DENVER, Colorado – Bye Aerospace has revealed it is developing an eight-seat all-electric twin turboprop class airplane, the eFlyer 800.
Performance estimates for the eFlyer 800 include up to 320 knot cruise speed, 35,000 feet ceiling, and 500 nm range with 45-minute IFR reserves at normal cruise speed of 280 knots, according to company officials.
The new airplane will feature two wing-mounted electric motors, each with dual redundant motor windings, quad-redundant battery packs, and a full airplane parachute.
Potential features include an emergency auto-landing system, intelligent algorithm ensuring envelope protection, terrain avoidance and routing for emergency auto-land, and also an option for supplemental power solar cells and in-wheel electric taxi, company officials said.
The airplane’s 8-seat configuration consists of up to seven passengers and one or two pilots.
The eFlyer 800 will have only one-fifth the operating costs of traditional twin turboprops and is geared for the air-taxi, air-cargo, regional, and charter aircraft markets, Bye Aerospace officials add.
“The eFlyer 800 is the first all-electric propulsion technology airplane that achieves twin-turboprop performance and safety with no CO2 and extremely low operating costs,” said George E. Bye, CEO. “This type of remarkable economy and performance is made possible by the electric propulsion system and advanced battery cell technology that results in significantly higher energy densities.”
Bye Aerospace and Safran are assessing the most efficient electric powertrain for the eFlyer 800, Bye noted.
“Safran product lines with the ENGINeUS motors, rated from 50kW to 500kW/1MW and GENeUSGRID systems, perfectly fit with the Bye Aerospace portfolio of e-aircraft,” said Hervé Blanc, executive vice president and general manager power with Safran Electrical & Power. “Building upon our successful cooperation on eFlyer2 and eFlyer4, we are very proud to bring our best expertise to support Bye Aerospace in the design of the new eFlyer 800.”
Bye Aerospace is in the process of obtaining FAA Part-23 certification for the eFlyer 2 for the professional flight training mission and the four-seat eFlyer 4 for air taxi, cargo, and advanced training.
How exactly does this qualify as a “turboprop”? There’s no turbine.
What is the price range for this airplane
This aircraft will be years away from certification and the price to develop it is in the Billions
The technology is years away for aviation !
The government has no clue how to go about developing it let alone certifying it!
But they can print money!!
Electric is the coming thing. The problems of weight, recharge time and range are being solved. The biggies, Boeing and Airbus, are working on electric airplanes, so these guys are far from alone.
I read a road test report on the new Mustang-e high performance model, it utterly blows the doors off the gasoline version and costs only a little more. Mercedes is bringing out an all-electric top of the line S-class car (EQS), GM is planning on being all-electric in the next few years, as is Honda. These are NOT stupid people, even if you don’t like their cars much.
If I could buy an electric conversion for my own airplane, one which would give me the same range, speed, and at a comparable cost, I would write a check in an instant. No more noise, vibration, stink, gasoline, oil changes, leaky mufflers, carbon monoxide, oil leaks, cylinder replacements, c’mon, we are flying around in the best technology 1940 has to offer – it is time for us to join the 21st century.
Most of our engines (and a lot of our airframes) belong in museums. Wood and fabric were replaced with aluminum, aluminum is being replaced with fiberglass and carbon fiber, The old A-N radio range system is now GPS. “De Plane, de plane!” is now ADSB. Gasoline engines have not kept pace. Most of them strain to wring tiny incremental increases in power and reliability, and get extremely costly to do it. Face it, slick as they are, they are a dead-end technology. The finest coal powered steam engine in the world is still only a coal powered steam engine.
I vote for electric airplanes, and as soon as they become available at competitive prices and performance, I will vote for one with my wallet.
Right On! ICE only translate about 25% of the energy used into motion. Electric vehicles are closer to 90-95% efficient. The energy density of gasoline is quite a bit (order of magnitude) higher than the current common batteries, but the lithium sulfur and lithium air batteries that are just coming out now, or will come out in time will get very close to bridging the gap. The costs of these batteries are also dropping – almost 90% drop since 2010. In the next few years your total cost per seat mile – including purchase, sale, “fuel”, insurance, etc. will be lower with an electric plane. It may only have a 2-3 hour useful endurance (with 45 minute night reserve), but for me that is all I am willing to do in a plane without a bathroom.
