Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

A Battery-Powered Cessna 172 Skyhawk

By Robert Goyer / Published: Mar 14, 2011
Rate it! 57% or 43%

(February 2011) — It has been seldom in the history of aviation that a single technology has revolutionized the way we fly by addressing multiple problems facing the industry and solving them all. The most important such event was the widescale adoption of the turbine engine in the 1940s. Turbines, as you know, remedied (and continue to remedy) commercial, military and business aviation problems of reliability, cost, range, speed and power, while also bringing with them a number of infrastructure advantages associated with using a single fuel type.

Though it's still in its infancy, electric propulsion seems to promise to solve a similar range of problems in light GA. But in the case of the electric motor, the potential advances might be more sweeping and more compelling, though almost certainly on a smaller scale economically.

The most visible electric airplane project these days is Bye Energy's Green Flight Project. The man behind the program is George Bye, an engineer whose background as an Air Force transport pilot and instructor doesn't seem to lend itself to his new role as a high-tech entrepreneur and self-described futurist, the head of a company that is trying to do no less than bring electric power to the mainstream of light general aviation.

Bye has even bigger ideas for Green Flight, but the first step for his company is nevertheless an ambitious one: to convert the most popular airplane in history, the Cessna Skyhawk, to electric power. On Bye's team is a guy who certainly knows Skyhawks, former Cessna CEO Charlie Johnson. Bye and Johnson gave a product update on the Green Flight Project at a press conference during the AOPA Summit in Long Beach, California, in November. There was much promising news, including endorsements and partnerships with several industry heavy hitters, such as Jeppesen and Cessna. Now nearly done with the detailed engineering phase of the project, Bye Energy could be flying the first electric Skyhawk soon.

Skyhawk as Platform
While some might argue that next-generation aircraft should use next-gen airframes, Bye argues that the Skyhawk is an "ideal" platform and was chosen only after long and "careful deliberation." The airplane is the most popular model in aviation history, with more than 40,000 produced and a good percentage of those airplanes still flying. And the 172 is the model of a perfect trainer, many believe, a relatively lightweight four-seater that flies beautifully and lasts a long time.

It's hard to overstate the importance of the fact that the 172 is a certified airplane, one that has no questions surrounding it, other than those having to do with it being too safe a choice. With the airframe question out of the way, Bye can simply concentrate on what is a tough enough task, creating a safe and satisfying electric power solution.

Moreover, the company's choice of the Skyhawk infers instant credibility upon the project, something that's hard to imagine happening for a start-up purpose built electric airplane project.

A Trainer, to Begin With
The choice by Bye to focus, at least at the start, on the training market seems as well thought out as its choice of airframe. Because the current state of the electric art will limit the first "Byehawk" to about two hours' absolute endurance, the most suitable role for the airplane is that of trainer. There are good reasons for this.

Most training flights last around an hour, and very few go as long as two hours, so the projected endurance of the electric Skyhawk is workable. Just as importantly, most training flights are out-and-back affairs, so the electric trainers will be returning to their home airports to recharge, instead of having to search for a friendly source of current elsewhere.

We often think of battery weight and capacity as being the holy grail of electric vehicle progress, and that's true, but there's another key factor: recharging time. This just happens to be an area where the state of the art is rapidly improving. Bye says that, within the very near future, recharge times, which currently run at around a 1:1 ratio — that is, it takes an hour to put an hour's charge into the batteries — could soon be down to a ratio of 0.25:1, or 15 minutes for a one-hour charge. This improvement would change the game.

Comments (3) Post a comment

All Comments

Hogey74's picture

Thanks for this article Robert. As an irrelevant aside, nice use of "repair to the X" - a turn of phrase I use myself and enjoy hearing.

I am excited by the potential here and think a decent article was overdue. I like the choice of the 172 platform and also think the 2 hour range is useful. My comment regards the battery tech. I use a little Asus "netbook" computer with their biggest battery - an 8.7 amp hour unit. Considering that the whole machine weighs 1.45 kg, the energy density of the battery is impressive - just over an ounce per amp hour by my calculation. It uses the same Li-ion tech as is proposed here. I've had this one for just over 18 months and estimate that it has been through 400 complete recharge cycles. I don't have a load tester but I can report that I used to get about 6 hours real-world usage and now get about 4. I think my point is obvious.

I assume there are improvements available through better management of the batteries and simply better quality batteries but when battery replacement is factored in I am wondering what the real world savings of this technology will be in the short to medium term.

Thomas Boyle's picture

I'm curious about the proposed APU for this project. Obviously it can't be a Ly/Co, capable of driving the propeller in a conventional manner, because of weight, space and layout. Presumably the proposed APU would be required only to provide recharge capability in places where electric recharge is not available, and "finish the trip"/"limp home" capability on longer flights that would exhaust the battery. That suggests a motor to run a generator, delivering enough power to maintain level flight and perhaps a 250fpm rate of climb. The APU could come online well before the battery was depleted, so that climbs could be conducted at normal 500fpm rates by draining the battery briefly, restoring the charge slowly during level flight.
The thing is, even this limited capability requires about 80hp, which isn't small. What kind of engine could be used? Since the idea is to replace a 160 hp engine with a much lighter electric motor and use the difference for battery capacity, adding back an 80hp internal combustion engine plus a generator is going to make nonsense of the whole concept. On the other hand, a turbine might make sense: it would be lighter and likely more reliable in infrequent use than an i/c engine, but the downsides are equally clear: turbines are costly and have high fuel consumption. Combining limited fuel capacity (for weight) with the relative inefficiency of a turbine, this would be more of a "get me to the next airport" capability rather than something that would allow real cross country use of the aircraft in the manner of a conventional 172.
I look forward to learning more about this aspect of the project.

Hogey74's picture

Thomas, I can't profess to be an expert but I think your numbers are about right. I doubt the numbers make sense in an airborne application, as opposed to diesel electric locomotives. OK, the energy density of the fuel is orders of magnitude better but when, as you say, the weight of the generator is added, there goes your advantage. Maybe a small generator could be an option for "self charging" when off the grid but anything small enough to make sense would require many minutes of charging for every minute of electric flight.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use