👋

The question to you: does the plane recuperate energy form gliding and spinning the wing the "wrong way"?

@@pawefiett2468 like regenerative braking in hybrid cars?

I was in Slovenia on holiday last may but was not aware I could visit the factory. Who should I contact next time?

I'll be visiting ajdovščina airport next year, bomo se vidli kmalu

Deepak is a incredibly talented and professional pilot. We are so proud to have him as Head of Flight Operations ✈

Well spoken, and I suspect, a great teacher. Thanks for explaining it so well, Deepak!

Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!

@@deadmanwalking6342 Planes already have various batteries onboard. Planes carry flammable jet fuel ‘ffs’!

For real. 30kt gusts in a light aircraft doesn't make for a relaxing outing.

👏 👏 👍 👍

Lovely aircraft, how strange is it not hearing pistons whirring? I've only flown twice without the pistons whirring when the 2Stroke motor stopped 😆

I presume pre-flight checks are still the same length?, since most of the time you are doing other checks while the oil pressure and temp are coming up in a piston plane. Do you have any estimates on how much you will save in maintenance? Does it still have the same maintenance intervals? Do you count hours of operations on the motor and battery separately? or do they come as a unsplittable package?

I want to come and fly it!

You can charge Your Piper EV Anywhere a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is ..... The CHAdeMO charger will Allow You to charge the Piper EV via the CHAdeMO charger from a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV...... When running the Mitsi in Charge mode the 80 KVA generator equipped Mitsi PHEV will charge that 20 KVA battery in under an hour.... When the Mitsi PHEV is stationary in 'Charge Mode ' the 80 KVA engine driven generator returns equivalent of 100-140 MPG when stationery via the Atkinson cycle engine 😎👍 ....

Yeah I was thinking that too, very composed and relaxed. Nice 'energy' 👌

Agreed. Top man indeed.

A very calm guy for sure.

This the future of light aircraft not aviation

@@DarrellTurnerJr light aircraft first and then aviation.

Deepak was awesome at Chatteris airfield in Cambridge ....the funniest thing was him giving flight control @ USAF Mildenhall a constant bollocking because the F16 kept buzzing him in his CFM shadow 😂

He was in the military prior or a civilian transport pilot?

@@1anre No

I see what you did at the end there.

Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!

@@deadmanwalking6342 You do realize that an internal combustion engine is 10x more likely to catch fire than the oldest, most fire prone Teslas right?

We had the same challenges with our last news feature in Australia.. it was raining and 12 knots of crosswind.. but our trainer bruce made the landing look pro and smooth as butter :)

@@williammeek4078 But the Tesla's are fairly new compared to an old car that may catch on fire. Plus, the part that burns in not right under you backside! They are usually firewalled of in a normal car. so the power goes out for a day or two.... No flying for you.

YES GENERAL AVIATION IS NOISY!

Noise canceling headphones with intercoms make it easy.

Come and give it a try Vincent!

@@TecnamTwin while true, there's a reason a lot of older pilots have hearing loss

@@danweyant707 WHAT

The piston equivalent of this type (and most similar modern small 2 seater types) use a rotax engine, which uses unleaded.

@@bencoder Thanks for the info. As electric aircraft evolve, they will hopefully replace more fossil fuel engines, both leaded and unleaded.

Not to mention the advance in safety through reliability! With so little that could go wrong this is a superb advance. And given the ability to glide along, surely there must be times when you can harness regeneration through the windmilling of the prop through the air? Not to mention the possibility of adding solar cells to the wings.

Not just leaving carbon trail, but dumping your leaded fuel everywhere.

@@Barbreck1 I think regen braking may cause the plane to fall out of the sky. The energy going to the battery might have been going to lift the plane from the propeller. I don't know, ask a professional! Well, it's not like you asked me... And yoy commented on a professional pilot's post.

