At the advanced age I currently find myself passing through, I bear no resemblance at all to Marlon Brando’s character in the 1953 film “The Wild One” — at least not physically. As a character, however, perhaps there is a bit of similarity.
What am I likely to rebel against? “Whaddaya got?” says Brando’s Johnny Strabler.
Me? I’m always bumping up against the status quo and feeling a bit chaffed by the experience.
That’s not to suggest a reckless streak. Not at all. I’m well aware of my vulnerabilities. As a result, I take safety precautions seriously. Which is why I habitually throw on a full-face helmet and gloves when I jump on a motorcycle and wear my seat belt in the airplane from start up to shut down.
I often use a motorcycle as my mode of transportation when running errands around town. They’re fun to ride. They’re also more fuel efficient than the car or pick-up truck and allow me to soak in the sights and sounds of the neighborhood more fully than I can in a car. The motorcycle is also a lot easier to park. Those are all positives that relate to a vehicle that has a place in our transportation system.
On the negative side they carry far fewer groceries than the car does, provide no crash protection to speak of, and tend to cause me to get wet when it rains.
The positives of the motorcycle outweigh the negatives when viewed from my perspective. Yet the negatives still exist. The motorcycle, the car, and the pick-up, when taken as independent vehicles, play different roles in a complex world where there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
While motoring through town recently I rolled to a stop at a traffic light in the heart of downtown. A cop stood on the corner not 10 feet away. He looked me and the bike over with great interest.
“Is that electric?” Officer Mendies called out. I called back from inside my helmet, “Yes, it is.” The cop nodded before offering an observation. “I wondered because I couldn’t hear it.”
I’ve got two motorcycles. The first is an elegant gasoline-powered beast known as a BMW R1200RT that I use on longer rides. When leaving the state, the BMW is my pick. But it’s bulky and heavy for around town rides.
For that role I have an electric motorcycle. The Zero DSR is whisper quiet, peppy, and zips along the road without trailing even a whiff of exhaust fumes. It’s also got a limited range that relegates it to trips where both Point A and Point B are in the same county.
Two motorcycles with two entirely different power sources filling two unique missions. The status quo is being challenged again — this time, in terms of how power is produced, stored, and used in the real world.
I’d been riding motorcycles for well over 50 years before I took any serious interest in the electric variant. The technology hadn’t developed to the point where they were practical for my use. They existed. An electric motorcycle was registered for road use more than a century ago, in 1919. It was an idea ahead of its time. An idea that wouldn’t catch on until technological advances were made that allowed greater functionality.
Those enhanced technological developments are here. More are coming. These are truly consequential times.
In the motorcycle world electric power is far from being universally accepted. Many find the limited range and sluggish charging speeds to be reason enough to discount them. Yet, range has increased. New technological breakthroughs will extend that range even farther in the years to come. Even now charging can be accomplished relatively quickly, albeit in more time than it takes to pump three or four gallons into a traditional gas tank.
The mission often determines the performance-based qualities of a vehicle, and vice versa. As the capabilities of a vehicle increase, the missions it can fulfill are expanded as well. This is the history of motorized transport.
The first airplanes were widely considered to be little more than rich men’s toys. They were expensive, dangerous, flew short distances with great effort, and often carried no load other than the pilot. Over time the capabilities of the machines were improved dramatically. Their role in society changed considerably. While many in my grandfather’s generation never flew in their entire lives, few in my grandchildren’s generation will make that claim.
The electrically powered airplane is as poorly regarded by the wider society today as the gasoline powered airplane was in the early 20th Century or the electrically powered motorcycle today. Yet, electric airplanes are flying all over the world with great success.
The training market is blessed with options like the eDA40 from Diamond, or the Pipistrel’s Velis Electro. In the commuter market Eviation continues exploring the boundaries of its Alice aircraft, which currently boasts a 250 nm range at well over 200 knots. They are not alone either. The number of electric options is growing.
Are these electric solutions perfect for all circumstances? No, of course not. But then you’re as unlikely to try to shoehorn a 757 into your local GA airport as you would be to sell 200 tickets for a flight to Hawaii in a Bonanza. Different aircraft with different capabilities are relegated to missions where their particular attributes are appropriate. As they should be.
Long ago the legendary World War I Ace and business leader Eddie Rickenbacker said, “Aviation is proof that given the will we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.”
I tend to agree with Eddie. Change is coming. I’m looking forward to it.
Well said Miami Mike… scientists who have spent their life studying the environment with a purely clinical approach ( no political bias ) are in agreement that climate change is a serious issue. The climate deniers that say “I’ve done the research “ don’t have a clue how to do research, reading politically charged “editorials “ on the internet is not research….. I grew up in Southern California in the 60’s and on the frequent bad smog days your lungs would ache when you took a deep breath (lead and other toxins). Had we not tackled that issue with unleaded gas, catalytic converters and better gas mileage the damage to the air quality would have been so much worse. Same story with water pollution, Government regulations may not always be a perfect solution, but in the case of the environment they do far more good than harm.
Devoid of strip miners? Are you aware of where precious metals for battery manufacturing come from? How about where batteries are manufactured? China is the worst polluter on the planet, yet they make virtually all the batteries for the electric world. I like science, I have a degree in it, but let’s look at the big picture and not throw “science” around just to try and make ourselves look smarter.
With current battery technology, electric planes have limited utility. Just as the first gas-powered planes had limited utility. But there are a lot of highly motivated people working on improving battery technology, and I wouldn’t bet against some major breakthroughs. Electric motors have far fewer moving parts than reciprocating internal combustion engines, with better reliability. And the “fuel” gauge on an electric aircraft should be far more accurate and dependable than the gas gauges we have now. Plus there’s never a need to switch tanks, so no crash landing with one tank full of gas and the engine drawing from the empty one. How often have we seen that scenario play out on this site??
some comments;
– Li-ion technology is well developed with the current chemistry…maybe 10-20 % improvement.
