Alice: Electric plane

[Tantalum]

..to my eyes, stating 'Meet Alice, the world’s first all-electric commuter aircraft' - which is boldly written on their home page - implies a product that is ready to go and actively flying routes. Other outfits don't quite have the luxury to bend truth and perception that much. There's no other statement on the site like "expected to enter service 2024" or whatever. That's a pretty clear way of making the observer think this is done and flying


Mind you, I genuinely hope they succeed, our industry needs to continue to advance and push the envelope. I'm all for going out flying someday and getting behind an electric powerplant that gives me similar (or better) performance than a Lyco/Conti with less fiddling. But let's be honest about what's being offered. At some point a lie is a lie. As of now this is a well funded concept with some promising potential

 

[JOhnH]

I think you agree with me - I think - that the promise made in CNN article is not reality. Which is to my point that it’s tiring to see these unrealistic promises over and over.

If you have a proven track record - which this company doesn’t - then you’ve earned the right to sound like Elon M. Don’t believe his timelines but do believe he’ll deliver.

When do you expect his humanoid robot will actually deliver?

 

[WDD]

When do you expect his humanoid robot will actually deliver?

What makes you think they’re not already among us…..

 

[Tantalum]

then you’ve earned the right to sound like Elon

Funny.. I totally agree. When I was writing the post above I went to Tesla and SpaceX websites and neither make similar claims as Eviation's does on the home page. Checkout Moderna, Pfeizer, Boeing, Airbus, etc. None of them are out there saying they have 'the first drug to cure cancer' or something similar. Even Eviation's components manufacturer, MagniX, is more realistic, humble, on its site

Boom suffers from the safe marketing hubris.. "The fastest and most sustainable supersonic airliner" .. is it though? These outfits sound like that old 'check out my new f****** haircut guy" (remember him?)

 

[JOhnH]

..to my eyes, stating 'Meet Alice, the world’s first all-electric commuter aircraft' - which is boldly written on their home page - implies a product that is ready to go and actively flying routes. Other outfits don't quite have the luxury to bend truth and perception that much. There's no other statement on the site like "expected to enter service 2024" or whatever. That's a pretty clear way of making the observer think this is done and flying


Mind you, I genuinely hope they succeed, our industry needs to continue to advance and push the envelope. I'm all for going out flying someday and getting behind an electric powerplant that gives me similar (or better) performance than a Lyco/Conti with less fiddling. But let's be honest about what's being offered. At some point a lie is a lie. As of now this is a well funded concept with some promising potential

Yeah, but,
for the people that listen to and believe what CNN says, this is gospel. It will happen.

But personally, I do believe it will happen. One day.

 

[Tantalum]

I do believe it will happen. One day

If we get philosophical then on an infinite timeline, yes, all things will happen. I take battery tech advancements and hopes with a massive grain of salt. You look at all the global money and smart scientific effort that has gone into creating better batteries but the yearly gains are small. People are used to breakthroughs and big leaps (nuclear tech, piston engine, steam engine, jet engine, computers, processing power, cell phones).. but chemistry and science are facts. There are only so many electrons you can safely and efficiently and repeatedly pack into something

I don't doubt electric aviation will be a thing. But we're a super long ways off from A320 / 737 / 787 sized airlines cruising around with comparable or better performance all thanks to batter tech. Doesn't matter how fancy the marketing is or sexy the name is

 

[Dan Thomas]

I don't doubt electric aviation will be a thing. But we're a super long ways off from A320 / 737 / 787 sized airlines cruising around with comparable or better performance all thanks to batter tech. Doesn't matter how fancy the marketing is or sexy the name is

The 777 has two 110,000 HP engines. 220,000 HP total. That's 164,000 kilowatts. I don't know what power level they cruise at, but if it's 75%, we have a consumption of 123,000 kw. If we want to take off and climb and cruise for a couple of hours, I'd figure an electric version would need batteries capable of at least 350,000 kwh. That's roughly equal to 4118 Tesla model S battery packs, 1200 pounds each, for a total weight of over 4.9 million pounds.

Ain't gonna happen until that changes. A lot.

Maybe my numbers are bogus, but if they're even half right it's not pretty.

 

[Huckster79]

I have no doubt it will come to be. Think of how far we’ve come in short time. We like to think not much has changed being the tin can air force hasn’t. But we were unable to leave the earth for sustained flight till just a little over a hundred years ago? From the weight flyer to jets and rockets just 40 years later, then from a few hundred ft flight on kitty hawk to objects and people leaving our atmosphere on a regular basis… super sonic flight, the jet, etc.

