Loading AAM intelligence…
eVTOL & AAM intelligence
See how operating assumptions change an illustrative capacity and range scenario over time.
Range scales linearly with capacity in this simplified scenario; real mission reserves, power limits and flight profiles are excluded.
| Year | Equivalent cycles | State of health | Illustrative range |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 100.0% | 100.0 km |
| 1 | 1314 | 87.5% | 87.5 km |
| 2 | 2628 | 76.1% | 76.1 km |
| 3 | 3942 | 65.0% | 65.0 km |
| 4 | 5256 | 54.0% | 54.0 km |
| 5 | 6570 | 43.0% | 43.0 km |
For time t in years, daily flights f, discharge fraction d and cell temperature T in °C:
EFC = 365 × t × f × d thermal factor = 2 ^ ((T − 25) / 10) calendar loss = a × √t × thermal factor cycle loss = b × EFC × thermal factor SoH (%) = max(0, 100 − calendar loss − cycle loss) illustrative range = reference range × SoH / 100
The default a = 2 percentage points per √year and b = 0.008 percentage points per equivalent full cycle are editable teaching assumptions chosen for sensitivity exploration. Doubling ageing per 10°C and linear range scaling are also assumptions. None are calibrated to a manufacturer’s aircraft or to the research below.
Published eVTOL cell-cycle research by Bills and colleagues (2023) motivates examining demanding duty cycles. It does not validate this simple scenario. The model omits resistance growth, charge rate, cell-to-pack effects, nonlinear ageing knees, temperature variation, maintenance and calendar state of charge. Lower temperature does not imply improved aircraft power or usable range. The 0% floor is a mathematical bound, not an airworthiness threshold.