Are Electric Planes Possible?

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


TierZoo : Psyched for the next episode! Always been curious how hydrogen works as fuel.

Ian Macfarlane : What about if we use Duracell? Eh? You never thought about that, did you?

kelan andersson : What happens when you throw the potential of graphene based batteries into the equation? Would this become feasible for a full sized passenger plane, such as the A320?

information to learn : Brilliant!!!

fakshen1973 : Hold on a moment... as the conventional aircraft burns fuel, it also becomes lighter. The electric aircraft's weight would remain the same. The performance of the conventional aircraft would increase over time as the amount of fuel on board burns and exhausted through the engines.

Erik Broeders : There's a joke about Belgians I particularly like (I'm Belgian btw) The Belgians invented an electric car. Costs 1 million dollars though. 100k for the car, the rest for the extention cord.

Anthony Gomez : 1:52 97.1% male and 2.9% female... wow.

Creating Creations : Cool video but I'm pretty sure that several of the planes in the video were not Cessnas.

LUETIN : lol, just put windmills on the plane bro not that hard

Alaric _ : YAAY,im still a teenager,and count as minority *SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE INTENSIFIES*

MaidenAirTM : One VERY important point. the weight of the aircraft Gets lighter as more fuel is burnt in the journey. now a battery needed to fly a plane for 12Hrs+ will not lose 50% of its weight half way and won't lose 80% of its weight on arrival meaning the engines will be heavily stressed every flight and will need frequent maintenance and perhaps have shorter life spans = $$$

Flyguy779 : i don't quite appreciate the part about the rockets in the beginning, since even if batteries had the same power density as fuel, since rockets are mostly fuel in weight , there is the problem that batteries don't loose their weight when depleting, not to mention the issue about creating an engine that can put out enough thrust. thumbs up for the for the rest of the video tho ;)

Porsche Collector : I don't know if we will ever create a storage adequate to store enough energy. However creating energy by splitting an atom, that's the way to go. Why are we still so afraid of nuclear power? We would have been so much ahead as far as cleaner and cheaper energy in USA! Side note for those who want to remind me of the nuclear disasters. I was born in Ukraine and was 100 miles away when Chernobyl happened. However the quality and diligence of USA nuclear plants and the quality of reactors cannot be even compared to how things were in USSR.

MadProductionsink : I don't think aerospace engineers use these equations. I like to think that they just put engines on a plane and if it doesn't fly they just put bigger engines and that's it.

Can we get 5000 subscribers with no videos? : Just walk lol

Russell Schwartz : 5:20 “Doubling the mass will increase our power requirements 8-fold.” This is incorrect. The factor of 2 in the power equation is present in the calculation for both the lighter and the heavier plane, meaning it can be factored out. Doubling the mass increases our power requirements by a factor of 4.

Rib Be : This doesn't take the aircraft's speed requirement into account. An airbus A320 would need electric ducted fans that can accelerate air to transonic speeds. During cruise the motors would have to put out at least (100% effcient fan) 4,000 kW of power to produce enough thrust and more than 20,000 kW during takeoff. Electric motors that powerful are WAY too large and heavy to be used on airplane and I'm not even going into the battery requirements...

Reuben Mason : Mass is squared and doubled so starts at 2m^2. doubling mass gives 2x(2m)^2 = 8m^2. 8m^2/2m^2 =4 rather than 8

Clive The Führer : Oil Prices are low :)

NS RIDER : better than my science class

Karlo Moharić : Given that there are companies like Pipistrel , Opener , Voltahelicopter, and many others that have functional electricly driven aircraft , the answer is YES. The question is whether we can improve the technology to the point that it can be used on larger passenger aircraft.

Kreide Goku : Best Solution: Do not fly!

James Quigley : 1:52 97.1% male audience.... and feminists try to say there's no real differences between man and women

Bobby Garrity : Did this take into account the fact that electric motors are both lighter and far more efficient than fossil fuel engines?

