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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

"Bill Daniels" wrote

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.

They can, but they would have to transport back from the future, from the
Starship Enterprise, to give us some of their plasma !!! g
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 25, 8:40 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

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.


Batteries don't store electrons. They store energy in the form of
chemical changes. Every electron that leaves a battery via the
negative terminal is replaced by another coming in the positive
terminal.
In a lead-acid battery, lead and lead peroxide react with sulfuric
acid and end up as lead sulfate and water. Two electrons are released
for every lead peroxide/sulfuric acid molecule reaction, and two are
absorbed by the lead sulfate/water result. When we recharge the
battery, we're forcing electrons backward through it, converting the
lead sulfate and water back to lead, lead peroxide and sulfuric acid.
So there's no weight change because there are no atoms coming or
going, and no electrons leaving that aren't replaced. Just a molecular
change within the battery.
The lead sulfate eventually wrecks the battery. Not all of it
is converted back to lead and lead peroxide, and it gradually
accumulates on the plates and reduces their effectiveness. Time for a
new battery.

Dan

On Jul 26, 2:40 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:


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.


Did you know that just as many electrons leave the battery as go back
into it? It's strange but true that electrical devices don't actually
consume electrons and yet they get their energy from the electrons...

Cheers Mark

wrote:
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


I can almost envision a coal fired Sonex.

Fill the baggage compartment with coal and the "passenger" gets a
shovel...