– the motor does have 1 moving part, but the water cooling of the motor, controller and battery add a lot of complexity. If one of the cooling systems fails the drive will have to shutdown.
– There are a lot of high power electronic components in the controller which are far more sensitive to heat and power level than an ICE engine.
– most high-wing aircraft have a ‘both’ position on the fuel selector, so no switching tanks…ie; my Cessna.
I’ll be watching for what improvements in endurance may be developed.
I think if the e-plane manufacturers added an external speaker, and a choice of engine soundtracks, it would greatly increase pilot acceptance and enthusiasm for their products. Instead of the little electric razor buzz, what if you programmed the throaty roar of a Merlin or Pratt and Whitney R-1340 Wasp? Just a suggestion…. 😉
This is an old guy talking for sure, but much of the fun of flying for me for the past more that 55 years is the sound of many type of aircraft I’ve flown. If the sound were to go away, also a portion of what I love about my airplane would go with it. Old school sure, but that’s the way it is for me. Like taking a hot bath with your shoes still on.
I probably would have bought an EV by now if the politics weren’t a factor. I’m proudly driving my F250 around the pothole infested roads of my California county.
I think you miss the point. Opposition to battery airplanes has nothing to do with the capability or emotion, but everything to do with cost, useful load, weight, range, endurance, fire danger, problems with cold weather, etc. Battery-powered self-starting sailplanes have been around for at least twenty years and they have some benefit over gas-powered self-starters, at least for lighter sailplanes. The major problem I have are efforts by government to force battery aircraft on us due to crony businesses, debunked “save the planet” arguments or to reduce the non-existent hazard of leaded fuel. Let free markets decide what’s best, devoid of government coercion, do-gooders, and environmental fanatics. Ironically, the gasoline engines of BMW motorcycles are popular power plants in European home built aircraft.
Some good points on the limitations associated with ‘current’ technology…(pun intended).
As far as the Pipistrel Velis Electro example goes:
At over $200K for 18-30 minutes +\- of flight time, we have a ways to go.
On the plus side, the extremely limited useful load may force some learners and instructors to up their fitness levels…
Like it or not, I do believe we‘re on our way to a Jetson‘s world; we just have to continue to eat the electric “elephant” one bite at a time.
Of course, we went from Kill Devil Hills to the Moon in @ 66 years, so anything is possible.
(Although I’m not sure if AVweb’s Paul Bertorelli is convinced quite yet.)
“efforts by government to force battery aircraft on us due to crony businesses”
Turns out the “crony businesses” are the established companies trying to block electrification instead of backing it. Parent company of Florida Power and Light (and other electric utilities) is lobbying states to reduce the benefit for net metering so the payback is way longer, which discourages people from going solar, and guarantees the existing utilities their profit margins.
“debunked “save the planet” arguments ”
I don’t know about you, but in 52 years of living in Florida, I’ve seen the winters getting shorter and warmer, hurricanes getting more frequent, and definite issues with sea level rise. Ask anyone who lives in Miami about that. “Saving the planet” means saving our own posteriors, the planet will still be here but WE are going to have the problems. It is up to us not to exacerbate them. Ask yourself what is more important, listening to rage-aholic right wing radio hosts (who want to get their numbers up so they can charge more for advertising) or trying to keep our ONLY available world habitable?
“or to reduce the non-existent hazard of leaded fuel”
Lead is absolutely a hazard, look up “heavy metal poisoning”. Lead has been conclusively shown to cause developmental problems in children. That’s why a “Lead Paint Disclosure” is required for real estate transactions. The only reason we’re still using leaded gasoline in our airplanes is we are stuck flying with the very best technology 1940 has to offer. Modern automobiles run just fine on unleaded gasoline. Instead of blaming the EPA we should be thanking them for reducing lead exposure. The gasoline companies would prefer to go back to leaded gasoline, it is cheaper to make, and they lobby extensively.
“Lead isn’t bad for you” is the exact equivalent of “Tobacco isn’t bad for you”, and we now know the truth about the tobacco industry and their lies and lobbyists. Yet some people still smoke.
“Let free markets decide what’s best, devoid of government coercion, do-gooders, and environmental fanatics”
How about devoid of anti-science populists, devoid of products that harm people, and devoid of strip-miners, polluters, dioxin, microplastics and similar . . . ?
Miami Mike, thank you! You said what needed to be said and said it well. I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1940 – 1960 period and often choked on the orange-brown skies of Southern California pollution caused largely by cars and trucks and the refineries that fed them. People griped and moaned about the laws that mandated cleaner vehicles and lead free fuel, but the world became a better place where such laws took hold. It is still miserable in many third world countries and China, where coal is still king.
. Scientific American magazine just had a nice article looking at why people and societies tend to avoid dealing with “inconvenient truths” and bury their heads, individual and collective, in the sand and only want to hear rationalizations for continuing bad behavior that is self destructive and destructive to the world. There is no lack of false prophets, self interested politicians, amoral industrialists, and falsehood spreading late night hosts willing to make their money while the Titanic sinks.
. Meanwhile real pioneers and heroes are working to make the future better and brighter than where it seemed to be heading. For instance a friend and colleague of mine is working to convert his regional airline’s fleet of cabin class commuter aircraft into efficient quiet, and far less maintenance intensive electric aircraft – probably Eviation’s Alice model – by the end of this decade.
, More power to those who lead the way – literally!