RAYAN, France — VoltAero’s Cassio electric-hybrid general aviation aircraft will perform demonstration flights across the Netherlands beginning June 13, 2022.
Flying VoltAero’s Cassio 1 testbed — a parallel hybrid aircraft — in a week-long deployment is part of the Netherlands’ Power Up initiative, which is aimed at positioning the country for the introduction of electric-powered commercial passenger flights within five years.
The demonstration flights will include analyses of operational costs, noise, ground infrastructure requirements, and technical support for the future use of Cassio family aircraft by commercial aviation operators.
The Cassio family of aircraft will range from four seats to 12 seats and is targeted at private aircraft owners, air taxi, and charter companies, as well as for cargo, postal delivery, and medical evacuation (Medevac) flights, according to company officials.
Cassio aircraft use electric motors for all-electric power during taxi, takeoff, primary flight, and landing. The hybrid feature with an internal combustion engine comes into play as a range extender, recharging the batteries while in flight, according to company officials. Additionally, this hybrid element serves as a backup in the event of a problem with the electric propulsion, they said.
The first aircraft the company will submit for certification is the Cassio 330, with four or five seats, powered by a 330-kilowatt electric-hybrid power module.
VoltAero’s follow-on six-seat Cassio 480 will have an electric-hybrid propulsion power of 480 kilowatts, while the Cassio 600 is sized at a 10- to 12-seat capacity with electric-hybrid propulsion power of 600 kilowatts.
VoltAero will be certified to Europe’s EASA CS23 specification as a single-engine, general aviation category aircraft, and is designed from the start for a low cost of ownership, company officials concluded.
KinectAir, a U.S.-based charter company, has already struck a deal to add the VoltAero to its fleet once it is FAA certified.
To the naysayers, this presents a marginal (if not revolutionary) improvement over traditional GA propulsion. One could argue it doesn’t improve on a single engine aircraft, but it appears poised to compete with light twins in common carriage and offer the benefit of redundancy over SE drive.
Dispensing with the second engine dispenses with the idle force/power parasitic to the second engine. Further, as some mentioned previously, power recovery allows higher power settings at altitude at a potentially lower and more efficient cruise airspeed, instead recovering power excess to batteries for later use.
Not revolutionary, but probably beneficial to the tune of 20% operating expense and 30-40% engine-related capital outlays on the dispensed-with second engine.
Larry is absolutely correct. An energy inefficient way to compensate for the lack of battery range. And its zero green if the initial charge comes from a fossil or nuclear fueled power station.
I’m very surprised they’ve decided to incorporate a conventional reciprocating engine rather than turbine (power to weight being the biggest improvement) – other than budget, I can’t see a motivating factor for that decision…
If they like complexity they should look into wind mill driven alternators maybe it would be more feasible and 100% green then again I am not a (biologist ha ha)
There is “some” complexity here. The gas engine can run at a constant speed to drive the alternator. That constant speed allows for optimization of fuel economy and cooling (likely a water cooled engine). It also allows for optimal sound deadening and exhaust muffling.
Their prototype appears to be a Cessna (probably Rheims) 337. Their website shows a much less draggy hence more aerodynamically efficient airframe.
The “power profile” probably goes something like this – takeoff and climb, battery plus gas engine (max power). Cruise, battery until discharged to XX%, then restart engine to continue. Descent, engine at idle, regenerate power from the motors. Engine should be running during descent in case full power is needed for a go-around.
Needed – a very clean airframe, lighter batteries with more capacity. Their concept appears to be sensible, but given present-day battery technology I don’t think this version is quite ready for prime time.
Remember that Europe is a lot smaller than the US, so somewhat limited range is not so much of an issue there. This would work fine London to Paris, it wouldn’t work here New York to Houston.
Looks far more promising than other electric planes. Backup plus recharging. Maybe cut the battery down by half to save the extra weight of the additional engines and battery.
how does it charge itself
I think that a hydrogen fuel cell generator using green hydr6would be the best generator for extended flight than a any other type of hybrid generator.
Now just wait a doggone minute, here! These folks want me to believe that recharging the batteries IN flight from motive power from an internal combustion engine is somehow gonna save the planet. Give me a break.
Any time you convert energy from one form to another, it is NOT 100% energy efficient. Using mechanical energy from the engine to drive an alternator to recharge a battery to then run a motor through controllers is ridiculous. In its first 330kw motored design, that’s the equivalent of 10 gals of avgas (1 gal = 33.7kw). So how much does that 330kw engine plus all the allied circuitry weigh? I’m certain it’s more than 60 lbs (10gal avgas).
The ONLY advantage I might buy into is that the electric parallel system would add takeoff power and maybe a backup. But … I’d have to know how much all that electric equipment adds to the airplane.