Every innovation has failures until success is had. I’m really bummed that our national sentiment seems to poopoo groundbreaking innovation… why not celebrate it, even it’s failures as it figures out the next thing that was impossible until it wasn’t.

many folks bet against Ford and many bet against flight in general. If one was alive in 1900 with today’s knowledge of advancement I’d bet we wouldn’t invest in steam engine brands and horsewhip manufacturers…

 

[WDD]

No poo here. And don’t mistake disbelief in this plane flying paying passengers next year as Ludditical. And yes, I just made that word up.

Just because this electric plane doesn't fly today may not be because we don’t believe enough. It may be because it really isn’t going to work as described. If not believable was a great predictor of things that will work out - where is my cold fusion and anti gravity jet pack?

 

[nauga]

I think you agree with me - I think - that the promise made in CNN article is not reality.

We disagree that it was a promise. Given later material in the article I think if anyone is paying attention it should be obvious that it is in error.

I never said they claimed it was going to perfect it or it needed to be perfect. I did say viable prior to being produced for version 1 for commercial use.

You said, "promising things as perfected..." I took that to mean you thought they were "promising things as perfected..." If that's in error then I misunderstood.

Boom suffers from the safe marketing hubris.. "The fastest and most sustainable supersonic airliner" .. is it though?[emphasis added]

That's marketing's JOB, fer crissakes. To make a technology assessment or guess the state of development using only marketing-generated material is fraught with peril.

Nauga,
and the power of positive thinking

 

[Dan Thomas]

I have no doubt it will come to be. Think of how far we’ve come in short time. We like to think not much has changed being the tin can air force hasn’t. But we were unable to leave the earth for sustained flight till just a little over a hundred years ago? From the weight flyer to jets and rockets just 40 years later, then from a few hundred ft flight on kitty hawk to objects and people leaving our atmosphere on a regular basis… super sonic flight, the jet, etc.

Every innovation has failures until success is had. I’m really bummed that our national sentiment seems to poopoo groundbreaking innovation… why not celebrate it, even it’s failures as it figures out the next thing that was impossible until it wasn’t.

many folks bet against Ford and many bet against flight in general. If one was alive in 1900 with today’s knowledge of advancement I’d bet we wouldn’t invest in steam engine brands and horsewhip manufacturers…

Every advancement was enabled by an advancement that preceded it. The car needed the internal combustion engine. So did the airplane. It's notable that the Wrights' flight in 1903 came soon after the first automobiles did, but the Wrights had to build their own engine. Auto engines were too heavy. Advances during WWI depended on the development of better engines and better fuels. Advances during WW2 depended on the development of high-octane gasolines, turbos and superchargers, and a huge increase in the supply of aluminum, which needed large amounts of electricity to smelt. Shortly after that, airliners advanced when the turbine engine was refined. Space flight needed powerful rockets and some means of storing hydrogen and oxygen in large quantities in small tanks. The development of the transistor in 1948 sparked a monstrous revolution in electronics technology. Up until then, everything was done by vacuum tubes. Large, heavy, awful power consumption, heat, short life; without the transistor, and it's subsequent integrated circuit and digital technologies, we wouldn't be having this conversation: no computers, no internet. No cellphones. Expensive, troublesome televisions. Cars would still be using points and condenser ignition systems. Cameras would still be using film.

That one little transistor changed everything. Now we need a battery technology that will change everything. Existing battery technologies have been developed nearly as far as they can go; there are only so many free electrons in useful elements, and those elements have to be light. And plentiful. And safe.

Even then, if we all want electric cars, we'll need far more electricity-generating capacity than we have. And now NIMBY comes into play...

 

[WDD]

Well I read the article and that’s what it says. And that is what I’m referring to and commenting on.

There may be an infinite number of other articles - but can’t cherry pick another article and comment on it against my comment about the original article.

BTW - Which of the articles is more correct than the other? Are any correct? Whose to say.

 

[wayne]

They could possibly do short stuff, like Cape Air type flights. Or NYC/DC/Baltimore type hops. They'd have to have some cranking charge systems, like the 350 kW chargers, or higher. Or maybe multiple chargers and separate battery systems, giving redundancy and the ability to recharge quicker.

