What will recreational flying be like in a few decades?

[Pilot DAR]

I was mentoring my charge in her family PA-18 the other day. I told her that when she is my age (she's 19 now), she won't fly around as we do now. I opine that society just won't tolerate wasteful, lead fuel burning, polluting luxury toys, in a world of solar energy, wind turbine generation, low carbon footprint, and don't warm the globe any more. The GA recreational flying aircraft and engines we know now, will largely be 100 year old designs. The horribly inefficient and polluting engines will be socially unacceptable - they might as well be coal powered.

Perhaps we have diesel which will have evolved to work well (and be honest about emissions), and electric aircraft, for short trips. But, there are large development and certification costs between here and there.

There won't be gasoline for GA engines or Hummers.

What do PPRuNers envision for GA recreational flying in the decades to come?

[Capn Bug Smasher]

With luck we'll get electric motors and batteries that just drop right in and replace the original. Eventually with no performance loss.

As far as I know, having not been involved for some time, the radio control crowd have now reached that point - with the possible exception of really high power models like jets. Took a decade or so after the beginnings of the movement in the mid-2000s-ish, but they did it.

Brave new world. I'll miss the snarl of my Continental but I think it'll be great.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Whatever solution is found for cars will be adapted for small aircraft, too.

[Radix]

.............

[abgd]

Eventually drones will be reliable enough that in some country, somewhere, people will accept that it's perfectly reasonable to put people in them. Electrical power already makes VTOL vehicles much more feasible so I envisage VTOL vehicles with very small wings that fly very fast and relatively economically over short distances (current aircraft are limited by the need for a reasonable stall speed - doing away with this, perhaps by installing ballistic parachutes, could greatly increase efficiency). Such vehicles are already perfectly feasible so in a way, it seems to me that the regulatory regimes will sooner or later just have to accept them. If the CAA/FAA drag their heels, they'll get popular in China or Kenya or Brazil or somewhere and we'll miss out on a boom industry... But one way or another they will come.

The question will then be whether there will be a need for pilots. At least for a period there will be a need for drones and manned GA aircraft to share airspace, so they will need to work on robust ways for drones to get out of the way of piloted aircraft. As flying is fun, I wouldn't be surprised if the new generation of flying machines allow some means of reversion to manual control and hopefully the infrastructure will allow that.

So all in all I forsee an ability to carry on using airspace for manned vehicles. I'm not so sure about the environmental aspects - when you work it out, there are plenty of relatively innocuous-sounding hobbies that have a much greater environmental impact than flying 20 hours a year in a spamcan, but that doesn't go far towards fixing its image.

If VTOL aircraft do become popular, the next question will be whether there will still be any need to support our airfield/airport infrastructure. There will always be farm strips, but concerns about terrorism may well make it much more difficult to share airports with passenger aircraft.

Those are my predictions anyway... All written with a toddler hassling me down my ear. Gotta go and make a robot out of cardboard.

[xrayalpha]

12l an hour with a Rotax 912 in a two-seater than can cruise at 100mph.

That's on a par with a car.

In the future: electric and composite.

As someone said, after a flight in a spam can: when did you last see a car held together with rivets!

[Pace]

It will never be all electric. Look at it practically, you go touring fly one leg of 400nm then what ? Sit there waiting while you recharge your battery? With Avgas you splash and dash with electric no way.

Electric will be a toy plane one to buzz around the local area and then plug in till next weekend

Hybrid yes thats a different matter or some low cost baby turbine

Pace

[dont overfil]

It will never be all electric. Look at it practically, you go touring fly one leg of 400nm then what ? Sit there waiting while you recharge your battery? With Avgas you splash and dash with electric no way.

Electric will be a toy plane one to buzz around the local area and then plug in till next weekend

Hybrid yes thats a different matter or some low cost baby turbine

Pace


Batteries will be rented. Exchange units will be slotted in at your destination.
Some flight schools will still have Cessna 152s.
You can become an FI at 50 hrs.

[piperboy84]

I'd imagine that if politicians and their polices evolve over the next 30 years similar to how they have over the last 30, any poor sap even considering firing up a slack and smokey old lycomng would be subject to arrest under thought-crime legislation that's no doubt coming down the pike at us.

[Pace]

Overfill

You would need a lot of electric aircraft to make it viable for all these airports all over Europe to stockpile charged batteries and they would have to be batteries which fit all.

I could see Hybrid where the aircraft runs on Electric in certain phases of flight and Avgas in others or for that matter Diesel.

With the shortage of Avgas which will get worse in many areas of the world jet A1 or Bio Fuel will become the fuel driving force and turbine for me is still the optimum.

I knew some time back Mooney were looking at a low cost baby turbine and maybe that coupled to Electric ?

But I am not the world expert on these things there are far better technology minded people here than me :ok:

Pace

[onetrack]

There will be no need to learn any flying skills. Your aircraft will be operated by tiny computers and microprocessors that will possess 1,000 times the computing capacity of todays electronics.
You will slide into your aircraft seat, where there are no controls of any kind, merely a touch screen.
You will tap in your destination and the screen will respond with some questions about the route and the load figures - which you will input.

Your aircraft will be manufactured from super-lightweight materials and be powered by a relatively small, but powerful battery, which drives multiple, highly-efficient, lightweight electric motors which drive multiple ducted fans at extremely high RPM's. The casings of the electric motors and ducted fans will form structural parts of the aircraft frame.
These turboelectric engines will produce equivalent thrust on a weight-to-power basis, that is equal to current jet engines.
There will be a small back-up battery in case of complete main battery failure.

The electric motors will be boosted to high power levels for takeoff, by small but powerful super-capacitors. These super-capacitors can store huge amounts of electrical energy, and release it over many minutes to enable rapid climb.
Upon descent, regenerative power will be produced from the ducted fan motors, to recharge the batteries and the super-capacitors.

The computers and microprocessors on board will be controlled by hundreds of sensors that sense every single movement of the aircraft, and respond accordingly, calculating the most efficient response.
The elimination of mechanical controls will result in huge weight savings in construction. Tiny electric motors will actuate all control surfaces directly. In the event of a major electrics failure, a rocket-activated parachute will return your aircraft to Earth gently.

Flying will become so simplistic and available to all, that airline forums will be full of pilots decrying the lack of skills needed to become airborne - and how they wished they could turn back the clock, to a time when real flying skills were needed and taught. :(

50% of the above technology is with us now - the next 40% of the above technology is within reach within a few short years.
It will only take a few advances in battery and electric motor technology, to provide the remaining 10% advance.

Distributed electric propulsion (http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/distributed-propulsion-many-small.html)

[Pace]

One track

And when all those electronics go into brain fade what happens then?
Sorry I don't trust anything in aircraft from autopilots to electronics :E
Anyway I fly because I love flying I am not looking for a take me from A to B aircraft if I want that I fly scheduled and at least have a pretty trolley dolly to bring me some rubbish food or a drink)))

Pace

[Prop swinger]

C'mon Pace.

Cirrus

[onetrack]

Pace - You just press the "reset" button - and if that fails to produce the desired result, you just press the 'chute button!

Your new fully-electronic, self-drive aircraft, is largely unrepairable anyway, in the case of major failure or serious damage - all components are sealed to prevent the ingress of dust, moisture, chemicals, and other injurious and spurious products - and any major failures in the critical components will merely see your aircraft written off and recycled, and you will acquire a new replacement at modest cost.

Robots will produce all the new aircraft in a totally clinical environment, to precision levels that are impossible with human hands - and the cost of producing this new aircraft, will be on a par with a small family car.

So, the aircraft replacement cost will be quite low, and repairs will be limited to major component exchange. Robots will exchange any major components with speed and precision, when required.

We already have increasing amounts of large mining equipment that are driverless - trains are next - and driverless cars are rapidly being developed, and these will be viable, saleable products.

Not too many years after the advent and uptake of driverless cars, there will be pressure applied to remove all "old technology" cars that need a driver, from the roads - with the argument being used, that roads full of driverless cars are much safer than roads full of mixed vehicles.

There is little reason to believe that piloting and flying will be immune from the push to total automation of all powered products.

Rio Tinto opens worlds first automated mine (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-18/rio-tinto-opens-worlds-first-automated-mine/6863814)

[n5296s]

I guess these replies are all tongue-in-cheek, no?

My plane is, as it happens, exactly as old as the difference in ages from the OP. It's probably about at the median age of all the planes on the field (it was made in 1980). I think all the predictions about self-flying electric planes are right up there with similar predictions from 50 years ago.

I therefore predict that in 2050 Palo Alto airport will look pretty much as it does now. The paint on all those 2010+ Cirruses will be a bit older and shabbier. There will be a lot more European LSAs, which imo are the future of private aviation right now. They will have piston engines and avionics which are not radically different from what we have now. (There are still loads of planes flying with the identical Bendix-King avionics that my plane had when new, not to say a lot which are even older).

There'll always be pressure from neighbours, busybodies and tree huggers to shut down private aviation. But there are practical reasons to keep it going too, and a decent-sized industry behind it, at least in the US. They may succeed in Europe, where private flying is so much less common. But China has a developing GA scene which will probably be a lot more developed by then.

Electric planes need a major revolution in battery technology to be more than a novelty. Hybrid planes just make no sense at all - unlike cars, planes do very little stopping and starting, which is where hybrid cars excel, and run all the time close to full power, which cars almost never do.

