A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 23rd 08, 01:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:29:03 GMT, Frank Olson
wrote in
z1K7k.22157$kx.14483@pd7urf3no:

I'm waiting for the twin version. :-)


It looks as though development is planned to continue:


http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#198151
Fishman has about six flights on his ElectraFlyer-C. With real-world
experience behind him, plus calculations in front of him, Fishman
believes he may have in this aircraft a single-place experimental that
can fly at about 70 mph for up to one hour on batteries alone --
provided the pilot chooses to land with a half hour's power in
reserve. Maximum endurance under power (calculated, and to be proven
by further flight testing) is expected to be near 90 minutes. Fuel
cost for that flight? Less than 75 cents. The aircraft is scheduled to
be front and center at AirVenture Oshkosh this year, but Fishman told
AVweb last week that his eyes are on a bigger prize -- a larger, more
powerful, electric LSA.

Fishman's goals include plans to offer a 40-hp electric motor, plus a
controller and battery solution for use in highly efficient light
sport aircraft ... pending approval of and standards for electric
motors in LSAs. He's currently seeking sponsors, and the manufacturer
of a highly efficient, very lightweight airframe with which to
partner. Until then, expect Fishman's ElectraFlyer-C to be on display
this year at the epicenter of AirVenture Oshkosh -- AeroShell Square.
....
As it is, Fishman's ElectraFlyer-C is the pairing of his 29-pound,
18-hp electric motor and regenerative-braking-capable controller
package with two lithium polymer battery packs (that together weigh 78
pounds), adapted to an airframe that began life as a Moni motorglider.
The Moni is a highly efficient all-aluminum (and discontinued) design
with an 18:1 glide ratio and a 27.5-foot wingspan. Fishman says his
highly modified version, registered as the ElectraFlyer-C, weighs in
at just under 380 pounds with "full fuel," offers a confirmed
60-percent increase in thrust over the Moni, has made engine
reliability a non-issue and practically eliminates vibration and
engine noise. By AirVenture, Fishman believes the ElectraFlyer-C will
have proven it can climb at better than 500 fpm, cruise at 70 mph,
stall at 45, and fly under power for approximately 90 minutes (or 60
minutes if landing with the equivalent of a legal day VFR fuel
reserve). A portable 110-volt charger can refill the tanks (as it
were) in about six hours and more powerful chargers (220 volts) can do
the job faster (two hours) where suitable outlets are available.

NOTE: According to Fishman, following the first test flight, pilot Joe
Bennis' first words were, "I want one." And after speaking with
Fishman last week, it seems one person making the trip to Oshkosh this
year just might have that option. See also
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2722498...55156982/show/
  #22  
Old June 23rd 08, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

Stealth Pilot wrote:

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.


Apples and oranges.

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.


Except they can't as battery technology is an order of magnitude short
on energy density to be able to do it.

There is no battery technology in the foreseeable future that would
allow one to build an electric airplane with the performance of a
152, much less a 172.

That won't change until a new battery is invented.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #26  
Old June 23rd 08, 09:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.


Likely combustion equation:

4Al + 3O2 - 2Al2O3

The result on the right is Sapphire.
  #27  
Old June 24th 08, 01:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:15:03 GMT,
wrote in
:


Except they can't as battery technology is an order of magnitude short
on energy density to be able to do it.


I've always thought that the energy stored in metallic aluminum might
be harnessed for motive power. If you look at it on the energy
density chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density, it would
appear to be a reasonable energy source.


Storage type Energy density Energy density
by mass (MJ/kg) by volume (MJ/L)
----------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline[7] 46.9 34.6
Aluminum (burned in air) 31.0 83.8
Hydrazine (toxic) 19.5 19.3
combusted to N2+H2O


So while aluminum isn't as rich an energy source pound-for-pound as
gasoline, it is significantly better than rocket fuel.


Well yeah, except it takes huge amounts of energy to make metallic
aluminum from ore in the first place


Right.
http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encyc...a01-al-prod.ht
It takes about 225 KWH to produce 50 lbs of metallic aluminum.

All the energy that went into making the alumna into metallic aluminum
is just waiting to power an IC engine. Grind the Al into a fine dust
and blow it into the cylinders. :-)

and burning aluminum is not something you really want to be around.


Can you tell me more about that?

  #28  
Old June 24th 08, 01:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:40:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:


And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.


It's been way too long since I took chem to remember the reaction, but
I'd speculate that it would be aluminum oxide.
  #29  
Old June 24th 08, 02:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C


"Scott" wrote in message
...
Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.



1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.


Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for 2
hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a lot
brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd agree it
is about 7.5 HP.

Scott

You have a good point, but the KW Hours rating of the battery does seem a
bit low. Even when you consider that cooling drag nearly absent, what
little I think I know about the base airframe suggests that the battery
rating needs to be at least twice the stated amount in order to provide the
stated performance and endurance. The usual power of ten error in
transcription does not make much sense in this case, but there are
apparently two batteries of equal sive--and everything that I could find
appeared to originate from a single article.

In any case, it is interesting; but the economics really do not work based
upon the stated maximum10 year and 1000 hour battery battery life. Even if
the electricity was free and gasolene was more than twice its current cost,
the gasolene powered airplane, on which it is bsed, would still give much
greated utility for less cost. Nontheless, my hat's off to him for the
effort.

Peter



  #30  
Old June 24th 08, 02:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:35:03 GMT, wrote in
:


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:15:03 GMT,
wrote in
:


Except they can't as battery technology is an order of magnitude short
on energy density to be able to do it.


I've always thought that the energy stored in metallic aluminum might
be harnessed for motive power. If you look at it on the energy
density chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density, it would
appear to be a reasonable energy source.


Storage type Energy density Energy density
by mass (MJ/kg) by volume (MJ/L)
----------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline[7] 46.9 34.6
Aluminum (burned in air) 31.0 83.8
Hydrazine (toxic) 19.5 19.3
combusted to N2+H2O


So while aluminum isn't as rich an energy source pound-for-pound as
gasoline, it is significantly better than rocket fuel.


Well yeah, except it takes huge amounts of energy to make metallic
aluminum from ore in the first place


Right.
http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/encyc...a01-al-prod.ht
It takes about 225 KWH to produce 50 lbs of metallic aluminum.


That's just the final step in getting ore into metal.

There is a lot of pre and post processing.

All the energy that went into making the alumna into metallic aluminum
is just waiting to power an IC engine. Grind the Al into a fine dust
and blow it into the cylinders. :-)


Aluminum dust bursts into flame all by itself, and rathe spectacularly
when it does.

I take you've not spent much time around a machine shop.

and burning aluminum is not something you really want to be around.


Can you tell me more about that?


Aluminum burns at about 7000 degrees F and you don't really want to
inhale aluminum oxide.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fighting the high cost of flying Jay Honeck[_2_] Piloting 31 June 11th 08 11:30 AM
High Cost of Sportplanes Gordon Arnaut Home Built 110 November 18th 05 11:02 AM
Fix the high cost [Was:] High Cost of Sportplanes Evan Carew Home Built 40 October 8th 05 04:05 AM
These are not YOUR airplanes - Was: High Cost of Sportplanes Lakeview Bill Home Built 28 September 21st 05 01:37 PM
Talk about the high cost of aviation! C J Campbell Piloting 15 August 12th 03 04:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.