Long flights are a major battery breakthru, or two, away. Major breakthru, not minor tweaks.



Wayne

 

[Tantalum]

Think of how far we’ve come in short time

This is exactly why I think the battery leap tech thing is mostly fantasy. Compared to other tech we've made incredibly tiny progress in the 220 years since we've had batteries. Remember Volta made the first battery in something like 1790, well before all that other cool stuff we did that you mentioned. That cool stuff we did didn't use batteries but different fuels, etc., that were proven to be better due to the energy density and overall ease of use. Those techs are agnostic of batteries and the advancements of one really can't be used as a premise for the other

We've been trying to make electric cars, energy storage devices, and perfect battery tech for a long time. Tesla has done tremendous work, and has a nearly unlimited source of financial and intellectual power, yet we're still looking at a needed 50-100X improvement in battery energy density to make it comparable to fossil fuels. We're just not there (yet), and there's nothing to substantially prove we're right around the corner

It's like expecting your 401K balance to suddenly yield a 100X return in the next 2-3 years, despite typical annual growth of 5-10%, and believing so because a few crypto coins took off and made people rich. Would be nice it could happen, and it may, but I wouldn't hold my breath

 

[Tantalum]

That's marketing's JOB, fer crissakes.

I know, but there's a spectrum from good marketing to plausibility to 'well this just sounds made up' or a lie. You got me thinking though, what did Concorde's marketing material look like before it was flying passengers.. next to the 747 the Concorde is probably among the biggest commercial aviation leaps out there

And I found this.. https://www.economist.com/1843/2018/09/03/when-concorde-was-the-future it's a good read actually

Maybe I'm an old soul but this kind of marketing sells me much better than what Boom and eviation are doing

 

[RussellJ]

Man, I would love to see some electric conversions for airplanes. Battery tech has a long way to go but… https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-...t-certified-all-electric-commercial-airplane/

 

[nauga]

Well I read the article and that’s what it says. And that is what I’m referring to and commenting on.

There may be an infinite number of other articles - but can’t cherry pick another article and comment on it against my comment about the original article.

BTW - Which of the articles is more correct than the other? Are any correct? Whose to say.

What do you mean "which?" I'm not sure where *you* sourced the Capeair quote that mentioned 2023 entry to service, but that quote, verbatim, was in a 1/31/2022 CNN article on Eviation that also contained the quote that mentioned cert in 2024. I don't think that points to failed promises, but I don't know the details of commitments made to those who have a real stake in the product.

As with other aircraft in development discussed here there seem to be a lot of hurt feelings in those who have *zero* stake in the projects.

Nauga,
and the timeline of nearly every project

 

[RussellJ]

This is exactly why I think the battery leap tech thing is mostly fantasy. Compared to other tech we've made incredibly tiny progress in the 220 years since we've had batteries. Remember Volta made the first battery in something like 1790, well before all that other cool stuff we did that you mentioned. That cool stuff we did didn't use batteries but different fuels, etc., that were proven to be better due to the energy density and overall ease of use. Those techs are agnostic of batteries and the advancements of one really can't be used as a premise for the other

We've been trying to make electric cars, energy storage devices, and perfect battery tech for a long time. Tesla has done tremendous work, and has a nearly unlimited source of financial and intellectual power, yet we're still looking at a needed 50-100X improvement in battery energy density to make it comparable to fossil fuels. We're just not there (yet), and there's nothing to substantially prove we're right around the corner

It's like expecting your 401K balance to suddenly yield a 100X return in the next 2-3 years, despite typical annual growth of 5-10%, and believing so because a few crypto coins took off and made people rich. Would be nice it could happen, and it may, but I wouldn't hold my breath

hope you don’t mind me joining in. I agree with you on the subject of batteries. Back in the ‘90s when my EV was new it used an 800 lb battery pack to provide a range of 75 miles. After 14 years I changed the batteries out for a 400 lb pack that delivered 100 miles of range. And now, almost 10 years since the last swap, I’ve been looking at upgrading the pack again. Today’s batteries would weigh in at 440 lb and deliver 200 miles of range. So in my experience it looks like energy density of batteries is doubling about every 12 years or so. With so many car companies companies building EVs these days the demand for energy dense batteries may help push things along but still it looks like a long road to reach the power to weight ratio of dinosaur juice.

