Personal electric flying machines are becoming dangerously affordable
There was a time when having your own plane was a pretty clear indicator that you were part of that upper crust of society. If it was a pricey and rare electric plane, then all the more. But those days are numbered as the influx of compact and powerful electric powertrain components collides with good old American entrepreneurism to create a number of interesting new electric flying machines that now make it cheaper to fly yourself than drive.
To manage expectations, let’s start by saying we’re talking here about a category of aviation known as “ultralights.” These are tiny, single-occupant aircraft that don’t require airworthiness certificates or pilot’s licenses to operate.
There are still a few rules, namely a total weight under 254 lb (115 kg) and a maximum speed of 55 knots (63 mph or 102 km/h). They also can only be operated in daylight or twilight, and are prohibited from flying over any “congested area of a city.” But other than those and a few other smaller rules, they’re largely a wild-west of minimally-regulated flying machines that allow just about anyone with a credit card and working appendages to achieve their dream of powered flight.
For a long time, the motor of choice for ultralights was either a two-stroke or four-stroke gasoline engine. They were readily available and had the power-to-weight ratio necessary to make an ultralight aircraft work (and fit under the 254-lb limit). But as electric motors have become more power dense and lithium-ion batteries have become more energy dense, electric powertrains are becoming increasingly popular for ultralights.
Electric drivetrains offer ultralight pilots whisper-quiet operation, instant torque, and minimal maintenance. They’re ideal for short, recreational flights where simplicity and low operating costs matter more than range. I.e., they’re perfect for ultralights.
And now that the components used in such drivetrains are more affordable than ever, it’s suddenly becoming cheaper to buy a fully-electric aircraft than buy a used combustion engine car.
Don’t believe it? Check these bad boys out.
First up is an honest-to-goodness electric airplane. With a wingspan of nearly 27 feet (8.2 meters), the Aerolite EV-103 is described as “perhaps the first viable all-electric fixed wing ultralight aircraft.”
It’s built using the tried-and-true Aerolite airframe that has served as the foundation for countless gasoline engine-powered ultralight aircraft over the years. But the EV-103 makes a few small modifications to the airframe to allow the mounting of a 22 kW peak-rated electric motor in place of the gasoline engine.
Balls to the wall, a top speed of 55 knots (63 mph or 102 km/h) is claimed by the spec sheet, which just so happens to perfectly align with the maximum allowable top speed for ultralight aircraft. However, pilots who have operated the EV-103 have reported that the true top speed is even higher, though it tends to eat through battery life quickly when operated at its highest speeds.
If you thought range anxiety was a thing for electric vehicles on the road, wait until you’re up at 1,000 feet. Fortunately though, you’ve got options.
The electric drivetrain on the Aerolite EV-103 comes with different battery setups that affect the flight time. A minimum of two batteries are required to power the plane, offering 5.2 kWh of capacity and a somewhat underwhelming flight time of 20 minutes. Three or four batteries can be mounted though, upping the flight time to 30 or 40 minutes, respectively, when cruising at around 30-35 knots (40-45 mph or 65-72 km/h). Each of the 2.6 kWh batteries weighs 36 lb (16 kg) and can be removed for charging individually with a simple 120V wall charger, or can be charged all together at once when left on the plane.
The complete Aerolite 103 Quick Build Airframe Kit is available (with some assembly required) for US $17,950. Owners choose their own propulsion system, and the company’s Electric Propulsion System starts at $10,376 for the two-battery package. The three-battery and four-battery setups are priced at $13,739 and $17,102.
For those that don’t want to assemble the airframe, there are ready-to-fly versions available too. The electric EV-103 is priced at between $32,326 to $39,052, depending on the number of batteries.
It’s not exactly lunch money, but it also beats a $300,000 Pipistrel Velis Electro or a $100,000 Jetson ONE eVTOL.
If $30k is still a bit rich for your blood, you’re in luck. If you don’t require fixed wings to feel like a true aircraft, then electric paramotors might be for you.
For just US $6,759, an SP140 electric paramotor can have you flying far above the treetops with a similarly-sized 21 kW electric motor. While it can’t match the speed of fixed-wing electric ultralight aircraft (paramotors are limited by their paraglider wing, which typically can only reach speeds of around 30 knots (35 mph or 56 km/h), the SP140 electric paramotor offers much longer flight times.
