Why Electric Planes are Inevitably Coming

Writing by Sam Denby
Research by Sam Denby and Tristan Purdy
Editing by Alexander Williard
Animation by Josh Sherrington
Sound by Graham Haerther
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster

Select footage courtesy the AP Archive

References

[moksh]

I was actually wondering how he survived without something related to airplane for past 2 videos.

[JoelsStuff]

He ends every sentence with THREE... DISTINCT... WORDS....

[dylanleealien]

Got worried for a second when there wasn’t an airplane related upload for the past two videos

[prabhatsourya]

Electric planes like this may make sense in the remote parts of the US, where public transport is poor. For densely interconnected countries like France, it wouldn't make much sense, when an electric train can carry more passengers

[andy]

Next up: *The logistics of flying electric* ⚡


After that: *How to start an electric airline!*

[zepwafels]

drinking game: down a shot whenever he says 'therefore'

[maxresdefault_]

That title sounds like it was created by an AI tasked with creating the most "Wendover Productions" style title ever

[blazebluebass]

I can't get over how good the brand name "Eviation" is.

[wyqtor]

Now this is the Wendover we knew and loved!

P L A N E S !

[Xnick]

You can almost hear the semicolon whenever Sam says “therefore”.

[dkaloger]

Great video but you ignored that most of the income from the routes discussed was mainly from subsidies and not tickets. This means that if the operating cost fell sharply then a large part of the subsidies would disappear and thus there would be little change in the profit margins

[billdong]

Thumbnail: Why Electric Planes are the FUTURE…
Video: … for a small fraction of aviation

[Toothily]

16:56 Grumpy dude in a big flower bath, yeeting his laptop into the water: probably the best stock footage acting ever.

[vincemaas]

As an Aeronautical Engineering student, I feel I need to make people aware that some information given in this video is not complete. Large scale commercial electric aviation is definitely not possible with the coming 30 years or so. Firstly, there are the energy density issues that come with both lithium and hydrogen fuel cells. Given the current energy density of these type of "fuels", a plane will be unable to complete a flight with payload. The amount of development needed to get anywhere close to the energy density of traditional fuels is enormous and cannot be simply overlooked as done in this video. Secondly, the regulatory and safety bit which is always part of aviation has significant influences. Current regulations are not yet ready commercial electric flight and will need significant revisions and additions in order to guarantee safety. The last issue I want to mention is that the impact of electric flight on airports is completely overlooked. Current airports are nowhere near ready for the transition to alternative fuels. The infrastructure required to accommodate large scale electric charging or hydrogen transport is significant and will need to be widespread to make commercial electric aviation possible and profitable.
At my college, we do not even cover other forms of propulsion other than combustion engines as these new forms will not be viable in the coming 30 years or so. In this comment I have only pointed out some of the issues related to commercial electric flight. But I hope this gives a bit more context on the matter.

[samrobertson]

"The U.S. government subsidizes routes to these small, remote communities... "

Augusta, the literal capital of the state of Maine: Am I a joke to you?

[factor]

I think you ignored a few basic points:
1) How much actual weight would they be adding for these batteries? I'm certain it would be a non-negligible amount, therefore reduced occupancy/cargo.
2) Batteries don't like going from 100% to 0% repeatedly - which causes premature wear. So in order to have longer lasting batteries, you'd need to oversize the capacity (see 1)
2) What's the turnaround time for the next flight given that charging is much slower than refueling (note repeated high current fast charging also degrades the battery)? You could do battery swapping but that would probably be more work than refueling too.

[RazDazMinecraft]

Everyone gangsta until the plane is on 5% mid air

[rubeniz]

Dam 1 dollar a month for both that’s insane I never thought I would buy a YouTuber sponsorship but this is just too good.

[RickGreen_McNutt]

But, that $2 million profit becomes a loss/near loss when the gov't pulls the support funding because the airline technically no longer needs it because they're turning such a huge profit. Maybe only a portion is pulled, but either way, I would predict that the funding will get pulled/reduced and the equation will look much different.

[acefighterpilot]

Two things from an aircraft mechanic:
Swap out the numbers on decreased maintenance cost with those for battery replacement. The first registered 777 was retired after 24 years with 50, 000 flight hours - the equivalent of nearly six years of continuous flying. That's the norm. Airlines don't lease planes for them to sit around and incur storage fees. Electric airplanes will kill batteries faster than typical TBO on most turbine engines.

Batteries still have pathetic specific energy. You are talking about taking a 4, 000 lbs aircraft that normally carries 1, 200 lbs of fuel and now requiring it to carry 20, 000 lbs to cover the same range. The cutoff for certification as a part 23 commuter plane is 19, 000 pounds MTOW. Now your little ten passenger plane will be part 25 transport category and have to comply with big boy rules, which only add more weight and cost. I also suspect many of the airports that would benefit from cheap short haul flights don't have the runway length to accommodate 50, 000 lbs planes.

Is it possible? Sure. Does it make any financial sense? Only if you believe the guesstimates of something that's never been done for. I mean, aircraft engineering is famous for sticking to original cost estimates. Does it make any engineering sense? Of course not.