You can buy the ‘eFlyer-2’ now….3 hrs endurance, 96 kts. …just $489,000.
https://byeaerospace.com/electric-airplane/
A Cessna 150/152 will do the same mission for about $20,000, plus gas.!
One more thought. The eFlyer-2 has about a 150 kWhr battery.
When you land after 3 hours, where will the aircraft battery be recharged ?
My hangar only has a 20 amp, 120 vac circuit.[ 2.4 kw ]
Maybe the airport will install a ‘quick charger’ , but at what cost per kWhr and how many hours to recharge ?
The local EV chargers here in CA charge $0.30-$0.50 per kWhr.,
so 150 kWhr will cost about $45 to $75.
The C150 will use about 15 gallons of avgas at $4.60, or $68, and is refueled in minutes.
I’ve flown model aircraft 30 years now from my experience electric power systems are now comparable with wet fuel piston engines in some cases electric will out perform their reciprocating cousins in power to weigh duration most of all reliability In the model would a lot of old timers like me are now predominantly flying electric these planes come in all sizes from micro to macro my bigger birds are mostly wet fuel piston the reason I enjoy flying those birds is the realistic sound and smell of caster oil they are more realistic but the fuel is getting expensive the reality is electric is here to stay electric in Raido control aircraft are taking over and in the majority now there are ducted fan electric jets that fly and sound like the real thing scailing up to the real thing is a reality electric is here
Sorry Dan,
RC model aircraft have a very high power to weight ratio. I’ve seen a number of RC aircraft fly a 90 degree pitch climb…straight up.!
A 1,500 pound [ empty weight], GA aircraft has a lot of structure to carry 500+ pounds of passengers, and enough fuel to fly in cruise for 4 hours, and will climb at about a 10 degree pitch attitude.
I haven’t seen an RC aircraft that will fly for 3-4 hours.!?
So, ‘scaling up’ is a long way off, to match the typical GA aircraft performance.
Then, as I mentioned previously, where will you recharge that 100-150 kWhr battery ? Using a class 2 charger of 240 volts and 30 amps [ 7.2 kW], it will take 13.9 to 20.8 hours to recharge.
I can pump 40 gallons of avgas in 5 minutes and go fly again.!
A Mustang electric car is 50% more expensive than a similarly equipped gas Mustang. (ignoring the high end models). It only “blows the doors off” the gas version in straight line acceleration: 3.2 secs 0-60 instead of 4.9. Of course, if you are doing 3.2 sec acceleration runs in your electric car, your range is going to be crap.
We need to recognize, as much as we (GA) resist, Avgas is a dinosaur & will be priced or regulated out of existence. Possibly in the next 10-15 years. I have seen the changes from poor SFC numbers (think early radial/rotary) to better & better fuel numbers from first high power radials (R-985 to R2800) to opposed/vee & even auto based engines. All running some form of avgas. Even though some of the latest designs can use mogas most of those cannot use pump gas but require the aviation product. Small turbine engine physics make the engines very expensive to manufacture & will not be cost competitive with recipes ever. The only path for the future of personal general aviation will be in the newest technologies involving some form of electric power. How the fuel is produces or supplied will be the real technology problem for the immediate future. I love my Howard (DGA-15) but the operating costs are very high with ever increasing costs for oil & fuel. I love our electric car for daily driving charged by our house solar but still use our diesel powered car (30+mpg) for trips over 2 hours. Electric airplanes are coming. It will take time & teething problems will occur but they will replace our avgas powered airplanes.
A full airplane parachute should tell us something. It will be needed. We’ll need a parachute for our pocketbooks too if any insurance company is crazy enough to insure an electric airplane. All this electrification of our modes of transportation is a joke being fostered on us by politicians, but at least one can pull to the side of the road and walk away when the electric car fails.
