CEO Kyle Clark of BETA Technologies walks us through the details of how to design, build, and operate electric planes — first for relatively short light-cargo flights, but eventually, he says, for all of aviation. I loved this conversation so much.
I was curious about the comment that 5-7% energy density improvement means doubling of range every 7 years. 7 years of 5-7% improvement is, in aggregate, about 50%. Does range improve more than linearly with energy density? I'd love to better understand that relationship.
So a 60% increase in range over 250 miles, is 400 miles. However, given they have to leave 100 miles of reserve, the 250 miles is currently giving you 150 miles, whereas the 400 miles would give you 300 miles.
So it's not that the range will double every 7 years, but in about 7 years years their practical range will double.
Super interesting conversation! I'm very curious about how aviation might go about decarbonizing itself, good to hear from someone working on the problem.
I also appreciate Kyle's honesty and his willingness not to brag about stuff that doesn't exist yet. Very refreshing in the tech space.
Looking far into the future - if solar panels get *really* cheap and lightweight, would it ever make sense to cover an electric aircraft's fuselage with solar panels and have it generate some of its energy needs mid-flight? Airplanes typically fly above the clouds, right, so there's constant sun exposure?
As a former FAA employee and commercial pilot, I found this pod fascinating. A couple questions that didn’t get asked/ answered were - how fast do they go in comparison to other aircraft and also how high do they typically fly? So the range is 1/3 of Helicopters, but what about speed there and back? And what about altitude - this is important when it comes to flying in all kinds of weather - getting above the rain clouds or ice storms.
So putting aside the environmental factors for a moment, I understand why someone might go for a traditional plane vs this (tradeoffs explained). But what about helicopter? Are there any downsides to this?
****************
Range:
"It's about the same as a normal helicopter? I mean, there are some high-performance helicopters that go a little bit further, larger helicopters, but smaller helicopters are right in that range."
Cargo space:
"So, more cargo, you carry more stuff."
Cost of buying:
"This plane costs $3.5 to $4 million, and a helicopter will be $6 to $8 million."
Cost of fuel:
"So, for example, for a two-hour-long trip that we fly regularly in this airplane, we'll put $17 of
electricity in the plane and go and fly for 2 hours. If you go fly a helicopter, it's really bad. But even if you fly a fixed-wing turbine aircraft, that's like $700 of fuel."
--Googling different sites, helicopter might be a couple hundred per hour.
Cost of maintenance, not sure if this is compared to plane or helicopter:
" and the maintenance is like a third to a quarter." unclear if that's relative to a plane or helicopter.
Longevity:
"So, our aircraft will last 35,000 to 40,000 hours. That means you're going to replace the batteries 10 to 20 times within the life of the airplane. Which, by the way, is about how often you change an engine on an airplane over the life of the airplane."
Cost of replacement did not get fleshed out. I was about this, but Googling and it appears it's probably in the 250 KWH range. So 4 low-end Tesla's. They say their batteries end up in the 2,000 - 3,000 cycle range before needing replacement, which means replacement costs are a fraction of the gas savings. I don't want to speculate on the cost of higher certification cells, but lets use $100/KWH, we are talking about $25K. If its $400/KWH that we are talking $100K. Assuming only 2,000 cycles, that's just $50 of the fuel savings per cycle...
*************************
What am I missing here? Now sometimes new tech is just better in all dimensions, but that's rare for a first generation product. Also, given the only person I've heard speak about it is CEO of the company, I'm very curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this. Are we going to see sales of small helicopters collapse?
Batteries take up mass and volume, and with an aircraft that volume is going to be as important as the mass (resistance goes with cross sectional area and velocity squared for an aircraft), so don't put a nail in the SAF coffin yet. You'll still need a source for that hydrogen/methane/ammonia for the fuel cell on board for longer range flights. The fuel cell + liquid fuel are going to be a malleable contribution to cross section with easily scalable range capacity, whereas more batteries become a bit of a challenge as you push out the range (and further degrade performance as you have to continue carrying the cells after you've depleted them during the flight - craft with liquid fuels get lighter as the flight progresses).
This from 3 years ago (Gravity Industries operator of a jet-pack boarding at sea as a demo for the Royal Marines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NVb1ZHo68) has a liquid fueled setup, but we can ask the question now if they did it with batteries without being completely crazy (was about 8x more performance with liquid vs. battery at the time - between more efficient energy conversion and higher density fuel storage).
The solutions for aircraft range will also work for shipping and trains - but again they'll be fuel cells for mass and volume considerations, which are both relevant for those industries as well. The real innovation is coming in aviation because the sky's the limit or the market is wide open, whichever pun you want to ride.
A high school (class of ‘69) buddy of mine’s father developed a wing design that increases efficiency and stall/spin safety. The efficiency aspect especially, should be of interest to electric aviation. Check out Lamaviation.com.
I was curious about the comment that 5-7% energy density improvement means doubling of range every 7 years. 7 years of 5-7% improvement is, in aggregate, about 50%. Does range improve more than linearly with energy density? I'd love to better understand that relationship.