My 2c...

[Gentoo]

The 'environmental lobby' are more likely to focus on household devices (like hoovers, kettles, ovens, central heating) and on road traffic (including haulage) before bothering with GA.

This is because they will be interested in making changes that make a big difference. While an individual GA aircraft is more polluting than a car, the aggregate pollution by GA is probably nothing compared to other things.

What will be interesting is if light aircraft become even cheaper, and reach the kind of critical mass that allows benefits of scale in production. The number of people involved in GA is almost certainly limited by money. If it became cheaper then there would be a lot more people, and hence more accidents.

Just like there is talk within the 'drone' world of the 'event' that will occur at some point and force legislation (the first drone to cause a death). I think that it will only take one or two GA crashes that result in civilian deaths on the ground to make some people wonder why all these private citizens are allowed to fly around above populated areas.

So I see the 'future' as more restrictions. Due to increasing numbers of participants flying low cost aircraft.

[ZFT]

I just wonder where the future GA airfields will be?

At the rate of housing development and (perceived?) demand, the land values will destroy GA in Europe.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The new trend is that authorities will fund people to keep land open and free, with the excuse that most Western European soil is rapidly becoming full of either habitation or small businesses. The main goal of such a scheme would be to support agriculture, but aerodromes could perhaps take their share. The more so that there is a growing awareness of the ecological value of aerodromes, as breeding and feeding grounds for many kinds of animals, including several endangered species.

[Cognoscenti]

Zero point energy is the future for electricity and propulsive force.

[Radix]

.............

[abgd]

I don't think all the technologies are as far away as that. Wholly autonomous flight is, but the nuts and bolts of control systems and battery/motor power combinations are already there for the taking. Look up the 'vc200' for example. You still have to tell it where to go - I fear that won't last forever - but who would want things otherwise?

[Pace]

ABDG

They are now working on artificial intelligence so maybe in the future the aircraft will think for itself :(
But its not the sort of flying which would appeal to me

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

As a VFR wood-and-fabric tailwheel pilot, I wonder if my kind of flying will be any different away from major airports.
Nobody uses horses for haulage or transport now - but horse riding as a leisure activity continues.
Nobody uses sail propulsion for commercial sea transport - but leisure sailing has increased over the last 50 years.
It'll be whether you can afford it, just as at present. As regards effect on climate of burning fuel, the example will be set by our leaders. See the R&N thread about the supersonic business plane. No plan for it to use electric engines.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Maoraigh;

Sounds like only you and I will be up there having fun. In 20 years I'll be way beyond retirement, EFIS, EICAM, airways, and days sitting in the grew lounges at out of the way airports will be in my past. Flying will be when I want rather than when the company says, in my wood and fabric toy, with no electrics, no roof, draughts everywhere and rain down my neck. But on a freezing winter morning, or dawn or dusk in summer, heaven.

SND

[foxmoth]

It will never be all electric. Look at it practically, you go touring fly one leg of 400nm then what ? Sit there waiting while you recharge your battery?

Electric aircraft are already in development, I know one of the guys involved and he was saying that battery technology is advancing today in the same way computers were 20 years ago, charging is already becoming much faster and I can see that you will fly your 4-500+ mile leg then by the time you have emptied your bladder and had a coffee the battery is fully charged for the next leg.
As for all the automation, yes it will be there in your Cirrus derivative and available if wanted in your 6 seat RV52 which will cruise at 250kts, be stressed to +\- 16g and still handle like a dream! Of course aircraft like the dH82a and Chippie will still be around, a few flown by setups like Shuttleworth with the origional engines but the majority having replaced these with electric due to the price of fuel and oil.
:ok:

[abgd]

Although... If cars switch largely to electric power, aviation fuel may become cheaper. The fixed costs of batteries then become much more significant, so whilst electric aircraft will gain ground quickly in schools, it will take a longer for them to take over for the sort of aircraft that only get flown a few times a month.

On the other hand, electric aircraft could slash training costs. If it cost 2000 to get a PPL, there would be a lot more people learning to fly.

[9 lives]

I think of the Tiger Moth I flew a few times a few years back, and the old Cub I flew more recently. Then I think of my recently deceased 1970 Massey Ferguson garden tractor. It ran like a top, but coughed out chocking exhaust, as normal operation. When it's engine had a mechanical failure, I inquired about repairs - not possible, the parts were long ago discontinued. I suppose that the manufacturer could no longer sustain horribly polluting engines.

How long will it be before engine manufacturers either will not, or will not be permitted to support the very old engine technology? We're already seeing major airframe manufacturers quietly stepping back from supporting their legacy airframes, can the engines be far behind?

[mm_flynn]

Electric aircraft are already in development, I know one of the guys involved and he was saying that battery technology is advancing today in the same way computers were 20 years ago, charging is already becoming much faster and I can see that you will fly your 4-500+ mile leg then by the time you have emptied your bladder and had a coffee the battery is fully charged for the next leg.
Unless you are very slow at the loo, it will be a longer wait than that.

Today, if I could monopolizs 4 charging bays it would take a little less than 2 hours for my car to recharge the electricity need to produce the thrust of 384 l of avgas (a full load including tips for the Bonanza). Not as quick as a loo break, but also, not impractically slow (a 2 hr charging break every 1000 nms). That is with currently widely deployed charging and battery technology.

The current problem, is that a plane with 4 x the battery weight as my car currently has would never get off the ground. However, at the rate battery capacity is improving, 10 years from now, I am pretty sure there will be production, fun, electric aircraft. They won't be self flying. But they will have envelop protection, automatic unusual attitude recovery (both already available in GA), probably auto land (based on some very impressive LPV performance) and logically, in a post ADSB world, collision avoidance and terrain avoidance systems.

The only bit that is a technology stretch is the battery capacity. Of course fuel cells might make up the gap (and might even use hydrocarbon liquids as their energy source).

The first thing I thought of when I moved to the electric car was, 'this would be fantastic as an airplane', as I silently accelerated behind the 400 horses up through my normal Vr speed.

[cjm_2010]

Personally I'd be happy with a 912 powered CT2K....

I do think the future is electric but that's quite a way off. I have a Nissan Leaf as a daily driver & the simplicity of the drivetrain means almost perfect reliability, and it's costing me about 2p a mile to run.

I'd have no qualms with flying an electric aircraft! The biggest worry would be bearing failure or a thermal runaway in a cell (assuming LiPo chemistry hasn't been beaten for energy density). I know at least one manufacturer is looking at a simple swapping system, coupled with a cleverly shaped prop that can windmill on descent & put some energy back in - this is an area where EV beats ICE hands down. An engine can't put fossil fuel back into the fuel tanks!

Maybe the future lies in super efficient small displacement fuel injected powerplants pulling composite airframes around, kind of like what we have now, until battery tech has reached energy densities / kg close to that of fossil fuels.

[Silvaire1]

I don't think light aviation will change in the next fifty years any more than it has in the last 80 years. There will always be incremental change, but in the absence of totalitarian government it won't stop people operating what they want. I think you'll find what they want in 30 years won't be all that different from what they want now.

Friends are finishing up a Cub restoration at the moment, and I bet when I'm on my last legs and hanging around the airport, they'll be somebody finishing up a Cub restoration and flying a biplane, as well as experimenting. New stuff will occur as extensions of current efforts (electric etc) and as unforeseen technologies develop, but I think the endless 'the world is ending and must change radically' drum beat is a little ridiculous.

Neither of my airframes has been 'supported' by a manufacturer for decades, and I doubt that will change either! I'd also guess that classic cars and the like will be even more popular than they've already become, as new stuff becomes progressively less amenable to owner maintenance. It wouldn't surprise me if we see some of that rub off on aviation, as people feel an increasing distance from their modern possessions and a greater emotional need to connect their hands and minds with something, anything...

[foxmoth]

Unless you are very slow at the loo, it will be a longer wait than that.

Today, if I could monopolizs 4 charging bays it would take a little less than 2 hours for my car to recharge the electricity need to produce the thrust of 384 l of avgas (a full load including tips for the Bonanza). Not as quick as a loo break, but also, not impractically slow (a 2 hr charging break every 1000 nms). That is with currently widely deployed charging and battery technology.

The current problem, is that a plane with 4 x the battery weight as my car currently has would never get off the ground.

The only bit that is a technology stretch is the battery capacity

As you say ATM you could charge your battery in about 2 hours, we are talking 20-30 years time, already there are phone batteries on the way that will fully charge in about 30 seconds
Future batteries, coming soon: charge in seconds, last months and power over the air - Pocket-lint (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air)
Look into the future and this could easily be the case with a more powerful battery that could power an aircraft, maybe not charging in 30 seconds, but certainly in the 15 minutes or so it takes for a loo and coffee break!

Batteries are getting lighter, more powerful and developing VERY fast

[Pilot DAR]

I've had a client request my participation in an electric C-150 project. Everyone is eager, including the regulator, but this will require a major shift in certification thinking, or a shift away from requiring it be certified. The present certification regulations are a long way from being able to certify an electric airplane. Not that it should not happen, it was just not in the thinking when the design requirements for certification were developed.

In any case, the cost to either certify new powerplants, or change the design regulations to adopt new concepts will be costly and time consuming. That effort might be better spent easing an entire portion of the GA fleet out of having to comply with the "old" design requirements....

