Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft

On Aug 17, 2:19 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Phil" wrote

IF these can be made practical, they sound ideal for use in an
airplane. They are light, and they can be shaped in just about any
way to fit inside the airframe. Suppose they were integrated into the
airframe and wings such that a large percentage of the airplane
consisted of battery. It might be possible to get enough capacity
there for a practical general aviation electric plane.

I can see the headlines, now.

Plane (or car) crashes, and the car's structure electrocutes the occupants.
g
--
Jim in NC

I know you're only half serious, but yes, that would have to be
considered. That's a risk in hybrid autos as well. EMTs and
firefighters are taking special training to handle the wrecks of these
cars. And the gasoline we use for our current airplanes poses the
risk of incinerating the occupants in a crash. I am not sure that an
electric plane would actually pose more risk. I would think that the
increased reliability of the propulsion system would decrease the risk
overall. How many people are killed every year in crashes caused by
engine failures?

Dan Luke wrote:
"Charles Vincent" wrote:

Just because it is not noticeable, or measurable by the lack of sensitivity
with the instrument you are currently not using, does not mean that it does
not exist.

More weight on the bearings will cause more rolling resistance. That is
fact, not open to dispute. If you say it is, I want to buy the rights to
the bearings you are using, so I can patent them and make a fortune.
If a bird craps on your windshield, it is more likely to noticeably
influence your aerodynamic drag than rolling resistance.....I took Jim's
"can't be found" to mean lost in the noise. According to SAE studies,
aerodynamic drag accounts for 60% of the resistance that must be overcome
for highway cruise, with tires being 25% and driveline friction making up
the last 15%.

Pardon the intrusion on this interesting discussion, but just how *does* added
weight in a car impose extra load on the powerplant besides via bearing
friction and tire deformation?

Added weight means the powerplant is doing more work to maintain the same
speed; there's no way around it, the laws of physics demand it. So where's
the extra power going?


Heating the brakes. :-)

Matt

In rec.aviation.piloting Dan Luke wrote:

"Charles Vincent" wrote:

Just because it is not noticeable, or measurable by the lack of sensitivity
with the instrument you are currently not using, does not mean that it does
not exist.

More weight on the bearings will cause more rolling resistance. That is
fact, not open to dispute. If you say it is, I want to buy the rights to
the bearings you are using, so I can patent them and make a fortune.

If a bird craps on your windshield, it is more likely to noticeably
influence your aerodynamic drag than rolling resistance.....I took Jim's
"can't be found" to mean lost in the noise. According to SAE studies,
aerodynamic drag accounts for 60% of the resistance that must be overcome
for highway cruise, with tires being 25% and driveline friction making up
the last 15%.

Pardon the intrusion on this interesting discussion, but just how *does* added
weight in a car impose extra load on the powerplant besides via bearing
friction and tire deformation?

It takes more power to accelerate the car to cruise speed in a given time.

F=ma

Added weight means the powerplant is doing more work to maintain the same
speed; there's no way around it, the laws of physics demand it. So where's
the extra power going?

Ummm, no, quite the opposite.

The laws of physics say once an object is in motion it takes no energy
to maintain the velocity UNLESS there is some other force at work
that would cause the velocity to decrease.

Since at a constant speed, the a in F=ma is zero, the force is zero
no matter the mass.

Once at speed in a car (or airplane or rocket ship) the only energy
needed to maintain speed is that equal to any drag forces that
would otherwise slow the car down.

Have you looked at the current crop of high mileage cars?

They all have very aerodynamic profiles to get the air drag down.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

The laws of physics say once an object is in motion it takes no energy
to maintain the velocity UNLESS there is some other force at work
that would cause the velocity to decrease.

Since at a constant speed, the a in F=ma is zero, the force is zero
no matter the mass.

Once at speed in a car (or airplane or rocket ship) the only energy
needed to maintain speed is that equal to any drag forces that
would otherwise slow the car down.

Have you looked at the current crop of high mileage cars?

They all have very aerodynamic profiles to get the air drag down.


They also have very narrow, hard tires. Unfortunately, the DOT has laws
against solid rubber tires or they could be made even harder.

Your analysis would be mostly correct if we were talking about trains.
I've stood beside a loaded one and watched it deform the tracks. A car
on the road is like a machine rolling across a mattress. Extra weight
pushes the tire down into the mattress and increases the drag. The
energy is going into deforming the tires and heating them. Ask any over
the road trucker what happens when you're hauling 40-tons and you don't
keep your tire pressure up. Tends to light up the night.

In rec.aviation.piloting Ernest Christley wrote:
wrote:

The laws of physics say once an object is in motion it takes no energy
to maintain the velocity UNLESS there is some other force at work
that would cause the velocity to decrease.

Since at a constant speed, the a in F=ma is zero, the force is zero
no matter the mass.

Once at speed in a car (or airplane or rocket ship) the only energy
needed to maintain speed is that equal to any drag forces that
would otherwise slow the car down.

Have you looked at the current crop of high mileage cars?

They all have very aerodynamic profiles to get the air drag down.


They also have very narrow, hard tires. Unfortunately, the DOT has laws
against solid rubber tires or they could be made even harder.

Your analysis would be mostly correct if we were talking about trains.

My analysis of what?

The biggest source of drag on a car is air followed by tires.

Of course the makers are going to put hard tires on as well as
streamline the vehicle to get mileage up.

The less drag, the less gas the vehicle uses.

What's your point?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:


The biggest source of drag on a car is air followed by tires.

Of course the makers are going to put hard tires on as well as
streamline the vehicle to get mileage up.

The less drag, the less gas the vehicle uses.

What's your point?


That is only true in cruise on the highway. In stop and go city driving
driveline friction is the majority, followed by inertia. Air and tire
is a small percentage combined.

Charles

In rec.aviation.piloting Charles Vincent wrote:
wrote:


The biggest source of drag on a car is air followed by tires.

Of course the makers are going to put hard tires on as well as
streamline the vehicle to get mileage up.

The less drag, the less gas the vehicle uses.

What's your point?


That is only true in cruise on the highway. In stop and go city driving
driveline friction is the majority, followed by inertia. Air and tire
is a small percentage combined.

Inertia is not drag.

Inertia is F=ma.

In stop and go driving, F=ma dominates.

If it didn't, hybrids converting the F in deceleration into energy in
the batteries instead of heat in the brakes wouldn't get their high
mileage numbers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Phil" wrote

I know you're only half serious,

Yep, only half, until you really start to think about it.

but yes, that would have to be
considered. That's a risk in hybrid autos as well. EMTs and
firefighters are taking special training to handle the wrecks of these
cars. And the gasoline we use for our current airplanes poses the
risk of incinerating the occupants in a crash. I am not sure that an
electric plane would actually pose more risk.

I think there is a higher risk, perhaps by many times.

Ever seen a LiPo Battery have a catestrophic failure? One of the primary
ways a LiPo can be caused to fail in that way is physical damage. Ask the
electric RC guys. Most of them would never think of putting even a slightly
physically damaged LiPo back into service, unless it was a really cheap
plane that they wanted to see destroyed.

Now imagine a battery many thousands (or even a few hundred) times larger,
and larger capacity to match.

I'll take my chances with the gasoline fire, thanks, ANY day. That speaks
nothing of the chance of electrocution, or chemical burns or injury due to
the cell's chemestry.

I would think that the
increased reliability of the propulsion system would decrease the risk
overall. How many people are killed every year in crashes caused by
engine failures?

How much more reliable is an electric of that size ( to run a decent sized
airplane with decent performance) and power going to be, especially if it is
designed with lightness as a major design consideration? That remains yet
to be seen.

OK, even if we give the electric a given reliability superiority, that is
not going to save all that many lives. Most power failures in I.C. powered
airplanes are not that big of deal, and many times never even reported. Far
more die due to stupid pilot tricks (a broad spectrum category to lump a
bunch of other things together) than loss of power.

Nope, lots of problems to consider before we start considering an electric
aircraft. Lots more than we can maybe even consider, at the moment, even if
we were to figure out a way to make a practical airplane electric powered,
don't you think?
--
Jim in NC

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Charles Vincent wrote:
wrote:

The biggest source of drag on a car is air followed by tires.

Of course the makers are going to put hard tires on as well as
streamline the vehicle to get mileage up.

The less drag, the less gas the vehicle uses.

What's your point?


That is only true in cruise on the highway. In stop and go city driving
driveline friction is the majority, followed by inertia. Air and tire
is a small percentage combined.

Inertia is not drag.

Inertia is F=ma.

In stop and go driving, F=ma dominates.

If it didn't, hybrids converting the F in deceleration into energy in
the batteries instead of heat in the brakes wouldn't get their high
mileage numbers.


Yes Jim, I knew the difference, and I see you know too. I had assumed
you also knew the difference between aerodynamic drag and rolling
friction when you lumped then together in your statement "The biggest
source of drag on a car is air followed by tires." I figured you were
using drag in a more generalized way rather than jumping to the
conclusion you just didn't know the difference. Since you are insisting
on being pedantic, then I will have to point out that inertia is really
just the m in F=ma, the formula just establishes a relationship between
the property of mass called inertia and force and acceleration. I
expect that the manufacturers are working to reduce all of the
"retarding" forces on their vehicles, which benefit them without regard
to the motive source. Electric vehicles can have an advantage in the
regime where inertia is the dominate "retarding" force and a
disadvantage where it is not.

Charles

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Ernest Christley wrote:
wrote:

The laws of physics say once an object is in motion it takes no energy
to maintain the velocity UNLESS there is some other force at work
that would cause the velocity to decrease.

Since at a constant speed, the a in F=ma is zero, the force is zero
no matter the mass.

Once at speed in a car (or airplane or rocket ship) the only energy
needed to maintain speed is that equal to any drag forces that
would otherwise slow the car down.

Have you looked at the current crop of high mileage cars?

They all have very aerodynamic profiles to get the air drag down.


They also have very narrow, hard tires. Unfortunately, the DOT has laws
against solid rubber tires or they could be made even harder.

Your analysis would be mostly correct if we were talking about trains.

My analysis of what?

The biggest source of drag on a car is air followed by tires.

Of course the makers are going to put hard tires on as well as
streamline the vehicle to get mileage up.

The less drag, the less gas the vehicle uses.

What's your point?


The point is that weight matters...even in land-locked vehicles.