Are Electric Planes Possible?

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


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

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

Kevin Bauwens : Starts watching. Sees explanation about batteries being 40x heavier than kerosine. Makes sense, I'm happy I know this now. But starting at 2:12 I felt more and more stupid and I should go back to my coloring book :(

John Stitcher : The biggest problem with this video is that for all your specious and downright arrogant calculations that grossly oversimplify the entire concept to the point of idiocy, you've also ignored the fact that the plane burns 4-5 times as much fuel during the initial climb phase as it does at cruise. Therefore, your flight time is shortened to around 4 minutes. You'll be about about 12 miles from the airport at an altitude of 6,000 feet when the batteries are fully depleted. And, you could have saved a buttload of work by simply figuring out how much energy the planes actually USE. For instance, a 737-800 nominally uses 588 kg of jet fuel to takeoff and climb to 10,000 feet. Therefore, it uses 25,284 MJ of energy. So, with our BEST lithium battery technology, you would need 25,285 kg of battery storage JUST to take off and climb to 10,000 feet. The maximum fuel capacity of a 737-800 is 21,205 kg. See how much easier that was to figure out with a little more common sense and a little less pseudo-intellectualism? We could even cut the work I did in half by saying that, based on energy density, 21,205 kg of battery is work 439 kg of fuel, which, again, doesn't get you to 10,000 feet, above 250 knots, or more than about 12 miles from the airport. I sure hope you don't get paid by the hour.

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.

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.

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

lightdark00 : 2.9% females in the audience. That should reflect closely with how many females are actually in engineering. If there's more, that's a fail on society.

The Ultimate Reductionist : 2:45 You really should not write "delta-v" for velocity. It should just be "v" - the velocity.

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

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

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...)

Robert Wilke : I'm really impressed how you were able to drag this out to a 10 minute video.

Victorillo 377 : We need Iron man and his arc reactor

Dub kicks : U lost me at triangle

Justin Y. : Anything is possible when you believe in the power of god and anime.

Mihindu Pulukkody : Aa. . . Aa. . . Aa. . . it is not batteries any more - it is ultracapacitors made from curved graphene. Ultracapacitors are lighter than batteries and stores more power than batteries. A Cessna would fly well powered with ultracapacitors fixed where the fuel tank used to be. But I don't know about Airbus. Maybe perhaps the old steam engine can be made of use here. In this case, the steam turbojet engine - a fan sucks in the air and turning compressors blades compress the air. By using induction heating methods the air is then heated as it gets compressed in the compression chamber. Then atomized water is sprayed in a combustion chamber which would turn into steam, because of the heat of the air, and would thrust out of the exhaust, turning the turbine blades. When all and every rotating blade wheel is counter turning to each other independently of each other by the use of auto gears, as in cars, this would make the steam turbojet engine function, by use of electricity. What's more, I assume it can be used in rocket technology as well. This could save the environment by stopping 140,000 tons of fossil fuel from being burnt into the atmosphere by use of steam jet propulsion.

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

Austin A. : It really is upsetting that this video, or this channel at all, can post nonsense like this. There are so many false claims about how airplanes work on this video that I don't know where to begin. For starters, this person does not understand how planes fly. He says the air pushed down by the wing creates the lift needed to sustain flight. This is known as Newton's third law (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). It does cause lift, but only roughly 20% of the lift created by an airfoil (wing in this case). The other 80% is created by Bernoulli's principle, which has to do with a differential in pressure on the lower and upper side of the wing that is caused by the curvature of the upper wing. This is aviation 101, literally one of the first things I teach my students (I am a flight instructor). This guy also goes on to confuse weight and drag a few times, two different forces that act on the plane in different ways. He neglects the energy needed to takeoff and climb. His info on how the wake turbulence created by the wing acts is wrong. And this is just naming a few things that came to mind. There are some people in the world that talk with a false sense of confidence. They know absolutely nothing about what they speak of, but by babbling lots of numbers and sounding arrogant, they make other think they have knowledge in the area. This is just one of those guys. It's upsetting because I've watched his videos in the past and thought I was actually learning something. I guess not...

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

Luis FF : Puts the passengers riding a static bicycle to generate the energy. This will save mass, fuel and make cheaper prices.

Mahmood Nabeel : Summary : blah blah blah no you can't.

Diego C. : I've heard that the "Moore's Law" of batteries is that they improve in energy density by ~5% per year. If that trend continues, it'll be decades until they get close to the energy density of fossil fuels. They're already at or close to the point where they're good enough for cars, but it may be quite a while before they're good enough for airliners. However, there's _a lot_ of research going into battery technology right now. A big breakthrough could change everything.

SimplePhotos : Was 1:51 *your attempt at a joke?*

Lord Manners : 1:53 97.1% of us are males

Almighty K : ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿

Fiskebullar : What about using Graphene batteries when it is developed

Ken Wade : Kanye?

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

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.

agat882 : And also you should keep in mind that Li-ion battery failing at low temperature, and wouldn't be any safer than kerosene. I guess the only real option with already existing technologies for electrical airplane is portable nuclear reactor. I understand, that we won't see those any time soon too (just imagene if such airplane crush in to some city), but Brian do you think this is theoretically possible - nuclear powered plane?

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

Ali Ganama : electric pisi

Franco Staub : "It just so happens that the total power needed to fly is minimized when the force of lift and the force of drag become equal." 4:58 I had to laugh at this one. Look up lift-to-drag ratios and you'll see why. I think you misunderstood the minimum power requirement flight condition. It's not where lift equals drag, it's were lift-induced drag equals parasite drag. Even this is a simplification. Anyways, I like your work and I know these are "back of the envelope" calculations, but maybe double check your content on this one. Cheers man and keep up the good work.

Jody Kemper : We're sorry but you have reached your limit for equations used. Please try again later.

hi hi : 1:63 Lul I'm 14

Jeff Lebowski : What if the electric motors were powered by a small generator, like a hybrid car and diesel train is.

Adam S : make the propeller a wind turbine, problem solved

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

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

Rajat Sharma : Why don't engineers attach some kind of a windmill mechanism that can be toggled once it reaches a cruising speed and altitude and then use the power generated for something useful? I am just wondering and have no technical knowledge about planes.

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 172/182 for electric flight 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.

juki0h tuki : algae biofuels can be converted to jet fuel

Akhil Nair : How exactly would u power a plane with electricity though? Propellers?

Brandon Collins : a popular engineering channel has females comprising 2.9% of its viewership population, and yet people still try to tell me that females are just as interested in engineering as males are. i'm sorry, they just aren't. there are a lot of brilliant female engineers who deserve to be recognized and praised, but it does nobody any good to force 50/50 representation in the work force.

Peter Kehayov : Falcon nine and fossil fuel? How are oxygen and hydrogen fossils?

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.

Jakob : Real Engineering? For real you forgott to calculate the weightsaveings of an Emotor in and there is no such thing as Electric Turbines, They need fuel to work you cant slap an e motor on there. Still why hast the electricity come from batteries why not hydrogen. Dont call you real engeneering and then talk something a 5 year ould can figure out .

Garrett Everett : 97.1% male and only 2.9% female watch your channel.

jibeneyto : Good video but using an "x" to denote multiplication next to an "x" that's a variable killed at least three cute puppies.