[Camargue]

I think propulsion will be electric. 100% power at 10,000ft with no need for expensive turbo's - what's not to like?

They have been testing graphene based batteries which on a weight for weight basis hold 10 times the charge current batteries and could be charged in less than 30 minutes.

if they can make it viable under commercial conditions (battery lifetime etc) having something with a 700 mile range and 30 minute turn around is perfectly reasonable.

I don't see why ga planes can have more complex wings allowing for higher wingloading. why cant we have a plane with a clean 1g stalling speed of 90kts, add some leading edge slats, or droops or complex flaps or something so that a family of 4 cruising at 250mph / 10,000ft with a 160hp electric motor is expected rather than fantasy land

[vector4fun]

If battery technology can continue evolving, I think we'll see a number of electric sport planes for the weekend pilots in 20 years. I don't see electric replacing fossil fuels for long distance transport though. First of all, it would require a large investment in charging apparatus at all airports, and I imagine every different make will have a slightly different charging plug and amperage requirements. You can't expect Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/Diamond/etc to all agree to one standard now, can you? 100LL will go away, (I hope) not because I think my 172 has a measurable effect on the environment, but because the lead fouls my plugs anyway. I'd love to put a good un-leaded auto fuel in it, but the Govt feels compelled to bastardize it with corn alcohol, which also causes my horribly inefficient lawn equipment to suffer.

How about a zero-turn 48" cut electric riding mower for $2000?

[piperboy84]

I suppose moving to aircraft with propulsion power packs would shift the owners emphasis from engine TBO, timing and compression issues to making sure the leccy bill is paid. :ok:

[foxmoth]

I imagine every different make will have a slightly different charging plug and amperage requirements. You can't expect Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/Diamond/etc to all agree to one standard now

They will if the airports only install a single type of charger!

[Crash one]

Charging plugs only need to be a pull out lead with a standard 13 amp plug on the end, just like yr average mobile fone.
Guessing that today's tech will be used is a waste of time.
When my house was being built I very much doubt that the first owner imagined that the grass would be cut with a length of plastic string. Or that he would one day sit in a tin tube for an hour at a height of 30 thousand feet and get out in hot sunshine hundreds of miles away.
What would an American settler in 17canteen have made of a chainsaw?
What would General Custer have done with a Minigun?
We don't know what might even replace the "battery". What if a daylight powered paint coating of some type could also charge the airframe shaped battery? Fly 24/7.
As for the question: technology will handle the idiot proofing, the "pilot" will speak destination or if he has a brain, point to the chart. A set of controls will be fitted but tech will not allow life threatening sits.
You will still be able to fly a Cub, the Continental will be modified to run on hydrogen/oxygen from the fag packet sized splitter and a tank full of swamp water.
How long this will take is down to Government regulators and Business interest.
Flippant mode off.

[Silvaire1]

You will still be able to fly a Cub, the Continental will be modified to run on hydrogen/oxygen from the fag packet sized splitter and a tank full of swamp water.

When (or if) the time comes for something other than currently certified fuel for that kind of aircraft, I'd guess the choice would be natural gas, as per the current Aviat Husky demonstrator.

[Crash one]

Natural gas is still current technology. A few decades down the development road it may be considered as grubby as coal. I firmly believe there is far more undiscovered technology out there. I'm no expert but just looking at the rate of tech advances since say WW 2. Who at that time would have envisaged a mobile phone or this mini iPad type of communication?
Someone once said that if aircraft development had advanced as computers have, we would be crossing the Atlantic in five minutes.
Who knows what's round the corner.
The biggest problem is "currently certified". The regulators will screw everything up to the best of their ability.

[onetrack]

The problem with trying to peer into the future is not being able to accurately forecast "quantum leaps" in technology, that are often simple breakthroughs into major increases in performance. These will definitely appear with electric technology.

Super-capacitors are going to be playing a big part in the electric drive systems of the future. The major part of transportation movement that currently hampers electric power is the need for rapid acceleration to get up to cruise speed.
In an aircraft, it's the sizeable power output required to get up to cruise level that sets the power level needed - and IC engines can produce that maximum power for as long as needed, or as long as you have fuel.

If super-capacitor development continues along the lines of current development trends, they will be able to provide the continued electric power surge needed to climb and reach cruise speed.

Once cruise level and cruise speed is reached, power requirements are considerably less than that needed initially, and this is where electric power has a major efficiency advantage over IC engines.

Your IC engine is generally burning, say, 10 gallons an hour regardless of whether it's producing full power or 2/3rds power. It might drop back to 8 gallons an hour with power carefully trimmed back - but there's still a lot wasted energy at that lower power setting.

An electric power source will only draw down the power needed to sustain flight and selected airspeed, and this would be much less than the average energy consumption of an IC engine on cruise setting.

Australia's CSIRO has been at the forefront of developing super-capacitors - but at present, only in the smaller sizes and in the small electronics field. The CSIRO experimented with super-capacitors in electric cars in the early 2000's - but only with the aim of improving lead-acid battery performance. The CSIRO did not proceed along the development path for super-capacitor use in transport equipment, they saw more current demand in the electronic and wireless fields.
As a result, the development of supercapacitors for transport use has stalled within the CSIRO. All it takes is someone such as Tesla to start pouring sizeable amounts of money, research, and effort into super-capacitor use in the transport field, and we will start to see some quantum leaps in electric power performance.

[500ft]

If you met someone 50 years ago in 1965 buying a brand new 172 and asked what they though the Cessna equivalent to a 172 would be like 50 years in the future in the year 2015. What would they have said? Fast Jet? Personal spacecraft?


“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” – Yogi Berra

[Silvaire1]

If super-capacitor development continues along the lines of current development trends, they will be able to provide the continued electric power surge needed to climb and reach cruise speed.

High power density capacitors are an active albeit problematic area of effort in support of current government funded research, at much higher energy levels than required for vehicles. For examplei

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/2012Review/12_FA2.pdf

(No, I am not suggesting that this particular small program is representative of what's being done for capacitors, but it's in the same technology area)

"It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” – Yogi Berra

That's funny. I think you can just as easily predict that GA will do a 'Harley-Davidson' and attempt to appear intransigent for marketing reasons, as you can predict anything else. The worldwide market will decide and real world markets (the ones with money) are not always technology driven. A better question to me would be to ask why do some factions of light aircraft culture take their activities so seriously, and see GA from such a tedious and overblown high pressure perspective? I think "recreational GA" is fun with spare money plus a bit of personal challenge, not preparation for WW III.

[Radix]

.............

[Whopity]

GA has shrunk by about 50% in 20 years in the UK; it is not technology related but financial. The number of licences issued each year give a clue. It is now so expensive to become an instructor that there is virtually no chance of recovering the costs, whilst the experience gained in teaching an ever decreasing number of GA pilots no longer paves the way to airline flying or even becoming a commercial instructor.

With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it.

[Mach Jump]

I see a future of, essentially, microlights and airlines, with little, if anything in between.


MJ:ok:

[ChickenHouse]

I believe "financial" as a reason is far too easy and the reason lies more in the expectations to life regime. I even don't see GA getting much more expensive, taken inflation into calculation, or faced by more bureaucracy.

Instead, during the last two decades we saw a dramatic shift in society from "taking accountability in ownership" or entrepreneurship thinking, over "responsibility for operations" or being manager, all the way to "consume" or I don't want to take any responsibility of accountability but get all the benefits.

It may have never been so cheap to own and operate an aircraft, but only if you go the way to old. But looking at the younger generation of pilots, I see dreamers, attracted by blinkyblinky new hightech aircraft, taking G1000 as bare minimum acceptable, rushing to electronic gadgets and praying to the "Apps God". How often do you have a student addicted to a 50 year old and venerable C150? How often do you have students wanting brand new aircrafts for training and wrinkling their nose over 10 year old planes? Nothing wrong with dreaming, it brought us forward, but only when started from firm ground. A vision without working on a feasible path gets you into hospital.

A few decades ago, we were happy to just fly and got comfortable with the basics, enjoying the inner intrinsic physical experience. Today we expect everything to be awesome, shiny and visually highlighted, some even green thought LED illuminated. We often miss the focus on the really important center of life, getting dark in mind, and only game at the light polluted amusement park outer rim.

[Pace]

One of the biggest problems facing GA and its future direction is the steady closing down of smaller airports earmarked for development.

With the pressure to build ever more housing I can see that getting worse. Since I started flying access to airports is getting more and more restricted

I can even remember flying with friends into Manchester in a PA28 parking on the main apron alongside a big jet and going up into the terminal for a coffee

I can also remember flying a 150 into Luton you used to follow the perimeter track around to the flying club pay a small landing fee and you were welcome now its all huge fees and handling agents now its confined to very wealthy owners or companies operating business jets and a few high level singles

Smaller airports are closing to be turned into housing or industrial estates and the larger ones do not want us meaning the approach aids available to us are going too

So maybe the future will be directed more to sport VFR flying with aircraft that can operate out of short strips and off grass rather than the all singing and dancing high tech computerised machines we are talking about where are they going to operate to make use of all this high tech sophistication?

Pace

[tecman]

I was struck by how much the last three posts outline parts of the situation as I've come to see it. Here in Australia at least, access to the high-end GA market and the old faithful lead sleds is getting progressively harder and harder, for various reasons. All the pressure is to the newer, lighter, more efficient aircraft and the associated recreational regulatory regime, imperfect though it is. For those of us who enjoy flying anything, it's a change rather than a tragedy. These aircraft are often very capable, can operate from less developed airfields if required, and can be equipped with whatever level of instrumentation you choose: you don't have have the fancy panels and technology if you choose not too.

While I love flying the heavier-iron GA machines, I still get the same buzz every time I rotate my P2002JF off a grass or gravel strip, I love the great view, and I think that 100 kt on 15 lph of premium mogas is a pretty respectable - and financially sustainable - performance. And I enjoy flying an aircraft with a bit of character that rewards a good touch - much like my old PA24 did. You'll find plenty of other converts and new-comers who say similar things about other aircraft.

With all that said, I know that there are many motivations for flying and/or owning an aircraft. I'm genuinely saddened by the departure from the GA scene of those friends who don't see a future at the light end of the market. At the same time, I observe from the local clubs that the recreational trend is making flying just a little bit more accessible to a younger or less well-heeled group. Time will tell whether there is any sort of balancing effect as the next 50 years rolls on.

[Bob Upanddown]

GA has shrunk by about 50% in 20 years in the UK; it is not technology related but financial. The number of licences issued each year give a clue. It is now so expensive to become an instructor that there is virtually no chance of recovering the costs, whilst the experience gained in teaching an ever decreasing number of GA pilots no longer paves the way to airline flying or even becoming a commercial instructor.

With increased costs, bureauracracy, reducing numbers of airfields and many experienced aviators giving up, because they have had enough; GA is heading up the creek without a paddle. Electric aeroplanes can do nothing to save it. I agree.

As has been mentioned already, one of the issues affecting the UK are disappearing small airports. This, and the way that EASA / CAA regulation is going, will split light aviation in two.

From my contact over the years with both CAA and EASA, they seem to think that “recreational aviation” is made up of a bunch of people who fly old Piper Cubs, Permit to Fly aircraft and the odd Beagle Pup and fly purely for pleasure making $100 burger runs every Saturday.There are people who fit that description and there are a bunch of them at my local airfield who meet every Saturday to fly off in a variety of permit types and hunt down a decent burger (and most of them are flying on LAPLs or NPPLs due to the number of burgers they have eaten over the years).

But you can’t put, as we know, everyone that flies into that category. I used to fly a twin MEP for business and pleasure. Age, reduced income, the complexity of ever changing regulations and the need for tests/checkrides what felt like every other month saw my ratings decline to an SEP, an IR(R) and a spamcan.

(For our American cousins, all they need is a BFR to keep their license current. By comparison I needed several regular tests (at huge cost) ).

Frankly, I see the segment I fly in disappearing in the UK. If minor/regional airports disappear or become inaccessible due to high landing/handling/parking fees, then fun flying will be limited to “recreational flying” from grass strips and farm strips.
Of course, as they don't have ILS or lights, then the need for an IR or IR(R) will go (although the EIR will fit much better into this environment than an IMC/IR(R)) and the cost of renewing same will increase.

What was the private aviation sector, the private pilots flying themselves around for business and pleasure in Malibus, Meridians, Cessna 310s, Mooneys, Piper Senecas and the like, will disappear. With them, the PA28s and Cessna 172s will go (because if the others go, who will be left to maintain the old spamcans?). The only pilots flying EASA SEP, MEP and SET aircraft will be the aspiring airline pilots either learning at a commercial school or flying for a very rich non-pilot owner.

As the old PPLs fade away, new private flyers without commercial aspirations will have limited access to flying schools. What they will learn to fly in, I don’t know because the AT-3, PS-28, etc., have boasted being a replacement for the PA-28 and Cessna 152 but, we all know, they are not up to the task. Maybe we will be all electric and just fly around an extended circuit.

As the Cessna 310s diminish in number, so, I fear, will my segment of aviation disappear from the UK for ever.

[9 lives]

I loved flying the 310 and the 340, but they are the preeminent example of what society and economy will not tolerate in decades to come - 100 liters per hour of leaded gas to move at most 6 people. A huge carbon footprint for a very small benefit in society's eyes. Such airplanes will never be converted to more efficient engines. Even if they came to exist, the modification costs would be prohibitive.

Perhaps like the predicted end of advanced life, the cockroaches survive. The Cubs, Cherokees, 172's and 152's have a chance of surviving the decline of GA, as he more advanced aircraft succumb. The modest singles can be maintained with economy, and enough will remain, that re-engining them is remotely conceivable.

And, we'll see some growth in very austere two place aircraft. New, and seemingly advanced (lots of electronics, few old style systems), but they will come with more limited capability in one way or another.

Imagine the awe in seeing a genuine Spitfire or Mustang being expressed simply at the sight of an original Cub, or 172 arriving. That could be the GA world in decades to come....

[Bob Upanddown]

the 310 and the 340, but they are the preeminent example of what society and economy will not tolerate in decades to come - 100 liters per hour of leaded gas to move at most 6 people. A huge carbon footprint for a very small benefit in society's eyes.

So what will people fly instead? The NetJets operation and similar charter operators must be taking over so people are just moving up into King Airs and Small Jets, surely no better in terms of carbon footprint?? So those who can, will move up. Those who cannot afford to move up, will (if they used light aircraft for serious transport) give up because a 172 can't replace a de-iced 310 in terms of reliably, nearly all weather, transport.

Hence my view that there will be a huge gulf between recreational flyers in RV's and those flying around in TBM800s, King Airs.......

[Pace]

Bob

I think with any flying you have to have a mission profile and choose the aircraft to fit your mission profile.

If your profile is a flight around the local area on a sunny Sunday afternoon you don't buy a CJ2

If your Mission profile is to fly deep into Europe for a distance of 1200 NM with six business associates and you or your company can afford it you buy the CJ2 or whatever fits your budget.

In between there are singles some piston some turbine and there used to be a lot of piston twins and turbine twins for those who didn't trust a single at night or in bad weather.

We also now have the VLJs like the baby eclipse which was probably targeted at the twin market with tiny jet engines that sipped fuel.

Interesting is the Cirrus a single engined jet but with the Cirrus notorious BRS which has proved itself time and time again and in many ways gets over the single engine fear.

i could see more development in BRS systems and single engine in either baby jets or baby turbo props for pilots who need to travel at low cost.

The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access.

Pace

[Bob Upanddown]

The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access

Which is what I think will cause the gulf. If your mission is met by flying a Cirrus (when you might have flown a Cessna 310 before) and is met by landing at airports like Cannes or Toussus le Noble, that's OK. But I don't think the UK will have any airports to match within a few years as the choice will be grass strip or major airport.

It is OK having the aircraft but if the airports aren't there to serve your mission, the profile has to change.

[Silvaire1]

I was the happy the other day to see four single place Yak 50s, burning a total of perhaps 60 gallons per hour, flying together from my base. They are a relatively new phenomenon for formation fun in the US, and rising in value and popularity. Their utility is approximately zero. People buy what they want, and spend their money how they want. An imaginary draconian vision of 'society' and its 'values' is thankfully not a very powerful factor when people have money in their pockets and want to spend it their own way.

The issue with the old twins is simply that they don't motivate individuals now they way they did as shiny new aircraft. Same thing with a 1980 Mercedes or the older luxury car of your choice, the top of the line always depreciates fastest and worst because age disproportionately reduces its status, which was half of why it existed in the first place, and complexity makes it harder for the individual to maintain. Meanwhile the smaller sports cars and the exotics live on forever.

Today's 310 or 340 has a turbine or two, but I think it's basically the same market in terms of the customer and his motivations.

[foxmoth]

The biggest problem will still be a shortage of destination airports with approach aids which are low cost to access.
But then more will have GPS approaches so, while there might not be as many airfields, more will have low cost approaches.

[Pace]

Silvaire

I really do think there is a lot of mileage in the future regarding BRS as I do think they will replace the " Other" engine. Obviously not as a second source of energy if the one packs up but as another option if that engine quits at night, over water or low cloud or even if the pilot looses the plot.

Thus I think Cirrus have it right with their single engine jet! Something most would not consider but may consider with an efficient and reliable BRS system fitted.

But that covers baby jets and I still feel the same applies to a low cost low powered turbine in the future again with the BRS. Cirrus have proved its worth and it almost gives you a second engine option without a second engine well at least as a mental second way out!

But that still leaves ever declining airports which will be available at low cost with approved approach aids?

No one talks about non approved approaches to your landing strip or small airfield? The fact is that many pilots do use such approaches usually GPS with other confirmation aids and is looked on with disdain.

Maybe GPS with confirmation backups will be more readily acceptable in the future as pilots will have no choice in the future to get into Joe Bloogs small airfield. Maybe these approaches will be approved albeit to higher minima especially with more detailed terrain mapping as I can see only a handful of airports fully equipped in the future and none will want GA unless you can afford paying a fortune to land there.

we talk of electronic computerised aircraft with advanced avionics of the future we don't talk about how these will become reliable mission capable A to B aircraft in the future ? It won't be to the Airline populated hubs and it won't be to the fast extinct smaller airfields

Pace

[The Old Fat One]

Innovation and progress is driven by tangible measureable factors. For much of human history, warfare was the driver for technological progression (as evidenced by aviation itself).

More latterly capitalism and the never-ending search for profit has taken over - witness the internet, mobile technology and software. all have origins in military developments, but their drivers now are commercial exploitation.

