Talk:Electric aircraft

message: See the battery-electric vehicle talk page for more information. (Under nr 58; requested move)
Thanks.
KVDP (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the link. Don't discard it so quickly and leave it on talk page for a while, its the most logical subdivision that includes all vehicles (I do admit it sounds a bit unusual).
KVDP (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - that name is very cumbersome and not what users will be looking for. I would rather see that title be a re-direct to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 'Battery electric air vehicle" 

message: Should also have a place 90s, it may have started in the 80s but the majority of the program took place in the 90s.--Craigboy (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be.  But if that is the case, then that section will need verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the claims.  That section has been fact-tagged  for several months now. N2e (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA Pathfinder 

message: The advantages of electric aircraft include increased safety due to decreased chance of mechanical failure, such as from volcanic ash, less risk of explosion or fire in the event of a collision, less noise, along with environmental benefits associated with the potential elimination of consumption of fuels and resultant emissions and pollution.
The main disadvantage of electric aircraft is decreased range. The range can be increased by adding solar cells to the aircraft's body to create a solar airplane. However, the plane's surface area must be large compared to its weight for them to have a significant impact on range.
:I have removed the above section from the article to here instead for further discussion. Even though User:Bios Element removed the fact tags on 8 July 2010 with the edit summary "No need to cite the obvious Folks" I think that this section is not only not obvious I think it is WP:OR, incomplete and wrong. I have seen no ref that proves that electric aircraft have a longer MTBF than other types of propulsion. While there maybe "less risk of explosion or fire in the event of a collision" there is the problem of battery explosions and contamination, depending on battery type, which is not discussed. While the section touts the "environmental benefits associated with the potential elimination of consumption of fuels and resultant emissions and pollution" it doesn't deal with all the problems of battery and solar cell disposal and recycling, which currently may be worse than with other powerplant types. It also doesn't address the problem of where line-current rechargeable (as opposed to solar cell rechargeable) battery-powered aircraft get their power from - if it from coal-burning powerplants then it certainly doesn't eliminate consumption of fuels. If it from nuclear electrical generation plants then there are all kinds of other problem with nuclear waste etc. The disadvantages section on range seems to be plain WP:OR. I think that this whole section is so incomplete, misleading and unreferenced that it shouldn't be returned to the article with being expanded, made more balanced and properly referenced. The article is better without it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  As it stands, this article works well as a History of electric aircraft, but if we want to talk about design and operations (including advantages and disadvantages) then we would have to completely re-sequence the material into the various types of electric aircraft such as manned or UAVs, solar-powered or battery/fuel cell.  Each of these have utterly different characteristics, and in my opinion, would work better as separate articles. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was good that all of these unsourced claims were removed from the article.  The article is much better today for the cleanup.  Thanks all!  N2e (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Advantages and disadvantages of electrical propulsion'' section

message: The 1980s anime The Mysterious Cities of Gold had a really interesting concept of ancient civilisations using solar aircraft (The Golden Condor, a huge solar-powered mechanical bird / ornithopter.)    --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained at WP:AIRPOP Pop Culture sections are no longer used in these types of aircraft articles, instead they have all been moved to Aircraft in fiction for real-world aircraft used in fictional works. You can list this there, provided that you can supply a reliable reference to go along with it. For made-up aircraft that don't exist in the real world the place is List of fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture ? 

message: Status of improvement of references in the article, which has been an ongoing project of many over the past year or so:  The article is now substantially well-sourced on all significant assertions in the article, at least at the paragraph level.  (this was not the case, say, in December 2009). I have therefore removed the refimprove tag from the article.  If we all work to source each new claim, and changes to the numbers, then we can keep this article in good condition over time.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is now substantially well-sourced 

message: Looking into the Green Falcon (see Talk:Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Firefighting, and wondering about on which article to place it, I found that this article includes UAV's aswell as piloted aircraft. I was wondering whether we should focus this article strictly on piloted aircraft and move the (electric) UAV's to a new section at Unmanned_aerial_vehicle 
91.182.237.234 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that all electric aircraft should be mentioned here, whether manned or not, they are still aircraft and thus fit the article's scope. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Piloted aircraft

message: This article looks like a list of projects rather an overview of the field.  It needs to be reorganised around the problems/issues/technologies. pgr94 (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you are not responding to a 2011 article organisation subject but about one particular adjective use. You didn't just removed the adjective (which was done 6 hours later and I was fine with that, it doesn't appear anymore) but also "Textron Aviation" - and this was the main point, Textron being the largest GA manufacturer, it does know its market.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Obviously I was responding & objecting to both the adjective and the rest of the specific phrasing. Saying "...remains limited for Textron" implies that this particular company won't use it, but heck, maybe that's just something peculiar to their situation. However I apologize for apparently having looked only at the reversion before commenting, assuming that this was still the current text; the latter was apparently later changed to "according to Textron," which of course is unobjectionable, so the issue is resolved.ScottForschler (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organisation 

message: Flight of the Warbots; How a save-the-earth maker of solar-powered aircraft became the world's most prolific manufacturer of military drones December 07, 2011, 11:10 PM EST BusinessWeek by Brad Stone.
99.19.45.160 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource 

message: http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/ionic-wind-power-jet-engines-130408.htm
Can we have a mention of this? Hcobb (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionic wind 

message: worth including ? see https://www.siemens.com/press/en/presspicture/?press=/en/presspicture/2011/corporate_communication/soaxx201125/soaxx201125-03.htm&content[]=CC&content[]=IDT&content[]=Corp&content[]=PD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.149.138 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamond Aircraft DA36 E-star

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electric aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709184458/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j9MNCUc2Oqjb1AyiXiPx4Mj1N_Iw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j9MNCUc2Oqjb1AyiXiPx4Mj1N_Iw
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is becoming a list of battlegrounds for aircraft salesmen. I think it needs to fork off a separate List of electric aircraft and refocus on the more general principles, history, etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree!! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no objection this proposal and no action yet either. I am prepared to carry this out, but wonder if :Category:Electric aircraft doesn't cover and thus duplicate everything that would be in List of electric aircraft anyway? If the category suffices then perhaps we could just trim this article instead of splitting it? - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A list in table form would have half a dozen or so data columns that a Category lacks, and also sortability on date, status, etc. I have forked to current list to List of electric aircraft, where it can be further tidied. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response and also for starting the list article! Were you going to pare down this article to take out all the aircraft listed? - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope that only those types which have verifiable historic or technical significance will be kept - and merged into the main narrative. The rest should go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that concept. Are you going to tackle that? - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As time and memory allow. I am already getting into trouble for spending time on it, ahem. There must be plenty of fanboy entries that could simply be snipped out, but I would need to check each one out first. Any help would be much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing Wikipedia instead of washing the Christmas dishes? I'll see if I can do some chipping away at that as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now refactored. Besides my physique (Ouch!) this also apples to the article. PS thx for the barnstar. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is looking really good now, despite the "apples ". - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fork needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electric aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217082723/http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Power-Beaming/index.html to http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/Power-Beaming/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601111600/http://www.electravia.fr/DOCUMENTS/Presse_Prototypes/TheTimes030108.jpg to http://www.electravia.fr/DOCUMENTS/Presse_Prototypes/TheTimes030108.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211170130/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/twuav_12.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_12.html#m3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730032004/http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_12.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_12.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208120356/http://www.evworld.com:80/article.cfm?storyid=709 to http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=709
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104072425/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/solar-plane-completes-2nd-leg-trip-texas to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/solar-plane-completes-2nd-leg-trip-texas
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110092518/http://www.apame.eu:80/AA%20Projects.html to http://www.apame.eu/AA%20Projects.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226092438/http://eaa.org/news/2011/2011-06-27_cri-cri.asp to http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-06-27_cri-cri.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electraflyer.com/tech.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301001053/http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-01-12_electrolight2.asp to http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-01-12_electrolight2.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Electric aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707180738/http://www.astroflight.com/pdfs/SolarHistory.pdf to http://www.astroflight.com/pdfs/SolarHistory.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asl.ethz.ch/research/asl/skysailor/History_of_Solar_Flight.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212230625/http://www.naa.aero/html/records/search_resultsguest.cfm?recordNumber=1855 to http://www.naa.aero/html/records/search_resultsguest.cfm?recordNumber=1855
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420110802/http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent_b.htm to http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent_b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060812184635/http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/news/news.html to http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/news/news.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628112136/http://solarimpulse.com/common/documents/challenge_history.php?lang=en&group=challenge to http://solarimpulse.com/common/documents/challenge_history.php?lang=en&group=challenge
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tell me more! What other models are out there?  And why does the Spectrum article claim that "sport" aircraft aren't certified for flight training? Beisdess Pipistrel, what others are there?  Are they actually flying, or still just demos at air shows? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There *was* Airbus E-Fan but that got cancelled. Lots of overlap with the Sunflyer, though two engines, not one. How can Bye Aerospace succeed where Airbus can't go? It would seem to be a prudent investment for an airliner manufacturer to ensure lots of training aircraft are available. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Specific aircraft types were all shifted a while ago from this article to List of electric aircraft because there are so many of them now that this article was flooded with them. The Bye one is not very notable, way behind the Pipistrel Alpha Trainer to market (which is already in production) and hasn't even flown yet. Even if we were still listing every electric aircraft here, it wouldn't be added until flown. Basically it's WP:NOTCRYSTAL. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Electric flight training aircraft

