At an AirVenture press event, Tecnam reported on two P2006T light twins it has sold to NASA as test beds for its X-57 multiple-motor-placement electric propulsion tests, as well as updating progress on its P-Volt electric aircraft project.
Nick Borer, Advanced Concepts Group Lead at NASA’s Langley Research Center, said the agency was looking for a lightweight, high-wing airframe with a large cabin (to hold test equipment). The high wing makes it easy to remove and replace with the various test airfoils NASA will use in the tests.
The two light twins were purchased while on the assembly line so the aiframes could be customized for NASA’s needs. The first flight for the project is scheduled for later this year. “Tecnam was very cooperative with supplying data on the airplane,” said Borer. “It’s unusual to have access to blueprints and test reports, and that saved us a lot of time.”
Tecnam is working with Rolls-Royce Electrical on the propulsion system for the P-Volt, which is an electric-powered version of the 11-seat, piston-engine P2012 Traveller. The launch customer is Norwegian short-haul regional airline Wideroe, which flies to 41 locations within Norway, with many flights of less than 100 miles. Hyannis, Massachusetts-based Cape Air, already a P2012 operator, has also expressed interest in the P-Volt. David Copeland, Tecnam’s U.S. sales director, cited additional market opportunities for the P-Volt with cargo and medevac operators.
Copeland said that pricing information on the P-Volt should be available later this year. Current range is estimated at 100 nautical miles per charge, calculated with a battery at 80 percent of its service life. Tecnam said it would be unrealistic to calculate range using a fresh battery.
Rolls-Royce is currently evaluating options for battery chemistry and Dr. Qinyin Zhang, R-R business area lead for commuter aircraft, said the powerplant maker has not finalized that decision for the P-Volt power train. Tecnam also points out that long-term specs on range and endurance will evolve with advances in battery technology. In other words, it’s not possible to say now what will happen to battery performance between now and when the P-Volt goes into production, and Tecnam is designing the aircraft and its systems to accommodate that moving target. They have already developed a two-meter wing extension and dedicated winglets for the P-Volt version of the airframe. Tecnam cites the advantage of having a proven, known airframe in the P2012 to transition to electric power, particularly for customers such as Cape Air, which has experience operating Travellers.
Wow. !00 miles.
Subtract safety margin to proceed to alternate airport if needed and VFR/IFR reserves and you are left with what? A long taxi?
>>Norwegian short-haul regional airline Wideroe, which flies to 41 locations within Norway, with many flights of less than 100 miles<<
100 miles is the length of many of their routes, not the range of the aircraft.
“Current range is estimated at 100 nautical miles per charge, calculated with a battery at 80 percent of its service life.”
That’s nowhere near enough to reach a legal alternate on a typical foggy Cape Cod day.
True, but t least they are reporting range estimates based on an aging battery that has been in service for a while and not some shiny new unit with a 100% charge. Still not an ideal candidate for marginal weather conditions.
Does anyone know if that 100nm includes a reserve or not?
I fly a fast RV and love to use it to travel. Even so 90% of my flights are within 100 miles. I used to commute with it – 50nm each way. On the ground it’s 75 miles and typically would take me 3x the time (1.5 hrs vs 30 mins). An aircraft that could do that without even using gas would be amazing! Though I don’t need a twin.
I’d rather drive and get there.
Would you fly your RV with 25 miles reserve? Can you imagine landing will all of 2 gallons in the tanks? Would you even take off with only 100 miles in the tanks? In an RV that’s like 8 gallons TOTAL. Never!
We consistently are seeing these “electric 100-mile transport aircraft” articles as if some great milestone has been passed that makes the concept viable. Are there that many scheduled air transport operators that ONLY fly routes that are comfortably within the ranges these near-future 10-30 pax electrics are going to offer? Or small operators who could afford to maintain special aircraft that can service only their shortest routes? Or can afford the turn-around times recharging at every stop dictates?
My continuing skepticism arises from my own operation profile, which is probably close to that of the shortest short-route operators. I just returned from my regular Friday $100 (OK, that’s in 1989 dollars) breakfast flight with the group, which in the waning years of my flying career is pretty much representative of my flying now. You might think an electric would be right up my alley, but even for this limited mission profile, 100 miles in still air absolutely wouldn’t cut it. As would be the case on a high percentage of our regular excursions, this morning I’d have been electron-dry before getting home. Double that range would still be confining. Methinks there are major hurdles in range yet to be cleared.
I read project, test bed , evaluate, etc.
Why all the continued negativity? Let science and research do its thing. Remember the first EVs with a 54 mile range?
Lighten up, folks.
Yes, the quoted range includes the required reserve. Electric commuter aircraft will happen for on simple reason — economics. I am with Joe Jetstar — lighten up and let the research continue. Anyone remember how far the first aircraft flew?