On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:35:02 GMT, wrote:

Frank Olson wrote:
wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:52:16 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
my tailwind requires 74hp to cruise at 120 knots.
it takes me two days to fly across australia.
Of course, the typical light airplane flight probably does not even involve
X-country flight. A 2-hour electric airplane would be just fine for the typical
1 to 1.5 hour training mission. Of course, that same plane would need to be
ready to fly the next training student/renter within 20 or 30 minutes. Given
what we know about today's battery technology, time required for recharging may
be a big problem.

chomp

Then there's
the savings on maintenance... The prop is a composite material with no
time life.

Irrelevant.

Composite props already exist and are already used on conventional
gas engines.

sorry that factor is relevant for a different reason. combustion
engines produce power in pulses that flog the daylights out of a prop.
an electric motor produces a more continuous supply of force to the
prop. so on that basis the prop would have an easier time of it.
so probably will the airframe.

The "engine" (electric motor) doesn't have a TBO rating.

Nonsense, an electric motor has a life limit. It may turn out to be
longer than a gas engine, but that is unknown at this time.

When you factor all the costs of operating a typical two place single
(like a Cessna 152), a $5000.00 battery pack is "peanuts".

Do you pay no attention to what you write?

You were talking about FBO's and having swap out battery packs to keep
the airplanes in the air.

So it isn't A $5000 battery pack, it is 3 or 4 $5000 battery packs.

What's more,
if you put more time on the machine and use a trickle charger which
won't stress the battery, your operating cost will only increase by the
number of charges (@ $.60 per)...

And using a trickle charger means you need even more battery packs at
$5000 per copy to keep the airplanes flying.

So let's say you "double" the number
of hours in the air... The "fuel" cost factored over 200 hours now
drops to $5.30 an hour. Yikes!!! :-)

Yikes!!! indeed.

this argument is like the one for valve sound systems vs digital
systems. eventually digital won hands down after a few years of
developing it.

this is the start of a technology. if these guys can develop a weight
competitive system that delivers just 100hp continuously for days at a
time then they will have a huge market.
potentially the entire world's private aviation market.
of course they'll probably ignore that and just go for the commercial
market.

Stealth Pilot