message: We have a couple of sufficiently sourced statements giving huge ratios between the energy stored per weight of fuel, and the energy stored per weight of battery. These are important, but the analysis used in each of the numbers are bogus because they ignore the efficiency of the engine. If I take the most recent example, Li battery 160 Wh/kg, fuel 12500 Wh/kg. But the efficiency of the electric motor and motor controller is around 80-90%, the efficiency of the pathetic old engines they use in planes is 10-20% or so (it doesn't need to be that way but that's how it is). So the real comparison is 160*.85 vs 12500*.15, taking the midpoints of the efficiencies I gave. That's about a 14:1 advantage to hydrocarbon fuels, nothing like 50:1 Greglocock (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing to do would be to get a ref for this to avoid WP:OR. I remember an article in Leeham News. To indulge in OR, I would add that electric chain efficiency is more 90%+ and batteries packaged could reach 200Wh/kg, but fuel engines are way better than 10-20%: Current Rolls-Royce engines have a 42–49% thermal efficiency and Rolls aims for 60% (propulsive efficiency is the same), so the comparison should be more like 200*.9 vs 12500*.5 (28:1).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Ref found and added.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was basing my sums on the crummy engines typically used in Cessnas (best case 280 g/kWh, at the absolute optimum, generally significantly worse). Your ref says the efficiency chain for electric is 85%. I know they can be better, indeed my successful electric motor is 98.4% efficient, and motor controller efficiency is largely $$$ for better FETs. But $$$$ is the issue. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  For Cessnas, Lycomings reach 243g/kWh (34% efficiency) and you can get an aero diesel for 210 g/kWh (40%), 10-20% efficiency is for bad microturbines, even two stroke engines reach 425 g/kWH (19.3%). And most air passengers are moved in Airbuses of Boeings, with the quoted 42–49%  efficiency.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the foreseeable future the realms where large efficient gas turbines dominate are unlikely to be taken over by batteries. Obviously. Greglocock (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific energy comparisons between hydrocarbon fuels and batteries 

message: As an employee of Pipistrel company I would like to suggest a few additions to this article. My opinion is that some important facts are missing, but since I represent the company, I will rather list them here and the community can decide which ones should be added or not. 
Under the paragraph "Light Aircraft": 
* in 2007 Pipistrel announced the 2-seat Taurus Electro (maiden flight 21. 12. 2007 ) which was not only the first two-seat electric aircraft commercially available on the market, but the first fully electric 2-seater ever to fly. For this, the American magazine Popular Science listed it among 100 best innovations of 2008 
* on 31. March 2015 Pipistrel unveiled the Alpha Electro (still under its prototype name WATTsUP) with the announcement news on their website The model was described in detail by many European paperback aviation magazines, scans of the articles and .pdf-s are located here: 
* Alpha Electro under its commercial name entered serial production in 2017. Pipistrel presented the opening of their first production line, dedicated fully to electric aircraft, as a part of their 2017  . During 2017 Alpha Electro was in a process of certification and as a part of this it was presented at EASA Headquarters in Cologne. I'm not sure how reliable source social networks are, but this is EASA's own publication . Meanwhile Alpha Electro received a Special Certificate of Airworthiness from Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 31. October 2017  and took first flight in Australia as a certified electric aircraft on 2 January 2018  On Wikipedia the Alpha Electro is described as a version of the Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer#Alpha_Electro.
* The paragraph correctly states that "The first the NASA Green Flight Challenge took place in 2011 and was won by a Pipistrel Taurus G4 on 3 October 2011". In my opinion it should be added that the Taurus G4 was world's first fully electric 4-seat aircraft ever to fly.
Ymmo (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, thanks for your insights and for respecting WP:COIEDIT. Your propositions are unclear as the article text is not distinguished from the proposed text. Note that world's first [X] are borderline WP:WEASEL words. pipistrel.si as a ref is best avoided as it would be a WP:PRIMARY source, except maybe for announcements. Too much details on Pipistrel aircraft would give them WP:undue weight. Please use WP:citation templates (like ) not WP:bare urls for references consistency and details. Thanks--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello and thank you for all the corrections. Since I am not really "the right person" to edit Wiki articles, I do not have much experience in the correct way of doing so. I will try to heed your warnings in the future. Just one question - if the aircraft was world's first in certain category, how can I prove it really was so? Ymmo (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can propose modifications here, just make it easy to understand and reuse as explained (distinguish text, cite templates). If it is difficult to prove a statement, that's maybe because it's not so important. The good way is to let the reliable sources report information. You lobbying will be more effective with usual news outlets than a tertiary source like here.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a major change to my primary talk. I tried to fix the links in a way as you recommended and I also replaced some links with more reliable ones (such as a .pdf scan of the actual certification document). However, you say  My personal opinion is that if an event is the first in the world it is not only important for the company, but for the entire history of aviation. I hope that a magazine such as Popular Science with its 146 years of history is a reliable enough source for this claim. Thanks.-  Ymmo (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Adding source dates (not access dates, that's for dynamic websites) would be neat. Still, it's unclear what do you want. just state it clearly, not as if someone else is going to rewrite it. I'm feeling the importance is low, and WP:weight would be too much, and there is too much WP:primary refs. Maybe more useful in respective pipistrel aircraft articles, but not obvious for the present article. Popular Science is still a generalist magazine, almost sensationalist, with an editorial line closer to the guiness book than Nature or Science. There are better references for aircraft. "world's first four-seat" or "world first's two-seat" lies around weasel-words: what's next step? "world's first three seater with retractable gear and TCAS?"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch. :( Oh well, there goes my effort... And yes, I AM writing it as if someone else will have to rewrite it, because it will. I'm not allowed to, or at least, the rules state I'm "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles". So here in talk section I point out the topics which in my opinion should be changed, I state the missing or wrong information and then leave the community to decide if and in what way they will do so. All of my attempts to form the exact text for change, direct or indirect, didn't end well at all throughout all the five years I've been here. So I don't do it anymore and rather leave it to the experts. Ymmo (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry it hurts. Starting with the most important: What is wrong? Then we can study what's missing. Note nobody here should claim to be an WP:expert, some people are knowledgeable, but everyone have to rely on WP:RS. And if you want to better understand wikipedia's editing process, maybe you could try to edit areas where you have no COI. [note that I'm certainly not against Pipistrel, I personally think it's one of the most innovative and efficient light aircraft designer]--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for new additions 