The brainchild of Paul Vavra, the SP140 Electric was designed to be an affordable, open-source electric paramotor that would give operators long flight times combined with all the other advantages of electric operation. Paul has refined the design over many years, making it safer and more effective with each new version.
The base 2.6 kWh battery can provide between 20-40 minutes of flight time, while the larger 4.8 kWh battery option can hang around for up to 80 minutes of flight. Even more batteries can be added as well, though by the time you get to 2 hours of flight, the extra weight makes the system less comfortable for foot launching and thus a trike setup becomes more comfortable.
Beyond flight time per battery charge, electric paramotors offer several advantages over electric fixed-wing ultralight aircraft, especially in terms of simplicity, portability, and accessibility. They require far less infrastructure (no runway or hangar needed) and can be transported in the trunk of a car and launched from an open field. Their low cost, ease of use, and slow flying speeds make them ideal for casual pilots, aerial photography, and exploration. And with fewer mechanical systems, paramotors are also generally easier to maintain.
Plus, when compared to gasoline-powered paramotors, electric power obviously offers huge advantages of quieter operation (and silence when the throttle is released), reduced vibrations, and much cheaper operation costs. Gasoline-powered paramotors often cost between US $7.50 to $12.00 per hour of flight, whereas the SP140 costs just $0.60 per hour.
The entire system weighs between 54-79 lb (25-35 kg) depending on the battery option, and packs down to fit in the trunk of a car. In less than five minutes, it can be out of a trunk and fully-assembled (tool-free!), ready to fly. At less than the weight of many electric bicycles (and easier to transport in a trunk, too), I’d argue that the SP140 electric paramotor qualifies as a micromobility vehicle.
Electrek’s Take
Electric aircraft are becoming increasingly common, and it’s no longer rare to see new models capturing headlines. But while fancy multirotor designs that look like scaled up toy drones get most of the press, perhaps these less sexy but significantly more affordable (and actually commercially available) models might be a better real-world solution.
Let’s put the safety issue aside for a moment. I’m going to assume we all recognize that assembling and then taking to the skies in your own largely unregulated flying machine is fraught with risk. But that it’s also your right as an American to dadgum go out there and do it. So let’s just talk about the efficacy first.
Merely looking at the practicality of these things, I can see the argument for them. And it’s not just for recreation, which is of course the primary purpose of ultralights. There are plenty of cases where flying somewhere would just be a more convenient way to get there. Consider rural areas where taking the local state roads or highways could require traveling dozens of miles by car, even if the same distance could be covered in just a few miles as the crow flies. Or as the dude with $7,000 and a healthy appreciation for physics flies.
These could basically be the perfect rural shortcut. You could literally run to the store by ultralight, and it may be quicker and cheaper.
Farm or ranch surveillance would also be a great option. “Out riding fences” isn’t just a line, it’s a real thing that landowners have to do as they inspect miles of fencing for damage, among plenty of other tasks that require monitoring on sprawling personal acreage. Being able to do many of those tasks more quickly from the air could be a major force multiplier.
And while this likely won’t affect the majority of us, anyone who lives in an island chain or even along a coastline might find that an ultralight aircraft is a great way to move between islands or reach destinations along the coast in a faster and more convenient way – not to mention much more scenic.
So sure, personal air travel is still a bit of a niche form of transportation for the average person, but it’s not without its advantages.
And now, as I promised, let’s discuss safety. Yes, these can be dangerous. Just like I know that when I get on my motorcycles, I’m assuming a higher risk than when I get in a car, I imagine the same thought process is necessary for an ultralight aircraft. I’m not telling anyone to go out and become your own pilot. But I AM saying that it’s pretty darn cool that now you can be, that it can be affordable, and that you can finally do it all-electric.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk isn’t happy about Trump passing the Big Beautiful Bill and killing off the $7,500 EV tax credit – but there’s a lot more bad news for Tesla baked into the BBB. We’ve got all that and more on today’s budget-busting episode of Quick Charge!
We also present ongoing coverage of the 2025 Electrek Formula Sun Grand Prix and dive into some two wheeled reports on the new electric Honda Ruckus e:Zoomer, the latest BMW electric two-wheeler, and more!
