$5 million X PRIZE Needed for a Low Cost Electric Airplane

General Aviation needs the equivalent of an X PRIZE for the design of a new, low cost, electric aircraft that cuts the cost of flying by 80%. Why? Many people are working to reverse the 30-year decline in the pilot population. AOPA is funding research into why student pilots drop out and SAFE is holding a Pilot Training Reform Symposium to investigate ways to make pilot training more effective while reducing the accident rate. The FAA has launched an initiative to reduce the general aviation accident rate, which they acknowledge has been static for the last decade. 

Never have the stakes been so high nor has the industry been more motivated to face the systemic problems that threaten our future. But there’s still one key ingredient missing before lightning in a bottle can bring the industry back to life. We still need to make learning to fly more affordable by designing a training aircraft with much lower operating costs.

AOPA’s research says that time and money are not the reasons people drop out of flying. Technically they’re right; when you measure people who complete pilot training versus those who drop out, time and money don’t differentiate between the groups. However, time and money are the top two barriers perceived by BOTH groups. So yes, lowering the cost of flying will bring more people into aviation. And an electric airplane looks like the best way to get the revolutionary cost change needed; incrementally improving current technology can’t reduce cost enough.

History has shown that large cash prizes motivate teams to achieve great things. Charles Lindbergh was undoubtedly motivated by the $25,000 prize he won by becoming the first to fly alone, nonstop from New York to Paris in an aircraft. It also spurred on two other teams to cross the Atlantic within six weeks after his famous flight.

In 2004, Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites won the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE competition to build a privately funded craft that reached a sub-orbit of 100 km twice in two weeks with Spaceship One, pictured above. As a side benefit, that team’s work accelerated the development of private space tourism. More benefits are likely to come from the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a $30 million competition to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters and transmit video, images and data back to the Earth.

There are two efforts that are similar to what we need. The 2011 CAFE Green Flight Challenge will feature 13 teams competing this summer for $1.65 million in prizes. The teams must design and build aircraft that can fly 200 miles in less than two hours while using less than 1 gallon of gasoline per occupant. Team aircraft have chosen gasoline, bio-diesel, hydrogen, or electricity to propel their planes. CAFE’s 5^th annual Electric Aircraft Symposium will be held in Santa Rosa, CA on April 29-30, 2011. 

EAA has announced $60,000 in prizes for electric aircraft flights at AirVenture this summer. The competition includes three flights for: endurance, time-to-climb and maximum speed. EAA AirVenture 2011 will also host the second annual World Symposium on Electric Aircraft, on July 29-30.

All of these activities get us closer, but none may produce a new, innovative electric aircraft that slashes pilot training cost. To be effective, a general aviation X PRIZE needs to spur the development of an electric aircraft that is the functional equivalent of the venerable Cessna 152, or the more modern Cessna 162 SkyCatcher. Criteria should include:

• Two seats
• Speed of 100 knots
• Endurance of three hours with 30 minute reserve
• Recharging or battery switch time of 30 minutes
• Carry 400 pounds of pilot, passenger and baggage
• Costs less than $10/hour to operate for electricity
• Target production cost of $100,000

Some may argue that we need a plane with a lower acquisition cost, but I disagree. Flight schools have shown the ability to get $100,000 planes for their flight lines. But they’re having difficulty attracting clients when charging $100/hour and more. Think how many people would flock to aviation if it cost $10/hour to operate a plane.

$5 million is the right amount, since we’re not talking about going into space or to the moon. Key players like Sonex and Bye Energy have shown great resourcefulness to date in advancing the design of electric airplanes. Think how creative they and dozens of LSA manufacturers may become if a $5 million prize were offered.

With a prize in place, I’m guessing we can get a winning aircraft design in six to eight years and perhaps as little as 5 years, especially if the automotive industry’s investment in battery technology pays off. Do you agree this is a good idea? If so, where do we find the prize money?

Comments

[JetAviator7]

Max:

I used to think the idea of an electric aircraft was crazy, but no doubt the technology is getting better day by day and perhaps therein lies a solution.

One thing is for sure - we need to get more people interested in flying airplanes. It seems the romance has gone, and with it the hordes of folks wanting to learn to fly.