And herein lies the problem for GA. It is a massively, hugely niche market (oxymoron intended). Without the massive increase in pilot training over the recent decades, GA might well have already stagnated and died, as commercial builders strive to find exploitable markets.

What is absolutely clear, is that GA is rapidly approaching its Rubicon. Legislation is simply not going to allow such a quantity of ancient hardware in our ever-crowded skies and over our ever-crowded towns and cities. Of course the legislators have a huge headache (of their own-making) to solve...how to evolve pilot training into a proper, structurally sound, and consistent process (like training a doctor or dentist for example) without totally ****ing up three quarters of the world's airlines, while so doing.

If that nut is ever cracked (and it really won't be easy) the future of GA in any format will be precarious.

[Silvaire1]

What is absolutely clear, is that GA is rapidly approaching its Rubicon. Legislation is simply not going to allow such a quantity of ancient hardware in our ever-crowded skies and over our ever-crowded towns and cities. Of course the legislators have a huge headache (of their own-making) to solve...how to evolve pilot training into a proper, structurally sound, and consistent process (like training a doctor or dentist for example) without totally ****ing up three quarters of the world's airlines, while so doing.

Have fun with that, and with reigning in those legislators more generally ;) Meanwhile I'll be flying antique aircraft over towns and cities, and taking any required instruction from freelance instructors for the indefinite future.

[The Old Fat One]

You kinda miss my point a little. What changes stuff in our world is rampant capitalism (the invisible hand?). Legislators are like those rodeo dudes trying to stay on board. With or without a step change to pilot training (which I completely agree is a massive ask), them old aircraft will continue to fly only as long as the market driven aviation industry allows them to. Likewise their replacements will only continue to be produced economically in a functioning market. I merely mention pilot training because the way it is conducted now distorts the market in GA's favor. Were that to go the fallout for GA would be catastrophic, but again, probably not going to happen.

Nevertheless, fifty years is a heck of a long time. My guess is within half that time, the GA industry (and by that I mean private recreational low cost flying) will have taken some pretty brutal hits.

[Mechta]

Private owner aircraft will be either for fun or for going places.

Flying as Onetrack descried will in fact open up light aircraft to people with neither the time or inclination to train for current airways type operation, and quite possibly no interest in flying, other than as a means of getting to their intended destination by the most direct route and when they want to go. Type in or say the destination, confirm you and the aircraft are in agreement, (and here we differ) load cells on either the undercarriage or in the seats and cargo compartment will confirm weight and balance is ok, and you are off. The avionics will confirm a landing slot, so all that those on board need to do at the other end is go to their waiting onward transport.

Flying for fun will be much the same as now, although electric aircraft will be the rule. A fossil fuel powered generator may be carried in a pod if going to a remote destination, although the high efficiency solar cells on the wing, trailer or covers will do some of the recharging, and for weekend fliers, they will ensure the first flight is usually a free one (fuel-wise, anyway).

[PompeyPaul]

Recreational flying in a few decades?

- EASA might have come to some sort of consensus about the IMC

- The PPL will still be predominately WW2 based (shooting flare guns at towers) but might, might, just might, have a nod to GPS (an obsolete tech in 2050).

- Older pilots will proudly fly on GPS telling youngsters that Quantum Triangulation could fail and so they need to keep their skills sharp in the basics

- Planes will still be PA28s or C172, however they will be mostly from the 1990s but still smell a bit of rotting carpet

- All newer planes are downloaded from a company in Brazil and 3D printed

- Most pilots will be seen as idiosynchratic pedants because the majority of people travel by neutron beam teleportation which is instantaneous

[TCU]

- You'll still get cut up in the circuit by the local flying hero

- QFE will have a revival

- The Farnborough Class A will extend from the South Coast to Northampton

- Battery icing will replace carburettor icing

- You'll have to file a flight plan to go to Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Devon, Essex and Isle of Wight as they will all be independent states

- Piper and Cessna will be boutique retro products of the giant Tecnam Corp

- The weather will still be mostly crap

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

- You'll still get cut up in the circuit by the local flying hero

Translation; "You'll still get incompetent pilots flying bomber circuits that cover several counties"

[Radix]

.............

[Pilot DAR]

GA survives in a precarious balance. As with any activity, there are those who participate who will afford any price for their pastime. Those people are not the commercial airline pilots of the future. But, to a large degree, GA flyers just manage the costs to fly, in an environment where really no one is making much profit, and everything is more costly and complicated than ideal.

We linger on with mainstream certified flying still following the WW2 model of how to build and maintain planes, and train pilots. The problem is that the GA fliers don't have the military budget for any of that. Non certified aircraft can be less costly to operate, but pound per knot per dollar/pound moving much more than one or two people at more than 90 knots gets pretty costly - before things change for the less good, as they will.

I imagine fuel availability and the stigma associated with huge fuel burn for poor person per mile efficiency will make GA socially unwelcomed. Society won't care that it's highly convenient for a few people to fly direct and save a few hours of driving time, or to bimble around on a pretty evening. The public will brand aviation gasoline as bad because they don't do it, as they have with aircraft noise, and regulate it to death.

Electric will help, but it will be a long time before more than two occupants can go further than the next airport on electric. And the cost will be immense to develop and build those new or modified aircraft.

And now the airlines are trying to circumvent the traditional pilot experience building path - GA flying. If wannabe commercial pilots aren't "hour building" as much, a large market is no longer there to sustain the rest of the fleet, who just fly recreationally.

As WW2 vintage aircraft still fly, so will the Cessnas and Pipers of the '50's through '80's, in the decades to come. But I fear that they'll do it in warbird numbers - not many!

[The Old Fat One]

Flying is the safest mode of transport remember, although you seem to have data indicating otherwise... ?!


Nope, nothing in my posts have anything to do with pilot safety/ability

and now the airlines are trying to circumvent the traditional pilot experience building path - GA flying. If wannabe commercial pilots aren't "hour building" as much, a large market is no longer there to sustain the rest of the fleet, who just fly recreationally.

this is more my point, but only the tip of the iceberg I think

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

We are a far more recreational society now than years back and recreation is big business I can see that increasing overall
Part of that is thrill seeking adventure holidays and experiences
GA is not the only fuel dependent recreation around
People own powerboats,race cars, motorbikes etc and even other non direct fuel related leisure require fuel to to participate so it's not just aeroplanes although I agree it was Always regarded as a Rich mans past time by the general public!
I still see a case for a business tool in the future for long distance travel IFR but do see a gap from there down to Sport flying VFR especially with the closing of airports and the larger airports refusing GA unless it's top end

Pace

[Bob Upanddown]

I really do think there is a lot of mileage in the future regarding BRS as I do think they will replace the " Other" engine. Obviously not as a second source of energy if the one packs up but as another option if that engine quits at night, over water or low cloud or even if the pilot looses the plot.

Pace. That's a view I haven't considered (probably due to my age). I am sure if you balanced the times when a BRS could not replace a second engine against the times when an out of practice pilot mis-handles an engine out, the maybe BRS wins. Thanks for that post.

[abgd]

Electric will help, but it will be a long time before more than two occupants can go further than the next airport on electric. And the cost will be immense to develop and build those new or modified aircraft.

Actually this is could be a real boon to the hobby: you can fly for 1500 pounds a year, which is reasonably cheap as hobbies go, but 10,000 for the licence is a big chunk of money which I'm sure limits people who could otherwise fly. If training could be reduced to e.g. 3000 pounds, I'm sure it would open the hobby to a great many more people.

[Echo Romeo]

I fly what I would call a classic aeroplane, because I love it, metaphorically speaking. I hope I can get another 10 years of doing just that.

For me, I dislike most of the newer breed type microlight things, they pretty much all look the same, boring, lightweight flimsy. And frankly I'd rather pack up than own and fly one. Sorry buts that is how I feel.

[cjm_2010]

I fly what I would call a classic aeroplane, because I love it, metaphorically speaking. I hope I can get another 10 years of doing just that.

For me, I dislike most of the newer breed type microlight things, they pretty much all look the same, boring, lightweight flimsy. And frankly I'd rather pack up than own and fly one. Sorry buts that is how I feel.

No apology is necessary my friend, to each their own, and if you're going to invest in a hobby it should be in a machine that brings you joy.

I've gone the other direction, having started my PPL training back in 2010 in a PA-38; I got 25 hours in & had to stop due to costs.

Earlier this year I had a go in a C42 and I was hooked. It's very involving to fly, and once I have my NPPL, hopefully I'll be able to get into a group & fly at less than 50 quid/hour wet!

Some of the aircraft in the microlight category offer astounding performance & are also extremely frugal. Maybe you should give one a test flight.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

cjm - have you flown a Chipmunk, a Yak52, or a Stampe? An ultralight (non-aerobatic; yawn) will run rings around any of them from an 'efficiency' point of view. But balls-out fun isn't usually about efficiency.

[tecman]

For many of us in this forum flying is a much-valued hobby, or perhaps more correctly, life obsession. As I underlined in an earlier post, we all have our own reasons for wanting to fly and, for many of us, the motivations vary from day to day. Personally, I don't find it useful to be too dogmatic about these things: my observation is that many pilots will enjoy flying anything and what we choose as our regular aircraft depends on a whole heap of factors, of which cost is only one.

