Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Name User
06-20-2019, 03:22 PM
600 mile range
240 kts
$200/hr operating cost
Israeli design
$4m purchase price

https://youtu.be/aXR_jiKBaoY

https://youtu.be/yyQaWEBGNxg


BoilerUP
06-20-2019, 03:47 PM
How long to recharge between flights?

How many cycles in battery life?

Name User
06-20-2019, 03:55 PM
How long to recharge between flights?

How many cycles in battery life?

So they quote a 2:1 recharge time, in other words you fly two hours you charge one hour. Seems fast, maybe they are using three phase 480v power found at most airports coming into jetways?

Did not mention cycles. It's a 920kwh "useful" battery. Which means it will have a higher capacity but be limited to preserve life.

Side tangent, keeping your battery between 40%-80% charge will significantly increase its lifespan. Something like 6x the lifespan vs always charging to 100%. Low voltage and high voltage contribute to damaging cells at a faster pace, which is why leaving your device charging overnight is so bad. I have only charged my non work phone and iPad to 100% a half dozen times (by accident) and rarely let them go below 40%.

Of note on batteries, the inventor of the current day lipo battery has discovered a new way to produce them. No degradation and tens of thousands of cycles, no fire risk, and lighter. He has street cred. Hopefully it pans out, it could revolutionize transportation.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/a-glass-battery-that-keeps-getting-better?utm_source=energywise&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=energywise-06-12-19&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURobVpUYzNPR0poWWpNMCIsInQiOiJlT0 VmN0tNWEZkQWYzREZUYkJyakR2cTJpcTJoWTFxcUY3UXB4N29y bEpCaXE0Q1ZuZVRsY1U4TkJmeUExbUEybjdUZ3ZMNGVQRjdnbn FQbkhCMXp5bUc5T1hFNDF6XC9ldnhEODhoejVmcVNSTUY5eUJq ZHVYVjhqaWwxWGRHREsifQ%3D%3D


atpcliff
06-20-2019, 05:42 PM
Cape Air ordered at least 10 of these...

Eventually, wide body aircraft will be all-electric...

BobZ
06-20-2019, 06:01 PM
And pilotless...

Mesabah
06-21-2019, 06:07 AM
I highly doubt that battery technology makes it out of the regional jet size, not enough energy density. Biofuel has a better future if it can be made using solar, or nuclear energy.

rickair7777
06-21-2019, 09:56 AM
Cape Air ordered at least 10 of these...

Eventually, wide body aircraft will be all-electric...

No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

Excargodog
06-21-2019, 11:15 AM
There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

Cheaper - by far - to just use fossil fuel and offset the carbon release with carbon capture technology. Doubt that will change in the next several decades, at least not without a hellacious capital investment that would take even more decades to recover.

Or build a nuke power plant and count the natural gas you are NOT burning as recapture.

rickair7777
06-21-2019, 11:46 AM
Cheaper - by far - to just use fossil fuel and offset the carbon release with carbon capture technology. Doubt that will change in the next several decades, at least not without a hellacious capital investment that would take even more decades to recover.

Or build a nuke power plant and count the natural gas you are NOT burning as recapture.

Science, math, and logic favors offsets. But politics probably will require elimination of the carbon output, to remove the big target on the aviation's back (ala OAC). Aviation industry sponsored carbon capture (one for one) might suffice, and that could very well be cheaper than biofuel.

4V14T0R
06-22-2019, 04:56 AM
I wonder if they’ll provide video games in the airplane that you can plane with the controls like you can in the Tesla while you wait for the batteries to recharge...[emoji120][emoji106][emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlyJSH
06-22-2019, 05:02 PM
Just where are we going to get all the electricity required to recharge all these "zero emission" vehicles? Currently (no pun intended) the US gets electricity from: (percentages are approximate)


Clean burning natural gas - 34%
A 500 year supply of coal - 30%
Evil, environment destroying nuclear - 20%
Snail Darter killing hydroelectric - 6%
Migratory bird killing wind -5%
And everything else - 4%

There are not many more places to put hydro dams, wind farm locations are becoming harder to find, and 'everything else' is tapped out too. So the question is, do we add more CO2 to the air or churn out more radioactive waste?

If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!

Aeirum
06-22-2019, 05:15 PM
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

Wow! A categoric no and no way ever. Those final word were rarely proven to be true. Remember what Dunning Kruger said...

AirBear
06-23-2019, 07:28 AM
I wonder how the time will be logged and how it'll be seen by an airline you're applying to. Turbine/Turboprop maybe? Might have to make an all new category.

Excargodog
06-23-2019, 08:29 AM
Wow! A categoric no and no way ever. Those final word were rarely proven to be true. Remember what Dunning Kruger said...

If you know of a way to change oxidation reduction equation values or repeal the second law of thermodynamics, well...don’t hold back.

Mesabah
06-23-2019, 10:51 AM
Just where are we going to get all the electricity required to recharge all these "zero emission" vehicles? Currently (no pun intended) the US gets electricity from: (percentages are approximate)


Clean burning natural gas - 34%
A 500 year supply of coal - 30%
Evil, environment destroying nuclear - 20%
Snail Darter killing hydroelectric - 6%
Migratory bird killing wind -5%
And everything else - 4%

There are not many more places to put hydro dams, wind farm locations are becoming harder to find, and 'everything else' is tapped out too. So the question is, do we add more CO2 to the air or churn out more radioactive waste?

If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!
Powerplant nuclear waste are dry pellets that can be reprocessed, however, there is way too much political red tape to even attempt affording it. The government would have to do it for free. But that's really the only solution there is for zero emissions; Going balls to the wall with nuclear. Eventually we will build those reactors when we have no choices left. The question is how much additional climate damage are we willing to do before we build them.
Renewables aren't real, they are a theory on paper that require humans to invent science fiction technology.

Aeirum
06-23-2019, 11:19 AM
If you know of a way to change oxidation reduction equation values or repeal the second law of thermodynamics, well...don’t hold back.

I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.

Name User
06-23-2019, 11:53 AM
I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.

There is a Q100 flying around with a hybrid power plant. It uses smaller turbines for cruise and an electric assist motor when taking off and climbing.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/05/30-fuel-savings-when-flying-utcs-hybrid-electric-regional-planes-soon/

As electric motors get more robust, powerful, and reliable, there may come a time where aircraft are powered by small nuclear reactors. Of course, this is many many years away but presents interesting ideas about aircraft design and capability.

Interesting concepts at play for the future.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/01/us-military-eyes-tiny-nuclear-reactors-deployed-troops/154406/

galaxy flyer
06-23-2019, 12:58 PM
I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.

If it flies one day after your funeral it doesn’t matter.

GF

Aeirum
06-23-2019, 01:13 PM
If it flies one day after your funeral it doesn’t matter.

GF

It doesn’t matter anyway. It’s the same cat skinned more efficiently.

pangolin
06-23-2019, 03:05 PM
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

There's other ways to store power and to generate power. A large capacitor is one way but I don't know about the weight and controlled release or stored energy.

Fuel cell for generating electric power is a possibility as well.

UAL T38 Phlyer
06-23-2019, 04:47 PM
There's other ways to store power and to generate power. A large capacitor is one way but I don't know about the weight and controlled release or stored energy.

Fuel cell for generating electric power is a possibility as well.

Rick is posting scientific and engineering fact. Scientific facts are unchangeable scientific truths. Engineering facts are our ability to employ scientific facts through technology to our benefit....that’s something that can change.