@@Moses_VII Hahahaha, who said anything about "regen braking"?!! Propellors do not provide lift, wings do. When an aircraft is lowering its altitude it does not need propellor thrust to maintain lift and airworthiness, it can effectively freewheel its prop as airspeed due to gravity is providing enough airflow to maintain lift. This permits an opportunity to regain a little energy out of the prop. Obviously, this has to be carefully balanced with the airspeed of the craft to ensure the vehicle doesn't slow to stall, but to control the descent rate to provide some battery regeneration through prop-wheeling is a perfectly reasonable scenario. It certainly won't completely recharge a battery, but it might give a 10% boost to reserves.

@@MaxCaud the Rotax engines in Pipistrels use unleaded mogas the same as cars, notice Deepak said "...petrol.." not avgas (100LL).

Lol…. It has been the future even tho it started way way before combustion engines 😂 😂

Not for REAL planes it isn't. Toys like this don't count.

@@grahamstevenson1740 hot air balloons and gliders are toys, this is a commercial tool.

@@moconnell663 It may be some tool for commerce (flight training) but that doesn't make it a 'commercial aircraft' like your average Airbus or Boeing ! The is you see a specific area of flight operations now called *commercial air transport^ previously just known as commercial aviation for which you generally need a Commercial Pilot's Licence at minimum. Also an Air Transport Pilot's Licence is good ! . This is not an aircraft suitable for this category ! After 2 years of certification, Pipistrel have leased a few to Air Forces but sold NONE. Flight schools tend to prefer 4 seaters that they can hire out for weekend trips that also require more than 50 minutes of flight ! In fact this plane would also be unsuitable for taking a flight exam requiring a long cross-country flight too.

@@grahamstevenson1740 One thing at a time

You might want to go back over those numbers. As expensive as it is, fuel is a pretty small portion of operating costs. If that was even remotely accurate, I'd be rolling in so much cash right now that I'd venmo you your first couple lessons just for fun.

@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper hire cost != operating cost

​@@mojitomaker Operating and flying a fleet of aircraft is literally my business, I know how aviation costs shake out. Every expense incurred for an hour of flight time, and that includes your loan/lease payment, fuel, oil, tires, brakes, engine overhaul, insurance, and a thousand other things, it all adds up to your operating expenses. Fuel makes up anywhere from 10-30% of that depending on not only the type of aircraft, but also how expensive the aircraft is (and with it being brand new and priced higher for electric variants, it becomes more significant). You can put the fuel bill on the renter or the operator can cover it as a wet lease, either way it's a small number. Rental is going to be an expense in addition to the base operating cost per hour, it will never be less without the owner/operator losing money. You still have to pay all of it whether it's you paying for fuel independently or the rental company fueling it up for you and then charging you again. So you need to cover the operating expenses on top of everything else. The only way it could possibly be 80% of what you pay is if you've already separated out how much the renters tack on to their base operating expenses without fuel, and then compare that to fuel expenses, which is a rather silly and inaccurate way to look at it since you still have to pay all of it anyway. An example would be a simple C-172, with 100hrs of flight time averaged out over a year to include yearly expenses, it'll cost you about $18K. Only $4K of that is the result of paying for fuel, which means less than 25% of the total cost of a flight hour is fuel. If $4K was 80% of the total rental cost to the renter, that would mean it costs $5K all up for all expenses included, so if fuel was free it would only cost $1K a year to rack up 100hrs on a 172. You think $1K is enough to pay for an annual inspection, or just the insurance? The oil alone is going to cost you about $200. Yearly hangar payments are probably well over $3K in most places, and if you want to be a peasant and tie your plane down outside, you're still likely to pay close to $1K for that. Most owners who fly their planes even occasionally budget a bare minimum $1K for unscheduled maintenance such as tires and tubes, brakes, cracked fairings, and a million other things that might wear out or break before your next annual inspection. Look at it another way, $1K incurred over a hundred hours means the airplane only costs $10/hr in non-fuel related expenses. Like I said, if that were the case, I'd be rolling in cash that I saved. What's this mean to you, specifically, in regards to renting an electric plane? Most all of those expenses will still be there. That 10-30% you're no longer spending on fuel doesn't amount to much when you have other considerations like the fact that the electric costs for charging your plane is going to take up a significant part of that 10-30% you saved, then the added expense of battery replacements over their short lifespan. Remember, this isn't an electric car where the biggest concern is whether you can go the full 300 mile range or not, this is a certified aircraft that will likely require a new battery once its performance degrades to a measurable degree. If the battery is not able to provide 100% power during takeoff and climbout, and/or your range/endurance is cut in half, it affects the safety of the aircraft. Expect to replace obscenely expensive batteries twice as often as you would an engine. Even if an electric plane saves half of that 10-30% (which is unlikely) averaged out per hour, in the case of the example above, it's only going to shave $2K off of that $18K/yr cost. If you're spending $18K/yr to fly, $2K isn't going to make much of a difference.

