Knee Jerking Against The New

Nah–EVERYBODY, regardless of age, wants something better performing, more reliable, environmentally clean, and cheaper–but the reality is that air-cooled piston engines have had relatively few changes as airplane-movers for nearly 80 years.

I’ve saved all of my aviation magazines since I started flying–over 59 years ago. After a house fire 3 years ago, I’ve refiled and reviewed nearly 8000 of my magazines. It’s fun to review and see what aviation prognosticators heralded as “the next big thing” over the years. The vast majority of them never came to pass. Is it any wonder that most pilots of more than a few years experience have become skeptics? Lots of airframes, avionics, and engines have been heralded and touted as “the next big thing”–but they fell by the wayside. Canard aircraft, diesel power, liquid cooling, auto engines, composites, flying cars–ALL have been proposed–and disappeared–despite being touted by the Aviation Press (with the exception of Aviation Consumer–who accepts no advertising–and thus has been my “go-to” source for objectivity for decades).

Perhaps we need to look outside of aviation to find why people in the industry are so skeptical. I believe it is because:
A. People WANT to believe that you can make an airplane that cruises fast and burns a minimum of fuel and sells for under $5000 (BD-5) or
B. Something worked in another industry and could be adapted for aircraft (Porsche engines).
C. Some PROCESS worked in another industry and could be adopted in airframes (Eclipse friction-stir welding).
D. Something was touted by the aviation (and non-aviation press) as “the next big thing” (the “ever green” “flying car” concept.

It isn’t just engines and airframes. A review of all of these aviation magazines reveal excited ads for every type of avionics–from Superhomers to “crystal controlled”. Point-to-point navigation was projected by everything from Decca to VLF to radial-distance course line computers to approach-certified RNAV systems to VNAV systems to Inertial systems to Loran to early GPSs to the current glass cockpits. All lasted only a few years. Our current GPS system is already threatened by the competing Russian system–adopted by Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the world.

We’ve seen STOL kits fall in and out of favor, tailwheels replaced by nosewheels (with provisions to convert the other way), and whole-airframe parachutes invented and adopted (but despite the aviation press predicting them as “the NEXT Big Thing”–they have had a limited market. We’ve seen excited predictions of “swarms of Very Light Jets–enough to have the FAA try to come up with a way to “handle all this traffic”–only to have limited success, at best. We’ve seen the “Once Big Time Airframe Manufacturers go out of business, or bought by foreign companies, or melded into airspace giants more interested in the “carriage trade” of business jets than anything else. We’ve seen predictions of “An airplane in every garage”–“Everyman’s Airplane”–and the demise of avgas as “every aircraft will be powered by diesel or Jet-A.” We’ve heard predictions of vertical flight “urban mobility” since the Jetson’s cartoon show of the 1960s. NONE of those predictions has come true. The REALITY (often asked by aviation journalists themselves–people that SHOULD KNOW BETTER) is that we are still flying variants of Cessnas, Pipers, and Beechcrafts that would be recognizable to anybody from the 1950s. Yes, they are better equipped–and more plush, but still recognizable as of that era. Nonetheless, we love them!

I mention these shattered dreams NOT as a “downer”–but as a realist–you can’t believe everything you read or hear. I’ve flown electric airplanes as well–motorgliders. They have their place–as mentioned in one of Paul’s earlier columns, it helps to think of their capability in terms of VERTICAL FEET AVAILABLE FOR CLIMB–not in speed or range. The motor gliders are relatively light weight–as is the propulsion system required–and it need not last a long time. It has a lot of wing supporting it. Contrast that with an aircraft that is meant to GO SOMEWHERE–QUICKLY–and TRANSPORT A PAYLOAD. Electrical power as we know it today isn’t a viable option–the powerplant may be up to it, but the immutable fact is that batteries are not–they are simply too heavy and too short-range to fulfill the requirement (with the possible exception of the Harbor Air 20-minute flights in their Beavers–with exchange batteries at the ready). Hybrid powerplants (fueled engines AND an electric engine) are much more likely to succeed–each doing what they do best (fueled engine for speed and range, electric for quiet–with the additional benefit of dual propulsion in the event of an engine or battery failure).

