Electriflying

Alpha Propellerhead wrote:
and in fact the French called them "fliers or liars"

In fact, I'm almost certain that the French didn't call them English
names. I'm even almost certain that they didn't call them names at all,
as the secret of flying was revealed in Europe, and the French most
certainly were aware of it's possibility.

On 6/23/2011 10:44 AM, Alpha Propellerhead wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:35 am, wrote:

A few years ago when people were discussing the possibility of
electric-powered flight, you'd get hacked on pretty hard for
suggesting such a thing would be practical or possible in our
lifetime. Obviously if you knew anything about physics or electrical
engineering, why, you'd know it was totally impossible.


Clarke was one fine bull****ter.

PSSST! Did you hear about the ELECTRIC AIRPLANES? The cynics all
said they were IMPOSSIBLE.

xxxx
Gossamer Albatross goes one better.
http://www.diseno-art.com/encycloped...albatross.html

Or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NCOPLEJOl0

German battery plane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RsWNiQuTP8

Nuclear powered aircraft:
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Avi...ology/nuke.htm

And the beat goes on.
Real science is far more interesting than fiction.

29

In rec.aviation.owning Alpha Propellerhead wrote:
On Jun 23, 8:35Â*am, SMITH29 wrote:

A few years ago when people were discussing the possibility of
electric-powered flight, you'd get hacked on pretty hard for
suggesting such a thing would be practical or possible in our
lifetime. Obviously if you knew anything about physics or electrical
engineering, why, you'd know it was totally impossible.


Clarke was one fine bull****ter.

PSSST! Did you hear about the ELECTRIC AIRPLANES? The cynics all
said they were IMPOSSIBLE.

Utter nonsense.

What was said, and is still being said, and will be said absent some
astounding breakthrough in basic physics which enables batteries to be
about an order of magnitude better than they are, is that electric airplanes
are IMPRACTICAL.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
So is that 90 minutes plus the FAA mandated reserve time or 90 minutes
minus the the FAA mandated reserve time?

90 minutes is sort of a magic number. Gives you a 60-minute lesson with VFR
reserves.


How long to recharge for the next student?

You have just identified the real issue!

Vaughn

"Alpha Propellerhead" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 1:08 pm, wrote:

My issue is with the Lithium Polymer batteries. When those
things burn--a bad charger will blow them up--they go incendiary like
fireworks.

Ever see what happens when avgas catches fire? They should outlaw that
stuff then invent airplanes that use a more stable fuel.

Vaughn

Alpha Propellerhead wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:08Â*pm, wrote:


So is that 90 minutes plus the FAA mandated reserve time or 90 minutes
minus the the FAA mandated reserve time?

How long to recharge for the next student?

Not sure, yet, but I'm sure the Wright Flyer wasn't an ideal trainer
either.

Apples and oranges.

The Wright Flyer wasn't build with mature technology.

Airplanes, electric motors, and batteries are all mature technologies.

My issue is with the Lithium Polymer batteries. When those
things burn--a bad charger will blow them up--they go incendiary like
fireworks. Some airplane builders around here say the next generation
is under development, but a lot more stable. That means batteries will
continue to become lighter and more stable, at the very least.

Nope, basic chemistry and physics impose a limit on how much energy
density you can get out of a battery and we are already pushing the
limit.

They're not going to replace the old Cessna 152 as a primary trainer
at flight schools anytime soon, but if I could buy a 152 with an
electric power plant for my own uses, I'd much rather fly that than
paying $6/gallon @ 5 gallons per hour just for the fuel.

Batteries are both life and recharge cycles limited, so instead of paying
$6/gal @ 5gal/hr you pay something like something on the order of
$10,000 for a new, FAA certified, battery pack every 3 to 5 years.

Also, Diamond will be flying a hybrid at the Paris Airshow this year.

The worst of all worlds for an airplane; airplanes aren't cars.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...
So is that 90 minutes plus the FAA mandated reserve time or 90 minutes
minus the the FAA mandated reserve time?

90 minutes is sort of a magic number. Gives you a 60-minute lesson with VFR
reserves.


How long to recharge for the next student?

You have just identified the real issue!

Nope, there is still the cost of a new, FAA certified battery pack every
3 to 5 years, which will likely be in the ballpark price of a used 150.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Vaughn wrote:
How long to recharge for the next student?

You have just identified the real issue!

Nope, there is still the cost of a new, FAA certified battery pack every
3 to 5 years, which will likely be in the ballpark price of a used 150.

The strange thing is, the price for the 150/152 engine, is also about the
same price as a used 150. In the flight training world, these things are
amortized and built into the training hourly rate. If the electric trainer
isn't cheaper, it won't sell except in nitch situations where its silence or
(perhaps) novelty are factors.

Vaughn

Vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...
Vaughn wrote:
How long to recharge for the next student?

You have just identified the real issue!

Nope, there is still the cost of a new, FAA certified battery pack every
3 to 5 years, which will likely be in the ballpark price of a used 150.

The strange thing is, the price for the 150/152 engine, is also about the
same price as a used 150. In the flight training world, these things are
amortized and built into the training hourly rate. If the electric trainer
isn't cheaper, it won't sell except in nitch situations where its silence or
(perhaps) novelty are factors.

Vaughn

It isn't all that strange when you concider that a 1990 Toyota Corolla goes
for about $3k while a rebuilt to new specs engine for it costs about $2.5k.

Anyway, back to airplanes...

The only electric airplane that is even close to being practical is a self
launched glider.

And since we are already close to the fundemental limits of physics and
chemistry on batteries, that isn't going to change without a blinding
breakthrough in the science of portable electric storage.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:37:52 -0000, wrote:

Vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...
Vaughn wrote:
How long to recharge for the next student?

You have just identified the real issue!

Nope, there is still the cost of a new, FAA certified battery pack every
3 to 5 years, which will likely be in the ballpark price of a used 150.

The strange thing is, the price for the 150/152 engine, is also about the
same price as a used 150. In the flight training world, these things are
amortized and built into the training hourly rate. If the electric trainer
isn't cheaper, it won't sell except in nitch situations where its silence or
(perhaps) novelty are factors.

Vaughn

It isn't all that strange when you concider that a 1990 Toyota Corolla goes
for about $3k while a rebuilt to new specs engine for it costs about $2.5k.

Anyway, back to airplanes...

The only electric airplane that is even close to being practical is a self
launched glider.

And since we are already close to the fundemental limits of physics and
chemistry on batteries, that isn't going to change without a blinding
breakthrough in the science of portable electric storage.


Please get off this topic before "MarkIV" returns. heh