I think I need to see more than a 3d computer-generated rendering of an airplane before getting my hopes up, much less investing a nickel in this physics-defying fantasy.

Airborne lithium batteries are not a good idea, especially in the qty required to do this.

I’d buy a Tesla, but I wouldn’t park it in my garage.
Think about how many tesla’s worth’s of batteries are going to be in this aircraft.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/28420/par ... l-in-sight

The risk of one lithium cell internally shorting and taking out the whole pack can be reduced, but it adds weight. An in flight fire is inevitable when enough of these are flying. The risk is much greater than acceptable for commercial aircraft.

I read yesterday in industry press that it has 8200 lbs of batteries!!! Maybe they're wrong, but dang. That seems like a load for an electric submarine.

1. It's a cartoon

2. $3MM-$5MM to go 240 knots?

Why not just buy an SF50 now for $3MM?

Because Cape Air wants to carry 8 passengers and their average flight is from NY/Boston to the Cape. Perfect plane for that very specific mission. Not good for you or me.

I agree with the sentiment that it is still a concept, but the static display is supposedly going from the Paris Air Show to the USA for flight testing as we speak.

I remember when I thought there was no way Tesla could make a viable electric car. They made that car and continue to innovate (they just can't make money), but the fact that BMW, Audi, etc. have jumped on and moving to electric is telling that the industry sees a sea change coming.

It may be 2030 (or 2040, or 2050) but battery technology will continue to improve and electric planes will be part of our lives...at some point.

Because, if it ever works the operating costs are projected to be 1/5th of a kerosene burner.
Edit :As far as the electric cars that would “ never work” I drove an Tesla 3 last night, the 0-100 acceleration puts my Big Block Corvette to shame. It’s like a rocket.
Though it does lack the cool sound
Greg

I saw this video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8PMr3O3CO0
In the video the CEO said if one of the wing tip motors has a catastrophic event it shuts down the other wing motor, and the airplane will fly on the tail motor only. I wonder what the ground clearance of the wing prop is in a crosswind landing. Should be an interesting flight test project.

May have missed this somewhere, but what advantage is served by having the motors on the wingtips instead of mounted conventionally where asymmetric thrust is less of an issue?

Because it looks cool.

I'd guess the lighter weight engines out there reduce wing loading (like tip tanks) and they'll be able to demonstrate far greater reliability so that they get the benefit vs low risk of asymmetric thrust.

And they might not have room to mount them near/on the fuselage if there really are 8200 lbs of batteries distributed throughout the airframe!

Is that not a super small market?

That's a great PC12 mission BTW.

Is that not a super small market?

That's a great PC12 mission BTW.

Hopefully they add a chute to pull in the off chance they lose an engine and can't glide. It does not look like those props feather but I could be mistaken.

Wing tip generates a vortex. If the prop at the tip turns opposite direction of the vortex swirl, it can improve the efficiency of the plane by reducing the amount of energy that goes into the vortex.

Mike C.

Pt 121, no.

Pt 135, yes.