For example, I love flying a Chippie or a Yak, and I love aerobatics. But my decision a few years ago was to buy a used P2002JF, whose virtues I also appreciate. Before going down that path I was, as 30-year "regular" GA pilot, quite skeptical about the LSA or VLA category. Looking back, no amount of armchair research brought out the real good and bad points of the VLAs: it wasn't until I put in a few hours, ditched the GA hubris, and began having a different kind of fun that I got a reasonably balanced view which, in my case, pointed to the VLA as the best long-term compromise. Had the VLA certification supported aerobatics it would have been a much better compromise and I sincerely hope that GA pilots in the next 50 years continue to have the option of aerobatics via new and classic aircraft.

My suggestion to cjm is to enjoy the chosen path, but to make a point of flying as many different types of aircraft as you can - advice I followed myself and which I've always given to new pilots. No aircraft is perfect for all applications and informed pilots form their own views on the compromises. But I'd happily try out your C42 :)

[foxmoth]

Electric is on its way!
In the LAA mag this month the Electric Falco, a CEP engine (300HP!) Contra Electric Propulsion Ltd | Home (http://www.contraelectric.com) tied to a composite Falco http://www.falcomposite.com/furio.php

:ok:

[claudia]

Forget the decades and easa. In a FEW years the greeners , tree huggers
and lefties will have all of us all grounded in the name of global
warming. Enjoy it while you can, i certainly am.

[clunckdriver]

Well, Im glad I have a spare engine for my Hornet Moth, this should last me untill my "final flight", putting electric under that clasic DH cowling would be a crime against history! Besides, I would have to put fake oil stains on the ramp should I land away!

[Pace]

Maybe in a way the question is wrong maybe the Question should be what will the world be like in 2050 ? Politically regarding technology,medicine etc and from there guess what sport flying or personal travel will be like? My guess I won't be around by then but who knows and certainly not flying

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

I am optimistic that battery technology will confound the treehuggers. Though I have never liked those who relax and say "the scientists will sort it" I really think that it is not unreasonable to expect a 10 times improvement in battery performance over the next decade or two, maybe much less.

This will give cheap to run, ultra reliable aircraft with similar or better performance to those of today. Also, along with low cost solar panels that are available already, solving the CO2 problem and the energy crisis in general.

No one will then mind a few dirty Hornet Moths blatting around.

[horizon flyer]

Electric is the way forward but does require a better battery which is Lithium Air the holy grail of batteries these have the potential of 10kw/kg. In fact anything over approx. 3kw/kg is competitive on weight with Avgas due to the high energy losses with an IC engine near 80% losses with electric 5 to 10% so only 1/4 energy storage needed. Fast charging 80% is getting better see Tesla cars.

So what is needed for electric.

Low cost safe Lithium Air

Fast charging or a standard battery that can be swopped fast.

Airfield infrastructure for fast charging/battery swop and charge.
May be a 40ft container with a big cheap static battery with a 3 phase supply
just plug in and DC charge at a very high current DC better than AC.

So what is needed is what got the IBM PC going Standards
These are coming in Battery and charging infrastructure this will be from Electric cars.

To give you an idea GM is just about to launch a 200 mile no compromise full electric car the Chevy Bolt to complement their 50 mile electric drive ICengined Chevy Volt (100,000 already sold) the best car they have ever made.

So I believe electrics will happen but like all new concepts will take 20 years to arrive like the mobile phone.

[Pace]

HF

And when I am flying my all battery electric plane I expect to land and get a full recharge within 10 minutes so I can carry on the next leg to my important meeting wherever :ok: or the network will be so complete that someone will plonk a replacement unit in place within that 10 minutes

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

The E-Fan goes at 100Kts for 1 hour using 30KWH so 200KWH should last 6.7 hours at 100 kts or 3.3 hours at 140Kts. Only just enough for any serious use.

So if our new wonderplane has 200KWH batteries is will need to charge at 1.2MW to be full in 10 minutes from empty.

This charger will be a serious bit of kit probably requiring a big transformer connected to an 11KV line. But since similar devices will be required for charging cars at filling stations maybe they will be available for not too silly money.

I suspect we will have to accept minimum 1 hour charging times, even that will be non trivial to achieve with a 200KWH battery.

Assuming 100% efficiency and 200KWH:
A 13A plug will charge your plane in about 67 hours
A 70KW (100A 3ph) industrial grid connection will take 2.9 Hours

Note that a 70KW connection will charge 8 off 200KWH batteries a day. Not enough for many airfields.

Bottom line is that we will need some thick wires going to airfields and filling stations or a system of trucks taking batteries to/from a facility near a big grid connection.

[horizon flyer]

I think a 30 min charge time would be acceptable. Of course with electric drive vertical takeoff is simple and has already bean done, will be quiet, so city centre heliports are in plus small recharge stations can be positioned cheaply around the country. Of course with vertical takeoff/land, ballistic chuts, smaller lower drag wings can be used to give higher cruise speeds, this could be the true start of an intercity point to point air taxy service. I can only see a win win from electric drive and it will come with new battery chemistries.

A 400lb/182kg battery at 3kw/kg would store approx. 550kw at 100kw(134hp)/hr burn would be 5.5 hours to empty with a low drag design 150knots or more cruise should be possible with 825knots range over 900miles to empty. Electric motors are lighter than IC engines for same output with short term higher peek power outputs. This means the power for vertical take off is there.

Putting 500kw into a 500volt battery in 30 minutes would take 2000 amps
and forced air cooling off the battery would be needed this is all within current technology so all that is needed for viable electric aircraft is a battery of 3kw/kg or greater. Lithium air has the potential max of, 10kw/kg but after packaging it should make 3 to 4 kw/kl, this is what the car industry is aiming for and I believe it will happen as per the aircraft designed by August at Yeovil. So watch out for battery development the closer to 3kw/kg the sooner it will happen.

Romeo Tango putting an avgas or god forbid hydrogen at a million dollars a go electric is cheap, but will require a high power supply which means 3 phase of 11klvolts or greater and will still need a buffer on site or a 2000hp gen set which is very big. Battery exchange may turn out the best way to go and be leased rather purchased like a gas bottle and trucked to recharging station.

With vertical takeoff recharge stations could be positioned next to major substations so little infrastructure change needed. It's a think outside of the box a brave new century, which at the end in 2101 and will look nothing like it did in 2001.

[abgd]

The other thing an airfield could do would be to install a big lead acid battery / chemistry of your choice from which to charge anything that needed charging quickly.

[onetrack]

Well, we are now looking at an electric Porsche. Who'd have thought that? Funny how the wheel turns full circle! - Porsche produced one of the first electric cars! - in 1900!

Porsche unveils all-electric Mission E sports car (http://www.drive.com.au/it-pro/porsche-unveils-allelectric-mission-e-sports-car-20150916-gjog22)

The Lohner-Porsche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche)

[Romeo Tango]

Luckily many airfields have large areas they can cover with solar cells .....

Aviation may become the greenest method of transport

[Pace]

When I go touring in my electric plane and decide to fly to the south of France I will want to drop into an airport where like now with Avgas I can fill and be on my way quickly.

Will these battery charge places be everywhere like with Avgas? Fly out of Europe and even Avgas is hard to get hold of Jet A1 being readily available everywhere.

This is the big old problem? Demand and supply.

If there are a stream of aircraft flowing through an airport it might make financial sense to offer such a service.

If its one in a blue moon NO

I hope in 2050 there will be such a volume of these aircraft that demand determines the supply but I doubt it

Once in a blue moon more likely ?

Pace

[Bob Upanddown]

This is the big old problem? Demand and supply.My supermarket had two spaces in the car park for recharging electric cars. I haven't seen them being used which must be an accurate view as the supermarket has now removed the charging points and has two more income producing parking bays.

The problem with electric cars is that the range / cost is exaggerated. Look at the Vauxhall Ampera which, for the hybrid version, had a claimed 200 plus mpg but, in truth, only achieved 50mpg. Sales were poor and, I understand, it has been withdrawn in Europe. I wouldn't blame anyone who took the view that any claims for electric cars are a pack of lies, especially after the VW problems.......

I would buy an electric car tomorrow as it suits my local driving requirement but, for the same money, I can get a better spec, more luxurious petrol car that I can still use for the odd long-distance trip. And surely that's the issue with electric plane, they don't yet tick ALL the boxes.

[9 lives]

Perhaps one favourable thing, is that for the aircraft whose use is a 50 mile burger run once a week, you could leave your weekend warrior electric plane. plugged into your own solar cell at the tiedown, and it'd be ready to go again the following week!

Self healing [fuel tanks]!:D

[Romeo Tango]

There will have to be some sort of infrastructure for electric cars whether it is big connections to the grid or battery swap service .... maybe light aviation will be able to tag onto that.

Also in due course the grown up aircraft will want to run on electricity. The infrastructure for that will be massive ....

If you pitch up at Cannes and want 200KWH of charge in an hour I expect you will pay a premium, if you can leave it on charge overnight you will probably pay much less.

.... on further thought if Cannes are setup for charging electric Learjets they should be able to deal with an electro-spamcan in short order

Also note that the facilities for charging electric Learjets or even electric Boeings will be the same as, or at least compatible with, that required for electro-spamcans so we will no longer be dependent on an unpopular fuel that is often unavailable.

[foxmoth]

My supermarket had two spaces in the car park for recharging electric cars. I haven't seen them being used which must be an accurate view as the supermarket has now removed the charging points and has two more income producing parking bays.