Source Links
Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
FERC: Solar + wind made up 96% of new US power generating capacity in first third of 2025
Solar and wind accounted for almost 96% of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first third of 2025. In April, solar provided 87% of new capacity, making it the 20th consecutive month solar has taken the lead, according to data belatedly posted on July 1 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign.
Solar’s new generating capacity in April 2025 and YTD
In its latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through April 30, 2025), FERC says 50 “units” of solar totaling 2,284 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in April, accounting for 86.7% of all new generating capacity added during the month.
In addition, the 9,451 MW of solar added during the first four months of 2025 was 77.7% of the new generation placed into service.
Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 20 consecutive months, from September 2023 to April 2025.
Solar + wind were >95% of new capacity in 1st third of 2025
Between January and April 2025, new wind provided 2,183 MW of capacity additions, accounting for 18.0% of new additions in the first third.
In the same period, the combination of solar and wind was 95.7% of new capacity while natural gas (511 MW) provided just 4.2%; the remaining 0.1% came from oil (11 MW).
Solar + wind are >22% of US utility-scale generating capacity
The installed capacities of solar (11.0%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the US total. Together, they make up almost one-fourth (22.8%) of the US’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
Moreover, at least 25-30% of US solar capacity is in small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC’s data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the US total.
With the inclusion of hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%), and geothermal (0.3%), renewables currently claim a 31.8% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now about one-third of total US generating capacity.
Solar is on track to become No. 2 source of US generating capacity
FERC reports that net “high probability” additions of solar between May 2025 and April 2028 total 90,158 MW – an amount almost four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (22,793 MW), the second-fastest growing resource. Notably, both three-year projections are higher than those provided just a month earlier.
FERC also foresees net growth for hydropower (596 MW) and geothermal (92 MW) but a decrease of 123 MW in biomass capacity.
Taken together, the net new “high probability” capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years – i.e., the bulk of the Trump administration’s remaining time in office – would total 113,516 MW.
FERC doesn’t include any nuclear capacity in its three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,373 MW and 1,915 MW, respectively. Natural gas capacity would expand by 5,730 MW.
Thus, adjusting for the different capacity factors of gas (59.7%), wind (34.3%), and utility-scale solar (23.4%), electricity generated by the projected new solar capacity to be added in the coming three years should be at least six times greater than that produced by the new natural gas capacity, while the electrical output by new wind capacity would be more than double that by gas.
If FERC’s current “high probability” additions materialize, by May 1, 2028, solar will account for one-sixth (16.6%) of US installed utility-scale generating capacity. Wind would provide an additional one-eighth (12.6%) of the total. That would make each greater than coal (12.2%) and substantially more than nuclear power or hydropower (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively).
In fact, assuming current growth rates continue, the installed capacity of utility-scale solar is likely to surpass that of either coal or wind within two years, placing solar in second place for installed generating capacity, behind only natural gas.
Renewables + small-scale solar may overtake natural gas within 3 years
The mix of all utility-scale (ie, >1 MW) renewables is now adding about two percentage points each year to its share of generating capacity. At that pace, by May 1, 2028, renewables would account for 37.7% of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity – rapidly approaching that of natural gas (40.1%). Solar and wind would constitute more than three-quarters of installed renewable energy capacity. If those trend lines continue, utility-scale renewable energy capacity should surpass that of natural gas in 2029 or sooner.
However, as noted, FERC’s data do not account for the capacity of small-scale solar systems. If that’s factored in, within three years, total US solar capacity could exceed 300 GW. In turn, the mix of all renewables would then be about 40% of total installed capacity while the share of natural gas would drop to about 38%.
Moreover, FERC reports that there may actually be as much as 224,426 MW of net new solar additions in the current three-year pipeline in addition to 69,530 MW of new wind, 9,072 MW of new hydropower, 202 MW of new geothermal, and 39 MW of new biomass. By contrast, net new natural gas capacity potentially in the three-year pipeline totals just 26,818 MW. Consequently, renewables’ share could be even greater by mid-spring 2028.
“The Trump Administration’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ … poses a clear threat to solar and wind in the years to come,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong. “Nonetheless, FERC’s latest data and forecasts suggest cleaner and lower-cost renewable energy sources may still dominate and surpass nuclear power, coal, and natural gas.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has been forced to reimburse a customer’s Full Self-Driving package after an arbitrator determined that the automaker failed to deliver it.