If you think about it, a consortium of 4 could raise cash for one of these and then operating costs will be really very low: much less maintenance and as you say, lower energy costs. Great for a casual/recreational pilot.

@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper do you have any figures on battery life and replacement costs? It was a big concern on early evs but actually batteries have really lasted well. Whilst I agree it won't be a trivial cost, neither is an engine over haul. And overall, EVs including aircraft have much fewer moving parts, and consequentially should be more reliable and require less maintenance. You'd just be doing what you do with a piston engine: swap the motor our and send the old one back for refurb. Same with batteries, they'll be recycled not thrown away.

Agree. He was very chilled and reassuring.

yeah I'm not a fan of those pilots that say stuff like "shit! we're never gonna make it" "watch this!" and "is your left arm tingling?"

we've flown with Deepak. Its a pretty relaxed experience!

That type of charging infrastructure would be great here in Oz. Some airstrips are 100's of km from anywhere and would need fuel to be flown in prior to any cross country trips. Having some kind of off-grid solar + battery + charger would be so much better.

@@updraft.trance also, you are better placed for that geographically. You are way closer to equator than UK as the result your winter and summer output don't varie as much - day length is more consistent.

GO SLOVENIA

Look forward to the 4 seat Panthera Robert mentioned, although looks like only a range of 200 miles, it looks a very stylish aircraft... Hope certification arrives quickly...

They also have a 2 seat powered glider with an electric motor for take off think that gives around an hour under power, so a climb to altitude for some soaring enough for a cross country and return.

@@Zigonce Company was sold few months ago to the US company Textron

"Just need to make the cockpit 6” wider! " ...or make the people smaller 🙂

It works if you use batteries sequentially, and then drop them on parachutes to lose weight! aka Rocketlab's Electron rocket. Alternatively, electric launchers and tugs that release the plane at altitude could help a lot with range. However, I think we're stuck with avgas for long haul for the foreseeable future, which is OK if it's renewably synthesized, while sequestration is ramped up massively.

The landing gears are designed to be strong enough (plus safety factor) to land the plane when low on fuel. Landing a plane heavy with fuel is not a normal operation, so the gear does not need to be designed to handle those kind of loads. With electric planes they will simply have to sacrifice payload to add additional strength to the gears so that it can land with the mass of the batteries. Alternatively, I think aircraft with fuel cells and Hydrogen fuel is the one case where Hydrogen might make sense.

General aviation planes can easely land with full fuel tanks. It is'nt even included in most weigt and balance calculation for most "small" aircraft. (Cessna , Piper , ...)

TIL!

Long haul aircraft are built with MASSIVE amounts of redundancy. This includes the ability to land with loads beyond anything that would ever be required. They literally test them to breaking point. Wings are bent, undercarriages are pummeled into the ground, fuselages are flown at speed into concrete blocks, etc. The reason fuel is dumped for emergency landings is purely to remove flammable liquids from the equation. How hard you land is not simply a matter of weight. You balance thrust, lift and pitch (and yaw in cross winds) to create the smoothest flattest possible trajectory onto the runway. You can have flaps on full for a slower steeper descent or at minimum for a faster flatter approach. As long as your rate of descent is controlled you will have a soft landing. The constant weight of the batteries will make no material difference to landing and take off. In fact, the lack of a liquid that can slosh around in the tanks would make the plane a fraction more stable. Also remember that a plane that is fit to take off at a given weight must be fit to land at that weight as well. To try and balance the tolerances between take off and landing for every flight where the cargo and fuel load will be different is not practical. Far better to know the plane will withstand the maximum fuel load and be left to just focus on having enough juice to stay in the sky.

👍 😄

Had the same thought...

Come and learn on the Velis.

Go for it! There's a global shortage of pilots currently - has been for a while. Of course, good luck trying to find some UK government funding to learn - unlike 90% of the mickey-mouse courses you can get *full* funding for at just about any 'university' in the UK!

But unfortunately not as flexible and practical as fuel planes which can be in the air for hours and hours going to very remote places……. Can Cary extra fuel for longer range…….

Robert should have covered maintenance costs more?

its all about battery tech at this point.

Going to be fun when the batteries start to "TESLA" burn. For frekks sake, just put a sail on the plane!

@@deadmanwalking6342 Jeez, dude just give it up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Unless new battery tech comes out in the next 10-15 years, you won't have to imagine anything because it won't be any different.

I want an old-fashioned flying boat - but electric ;-) Imagine a Catalina with electric propulsion...

No transporters tho

@@rp9674 not for humans at any rate yet. Supposedly they have done teleportation of inanimate miniscule stuff. Maybe in another 20 or so year's after we hit the singularity? Or one of those large hadron collider experiments works out. 🤔

I'm always shocked and amazed that aviation gas is still leaded! Amazing that that's still allowed, but I guess so many planes are old enough that they can't fly without it. Still sucks though.

And noise. Probably more important noise.

@@morellwestermann6897 the prop still generates a lot of noise, I think. Still, electric is definitely superior.

@@linuswalden in flight: inaudible. Departure: Significantly quieter

There's a demonstration video of an ultralight plane with a tiny engine versus a performance gas car, the plane easily catches up and passes the car

Won’t be absolutely silent as the prop turning in the air creates a fair amount of noise as well

@@jimparr5412 okay.. thanks for the reply .you are quite thoughtful bro

@@jimparr5412 hence the 30 metres comment

Which Robert should have covered!

This is significant, a large part of piston engine aircraft running costs are the engine strip downs, inspections and overhauls.

Who was there first, your house or the airport?

Gusts to 32 would have this Cessna 150 owner on the ground. I'd bet that if it had not been for Fully Charged being there, the flight would have awaited better conditions,

we're on it. - That solar charger at Old Buckenham is ours

@@nuncats8296 👏

It helps also in maintaining airfields with higher traffic near settlements because of low to none noise. We have an airfield at the edge of our village, I once asked the owner why there was not pilot training and he said is partially because even today there is resistance and protests when there is a day with more flights around but training aircrafts flying patterns half the day would get the airfield closed due to the noise. An E-plan could change this entirely.

The Panthera does look a nice aircraft

I had the exact same thoughts as I was watching it. :D

That's DC? I assumed when they said the charger required 3-phase AC that the charge port was 3-phase AC as well. But perhaps what they meant was that there's only a single charger model available and it uses 3-phase.

@@ps.2 It uses Chademo which is DC. I assume it's similar to the 22kW chargers some VW dealerships have which are 22 kW AC to 22 kW DC (CCS). A 3-Phase to 3-Phase charger wouldn't require such a large charging unit, although a similar on board charger would need to be integrated into the aircraft which would add a significant amount of weight.

i thought that also but it does not help the roll our of the vehicle to more airfields. if you could charge it from AC it might be quite easy to get 32 amp single phase sockets installed and people could charge up for a day and then go home.

@@njipods If I'm honest I don't think that aircraft would even be viable if they didn't go this route, a 22kW OBC would just take up so much space and add so much weight.

Way to go netherlands!

I took a trial lesson there last summer, it was a great experience!