With compounding, 7% per year, would be 60% more battery capacity after 7 years. Would need 10 years to double.
If it was 6% per year you'd need 12 years. 5% about 14 years. (I'm rounding of course).
So 10-14 years by my math...
Not sure why he said 7 years. Maybe I'm missing something obvious or maybe he's including gains in other parts of the aircraft? Dunno.
Never mind, I think I figured it out.
So a 60% increase in range over 250 miles, is 400 miles. However, given they have to leave 100 miles of reserve, the 250 miles is currently giving you 150 miles, whereas the 400 miles would give you 300 miles.
So it's not that the range will double every 7 years, but in about 7 years years their practical range will double.
Super interesting conversation! I'm very curious about how aviation might go about decarbonizing itself, good to hear from someone working on the problem.
I also appreciate Kyle's honesty and his willingness not to brag about stuff that doesn't exist yet. Very refreshing in the tech space.
Looking far into the future - if solar panels get *really* cheap and lightweight, would it ever make sense to cover an electric aircraft's fuselage with solar panels and have it generate some of its energy needs mid-flight? Airplanes typically fly above the clouds, right, so there's constant sun exposure?
As a former FAA employee and commercial pilot, I found this pod fascinating. A couple questions that didn’t get asked/ answered were - how fast do they go in comparison to other aircraft and also how high do they typically fly? So the range is 1/3 of Helicopters, but what about speed there and back? And what about altitude - this is important when it comes to flying in all kinds of weather - getting above the rain clouds or ice storms.
So putting aside the environmental factors for a moment, I understand why someone might go for a traditional plane vs this (tradeoffs explained). But what about helicopter? Are there any downsides to this?
****************
Range:
"It's about the same as a normal helicopter? I mean, there are some high-performance helicopters that go a little bit further, larger helicopters, but smaller helicopters are right in that range."
Cargo space:
"So, more cargo, you carry more stuff."
Cost of buying:
"This plane costs $3.5 to $4 million, and a helicopter will be $6 to $8 million."
Cost of fuel:
"So, for example, for a two-hour-long trip that we fly regularly in this airplane, we'll put $17 of
electricity in the plane and go and fly for 2 hours. If you go fly a helicopter, it's really bad. But even if you fly a fixed-wing turbine aircraft, that's like $700 of fuel."
--Googling different sites, helicopter might be a couple hundred per hour.
Cost of maintenance, not sure if this is compared to plane or helicopter:
" and the maintenance is like a third to a quarter." unclear if that's relative to a plane or helicopter.
Longevity:
"So, our aircraft will last 35,000 to 40,000 hours. That means you're going to replace the batteries 10 to 20 times within the life of the airplane. Which, by the way, is about how often you change an engine on an airplane over the life of the airplane."
Cost of replacement did not get fleshed out. I was about this, but Googling and it appears it's probably in the 250 KWH range. So 4 low-end Tesla's. They say their batteries end up in the 2,000 - 3,000 cycle range before needing replacement, which means replacement costs are a fraction of the gas savings. I don't want to speculate on the cost of higher certification cells, but lets use $100/KWH, we are talking about $25K. If its $400/KWH that we are talking $100K. Assuming only 2,000 cycles, that's just $50 of the fuel savings per cycle...
*************************
What am I missing here? Now sometimes new tech is just better in all dimensions, but that's rare for a first generation product. Also, given the only person I've heard speak about it is CEO of the company, I'm very curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this. Are we going to see sales of small helicopters collapse?
Another great effort with Harbour Air & magniX to electrify float planes - the eBeaver https://harbourair.com/harbour-air-bolsters-sustainable-aviation-goals-with-magnix-loi/
Batteries take up mass and volume, and with an aircraft that volume is going to be as important as the mass (resistance goes with cross sectional area and velocity squared for an aircraft), so don't put a nail in the SAF coffin yet. You'll still need a source for that hydrogen/methane/ammonia for the fuel cell on board for longer range flights. The fuel cell + liquid fuel are going to be a malleable contribution to cross section with easily scalable range capacity, whereas more batteries become a bit of a challenge as you push out the range (and further degrade performance as you have to continue carrying the cells after you've depleted them during the flight - craft with liquid fuels get lighter as the flight progresses).
This from 3 years ago (Gravity Industries operator of a jet-pack boarding at sea as a demo for the Royal Marines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NVb1ZHo68) has a liquid fueled setup, but we can ask the question now if they did it with batteries without being completely crazy (was about 8x more performance with liquid vs. battery at the time - between more efficient energy conversion and higher density fuel storage).
The solutions for aircraft range will also work for shipping and trains - but again they'll be fuel cells for mass and volume considerations, which are both relevant for those industries as well. The real innovation is coming in aviation because the sky's the limit or the market is wide open, whichever pun you want to ride.
A high school (class of ‘69) buddy of mine’s father developed a wing design that increases efficiency and stall/spin safety. The efficiency aspect especially, should be of interest to electric aviation. Check out Lamaviation.com.
This is super exciting!