Tesla has been promising its car owners that every vehicle it has built since 2016 has all the hardware capable of unsupervised self-driving.
The automaker has been selling a “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package that is supposed to deliver this unsupervised self-driving capability through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, Tesla has yet to deliver on its promise, and its claim that the cars’ hardware is capable of self-driving has been proven wrong. Tesla had to update all cars with HW2 and 2.5 computers to HW3 computers.
In January 2025, CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that HW3 also won’t be able to support self-driving and said that Tesla will have to upgrade the computers. 6 months later, Tesla has yet to communicate a plan for retrofits to owners.
Tesla is now attempting to deliver its promise of unsupervised self-driving on HW4 cars, which have been in production since 2023-2024, depending on the model. However, there are still significant doubts about this being possible, as the best available data indicate that Tesla only achieves about 500 miles between critical disengagements with the latest software on the hardware.
The situation is creating a significant liability for Tesla, which already needs to replace computers in millions of vehicles, and it may need to do so in millions more.
On the other hand, many customers are losing faith in Tesla’s ability to deliver on its promise and manage this computer retrofit situation. Some of them have been seeking to be reimbursed for their purchase of the Full Self-Driving package, which Tesla sold from $8,000 to $15,000.
A Tesla owner in Washington managed to get the automaker to reimburse the FSD package, but it wasn’t easy.
The 2021 Model Y was Marc Dobin and his wife’s third Tesla. Due to his wife’s declining mobility, Dobin was intrigued about the FSD package as a potential way to give her more independence. He wrote in a blog post:
But FSD was more than hype for us. The promise of a car that could drive my wife around gave us hope that she’d maintain independence as her motor skills declined. We paid an extra $10,000 for FSD.
Tesla’s FSD quickly disillusioned Dobin. First, he couldn’t even enable it due to Tesla restricting the Beta access through a “safety score” system, something he pointed out was never mentioned in the contract.
Furthermore, the feature required the supervision of a driver at all times, which was not what Tesla sold to customers.
Tesla doesn’t make it easy for customers in the US to seek a refund or to sue Tesla as it forces buyers to go through arbitration through its sales contract.
That didn’t deter Dobin, who happens to be a lawyer with years of experience in arbitration. It took almost a year, but Tesla and Dobin eventually found themselves in arbitration, and it didn’t go well for the automaker:
Almost a year after filing, the evidentiary hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla produced one witness: a Field Technical Specialist who admitted he hadn’t checked what equipment shipped with our car, hadn’t reviewed our driving logs, and didn’t know details about the FSD system installed on our car, if any. He hadn’t spoken to any sales rep we dealt with or reviewed the contract’s integration clause.
There were both a Tesla lawyer and an outside counsel representing Tesla at the hearing, but the witness was not equipped to answer questions.
Dobin wrote:
He was a service technician, not a lawyer or salesperson. But that’s who Tesla brought to the hearing. At the end, I genuinely felt bad for him because Tesla set him up to be a human punching bag—someone unprepared to answer key questions, forced to defend a system he clearly didn’t understand. While I was examining him, a Tesla in-house lawyer sat silently, while the company’s outside counsel tried to soften the blows of the witness’ testimony.
He focused on Tesla’s lack of disclosure regarding the safety score and the fact that the system does not meet the promises made to customers.
The arbitrator sided with Dobin and wrote:
The evidence is persuasive that the feature was not functional, operational, or otherwise available.”
Tesla was forced to reimburse the FSD package $10,000 plus taxes, and pay for the almost $8,000 in arbitration fees.
Since Tesla forces arbitration through its contracts, it is required to cover the cost.
Electrek’s Take
This is interesting. Tesla assigned two lawyers to this case in an attempt to avoid reimbursing $10,000, knowing it would have to cover the expensive arbitration fees – most likely losing tens of thousands of dollars in the process.
It makes no sense to me. Tesla should have a standing offer to reimburse FSD for anyone who requests it until it can actually deliver on its promise of unsupervised self-driving.
That’s the right thing to do, and the fact that Tesla would waste money trying to fight customers requesting a refund is really telling.
Tesla is simply not ready to do the right thing here, and it doesn’t bode well for the computer retrofits and all the other liabilities around Tesla FSD.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike