AeroTEC, an independent company focused on aerospace testing, engineering, and certification, has teamed with magniX to test the magniX 750 horsepower magni500 all-electric propulsion system on a Cessna Caravan 208B.
Officials with the two companies say they hope to begin flight testing by the end of 2019.
According to AeroTEC President and Founder Lee Human, his company is responsible for the magni500-powered 208B’s modification design, integration, and flight test.
“Retrofitting an iconic workhorse like the Cessna Caravan for the first time is no small feat. Through our work with AeroTEC, we are committed to meeting and exceeding expectations of our solution so we can continue to advance electric aviation,” said magniX CEO, Roei Ganzarski. “Electrifying existing aircraft enables flexible, clean air travel and package-delivery options at a fraction of the cost. And for operators not ready to make the leap into new, clean-sheet, all-electric aircraft, retrofitting the Cessna Caravan provides a solution that allows them to reap the benefits of clean, cost-effective aviation in a shorter time frame.”
Integration design and manufacturing of the magniX propulsion system was started in spring and is progressing on schedule. Aircraft modifications are underway at the AeroTEC Flight Test Center in Moses Lake, Washington, with first flight scheduled before the end of this year.
I don’t know how mature the technology is but FedEx could use an electric Caravan. Most of FedEx Feeder C-208’s routes on the East Coast are under an hour. Leave around 7pm. Return around 7am. Aircraft does nothing during the day until 7pm. You read that right. They only fly the aircraft 2 hours during a 24 hour day. On most of these routes they take about 1000lbs of fuel and 1500-2000lbs of cargo. If you stashed the batteries in the cargo pods you’d have plenty of cargo space left. FedEx Feeder ops would be a perfect candidate to operate these electric aircraft. If the technology pans out it wouldn’t surprise me if FedEx jumped on it. Out West the aircraft get utilized more over longer routes so it might not work there.
Caravan Retrofitted. Possibly take an older Caravan. Possibly from FedEx fleet. Then have a ‘Howard 250’ project. Place the electric motor in the nose. Remove the front land strut wheel. Place a tail wheel at tail rear of aircraft. Less drag and higher speed without front strut and wheel. Move existing ‘Land-O-Matic’ landing gear forward 5 to 10 feet. Fix landing gear with a 90 pivot retraction up towards the fuselage, thus reducing more drag. Place batteries that can be changed in the cargo pack that is underneath the fuselage on some Caravans. Batteries can be changed at next station stop, like the batteries on a DeWalt drill. Place new modified wing on Caravan. Have a work station, display booth at Air Venture along side the Piper Cub rebuild and give away.
Possibly make and build hybrids motors and engines. Like cars. Experimental and proof of concept at first. Make an electric motor that has a turbine or piston engine in line or connected to the drive shaft. Use booth power sources at take off and either one or both at cruise. Place PV charging panel on wings. Place a ‘sized’ APU in the back of the Caravan connected to an alternator, to make electric if needed and to charge batteries while in flight or on the ground. Last but not least provide for ‘Constant Engine On’. A problem since the Wright Brothers in the event of engine failure. If there is a power and engine failure during flight, go to the other power source and provide enough thrust to get to the nearest runway. Lycoming, Continental, all others. ‘There is never and engine failure.’ Oh Really?
FedEx. Caravans flying 2 to 5 hours on package delivery routes. @ the destination airport or base of operations change the battery packs like you change a battery on a DeWalt. The above is a simplification and dreaming at the start of something new, and or a continuation of Tesla. But it is a start and continuation. E = IR and P = IE.
Possible practical applications and development of design. Possibly take an old DeHavaland Twin otter and put an electric engine in the nose, to see how it would all work. Possibly take the newer Cessna Twin ‘Caravan’ ??? – Now being developed and built. And put an electric engine in the nose of this airplane to see how it would work. this would have the two turbine engines, one on each with.
FedEx Caravans. Possibly Place batteries in the Caravan cargo pods, so at shipping destinations, the cargo pod with the batteries inside, could easily be changed for fully charged batteries. Then the used batteries could be recharged while the Caravan continues on the next destination with charged batteries in place. Like replacing batteries with a Dewalt drill. Possibly place solar cells and PV panels on hanger roofs to help power and charge the batteries that are being used.
And battery length of charge and amount of charge available is getting better all the time.
While the rest of you fight it out, I can’t get past the headline. There is no such thing as an electric engine. Electric motors, gas engines.
Thank You!
What pilot rating will be needed to fly one.
Kamikazee … you only have to fly it once …
The other issue will be fuel load vs. Payload flexibility. If the batteries are semi permanently installed there goes our ability to exchange some fuel weight for payload.
Until there are ubiquitous easily removable and exchangeable battery packs at every airport we will be stuck hauling full fuel weight on every flight regardless of the length of the flight.
true, but at a micro fraction of the cost of jetA, you have a constant and predictable fuel weight, as long as there is enough load remaining for all the cargo, its a win.
and most commercial planes fly only a set back and forth rout, so there are places where this will work well.
every tech. has problems, dont try to find reasons it won’t work in every situation, find the places that it will work great, and develop the tech.
harbour air in BC Canada is putting one in a dhc-2, they fly scheduled short hops over water on floats. a perfect use of the tech.
I’m not trying to belabor my comments but … two more quick points.
I just got the electric bill for my home … 322 KwH last month. That’d be enough to run their electric Caravan for ~30 minutes. A bit more if you remember that what goes up must come down.
NASA is building up for test the X-57 Maxwell with 14 electric motors in a Tecnam P2006T airframe. They’re seriously behind their own schedule. Per NASA, the 23KwH battery packs in custom containment packages weigh 50 lbs ea. and they’re inside the fuselage. Scaling that up to run one 750hp electric motor in the Caravan, the weight would be >1220 lbs. plus the controller and etc for one hour of flight time. Now extrapolate to run the Caravan for an equivalent five hour run! An excellent treatise is written up in Wikipedia about the LEAPTech / X-57 ideas.
While NASA is working on the X-57 Maxwell, they’re simultaneously working on the X-59 QueSST supersonic airplane. So all the ‘climate cooling’ ecological gains provided by electrification will be nullified by all the wealthy folks who’ll ultimately be zipping around supersonically (sic).
Chester Riley at Cunningham Aircraft had it right. “What a revoltin’ development!”
This is only a proof of concept aircraft. When calculating weightyou also neet to consider that the pulse electric motor weighs about half as much as a pt6, and you’re not carrying 1000 pounds of fuel. Also, nee, lighter batteries made of lithium/ceramic are being developed that are twice the life and half the weight. Its just a matter of time.
It’s tough to be positive when I read things like this … all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
This preoccupation with electric airplanes — especially as a means to “enable(s) flexible, clean air travel and package-delivery options at a fraction of the cost” — huh? I don’t think the people touting these words learned anything in Physics 101. Electrons don’t grow on trees. At best, they’re moving the point of energy generation from a PT6 and refinery to an electric plant someplace else. And how are they going to recharge such large batteries in the field in Podunk, ND?
Just the physics of the idea is ludicrous. What’re they gonna do … fill the entire back end of that Caravan up with batteries? IF the aim is to prove it can be done … fine. But then what? With todays available energy density … the idea has no market. At best it’s a proof of concept idea only. And is the FAA going to allow flight of an all electric Caravan?
Just to run that 750HP engine for one hour … 750 HP-Hrs = ~ 560 kWh with no energy loss to friction or heating. That’s 560 THOUSAND watts for an hours flight. Let’s say they design a battery pack that puts out 560 volts. That means they’d have to be delivering 1000 amps from the power source for that hour. Even if they had a 5,600 volt power source, the current would still be 100 amps. What’re they gonna deliver that energy with … water cooled copper bus bars?
The Cessna Caravan with a PT6 has a five hour range. Now upscale the above numbers for that endurance. The Caravan has a useful load load of 3305 lbs. and a fuel payload of 1081 lbs. In order to carry the same weight of people or stuff, the energy source has to weigh no more than that 1081 lbs AND fit someplace where it won’t impede things inside the fuselage.
When electrons start growing on unobtanium trees fueled by sunlight … THEN this idea will work.
I’m shaking my head in disbelief at this comment. Without even getting into how your expresion of raw cynicism alone is discrediting to the human spirit and drive towards progress, here are a couple of things wrong with what you state:
1) You do not need 560kWh (plus to cover system losses) for one hours flight. No aircraft operates at 100% power for that long. Expect that most aircraft cruise in the 65% power range and only use 100% power (if even attainable) for initial takeoff.
2) Your weight estimates of 1081 lbs for batteries ignores the fact that electric motors weight considerably less than combustion engines and there’s likely another couple of hundred pounds to be gained from that alone.
3) Electric motors are 95% efficient whereas combustion engines are 30% efficient at best. This means that even if all power to charge the batteries is generated from fossil fuel plants (which we know it is not), you are still consuming less fuel to attain the same energy output.
4) On top of (3), large scale power production is more efficient at converting fuel to electricity than any small powerplant that would be mounted on an airframe, meaning even less of a carbon foot print for this electric motor.
5) Battery technology is continually improving and battery energy density is growing with each generation (although admittedly not at the same rate as Moore’s law, but it’s still improving).
6) Electric aircraft recover a good amount of energy during decent or deceleration, which reduces the total stored power requirements.
7) The green economy is growing and by 2030 expect to see at least 35% of power in the U.S. generated from renewable sources. Not to mention that anyone operating electric aircraft may be able to acquire their own renewable power generation which they can use to charge the batteries.
These are just a couple of points. But now let’s get to the intangibles. Human history is replete with examples of people making groundbreaking discoveries despite loud cynical voices like the one you have expressed here. This is the direction things are going now and for anyone to be disparaging of people who are putting their money where their mouths are and actually working to improve existing designs is an example of why American exceptionalism is on the decline. Seriously, if there was no potential future in such endeavors, why would so many different organizations be putting so much into electric aircraft research. NASA and Airbus have both committed resources to ambitious projects aimed at eventually putting electric aircraft into commercial operation. I for one and excited to follow these developments. I hope to one day own an aircraft that would not only free me from having to deal with smelly, dangerous, and expensive fuel, but also give me a nice quieter vibration free ride.
1. While you may not “need’ the full HP, you have to be able to attain it for a reasonable period of time. Ergo, the capacity of the supplied power must be capable of delivering it, as needed.
2. 1061 lbs is the Textron spec for fuel capacity in the Caravan, not the weight of the engine. The PT6A-6 dry weight is 271 lbs. The equivalent 750HP PT6A-25C probably isn’t much more. I doubt if a 750HP electric motor will be that light.
3. I agree on efficiency. It’s the ONLY place that an electric motor can lay claim to being better than a turboprop. But without the infrastructure to charge these things, so what. Just last week I spoke with some Tesla owners charging up in Oshkosh. One guy was moaning that he has to take trips based on where the Super Charging stations are vs where he’d like to go. The Tesla owners DID convince me that the drive was vibration free (for the most part) but … that’s real nice. When I asked how the cars do when it’s -30 deg F outside in Wisconsin … I got a deer in the headlight look from them. SAY … doesn’t it get cold up there where airplanes normally live?
4. I don’t disagree. That said, airplanes are an infinitesimal portion of the “carbon footprint” on the planet. Even if every airliner and GA airplane ran on electrons, it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans. I DO agree that large scale power generation is more efficient than a small scale engine.
5. Battery energy density has plateaued with current technology. In an airplane, the gains potentially possible are more than offset by the fact that you’re still dragging the weight of the batteries around when they’re fully discharged. How efficient is THAT?
6. You are ASSUMING that systems to recover energy are aboard this Caravan or any other airplane. I’ve NEVER read about that.
7. I lived near and had a hangar at Mojave, CA. The whole southern end of the Sierra Nevada mountains are covered with tens of thousands of windmills. First the folks out there moaned about nuclear power and got those shut down. Then, when the windmills started multiplying like rabbits, they moaned about birds being killed, the visual “blight” on the mountains, the noise of the blades and so on. 35% !! Where did you pull THAT number out of?
Cynicism. Not hardly. I see myself as a realist and willing to speak up. I don’t drink the green koolaid. NASA has a giant budget and — just this AM — I saw a video about their ongoing efforts with the X-57 Maxwell and how they finally ran up the main motors. Swell. Their budget feeds off the teat of the Government. And even THEY say it’ll be years away from first full test flight.
I have NO objection to folks experimenting. BUT … when they make statements like “enable(s) flexible, clean air travel and package-delivery options at a fraction of the cost,” … that’s nothing more than current buzz words. SHOW ME! MAKE IT HAPPEN. They’re trying to convince me that “package delivery” needs electric Caravans … please spare me!
I specifically request that you google the Burt Rutan’s hour long discussion on anthropomorphic effects on the planet. Your eyes will be opened. As he says, the slight increase in the carbon levels in the atmosphere allow for the growing of more food … you know, to feed the billions of people clomping around the planet.
Despite my “cynicism” and realistic comment, I have a keen interest in photovoltaic energy and battery storage for a backup AC bus in my summer home. Yesterday, I spent all day at the 30th annual Midwest Renewable Energy Assn Fair in Custer, WI NW of Oshkosh. Most of it was ridiculous but there were some serious PV folks there.
Talking with very knowledgeable folks on the subject of hybrid PV systems (PV/battery storage works in conjunction with the grid — sorta like a backup generator), when I ran the idea of powering a 750HP electric motor in an airplane powered by purely by batteries, the comments were unanimous … “preposterous,” “can’t work” and “what the heck is their point?” were heard. I felt vindicated in my position and ire with magniX’s CEO statement.
In the MREA newspaper for the Fair, there’s a picture of the whole roof of the Kaukauna, WI municipal building covered with PV collectors generating 81KW of energy … so that means it’d take seven hours for all those collectors working at 100% to potentially recharge the batteries to power this Caravan for a one-hour flight. Sigh!
Had magniX’s CEO said, “We’re building a proof of concept electric Caravan airplane to determine if electric power could possibly work when battery energy densities/storage becomes more efficient,” I’d have had no problem with this article. But when they start putting the cart ahead of the horse, I have major problems with it. I’m tired of artist renderings of airplanes that will never come to fruition. I read where there are now something like 140+ companies seeking to build autonoumous electric airborne people movers … including Eric Lindberg. Well … where are they? Oh well … Airventure is only just over a month away. Maybe Bye Aero will be bringing the QEC electric changeout for my C172 THIS year? Yeah … right.
If zeal were able to be converted to electrons … THEN this idea will work. Until then … fuhgetaboutit.
Well said sir. All of it. I’m a PV collector myself, a 135 DOM operating a caravan (among other things) and see all the real possibilities in electric vehicles. But this isn’t one of them. Not for a long time, if ever. It’s all about the weight of the system. Frankly, I’d wait and save my money on this project until the ground based vehicle market figures out light enough batteries.
Or until they can pull static electrons from the atmosphere as they fly…wait a minute I need to do some more reading on Tesla’s work. I may have cracked the code…
Besides weight, Kevin, there’s the issue of usability. These people want us to believe someone will pay several millions of dollars for an electric Caravan that has no range, no easy way to recharge and no payload. Give us all a break, magniX. People who buy Caravans want utility and usability, not some crazy “green” electric airplane. People were trying to convert gas piston airplanes to diesels because that fuel is readily available world wide. Well … where did THAT movement go … same place this idea will go … the round file basket.
You may well be “on” to something vis-a-vis Tesla’s work though. Maybe they can orbit a giant magnifying glass and use a computer to aim it at the top of the wings of the Caravan to speed charge PV cells in flight as it zips along “saving” the planet? WAIT! What do they do on cloudy days?
I’m with both of you guys on this. I have a saying; “the guy who says it can’t be done should stay outa the way of the guy doing it”… and I celebrate those who choose take on the improbable. That said, numbers don’t lie and physics is a stickler for details. Battery capacity needs a game changing injection of innovation or this will never be more than a curiosity.
“Electric aircraft recover a good amount of energy during decent or deceleration, which reduces the total stored power requirements.”
And that’s when the EV troll exposed himself for knowing nothing about flight mechanics. This isn’t a car. The only way to ‘recover a good amount of energy’ is to induce a good amount of drag. How is that efficient flight?
-The Unicorn flew over the rainbow.
You shouldn’t be so practical. If this was twitter you would be expelled. Hahahahahaha