Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, this analysis fails because you are comparing a 4 seat utility airplane with a 2 seat trainer.

A better comparison would be with say the Allegro, $100k, or the Cessna 162, $150 k.

Furthermore please note that the article headline is overly optimistic and misleading... instead of "saves 80%" it should read "hopes to save 80%". I have a feeling that this hope may not be realised.

Edit: Actually the "eFlyer 2" looks almost identical to the Arion Lightning (so similar that I would be surprised that it is not the same airframe), which sells for $120,000 ready to fly.

Is the $80/h cost saving also including maintenance? It seems like a 20kg electric motor with basically 1 moving part should be a lot cheaper to maintain than the engine of the 172.

Yes a significant part of that $80 is engine maintenance cost. Fuel would be about $50 to $60 per hour for this size of plane at European prices.

I would think so too. Much less overhauling the engine and checking parts.

Although a person trained on an electric motor might not be familiar with how to handle gasoline engine issues.

Is it an issue that training will be a different sorts of planes than graduates will fly or are the characteristics close enough?

Different planes require different training (see 737 MAX new recently about trying to avoid this). Retraining isn't uncommon as a pilot advances throughout their career.

I wonder this as well.

I've only flown 12 hours in a traditional aircraft (piper warrior iii), but there's certainly a few things I'd imagine a pilot would want to know before taking off in something traditional (oil pressure, manifold, switching fuel takes, checking fuel quality, etc.). Maybe just enough training in a traditional aircraft for a few extra hours to be rated properly.

I'm certainly excited for the possibility for electric aircraft, hopefully in my lifetime. Less maintenance, less things to go wrong, cheaper, (quieter/less vibration?) etc.

The basics of flying a plane are the same because the physics are the same. The differences in engine and fuel type will yield different checklists and procedures but that's true for many planes in the same class now.

Today pilots and students get a "class rating" that certifies they know how to fly that general class of airplane such as single engine land. You might learn in a Cessna 150 or 152 and then switch to a 172 for the larger engine and more fuel so you take bigger cross-country legs. Those planes are in the same class so it's an easy transition.

Even so you can't just go rent a 172! You'll need someone to sign off saying you know how to fly the 172 or you'll have trouble renting the plane or possibly with insurance. Insurers want to see some time learning to fly a new model before going solo.

So if you learn to fly an electric airplane in the US you'll still get Private Pilot - Airplane, Single Engine Land (PP-ASEL) but you will require further training to hop in a gas engine plane that's also single engine land.

The "land" part is to distinguish those planes from sea planes (planes which can land on water) which are different enough for their own class.

>Is it an issue that training will be a different sorts of planes than graduates will fly or are the characteristics close enough?

Flight training goes through various phases. Just like traditional education, you have primary, elementary, and secondary. Primary flight training consists of the fundamental “stick and rudder” skills which all pilots from a Cessna to a 747 must posess. In fact, the US Air Force academy starts all fighter pilot candidates out flying gliders for this very reason. Electric flight will absolutely revolutionize this portion of training because the primary limiting factor in one’s ability to perfect those skills is cost. And the overwhelming majority of cost in a single engine aircraft is the engine itself; gas, oil, maintenance, overhauls. All of these things will be obliviated, freeing pilot’s resources to obtain multiple times the amount of hours as is currently the case.

Not only will this be good for pilots, but the industry and public safety as a whole will be greatly enriched by the increase in basic flight skills that have started to slip over the years due to the exorbitant cost of primary training.

Not an issue (or, not an unknown or new issue).

Almost every flight school does initial training in single-engine, piston-powered airplanes with fixed landing gear. Even pilots who eventually fly planes as different from a Cessna 152 as a multi-engine, turbine-powered jet liner with retractable gear and other controls like spoilers that training aircraft lack.

> The price is 350k per plane, but they're buying twice the fleetsize. Let's assume that's half because of charging time (takes longer than refueling between students) and half because they expect to grow by offering lower cost training. Then the price of 1.5 of these vs 1 traditional is 1.5 x 350 = 525k vs about 400k for the 172.

Why are we comparing 1.5 new planes to 1 old plane? The way I understand your hypothetical division:

- They have x planes.

- They want to replace their x old planes with 2x new planes.

- Of the additional x planes (over the old fleet size), 0.5x are due to (projected) increased demand, and 0.5x are a logistics cost that didn't apply to the old fleet.

- So, the extra logistics cost represents adding 0.5x planes on top of what would have been 1.5x old planes.

Then wouldn't the right cost comparison be 1.33 new planes to 1 old plane?

I assume you can also just switch the battery so no need to fast charge. Probably need some tooling for that though:

70 kW * 1 h / 200 Wh/kg = 350 kg

What's the capacity of the battery on the Bye aircraft? The company website did not have specifications. In any case it's amazing how quickly this has progressed.

From what I remember it's 90 KWh, but that may be for the fourseater.

92kWh