
Norway aviation firm orders 60 all-electric airplanes, drops operation costs 80% - imartin2k
https://electrek.co/2019/04/11/norway-60-electric-airplanes/
======
t0mas88
This makes a lot of sense for a flight training business, because most flights
are only 1 to 1.5 hour and stay close to the airport. The biggest cost
component in an hour of flight training is the cost of fuel and engine in a
traditional plane like a 172.

The price is 350k per plane, but they're buying twice the fleetsize. Let's
assume that's half because of charging time (takes longer than refueling
between students) and half because they expect to grow by offering lower cost
training. Then the price of 1.5 of these vs 1 traditional is 1.5 x 350 = 525k
vs about 400k for the 172. To make up the 125k price difference you need to
fly 1562 hours at a 80 dollar/hour cost saving (this works in Norway because
electricity is lower cost there than in most of Europe, and aviation fuel
prices are high). That's 2 to 3 years for break even in normal flightschool
operations (500 to 750 hours / plane / year). Planes in flight school
operations last at least 10 years and in some cases many times that.

So expect many more training operations to make the switch in the coming
years. Especially if the maintenance cost of electric planes are somewhat
proven.

~~~
bradleyjg
Is it an issue that training will be a different sorts of planes than
graduates will fly or are the characteristics close enough?

~~~
technofiend
The basics of flying a plane are the same because the physics are the same.
The differences in engine and fuel type will yield different checklists and
procedures but that's true for many planes in the same class now.

Today pilots and students get a "class rating" that certifies they know how to
fly that general class of airplane such as single engine land. You might learn
in a Cessna 150 or 152 and then switch to a 172 for the larger engine and more
fuel so you take bigger cross-country legs. Those planes are in the same class
so it's an easy transition.

Even so you can't just go rent a 172! You'll need someone to sign off saying
you know how to fly the 172 or you'll have trouble renting the plane or
possibly with insurance. Insurers want to see some time learning to fly a new
model before going solo.

So if you learn to fly an electric airplane in the US you'll still get Private
Pilot - Airplane, Single Engine Land (PP-ASEL) but you will require further
training to hop in a gas engine plane that's also single engine land.

The "land" part is to distinguish those planes from sea planes (planes which
can land on water) which are different enough for their own class.

------
supernova87a
Orders and refundable deposits don't mean jack shit for something that hasn't
been produced fully yet. A lot of people are willing to put money down on a
fantasy.

The company has, like, 1 of these prototype (still experimental class) planes.
As commented elsewhere here, certification, etc. is a big hurdle. Clearly
they're following Tesla's playbook -- but with something much harder to
produce.

The press release's lazy language makes it sound like they already achieved
these benefits. Wait until even 1 plane is delivered to see.

~~~
perilunar
I wouldn't say much harder to produce. A small aircraft is mechanically
simpler than a car: a few moving surfaces connected by cables, no gear box,
simple suspension. Avionics are complicated and expensive, but they'll likely
use existing units, so no extra risk there.

~~~
8456523
>A small aircraft is mechanically simpler than a car

Maybe so, but the consequences of a failure of the design or the
implementation are much higher.

~~~
cmurf
Exactly. This was no doubt very expensive for Cessna.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher#Wing_mod...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher#Wing_modifications_of_aircraft_in_service)

Can anyone think of a car recall that required 32 hours per unit to fix?

------
znep
Another interesting thing to watch in the electric airplane space is Harbor
Air and magniX.

[https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-partner-
to...](https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-partner-to-build-
worlds-first-all-electric-airline/)

The float plane business seems to make a lot of sense in this regard because,
at least in the Washington state and BC areas, it involves a lot of small
planes and relatively short flights that aren't easily replaced by other modes
of transportation, especially for people who essentially use them for
commuting and can't live the same lifestyle using a ferry boat instead.

I don't have enough knowledge to know if the technical aspects make sense from
an aviation perspective but nothing stands out as unfeasible.

------
AdrianB1
The move makes sense, the price doesn't. Many modern light planes have a cost
starting at $100,000 and it can be as low as $60,000 without the engine (based
on Rotax engine price and full price of the plane). The electric engines are
by comparison much cheaper, I expect less than $5,000 and the batteries are
... well, Tesla tells how cheap, let's say $20,000 (that is 3 times a Tesla 3,
which I seriously doubt). My math goes to ~ $85,000 for the base model, if you
add full glass cockpit, leather chairs and even retractable landing gear you
get to $120-150,000 price tag. I am not comparing with a 172 because most of
the flying school is done in 2 seaters like the 152. It does not make a lot of
sense to use a 4 seater for that.

~~~
t0mas88
Unfortunately that's not how aircraft pricing works, due to very low economy's
of scale. A 172 definitely doesn't have 400k in parts in it, yet that's what a
fairly simple model costs new out of the factory today.

The costs of certification, development and liability insurance are adding a
lot to the price.

~~~
AdrianB1
I know how it works as I am looking to buy my own 2 seater for some years, I
fly rented. I am familiar with the US versus European manufacturer pricing
differences and I just paid over $1,000 for a new radio a few months ago, the
kind of radio that would be $50 if it would not be "aviation".

~~~
allannienhuis
Presumably there are some reasons for the higher cost, or someone else would
come along and sell the radios for much less and take over the market. I
expect in aviation higher reliability requirements would add something to the
average costs for many things.

People (me included) complain about the same thing when it comes to 'marine'
parts - they're often 2 - 3 times higher in price than land-based parts
(usually automotive or RV parts). There are actual differences in the items in
many cases though - for example, marine engine parts have to ensure they never
throw any spark, because explosive fumes in an enclosed engine compartment are
a real safety concern that well ventilated automotive engines don't have. That
takes extra R & D and different manufacturing processes for much smaller
production runs (increasing pro-rated capital costs).

Plus, market forces seem to show that people are willing to pay the higher
prices - perhaps that's in part because most of the people buying these things
have more money than people buying commodity (automotive etc) parts.

~~~
AdrianB1
Yes, there is a reason for the higher cost: price gauging. A pair of 7"
displays with Android like software and GPS are ~ $10,000, if you want it in
12" you pay another $5,000. There is no competition in the market. This is why
so many people use iPads and $100 software instead.

------
samstave
Whats the range / flyable time of these planes?

Also, what would say, (for arguments sake) you were to put “wings and a prop”
on a tesla - are the rotor motors in a tesla sufficient to spin a prop at the
rpm necessary, and then would its battery pack’s weight be an issue in plane
format?

(I also want to put a tesla pack in boat form)

------
lifehacked
Why aren't the batteries hot swappable?

