Diamond Aircraft eDA40 All-Electric Aircraft

[MountainDude]

https://www.diamondaircraft.com/en/flight-school-solution/electric-aircraft/

 

[Salty]

I have “up to” no doubt this one will be successful.

 

[pfarber]

They used weasel words: up to 90 minutes as the battery technology evolves

So current batteries do not get you 90min and we're hopeing that the answer falls put of the sky on how to get 90 minutes.

I can never afford a new AC so i really dont care if they do get to 90 minutes. Im sure the $250,000+ (a guess) makes it unreachable for 90% of pilots.

 

[asicer]

Nice cartoon.

 

[CaptainXap]

The 'as battery technology evolves' bit is a shame. I'm curious what battery energy density they're using for that calculation. The people they use for their batteries currently supply a 205Wh/kg battery, and if they're doing the calculation off for instance Tesla Model 3 battery density, which is 260Wh/kg I guess I'm not too disappointed. It seems reasonably likely that their supplier could have products that would match the Tesla density in the near future.

I'm pretty pleased that Diamond is coming out with this plane. My feeling is that improvements in battery energy density are inevitable, and that in 15 years we'll probably have batteries that have densities that are 2-3 as good as Tesla's current best, which would make a plane like this a lot more flexible.

 

[Tantalum]

and that in 15 years we'll probably have batteries that have densities that are 2-3 as good as Tesla's current best

Is there any kind of developmental proof of 3 fold improvements every decade or so in energy density?

I'm getting so tired of this whole approach to the modern world "we're building a cool thing, we don't know how to power it, but some day someone will!" Why stop with airplanes, let's build teleporters and warp drives; they're theoretically possible - just need the technology to catch up


^that said, I like Diamond aircraft and their approach with the diesel engines, the DA62, DA50, etc., lend them credibility. But as has been stated before "up to 90 minutes" is not useful for general aviation outside of a niche market (training, coastal sightseeing tours, etc.)

 

[Salty]

The 'as battery technology evolves' bit is a shame. I'm curious what battery energy density they're using for that calculation. The people they use for their batteries currently supply a 205Wh/kg battery, and if they're doing the calculation off for instance Tesla Model 3 battery density, which is 260Wh/kg I guess I'm not too disappointed. It seems reasonably likely that their supplier could have products that would match the Tesla density in the near future.

I'm pretty pleased that Diamond is coming out with this plane. My feeling is that improvements in battery energy density are inevitable, and that in 15 years we'll probably have batteries that have densities that are 2-3 as good as Tesla's current best, which would make a plane like this a lot more flexible.

lol. Yeah, that’s realistic.

 

[schmookeeg]

I sort of like the idea that I can quantify a Garmin G1000 now in "lost minutes of endurance"

I cringe every time I power one of those on before a startup and see the -11A draw.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Is there any kind of developmental proof of 3 fold improvements every decade or so in energy density?

No, why would you think that? I don't think any of us claim such a thing.
There are batteries in fairly late development that give 5 fold improvements to what we have now.

I'm getting so tired of this whole approach to the modern world "we're building a cool thing, we don't know how to power it, but some day someone will!" Why stop with airplanes, let's build teleporters and warp drives; they're theoretically possible - just need the technology to catch up

You know most of it's fluff- just ignore it. OTOH, people stretching our technology is how we get things we have now. Like practical airplanes. Something that would have been called a supercomputer

^that said, I like Diamond aircraft and their approach with the diesel engines, the DA62, DA50, etc., lend them credibility. But as has been stated before "up to 90 minutes" is not useful for general aviation outside of a niche market (training, coastal sightseeing tours, etc.)

It depends on how fast it flies, and if it includes reserves. For example, 60 minutes at 150 knots is about 5 hours in a car. I'll give you 4 hours in a car for headwind. Do a 20 minute charge and do it again. Most of the flying I've been doing lately, it would work for me, too. It will undoubtedly bee to expensive for me, but any new plane I don't build will be.

 

[fasteddie]

Yup. Another example of people trying to apply Moore's Law to something besides computing power.

Yawn.

 

[Spring Ford]

Yup. Another example of people trying to apply Moore's Law to something besides computing power.

Yawn.

I know. You would expect people versed in aviation to know that no aircraft would every fly for more than a few minutes while in clear sight the ground. The idea of carrying more than a passenger or two, and those fools exposed to all the elements, is clearly completely impossible.

 

[CaptainXap]

Is there any kind of developmental proof of 3 fold improvements every decade or so in energy density?

No, and there won't be - but we can certainly do better than we are doing right now, but it requires different battery chemistry. NiCad batteries had an energy density of around 50-60 Wh/kg, and Lithium Ion batteries in Teslas are about a five-fold improvement on them.

One of the current frontrunners for replacing Lithion Ion batteries are Lithium-Sulphur batteries, which have much higher energy densities than Lithium-Ion. Previously they had a lot of problems with degrading after about 50 cycles or so but recent developments have batteries that last for 1000 cycles, which is a lot closer to Lithium Ion levels. They estimate realizable specific energy of 400 - 600Wh/kg, which is about double what is currently in a Tesla. They seem to think they'll have batteries ready to sell in five years, but there's a reason I chose 15 years in my post.

There are other companies working on other Lithium-Sulfur batteries - some claiming that they'll get to 900Wh/kg, buuuuut... they haven't revealed how they do it yet, and it's Silicon Valley company...

Anyway, I guess my point is my belief that 2-3x current densities is probably on the horizon is not just a bit of hopeful handwaving on my part. It's me believing hopeful handwaving by some other people, some of whom have some interesting papers and results to back up their ideas.

 

[Lachlan]

It’s pretty ignorant thought process to believe that 2021 is the furthest the human mind, all of its inventiveness, discoveries and technological advancements, will ever evolve. There’s more out there.

 

[tspear]

Pipistrel Electro has a 60 minute battery system. This is an LSA.
The DA-40 frame can carry a lot more weight, so carrying a lot more battery pack is definitely viable.
(You will notice that the cruise power requirements of the Electro and the DA-40 are both fairly small compared to the traditional engines/planes discussed here?)

Tim

 

[Racerx]

Great. It flies. But still almost useless. Was really hoping for something more positive with that hydrogen Malibu. Then it crashed and they moved on to bigger birds. Seems like you've got a few kinks to iron out before moving to larger planes but what do I know.

 

[Tantalum]

It’s pretty ignorant thought process to believe that 2021 is the furthest the human mind, all of its inventiveness, discoveries and technological advancements, will ever evolve. There’s more out there.

Who said any of that? I'd like to introduce you to my friend; he's made of straw and lives close to a slippery slope

know. You would expect people versed in aviation to know that no aircraft would every fly for more than a few minutes while in clear sight the ground. The idea of carrying more than a passenger or two, and those fools exposed to all the elements, is clearly completely impossible.

I don't think you meant to, but you proved my point. The Wright Brothers did their Kitty Hawk flight in 1903.. within 4 decades we had jet planes.. and within another 3 decades we had commercial supersonic travel. We've had batteries since 1800. How much government money, subsidies, private investment, university brain power has gone into batteries? Tesla is at the leading edge of battery tech right now.. but what works for cars may not work for planes.

Just look at the raw comparison: A Tesla battery weighs around 500 kg, with a 260 wh/kg capacity vs 12,000 wh/kg for jetfuel. Even if we assume a whopping 90% of fossil fuel energy goes to heat waste (which we're nowhere near as bad), you still need a minimum 6 fold increase in battery tech - and that assumes zero loss for the electric plane

The allure of fancy graphics and weekly news articles about us being just a year away from some major breakthrough need to be met with a grain of reality.

but we can certainly do better than we are doing right now

How though? I appreciate the desire to advance our tech, especially in aviation, but you already have absurd amounts of money and tons of very smart people involved in this. Just about every car maker is planning an EV future. I think we are doing everything we realistically can.

but it requires different battery chemistry

YES! And that's exactly it, people need to be realistic with what they can expect. This stuff is not without its dangers either, look at the whole Bolt debacle, the Boeing Dreamliner battery fires.. we have a long way to go..

 

[CaptainXap]

How though? I appreciate the desire to advance our tech, especially in aviation, but you already have absurd amounts of money and tons of very smart people involved in this. Just about every car maker is planning an EV future. I think we are doing everything we realistically can.

Sorry, what I meant my that is that we as battery consumers will be able to do better than use a Lithium Ion batteries, not that The World In General is Not Doing Enough Battery Research. I'm sure there are vast amounts of research going in to better batteries, which is one of the reasons I'm reasonably confident that we will have better batteries in the not too distant future.

I'm not under any illusions here - as I understand it batteries will never reach the specific energy of fuels like gasoline, but with a doubling of battery capacity I think that some electric airplanes will begin to be genuinely useful.

 

[Racerx]

It’s pretty ignorant thought process to believe that 2021 is the furthest the human mind, all of its inventiveness, discoveries and technological advancements, will ever evolve. There’s more out there.

Battery ev's are a stopgap until something better comes around. I give it 20 years. When we realize lithium mining is time consuming and just as toxic long term.

Maybe then a realistic battery powered airplane is around.

 

[Lachlan]

Battery ev's are a stopgap until something better comes around. I give it 20 years. When we realize lithium mining is time consuming and just as toxic long term.

Maybe then a realistic battery powered airplane is around.

We’ve come a long ways since whale oil lamps, ‘tis true. I believe there’s a whole future ahead of us filled with new stuff. Some people are incapable of thinking outside of a closed mind, they’re not creative, and hold others in contempt for their intellectual exploration. Some are just realistic and limit current design improvements to current tech. Kind of how a mission to Mars is being worked on, even though the tech isn’t available off the shelf, anywhere, but it’s still being worked on by a whole lot of people who are far smarter than a Li-ion cell.

I have my doubts that electric aircraft will be a reliable source of transportation in the next several decades, but I can hope for other innovations, can’t I?

 

[Lachlan]

Who said any of that? I'd like to introduce you to my friend; he's made of straw and lives close to a slippery slope.

No one said “any of that.” I said it’s pretty ignorant to think that we are living in the pinnacle of creativity and that nothing will ever advance beyond what we know today. Im certain that there were some cave dwelling geniuses who felt the same way during their epoch of well-honed stone tools and pointy sticks.

How many electric aircraft had been flown wen you first got your ticket vs today? I still have not said that electric stuff is great. In fact, I’ve said that I don’t even like it in other threads, but you’ve got to admit it’s being developed in little chunks here and there. A lot of people seem to expect instant success in supplanting globe-crossing airliners with battery powered airplanes or else it’s not truly successful. Different goals. It’s like saying Tesla isn’t successful because they don’t have 50-passenger buses with a 1200 mile range yet.

I’d like to introduce you to another friend you should have. Her name is Optimism. She believes in success and doesn’t give up.

 

[Tantalum]

No one said “any of that.” I said it’s pretty ignorant to think that we are living in the pinnacle of creativity and that nothing will ever advance beyond what we know today. Im certain that there were some cave dwelling geniuses who felt the same way during their epoch of well-honed stone tools and pointy sticks.

How many electric aircraft had been flown wen you first got your ticket vs today? I still have not said that electric stuff is great. In fact, I’ve said that I don’t even like it in other threads, but you’ve got to admit it’s being developed in little chunks here and there. A lot of people seem to expect instant success in supplanting globe-crossing airliners with battery powered airplanes or else it’s not truly successful. Different goals. It’s like saying Tesla isn’t successful because they don’t have 50-passenger buses with a 1200 mile range yet.

I’d like to introduce you to another friend you should have. Her name is Optimism. She believes in success and doesn’t give up.

your point "A lot of people seem to expect instant success in supplanting globe-crossing airliners with battery powered airplanes" is exactly what bothers me, so often you see a flashy CGI drawing of a futuristic plane with some bonkers headline and a monster round of funding just so they can sell the idea to some else with deeper pockets and the initial founders walk away with a ton of $$

As I said, I like what Diamond has done. We fly behind our old Lyco/Conti engines and Diamond propelled against all the obvious "don't do this" and developed a viable modern powerplant for their planes; that's cool!

So I'm all for tech. Airbus flew the e-fan back in 2014, a cool looking little plane but in general we're advancing so. slowly.



I don't think we're in disagreement overall here

 

[Cap'n Jack]

No, and there won't be - but we can certainly do better than we are doing right now, but it requires different battery chemistry. NiCad batteries had an energy density of around 50-60 Wh/kg, and Lithium Ion batteries in Teslas are about a five-fold improvement on them.

One of the current frontrunners for replacing Lithion Ion batteries are Lithium-Sulphur batteries, which have much higher energy densities than Lithium-Ion. Previously they had a lot of problems with degrading after about 50 cycles or so but recent developments have batteries that last for 1000 cycles, which is a lot closer to Lithium Ion levels. They estimate realizable specific energy of 400 - 600Wh/kg, which is about double what is currently in a Tesla. They seem to think they'll have batteries ready to sell in five years, but there's a reason I chose 15 years in my post.

There are other companies working on other Lithium-Sulfur batteries - some claiming that they'll get to 900Wh/kg, buuuuut... they haven't revealed how they do it yet, and it's Silicon Valley company...

Anyway, I guess my point is my belief that 2-3x current densities is probably on the horizon is not just a bit of hopeful handwaving on my part. It's me believing hopeful handwaving by some other people, some of whom have some interesting papers and results to back up their ideas.

That Lyten battery gets pretty close to the 2-3x energy density you mention. That charge time is also suspiciously similar to what Diamond claims. Instead of using graphite, they are using graphene- very similar to graphite, but much better control over the arrangement of the carbon atoms. There is no doubt more in those batteries than they mention in that web site.
You may find some of the advances in silicon anodes of interest: https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/meng_science_2021

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Battery ev's are a stopgap until something better comes around. I give it 20 years. When we realize lithium mining is time consuming and just as toxic long term.

Maybe then a realistic battery powered airplane is around.

Or we start recycling lithium as we do with lead batteries now.

 

[Jeff767]

Keep in mind that batteries for aircraft need to be considerably better than batteries used in cars. A fire in a car is a very different issue than a fire in a aircraft. Building in proper safeguards adds weight to a battery pack.

 

[WDD]

For me, I keep it simple. Can it go as far as, produce as many kilowatt hours as, refuel as quickly as, be as cheap as gasoline? If so, I'm still not interested. Call me when there is a significant enough improvement over what we have that will warrant a change.

 

[CaptainXap]

For me, I keep it simple. Can it go as far as, produce as many kilowatt hours as, refuel as quickly as, be as cheap as gasoline?

I don't think they ever will, unless some truly wild new tech turns up. However that doesn't mean that people won't get forced to go electric. All new cars sold in Germany from 2030 onwards have to be electric - GA aviation will hold on longer than cars do, but how much longer?

 

[Salty]

I don't think they ever will, unless some truly wild new tech turns up. However that doesn't mean that people won't get forced to go electric. All new cars sold in Germany from 2030 onwards have to be electric - GA aviation will hold on longer than cars do, but how much longer?

Considering there’s virtually no new GA aircraft being sold, that isn’t an issue.

 

[WDD]

Yeah - all electric by 2030 - gotcha -

IF the government enforces that, you'll see something similar to how Cuba was frozen in time with 1950's cars. Germany will be a time capsule for pre 2030 cars. Ironic that advancement in technology and car design will stop - kind of opposite of the intention.

 

[DesertNomad]

My most recent flight was nearly 4 hours. I can’t see electric motors doing that anytime soon.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

My most recent flight was nearly 4 hours. I can’t see electric motors doing that anytime soon.

Why do you say that? What do you mean by "soon"? How fast were you flying? How much were you carrying?

 

[WDD]

Another question on electric planes - why?

GA burns enough fuel in a year equal to what is used by a single 787 during taxi. I exaggerate - but you get my drift.

Banning all GA fuel burning aircraft will have zero impact on anything except a politician’s re election campaign.

Just let me know when you have something better, cheaper, faster than what we have now.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Another question on electric planes - why?

GA burns enough fuel in a year equal to what is used by a single 787 during taxi. I exaggerate - but you get my drift.

Banning all GA fuel burning aircraft will have zero impact on anything except a politician’s re election campaign.

Just let me know when you have something better, cheaper, faster than what we have now.

