The Equator P2 Xcursion: Innovative Electric Aircraft

[@williambunting803]

I love this plane, it is awesome. I was designing for a while a similar concept, though with high wing. I achieved the amphibeon step with a trim tab which closed for a clean in air bottom skin, and this aircraft could do the same for extra drag reduction. I designed in a Goldschmeid drag reduction feature, but did not have the wherewithal to test whether that would help. These guys have made some very clever rationalizations to produce a plane that I would definitely buy if I were younger, and they have done it on a tiny budget. Let me offer them my idea for a flight control system. This is effectively a washing machine type knob in the middle of the panel. The knob does one full revolution per flight and sets up the the various systems as it rotates through the flight sequence and guides the check lists calling for input and checking them. This reduces the amount of sequential knowledge the “pilot” must have.

[@andrewwhittaker6622]

I love to see new concepts! Great video cheers

[@mho...]

its soooooooo crazy to see , that pretty much all e-plane designs these days are just scaled up RC-Model Planes!

[@KevinArmstrong4154]

Hi, you might save fuel using the same Gaokin genset motor that I'm flying in a homebuilt weightshift, this is 61hp or 45.5 KiloWatt. The initial sales description was as a range extender for auto use, although its now working in UTVs and other leisure vehicles such as Snowmobiles. It's a liquid cooled fuel injected unit and so far, very reliable on standard gasoline

[@patrickdavey9692]

Very nice aircraft, hope it goes into production.

[@ElectricAviation]

Me too!

[@licencetoswill]

I always liked the lines of the excursion.

[@leoeduardo3016]

All of your improvements are already take in account and what you see is what the architects chose to have as trade off in other areas.

[@rozinaakter7147]

Brilliant video, friend

[@ElectricAviation]

Thanks for the visit

[@maximilianholland]

Another brilliant video, thank you!

[@ElectricAviation]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@pygusso]

It looks like that the suggestions you made are pertinent, specially the weight reduction. That will come out of an engineering review of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic loads after testing. You do have to consider that an aircraft operated in the Northern lakes or Fjords of Scandinavia may have to be sturdy and allow for a solid heater system, so that's why maybe the extra weight is there.

[@ammerudgrenda]

I can see potential improvement in the wing-to-fuselage intersection. Low wing aircraft are sensitive to interference drag, so a fairing could improve performance 5 to 8%.

[@ammerudgrenda]

@Will Swift A fairing where the wing and fuselage side meet.

[@kschleic9053]

In my opinion, I feel like most of the areas for improvement (higher aspect ratio wing, lower peak power motor, downward sloping fuselage) are all areas where design compromises had to be made. Implementing any of these suggestions would make the plane more efficient, but they would make it a worse sea-plane.

[@TecnamTwin]

Less performance? Never! It’s got to be surprisingly good and desirable, not merely adequate/barely there. That’s how you get people to buy it. Otherwise, it’ll merely be an electric curiosity. Also, a higher aspect ratio wing could work if the wings or wingtips folded to allow easier hangaring of the aircraft. Otherwise, it becomes a pain every time you want to pull it out and put it back into a hanger, esp. a shared one.

[@kschleic9053]

@@TecnamTwin exactly. The market for ideally efficient electric seaplanes is much smaller than the market for useful, easy to own electric seaplanes 😂

[@williamfowler9196]

A downward sloping nose would be great, well, that is if it wasn't a sea plane.. lol.. I don't know about you but I'm really not to found of a submarine style landing... I guess land loves will always be land lovers.

[@zainabkhalid5576]

Indeed briliant video

[@bernardthedisappointedowl6938]

Always great to see your videos in my subscriptions - quality stuff, ^oo^

[@ElectricAviation]

Thanks again!

[@KevinArmstrong4154]

@@ElectricAviation Forgot to mention, that EFI engine I'm using burns around 7-8 litres per hour of standard auto gas, inexpensive too

[@___Chris___]

I like that it's "fly-by-wire": totally makes sense in electric aircraft! The necessary controllers are so tiny and light-weight these days that redundancy shouldn't be too much of a challenge and the nice thing with fly-by-wire is that envelope protection is easily programmable, making it harder to crash such a plane, i.e. with good software: big safety benefit. Also: basic autopilot functions (like altitude and/or heading hold, straight&level button) should be easy add-ons. The amphibian capability is understandable from a scandinavian perspective, however, detachable wings (like in a glider) for easy transport and storage would probably be a more practical alternative (given the scarcity of free hangar space, at least at most european airports).

[@ElectricAviation]

Very valid points. Considering that this was designed with very limited resources, its not bad for a first pass. The design has great potential. It needs more experienced people to fine tune it now. Foldable/Detachable wings would be a great feature to have.

