Live data from Hacker News

All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

techinsider.io

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#61

I know every one is talking about the energy density of gas, but wouldn't there reduction in moving parts in the engine offset? How does a Tesla compare to an average cat?

A Tesla's motor saves 200 lbs over a 4 cylinder engine but the battery pack adds 1000lbs over a 12 gallon fuel tank which would allow you to drive that 4 cylinder car twice as far.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cessna takes about 8 gallons per hour to fly; if you want to fly at 3 gallons per hour then go for any Rotax 912ULS plane, most are LSA but you can upgrade the license to PPL adn the flight time on LSA (cheap) is considered for PPL. In the end a Comko Ikarus C42 has similar performance with a Cessna 152 and a Pipistrel Virus SW is lighter and much faster (+30%) than the 152 for less than half the fuel consumption.

You can't buy a modern Pipistrel for th price of a 1975 Cessna. A huge % of the light 2 and 4 seat aircraft out there in the c172 and smaller sizes are 25+ years old.

You are right, but that does not make it right to compare a new electric plane's cost, flying performance and energy efficiency/consumption with a 1975 Cessna except if you have a time machine to send the electric plane back in 1975.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't buy a modern Pipistrel for th price of a 1975 Cessna. A huge % of the light 2 and 4 seat aircraft out there in the c172 and smaller sizes are 25+ years old.

You are right, but that does not make it right to compare a new electric plane's cost, flying performance and energy efficiency/consumption with a 1975 Cessna except if you have a time machine to send the electric plane back in 1975.

Except that 1975 Cessna is much, much more likely to be what a small flight school/rental operator/FBO company can afford to buy. $35,000 and ongoing maintenance vs $175,000+.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#64
post #8

What about this one: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat-electric-... Not an expert - don't know if they can be compared and the article lacks any actual specs to compare by, but the pipistrel's electric plane seems to be much cheaper. "Pipistrel expects to bring the final product to the market in 2015 with a target price below 100,000 EUR."

50% of the cost of a plane sold in USA is put aside as reserves for litigations; that doubles the actual cost of the plane, so the Pipistrel that is sold in Europe for 100,000 EUR may be $220,000 in USA. The Cessna 172 is 300k; a modern Pipistrel with better flying capabilities is 100K (there are a couple of 2015 Pipistrel planes on my base airport). Cessna does not sell lots of 172's, but neither Pipistrel does not…

Are you sure about this? I'm not in the market, and don't know the details, but it looks like Pipistrel USA is advertising "Ready to Fly" prices (denominated in Euros) that are much less than you say.

For example, the Sinus shows a base price of 78500 EUR, and the Alpha Trainer Electro Experimental shows 110000 EUR: http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/price-list/RTF-price.html

Is there some large undisclosed fee that is added to this? Or do the "add ons" actually required to have a flyable plane?

Post reply on HN