 

[RussellJ]

Before I sold my Cessna 310 a European company called Magnax came out with a small efficient electric motor. Their motor weighed 35 pounds and developed over 250 HP. It was smaller in diameter than the prop spinners and only 4” deep. I thought it would be awesome to swap out my two 500 pound engines for two 35 pound motors. Electric motors can deliver all of their continuous rated power at any altitude because they don’t rely on oxygen. So high altitudes are no problem. Plus the colder temps up there would help to keep the motors cool.
Anyway, my 310 had a fuel capacity of a thousand pounds, plus the thousand pound weight savings of swapping out the IO-470s gave roughly 2,000 pounds of batteries without changing the full fuel weight of the aircraft. Sounds great! But… Tesla had the most energy dense battery packs at the time and some back of the napkin calculations showed a 1 hour flight time at cruise power settings with standard VFR reserves. So I guess I need to wait another 12 years for energy densities to double again. Two hours at cruise with IFR reserves would be very tempting. https://insideevs.com/news/361185/magnax-axial-flux-electric-motor/

 

[Tantalum]

Before I sold my Cessna 310 a European company called Magnax came out with a small efficient electric motor. Their motor weighed 35 pounds and developed over 250 HP. It was smaller in diameter than the prop spinners and only 4” deep. I thought it would be awesome to swap out my two 500 pound engines for two 35 pound motors. Electric motors can deliver all of their continuous rated power at any altitude because they don’t rely on oxygen. So high altitudes are no problem. Plus the colder temps up there would help to keep the motors cool.
Anyway, my 310 had a fuel capacity of a thousand pounds, plus the thousand pound weight savings of swapping out the IO-470s gave roughly 2,000 pounds of batteries without changing the full fuel weight of the aircraft. Sounds great! But… Tesla had the most energy dense battery packs at the time and some back of the napkin calculations showed a 1 hour flight time at cruise power settings with standard VFR reserves. So I guess I need to wait another 12 years for energy densities to double again. Two hours at cruise with IFR reserves would be very tempting. https://insideevs.com/news/361185/magnax-axial-flux-electric-motor/

A few people in the marina I worked at back in Boston swapped out their sailboat diesels with electric packs. Made total sense there. You spend most of your time under sail and with a few solar panels mounted out of the way atop the saloon you could get several hours of motoring out of it. Plus, on a sailboat, ballast down low is not bad, so having a few hundred pounds of batteries are fine. Was pretty seeing a big 38' Sabre sailboat silently cruise into the doc

The biggest advantages:
-quiet
-apparently not a single part over $500 (from what the owners said)
-no smell (diesel oil, fumes, etc.)
-and more space, a 30 hp yanmar takes up a surprising amount of room
-nothing fancy with batteries, these guys were using relatively cheep deep cycle marine lead acid batteries


Most planes are a totally different ball game though

 

[RussellJ]

A few people in the marina I worked at back in Boston swapped out their sailboat diesels with electric packs. Made total sense there. You spend most of your time under sail and with a few solar panels mounted out of the way atop the saloon you could get several hours of motoring out of it. Plus, on a sailboat, ballast down low is not bad, so having a few hundred pounds of batteries are fine. Was pretty seeing a big 38' Sabre sailboat silently cruise into the doc

The biggest advantages:
-quiet
-apparently not a single part over $500 (from what the owners said)
-no smell (diesel oil, fumes, etc.)
-and more space, a 30 hp yanmar takes up a surprising amount of room
-nothing fancy with batteries, these guys were using relatively cheep deep cycle marine lead acid batteries


Most planes are a totally different ball game though

Yep, totally different.

 

[JVerb]

I'm assuming the range estimates are about as good as they are with ev cars, or mpg car estimates. IE, if it's in a tailwind, only a pilot weighing 105 lbs, zero baggage, and flown at a constant 50 knots, it'll hit that long-distance number. Or 1 hour. Whichever comes first...

I'm more wondering the real usefulness of it. Small commuter flight, limited range and time the batteries work. Only way to make money off a plane is when it's flying, right? How long to recharge the batteries before its next flight...if it's a couple hours, then it's taking up space in a small commuter environment (that doesn't have space to take up) for a long time for turnaround. And if it's a sled design to replace the batteries, then there's significant infrastructure to supply/store/charge batteries.

I don't see a lot of commercial value to this plane. It'll be a good test bed for the future, but they're a LONG way of a financially feasible model, if that's ever really able to be achieved.

