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 » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Electric Sonex



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 24th 07, 08:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default Electric Sonex

See: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm#d

Well, it wouldn't work for me but the idea might be developed into a
pre-solo trainer. . A one hour duration could translate into 45 minute
instruction sessions costing $50. Dunno...might work for a flight school.
No cross country, of course. That would require a piston engine.

New lithium phosphate cells can be recharged in 5 minutes - if you have
access to a VERY high amperage charger

Bill Daniels


Ads
  #2  
Old July 24th 07, 10:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default Electric Sonex

Bill Daniels wrote:
See: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm#d

Well, it wouldn't work for me but the idea might be developed into a
pre-solo trainer. . A one hour duration could translate into 45
minute instruction sessions costing $50. Dunno...might work for a
flight school. No cross country, of course. That would require a
piston engine.
New lithium phosphate cells can be recharged in 5 minutes - if you
have access to a VERY high amperage charger

Bill Daniels


No if that thing has enough energy stored to fly for 1 hour then assuming
you are talking about daytime VFR flight then the flight can on last 30
minutes.

Sec. 91.151

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless
(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to
fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising
speed--
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.




Now maybe they took the 30 minute reserve into account when they said 1 hour
but I didn't see that any where in the story.

I kind of doubt that the electric engine that is going to be able to power
an aircraft in a commercially usable way is going to come from a company
that's last engine product was a modified VW engine. Unless he has hired a
metric butt load of really sharp folks and has a megabutt load of cash to
throw at the problem.




  #3  
Old July 25th 07, 03:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Dan Nafe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Electric Sonex

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:


No if that thing has enough energy stored to fly for 1 hour then assuming
you are talking about daytime VFR flight then the flight can on last 30
minutes.


Thirty minutes in the practice area, then thirty, no, make that twenty
nine, minutes in the pattern. ;-


I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
steps in the right direction.

It raises some interesting things to think about:

Take off weight equals landing weight. (no fuel burn off)
No C.G. shift. (no fuel burn off)
It would be an improved training environment (no engine noise)
The prop makes a good bit of noise.
What if your tiedown spot was all solar cells?
Will FBO's stock charged batteries for cross-country flights?
  #4  
Old July 25th 07, 11:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Electric Sonex


"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless
(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly
to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed--
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or
(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.


When I was instructing in gliders, it was routine to join the pattern with
(the energy equivalent) of perhaps three minutes of fuel! It always worked.

The difference is knowing precisely how much energy you have available.
The FARs say 30 minutes for airplanes partially because of the inaccuracy of the
average light plane fuel gauge and also because folks actually use their
airplanes to travel from one airport to another. Neither of those factors need
apply to an electric training airplane. First, it would operate from one field.
Second, technology exists to fairly precisely inform the pilot how much energy
remains in the batteries. (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you could
always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)

Vaughn


  #5  
Old July 25th 07, 12:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Dan Nafe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Electric Sonex

In article ,
"Vaughn Simon" wrote:

Second, technology exists to fairly precisely inform the pilot how much
energy
remains in the batteries. (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
could
always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)


[smacks myself on the forehead]

What a great idea!
  #6  
Old July 25th 07, 03:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Electric Sonex

On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe wrote:


I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
steps in the right direction.


Except that way too much electricity is being generated
using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.

Dan

  #7  
Old July 25th 07, 03:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default Electric Sonex


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe wrote:


I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of many
steps in the right direction.


Except that way too much electricity is being generated
using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.

Dan

The beauty of electricity is its flexibility not its efficiency - although
it can be efficient too. The source can be solar cells, wind, hydro,
nuclear or conventional coal fired generators. Whatever the source, the
pollution can be tightly controlled. No matter the source, delivery is the
same.

Nuclear power is steadilly attracting supporters from the environmentallist
ranks. It's the least poluting, least disruptive power source available.
Solar, wind and biofuels will me massively harmful to the environment if
scaled up to meet a large fraction of the demand. To meet total electric
demand, a solar plant would have to be the size of Texas as would the farm
land needed to produce an equivalent demand for biofuels. When the greenies
do their math homework, nuclear starts looking good to them.

Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's doubtful if
electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of gasoline. One
thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost nothing. A charged
battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the same charged or not - the
energy the battery contains weighs nothing. It seems like the boffins could
figure out a way to pressurize a container with electrons.

There are already electric self-launch gliders you can buy. The battery
pack provides more than an hour of power with the capability to climb 10,000
feet. For a glider, that's easilly a two hour flight without lift.

Bill Daniels


  #9  
Old July 25th 07, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,317
Default Electric Sonex

Bill Daniels wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, Dan Nafe wrote:


I love it. We need to stop using ferin' oil, this is the first of
many steps in the right direction.