[@wbr7869]

I know this was a long time ago but I’m going to leave a response. Why must you have the dash between the legs of the pilot when you have all the room in the center?!?!? It looks like it makes it much harder to get in and out of not to mention all of the leg room you loose!!! Other than that you’ve done a great job!!!

[@invent5540]

Fantastic narrative... you know your subject sir. Hats off... liked and subscribed.

[@ElectricAviation]

Welcome aboard!

[@grejen711]

It's also a flying boat. The tadpole fuselage is compromised to work as a boat. Lowering the nose to minimize drag would present challenges when on the water. One way for it to loose some weight easily would be to abandon the amphibious aspect and go without the gear. Perhaps as an option.

[@Eugensdiet]

You didn't address the fact that when you mount the motor high above the airframe you create a downward moment which has to be compensated with the elevator and early in the video you can see the upward position of the elevator. This is wasted drag. The short coupling exaggerates this. The other disadvantage of the motor location is the needed additional strength of the vertical stab. Perhaps a better solution would be a single ducted fan.

[@pieterbezuidenhout2741]

Before the end of the video I already had a few ' improvements ' lined up in my mind one of wich was bringing the nose down a drop or two but the rest I'll keep for myself for now.

[@z_actual]

I think visibility of the water surface could be an issue on approach, where typically height is already very difficult to judge. Note too, in the event of a failed landing the high thrust line will tend to push the nose down, exacerbating on water landing dilemmas. Im also finding issue with line handling and mooring, not best achieved with the cockpit openings. Add to that, coming alongside a floating dock or pier is inhibited by the low wing layout. I have always maintained that cars achieved their present shapes through years of designing, building and use, and therefore electric cars ought to be very similar looking, even if a bit briefer in the space afforded an engine. It has been a long time since WW2 when the last really successful water born aircraft were developed, still one would long for a modern Grumman Goose, which applied itself to many tasks safely which I find hard to envision with this aircraft.

[@gehtdichnixan4704]

Elevators are very effective, easily compensating for the nose down moment.

[@xpeterson]

All “flying boat” seaplanes have a higher thrust line. Also, having flown a Searey, I can tell you that the cockpit egress is a wonderful solution for getting off on a beach or dock. You are right tho, the low wing design is gonna make it tricky

[@z_actual]

@@gehtdichnixan4704 kinda depends on if you are landing on the throttle, necessary for fast taxi on the step, its the transition between closed and open throttle that concerns me, as in powering up from closed

[@sblack48]

If it is fbw then the thrust can quite easily be compensated for.

[@gehtdichnixan4704]

Could it be that the powerful motor is necessary for water take off? I don't know anything about amphibian aircraft. Would love to see this thing take off from water! How are those wings going to generate enough lift...

[@ElectricAviation]

The wings generate just enough lift. For water takeoff, shark fin hydrofoils like in LISA Akoya would definitely help. They would also add stability to the aircraft

[@gehtdichnixan4704]

@@ElectricAviation What about the sea state? There are probably restrictive assumptions on the height of waves. So you have to wait for very calm weather for take off?

[@ElectricAviation]

@@gehtdichnixan4704 Yes. Its difficult for most amphibious if not all to take off in choppy waters

[@darrylday30]

I wonder if increasing the wing angle of incidence would improve water takeoff performance.

[@bettytureaud]

What a beautiful flying whale!

[@OzAndyify]

Interesting plane. I wonder if the fuse angle is because they want some "lifting body" effect and possibly even some stability, a bit like a canard. Not sure about the amphibian use. It would need very protected waters and ideal winds, and making it strong enough for water use will surely add weight.

[@二师兄-b6y]

thank you

[@ElectricAviation]

You're welcome

[@MattiasAllring]

Great stuff! Make more videos!!!! 👍🏻😀

[@ElectricAviation]

More to come!

[@scsirob]

Thanks for this no-nonsense video on a very nice looking airplane. One thing I'd like to have more details on is practicality in terms of range and recharge times. You mention the range extender for 1000km, but that's basically turning the plane into a diesel-powered version with electric conversion losses. What is the range without extender, and what battery capacity does that require? My biggest doubts with electric flight are wth the recharge times and required infrastructure. I'm really interested in how you see the charge infrastructure to make electric flight practical. A regular internal combustion (IC) plane can be refueled in 5 minutes or so. The Pipistrel you mentioned needs roughly 1 hour of charging for 1 hour of flight. It's targeted at flight schools. That means the flight school needs twice as many planes to service the same number of students. One flying, one charging. Once your plane is optimized in terms of weight and drag, the only way to extend electric range is add more battery capacity. That means either stronger charge systems or longer charge times. Where a regular IC plane can be used to get the $100 breakfast, you'll now be having lunch and dinner as well, as the plane is charging for the return flight. A single fuel delivery truck averages 30.000 liter of gas, which equals roughly 300.000 kWh. The electric equivalent is a small power station at every airport, which isn't going to happen. I'm truly interested to hear what solutions you suggest for this.

[@Archpimp]

Would a hybrid system be better since you can design the generator to run optimally at one power setting, while using the battery and electric motor to handle the varying loads of takeoff, climb, and cruise? Putting it another way, if you know an average flight requires 50kw but takeoff needs 100kw you could use a 65kw generator. I’m just brainstorming, feel free to tell me it never works out.

[@jamesdeath3477]

Would it be fair to say that you have a bit of a thing for amphibian aircraft...? This is certainly an unusual design, but a very attractive one.

[@ElectricAviation]

That I do.

[@johndemeritt3460]

@@ElectricAviation, given that, I wonder how the recommendation to tilt the forward fuselage downward to improve aerodynamic performance would affect amphibious performance?

[@allmivoyses]

@@johndemeritt3460 40 years ago I studied Aeronautical engineering. By tilting the forward fuselage downward you would definitely affect amphibious operations, landing/take-off. Imagine if you hit a wave or your approach angle was too steep, the front of the aircraft would tend to dive under the water. Not cool.

[@markusbechtel8200]

2:28 Unfortunately, the intrument panels are far too small for a professional dual-glass cockpit.

[@ElectricAviation]

Plus the flight stick on one side of the cockpit have also got people divided

[@markusbechtel8200]

@@ElectricAviation Right. A single flight stick in the middle would be a better solution.

[@Rudy32225]

@@ElectricAviation Although basically left handed, I first soloed in a glider some 50 years ago using my right hand on a central stick. Decided to go with the flow and used my right hand for the computer mouse. I think the offset stick is more ergonomic; since its a wired control, make it a left or right based option.

[@frederikkruger]

I will buy it 👍🏻

[@briannugent5518]

As always another excellent video. Out of curiosity I figure the 45Kg Wankel genset works out at 25.3% eff when generating 57kW from 22L -> 2.59kWh/L -> 9.33MJ /L where diesel contains 36.9MJ/L. Certainly better than my e-bike's 800W range extender gas genset's puny 10.5% at ~1kWh/L.

[@ElectricAviation]

Great point!

[@joseparedesalbuja8293]

It's very heavy but the weight can be reduced with structural redesign. The wankel and electric motors are lighter than a conti 0-200. Batteries need to be 10c or more and LiPo instead Li-Ion

[@dejayrezme8617]

I would love something like this with solar cells on the wings. You could fly somewhere, land and recharge in 1-2 days. Also I wish this would only have 120kg empty weight for europe wide licensing. And that you could build it yourself in a garage. And I'd wish you'd be allowed to land seaplanes in my country outside of very few specific zones haha. If wishes were horses haha

[@drrohitchaudhary7537]

You can carry rollable solar panels and lay them out on water to charge. Wouldn't that be a good idea

[@dejayrezme8617]

@@drrohitchaudhary7537 Yeah that works too or in addition to solar wings. But I recently learned that you can just buy bendable super thin 24% efficient solar cell wavers (maxeon sunpower) and solder and laminate them yourself. So it's not that difficult to do even DIY. There is also the sunseeker duo who uses these.

[@thomasputko1080]

There is this polish company Saule Technologies in Wroclaw whcih is first to manufacture perovskite solar cells. They are printed somehow on flexible plastic and very very thin. I believe it would be possible to cover entire plane with them, well at least the top and sides. They are 30% effective and looking at the plane size im pretty sure it would be possible to get at least 500W out of them.

[@dejayrezme8617]

@@thomasputko1080 I think 30% is for dual something solar cells, that would be revolutionary. But perovskite cells are definitely really interesting! With 10m² you could get a maximum of 2400 watt in ideal circumstances with current 24% efficient maxeon solar cells. I imagine you could recharge from solar cells. You'd fly a few hundred kilometers on a sunny day solar assisted, land on a lake or river and recharge for a day or so.

[@thomasputko1080]

@@dejayrezme8617 does actually anyone know what is surface area of this plane?

[@andrewsices]

The P2 Xcursion is a lovely design. The narration is very informative, but a bit too heavy on aerodynamic engineering speak for my ignorant ears. I did manage to follow the well diagramed modifications near the end, and found the nose down concept aesthetically pleasing.