And surely that's the issue with electric plane, they don't yet tick ALL the boxes.

The crucial point in your last sentence is "yet" - that is the whole point of this thread, we are not talking now, but in a few decades and I bet if you look again at the supermarket car park in 10-20 years either all the spaces will have charging points or there will be an even more advanced development that means they are not even needed!

[Pace]

FoxMoth


or there will be an even more advanced development that means they are not even needed!

Cant wait for my nuclear powered light aircraft :ok: Should run a life time

Pace

[foxmoth]

Who knows what it might be - Nuclear, super Solar, Hydrogen - or something yet to be invented - I doubt that the Wright Brothers even dreamt that 50 years after their first flight we would have aircraft carrying hundreds across thousands of miles!

[Maoraigh1]

Didn't one of the Wright's testify to Congress in 1908, predicting that an aeroplane would fly across the Atlantic by the end of the century - or even by 1950?

[horizon flyer]

Bob Upanddown Yes the Ampera has not sold well, but it's more down to GM not knowing what they had and how to market it. In the US GM have just launched the second generation Volt which with discounts and government tax break comes out cheaper than a Prius. The point about the Volt/Ampera is how people use them. These are aimed at around town work and back vehicles with 4.5hour recharge from empty on 240 volts or 9 on 120v with a 50 mile electric range this covers most peoples daily commute, 80% actually, if you want to go further, it automatically runs the IC engine when the charge is depleted.

So far GM have sold 100,000 Volts over 5 years and the new model is selling in only 10 states so far, but sales are up at nearly 2000 a month already. It is gaining momentum by word of mouth not by GM marketing. GM have discovered that the electric drive train, with a smaller battery is more cost effective than a 6 speed auto transmission and are starting to use it in Prius type hybrids as well. So electric is coming, but it will creep into the market as quietly as they drive.

[Pilot DAR]

Well, it seems that electric is the future of GA, with nuclear a very distant second:p.

For our electric plane, we'll have to open our minds a little, the old way of doing things won't cut it....

At what power setting would we perform the compass swing? Cruise power, I suppose, 'cause that's where you'd want the compass to be most accurate. There must be some stray magnetism around that motor somewhere...

The flight manual, what will the performance charts say about range and endurance? What about on the cold day, when you're running full seat heaters, and defrost, and extra watts are being used? ("cause it's not going to have exhaust muff heat!)

What about the regs? Will you still have to flight plan with a 30 minute VFR fuel reserve? And how do you dip the tanks to check the watts before your flight?

If you crash, and tear the wings off, will you get electrocuted?

If GA airports struggle to amortize the fuel tanks and pumps, will the cost of the wires and solar cells become a deal breaker?

Honestly, a client has approached me with a C-150 STC mod to electric to think about - so I'm thinking!

[Pace]

You could always nip into a storm cell enroute now and again for refuelling a lightning strike here and there would do wonders for charging the batteries :ok:

NAAH i am waiting for my nuclear powered machine :E forget all that old hat thing like endurance fuel reserves and alternatives

The only endurance being your bladder not battery :ok:

Pace

[foxmoth]

AAH i am waiting for my nuclear powered machine forget all that old hat thing like endurance fuel reserves and alternatives

Don't forget to add your lead undies in the W&B!:eek:

[Crash one]

A long time ago, 60s "Tomorrow's World" demonstrated a model a/c wing levelling device. This system read the static electricity potential at each wingtip (3 feet wingspan) and compared them etc blah blah. The point being that there is static electricity within the atmosphere. I'm no expert but can static be used to power anything?

[Pace]

Crash one

Years ago I was flying a PA34 Seneca five to Shannon via Walasey DUB over Dublin there was a huge storm which had closed the airport and fuelling down.
Taking a gap all went black followed by an almighty flash of lightning which hit my left wing some 3 feet away
THe radios temporarily went in a mass of crackle!
On turning around to check the PAX all their hair was standing vertically upright and I am sure their teeth glowed whiter than normal so I suppose the answe had to be yes static electricity can power hair to stand up right :ok:

The above is all true bar maybe white teeth and I was vectored onto the glide
We were chased by mini lightning bolts to the ground and I was convinced the aircraft was setting them off

Landing in Dublin there was a line of maybe 30 aircraft in the hold on the taxiway and all fuel services shut down

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There's a racing motorcycle that's electric that has lapped the IOM TT course at 120mph (the record is about 130, I think). Trouble is, it can only do one lap then needs recharging. Also, one wonders how long the batteries would keep supplying that sort of performance before they'd need to be replaced (at great cost, one imagines).

[Romeo Tango]

All these electrically powered assumptions do depend on battery performance 10x that of today. That may happen next January or never.

Lots of people are working on it, there is no physical law that says it's impossible, there is a LOT of money to be made and the world to be saved so I would guess sooner rather than later/never.

[Crash one]

Pace.
Yes static is a powerful thing in thunderstorm volumes but can it be collected, stored, dump the excess over the side etc? If it involves frying all the avionics to get a recharge it's not much help but a waste of an awfull lot of energy, any fisix people comment? It would be the answer if it could be used safely. No batteries, just engage the collector and off you go, day or night.

[Romeo Tango]

Sorry but thunderstorm/static power will not work. There are not enough thunderstorms, the lightning is difficult/impossible to collect and the static electricity floating about would provide microwatts as apposed to the 10s to hundreds of kilowatts required for an aircraft.

Apart from anything else have you noticed the lack of devices powered by static electricity etc ....

Do a search on "energy harvesting" for the sorts of things that can be done with "free" sources, the best is solar power.

[Crash one]

Romeo Tango.
I agree with that, however this is based on "now" technology. As I said I'm no expert just a thinker. I mentioned in an earlier post that 100+ years ago no one would believe that my grass would be cut with a length of plastic string, "it will bend out of shape, you would have to drive it at impossible revs etc"
Just because we can't use static today doesn't prove that it will never happen. Suppose a laser or two projected ahead of the a/c could cause the mini thunderstorm. Daft ideas department yes.
Years ago, 60s again, Royal Navy, I was issued with a life jacket containing a "sea cell" powered lamp which only worked when in sea water, I don't think it was any use in rivers. What happened to any development of stuff like that?
I'm a firm believer in "we don't know what we don't know".

[Romeo Tango]

The trouble is the energy is not there to collect so no amount of new technology will help.

Of course there is straight mass conversion to energy (e=Mc^2) but if we find a way of doing that all bets are off.

Sea cells are still around, I dismantled a defunct life jacket the other day, there was one there. The trouble is these cells satisfy a specific requirement in that they must be light, have a long shelf life and when they are required there is guaranteed to be lots of spare water. They simply do not suit many other applications.

[criticalmass]

Electric? Rubbish! Green dreaming. Ecological navel-gazing. Pie-in-the-sky stuff. About as feasible as the hydrogen-fuelled hypersonic transport Lockheed's Skunk works examined - and abandoned. Did the Skunk Works ever look at electric aeroplanes? I am not aware of any, but with those guys you never know.

Nothing has the energy-density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Nothing that can be pumped into a tank at atmospheric pressures and ordinary temperatures. Nothing. Storage, energy-density and ease-of-handling at the point of sale are critically important and liquid hydrocarbons win on all three, hands-down.
A bankrupt nation called Germany,losing a war, industrially ravaged and with a chaotic transport system still managed to produce synthetic oil and fuel and that was back in 1944. They just couldn't make enough of it. It's simple organic chemistry and hydrogenation at high temperatures and pressures, easily obtained these days.

Recreational flying in the future? Synthetic fuel and synthetic oil - and that goes for pretty much everything else as well. It is the path of least resistance - and that is how large corporations (who own and control the development of all the technologies) will go.

[Silvaire1]

Recreational flying in the future? Synthetic fuel and synthetic oil - and that goes for pretty much everything else as well.

A long time in the future I could indeed imagine future markets deciding that synthetic aircraft fuel (making diesel or gasoline from coal) is a good use of remaining coal reserves. The issue right now is cost, there is plenty of coal to do the job for a long time. The US has the world's largest coal reserves, but even Germany has enough to supply 1/3 of total national electrical demand from domestic German supplies. Compared with potential GA synthetic fuel demand, that represents a whole lot of coal use. In the real world, coal can and will do a lot of the heavy lifting for a long time.

I agree that for useful forms of aviation its going to be a very long time before liquid hydrocarbon fuel is really displaced, if ever. Even if neglecting synthetic fuel, existing reserves are only slowly being depleted, with emphasis on the slow part, and aircraft benefit disproportionately from energy dense fuel. If everything else that moves goes electric, aircraft will benefit from reduced competition for the oil.

[Pace]

We have discussed the powering of aircrafts in 2050 we have discussed computerisation!
We have not discussed the form of aircraft ?
VTOL ? Flying cars ? Or whatever
We already know you can go into a store and buy these amazing toys with cameras fitted which you can hover around looking at all manner of things
Will the modern plane have two wings a tail and trycycle undercarriage or be something else

Pace

[onetrack]

The bottom line is, the inputs to manufacture synthetic fuel and oil are so huge, it makes the cost of synthetic fuel and oil prohibitive. You can't change the laws of physics.
We currently use hydrocarbon fuels because we have had no cost inputs into their manufacture, just the cost of extracting it from the Earth and transporting it and storing it.
These costs are regularly increasing and will never go down, so hydrocarbon fuels are already on the back foot.

Solar energy harvesting is increasing in leaps and bounds, and so is electrical storage ability. We already have flexible solar panels that can be produced in sheets.
The potential is there to have solar panel cladding on an aircraft, providing a constant recharge ability to the batteries powering it.

The amount of universities and research organisations working on battery development is substantial.
Within a few short years, new-style battery developments utilising new technologies will make lithium-ion batteries look like the equivalent of candles for lighting.

Future batteries coming soon that charge in seconds, last for months (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air)

[criticalmass]

A transport expert looked at the situation in Melbourne at the beginning of the 20th Century and confidently predicted "if the current rate of horse usage continues, by 1930 the streets of Melbourne with be three feet deep in horse manure." As the late Peter Wright pointed out in "Spycatcher", on the big issues the experts are almost invariably wrong.

Synthetic oils are expensive simply because we dont produce vast quantities of them. When they are produced in billions of barrels per year instead of a few paltry million, the price will adjust itself accordingly. Just like petrol today, if you have a need for it, you will pay whatever is asked for it...and the oil companies have known this for decades.

When recreational aeroplanes by the thousands are totally electrically-powered, with enough endurance to fly six hours without "re-energising" whatever power-source they use (batteries, fuel-cells, or as-yet undeveloped or undiscovered technologies), they'll all look like pigs - and fly like 'em too.

Liquid hydrocarbons will remain the preferred fuel. The alternatives are the nastier rocket-fuels (monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, and their ilk) and they have a host of handling and storage issues you really don't need to have to deal with.

I'd really like to see all the spark-ignition aero-engines fall by the wayside, as the compression-ignition units are more economical and efficient, but weight is a real issue. I see a future of recreational aircraft powered by compression-ignition engines burning a basic kerosense/jet A1 type of fuel. Avgas really is an anachronism we could mostly do without.

[Romeo Tango]

Synthetic oil (or cheap "natural" oil) is all very well but you still have to put it through a horrible dirty, unreliable, inefficient, heavy, IC engine. At the moment oil is the obvious thing to use because of the low energy density of alternatives.
If/when energy can be stored in a battery at densities comparable to avgas/jet fuel then electric propulsion has so many advantages it will take over very quickly.

It all depends on battery tech. You can say pah! it will never happen .... but, personally, I would not make too many long term investments in oil (natural or synthetic).

[foxmoth]

they'll all look like pigs - and fly like 'em too

Why? The trend now is aircraft such as the RV, I see no reason an electric RV cannot be built, indeed, look at my earlier link to the electric Falco, certainly not an aircraft that looks or will fly like a pig!

[abgd]

We have not discussed the form of aircraft ?
VTOL ? Flying cars ? Or whateverWell, we have a bit: go back to the start of the thread.

Look up the NASA puffin, the GL10 or the e-volo for examples. The puffin annoys me because I was in the process of building an r/c canard version of something similar.

The other advantage of VTOL is that you can size the wing for the cruise which brings huge increases in efficiency and/or cruise speed.

[horizon flyer]

criticalmass The future is electric has to be. If you follow the research on batteries there are lots of new chemistries being tried but the break point is 2.5 to 3.0 kw/kg to compete with liquid fuels. The charging standard for cars already can support up to 240kw per hour. The other type of battery type that may win is called flowline these can be recharged with a liquid or bulk metal anode which would over come recharge waiting times.

With the internet it would be possible to preorder, even in flight a drop shipment exchange battery at you destination which would be delivered by the time you arrived for the exchange battery idea.

I believe the future will be nuclear fusion but not the stupid tomark magnetic confinement designs only very expensive water heaters with lots of intensive radiation problems when running and long term radioactive waste.

The best design so far is to fuse Boron and Hydrogen with direct conversion to electricity plus very low radiation when running and no hot waste, will be cheap to build and run. This idea can already produce 4 times the neutron density when running hydrogen hydrogen for the per unit of energy input compared to the best government funded ideas and they have only spent 3 million and 3 years against several billion dollars and 60 years for the government .

All the technology to go electric for aircraft is in place except the 3kw/kg battery which is coming, so when it does will be quick to introduce. guess 10 to 20 years to go.

If you would like to see what people who own Volts think of them see www.gm-volt.com
it has the highest customer satisfaction rating of any car.

[Pace]

The future of GA development will be determined by the old rule of supply and demand.

If there is no or little demand in 2050 there will be little in the form of advanced technology supply, if there is high demand there will be wonders :ok:

so much will determine that demand from politics to regulations to airport availability and much more. My instincts are that there will still be demand for corporate business aircraft, then a void based on cost and airport availability and light GA will be confined to sport flying from small strips and airfields with no approved approach and landing aids so yes electric will probably be popular for buzzing around the local area and then plugging in for the following weekend foray

Car development has a demand in the millions so yes there will be spin offs into GA from developments from the car industry

Pace

[criticalmass]

If the Volt has the highest customer satisfaction rating of any car (source??) then I wouldn't mind betting the axe has the highest customer satisfaction rating of any hand-tool.

The point about supply and demand is irrefutable whilst ever the world economy is predicated on large multi-national corporations making profits and exploiting natural resources.

To implement a world economy based on non-explotation of finite resources and on ruthlessly recycling existing materials would probably require a reduction of world population from the current level to perhaps as few as a billion, or a billion and a half at most.

Convenience of handling, energy-density and availability are the keys to future energy-requirements and power-systems. Show me a battery-powered aeroplane that can fly for 8 hours at 100 knots without stopping, carrying two people and weighing less than 540Kg at MTOW and I might be interested. That's what my current aeroplane can do on existing fossil fuel, and that's what it would still do if it were powered by a synthetically-produced fossil fuel with a 95 RON rating or greater. Show me the batteries that can equal that in the same airframe?

Apologies for being a sceptic but I have seen far too many dreamers pitching wildly impractical ideas to be taken in by a word of it and even I, with my significantly impaired sense of smell, can recognise the characteristic odour of "Grade-A Triple-Refined Snake-Oil" when someone pops the cork on it.

3Kw/Kg isn't going to make it. Show me 300Kw/Kg and maybe you have something. It's all about the Megajoules per unit mass, and liquid hydrocarbons have it in spades. Nothing else does. Is it easier to grow vegetable oils as feedstocks for hydrogenation plants or to rape the earth for rare metals to make exotic alloys for high-tech batteries?

[foxmoth]

Show me a battery-powered aeroplane that can fly for 8 hours at 100 knots without stopping, carrying two people and weighing less than 540Kg at MTOW and I might be interested

Carrying two people and going 800nm as a requirement I can understand, though why you want it to go so slow I am not sure and I do not see the relevance of the MTOW, if it does the same as my RV that carries 2 POB,100lbs bags and flies 800nm at 150kts does it really matter if it weighs 540, 800 or even 1500Kgs? - It seems to me from your posts you are looking at what is available NOW, and that is not what this thread is about - and you did not answer my question about why an electric aircraft should not look and fly nicely!:=
As for your argument about growing veg oil or mining, yes I can see that argument - but that is a different argument from the main one you have been making.

[onetrack]

This is electric development, now - electric car VS the fastest current V8's.
Just compare the electric cars of even 20 years ago, and imagine the development in another 20 years - particularly with a vastly-increased level of research and innovation, as is happening today.
The advances in technology for electric cars will transfer across to aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6eGhjhx8O9M (for those who can't spare 6 mins, all the action is at 1.30 and 3.50)

There will be the same level of development with batteries and electric power in the near future, as has happened with electronics in the last 30 years.
When you carried your "brick" analogue phone around in 1990, did you ever envision that your phone of 2015 would only weigh 150-180 grams, have a huge colour screen, be coupled to the internet, take superb photos and videos, and give you the ability to go for days without charging?

[abgd]

3Kw/Kg isn't going to make it. Show me 300Kw/Kg and maybe you have something.

With respect, I think you're confusing units here. Even petrol only has 12KWH/Kg. That said, I'm not hugely optimistic about purely electrical aircraft. The difference between electronics and battery technology, is that we are a long way from reaching the fundamental limits of semiconductor technology (speed, density etc...) but batteries are limited by the physics of electrochemistry.

Lithium-air batteries or possibly fuel-cells are the only chemistries I can see working and even with multi-billion dollar investment in R&D I don't think you can guarantee progress. I'm very optimistic about the prospects for hybrid aircraft though.

[criticalmass]

I presume the hybrid electric aeroplane takes off using a fossil-fuel engne, cruises on electrics and lands on whatever it most appropriate, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick? Or are there multiple types of hybrids?

[abgd]

I presume the hybrid electric aeroplane takes off using a fossil-fuel engne, cruises on electrics and lands on whatever it most appropriate, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

You would take off using primarily electrical power - e.g. a 220 horsepower electric motor might just weigh 25 kg. Batteries to power such a motor at full power would weigh about 20kg/minute.

Some of the very clean, smaller aircraft may easily cruise at 20 horsepower or so. If you cruise at 20 horsepower, you need 2kg of batteries for every minute of flight. 120 minutes endurance = 240kg of batteries, which is a lot. On the other hand, if you power the cruise with an internal combustion engine, it could weigh 10-15kg and sip just a few liters an hour.

Probably in practice you would want some different balance, but by adjusting the ratio of IC:electrical power and the amounts of batteries/fuel you should be able to contrive a system that will outperform an aircraft powered by either power source individually.