I’d be an adopter in a minute–but for right now, I can’t get past the failures depicted in those shelves full of failed predictions of the past 59 years (or more). In the meantime, I’m not going to sell my airplane. I can’t wait for the “improvement in battery power” that has long been promised–most of that has already been done. I’m 74 years old–and I probably don’t have more than 20 GOOD YEARS LEFT!

Yesterday morning I woke with plans to drive my wife to the doctor in my Model 3. I love my Model 3. The only problem was I forgot to plug in my car last night and it was going to take four hours to bring my car up to full charge. I have it set to receive 75 percent of full capacity because that is pretty much all I need plus reserve for my daily travels. I could have driven my wife to the doctor on the charge I had and probably could have had enough charge for a full days activities. However, I was presented with a problem that I didn’t have to deal with in my truck. Had my F250 been at home I would have just run to the gas station and filled up. And therein lies the problem.

The good thing is my wife didn’t forget to plug in her Model X. There’s is a definite benefit to redundancy. I found that out purely by accident when I started flying a twin. It made a whole lot of sense then, it makes more sense now. Now we have two, microwaves, two refrigerators, two sinks, two garbage disposals, two water heaters, etc. and a 48kw ng backup generator. Life is good as I sit back watching the chaos happening up and down the East coast. The only thing I don’t have two of is a wife. There is no advantage to that as I think most of us can attest to.

My EV’s are great. I don’t care how much energy it takes to make them, or, run them. All I know is for our way of living they can’t be beat. They are heavy, (200 to 250 real miles require a lot of heavy batteries) performance is outstanding and a heavy vehicle is an advantage in the snow.

That being said, all of the requirements that make an EV outstanding are exactly what make a purely electric airplane un-feasible at this point in time. Range requires batteries which equals weight. A lot of weight and that’s pretty much a no go for the time being.

Another issue is recharging. For any kind of long distance travel Tesla has superstations strategically placed throughout the US to get me where I want to go if choose to drive any distance. A 20 to 30 minute charge and off we go. Then again, that’s kind of why I have an airplane. Until there are supercharging stations at airports, even hybrid airplanes are a no go. They still have batteries that have to be charged.

Storage weight is the gorilla in the room that is not going away and even if you could turn the gorilla into a humming bird, the logistics and cost of charging stations at airports has to be addressed. It’s not going to happen in my lifetime, my kids lifetime and maybe not even in my grandkids lifetime. It is what it is. In the mean time I’m having a riot watching the current admin. screw things up beyond what I even thought was possible. Hopefully I’m prepared for the consequences. Hopefully you are too.

Paul,
Electric cars were here before you and I were born. Point is that electric propulsion is NOT a new technology, it predates us all.

The reaction most likely may be one of righteous indignation at being told we’re luddites for having well reasoned skepticism.

To become a pilot, one has to heavily invest oneself. Becoming a pilot, including adding additional ratings, requires dedication, a desire to be an overcomer, and determination. Once one does become an FAA sanctioned, legal pilot, to have staying power in this endeavor, one has to become a REALIST, liking the term or not. Realists must face the reality of the current situation, pleasant or unpleasant, and deal with that realism as it changes or morphs because airplanes, no matter how slow or fast they are, cover distances faster than any other mode of transportation, and operate in a vast 3D world. Even a Cub or many ultralights can fly two miles above the earth…with enough dedicated time and effort to get there.

Aviation is unique above ( forgive my choice of words) any other endeavor because of it’s 3D environment, making flying a somewhat a lonely sport compared to other pursuits. For example, no one can see the beauty of a particular airplane such as a Spitfire or Emeraude in flight unless they see it from…well…another airplane. From the ground, both types look the same. Very uninspiring. I can take a picture, do a video in all the HD definition available, or describe the scene of a sunset from an airplane with words for hours. But at no time, can that experience be replicated outside of being in that airplane at that time, at that location…which is always moving…as accurately, evoking the emotion for that moment as actually being there. Likewise, the challenge of flying through weather and clouds, eventually shooting some instrument approaches to minumums…is isolated to one maybe two people. Flying, by it’s nature is isolating at the same time revealing so much to so relatively few. In my opinion, one who has the tenacity to become a pilot, and then attain the necessary realism dynamics to remain alive and improve as a pilot, enjoying the anonymity and normally lonely experiences requires a certain amount of critically needed skepticism. When it comes to whatever is offered that claims to be an improvement over what has presently evolved and working most of the time, proper vetting by the pilot is a must.

Having said that, aviation, for all its singularities, realistic performance requirements, and necessary reliability, seems to be filled with some of the most UNREALISTIC promises ever offered to a niche endeavor. As if those who are immersed in aviation enough to become pilots, maybe aircraft owners, including renters, have checked in their REALISTIC brains at the door when it comes to advertised claims of whatever new mousetrap is currently offered. As others have noted, I have boxes of magazines covering aviation from military to GA, from the 30’s to present, that are filled with the most fantastic but unrealistic predictions, technologies, and ideas…that for some reason unique to the art and science of flying that has very little vetting, or seemingly requires no vetting. Yet, in spite of no or little vetting, it is proudly announced that certification and deliveries will start yesterday.

Aviators have been exposed to this since Wilber and Orville. It comes with the accolades and privilege’s of become a pilot no matter how old or young the pilot is. Who can prove something that has not been yet done? In airplanes, there is eventually a requirement that the claims made, are proven…many times over. We pilots know that. We also know this required proof takes a long time to be evaluated. And because we participate in a 3D world, we are somewhat reluctant to give up what already works well enough to have aided in keeping us alive thus far. The vetting process from a regulatory and rulemaking standpoint is also reluctant in giving up what already works as well.

Engines are a process of physics. Cams are cams, crankshafts are crankshafts, pistons, rods, rotors, carburetors and fuel injection deliver fuel, all ignited by spark…and all have to follow certain physics to work in harmony. The only thing that can change is how those cranks, cams, pistons, rotors, carbs and fuel injection are actuated. No different than electric power. Electric motors have been in existence even before internal combustion engines. Yet they have to conform to physics to operate. The only thing that can change is how they are actuated. While Tesla and Toyota seem to be the largest of the new kids on the block electric car wise. Studebaker and several others were building electric cars, trucks, and delivery vehicles including some for the military before, during, and after WWI. The same physical foibles had to be dealt with then as now.

However, us aviation participants have, by our unique nature and requirements of wanting to stay alive and continue in our flying, have been privy to over a century of claims, including witnessing either personally or through archived history the claims, predictions, market acceptance, and regulatory requirements of aviation. Flying combined with the history that makes flying unique, still largely misunderstood by the masses, but treasured by those relative few who have transitioned from the curious to becoming the realist have over a century of promises and hopes to realistically evaluate. That history has been littered, heavily littered, with false hopes, outlandish claims, unrealistic expectations, and lack of economy of scale (outside of war requirements) to become another mile marker to the realist that the hoped for outcome will most likely not materialize. It comes with the territory of wanting to pioneer something that has not yet been accomplished within the uniqueness of flying. Who can dispute what has yet been done before it is done outside of violating the physics that have to be adhered to be successful?

So, I am a realistically optimistically realist pilot who hopes for gee whiz stuff success but tempered through the history of the last century whose technology advances have been witnessed by so many of the few
( that being aviation brethren in this case), that no human history as ever witnessed or achieved up to the 19th century or so and today. Plus, I have the documentation of promises made but promised not kept.

Therefore, there is no category or aviation box we can neatly be placed that explains aviation as compared to some other endeavor. It is a unique place to be able to fly in machines that levitates from the ground and returns back to this blue orb, safely with repeatability. To maintain longevity in this 3D world, realistic skepticism is a requirement not an option. And all claims need to be vetted extremely well to age as a pilot and the industry to thrive and grow. That is all we are doing is vetting the claims in the light of aviation history.

I confess: I love new stuff. Spent 45 years inventing mostly bleeding-edge new stuff. Even spawned a few “breakthroughs.”
The thing about breakthroughs is, they’re useful only when they’ve already occurred. Will various breakthroughs occur in the future? Some will, and soon. Others will, but later. Some never will occur. Breakthroughs cannot reliably be scheduled. So far, no harm’ no foul.
But here’s my advice for Will Robinson: RELYING upon a future breakthrough is engineering malpractice.
Aim for the best; prepare for the worst. Like Hanson, Stencel, and Holdeman, I’m a realist. It’s an occupational hazard.

Way back, when I was in my 30’s, I had the good fortune to fly in the Porsche-Mooney. Being a relatively new pilot, I thought it was way-cool. The ease of starting and the single lever control system looked like something out of science fiction at the time. Plus, there was no other plane around that sounded like a 911 as it accelerated down the runway and soared into flight. Personally I was disappointed when it failed. But it gave me the perspective that even good ideas must have the financial commitment from the companies involved to survive. As Bill Clinton once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid”. Even good ideas will fail unless there is sufficient financial support to survive their infancy and the inevitable growing pains before it becomes part of the norm. That simple truth is why so many good ideas in aviation wither and die too soon. For example, the Cessna Cardinal is a superior airplane to the 172 it was intended to replace (sorry, Larry). But it cost more to build, so the 172 remains while the 177 is part of history. Economics trumped technology.

As an engineer, I am always happy to see new ideas come to life. Some are evolutionary and some are revolutionary, but they must all face that economic reality to succeed. Electric airplanes are an example of evolution – from ground-based vehicles to those with wings. While electric motors and control systems are well developed, those pesky batteries are the proverbial millstone around electric aviation’s neck. And, no aircraft company has the manpower and financial reserves to develop the battery technology they need for such a small end market. Instead, they must rely on other deep pocket R&D ventures to do that for them. Unfortunately, those guys have other agendas that may not mesh with what is needed for flight. Ground transportation needs power capacity, and weight is of secondary importance. Aircraft need power AND light weight. To succeed, evolutionary electric flight will need some revolutionary battery technology to succeed. Until then, I remain a hopeful skeptic, regardless of my age.

Sorry to be so down to earth, but lawnmowers are an excellent example. Good old Briggs and Stratton — if I have the history right designed in 1930s, perfected in 1940s as result of US army’s insatiable demand for relatively lightweight electricity generators — made move into lawnmowers and still going strong. Various HPs, by just scaling up or down. Amid great weeping and wailing finally put a cat converter on to stop being banned in California.
Only serious contender was Honda which used overhead valves, but never caught on in US.
But now 80% all small lawnmowers sold are all electric, robot ones. And most push ones are battery — good for 20 minutes before it is time to retreat under the tree with a beer while it charges up a bit.
Could happen in the air too…

After reading all the comments I need a tall Intergalactic Gargle Blaster to ease my brain like being hit on the head by a velvet covered brick.

Paul –
I always enjoy your perspectives, probably because you remind me of, well, me – always a little acerbic and not one who suffers fools gladly. Sometimes, though, I wonder if you take positions you don’t really believe because you need something to put on paper before the deadline.

Electric propulsion has tremendous advantages that have been beaten to death in the press, not the least of which are quietness and efficiency (Today’s 3-phase motors run in the high ninety-percents.). The problem is that it is very hard to beat gasoline’s energy density, efficiency be damned. Assuming a 15:1 air/fuel ratio by weight, an aircraft – where weight is critical – only has to carry 1/16 of the weight of the reactants that make it go, then it dumps all the exhaust byproducts back overboard. It has its disadvantages, but finding a better system is not trivial, and those who point that out are not backward Luddites; they might just be clear-eyed realists. I was derided as just such a fellow when I pointed out to the Thielert boys that my bulldozer injector pump was 100% mechanical and not subject to the vagaries of electrical controllers. That was just before their double-diesel aereoplane lost its battery juice, dutifully shut down BOTH engines, and went into terrain. No response from them about THAT.

We all want clean air, clean water, Mom, apple pie, hot dogs, and Chevrolets, but if you want to see the results of wishful Pollyanna politicking, take a look at all the “clean energy” devices that China is selling to our own congressional baristas, while pursuing coal and nuclear power for themselves. On my last trip to Oshkosh from Virginia, I may have seen 5% of the windmills I encountered actually spinning and making juice. Hope is not a strategy.

All best.

There is a reason why electric airplanes will remain a novelty. Burning dinosaur blood in flight will be in fashion for a long time. Hydrocarbon-powered aircraft burn off a significant fraction of their gross weight in flight leading to lower landing speed and shorter landing distance. No matter how light batteries get they still weigh the same at the end of the trip. Liquid hydrogen, with all its issues, is considered an alternative.

Then there’s the annoyance factor. Harbingers of FutureTech in front of their screens vowing “You dinosaurs WILL go Electric if you want to continue participating bla bla bla…” then attempting to belittle the questioners when asked if the solution they are fawning over is really less complex, easier to manage, cheaper, and supportable. Yes it’s pretty easy to push back against new ideas when they arrive with an unwelcome and unwanted attitude. Just because some may worship it doesn’t mean it will work for all. And when it fails, I’ll be very glad I resisted being recruited into somebody else’s misery. As has been said many times – Keep The Change.

Nonsense!

Most of the negative reaction to electric airplanes is actually to collectivist force pushing ‘alternative energy’ in the scam that humans are causing runaway warming of earth’s climate – which is not happening, and cannot happen. (Because of the ‘saturation effect’ of overlap absorption/emission spectra of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide. That limits possible temperature rise from increased CO2 to a small amount most of which has already been realized.)

Electric motors have advantages, including torque (a big advantage in road vehicles as they have to accelerate from stop to street speed often) and small size (batteries can be located in more optimal locations). But they are not a panacea.

Adoption of personal computers by many old people is one of many examples that put the lie to the theory that Paul regurgitates.

As for what took computers so long, Bertorelli ignores reliability and size and cost – including notably invention of transistors. Cost was illustrated by the time it took for fax machines to be everywhere instead of just in communication centres of enterprises.

Unfortunately, the storage density of batteries does not scale, and those Tesla batteries in the model 3 weigh about 1054#. The energy stored in them is about 75kWh, and give the car a range that is stated at 322 miles (without considering a need for cabin heat in a cold environment). Even if we consider the inefficiency of a diesel engine which is capable of 45% thermal efficiency. State-of-the-art passenger car diesels can manage 600 miles carrying 97# of diesel. Physics sometimes ruins the party in the school of wishful thinking. What’s even more disheartening is that the battery has not, and likely will not enhance its energy density without a serious change in chemistry (Gibbs free energy) and will be limited by packaging and method of storage (bomb). If you care to understand why, read: https://medium.com/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron-ce1e44d0b961
Or continue in your “beliefs” and “virtue signaling” without bothering to educate yourself. Remember in marketing perception trumps reality, but engineering is another matter entirely. There’s not a more lonely place than a blank computer screen without a viable solution.

I’m going with Yars’ comment “RELYING upon a future breakthrough is engineering malpractice” as the reasoning underlying the vast majority of what many may consider knee-jerk opposition to the electric airplane concept. Given the laws of physics, it’s difficult to envision a breakthrough in battery technology that would bring pure-electric airplanes out of their niche(s).

Thanks for your article, Paul.

I love to see the opinions on electric airplanes. I applaud anyone who pushes the envelope in aviation. Improvements are a good thing. Improvements come with a string of failures, but that goes with the process. Just look at SpaceX. Right now I see an opportunity for electric airplanes to be those simple, basic aircraft that can be used for 30 minutes to an hour of bouncing around the traffic pattern and introducing a new generation to aviation. But that said, when is the last time you saw an Aeronca Champ, C-150, or similar “simple” airplane being used for just such things? The local airport is the lifeblood of general aviation. We need people coming to our local airports and flying simple airplanes to boost the pilot ranks and expand GA once again. These new electric airplanes will be six-figure investments. That will not solve the immediate problem of a shrinking general aviation market. Speaking as “The RenegadeAV8R” I believe we are seeing the last generation of aviators as aircraft become easier to fly, more automated and more expensive.

Great observations, Paul, especially about how pilots clamor for new solutions and then aren’t willing to buy them and are first to dismiss them. I made similar comments in a 2018 column: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/april/pilot/waypoints-technology-conundrum

It depends on the mission. I think that basic trainers and shorter-haul commuter aircraft will be the first to go electric and the reason is purely economic. The new electric trainers cost about 1/5 as much per hour as a good old C172. Bye Aerospace is protecting that the seat mile cost of their new 8-place plane with a 500 mile range not including the IFR reserve is 1/10 that of a comparable turbo-prop. There are big gains being made in batteries and faster charging lithium-sulfur looks to be the next big thing.

Companies like Bye lose credibility by making unfounded claims, when they haven’t even flown a prototype.

They further erode their credibility when they project certification dates and availability that even experienced aerospace companies with conventional propulsion cannot achieve–look at the slippage of Cessna’s single and twin-engine “new generation” turboprops.

That said, the “True Believers” DO have the option of backing these claims by placing a future order. IF the claims turn out to be true, they will make a fortune on their investment.

On the other hand, aviation is replete with examples of those who lost their money–big time. They can join the ranks of investors in Bede, Windecker, Eclipse, JetCruzer, Adam Aircraft, and those aircraft that never even made it to the Public Offering stage. I’m actually trying to think of any “new offering” that HAS made it to certification, production, and financial success within the stated time period–I can’t think of ANY. Even Cirrus was late to the certification and development party, and went through their own financial woes.

I’ll forego the pleasure of being an “early adopter”–but wish them well. I’ll also go back to my initial point–aviation publications lose credibility by becoming “cheerleaders” for these naive (and also nearly universally failed) claims. Popular Mechanics did that with their breathless reporting that “An airplane in every garage” and “flying cars” were “just around the corner”–and lost all credibility. The light aircraft industry is already in financial trouble–we don’t need any more failed promises to further compromise credibility.

Thanks so much Paul and people for the editorial and these responses. Reading through this all has been a great start to my weekend. I reckon Douglas Adams would consider the avweb community to be a righteous bunch of hoopy froods.

Here is an excellent article on the subject. It answers most of the questions that were raised,
and it dispels all of the objections lodged against electric aircraft. The author (Michael Coren)
is well qualified to discuss the subject, given his background and expertise. A link to his c.v.
is attached, as well. I will merely add that “the laws of physics” are not immutable; indeed,
they have changed considerably in the last century–so much so, that the term ‘law’ is itself
obsolete, as is Newtonian mechanics, though its everyday utility is still immense. When the
going gets tough, the tough-minded do not resort to sterile clichés (“hope is not a strategy”),
false analogies, or a priori denunciations of “wishful thinking.” Electric aircraft will soon be
commonplace, and play an important role in both private and commercial aviation. They’re
here to stay. Whereas, our prejudices, dogmas, and mistaken assumptions will have to go.

https://qz.com/1943592/electric-airplanes-are-getting-close-to-a-commercial-breakthrough/
https://allthedata.dropmark.com/290522/25211836

So Douglas Adams’ third rule (“anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things”, to save you scrolling all the way back to the top) would include “climate change” for anyone over say, 55ish. A hundred to one there’s a big demographic overlap here. The mind is a like an umbrella; it functions best when open. Enough said?

A couple of relevant links:
Avweb, Bye eFlyer 2 report, from two years ago. Yes, like climate change, it’s real (and has been for some time). https://youtu.be/REdh3Q4cPuE

New aviation battery tech from Oxis Energy. It’s happening. Just a question of how fast.
https://45uevg34gwlltnbsf2plyua1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OXIS-Li-S-Ultra-Light-Cell-spec-sheet-v4.2.pdf

I agree that there needs to be a breakthrough in order for electric aircraft to become a reality or we need to invent a new energy storage/transfer device. One of the biggest challenges to new technology adoption seems to me to be limited to the Certified world. I drive a Comanche and envy the experimental world in all they can do with their birds. There are many engine options in the experimental space. It seems to me the experimental space is driving all the technology whether we’re talking engines or avionics and the certified world catches up 5-10 years later for 2X the cost. The biggest challenge I see to GA is over regulation which prices everyone out but the zealots.

This morning I was mowing my lawn and thinking about John Patson’s comment about elawnmowers. MY need on a steeply inclined hill and large yard would NEVER work. At my 2nd location, the yard is just too big … I need a riding mower. Still, if a lawn was small enough, I suppose having a second backup battery would work … and that got me to thinking … we can’t have a second battery in flight but why couldn’t we do what the USAF and USN does with aerial refueling. Sounds crazy but we “dismissive” luddites probably poo-poo’ed the KB-50 and KC-97 when the idea was first proposed, too. Around Edwards AFB, a tanker is usually aloft ready to offload some go juice to any of the test airplanes running short; why couldn’t some enterprising entity come up with a design to provide electrons for the eGA fleet ? It could be the aerial equivalent of the charging stations for Tesla’s.

Since there are SO many C172’s around, we could modify them with a hard trailing boom. The receiving airplane could just fly up, plug in and loiter for a bit to extend its range. We could rename the Skyhawk’s so modified as KC172’s. Since Elon has probably patented the name Supercharging, maybe we could call the process SuperDuperReCharging ?

Now let’s take this idea a step further. With all the companies developing UAS, UAV and drones for just about everything — I just saw a driverless pizza delivery truckster on TV — why couldn’t we make the KC172 pilotless? The Navy tested the X-47B as a drone refueler. Recharging KC172 drones and eAirplanes would revolutionize aviation and the problem with battery energy density would be solved. And oh by the way … we’d be saving the planet, too. We could call these KC172’s GreenHawks.

And just last night, I saw where some outfit in Colorado Springs is developing an aluminum V8 engine conversion for the C172. It’s specific fuel consumption and performance will be greatly enhanced so between that and no pilot aboard, the KC172’s would be able to stay aloft all day providing electrons to all those that need some.

And if you think THIS idea is nutty, I just saw a mattress commercial on TV that claims it’s “green.” By buying one, you can save the planet. Superb !!

One sentence in your article hits it on the head for me … “Dismissiveness ahead of rational analysis is a disease every bit as virulent as wide-eyed Pollyannaism.” AMEN.

There is a small vulture in the room; it is starting into a growth spurt.
The vulture is called electrification, and it will eat your gasoline supply.

Vehicles are moving to electric, all over the world; there is an end date for combustion vehicles in many countries, and that end date is moving inexorably closer.
The result will be a diminishing of gasoline supplies as the market for land vehicle gasoline dries up.
In ten years, there will be notably fewer gas stations; in twenty years, you will need an app to find one.
Aviation uses a tiny fraction of present gasoline supplies; aviation will not support wide availability of gasoline, so leaded, or unleaded, aviation gasoline will be an expensive boutique product or completely unavailable.
Long range aviation will move to sustainable jet fuel; that trend is starting already.
SO; if you want to fly a piston airplane, you need an engine that runs on jet fuel, not gasoline.
Continental has a nice certified 300 horsepower diesel that will replace big bore gasoline engines.
They have engines from 150 horsepower up that run on diesel/jet fuel.

What experimental aviation needs to do is focus on engines that will run on future available fuels.
Ford uses a 210 horsepower twin turbo diesel in several trucks, including the large Transit.
Those engines run at high power settings on the highway; seem like a good choice to base an aircraft engine on, much as Continental and Austro based their small aircraft diesels on a Mercedes car engine.
Who’s going to step up, build the reduction drive for this and similar ground based diesels, so we have engines for our airplanes in the future?
Please; dual alternators, redundant engine controls and single lever power, just like the present Continentals and Austro engines.
Electric airplanes will work for training, and short haul airlines, that is inevitable.
Put solar panels on your hangar roof, and never buy fuel again if the available endurance suits you!

Many good points. Also, consider the future availability and cost of electricity versus avgas.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicle-cost-more-affordable/

I love the idea of an electric plane. Doesn’t seem feasible for long distance travel though. Like with the Tesla, I don’t want to have to sit around for a few hours waiting for my batteries to charge to go the next few hundred miles. It destroys the purpose of air travel being a fast and efficient way to get to your destination without driving.
Would be nice as a toy… buy toy plane companies don’t last long in the industry.

Greetings: A quick comment. You are right about the old Triumphs! They were great because there was nothing better out there! And Steve McQueen escaping the NAZIs on one was the epitome of cool! The new Triumphs deserve your attention! I am super impressed and have actually been considering a home built powered by their 955 Triple engine. Just My $.02.

Cheers!

Cost. That’s more of an issue than potential benefits or drawbacks of a new technology in GA. Today, the middle class is pretty much entirely out of the market when it comes to new certified airplanes other than LSAs, which are strictly a toy for a hobbyist and have zero practical use as a form of transportation. They’re a jet ski for the sky. That’s a problem; the middle class is the bulk of consumers, and when they’re priced out you lose economy of scale. That’s why there were many more new GA planes being developed 70ish years ago and basically none now. Middle class people could afford them, and GA was booming because of it. You’d be hard pressed to make a commercially successful and technologically advanced GA airplane today, it would cost over a million dollars. Look at the Cirrus lineup, incredibly expensive, the better part of a million for a single engine, fixed gear, 4 seat airplane that is reasonably fast. That Cirrus is arguably still practically an antique from a technological perspective. Cirrus owners may take exception to that, considering it borderline offensive, and people in my market space say a Cirrus is on another level compared to the 70 year old designs we’re flying, but it’s true. A Cirrus still has ancient tech with somewhat modern tech attached to it under the cowl, and its construction is only advanced by the standards of 30 years ago, you’d be pushing it to call it advanced today. It’s only modern because a new tricked out Archer or 182 is the light aircraft equivalent of a factory offered restomod job on a Chevy 210. Ancient craft with a taste of the new under the hood and on the panel. The LS under the hood of that hypothetical car is arguably more advanced in comparison to a cast iron smallblock than today’s fuel injected lycoming is relative to the engines the first 182s came with. The cost issue has me convinced that it’s more likely that we will watch GA slowly die off and disappear than see technologically impressive GA airplanes hit the market at even replacement levels, modern GA airplanes contributing to the growth of GA in general would be a miracle. It would be a lot easier to convince GA pilots that new tech is promising if buying it wasn’t a larger expense than a new house. Let’s not even get into the fact that electric has a long way to go since we all know battery energy density is laughable in comparison to fuel, it’s fine for a consumer car, but a tesla doesn’t fly.

While all electric is a good goal for trainers/weekend warriors, true hybrid systems where a gas generator is running regular gasoline to power an electric motor should be the goal for traveling machines.

Most of the comments so far rather prove Adams Rule #3, but are consistent with “don’t be a sucker” in discussion primarily battery electric propulsion. (A brief consideration of Li-Ion energy density of 200 Wh/kg vs gasoline at ~60,000 Wh/kg should suffice to emphasize that, excepting a few specialized applications, battery-electric is not ready for prime time.) Yet I am quite confident that there’s a magenta line somewhere in the cockpit of responding over-35s that did not exist when they were under 35. Why? First, GPS navigators make life easier. Second, they were relatively cheap to try; failure cost a few hundred bucks, not thousands or, in the case of a new airframe, hundreds of thousands.

This second point is vital: few of us at the low end of the GA scale can afford to gamble on an expensive new technology and lose if/when it proves to be a bad or unsupportable idea. This is true even when the existing technology, Lycoming/Continental engines for example, is pretty terrible. The main argument for them is, in reality, an argument against them. On average, Ly-Cons fail every 3,200 hours. A P&W PT-6 fails every 650,000 hours.

Regardless of one’s opinion on change, it’s coming. The present status quo of using and re-using 60 year old airplanes cannot continue. In addition to all other factors, pilots wreck them faster than new ones are produced. Either new solutions are adopted or GA as we now know it, is doomed.

All I can offer are the word of Teddy Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

We should hope to God that serious people don’t stop trying to create better aircraft engines. Especially since we now cede the freedom of flight to an onerous government and Chinese aircraft engine manufacturer Continental Aerospace.