
The founder of Bye Aerospace goes electric - prostoalex
https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraft/in-depth-george-bye/
======
tectonic
Check out NASA's X-57 experimental electric aircraft as well:
[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-
fi...](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-takes-delivery-of-first-all-
electric-experimental-aircraft)

And their Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP) program:
[https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-
aircraft-p...](https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/electrified-aircraft-
propulsion-eap/)

~~~
olex
Also, quite similar to the aircraft presented in the article, the Pipistrel
Alpha Electro from Slovenia: [https://www.pipistrel-
aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/...](https://www.pipistrel-
aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/alpha-electro/). Also designed from the
ground up as an electric trainer to radically bring down the hour costs at
flight schools, with enough endurance for a flight lesson and battery swap
capability for quick turnaround.

------
peter_d_sherman
Excerpt:

"Bye’s eFlyer 2 has a target certified reach of 238 nautical miles or three
hours of range, plus VFR reserves. “When you look at the typical flight-
training mission being 1 to 1.3 hours long, and required cross-country flights
being 50 and 100 nautical miles long, our eFlyer 2 fits perfectly into that
mission.

 _And it costs just $3 to $4 per flight hour_ for the electric ‘fuel’ to
operate,” he says."

If this plane can truly fly that cheaply, then there are new markets that this
could open up...

~~~
Gibbon1
When I've back of the enveloped electric aircraft the reduction in flight and
maintence costs looks is tantalizing. Currently light aviation is kinda
stalled because of high costs, safety issues, and noise. You'll never get an
electric aircraft with the same range as a piston powered one. But you might
also never get a piston powered one as cheap as an electric one.

~~~
redis_mlc
> Currently light aviation is kinda stalled because of high costs, safety
> issues, and noise.

That's so vague as to be useless.

Part 91 (GA) will always be less safe than Part 121 (scheduled airliners.)

Propellers will always be noisy, since theirs tips approach the speed of
sound, whether driven by ICE or electric.

And cost depends on the mission and certification.

It's "kinda stalled" because transportation is a regulated industry and money-
making certificated airplanes are expensive. So you might as well say "always
stalled."

The only practical use cases for the foreseeable future for electric planes
are small trainers and consumer-level drones.

Flight schools would welcome an electric trainer under $200k, compared to the
Cessna 172 currently at $400+k.

FYI: most of the small electric plane prototypes you've read about have been
destroyed due to electrical fires. I can think of 2 or 3 in the past year.

And the recent wire chafing found in 737 and Embraer airliners makes you
wonder if tons of batteries is a good idea or not.

~~~
redis_mlc
I looked on the cessna.com and controller.com websites for current Cessna 172
prices.

For the first time, I couldn't find any, just "Call for pricing."

The price I remember from about a year ago was $398,000. Most (nearly all) of
their sales included fairly advanced avionics, and I believe they dropped the
steam-gauge version.

It's an interesting phenomenon that's documented in aviation news and
interviews that people say they want low-priced planes, but actual sales are
almost exclusively with the most options.

~~~
Gibbon1
You're backing the point that redis_mlc thinks it too vague. The cost of
ownership and operation is so high that they're relegated mostly as toys for
rich people. And that's a very limited market. The only way to grow revenue is
to sell ever more expensive aircraft.

Electrics have the potential to reduce operating and maintenance costs enough
to escape that trap.