Technology often starts slowly with a new tech discovery, ramps dramatically, but then hits an asymptote. Look at cruise speeds of airliners...no real change since the B707, because the speed of sound is an immutable fact, as is the scientific fact that speed BEYOND Mach 1 always takes more energy than subsonic flight. Oh, you might find new technologies such as refined airfoils, materials, and engines to make supersonic more efficient than before...but a subsonic airplane will always be more efficient than a supersonic. Just physics....and chemistry.

The same with batteries and electrics. It’s about energy density, and there is no foreseeable technology, given the scientific facts, that could make them compete on a density basis with liquid fuels.

California’s recent legislation to become “emission-free” in less than 20 years is not based on any scientific or engineering principle, but rather, on good-intentions, well-wishes, and pixie dust. It’s as achievable as their low-cost job-creating high-speed rail.

Oh wait....

galaxy flyer
06-23-2019, 04:47 PM
Fuel cells have been the emerging power generation for 55 years and no closer to civilian feasibility now than on Gemini flights.

Pilots, who should know better, keep believing warp drive is just around the corner. And J.C. Whitney has a carburetor that gets 50 mpg but the oil companies killed it, Right!

GF

atpcliff
06-23-2019, 08:22 PM
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

"Lithium-air batteries, which are technically considerably more difficult and complicated to realize, can have energy densities of up to 11,400 Wh/kg."

"I've also seen references on the internet to Li/O2 and Al/O2 batteries with MTSE of 2815 and 5200 Wh/kg"

"Using complex hydrides, a research group in Japan has demonstrated the possibility of building high-energy-density all-solid-state batteries with capacity exceeding 2,500 Wh/kg. Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com/2019/04/in-the-lab/solid-state-lithium-batteries-complex-hydride/"

atpcliff
06-23-2019, 08:27 PM
Cheaper - by far - to just use fossil fuel and offset the carbon release with carbon capture technology. Doubt that will change in the next several decades, at least not without a hellacious capital investment that would take even more decades to recover.

Or build a nuke power plant and count the natural gas you are NOT burning as recapture.

It is not cheap. The current actual cost of gasoline in the US is over $15/gallon. Luckily, for drivers, it is heavily subsidized by the US government. Jet fuel/diesel, etc., is all heavily subsidized, just like all transportation modes are heavily subsidized...

atpcliff
06-23-2019, 08:29 PM
Just where are we going to get all the electricity required to recharge all these "zero emission" vehicles? Currently (no pun intended) the US gets electricity from: (percentages are approximate)


Clean burning natural gas - 34%
A 500 year supply of coal - 30%
Evil, environment destroying nuclear - 20%
Snail Darter killing hydroelectric - 6%
Migratory bird killing wind -5%
And everything else - 4%

There are not many more places to put hydro dams, wind farm locations are becoming harder to find, and 'everything else' is tapped out too.
Our Sun is soon to go supernova???

If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!

The ONLY long term solution to energy usage is zero emissions.

BobZ
06-23-2019, 08:49 PM
Dz that include the co2 expelling humanoid heat engine?

Shortly thrs gona be 10 billion of them polluting the planet.

You want zero emissions? Eliminate human activity.

Simple.

atpcliff
06-23-2019, 08:52 PM
Dz that include the co2 expelling humanoid heat engine?

Shortly thrs gona be 10 billion of them polluting the planet.

I think we should reduce our population to 1B people on Our Earth. If we had only 2B, everyone could live a "lower-middle class" life. 1B gives us more for everyone...

Almost all of our major problems, including the Climate Crisis, are caused, or exacerbated, by having too many people on Our Earth...

BobZ
06-23-2019, 08:55 PM
Ya....ther was a guy in germany about 80 yrs ago that had the same idea.

And others in china, russia, and cambodia.

BobZ
06-23-2019, 09:01 PM
If co2 is the enemy....ANY human activity is damaging to the planet.

So i say kill them all.

BobZ
06-23-2019, 09:04 PM
In fact any species that process energy into nutrition and solid+gas waste byproduct shold immediately be placed on an extermination list.

Ya know. Whales. Flipper. Bambi. Nellyphants. Lions tigers and bears.

Gordie H
06-23-2019, 09:48 PM
If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!
Agreed electric is isn’t zero emissions. But it does seem like it could be much more efficient overall. The electric motor itself (as I understand) is more efficient (compared to combustion) and almost maintenance free (no oil changes, longer life span, etc).

The biggest gains, I would think, would be in the taxi. Think about how much fuel we waste just sitting around waiting for takeoff. I'd also assume they engineered some energy recapture in the descent (in lieu of speed brakes)…just like electric cars do instead of using traditional brakes.


…just a layman’s perspective – I’m for whatever the hell works :)

JamesNoBrakes
06-23-2019, 10:25 PM
If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!

Well, that's only 20% more than we are at today, so that seems doable...

Excargodog
06-23-2019, 10:34 PM
Well, that's only 20% more than we are at today, so that seems doable...

No, a 120% INCREASE is more than double what we do today. A 150% increase would require us to produce two and a half times the electricity we produce today.

tomgoodman
06-24-2019, 05:31 AM
“The Planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.” :D

—George Carlin

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wd_L3ejXIs

JohnBurke
06-24-2019, 06:50 AM
The possibilities are many.

No, they're not.

I followed the Solar Impulse as it did it's around the world flight, and visited it on the ground, as well as watched arrivals and departures. I viewed it as a historic aviation event, and found it a remarkable achievement.

That said, it was a very large airplane with a very light payload traveling at very slow speeds, and had to be cooled and charged for extended periods on the ground. It required a team of about 60 engineers and considerable ground equipment, flown in transport category large aircraft around the world to support the airplane. Despite the facade of efficiency, it was quite the opposite, burning a great deal of fossil fuel in two jet transports, and a lot of energy in diesel generators to run chargers and cooling equipment, while it was on it's mission. Add it in there and the solar impulse burned a lot more fossil fuel, and proved far, far less efficient, than if they'd simply jumped in a learjet, or even a 757, and flown around the world. Go figure. All that to carry one guy.

Solar Impulse was proof of concept, an exercise, and not the end result, but a step in a long journey. It's a far cry to point to economically viable electric aerial transport at this point in time, however.

Will it eventually be possible? Maybe.

galaxy flyer
06-24-2019, 06:55 AM
It is not cheap. The current actual cost of gasoline in the US is over $15/gallon. Luckily, for drivers, it is heavily subsidized by the US government. Jet fuel/diesel, etc., is all heavily subsidized, just like all transportation modes are heavily subsidized...

Since when is the government “subsidizing” gas at about $12 per gallon? Where’s several trillion dollars in taxation coming from?

GF

pangolin
06-24-2019, 06:59 AM
It’s a lie other countries tell their people to justify the high cost of gasoline.


Since when is the government “subsidizing” gas at about $12 per gallon? Where’s several trillion dollars in taxation coming from?

GF

JohnBurke
06-24-2019, 07:00 AM
The government is not subsidizing the fuel; it's sold at a profit, and even then a large percentage of the cost of a gallon of automotive fuel is tax.

The government is making money on fuel sales; it takes in substantial revenue from fuel; the government is not subsidizing it.

UAL T38 Phlyer
06-24-2019, 07:59 AM
It is not cheap. The current actual cost of gasoline in the US is over $15/gallon. Luckily, for drivers, it is heavily subsidized by the US government. Jet fuel/diesel, etc., is all heavily subsidized, just like all transportation modes are heavily subsidized...

U.S. Gasoline use:

How much gasoline does the United States consume?

In 2018, about 142.86 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.40 million gallons (or about 9.32 million barrels per day). (eia.gov)

Federal tax revenue:

The Treasury Department said Wednesday federal revenue totaled $3.33 trillion last year, while federal spending totaled $4.2 trillion, a 4.4% increase from the previous year. (WSJ)

Average US gas price in 2018 was $2.72 (statistica.com). By your assertion, we’ll call that subsidy $12.28 a gallon.

143 Billion x 12.75 = $1.756 Trillion in subsidies.

....or 52.73% of total Federal tax revenue. :rolleyes:

Better check your math.

CrimsonEclipse
06-24-2019, 06:03 PM
Let's see, there's a lot of stupid to debunk here.

The battery energy density myth was already debunked by ATPcliff.
(Good luck Cliff, it's throwing pearls to swine around here)

Nuclear: oh my, no.... Aside from the ridiculously obvious Chernobyl references, it's just not economically viable.
Wind: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.
Solar: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.

"Electrical transportation will require 150% more electricity capacity, bla bla bla whine whine"
No.
Most charging will occur during low utilization, meaning, at night. So when everyone is asleep, power plants are at low capacity. Charging electric cars, trucks, and airplanes, there will be enough generation without the need for upgrade.

Coal: (laughing) expensive, obsolete. Move along
Natural gas: it's good for certain locations. Still makes CO2, but the least bad of the Nuke, Coal, Gas solutions.
Hydrogen: It's a dead pathway. inefficiencies, weight, complexity. Might work for remote areas or some trucks. There might be a technical breakthrough, but I'm not banking on it.
Fuel Cells: Meh. Fuel cells require H2 or some other consumable. The companies who support it do so not for efficiency, environment, or initial cost. They support it because it requires a consumable that they can supply... for a price.
Hydro: a dead technology. You have what you have (in the USA at least) and that's really it.
Capacitors (or SUPER Capacitors as the marketers would say): Is a highly probable technology with price and density for most transportation solutions. You want to make money? Find the Cap company.

The oil industry IS subsidized heavily. Take away the wars we started to keep oil readily available and there goes half the cost. Decrease the demand for oil by 3-5% and we can control OPEC, not the other way around.

This new electric airplane is an interesting advance and a brilliant one. It fits a very specific niche in aviation and allows it to be a real world proving ground for the electrical propulsion systems with high utilization and cycles placed on the motors, batteries, cooling, and regulation systems.

The lack of moving parts and MUCH lower maintenance will REALLY decrease costs in addition to the decrease in consumables.

An interesting problem will be the fact that the take off weight will always be the same as the landing weight.

Electric wins on simplicity and efficiency. End of story.
Energy density is still a challenge but it is being solved faster than many expect.

As for the Genius who says "electrical airplanes are hard because I saw the 'Solar Impulse once"

This is quite possibly the dumbest comment that I've seen in years.
We're all stupider having read your comment.
May god have mercy on your soul.

Bunch of Cretans here.

galaxy flyer
06-24-2019, 07:35 PM
Insulting people—the sure sign of a losing argument.

GF

BobZ
06-24-2019, 07:53 PM
Since they have the energy equation solved...Im waiting for these intellectual super stars to regale us with their viable program to achieve negative population growth to reach 1B worldwide.

rickair7777
06-24-2019, 08:08 PM
Let's get started on the stupid...

Let's see, there's a lot of stupid to debunk here.

The battery energy density myth was already debunked by ATPcliff.
(Good luck Cliff, it's throwing pearls to swine around here)

Huh? You're kind of throwing "science sounding" terminology around loosely here but what you really mean is specific energy. Energy density matters, but it's not the show stopper.

The show stopper (as someone pointed out already) is chemistry, specifically electron valence energy. That's pretty fundamental based on known laws of physics. If you can re-write the laws of physics to change that, we won't need airplanes because we'll also have anti-gravity, levitation, FTL, and time travel.


Nuclear: oh my, no.... Aside from the ridiculously obvious Chernobyl references, it's just not economically viable.

Wrong. It can be economically viable if you remove all the political stupidy which creates (intentional) artificial impediments.

Modern plant designs would be even more economical than old ones... most operating plants in the US are the engineering equivalent of a '65 Ford. Also vastly safer too.

And "economically viable" by what measure? If it's that vital to save the planet from CO2, it's not unreasonable that (clean) electrical power might be a little more expensive than say coal.


Wind: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.

Niche. Plenty of places to build it, but many folks really don't want those things all over the place. Also as progressives have to learn over and over again there are some engineering limitations on power generation... the places that need power are not necessarily close enough to places where windmills make sense (windy with few residents).


Solar: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.

Profitable? If it were profitable, rich guys would be doing it to get even richer. It is quickly becoming technically more practical, and will obviously play a role.

But like wind, the best places to generate solar power (southwestern deserts in the US) are too far away from most population centers, ie it's not going to help new england much. High latitudes and/or cloud cover quickly reduce the utility of solar.


"Electrical transportation will require 150% more electricity capacity, bla bla bla whine whine"
No.
Most charging will occur during low utilization, meaning, at night. So when everyone is asleep, power plants are at low capacity. Charging electric cars, trucks, and airplanes, there will be enough generation without the need for upgrade.

Grid capacity will actually have to increase unless controls are put in place because folks will want to charge their cars while at work during the day (peak AC use, peak industrial commercial use, etc). If you can limit car charging to night only, the current grid might suffice.


Natural gas: it's good for certain locations. Still makes CO2, but the least bad of the Nuke, Coal, Gas solutions.

Nuke is much better than coal or NG. You just have to get around stupid people who are afraid of things they don't understand, and easily mislead by self-appointned wingnut counter-culture gurus.


Hydrogen: It's a dead pathway. inefficiencies, weight, complexity. Might work for remote areas or some trucks. There might be a technical breakthrough, but I'm not banking on it.

H2 is not an energy source any more than a battery is. It's just a means of transporting and delivering energy (ie a fuel).

H2 is good because the only emission is H20... that's fine at sea level but actually bad in the flight levels where there's normally no moisture above the tropopause. If you put moisture up there it will produce a greenhouse effect like Co2.

There are engineering challenges, and of course. The only clear win for H2 is applications where you need specific energy at all costs, including low energy density. That's pretty much space launch, specifically deep space launch.


Fuel Cells: Meh. Fuel cells require H2 or some other consumable. The companies who support it do so not for efficiency, environment, or initial cost. They support it because it requires a consumable that they can supply... for a price.

Not an energy source, just a system component. The nature of the fuel in question is what's significant. If the fuel makes sense, then fuel cells can make sense.

Hydro: a dead technology. You have what you have (in the USA at least) and that's really it.

Not dead, it will be around forever


Capacitors (or SUPER Capacitors as the marketers would say): Is a highly probable technology with price and density for most transportation solutions. You want to make money? Find the Cap company.

Huh???

You do realize that a capacitor is a kind of battery, right?

The higher capacity capacitors have the same chemistry limitations as other batteries.

Field capacitors are also limited by physics... if you try to use high voltage to increase energy storage, you need a lot of weight and space to contain that voltage. And you will reach a voltage which cannot be contained by practical volumes of material or spacing. With reasonable voltages, capacitors simply weigh too much (compared to practical fuels/energy storage systems).


The oil industry IS subsidized heavily. Take away the wars we started to keep oil readily available and there goes half the cost. Decrease the demand for oil by 3-5% and we can control OPEC, not the other way around.

That's really hard to quantify. If we let all of the wannabe rogue regimes just run amuck, there would be much broader economic consequences than just oil.

But eliminating most oil use would certainly be a good thing, in many respects. It just needs to be done in a coordinated manner so as not to code blue the global economy.



This new electric airplane is an interesting advance and a brilliant one. It fits a very specific niche in aviation and allows it to be a real world proving ground for the electrical propulsion systems with high utilization and cycles placed on the motors, batteries, cooling, and regulation systems.

The lack of moving parts and MUCH lower maintenance will REALLY decrease costs in addition to the decrease in consumables.

An interesting problem will be the fact that the take off weight will always be the same as the landing weight.

Electric wins on simplicity and efficiency. End of story.
Energy density is still a challenge but it is being solved faster than many expect.

There's a clear niche for electric planes, and it can probably (barely) include small regional jet market.


As for the Genius who says "electrical airplanes are hard because I saw the 'Solar Impulse once"

Electrical airplanes are actually a fascinating engineering challenge because of all the various tradeoffs. All of which can be fined-tuned for the specific mission at hand.

But with batteries you're still limited to about 8% of the specific energy of Jet A, and that's at 100% chemical efficiency.

Chemical batteries are the best known portable storage technology for electrical energy. They can be improved, but there's a glass ceiling and we already know about what it is (1,000 KwH/Kg).


This is quite possibly the dumbest comment that I've seen in years.
We're all stupider having read your comment.
May god have mercy on your soul.

Bunch of Cretans here.

Frankly, lots of passion but pretty weak on basic science and engineering.

rickair7777
06-24-2019, 08:13 PM
Since they have the energy equation solved...Im waiting for these intellectual super stars to regale us with their viable program to achieve negative population growth to reach 1B worldwide.

Neutron bombs.

It doesn't matter what the first world does if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests and growing 18th-19th century industrial processes.

Name User
06-24-2019, 08:22 PM
Neutron bombs.

It doesn't matter what the first world does if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests and growing 18th-19th century industrial processes.

Ironically the majority of the slashing and burning is for meat production of which the majority of that is one company (JBS).

JohnBurke
06-24-2019, 09:53 PM
As for the Genius who says "electrical airplanes are hard because I saw the 'Solar Impulse once"


You are referring to me, but have attributed to me that which I did not say. You are a liar.

I said nothing about "electrical airplanes are hard." YOU said that. Speak for yourself, if you believe that you're capable. Don't put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.

BobZ
06-25-2019, 12:16 AM
Neutron bombs.

It doesn't matter what the first world does if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests and growing 18th-19th century industrial processes.

Inside dope is the flux capacitor is just around the corner. :)

FlyJSH
06-25-2019, 01:59 AM
Our Sun is soon to go supernova???

The ONLY long term solution to energy usage is zero emissions.

No, the Sun will not go supernova unless it somehow gains several times its current mass. It will end up as a white dwarf.

So, I'm guessing from your statement yo believe solar is the answer. Here's the math:

A fairly high efficiency photo voltaic panel produces 15 watts per square foot. Let's pretend a panel can produce that 15 watts/square foot for 12 hours each day (more realistically about 7 hours in the sun belt, but hey, I'm generous). That means 1 square foot can produce about 65 kwh per year (15 watts *12 hours per day *365 days/year / 1000).

The US used about 3.9 trillion kwh last year. That equates to 60 billion square feet or roughly 2150 square miles of cells.

Ooops, I made a mistake.

That 2150 square miles would supply enough electricity for the country ONLY WHEN the sun is shining. Since it is dark 12 hours per day, we would need another 2150 square miles. Figure a swath about 4 miles wide running from the Florida panhandle to San Diego (I know that is more that 4300 square miles, but there will need to be room between each row of cells and for logistical stuff)

Remember, cell start losing efficiency day one and should be replaced about every 25 years.

AND we would need batteries to store enough electricity to last through the nights. Elon Musk's Australia battery holds 100 mw. To make it through the night we would need some 53,000 of those batteries. The numbers I have seen suggest each of those batteries cost about $100 million.

Now that has been an extremely optimistic set up. There would be no way to distribute electricity from the sun belt to the rust belt without ridiculous efficiency losses. And if the cells are installed up north, that 12 hours of production per day drops down to as little as 4 hour on full sun days near the Canadian border.

rickair7777
06-25-2019, 06:39 AM
AND we would need batteries to store enough electricity to last through the nights. Elon Musk's Australia battery holds 100 mw. To make it through the night we would need some 53,000 of those batteries. The numbers I have seen suggest each of those batteries cost about $100 million.

Battery cost, weight, volume, efficiency, longevity, and charge cycle times are all key factors for *portable* batteries for use in vehicles (and cell phones, tablets, etc).

But if you just need to store energy at a fixed site, flywheel systems might do the trick (already in use in some applications). With magnetic (vice mechanical bearings) they are extremely efficient for a time period in the range of day/night cycles, essentially maintenance free, and the expensive parts last forever. Storage capacity is limited only by the size of the wheel and tensile tensile strength of the metal used. And of course you can use as many as needed in parallel. Construction cost (comparable to other large grid equipment) is almost irrelevant, since they literally last forever, you could amortize the cost over a very long period (assuming you design the entire system right in the first place). Such devices could also be dispersed down the grid if that made sense, although you might not want want a very high RPM unit in a residential neighborhood, just in case.

You could also do reverse hydro for overnight (or longer) grid power accumulation. Pump water up into a reservoir or tank at night, extract the power with normal hydro gear as needed. I suspect flywheels would be better in most applications (where you don't have a good place for water storage).


Now that has been an extremely optimistic set up. There would be no way to distribute electricity from the sun belt to the rust belt without ridiculous efficiency losses. And if the cells are installed up north, that 12 hours of production per day drops down to as little as 4 hour on full sun days near the Canadian border.

It is utterly astounding to me that all of the Good Idea Fairies STILL cannot grasp this basic concept from Electrical Engineering 101. Transmission losses pile up over the miles, and 300 miles is about the practical limit. Slight possibility that could be extended with superconducting lines, but those would be orders of magnitude more expensive that current long-distance lines, and would probably require utterly impractical amounts of energy to cool the lines. Plus maintenance of a complex system stretching for hundreds of miles?

Solar is a nice supplement where it makes sense but isn't going to be the solution, any more than wind.

Mesabah
06-25-2019, 02:10 PM
The only way to achieve a zero emissions electrical grid is base load nuclear power, and biofuel peaker plants. When solar and wind become a large enough market share, it is impossible to create a grid that is zero emissions. Germany is at that point today, and will soon exceed its emissions levels from before it went down the path of solar and wind.

BobZ
06-25-2019, 02:28 PM
Biofuel? Hmmm. The germans are pretty ingenious. Maybe they will come up with a win-win biofuel-negative population growth co2 reduction plant design. Lol...

Name User
06-25-2019, 03:09 PM
I wouldn't count the Germans out. They were the first to utilize coal to oil back in WWII. Those MF's took on a host of nations during two world wars and almost won the second one. Personally when it comes to betting I find I generally do better not betting against them!

I really like the idea of stackable nuke reactors. They are small scale self contained units that can be dropped outside cities and towns all around the country. Completely self contained. Scalable. Best of all the ability to be mass produced (ie cheap!).

Solar and wind are feel goods but if we are serious about getting rid of emissions a great place to start is making electricity cheap and abundant. Incentivize people to switch to cheaper alternatives vs taxing them to reduce use.

Aviation is already in the crosshairs with multiple bills being introduced to tax airline emissions.

Mesabah
06-25-2019, 03:12 PM
Biofuel? Hmmm. The germans are pretty ingenious. Maybe they will come up with a win-win biofuel-negative population growth co2 reduction plant design. Lol...

A Co2 deconcentration camp?

BobZ
06-25-2019, 03:18 PM
A Co2 deconcentration camp?

Well? Depopulation seems to be a coequal goal of the zero emissions crowd.

I just want to know how we are gona trust the last guy left to climb in and close the door behind himself? Lol!

galaxy flyer
06-25-2019, 04:11 PM
Well done, BZ, rickair777 and FlyJsh.

