How high can you fly?

wrote:
Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,) you are technically mistaken
in the above assertion because in fact electric airplanes (actually solar-
electric airplanes) hold some world records:

When the solar-electric "Pathfinder" reached 80,000 ft in 1999 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by prop-driven aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Helios" reached 96,863 ft in 2001 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by non-rocket powered aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Zepher" stayed aloft for for over 2 weeks in 2010,
it set the endurance record for unmanned aircraft.

The common element of these is "solar-electric". None of them would have
been possible with batteries. They could not have gotten off the ground had
they used batteries. None of them would have been plausibly accomplished
with internal (or external) combustion engines. The latter gasp for breath
at high altitudes.

So electric (specifically solar-electric) is indeed superior for certain
applications. Just not general aviation.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:31:59 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,)

If starry eyed means delusional fukknutzoind, yeah, you got it.
--

Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,) you are technically mistaken
in the above assertion because in fact electric airplanes (actually solar-
electric airplanes) hold some world records:

When the solar-electric "Pathfinder" reached 80,000 ft in 1999 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by prop-driven aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Helios" reached 96,863 ft in 2001 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by non-rocket powered aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Zepher" stayed aloft for for over 2 weeks in 2010,
it set the endurance record for unmanned aircraft.

The common element of these is "solar-electric". None of them would have
been possible with batteries. They could not have gotten off the ground had
they used batteries. None of them would have been plausibly accomplished
with internal (or external) combustion engines. The latter gasp for breath
at high altitudes.

So electric (specifically solar-electric) is indeed superior for certain
applications. Just not general aviation.

They hold records for R/C airplanes.

None of them had a human, or anything alive, on board.

One off research prototypes can be interesting, but that's about it.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:15:29 -0700 (PDT), george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

If you think you can make fun of me and get a Left seat
on the inaugural flight of my electric 747, you are
nutz.

Mark The Inventor

On Sep 20, 1:15*am, george wrote:
I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

That video doesn't show it in flight.
This video does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2IrN...eature=related

Cruises...90% efficient, 10% heat.
Max. Climb...80% efficient, 20% heat.

Heat is not a factor.

Replacing the internal combustion engine which
yielded...85% noise and heat, 15% efficiency.

Flys 1 1/2 Hours. And it's beautiful.

Where do we send the check??

---
Mark

george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane, yes.

There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
might be useful but they are terribly fragile.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane...

AIRPLANE:

engine-driven flying vehicle: a vehicle with wings and a jet engine or
propellers that is heavier than air and is able to fly
[ Late 19th century. French aéroplane aéro- ( Greek aēr "air") + -
plane ]

Any of various winged vehicles capable of flight, generally heavier
than air and driven by jet engines or propellers.

air·plane (er′pl�n′)

noun

a fixed-wing aircraft, heavier than air, that is kept aloft by the
aerodynamic forces of air as it is driven forward by a screw propeller
or by other means, as jet propulsion

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane...

AIRPLANE:

snip crap

I think everyone but you knows what I mean.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 20, 1:18*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:44*am, wrote:
george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane...

AIRPLANE:

snip factual definition of airplane

I think everyone but you knows what I mean.

--
Jim Pennino

An airplane is an airplane.

I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
wings ( which i've flown ) and many electric airplanes such
as a Sonex or the electraflyer to be nice weatherproof planes
far superior to gas powered ultralights.

You're entitled to your opinion. But it's only that.

---
Mark