Cbeddoe19 : Isn't a direct comparison energy density of kerosene and batteries incorrect? Aren't you ignoring the energy conversion efficiency of each source? Gas turbines max conversion efficiency is approximately 40%. Electric batteries max conversion efficiency is approximately 90%. That helps batteries out quite a bit. Would make your calculations off by 50-60% if you didn't incorporate them. Batteries still need to get about 20x better. All your arguments are still valid.

Heavymetal122 : Is that Trent Palmer's KitFox at 3:05?

Certified Brain Surgeon : you would not have sufficient amount of battery graded graphite to support such a large operation on this scale. the graphite industry is already struggling to keep up with the demand of electric vehicles, and with the projected future growth of the EV market, graphite will be consumed at a very rapid pace. its just not feasible.

YouTube Police : *Ahh maths, we meet again!*

Supadubya : Bad assumptions built on bad assumptions. For instance, the formula completely ignores Lift/Drag (planes don't pay the energy cost for Lift, they pay for Drag- which is much smaller) ratio for most of the video, or how that changes with cruising speed... Electric planes can achieve longer range by flying at slower speeds, or with higher mass-fraction dedicated to batteries (not an unreasonable solution since batteries are much denser in terms of mass per unit volume than Kerosene...)

Timothy McLean : many nice, easily-convertible SI units, and then kilowatt-hours come into the picture. We were _so_ close; why couldn't we go with megajoules? That's within half an order of magnitude of a kilowatt-hour; what's so wrong with that? It's not like either power or time are ever going to be _that_ close to integer values...

Marco Stuff and things : Even with Torque converters to the electric engines wouldnt be good enough plus the batterys would limit much of the planes because of carie weight and space

Jayden Kang : Brian looks like Bob from I like to make stuff! Wendy will be proud!

Mohammed : So the solution is to improve battery technology.

Alaric _ : everything is possible as Long as it doesn't violate law of physics

id104335409 : Can you do an episode on vacuum airships and the math behind what it would take to lift like 100kg of useful cargo?

UnOff Beat : I've seen so many! But they all are ultralights not planes.... I luv ur channel!

Alaric _ : what about fuel cell?

Tim Maybach : This video is a nice showcase why battery powered airplanes don't make sense. But it also a great showcase why you can't just think about a single solution. Best and simplest solution for clean travel by plane: Use hydrogen, carbon dioxide and energy (preferably from renewable sources) to produce a clean bio-/eco-fuel. Technology exists and is much cheaper and makes more sense than building massive batteries for planes.

seasong : Wouldn't it make more sense to combine this with solar panels? It's always sunny above the clouds.

Harambe : 97.1% Male Viewers, there is more sausage on this channel than on a german bbq party

JN Baker : If my calculations are correct, then the required hydrogen fuel required for the a320 would come to a little less than 24,000 kg, or just under 30% of it's weight. I'll let you be the judge of how efficient that is compared to jet feul.

Ajit Pai : If you think batteries will ever power a jet turbine, then you have no understanding of aviation. Jet turbines physically cannot run on electricity. Jets use exhaust to produce thrust, which electricity doesn’t generate. So to correct you on the Airbus, it wouldn’t even be thought of legitimately, because it can’t work. (And it’s not, any time soon, it’s never)

Maximum Maxx : I think they should use hydrogen instead of electricity because it has better energy density

Isaac Roufs : @3:45 Who else is completly lost?

Freddy Fink : well hey there trent palmer in his freedom fox ;)

2016KTM450 : Ok, if we are going to pretend this is real engineering then lets see actual numbers. Its apparent to me that equipping the Cessna you show would take the majority of the usable weight resulting in the aircraft having very little utility and probably no passengers. And no, there will never be a perpetual flight capable aircraft of any type nor one that flies without using something expendable. Even the little Pipistrel ALPHA Electro LSA will be using fossil fuels indirectly (as most power plants burn coal) and there is energy lost in charging that is typically not accounted for in advertised claimed energy consumption nor mentioned in the boasts of electric motor efficiency.

Nuke Harrison : Hey can we have a video about how shotguns work because I think that many people would like to know how they work. Please read this comment.

nickt : high pitched background music is very distracting

Reddie Animates : Really liking the new thumbnails, they look so clean and nice.

MASTER GOATY : No I just saved you 10 min of your life.