message: and  Given the recent editing in this article, I thought it was time for a formal discussion on the use of "commented out refs" in aviation articles and this one in particular. I have my own issues with this practice, in particular that it is not supported or recommended in WP:RS and that it creates a lot of WP:INLINECLUTTER. I think we need a proper discussion and consensus on this practice. Shall we do it here or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft?
: Hi, I took the practice from Wikipedia:Citations in medical articles (an essay not a policy), but it seems to be deprecated now. Wikipedia:Citation underkill#Hidden citations (also an essay) states . I'm okay to show them all, altough it will look like more cluttered. If needed, we can have a more thorough discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or maybe Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you seem to be the only editor adding commented out refs like that we may not need any further discussion. If, as you note, it is deprecated then perhaps we can just slowly fix them over time as they are found in old articles. WP:CITETYPE says  and WP:CITEFOOT adds  WP:INTEGRITY also says  That section has many more examples and additional guidance. I think in general we can just remove the "comment out" tags and leave the refs where they already are, unless there is an unbroken string of text that is all supported by one single ref, in which case the duplication of refs in adjacent sentences can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to remove the comments and to leave the refs for each sentence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good. I'll leave it to you to address this particular article and I'll fix other ones as I come across them over time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on commented out refs

message: This horribly behaved thing has nowhere sensible to go. It is not a reference and placing it in there messes up the display. As an external link it is on its own. Is there a standard way to place it in these circumstances? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is in the last section on the page - but is doesn't usually get its own section, although I am not sure if that is a hard and fast rule or just by convention. Would the horizontal format work better? - NiD.29 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonscat boxout 

message: :The Cessna Caravan has been converted back to PT-6 as that stage of the development program has been completed, but will continue in Australia - https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/aerotec-selling-caravan-used-for-all-electric-project/142094.article and the battery pack in the Beaver has been upgraded to a much better battery - https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-goal-operating-electric-seaplane-fleet/ . They also did a study comparing noise levels - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/magnix-continued-flight-testing-reveals-electric-aircraft-significantly-reduce-noise-pollution-301264765.html . - NiD.29 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other news 

message: ::*  Perhaps we need a new section called "weight" or "range"? Or two new sections? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need sections for "weight" or "range"? 

message: I did a quick google search but could not figure it out. Could the charging section explain the difference (if any) with car charging? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charging? 

message: Under the heading "General Aviation" is the sentence: "The short range is not a problem as the motor is used only briefly, either to launch or to avoid an outlanding. "
The definition of outlanding here is unclear. Is it something specifically known in the glider community? If so, maybe a parenthetical to explain to the rest of us?
CaveShvig (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point -  - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlanding