If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
Recently, Larry Dighera posted:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:51:27 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote in : Recently, Larry Dighera posted: [...] I'm thinking there would be necessity for some means of conducting the heat from the engine to a remote heat exchanger, and the resulting complexity and weight increase would negatively impact the potential advantages of a Stirling aviation engine. In any event, in addition to the Stirling engine and its fuel, a heat exchanger of some type needs to factored into the weight, cost, performance, and efficiency equations. Of course, but I don't see a lot of reason why that couldn't be incorporated into the overall design. My point is that heat exchangers need not be heavy, and could probably double as structural and/or aerodynamic components, further reducing (and possibly enhancing) their impact. How would you get the heat from the Stirling engine to the heat sink? If you use liquid coolant, it would be heavy and prone to leaks. I'm not a Stirling engine designer, so I can't answer that factually. I have been reading up on it a bit since the article was referenced in this thread, but I haven't seen such things as the required rate of dissipation for the engine to work efficiently. If the heat sink needs to be large and close to the engine, perhaps a design where the engine is mounted on or even incorporated into the wing is a way to go. There might be one advantage to using Sterling external combustion engines for aviation: the use of atomic energy as a fuel source if the weight of the lead shielding were not too great. Imagine an aircraft that effectively never runs out of fuel! There'd be no more fuel exhaustion mishaps. One downside would be the hazardous materials that could be dispersed in a crash. There are a lot of down sides to atomic power, but NASA uses it to power Stirling engines in space. Understandable, but their expectation is that catastrophic destruction would disperse the nuclear material harmlessly. That can't be presumed for light aircraft. If the rocket detonated in the atmosphere, it might not be so harmless. I don't see why it would be nearly as bad as a "dirty bomb" would be, as the material would be dispersed over a pretty large area. I would guess the reactor is jacketed with sufficient strength to preclude its destruction. My guess is that NASA et al are just hoping for good fortune. Having a reactor land from orbit intact in the middle of a city wouldn't be all that desirable. ;-) So, my bet is on there being no good plan for dealing with such a catastrophe *other* than wide dispersal of the nuclear material or the luck of landing in the ocean. Not that *that* outcome is desirable either... Neil |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... I would think that would be close to the bare minimum. I flew a fixed wing hang glider on 10 HP for a while back in the 70s. A Manta Fledgling, and it was very underpowered. Maybe 100 fpm climb or so. I would guess the rigid wing would have a higher L/D than a powered parachute's 4:1, so it might require less power. Does that sound correct in your experience? Indeed, quite a bit less from my experience. I think my Fledge was supposed to be around 10:1. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:58:07 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote: If a 14 HP electric propulsion system weighing 46 lbs could be constructed, apparently it would permit the use of PPGs by pilots up to 180 lbs. A PPG is a LOT more efficient than a powered parachute (PPC), but still far less efficient than a rigid wing. Still, several electric PPG's have been flown. The primary goal here is noise and vibration reduction, a worthy goal when the engine is strapped to the pilot's back. The major problem is the weight of the batteries, still far heavier than gasoline. Also the lithium polymer batteries used are still quite expensive (over $10,000 for enough for a half hour flight) and somewhat dangerous (sort them out and they can explode!) -Dana -- -- If replying by email, please make the obvious changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of elected federal officials is limited to congress, the president and the vice president. That's only 537 people. The federal bureaucracy numbers in the millions..... |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
"Dana wrote The major problem is the weight of the batteries, still far heavier than gasoline. Also the lithium polymer batteries used are still quite expensive (over $10,000 for enough for a half hour flight) and somewhat dangerous (sort them out and they can explode!) Damn straight! No way am I going to strap a bunch of lithium polymer batteries to my butt. Some of the newer Lithium iron cells, maybe, but they also cost a LOT more. Still, electric flight, like many have said, still have a way to go. -- Jim in NC |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
Morgans wrote:
"Dana wrote The major problem is the weight of the batteries, still far heavier than gasoline. Also the lithium polymer batteries used are still quite expensive (over $10,000 for enough for a half hour flight) and somewhat dangerous (sort them out and they can explode!) Damn straight! No way am I going to strap a bunch of lithium polymer batteries to my butt. Some of the newer Lithium iron cells, maybe, but they also cost a LOT more. Still, electric flight, like many have said, still have a way to go. And as if we need more proof of this. TOKYO: Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. will delay by one or two years the rollout of new high-mileage hybrids with lithium-ion batteries because of safety concerns, reported a newspaper. Toyota's decision was prompted by worries that the batteries could overheat, catch fire or even explode, the Wall Street Journal on Thursday reported in its online edition, quoting unnamed Toyota executives. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:13:55 -0400, Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in : On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:58:07 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote: If a 14 HP electric propulsion system weighing 46 lbs could be constructed, apparently it would permit the use of PPGs by pilots up to 180 lbs. A PPG is a LOT more efficient than a powered parachute (PPC), but still far less efficient than a rigid wing. Still, several electric PPG's have been flown. The primary goal here is noise and vibration reduction, a worthy goal when the engine is strapped to the pilot's back. The major problem is the weight of the batteries, still far heavier than gasoline. Also the lithium polymer batteries used are still quite expensive (over $10,000 for enough for a half hour flight) and somewhat dangerous (sort them out and they can explode!) -Dana That's interesting information. Thank you. It sounds like you have quite a bit of experience in this area. Are you able to provide links to any forums or web sites related to this topic? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
Are
you able to provide links to any forums or web sites related to this Check this out: http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html David Johnson |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
On Aug 10, 5:12 pm, Dave wrote:
Are you able to provide links to any forums or web sites related to this Check this out:http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html David Johnson Lithium Polymer batteries are widely used in RC planes, cars, etc and are known to be potentially dangerous. Most runaway fires occur during charging but it has also occurred to a lessor degree during discharge and even storage. Vented charging safety bags are recommended for this reason. There is a video on this link that shows the explosive power of small LiPo's. Consider the size differance of these batteries to the one hung under the trike in one of the first posts or those that could be installed in the wings of a sailplane. http://www.liposack.com/video.html |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft
The thing that strikes me most in this thread is that so many people
just don't seem to understand... 1) weight 2) power 3) scale |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Solar powered aircraft. Was: Can Aircraft Be Far Behind? | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 4 | February 9th 07 01:11 PM |
World's First Certified Electrically Propelled Aircraft? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | September 22nd 06 01:50 AM |
Powered gliders = powered aircraft for 91.205 | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 2 | December 12th 04 03:28 AM |
Is JB Weld electrically conductive? | Scott | Home Built | 14 | July 12th 04 11:24 PM |
Help! 2motors propelled ultralight aircraft | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | July 9th 03 01:02 AM |