Why not? Thinking like this will allow other countries to surpass our technology.
You sound like someone in 1904 asking why create an airplane at all? The trains at the time were faster, cheaper, better. The engines at that time weren't great, either.
Going to an electric motor, if nothing else, will eliminate some of the points raised in this thread:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/years-since-overhaul.134751/

 

[WDD]

Not at all. If someone brings me something better - great! I won’t stand in their way. Why would you think I’d slow them down? But if they take my tax dollars and build something less capable then we are falling behind- not going forward.

 

[Salty]

Why not? Thinking like this will allow other countries to surpass our technology.
You sound like someone in 1904 asking why create an airplane at all? The trains at the time were faster, cheaper, better. The engines at that time weren't great, either.
Going to an electric motor, if nothing else, will eliminate some of the points raised in this thread:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/years-since-overhaul.134751/

This is describing progress for progress' sake. Doesn't do anything to answer the question "why?" Why would this be progress?

There are a lot of things we haven’t done yet that we shouldn’t try to do. Why isn’t this one of them? We haven’t tried steam powered planes yet, why aren’t we working on that?

 

[tspear]

Not at all. If someone brings me something better - great! I won’t stand in their way. Why would you think I’d slow them down? But if they take my tax dollars and build something less capable then we are falling behind- not going forward.

The super majority of advancements in technology over the past hundred years used your tax dollars for basic research at a minimum. And the initial versions always sucked compared to the existing tech.
So, if you want zero advancement, keep pushing that direction. If you want technology to move forward, vote for more federal funding on basic research (NIH, NASA, NSF....).
Oh, as a general rule, federal funded research is cheaper for society than private invested research. The reason is simple, it is licensed to all at the same rate, and you effectively eliminate duplicate research done in private silos were nothing is shared.

Tim

 

[kayoh190]

GA burns enough fuel in a year equal to what is used by a single 787 during taxi. I exaggerate - but you get my drift.

I get your drift, but for curiosity's sake I pulled the flight plan for one of our 787s headed to Japan. The 19 minute taxi at DFW was planned for 1140 pounds of fuel, or 170.9 gallons. I'm guessing the GA fleet burns slightly more than that.

 

[Salty]

I get your drift, but for curiosity's sake I pulled the flight plan for one of our 787s headed to Japan. The 19 minute taxi at DFW was planned for 1140 pounds of fuel, or 170.9 gallons. I'm guessing the GA fleet burns slightly more than that.

Multiply 1140 by this and what do you get?

 

[kayoh190]

Multiply 1140 by this and what do you get?

Doesn't look like a 'single' 787 to me.

 

[tspear]

Yeah - all electric by 2030 - gotcha -

IF the government enforces that, you'll see something similar to how Cuba was frozen in time with 1950's cars. Germany will be a time capsule for pre 2030 cars. Ironic that advancement in technology and car design will stop - kind of opposite of the intention.

Not at all. Look at the R&D numbers from VW, BMW, and MB. Electric is forcing massive advances and investments in R&D. Countries that lag on the investments will fall behind, and fall behind very fast.
Electric cars have significant potential to fundamentally change society on many levels. A few examples:
1. Significantly lower labor required to build and maintain. Think of the number of parts comparison. 2K or more unique parts in a single ICE, versus a two dozen for a battery system and electric motor. Think, no oil changes, no consumable parts (spark plugs, engine air filters, oil filters, oil, brakes now last the life of the car).... They also take about 30-50% less labor to build (depends on who's numbers you use and the associated assumptions). This is going to have a huge economic shift.
2. Oil as a commodity supplies the majority of money to our adversaries in the world. You eliminate oil demand, you eliminate the ability of many countries that want to see us die, have any economy.
3. Traction control, electric motors can do much more than just selective application of brakes, then can also selectively apply torque. This will allow for incredible advances in traction control.
4. As long as cars burn gas, we are largely stuck with oil. If cars use electrons, then we can supply electrons in the most expedient way possible. Oil, Coal, Solar, Wind, Nuclear... whatever. It allows for choice.


Tim

 

[Salty]

Doesn't look like a 'single' 787 to me.

I bet all the fuel for taxi for all those just today pretty much covers all of GA for a year.