. Canaveral Junior
  8. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
  9. B-36: Bomber at the Crossroads
  10. God Save the Vulcan!
  1. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
  1. Refueling Angel Thunder
  2. Why don’t today’s fighters have narrow waists?
  3. A Family Affair
  4. Above and Beyond
  5. B-36: Bomber at the Crossroads
  6. Legends of Vietnam: Bronco's Tale
  7. Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?
  8. Goodbye, Silas Hicks
  9. Slim and Bud
  10. Cause Unknown
  1. Cold War Era
  2. Fighters
  3. Bombers
  4. Vietnam War
  5. Experimental Aircraft
  6. Aerospace Inventions
  7. 21st Century Aviation
  8. 20th Century Aviation
  9. Golden Age of Flight
  10. Aerospace Technology
  11. Aerospace

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement


Follow Us

Air & Space Magazine
@airspacemag
Follow Air & Space Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

Popular Videos

  • Newest
  • Most Viewed

X-47B Carrier Launch

(01:25)

SpaceShipTwo Fires Up

(02:58)

How to Bag an Asteroid

(03:52)

The Mach-2 Bomber That Never Was

(01:21)

View All Newest Videos »

The Mach-2 Bomber That Never Was

(01:21)

SpaceShipTwo Fires Up

(02:58)

How to Bag an Asteroid

(03:52)

“Earth is Certain to Be Struck”

(06:44)

View All Videos »

In the Magazine

May 2013

  • Beyond the Moon
  • The Man Who Invented the Predator
  • Cancelled: Britain’s High-Mach Heartbreak
  • Earth’s Mirror
  • The Galileo Project

View Table of Contents »

Snapshot

Refueling Angel Thunder

An airman pulls a fuel line in the desert as part of a massive interagency exercise.

Reader Scrapbook

Discovery's Tail-Cone Fitting

Check out our scrapbook of readers' aviation and space pictures. Then add your own.


Smithsonian Store

In the Cockpit and In the Cockpit II

Current and retired curators from our National Air and Space Museum contribute the insightful text and striking images... $48.99

Smithsonian Journeys

Smithsonian at Chautauqua: The Elegant Universe

Join us in western New York and explore the mysteries of the cosmos with experts (Jun 22 - 29, 2013)




View full archiveRecent Issues


  • May 2013


  • Mar 2013


  • Jan 2013

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Air & Space magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Air & Space/Smithsonian magazine has been delighting aerospace enthusiasts with the best writing about their favorite subject since April 1986. As an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Air & Space matches the grand scope of the Museum, encompassing every era of aviation and space exploration. With stories that range from the Wright Brothers to the design of NASA's next lunar lander, Air & Space emphasizes the human stories as well as the technology of aviation and spaceflight.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Air & Space
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution