You also get more options for blade types. Like ducted fans.
In short, your plane doesn't have to be designed around a fat gasoline engine and tanks. There's still constraints, but you get much more creative freedom.
I expect when we see planes designed around the motor/batteries we'll see aerodynamics get electric planes into GA territory.
EDIT: aerodynamic efficiencies. [1] Yes there's that tractor/pusher Cessna, no one liked it.
You can package things however you want, even in weird shapes. Not "has to allow liquid to flow downhill, even in rate 2 turn". I'll bet there's still wins to be found even with putting batteries in wings.
This is true for Bye's eflyers, the Eviation Alice, the Pipistrel models, etc. These have modest but usable ranges (currently advertised) and are far enough in the development process that they might hit the market in some modest numbers in the next few years. But that's with battery technology of basically a few years ago. There's obvious room for improvement by simply updating the battery technology. 2-3x over the next decade is not an unreasonable expectation; the biggest hurdle is certification.
The real thing to look for with electrical planes is range & operational cost. Yes it's annoying to not be able to fly 5 ours straight. But 2 hours is still pretty good. This would require doubling the power/kg for this plane, which sounds like it should be feasible; if not now than maybe in a few years. Also, turning a 100$ hamburger into a 5$ latte flight is going to be quite literally be the difference between being able afford to fly or not at all for a lot of people. GA flight is a really expensive hobby currently.
I think what will happen is the experimental market exploding pretty soon. There's a critical mass of technology coming on the market and it's going to be very tempting for people to start building kit planes they can actually afford to fly. There are some fine examples of some daredevils on youtube flying some DYI contraptions already.
http://thundergull.com/specifications.htm
It's got 95sqft of wing and a top speed of 63mph. Drag is usually with velocity squared so going 1/2 as fast might only require 1/4 as much power.
They state in the article that it takes 10kw to fly level. With 100sqft and an average 10W/sqft you're at 1kw. But cut the speed down to 30mph (2500W) and double the wing area (2000W) and you're very nearly at breakeven. The 11kw battery might then last you 10+ hours after accounting for the power required to climb out.
Yes it'll end up being much more of a power glider than a "proper" airplane but that might be a lot of fun.
Or ~40MPH (2/3 the speed) and double the wing size.
Turns out that this is a thing: https://www.solar-flight.com/
Yes, changing types will require some training, but it's a big savings if you can get your PPL in a plane with an operating cost of $1/hour. If you look at vendors that are selling production electric aircraft, they claim 70% savings on training operations. That's a big deal. (Link: https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/...)
Of course nobody's going to be commuting in a sailplane, but they're awesome for pure fun and learning piloting skills.
Also, one specificity of ultralight flying, or at least the way I was taught, is to not trust the engine, no matter how reliable it is supposed to be. One aspect is to make the final approach unpowered. Of course, the engine is still running, but ideally, you should pull the throttle all the way back and leave it here, as if the engine had failed. This is in contrast to the 3° slope commonly taught in general aviation.
Of course, a pilot who only flew on an electric plane needs some time with a flight instructor in order to learn the quirks of gas engines, but that should be quick compared to the time it takes to actually learn how to fly.
Learning to fly at its most basic is much more than just stick-and-rudder skills. There is a lot of information to learn, procedures, airspace, radio work, etc.
It's best to learn how to fly in the simplest safe aircraft possible. Then when you have to learn to operated a very complicated machine you don't even have to think about the flying part.
Complex aircraft are also much more expensive per flight hour, so it makes sense to learn on the cheapest safe thing you can fly then let your employer foot the bill for the type rating.
They're optimized for energy efficiency? Yes? What does this gotcha response even mean?
For plane designed from ground up as electric fact that jets land lighter than take off is not relevant.
It is only relevant if you want to retrofit electric engine on jet engine optimized chassis - which is not only possible way.
Bit more info on how thought process goes: https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-...
These are constraints that can be designed around, and you have more freedom to do so when designing from scratch, but doing so is not a optimization, it is a straightforward trade-off between weight and duration. There's no optimal hump on that line.
Hydrogen has a specific energy of 120 MJ/kg, while Kerosine has 46 MJ/kg. According to the abstract of the paper being discussed here, the new material has a deliverable capacity of 14% by weight, corresponding to about 17 MJ/kg - only a bit better than 1/3 that of kerosine, but considerably better than lithium ion batteries, which apparently achieve less than 1 MJ/kg, while the best-performing lithium-sulfur batteries are at about 1.8 MJ/kg.
In addition, we must deal with this material only losing 14% of its weight as its hydrogen is used up, while kerosine loses all of its weight - a combustion-powered airplane becomes more efficient as its fuel is consumed.
Furthermore, to get that 14% deliverable capacity, you have to start with it at 100 bar, so the tank containing it will have a substantial weight.
So we have progress here, but not yet a substitute for liquid hydrocarbons.
Between the fuel and the cells, batteries are just so much easier to operate once they're out in the field, there's no comparison.
Also, Li-S still has too low of energy density for airplanes, and given the long recharge time problem batteries fundamentally are a no-go in aviation.
Recharging time isn't an issue, just have the batteries swappable.