 

[Tantalum]

I'm more wondering the real usefulness of it

there isn't one

it seems people want to be the first in the market so when the unicorn fairy comes and gives us the ultra mega capacity fast charging lightweight battery they'll already be in the market. Picture Boeing offering the 777 in the 1920s and telling people "we're the first turbine wide body airliner! Don't worry, it doesn't actually work now, but buy it anyway, the tech to make it useful is just around the corner" <- sad that by 1920 batteries had been around for 130 years and we're still basically no closer to a viable product..

 

[Datadriver]

"As soon as we have better battery technology, which I suspect will be in two or three years, that's when all these electric airplanes will eventually come."

The problem for planes is the better tech that comes - way in the future - will be for cars, and no one will care about the massive weight increase.

 

[Salty]

I'm still waiting for better piston engine technology. Good luck guys!

 

[WDD]

"As soon as we have better battery technology, which I suspect will be in two or three years, that's when all these electric airplanes will eventually come."

The problem for planes is the better tech that comes - way in the future - will be for cars, and no one will care about the massive weight increase.

I think common, cheap, better than gasoline electric propulsion is like fusion. It's only 5 years away. And it's been like that for the past 50 years.....

Yeah, it will someday get there. Or maybe another innovative way will be developed to have high density inexpensive portable energy. No reason it has to be batteries. In any event, I'll let my grandchildren tell me about it in 20 years.....

 

[AKBill]

What about a baby nuclear power source. 1 cubic foot weighing 200 pounds that runs the motors instead of batteries....

 

[JOhnH]

hope you don’t mind me joining in. I agree with you on the subject of batteries. Back in the ‘90s when my EV was new it used an 800 lb battery pack to provide a range of 75 miles. After 14 years I changed the batteries out for a 400 lb pack that delivered 100 miles of range. And now, almost 10 years since the last swap, I’ve been looking at upgrading the pack again. Today’s batteries would weigh in at 440 lb and deliver 200 miles of range. So in my experience it looks like energy density of batteries is doubling about every 12 years or so. With so many car companies companies building EVs these days the demand for energy dense batteries may help push things along but still it looks like a long road to reach the power to weight ratio of dinosaur juice.

Let's see:
First 14 years, 75 miles to 100 miles = 33% improvement or about 2.3% improvement per year
Next 10 years, 100 miles to 200 miles = 100% improvement, or about 10% per year.

It looks to me as though the rate of improvement quadrupled in those two time periods. so if you extrapolate that without using the calculus that I have forgotten in the past 50 years, I would expect that the next time frame will quadruple again, so that your next upgrade will provide 800 mile range. Not too shabby and I think even that is underestimating the potential of new battery technologies. And it assumes a rate of increase being proportional to the past 25 years, which I don't believe is at all reasonable.

 

[skier]

Reading this thread makes me think some people would have us stop designing things until we have the design and technology perfected.

Moller
Synergy
Raptor

I'm sure there were others. Those are just off the top of my head

There's a reason so many in aviation are so pessimistic when new players on the block claim revolutionary changes. And I'll leave this post with a quote - "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

 

[RussellJ]

Let's see:
First 14 years, 75 miles to 100 miles = 33% improvement or about 2.3% improvement per year
Next 10 years, 100 miles to 200 miles = 100% improvement, or about 10% per year.

It looks to me as though the rate of improvement quadrupled in those two time periods. so if you extrapolate that without using the calculus that I have forgotten in the past 50 years, I would expect that the next time frame will quadruple again, so that your next upgrade will provide 800 mile range. Not too shabby and I think even that is underestimating the potential of new battery technologies. And it assumes a rate of increase being proportional to the past 25 years, which I don't believe is at all reasonable.

Math makes my brain hurt What if we break it down to miles of range per pound of battery and then by number of years? Airplanes have to carry the weight of the batteries so weight/range would make more sense to me. I might try that.

 

[JOhnH]

Math makes my brain hurt What if we break it down to miles of range per pound of battery and then by number of years? Airplanes have to carry the weight of the batteries so weight/range would make more sense to me. I might try that.

I thought about that, but the math made my brain hurt too.

I know that batteries today cannot compete apples to apples with current ICE engines. But I strongly believe that in the very near future, there will be a huge leap in battery capability, coupled with more efficient motors.

By the way, what electric vehicle did you buy in the '90s? That might explain your hesitancy towards EVs today.

 

[genna]

There is something that should probably be added to this discussion. Teslas(the range/battery leader) cannot sustain peak power for long at all. Few 1/4 mile runs and the car will lower it's power output significantly due to thermal issues. That's what? Less than a minute at full power? Other cars are less susceptible to this, but they sacrifice significant amount of energy density for that.

 

[JOhnH]

There is something that should probably be added to this discussion. Teslas(the range/battery leader) cannot sustain peak power for long at all. Few 1/4 mile runs and the car will lower it's power output significantly due to thermal issues. That's what? Less than a minute at full power? Other cars are less susceptible to this, but they sacrifice significant amount of energy density for that.

But at full power, a (some) Tesla can get to 60mph in 2 seconds. Who needs 60 seconds at full power?

 

[genna]

But at full power, a (some) Tesla can get to 60mph in 2 seconds. Who needs 60 seconds at full power?

of course, it's not an issue for cars unless they are race cars(hence Porsche made sure they don't have that problem at expense of some range). But it is definitely an issue for an aircraft application

 

[Tantalum]

What about a baby nuclear power source. 1 cubic foot weighing 200 pounds that runs the motors instead of batteries....

B-36 has entered the chat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

 

[nauga]

Moller
Synergy
Raptor

I'm sure there were others. Those are just off the top of my head

Comparing the post you quoted to your list, do you think any particular airplane design should not be undertaken until all technology necessary for success is mature? Or perhaps just should be kept under wraps until the tech is mature? Or....what, exactly?

Nauga,
who has been demonstrated in a relevant environment

 

[JOhnH]

of course, it's not an issue for cars unless they are race cars(hence Porsche made sure they don't have that problem at expense of some range). But it is definitely an issue for an aircraft application

I stand corrected. You are right and thanks for reminding me of that.

 

[Tantalum]

mature

I think there's a spectrum, and maybe you've touched on the head of the core of the difference of opinion on this thread. What is 'mature?' Piper telling us they'll build a new trainer that's going to have X percent cost savings and overall efficiency won't be decried here. They have a track record, and the tech used to build their trainers is extremely mature. Cirrus faced some headwinds, but really aren't all that revolutionary when it comes down to it. If Textron told us their new jet will burn 20% less fuel and fly 30% further we may express some skepticism but still trust them. Someone new on the block promising the world.. well, you get the point


Some of us simply don't see electric tech mature enough (yet) to be ready to party. Some other early designs failed when they asked too much of their available tech at the time (L-1011, although we can blame RR for that), and others. MagniX has done some cool things, and there's undoubtedly neat stuff happening. But we're jumping to Z from A and skipping what's in between

 

[JOhnH]

I think there's a spectrum, and maybe you've touched on the head of the core of the difference of opinion on this thread. What is 'mature?' Piper telling us they'll build a new trainer that's going to have X percent cost savings and overall efficiency won't be decried here. They have a track record, and the tech used to build their trainers is extremely mature. Cirrus faced some headwinds, but really aren't all that revolutionary when it comes down to it. If Textron told us their new jet will burn 20% less fuel and fly 30% further we may express some skepticism but still trust them. Someone new on the block promising the world.. well, you get the point

Yes. I get that point, and I agree with it.

Some of us simply don't see electric tech mature enough (yet) to be ready to party.

I also agree with this.
But I don't think anyone actually considers EVs and battery tech as mature. There are enough holes that even the most ardent supporter will tell you that EVs don't fit everyone's mission,or wallet.

But where we part is that I firmly see battery technology making a giant leap in the foreseeable future bring the concept of EVs (and Electric planes) closer faster than many think.
Is it viable today? Of course not. Well, for airplanes anyway. Electric cars are certainly viable today for many many people. But getting there is a process. We won't wake up one day and say "ok, NOW it is ready for prime time".

 

[Tantalum]

But where we part is that I firmly see battery technology making a giant leap in the foreseeable future bring the concept of EVs (and Electric planes) closer faster than many think.

Hopefully you are right! I've long been waiting to get away from our old piston powerplants. There's a zeitgeist now around efficiency, electronic tech, so the will is there.. let's see how the reality of it evolves..

PS - has anyone in the EA world done anything meaningful with this? Electric parts are not super hard to come by and generally not cost prohibitive, when compared to how much a new Lycoming costs. Has anyone electrified an RV-6 or some other?