Where is Bill Piper when we need him?

John

[Erik Lindbergh]

Great article Max, XPRIZE has been looking at some of these issues for a while, but passed on an Electric Aircraft Prize because, for a multitude of reasons the incentive type prize was not the best model for this particular endeavor at this time. For this reason we (LEAP) set up a recognition prize www.lindberghprize.org to help accelerate the development of the electric aircraft industry. Along with the LEAP education program and the filming of a documentary TV series on "The Birth of the Electric Aircraft Industry" we are tackling this issue from a "prize philanthropy" and education angle. LEAP booth and Student team at GreenSpace at Sun n Fun. come by and lets talk! Erik

[Joseph Wang]

Max,

Kudos for addressing a major issue affecting a huge portion of the GA pilot (and future/potential pilot) population... the cost of flying.

I believe the solution for lowering costs of single-engine/electric LSA aircraft is to combine "open source" designs and competitions with modular component design and manufacture. Organizations such as the EAA and Mr. Lindbergh's LEAP could fund and/or host annual design competitions involving engineering schools, private industry, and collaborative teams of individuals (who could even be from different states or countries) that would submit designs for modularized, electric LSA aircraft. All design submissions, specifically those from 1st/2nd/3rd place teams, would become open source material that could be used, modified, improved, tested, manufactured, and flown by anyone in the world.

Designs should, to the maximum extent possible, consist of separate but integrated modules including the cabin (with avionics panel submodule), wing, landing gear, electric motor, energy storage units (batteries or fuel cells), and tail empennage. As an example, an electric LSA resembling the Seeker (seekeraircraft.com) could be designed with modules for the cabin, fixed landing gear, tail empennage, external quick-change conformal battery packs, etc., attached to a main structural spine. Modular, open source designs would enable suppliers to manufacture only those sections/modules matching their firm's expertise, and foster the existence of multiple suppliers for each module (per the design specs). Because of the open source design, other companies could integrate the modules into complete aircraft ready for sale (after first validating the compliance of modules to design specs and ASTM standards, and performing flight testing).

While the competitions should be open to all comers, I especially believe entries and design teams should be solicited from (and promoted at) aerospace engineering programs across the United States. This would encourage engineering students (with guidance from professors) to pool their efforts and talents into an exciting annual competition (held at EAA AirVenture?) that would benefit the public, while also helping students apply their theoretical knowledge to the real-world challenge of designing a modular, reliable, safe, easy-to-manufacture, and attractive personal aircraft. Engineering programs might even offer credit to participants as part of a class project, senior design practicum, etc. Thus, an open source design competition for an electric LSA could lead not only to better and more affordable GA aircraft, but to better and more experienced aerospace engineers for the future.

Regards,
Joseph Wang

[Ben]

Max, great article. Personally, I'd prefer to see a race for all out performance first, rather than trying to work within the current regs or trying to copy existing designs. For instance, there are some interesting differences that could arise with an electric plane, such as the potential for increased torque with an electric motor. It could stimulate new propeller designs for starters. (New tail designs possibly following from a new propeller, then there are the different structural issues which invoke new materials...) Even e-jet engines could be an option.

Range notwithstanding, I wonder if an "X-prize" for a high-performance (e.g. aerobatic or pylon racing) e-plane might not produce more radical results? Cloning the familiar seems to be what most e-planes are trying to do (e.g. the Yuneec from China). But experience in car racing suggests that much innovation stems from the edgy stuff, which then flows back to us in the everyday marketplace. (EADS's e-CriCri twin might be considered a first step in this direction.) And having a high-performance goal might be better for publicity in the non-flying world, too.

Going for high performance now would also buy some time while the engineers and scientists figure out how to achieve good e-storage without a lot of mass. When all's said and done it's a battery/fuel cell issue that's limiting us today. If we had ten times the power stored in a device a tenth of the weight we'd all be flying e-planes already!

What I'd like to see is some radical new designs in batteries/cells, engines/props and aircraft designs, with few limits, and suggest performance goals to attain. Then I think it would be quite possible for the clever people at Cessna and elsewhere to devise variants of their familiar designs with e-motors in the front end (if that's where they happen to end up!).

Cheers!