Except that way too much electricity is being generated
using oil or natural gas, and the losses of efficiency in first
burning the stuff, then generating electricity, transmitting it long
distances and losing more, then the heat losses in running chargers
and more heat off the batteries, I think we'd end up burning nearly
twice as much as if we just stuck a VW on it.
Coal is more available but is so dirty. Nuclear is really
avaiable but isn't cheap and scares too many folks.

Dan

The beauty of electricity is its flexibility not its efficiency -
although it can be efficient too. The source can be solar cells,
wind, hydro, nuclear or conventional coal fired generators. Whatever
the source, the pollution can be tightly controlled. No matter the
source, delivery is the same.

Nuclear power is steadilly attracting supporters from the
environmentallist ranks. It's the least poluting, least disruptive
power source available. Solar, wind and biofuels will me massively
harmful to the environment if scaled up to meet a large fraction of
the demand. To meet total electric demand, a solar plant would have
to be the size of Texas as would the farm land needed to produce an
equivalent demand for biofuels. When the greenies do their math
homework, nuclear starts looking good to them.
Obviously, the problem with electric airplanes is range. It's
doubtful if electricity storage will ever reach the energy density of
gasoline. One thing that amazes me is that electrons weight almost
nothing. A charged battery, for all practical purposes, weighes the
same charged or not - the energy the battery contains weighs nothing.
It seems like the boffins could figure out a way to pressurize a
container with electrons.
There are already electric self-launch gliders you can buy. The
battery pack provides more than an hour of power with the capability
to climb 10,000 feet. For a glider, that's easilly a two hour flight
without lift.
Bill Daniels



We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for gasoline in
aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near as critical. BUT,
if we would stop using petroleum products in everything other than the
transportation sector we would reduce their use by 25%. And doing that would
be huge.

Many of the steps being taken now are nothing but "feel good" moves that
really don't reduce the amount of petroleum used just move some of the use
out of the public eye. In fact many of the current fuel saving programs
probably increase the net use of petroleum. Add to that the fact that we are
now replacing fuel with what should be food and you are just begging for
real problems in the future.

I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the Nuke
bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new nuclear
power plants in the first place. Nuclear energy is safe. The US Navy has
proved that. I've often wondered how large an area could be powered with the
reactor from a nuclear powered carrier? One of the big problems with
commercial nuke plants is that they almost always started each plant from
scratch on a clean sheet of paper. Think how much less it would cost if we
had an assembly line of small reactors. Yes I realize there is the issue of
what to do with the waste. The answer to that is reprocess until you can't
reprocess any more then shoot what's left into the sun. It would be like one
guy ****ing in the ocean.


  #10  
Old July 25th 07, 08:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default Electric Sonex




We are along way from even getting close to a replacement for gasoline in
aircraft or for that matter cars where weight isn't near as critical. BUT,
if we would stop using petroleum products in everything other than the
transportation sector we would reduce their use by 25%. And doing that

would
be huge.


IMHO, the 25% figure is very low--by more than an order of magnetude.


Many of the steps being taken now are nothing but "feel good" moves that
really don't reduce the amount of petroleum used just move some of the use
out of the public eye. In fact many of the current fuel saving programs
probably increase the net use of petroleum. Add to that the fact that we

are
now replacing fuel with what should be food and you are just begging for
real problems in the future.


Very true. BTW, I have heard that's what really brought down the Japanese
war machine in WWII.

I think it is funny that the environmentalists are getting back on the

Nuke
bandwagon, since it was mainly they that stopped construction of new

nuclear
power plants in the first place. Nuclear energy is safe. The US Navy has
proved that. I've often wondered how large an area could be powered with

the
reactor from a nuclear powered carrier? One of the big problems with
commercial nuke plants is that they almost always started each plant from
scratch on a clean sheet of paper. Think how much less it would cost if we
had an assembly line of small reactors. Yes I realize there is the issue

of
what to do with the waste. The answer to that is reprocess until you can't
reprocess any more then shoot what's left into the sun. It would be like

one
guy ****ing in the ocean.


It certainly is interestng to find the greenies coming to their senses--if
true.

In any case, there are plenty of uses for thermal energy that is not hot
enough to generate high pressure steam--so nuclear "waste" could easily have
a second, and even a third, usefull life before the first reprocessing
becomes necessary.

Peter


 




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
High-wing Sonex??? Montblack Home Built 9 April 8th 06 03:34 PM
Static thrust for Sonex with 54" prop Mel Home Built 3 November 2nd 05 12:31 AM
Electric DG Robbie S. Owning 0 March 19th 05 03:20 AM
Spicer Sonex/Jabiru [email protected] Home Built 1 January 4th 05 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.