Pipistrel Aircraft, now a division of Textron Aviation, has delivered its first all-electric Velis Electro aircraft to Canada. The two-place high-wing went to the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Aeronautics (WISA) at the University of Waterloo. The institute’s partner, Waterloo Wellington Flight Centre (WWFC), will use the aircraft for research and in “a collaborative capacity to evaluate battery powered electric flight in Canada,” according to Pipistrel.
The Velis Electro has a noise level of only 60 decibels, said the company. The T-tail design and has a payload of 378 pounds, a cruise speed of 90 knots and a range of 108 nautical miles. Pipistrel said in a statement, “The Velis Electro’s operating costs are less than half those of traditional combustion trainers. When used for short-range flying, such as primary flight instruction or traffic pattern practice, this makes a substantial difference in training costs for pilots and could play a huge role in making aviation more accessible, a much-needed change in the context of a looming pilot shortage.”
Gabriel Massey, president and managing director at Pipistrel, said, “We are privileged to have the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Aeronautics as our first Canadian customer for the Velis Electro. This delivery is not only an exciting milestone for Pipistrel and the global presence of the Velis Electro, but also represents a steppingstone for Canada’s strategic investments to promote a greener aerospace industry and economy.”
“a cruise speed of 90 knots and a range of 108 nautical miles”
So, what does that work out to be range-wise with VFR reserves?
Their website claims endurance of “up to 50 minutes (plus VFR reserve)” – which works out to 75 nautical miles.
Maybe they glide well. Range is important, and in future versions, someone with 8 initials following their PhD will figure out how to extend that number into four digits. I’m encouraged about this technology, and I hope those scientists keep plugging to refine these aircraft and automobiles into viable transportation resources.
I recently had the opportunity to fly the Pipistrel Velis Electro in Switzerland. I was interested because I wondered about its efficacy for early pilot training, including pattern work, for use by my school for my students. To make a long story short, I was disappointed.
Several thing about this aircraft make it a non-starter for me. Each take-off consumes about 18% of the battery capacity. Combine that with a requirement to not allow the battery to drop below 30% charge and you end up being able to make three, maybe four, circuits before having to terminate and recharge, something that takes over an hour.
In addition, this is a very slick airplane with limited ability to increase drag. Flaps have only a small effect on overall drag and pulling the power lever all the way back reduces thrust but does not increase drag since the electric motor is no load on the windmilling prop. The end result is a final approach that is very “flat” with a very tight approach airspeed range. Be even slightly fast and you will float for a thousand feet (or more). One can clearly see the Velis’ glider lineage. Unfortunately they left off the spoilers.
So, while I found the Velis a very interesting airplane to fly, I feel that it would be too unusual and limited for the new student. I declare it, “not ready for prime time,” at least for my school.
Thanks for the first hand pirep!
The Cessna 150, which I trained for private pilot certification in, did not have bladder-stretching range, either. The FAA had a good idea when they added the LSA category, and so far those planes have proved to be successful in the market. What holds back designers of electric LSA models are weight restrictions, and they must conform to FAA specs in that regard, which limits the size of batteries. New battery technology is being developed to reduce weight and sizes, so when those units materialize, we might see some respectable numbers in speed and range values.
Ho-Hummm–another “electric airplane–“just around the corner.”
I fly gliders, and we host Regional and National glider competitions. Electric self-launch gliders have been around since 2007–15 years ago.
Here’s a pilot report from AvWeb/Aviation Consumer’s own Larry Anglisano from 3 years ago on Pipestrel’s single-place glider (much easier to “electrify”‘than a heavier two-place). https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/friends-dont-let-friends-fly-electric-gliders/
Note the title. Nothing has changed in the interim.
When even a sleek, light-weight, low-drag, high-aspect ratio, no touch & goes aircraft like a single place glider can’t cut it after 15 years, I’d have to say that “just around the corner” for electric-powered aircraft is not reasonable expectations.
This plane may not be quite ready for prime time training but electric planes are coming and the main reasons will be low cost of operations and reliability. Anyone remember the GM EV1? The first ones had lead acid batteries and a 55 mile range. The second batch had NiMH batteries and a 105 mile range. They were not ready for prime time but some of the customers really liked them. Now I have a Chevy Bolt with a 260 mile range. The real win is that it costs about 2.5 cents a mile to drive and the only maintenance in over 60,000 miles of driving other than tires is that I changed the rear wiper blade. Plus it is responsive and just fun to drive. I should probably change the front wiper blades but I doubt that even if I drive 200,000 miles, I will ever need to change the brakes as I rarely use the hydraulic brakes.
Lithium sulfur batteries are coming that will have 3 times the capacity of current Lithium Ion batteries and will charge in 20 minutes. Yes, it is harder to make electric planes than electric cars but it is going to happen and economics will be the driver.
Commuter cars can cope with the immense weight of the batteries required for an adequate range. Aircraft cannot. Sadly for proponents this is immutable.
I had an email discussion a couple of years ago with someone at Pipestral about this plane. I couldn’t figure out how it made sense. They were trying to compare the operating costs to a 40-year-old 152 but, when you do a fair comparison to their own Rotax-powered version of this plane, the difference is much less. When you consider the cost of capital for the higher purchase price of the electric plane and the infrastructure that would be needed to support a fleet of these at a school, plus the fact that each plane would need to spend half the time on the ground charging, plus the range limitations already mentioned, I just don’t see the justification for a school to invest in these.
There’s actually no need for most schools to ever buy anything not Cessna if they can.
The wannabe student looks or calls to find out how much it should cost to get a certificate. Then, they shop for the cheapest place to rent a “Cessna”. Not an airplane.
The airlines want pilots they can process into cockpit seat units as simply as possible. That means they want clones who flew Cessnas in school.
The government and the industry creates an environment where school owners are too busy doing anything other than compliance to have time to actually improve their institutions. The FAA abhors change anyways, and improvements other than the most gradual are all suspect. Anyone buying anything new will waste many, many hours dealing with the well intended, but inflexible inspectors who trust no one including other parts of the FAA.
The wannabe pilot, if he or she is wanting to fly for an avocation rather than vocation, is likely nonplussed by the entire flight school experience which was outdated and unattractive decades ago.
We grumpy old old men then point out how useless young people are, get in our decades old vehicles and leave by ground or air (assuming we don’t need to change a spark plug, or something). The young, wealthy, no longer wannabe student gets in their less than ten year old car that’s never had an issue except regular maintenance, will likely save them from most crashes, and drives away to find a different hobby.
There are those who deal with things AS THEY REALLY ARE–and those who deal with what they WISH they are. Aviation is for realists–not people that HOPE the weather will get better, or that the runway is long enough, or that their fuel calculations are correct.
There are those that fly what is available, and those that are forever “waiting until their dream airplane comes along.” Those would-be aviators are called “drivers.”
It’s an old aviation axiom to “never buy the first 3 years of any product.” That would include “paper airplanes”–airplanes made up mainly of empty promises.
I’ve got an extensive collection of aviation magazines. When someone asks my thoughts about the “brand-new game-changing latest whiz-bang” in aviation, I invite them to look through a random selection of magazine articles–and see for themselves the number of failed projects hailed in press releases as “the next big thing.”
In addition to the inherent problems in electric airplanes (range, useful load, recharging rate….) an even LARGER problem is that these would-be aircraft are usually electric-powered versions of an IC version that has been in production for years–and the electric Pipistrel is a good example. The combustion engine-powered version has been in production for years–and outperforms the electric counterpart in nearly every aspect of performance. Had the electric version come out FIRST, the combustion engine version would have been a big improvement.
Let the marketplace sort it out–other than bragging rights for being “woke”–there isn’t a rational reason for this model. Most pilots will go for the proven performance and reliability of the IC version.
And the slow death of private aviation continues.
There seems to be alot of area on the upper surface of a conventional plane to embed solar chargers,but at about 3hp max output,not much potential.At least,not yet.
Please note that the intended use is for research and experimentation, not anything remotely related to common aircraft use such as training or getting from A to B. If you want to know what is really going on, as usual, follow the money (sources and spenders).
There is no “research” in a production aircraft; in fact, I would assume that deviating from the POH is punishable.