Hm, I now see the maximum weight is 90 kg, that may be a problem (by about 10 kg). Maybe I'll just wear very light clothes and they can find me a particularly light pilot? 😉

@@SolarWebsite diet time? Or is it all muscle

@@gingernutpreacher I'm 1m90 (and it's diet time)

It’s the same weight as the petrol version. It’s just a light airplane by design. Making the battery heavier requires more lifting power, so probably an other design. The four seater will be heavier, of course.

An enormously skilled pilot always knows when the conditions are not safe and won't fly.

@@qqleq same weight empty or full!

And it would get rid of all the faff of starting the avgas motor (I used to fly a Slingsby T67 and starting it was the trickiest part of the flight), mag checks, periodic applications of carb heat to prevent icing, etc. Just switch it on and go.

Give Deepak a call a go and fly electric!

This e plane is 30+ knots slower than the 152 you flew. That’s not even close to comparable performance, not to mention the very limited range. However, operating costs should definitely be much lower. Annuals should be very inexpensive, and major overhauls can’t be that expensive when the number of parts is much less than standard aircraft.

@@allblooz I would think far fewer moving parts and lack of engine vibrations would lessen metal fatigue and wear.

Wrights weren't first to fly - Dumont was.

plenty online already!

Deepak currently offers a 90% Green PPL. Hoping 100% Green could become a reality very soon.

And unfortunately not as practical or useful compared to fuel aircrafts

@@alanmay7929 We have to start somewhere... There are now cargo aircraft with holds longer than the Wright Brother's first flight... Guess that in 1903 that would not have been considered possible, let alone crossing the Pacific, or popping across ( ;) ) to the moon

@@peterchandler8505 lame comment!!!! The fuel powered cargo can haul such heavy loads on intercontinental because of the awesomeness of fuel energy density the same goes with cars, ships…… batteries still have a seriously long way to evolve even tho batteries powered cars started almost half century before gas cars.

@@alanmay7929 Many BE cars are now practical propositions with ranges far exceeding 'bladder range', or safe driving range, as my career did involve a lot of driving (pension imminent), kept tabs on safety issues where 2 hours is credibly considered a maximum drive before taking at least a 10 minute break, take a more relaxed drink and your BEV has seriously recharged its range. I would consider the comment quite valid as even though ICE cars have been around for well over 100 years, the last decades have seen significant improvements in ICE efficiency, I now get between 2 and neatly 3 times the mpg whilst carrying 500kg in a light van than I did in my similar sized first cars with just me on board! It was I understand range that killed the early BEVs, ranges in many cases are now practical for many BEVs with charging rather more practical with Teslas, ok not perfect yet but changing fast. Even in California, Texas & the like, it looks as though a day in the sun with an Aptera will trickle charge its battery with on board solar cells enough to cover the daily driving needs of roughly half of Californian / Texan drivers (US average about 38 miles, Aptera SEV daily range increase from sitting in the sun all day, 40 miles), hence a practically never plug in to charge battery electric 2 seat car. Technology is not stationary! We are starting to pay a heavy price for the usefulness of fossil fuels, granted the first serious indications were from Svante Arrhenius just before 1900, however the science was absolutely clear by the 1980s.

@@peterchandler8505 why do you need to make a bible!? Lol…..

When all flights globally make up like 1% of emissions, I'm sure that's going to make all the difference.

@@oBCHANo 1% of a lot is still a lot

Very few PPLs fly at night. You need a host of special flight ratings to do that. This ultralight won't/can't scale to a true commercial aircraft.

@@grahamstevenson1740 not for the little ones, sure but things like cargo flights or London Paris flights could. They could easily be electric so fly 24hours. Especially if they are whisper quiet

@@grahamstevenson1740 How about the Heart Aviation ES19 in the pipeline, or the Eviation Alice, both that seem to be the most developed commuter airliners (both have well over a hundred orders in, Others are not far behind), ok only 12 or 20 passengers for about 500 miles, but you have to start somewhere... there are cargo aircraft now with longer holds than the Wright brothers first flight 120 years ago...