Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft

Montblack wrote:

I've never really understood why an 800 lb motorcycle/rider gets (only) 50
mpg and a fully loaded semi can get (about) 5 mpg?

Motorcycle:
Tires ........... 2
Footprint ..... very small per tire
Weight ....... 800 lbs (with rider)
Drag .......... It's a motorcycle! g
MPG ........... 50


Paul-Mont

Check this: http://www.bgsoflex.com/airdragchart.html

Matt

"Montblack" wrote

So you're saying zeppelins should take advantage of jam-jet propulsion
technology?

Oh, isn't that a sweet idea?
--
Jim in NC

In rec.aviation.piloting Montblack wrote:
wrote)
In cars, weight matters most in acceleration and doesn't matter in any
significant amount with modern tires in cruise.


Speculate please:

1. Two 3,600 lb cars - good tires
2. Traveling 60 mph (no wind)
3. 4cly - 150 hp (Honda Accords)
3. Flat highway in North Dakota
4. Fuel flow meters hooked up to both vehicles

(Honda #1)
Driver ................ 105 lbs
Fuel .................... 15 lbs
TOTAL .............. 120 lbs (1/30th of 3,600 lb car)

(Honda #2)
Driver ................. 300 lbs
Passengers ........ 700 lbs
Luggage ............. 100 lbs
Fuel ................... 100 lbs
TOTAL ............. 1,200 lbs (1/3 of 3,600 lb car) ....BTW, BTDT! g

If both vehicles were monitored for 50 miles, would their fuel flow be
(approx) the same, in cruise?

A pulled out of my ass, wild assed guess is that since you are
increasing the load by 33%, then yes, you will see a difference,
and at that loading the tires will be visibly deformed.

Now, would you care to calculate the energy required to accelerate
3720 pounds to 60 mph versus accelerating 4800 pounds to 60 mph?

Assume gasoline is 45 megajoules per kilogram and the engine is 38%
efficient.

You may neglect all drag for this calculation and express the energy
in kilograms of gasoline.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Montblack wrote:
("Charles Vincent" wrote)
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%.


Semi:
Tires ........... 18
Footprint ..... big per tire
Weight ....... 80,000 lbs
Drag .......... HUGE!!
MPG .......... 5 (loaded)

Minivan:
Tires ........... 4
Footprint ..... smaller per tire
Weight ....... 4,000 lbs (for easy math)
Drag .......... MUCH less + no cab/trailer drag
MPG .......... 22

I've never really understood why an 800 lb motorcycle/rider gets (only) 50
mpg and a fully loaded semi can get (about) 5 mpg?

Motorcycle:
Tires ........... 2
Footprint ..... very small per tire
Weight ....... 800 lbs (with rider)
Drag .......... It's a motorcycle! g
MPG ........... 50


The coefficient of drag for motorcycles is usually pretty bad unless
they are faired, and it still ain't great.

The power required to overcome drag is 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

p is the densitity of the fluid
v is the airspeed
A is the area
C is the coefficient of drag


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

The coefficient of drag for motorcycles is usually pretty bad unless
they are faired, and it still ain't great.

Yes.


The power required to overcome drag is 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

No. It is v^2 unless they have changed the physics since I was an aero
engineering student back in the 70s.

Matt

In rec.aviation.piloting Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

The coefficient of drag for motorcycles is usually pretty bad unless
they are faired, and it still ain't great.

Yes.


The power required to overcome drag is 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

No. It is v^2 unless they have changed the physics since I was an aero
engineering student back in the 70s.

Yes.

The drag goes up with the square of velocity, the POWER required to
overcome the drag goes up as the cube.

Force: Fd = 1/2(p*v^2*A*C)

Power: Pd = Fd * v = 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

The coefficient of drag for motorcycles is usually pretty bad unless
they are faired, and it still ain't great.

Yes.


The power required to overcome drag is 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

No. It is v^2 unless they have changed the physics since I was an aero
engineering student back in the 70s.

Yes.

The drag goes up with the square of velocity, the POWER required to
overcome the drag goes up as the cube.

Force: Fd = 1/2(p*v^2*A*C)

Power: Pd = Fd * v = 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

Ah, yes, I didn't read "power" when I looked at the formula. Sorry
about that.

Matt

On Aug 6, 3:16 pm, brtlmj wrote:
There is a fundamental problem with attempting to power an aircraft
with batteries: The propulsion system must not only move the vehicle
forward as it would with an automobile, but it must also
simultaneously maintain the aircraft's altitude;

That is why aircraft engines are so powerful and light; they're
depended-on to fight gravity as well as wind resistance.
Which leads us to the case of airships! They float. They don't
have to work to stay at altitude, they just hang there. Their engines
don't have to hold them up.
But, and it's a big but, since they are so big, they have more
wind resistance than airplanes. Since wind resistance is the log, or
cube? of wind speed, their hull-speeds are quite limited and their
engines remain relatively small as a result.
Enter the less-powerful electric motors! Enter solar photo-
voltaic cells! The big surface area of airships are ideal for mounting
solar arrays. And if you have a cloudy day and don't charge your
batteries up to snuff, well, you will not have to go to ground, as in
an airplane, because you are afloat in your element and you drift with
the breeze for awhile.
Words to the wise about the future of flight. High cheers from
Allen the airshipman

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:53:32 -0700, dirigible designer
wrote in
. com:

On Aug 6, 3:16 pm, brtlmj wrote:

Actually, these are my words from earlier in this message thread. See:
Message-ID: .

There is a fundamental problem with attempting to power an aircraft
with batteries: The propulsion system must not only move the vehicle
forward as it would with an automobile, but it must also
simultaneously maintain the aircraft's altitude;

That is why aircraft engines are so powerful and light; they're
depended-on to fight gravity as well as wind resistance.
Which leads us to the case of airships! They float. They don't
have to work to stay at altitude, they just hang there. Their engines
don't have to hold them up.
But, and it's a big but, since they are so big, they have more
wind resistance than airplanes. Since wind resistance is the log, or
cube? of wind speed, their hull-speeds are quite limited and their
engines remain relatively small as a result.
Enter the less-powerful electric motors! Enter solar photo-
voltaic cells! The big surface area of airships are ideal for mounting
solar arrays. And if you have a cloudy day and don't charge your
batteries up to snuff, well, you will not have to go to ground, as in
an airplane, because you are afloat in your element and you drift with
the breeze for awhile.
Words to the wise about the future of flight. High cheers from
Allen the airshipman

Thank you for mentioning electrically powered airships.

Lighter Than Air craft are excellent candidates for electric power as
is evidenced by:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
In 1883, the first electric-powered flight was made by Gaston
Tissandier who fitted a 1-1/2 horsepower Siemens electric motor to
an airship. The first fully controllable free-flight was made in a
French Army airship, La France, by Charles Renard and Arthur
Constantin Krebs in 1884 . The 170 foot long, 66,000 cubic foot
airship covered 8 km (5 miles) in 23 minutes with the aid of an
8-1/2 horsepower electric motor.




http://missilethreat.com/missiledefe...tem_detail.asp
...
In September 2003, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) awarded a $40 million
development contract to Lockheed Martin to build the High Altitude
Airship prototype. Lockheed Martin currently manufactures the
Goodyear blimps that can be seen over big sporting events. These
blimps are approximately 200 feet long with a volume of 200,000
cubic feet. By contrast, the HAA prototype will be 500 feet long,
160 feet in diameter, with a volume of 5.2 million cubic feet,
i.e. more than 25 times the size of the average Goodyear blimp.

MDA plans to deploy the HAA at an altitude of 65,000 feet where
the air is one-twentieth the density that it is near the ground.
One of the biggest challenges facing MDA and Lockheed Martin is
how to get the HAA from the ground to its area of deployment,
since the helium gas inside will expand more than fifteen times as
the blimp rises. To solve this problem, the HAA will be filled
mostly with air when it is close to the ground. As it rises, the
air inside the blimp will be forced out and helium from five small
inner balloons will replace it. This “balloon-within-a-balloon”
concept will allow the HAA to maintain its football-like shape
throughout all stages of flight.

Once deployed, the HAA will generate its own power supply from
thin-film photovoltaic solar cells. It will require 10 kilowatts
of electricity to run its 4,000-pound radar system. The prototype
HAA will include batteries to keep the electricity flowing at
night, although the final version will most likely use lightweight
fuel cells. Four electrically powered engines will each drive two
30-foot-wide propellers that will provide the blimp’s forward
thrust. The propellers will allow the HAA to hover within a mile
of its assigned location, thus maintaining its fixed
“geostationary” nature. ...



http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...es/pdf/LTA.pdf
Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik in Germany resorted to a unique method
of delivering its NT-07 airship to a Japanese customer. The
semirigid air-ship was flown to Italy and, fully inflated, was
put on board a BPDockship for the journey to Kobe, Japan. Tail
surfaces and forward engines were removed. Zeppelin is leasing
another NT-07 to the DeBeers diamond company for two years. It
also was delivered by ship, to South Africa. The air-ship will be
equipped to examine geological formations in southern African
countries. Zeppelin carried 11,000 passengers on sightseeing
flights in Germany during 2004. Work is proceeding on the
development of the 19-passenger NT-14. First flight is expected in
early 2008. Zeppelin has acquired the intellectual property of the
defunct CargoLifter organization.

This will become part of an LTAinstitute for coordinating
activities on scientific and predevelopment levels applicable to
all types of airships. It will be headquartered in
Friedrichshafen.

Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency completed its series of eight
flights with the above-mentioned 223-ft-long, 370,755-ft,
un-manned research airship. The objective of these flights was to
verify flight control, operation, and tracking technologies from
takeoff to landing. Geostationary flight at 13,000 ft was realized
with the aid of electrically powered propellers. Data obtained
will be applied to JAXA’s further research into high-altitude
airships.

Another approach to this subject, a “bal-loon robot,” was
investigated by Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology (AIST). A 92-ft-long model carrying a 3-kg
payload was launched to an altitude of 55,700 ft. Power for
propulsion was supplied by batteries. Data transmission failure
prevented verification of station keeping.

AIST has built a 43-ft-long nonrigid propelled by cycloidal
propellers driven by electricity supplied by batteries. This
unmanned airship can be used for aerial observation and
monitoring of hazardous areas.




http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...&KEYWORD=blimp
Latest generation of military airships to use solar electric power
by J.R. Wilson

Peterson AFB, Colo. — The North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) has joined forces with the U.S. Army and other agencies to
develop the 21st-century High Altitude Airship to help defend U.S.
airspace, control its borders, and possibly provide global
surveillance capability to military theater commanders.

"It's an old idea with new technology applied," explains U.S. Navy
Cmdr. Pat Lyons, chief of ISR and NORAD J-5 Directorate. "This
airship is unmanned, untethered, and electric powered. We expect
it to be composed of solar cells, a fuel cell, and electrolyzer
for nighttime operations."

The new airship's command-and-control links most likely will
involve satellite communications channels. All of these
technologies will probably enable the airship to remain on station
for as long as one year, Lyons says.

Electric power
The airship will be electrically powered — possibly using a
hydrogen fuel cell — with DC brushless motors and propellers as
the likely propulsion system, although the final design will be up
to the contractor; Lyons says there are several other possible
concepts for program managers to consider. That includes the
number of motors, which also would determine the number of
propellers.

"The concepts we've seen show speeds up to 100 knots for the
objective airship," Lyons explains. "The winds at 70,000 feet are
fairly benign; you're above the weather and the jet stream, but
occasionally, depending on where you are, they can get up to 100
knots, building for 24 hours, peaking for a day, then diminishing
for a day. With a 100-knot airspeed, the airship can remain
geostationary," Lyons says.

A variety of sensors are being considered for the airship's
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), including a
small communications relay. In operation, the vehicle could be
used to enable communications 600 or more miles apart, including
over a mountain. Currently, ground troops with handheld
communications must post a relay unit on a water tower or other
tall structure to avoid losing contact in the field. ...

Military & Aerospace Electronics August, 2002
Author(s) : J.R. Wilson

wrote)
The coefficient of drag for motorcycles is usually pretty bad unless they
are faired, and it still ain't great.
The power required to overcome drag is 1/2(p*v^3*A*C)

p is the densitity of the fluid
v is the airspeed
A is the area
C is the coefficient of drag


80-ft length of the semi
(vs.)
8-ft length of the motorcycle

Does this play (much) of a role here?

Is that role expressed (adequately/sufficiently) in the above formula,
through "C" ...drag?


Paul-Mont
http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/motorcyclespecshandbook/1MotorcycleManufacturer.htm
Fun site - make / model / year. My Yamahoppers were both in there.