Electric motors are much more reliable than gas, diesel, or turbine engines. Not sure why you are thinking it would fail. I have had numerous engine failures in aircraft, lawnmowers, motorcycles and gas cars (due to failed systems and outright structural failure), but never had an electric motor fail to operate given sufficient power and even a modicum of maintenance. I would much rather fly over mountains or water with an electric motor than my Continental O-200. Not to mention cheaper to operate, less maintenance, more power, less RPM for better prop efficiency, and quieter. I’ll take it. And yes, I am skeptical of the performance promises made, and the actual ability to bring it to market, but the concept is great. Just show me the execution and I’m all over it.
I didn’t make it clear I guess, I wasn’t suggesting failure of the electric motor, although I have had that happen with saws and other appliances, but the battery is the problem. And to complicate things further, environmentalist have been responsible for haling the mining of the minerals required to make batteries so we’re practically 100% dependent on China for the raw materials. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that I read there is only one such mine left in the United States?
I’m not so sure of the reliability of the 375 HP motor that are proposed. They run on 580 volts AC and the maximum current of 500 amps, and requires liquid cooling. The power controller and battery are also liquid cooled. So if one of the cooling systems fails or has reduced capacity and allows any of the 3 system components to overheat , it’s a glider.
I certainly wouldn’t want to ditch such an aircraft, with 580 volts AC, there is a possibility of electrocution.
Then there is the problem of the battery energy density, which is about 1/20 that of gasoline, even accounting for the 3x better power efficiency of the electrical drive system.
To equal the net energy of 50 gallons of gasoline, a 500 kWhr battery would be needed. Using the Tesla batteries, it would weigh over 7,500 lb…!
That’s not going to fly.
So, even with a 10x improvement in energy density, it’s still a 750 lb battery vs 300 lb of gas.
Then there is the time to recharge that 500 kWhr battery.?
It is always unfortunate when politics warps any discussion. Battery charge density, recharge times, and efficiency have exponentially quantum leapt forward in the last several years; it seems probable that future exponential battery capabilities will also occur.
In some respects, aviation engine manufacturers have hugely incented other modes of powering airplanes simply because of seemingly outrageous engine prices. It is well publicized that prices are purportedly high because of manufacturing costs related to small production lines. 30-60k for an outmoded mechanical design? E engines would be a tougher sell if the current banger engines had a stellar maintenance record or a lengthy TBO to defray the hourly depreciation cost. I will be interested to see what E TBO’s will be.
Although I love the sound of a big Continental, I will be curious to see what cabin noise will be like from just wind, prop, and any E engine drivetrain.
Thanks
“it seems probable that future exponential battery capabilities will also occur.”
Unfortunately, no. We’ve about reached the physical limits of the battery. Some improvement is likely, but a different technology will be needed. LiPo is good, and there are some better alternatives, but the battery pre-dates the internal combustion engine; it is not a new technology. There is no future 2x, 3x energy density revolution coming, which is truly what we’d need to make our electric airplane a reality.
More vaporware. A good way to fleece investors of their $.
This plane will fly at the same time pigs fly. Remember the diesel 182.
Turbo!?
This is hard to believe. The lithium ion batteries are so light in weight that it indeed must be possible. Terrific news and best of luck with the FAA certs.
F
No mention of charge times. Pretty useless if its down charging for hours between legs, not to mention a 500 nm range? What a joke. . Also, with all this talk of turning to electric cars and airplanes has anybody mentioned any improvements to the current power grid? Setting ourselves up for failure if we keep pushing this change with no way to power it.
Most EV cars (and likely some of these electric aircraft) will be charged at night when there is less demand on the grid. Also, there is plenty of wind resource at night that can be captured and delivered to the grid by wind turbines. EVs are a perfect way to exploit that.
The biggest impediment to proper electrical grid using more solar is the electric utilities failure to embrace (in many cases fighting tooth & nail to prevent) upgrading grid & integrating small scale solar into the system. Upgrading the grid will take political commitment & spend the $$ that have been lacking for a very long time. Per KWH it is now cheaper to produce solar & wind than any other source except hydro. Hydro is more limited by the physics of where it can be done.