Electric Plane @ Paris Air Show.....

The 4.0 also has a range extender.

I can't see Airbus buying batteries from an Elon Musk company. More likely SAFT.

"The E-Fan 4.0 will have a longer range and will be able to recharge batteries during flight and carry navigation capabilities. This would allow a flight time of around three to three and a half hours."

So solar panels? I'd guess that regeneration wouldn't make too much sense.

This might help. The Airbus website for the project:

Airbus Group - E-Fan electric aircraft

BTW, in automotive terms the four seater would be called a series hybrid because it derives fan power only from the batteries, while the engine drives a generator for recharging inflight.

An exiting aspect of this is the effort to deploy superconductive cabling from a Russian company.

More on suppliers here:
E-Fan Electric Aircraft - Aerospace Technology

The batteries are supplied by CleanCarb, which produces the KOKAM brand. The company is German with technological roots from several European academics. An interesting aspect of this, not mentioned in the Arbus information, is that CleanCarb is deeply involved with ultracapacitor research also.
Products and Services

An acquaintance of mine tells me that the hope is to integrate SOA cells with superconductors, soa ducted fans and ultracapacitors to reduce the wasted energy and weight of cabling/power transmission (can reach >6% of total weight in large traditional commercial aircraft) while using sao avionics and other systems to reduce weight and improve performance.

A more traditional approach has been used by Embraer, which has a flying demonstrator now:
First flight | Revista Pesquisa FAPESP

This one was developed from the Sora, a Brazilian entry in the Light Sport Aircraft category. It uses currently available technology and suppliers, so does not test the technological boundaries as does the Airbus project, but it does prove that the concept works in a reasonably practical way.

The most interesting part of all this beyond the future possibilities is the question of the impact these might have on flight training. if a pilot has initial training on the Airbus, for example, while the pilot have a multi-engine rating since there are two motors and fans? of course it has no engines: does that mean it will be a new category? Will a private pilot earning that license in an Airbus be considered qualifies to fly an ICE equivalent? The entire light aircraft licensing process in the US (Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations) is now being rewritten. These developments will give the regulators headaches just as did the B787 before it. One hopes Airbus has learned from the Boeing debacle.

FWIW, the NTSB hearings on Li-ion in transportation included testimony from Tesla engineers who described the Tesla approach to quality control, well in excess to any other in use at the time including that of the US Navy in nuclear submarines.

I still wonder why they went with two ducted fans. That has to be about the least efficient and most expensive solution to the problem "battery powered aircraft" there is. One large propeller driven by a single smaller high-rpm motor over a reduction gear ought to be vastly more efficient. I bet they could have doubled the range and flying time.

mhpr262 said:

I still wonder why they went with two ducted fans. That has to be about the least efficient and most expensive solution to the problem "battery powered aircraft" there is. One large propeller driven by a single smaller high-rpm motor over a reduction gear ought to be vastly more efficient. I bet they could have doubled the range and flying time.

Click to expand...

to avoid a single point of failure.

a bird strike taking out a single propeller on the nose would be trouble.

also a propeller on the front is more dangerous for ground crew than a over wing mounted setup.

but Wikipedia lists other reasons

Ducting increases thrust while reducing noise, and having the fans mounted centrally provides better control.

Click to expand...

what I want to know is the kWh of the battery pack on the plane.

"Researchers at Airbus Group are focusing on superconductors – materials which have the property of zero electrical resistance when cooled to extremely low temperatures, normally around -245ºC. "

Should someone perhaps give them a call and tell them they can use copper oxide superconductors at up to -140ºC these days?

Anybody?

deonb said:

"Researchers at Airbus Group are focusing on superconductors – materials which have the property of zero electrical resistance when cooled to extremely low temperatures, normally around -245ºC. "

Should someone perhaps give them a call and tell them they can use copper oxide superconductors at up to -140ºC these days?

Anybody?

Click to expand...

Are the high temperature superconductors now capable of working under high current and strong magnetic fields? Perhaps so, but if not then traditional superconductors, like those used in the not very old LHC, will be needed.

GSP

dhanson865 said:

to avoid a single point of failure.

a bird strike taking out a single propeller on the nose would be trouble.

also a propeller on the front is more dangerous for ground crew than a over wing mounted setup.

Click to expand...

Tens of thousands of single engine aircraft flying today seem to be doing just fine with a single propeller mounted in front .. and yes, ducting increases thrust and reduces noise- but only compared to a non-ducted propeller of IDENTICAL SIZE. No way it will ever reach the quietness, performance and efficency of a single prop with four or five times the diameter.

I have come to suspect the decision was made simply because of the "cool" factor - ducted fans are not something you can really do with IC engines, and they look like jet engines.

mhpr262 said:

Tens of thousands of single engine aircraft flying today seem to be doing just fine with a single propeller mounted in front .. and yes, ducting increases thrust and reduces noise- but only compared to a non-ducted propeller of IDENTICAL SIZE. No way it will ever reach the quietness, performance and efficency of a single prop with four or five times the diameter.

I have come to suspect the decision was made simply because of the "cool" factor - ducted fans are not something you can really do with IC engines, and they look like jet engines.

Click to expand...

I don't think a 4 times the diameter prop would clear the ground if it were mounted on the nose of that craft. Folding prop required or longer landing gear? or are you suggesting they change the shape of the entire plane to keep the propeller from digging in on a landing? Keep in mind regulations require at least 7" clearance from ground to propeller for nose wheel landing gear planes.

Propeller clearance.

Unless smaller clearances are substantiated, propeller clearances with the
airplane at maximum weight, with the most adverse center of gravity, and with
the propeller in the most adverse pitch position, may not be less than the
following:
(a) Ground clearance. There must be a clearance of at least seven inches
(for each airplane with nose wheel landing gear) or nine inches (for each
airplane with tail wheel landing gear) between each propeller and the ground
with landing gear statically deflected and in the level takeoff, or taxiing attitude,
whichever is most critical. In addition, there must be positive clearance
between the propeller and the ground when in the level takeoff attitude
with the critical [tire(s)] completely deflated and the corresponding landing
gear strut bottomed.

Click to expand...

mhpr262 said:

I still wonder why they went with two ducted fans. That has to be about the least efficient and most expensive solution to the problem "battery powered aircraft" there is. One large propeller driven by a single smaller high-rpm motor over a reduction gear ought to be vastly more efficient. I bet they could have doubled the range and flying time.

Click to expand...

counter rotating props. may be the best ??

OR perhaps ducting ?