[@ElectricAviation]

It also gives better visibility during landing

[@wbr7869]

One question, why must you have the dash between the pilots legs?!?! Looks like a pain to get in and out of plus it takes all of the leg room! From what I’ve seen it could go in the center of the plane!!!

[@Mr.T-SI]

I can only imagine low-set wings are extremely limiting to operation on water in any conditions other than seastate 0-1

[@buddywhatshisname522]

I wonder how much they’ll be selling these for…

[@mahanehsani1246]

thankyou!

[@omnagar8225]

I love you sir

[@superduper1917]

Thank you for focusing on electric aircraft. The green new deal will kill general aviation if we don’t start selling electric conversion kits for legacy aircraft ;-) That’s the challange. Who will rise to meet it? Keep the Faith.

[@3nityC]

This is hybrid not full electric ?

[@ElectricAviation]

The prototype is full electric. but the plan is to make it hybrid

[@maximilianholland]

With battery technology right now, having modest kwh capacity plus range extender is a very good strategy to enable more use cases. In time the battery can grow and rex can shrink.

[@justbrowsing69]

@Electric Aviation thank you for continued great and informative content in an otherwise ocean of me-to-garbage and click bait.

[@ElectricAviation]

Thank you for your appreciation

[@mikem6549]

Can't imagine it getting off the water if the nose drops any more.

[@ElectricAviation]

May be shark fin like hyrdofoils such as in LISA Akoya could be an answer

[@RobertMayfair]

Seems like it would be better as a purely ICE aircraft

[@atlet1]

Vindex 1200 have the propeller and engine in the same position, but is sadly enough not produced anymore. I think it's because the tragic death of the CEO.

[@ElectricAviation]

Thanks for that info

[@Jkauppa]

quad vtol tesla pump turbine hypersonic harrier variable multiple output jet

[@mauricioserafim5962]

Eu queria ajuda e Vcs you mim ajuda faze Carro voado🚘🚔🚖 Android drone

[@sblack48]

“tadpole” fuselage is “more aerodynamic” than what? Says who? A “frustrum” fuselage? So the drag of a pitts and a c172 fuse is the same??? There are a lot of gross generalizations here. A tadpole fuselage could have way more drag if the detailed design is not right and the contraction causes flow separation. I see very little in the way if intersection fairings between the wing and fuselage. It’s hard to imagine that none are required. There is not going to be much laminar flow on the forward fuselage if you have the canopy opening there. And step or gap will kill laminar flow. It is a great buzzword that airplane people love to throw around but it is very hard to achieve in real life. Back in the 80s the Airshark homebuilt also had a low wing configuration. During takeoff the inboard wing was immersed in spray, resulting in very poor water performance. I saw it try to takeoff for 2 miles off lake Winnipeg during Oshkosh. Eventually the fuselage took such a pounding that a baggage door came off and went into the prop. Wings make crappy sponsons. It’s been done and it doesn’t work. I think this us another pipe dream that will end up on the scrap heap of aviation history.

[@rexmann1984]

You expect enough lift for batteries without a flying wing? Lol good luck. 😂

[@Mike-t2d8x]

Want to sell them? Make toys for kids , makes them popular , make Rc models , millions of them . Makes your market .n

[@tonyfrench2574]

This is a boutique nonsense design for yuppie bluffers. A two seat seaplane should have a high rarrow tandem fuselage for acceleration to takeoff speed through water Power should be Aeromarine 65 hp 4 stroke hybrid giving 120hp boost for takeoff. Wing should be STOL with retractable leading and trailing slats. Plane should be amphibian with light , hand operated, retractable tundra tyres that retract into the fuselage. As a STOL plane it should take off in 40m from land or water. STOL wings would cause drag if they were too thick and the slats/flaps are not retractable. I do believe this is very possible in aluminium sheet with a little imagination.

[@VladoPekarShark]

Once I have got question of drunk mate - if it si possible to have sex in our aircraft. Answer was - definitely not (We have tandem seater). Response was : So it is absolutely useless. Ok, my lesson was - you can never satisfy everybody. When I have seen protoype of this aircraft in Friderichshafen - immediately I have got this story in head - with answer - yes, in this aircraft you can have. But it is the only advantage comparing to others. All next is “absolutely useless”. That year it won my “the worst project seen on Aero” ranking. No question that this young boys did a lot of work. My respect. Problem is that it was totally wrong direction. They never asked competent guys, who woud say them - don ´t do this, it is not good idea. Or if they have got it, they are more clever than this old guy from stone age.

[@volvo245]

FBW in some shed produced toy... Yeah no thanks.