Speaking of renewables being environmental sound, pity the wind operators out West have “take permits” in the thousands for species like the Bald Eagle. In the East, solar farms and wind farms are running up against NIMBYs who support renewables until they despoil the view from the harbor or gentleman farms.

GF

CrimsonEclipse
06-26-2019, 03:55 AM
Insulting people—the sure sign of a losing argument.

GF

So is whining.

Let's get started on the stupid...
Huh? You're kind of throwing "science sounding" terminology around loosely here but what you really mean is specific energy. Energy density matters, but it's not the show stopper.

The show stopper (as someone pointed out already) is chemistry, specifically electron valence energy. That's pretty fundamental based on known laws of physics. If you can re-write the laws of physics to change that, we won't need airplanes because we'll also have anti-gravity, levitation, FTL, and time travel.

Wrong. It can be economically viable if you remove all the political stupidy which creates (intentional) artificial impediments.

Modern plant designs would be even more economical than old ones... most operating plants in the US are the engineering equivalent of a '65 Ford. Also vastly safer too.

And "economically viable" by what measure? If it's that vital to save the planet from CO2, it's not unreasonable that (clean) electrical power might be a little more expensive than say coal.

Niche. Plenty of places to build it, but many folks really don't want those things all over the place. Also as progressives have to learn over and over again there are some engineering limitations on power generation... the places that need power are not necessarily close enough to places where windmills make sense (windy with few residents).

Profitable? If it were profitable, rich guys would be doing it to get even richer. It is quickly becoming technically more practical, and will obviously play a role.

But like wind, the best places to generate solar power (southwestern deserts in the US) are too far away from most population centers, ie it's not going to help new england much. High latitudes and/or cloud cover quickly reduce the utility of solar.

Grid capacity will actually have to increase unless controls are put in place because folks will want to charge their cars while at work during the day (peak AC use, peak industrial commercial use, etc). If you can limit car charging to night only, the current grid might suffice.

Nuke is much better than coal or NG. You just have to get around stupid people who are afraid of things they don't understand, and easily mislead by self-appointned wingnut counter-culture gurus.

H2 is not an energy source any more than a battery is. It's just a means of transporting and delivering energy (ie a fuel).

H2 is good because the only emission is H20... that's fine at sea level but actually bad in the flight levels where there's normally no moisture above the tropopause. If you put moisture up there it will produce a greenhouse effect like Co2.

There are engineering challenges, and of course. The only clear win for H2 is applications where you need specific energy at all costs, including low energy density. That's pretty much space launch, specifically deep space launch.

Not an energy source, just a system component. The nature of the fuel in question is what's significant. If the fuel makes sense, then fuel cells can make sense.

Not dead, it will be around forever

Huh???

You do realize that a capacitor is a kind of battery, right?

The higher capacity capacitors have the same chemistry limitations as other batteries.

Field capacitors are also limited by physics... if you try to use high voltage to increase energy storage, you need a lot of weight and space to contain that voltage. And you will reach a voltage which cannot be contained by practical volumes of material or spacing. With reasonable voltages, capacitors simply weigh too much (compared to practical fuels/energy storage systems).

That's really hard to quantify. If we let all of the wannabe rogue regimes just run amuck, there would be much broader economic consequences than just oil.

But eliminating most oil use would certainly be a good thing, in many respects. It just needs to be done in a coordinated manner so as not to code blue the global economy.

There's a clear niche for electric planes, and it can probably (barely) include small regional jet market.

Electrical airplanes are actually a fascinating engineering challenge because of all the various tradeoffs. All of which can be fined-tuned for the specific mission at hand.

But with batteries you're still limited to about 8% of the specific energy of Jet A, and that's at 100% chemical efficiency.

Chemical batteries are the best known portable storage technology for electrical energy. They can be improved, but there's a glass ceiling and we already know about what it is (1,000 KwH/Kg).

Frankly, lots of passion but pretty weak on basic science and engineering.

Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.

Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.

Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....

You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.

The rest is just babbling....


You are referring to me, but have attributed to me that which I did not say. You are a liar.

I said nothing about "electrical airplanes are hard." YOU said that. Speak for yourself, if you believe that you're capable. Don't put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.

Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.

Name User
06-26-2019, 07:39 AM
So is whining.



Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.

Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.

Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....

You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.

The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.


Solar IS the least expensive way to generate power. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.

Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.

China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.

JohnBurke
06-26-2019, 08:02 AM
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one.

You can start by laying off the alcohol when you decide to post. Start there, draw a deep breath, and attempt to keep up with the adults.

BobZ
06-26-2019, 08:32 AM
Solar IS the least expensive way to generate power. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.

Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.

China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.

Well the compulsory drawdown to worldwide population <1B will solve the scaling issues with renewables. :)

Im sure with everything else already worked out they also have a neat chart with a data point for population-renewable energy equilibrium.

Im just wondering if the local zero emmision advocates are part of the solution in that effort?

Mesabah
06-26-2019, 08:52 AM
So is whining.



Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.

Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.

Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....

You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.

The rest is just babbling....




Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.

Solar is cheaper only because it does not include storage costs. If you want to go with solar and wind, then solving climate change is completely off the table.

There are is only one option for zero emissions, nuclear and biofuel generated from waste heat.

Solar and wind require massive amounts of coal and natural gas to power through the production troughs. This is proven by Germany, whom is now caught in a vicious cycle, where more and more coal is required to keep their grid running. They have missed every single emissions target.

JohnBurke
06-26-2019, 09:22 AM
National power grids and nuclear powerplants are somewhat irrelevant to putting electrical airplanes in the air.

Mesabah
06-26-2019, 10:58 AM
National power grids and nuclear powerplants are somewhat irrelevant to putting electrical airplanes in the air.If you could achieve the energy density required for aircraft batteries with electric, major airports would require their own powerplants.
ATL would need at least 4 reactors due to the down time for refueling.

BobZ
06-26-2019, 11:03 AM
Thats gona require a whole bunch of Homer Simpsons! :)

Mesabah
06-26-2019, 11:37 AM
Thats gona require a whole bunch of Homer Simpsons! :)

At least 100 nucular panner plants, that's my new job when the autobots take over the flying.

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 06:40 PM
Ya....ther was a guy in germany about 80 yrs ago that had the same idea.

And others in china, russia, and cambodia.

Incorrect, obviously. They wanted to kill certain groups of people for their own gain.

We will work together to reduce Our Earth's population, at some point. The sooner we do it, the less deaths from wars/disasters we will experience...

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 06:42 PM
Agreed electric is isn’t zero emissions. But it does seem like it could be much more efficient overall. The electric motor itself (as I understand) is more efficient (compared to combustion) and almost maintenance free (no oil changes, longer life span, etc).

The biggest gains, I would think, would be in the taxi. Think about how much fuel we waste just sitting around waiting for takeoff. I'd also assume they engineered some energy recapture in the descent (in lieu of speed brakes)…just like electric cars do instead of using traditional brakes.


…just a layman’s perspective – I’m for whatever the hell works :)

Boeing and Airbus have been working on electric taxi motors powered by the APU, so you don't need to start the engines until you are close to takeoff time. No tug or towbar needed...

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 06:45 PM
Since when is the government “subsidizing” gas at about $12 per gallon? Where’s several trillion dollars in taxation coming from?

GF

It's mostly in deficit spending that future generations will have to pay. There is a large amount in subsidies to businesses. For example, all pax aircraft made today are subsidized about 50%, so when an airline buys one, they pay about 1/2 the actual cost. Trucks driven in the US pay a fee to use the US highways, that cover about 10% of the actual cost. There is quite a bit in general taxation, however.

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 06:48 PM
Since they have the energy equation solved...Im waiting for these intellectual super stars to regale us with their viable program to achieve negative population growth to reach 1B worldwide.

It will be quite difficult for all of us to work together to achieve the population goal that we will pick, but we will do it, because we will be forced to do it.

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 06:54 PM
Solar IS the least expensive way to generate power. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

What he's saying is the AMOUNT of solar (and other renewables) required to generate our power needs is astronomical. Especially when you start transitioning transportation infrastructure to electric as well.

Nuclear is very safe, what has made it (somewhat) unsafe is using 1950's design...no new modern nuclear plants have been built.

China and India currently produces 60%+ of their power with coal (and increasing). Replacing that with renewable is a pipe dream. Nuclear would provide instant reductions in smog and contaminates. And it would also provide the needed power without sending people back into caves.

China is shutting down 1700 coal electrical plants, and ramping up solar and wind, and electric vehicles, ASAP, using LARGE amounts of gov't funding to aid in the transition.

galaxy flyer
06-27-2019, 06:57 PM
China is shutting down 1700 coal electrical plants, and ramping up solar and wind, and electric vehicles, ASAP, using LARGE amounts of gov't funding to aid in the transition.

That’s news to the Chinese and Greenpeace.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/

atpcliff
06-27-2019, 07:09 PM
Solar and wind require massive amounts of coal and natural gas to power through the production troughs. This is proven by Germany, whom is now caught in a vicious cycle, where more and more coal is required to keep their grid running. They have missed every single emissions target.

German lignite and hard coal generation capacity has fallen from 48.9 gigawatts in 2008 to 45.4 gigawatts last year

Renewable energy replaced coal as Germany’s main power source for the first time last year, according to Reuters.
Renewable sources of energy accounted for 40 percent of German electricity production in 2018, up from 38.2 percent in 2017 and 19.1 percent in 2010.
Germany, the economic powerhouse of mainland Europe, aims to get 65 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030, abandon nuclear energy by 2022 and ultimately cease relying on coal, Reuters reported.

Renewable energy sources supplied nearly 65 percent of Germany’s electricity last week, with wind turbines alone responsible for 48.4 percent of power production nationwide, Clean Energy Wire reported. As a result, fossil fuel plants ran at a minimum output and nuclear facilities were shut down at night.
“These figures show that the envisaged goal [of the German government] of 65 percent renewables by 2030 is technically feasible,” Bruno Burger, a researcher with the solar research institute Fraunhofer ISE, said in a statement.

Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.

Germany plans to convert coal plants into renewable energy storage sites:
https://energytransition.org/2019/05/coal-plants-into-renewable-energy-storage-sites/

There are a LOT of improvements we can do to Our Civilization, if we try. Pretending that problems don't exist, or deciding to not deal with our problems, will not help.

galaxy flyer
06-27-2019, 07:25 PM
It's mostly in deficit spending that future generations will have to pay. There is a large amount in subsidies to businesses. For example, all pax aircraft made today are subsidized about 50%, so when an airline buys one, they pay about 1/2 the actual cost. Trucks driven in the US pay a fee to use the US highways, that cover about 10% of the actual cost. There is quite a bit in general taxation, however.

Really, so airlines not only get a discount from Airbus/Boeing but a government subsidy? Who knew?

Trucks pay road taxes, mostly on fuel, like everyone does which is part of the problem—politics prevents raising the required revenue to fully pay for roads. Then, politics steals some of the money to subsidize mass transit that can’t recover costs thru fares or to build bike paths, HOV lanes, etc.

Mesabah
06-27-2019, 08:09 PM
Germany plans to convert coal plants into renewable energy storage sites:
https://energytransition.org/2019/05/coal-plants-into-renewable-energy-storage-sites/

There are a LOT of improvements we can do to Our Civilization, if we try. Pretending that problems don't exist, or deciding to not deal with our problems, will not help.

That's the deception though, Germany moved its coal plants into the Czech Republic. They also moved their chemical factories to China. Those plants they say will shut down in 2038, will not. It's all lies.

At night Germany buys its power from France, which is nuclear power.

BobZ
06-27-2019, 10:37 PM
Incorrect, obviously. They wanted to kill certain groups of people for their own gain.

We will work together to reduce Our Earth's population, at some point. The sooner we do it, the less deaths from wars/disasters we will experience...

Guess u missed the cain and abel story.

If there are 2 humans left they will eventually find a way to kill each other.

atpcliff
06-28-2019, 12:42 AM
Really, so airlines not only get a discount from Airbus/Boeing but a government subsidy? Who knew?

Trucks pay road taxes, mostly on fuel, like everyone does which is part of the problem—politics prevents raising the required revenue to fully pay for roads. Then, politics steals some of the money to subsidize mass transit that can’t recover costs thru fares or to build bike paths, HOV lanes, etc.

It is quite difficult to understand all the subsidies, I don't, because they are hidden. Truckers think they pay their costs to use highways...they don't. Motorists think they pay their fair share...same goes for ALL transportation modes...all heavily subsidized. Thus, the food we buy in grocery stores is heavily subsidized, both because the transportation costs of that food are subsidized, and because the government subsidizes farmers, through various means, such as subsidizing the cost of the machines they buy to farm their land, and often subsidizing the cost of the water they use, etc., etc., etc.

I would guess that over 90% of our politicians do not understand the extent of the subsidies that we are paying, either through taxes, or through deficit spending. And, many subsidies are made indirectly, such as money for the military that is used to allow commerce to operate. An example of this would be the costs the military incur to stop piracy at sea, or the massive expenditures to ensure oil keeps flowing from the Middle East...there are many, many examples, that most people never realize.

atpcliff
06-28-2019, 12:46 AM
That's the deception though, Germany moved its coal plants into the Czech Republic. They also moved their chemical factories to China. Those plants they say will shut down in 2038, will not. It's all lies.

At night Germany buys its power from France, which is nuclear power.

I searched on Google to discover the coal plants moved to the Czech Republic...couldn't find any, but found lots more about the German plans to scuttle all their coal power plants...

Switching from carbon fuels to renewable, is not easy, but it has to be done, if we want Our Civilization to continue to provide us with modern conveniences...

Name User
06-28-2019, 08:39 AM
I'm curious about this europe stuff too. Mesaba, can you provide credible sources?

worstpilotever
06-28-2019, 10:44 AM
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.

Cliffy said otherwise....and everything cliffy says on the internet is true.

Mesabah
06-28-2019, 10:45 AM
I'm curious about this europe stuff too. Mesaba, can you provide credible sources?

The media, and or scientific articles are produced with a green agenda, they will tell lies, so you have to look at the raw import/export data for German electricity use. They close down the plants, and then buy their base load electricity from across the border. California does exactly the same thing. They then report they have lowered their in state production of CO2, but that's a lie, it actually increased due to travel distance losses.
http://i64.tinypic.com/33eon43.png

The only true picture of carbon foot print is the global one., and even these numbers are off, because China is illegally dumping unreported amounts of Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
http://i64.tinypic.com/dlq1dz.png

rickair7777
06-28-2019, 12:10 PM
California does exactly the same thing. They then report they have lowered their in state production of CO2, but that's a lie, it actually increased due to travel distance losses.

Reminds me of their power grid crisis about 20 years ago, if you're wondering how all of these progressive radical infrastructure ideas are going to get executed, here's some history along those lines. Sacramento politicians publicly announced these proposed solutions...

1. State to seize ownership of the power plants operated by the price gougers. Ooops, turns out those plants are located across the state line in NV, and were built there by opportunist investors when CA would not allow construction of sufficient internal generation capacity. As powerful as CA state government is, they haven't quite gotten to where they can seize infrastructure in other states :rolleyes:

2. Transmit surplus grid power from New England (in cooperation with new england liberal politicians, I mean they all held a press conference together to announce this). Turns out new england's generation and grid is sized for winter heating requirements, but it's under-utilized in summer since it's pretty cool up there. Also turns out you can't transmit grid power more than a few hundred miles... they fell short on that by about 2,000 miles. Apparently none of those pols had an engineer on staff, or thought to consult one :rolleyes:

Excargodog
06-28-2019, 12:33 PM
Switching from carbon fuels to renewable, is not easy, but it has to be done, if we want Our Civilization to continue to provide us with modern conveniences...

Capitalizing Our Civilization, as if it is a deity is not the ticket to instant credibility.

FlyJSH
06-29-2019, 04:50 PM
It is quite difficult to understand all the subsidies, I don't, because they are hidden. Truckers think they pay their costs to use highways...they don't. Motorists think they pay their fair share...same goes for ALL transportation modes...all heavily subsidized. .

And Tesla buyers who spend $90,000 +/- pay zero gasoline tax (about $200 per year for a 25 mpg car driven 15,000 miles per year). So those drivers can complain about all the potholes that need to be fixed and never pay a penny to help fix them.

Oh, and as an added bonus, if they purchase by 7/1/19 they will get a $3,750 federal tax CREDIT. Credit, not deduction. A $3,750 credit is the equivalent of a $15,600 deduction for a married couple making $80,000 total. Heaven knows those poor, unfortunate people who are forced to shell out $90k just so they can finally take care of Mother Earth need all the federal subsidies they can get.


For those who are truly in need, the credits go up to $7,500 for plug in electrics from lesser known companies like BMW, Rover, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and Jaguar. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/irc-30d-new-qualified-plug-in-electric-drive-motor-vehicle-credit
So the next time you look at what you are paying each year in federal income tax, realize how much of what you just paid went to buy someone else a frivolous $100k electric car.

fasteddie800
06-30-2019, 12:45 PM
There is a Q100 flying around with a hybrid power plant. It uses smaller turbines for cruise and an electric assist motor when taking off and climbing.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/05/30-fuel-savings-when-flying-utcs-hybrid-electric-regional-planes-soon/

No, there is not a Q100 flying with a hybrid power plant. UTC has announced some nebulous "plans" to work on one, but that's it.

The Eviation aircraft that started this thread is also similarly vaporware. They certainly had a nice display at the Paris Air Show, but they have yet to fly. And they've advertised that they'd be certified by late 2021. So, they haven't even flown yet, and they think they're going to be fully certified in ~two years?

All these news stories about "Electric Aviation is around the corner!" make for great press, and I'm sure a lot of clicks for MSNBC/Fox/CNN, etc. But the devil-is-in-the-details, and all of these "proposals" are woefully short on details.

UAL T38 Phlyer
06-30-2019, 01:48 PM
No, there is not a Q100 flying with a hybrid power plant. UTC has announced some nebulous "plans" to work on one, but that's it.

The Eviation aircraft that started this thread is also similarly vaporware. They certainly had a nice display at the Paris Air Show, but they have yet to fly. And they've advertised that they'd be certified by late 2021. So, they haven't even flown yet, and they think they're going to be fully certified in ~two years?

All these news stories about "Electric Aviation is around the corner!" make for great press, and I'm sure a lot of clicks for MSNBC/Fox/CNN, etc. But the devil-is-in-the-details, and all of these "proposals" are woefully short on details.

Thank you.

Every time I see the Eviation, I think two things:

1. Crosswind landing limits.

2. Lightning strike.

Gordie H
06-30-2019, 06:57 PM
What caught my attention was Cape Air’s interest in the plane. They apparently think it’ll add value to the company...I’m sure they did (and are doing) their due diligence. Bodes well for the plane..imho

Name User
07-01-2019, 12:44 PM
Thank you.

Every time I see the Eviation, I think two things:

1. Crosswind landing limits.

2. Lightning strike.

Crosswind landings are easy, you increase thrust on the upwind motor. Aircraft lands straight ahead, no wing dip necessary. Easily accomplished with an algorithm coupled to the rudder pedal.

Lighting strike...not sure on that one! I can't imagine how the batteries will be protected from that sort of voltage, you'd see an instant lipo explosion.

Name User
07-01-2019, 12:44 PM
What caught my attention was Cape Air’s interest in the plane. They apparently think it’ll add value to the company...I’m sure they did (and are doing) their due diligence. Bodes well for the plane..imho

Yeah they have their stuff together. It gives creditability to the plane.

UAL T38 Phlyer
07-01-2019, 01:06 PM
Crosswind landings are easy, you increase thrust on the upwind motor. Aircraft lands straight ahead, no wing dip necessary. Easily accomplished with an algorithm coupled to the rudder pedal.

Lighting strike...not sure on that one! I can't imagine how the batteries will be protected from that sort of voltage, you'd see an instant lipo explosion.

Umm...that’s not how you do a crosswind landing. I could do differential thrust in a number of aircraft. If I did, they’d ask what the hell was wrong with me.

A crosswind landing is done either in a crab, wing low, or a combination thereof. Any of those choices produces a velocity vector that equals the crosswind component.

Crab would give the prop clearance, but causes a swerve-fishtail upon touchdown. (Or else you go off into the weeds).

Wing low is usually the smoothest, but requires bank at touchdown. Most transport category jets have limits of about 7 degrees. The low speed of the Eviation would require more bank for a given crosswind.

I’m curious as to your background if you think yaw from differential power solves crosswind landings. (Because it doesn’t). And if you wanted yaw...then just use the rudder. No algorithm required.

Because I’d bet that IF this thing ever makes it to production, the bank and crosswind limit will be low.

Gordie H
07-01-2019, 05:28 PM
It’s a good casual observation…i.e. how does it handle a crosswind (and my own answer is I have no idea)? But do we really think an Israeli engineering team and a company that’s been in business ~30 years overlooked crosswind landing performance?

UAL T38 Phlyer
07-01-2019, 06:41 PM
It’s a good casual observation…i.e. how does it handle a crosswind (and my own answer is I have no idea)? But do we really think an Israeli engineering team and a company that’s been in business ~30 years overlooked crosswind landing performance?

Maybe. We’ve probably all seen highly publicized projects that from the start seemed questionable, often with big investor and/or government involvement.

California High-speed rail? Solyndra? Those are two I can think of. Here's a list of some others. https://curiousmatic.com/colossal-failed-government-projects/

Having motors at the furthest possible locations from the centerline axis (wingtips, and the vertical fin) mean maximum moment-arms in normal ops (tail; pitch-down adding power) and single-engine, for the wing motors. It has to be considered; any mechanical device can fail.

To me, a two-engine arrangement like Rutan’s Defiant, or a three engine in similar fashion (putting two close to centerline on the wing trailing edge) would make more aerodynamic and stability sense. It would also give better ground clearance for crosswinds, single-engine, etc.

But I suspect the wingtip arrangement here was done to reduce the bending load of weight near the centerline, which made the wing structure light enough that maybe the thing could meet range and speed objectives.

Gordie H
07-01-2019, 08:45 PM
Maybe. We’ve probably all seen highly publicized projects that from the start seemed questionable, often with big investor and/or government involvement.

California High-speed rail? Solyndra? Those are two I can think of. Here's a list of some others. https://curiousmatic.com/colossal-failed-government-projects/

True. But this is NONE of that. I don’t know much about Eviation the company. But when I think of Israeli tech, I think top tier / crap that works. Not “pie in the sky”, Silicon Valley feel good start-up (pitching for gov subsidies, etc.)

And then there’s Cape Air. A small company that’s succeeded (thrived?) for decades in a cut-throat (as we know) business with no government help. The fact that they aren’t “too big to fail” means they can’t make a mistake like buying the wrong plane.

These two entities, coming together, is what makes this promising. But who knows, we’ll see how it goes :) I’m sure if testing goes awry there’s plenty of contractual off ramps for Cape.

Name User
07-02-2019, 09:35 AM
Maybe. We’ve probably all seen highly publicized projects that from the start seemed questionable, often with big investor and/or government involvement.

California High-speed rail? Solyndra? Those are two I can think of. Here's a list of some others. https://curiousmatic.com/colossal-failed-government-projects/

Having motors at the furthest possible locations from the centerline axis (wingtips, and the vertical fin) mean maximum moment-arms in normal ops (tail; pitch-down adding power) and single-engine, for the wing motors. It has to be considered; any mechanical device can fail.

To me, a two-engine arrangement like Rutan’s Defiant, or a three engine in similar fashion (putting two close to centerline on the wing trailing edge) would make more aerodynamic and stability sense. It would also give better ground clearance for crosswinds, single-engine, etc.

But I suspect the wingtip arrangement here was done to reduce the bending load of weight near the centerline, which made the wing structure light enough that maybe the thing could meet range and speed objectives.
Again you show you have not done much research into the aircraft. Upon having a wingtip engine/"motor" fail, the other automatically cuts power making losing an engine a complete nonevent.

Obviously if you lose the rear motor, both wingtip motors still function.

The engineering on this plane has been well thought out.

UAL T38 Phlyer
07-02-2019, 10:04 AM
Again you show you have not done much research into the aircraft. Upon having a wingtip engine/"motor" fail, the other automatically cuts power making losing an engine a complete nonevent.



Got it. So, if I lose an engine on the 767, all I have to do is throttle-back on the operative engine.

I’ll notify the Fleet manager we’ve been doing it wrong. :rolleyes:

If your statement is true...that one must reduce power in an asymmetric thrust situation, because the rudder lacks the authority to counter the yaw...then it has NOT been well thought-out.

And it likely would not pass certification.

Name User
07-02-2019, 10:50 AM
Got it. So, if I lose an engine on the 767, all I have to do is throttle-back on the operative engine.

I’ll notify the Fleet manager we’ve been doing it wrong. :rolleyes:

If your statement is true...that one must reduce power in an asymmetric thrust situation, because the rudder lacks the authority to counter the yaw...then it has NOT been well thought-out.

And it likely would not pass certification.
A 767 doesn't have a third engine in the back. I thought that would be obvious.

"One" does not have to reduce the power - the aircraft automatically will do it. This is going way back but IIRC the 1900 had a rudder boost system for engine failures as well. Similar idea.

galaxy flyer
07-02-2019, 01:20 PM
Then, it’s a “twin” with one the engines divided into two thrust components, the outboard props. Curious how certification will work there.


GF

Excargodog
07-02-2019, 02:43 PM
Alice will pack more than 8,200 pounds’ worth of batteries, which will account for most of the plane’s maximum takeoff weight of 14,000 pounds. “It’s a large battery with some plane painted on it,” Bar-Yohay joked.


https://www.geekwire.com/2019/eviation-unveils-electric-airplane-plans-flight-tests-central-washington-state/

Let’s see, 8200# of battery, nine pax and two crew are probably at least another 2400#. The three engines they are talking about - MagniX Magni250s - are 158# each so that’s another 474#, so that comes to 11074#, leaving 2926# available for fuselage, avionics, gear/wheels/tires pax seats, etc. by comparison, empty weight on a Cherokee six is about 1850#. Of course it’s gear and main spar doesn’t have to support 14,000#.

I’m not saying it’s impossible but I’d strongly recommend not putting any more than 5-10% of your 401k into company stock...;)

galaxy flyer
07-02-2019, 02:55 PM
I wouldn’t invest my old lawnmower in it.

Name User
07-02-2019, 03:22 PM
Then, it’s a “twin” with one the engines divided into two thrust components, the outboard props. Curious how certification will work there.


GF

All the rules are going to have to be rewritten for electric aircraft, from design to flight testing. Certainly no small task. I too think their timeline is "optimistic".

Excargodog
07-02-2019, 03:40 PM
All the rules are going to have to be rewritten for electric aircraft, from design to flight testing. Certainly no small task. I too think their timeline is "optimistic".

Given that I am STILL waiting for my prepurchased uavionix ads-b tail beacon STC version to be certified long after the wing version and experimental version have been FAA approved, I think a “two to three year” timeframe for certification of an electric aircraft that they have yet to build goes well beyond “optimistic.”

The expression “pipe dream” springs to mind.

BobZ
07-02-2019, 07:20 PM
3 motors. 2 on wing 1 on tail.

Seems we have seen this movie before.

galaxy flyer
07-02-2019, 07:55 PM
All the rules are going to have to be rewritten for electric aircraft, from design to flight testing. Certainly no small task. I too think their timeline is "optimistic".

The power source isn’t going to cause “all the rules “ to change, in fact, I rather doubt much will change. They’ll still have to adress the power loss case and this configuration doesn’t fit in very well.

GF

abelenky
07-03-2019, 06:25 AM
The power source isn’t going to cause “all the rules “ to change, in fact, I rather doubt much will change. They’ll still have to adress the power loss case and this configuration doesn’t fit in very well.


Actually quite a lot changes when the power plant switches from combustion to electro-chemical energy.

A few things:
TOW == LW: Empty batteries weigh the same as full batteries, so you always land with the same weight you take off at.
This has consequences down to the landing gear design.
Electric planes won't trim to balance fuel that has been burned off.
Useful load no longer includes fuel weight.

You might then think that a plane should always take off with batteries at 100%, but that's not true.
Cycling lithium-ion batteries to 100% shortens their lifespan considerably.
If the planned flight does not require the last 20%, you're better off charging to only the needed energy (ideally below 80%) to increase the lifespan of the batteries.

Out of fuel emergencies end up very different with Li batteries.
With traditional fuel, when the tank is dry, the plane just glides.
With Li, gliding at Vbg can actually recharge the batteries and get you another couple minutes of power.
If the battery ends up empty at 15,000 feet, the motor can suddenly come alive again at 2,000 and help power in to a safe landing.
That is definitely not in the current POHs.


(me: Only a PPL pilot; Lithium-Ion BMS engineer)

BobZ
07-03-2019, 06:28 AM
When you run out of gas the chance of post impact fire is almost nil.

Do batteries burn?

abelenky
07-03-2019, 06:38 AM
When you run out of gas the chance of post impact fire is almost nil.

Do batteries burn?

They definitely do. Great point.

We burn them in tests all the time.
Once started, they are self-fueling; the oxidizer is part of the cell. You *cannot* put them out (similar to how Mg can burn underwater)

The rules for airport fire trucks will probably have to be re-written for electric planes too.

galaxy flyer
07-03-2019, 06:46 AM
Actually quite a lot changes when the power plant switches from combustion to electro-chemical energy.

A few things:
TOW == LW: Empty batteries weigh the same as full batteries, so you always land with the same weight you take off at.
This has consequences down to the landing gear design.
Electric planes won't trim to balance fuel that has been burned off.
Useful load no longer includes fuel weight.

You might then think that a plane should always take off with batteries at 100%, but that's not true.
Cycling lithium-ion batteries to 100% shortens their lifespan considerably.
If the planned flight does not require the last 20%, you're better off charging to only the needed energy (ideally below 80%) to increase the lifespan of the batteries.

Out of fuel emergencies end up very different with Li batteries.
With traditional fuel, when the tank is dry, the plane just glides.
With Li, gliding at Vbg can actually recharge the batteries and get you another couple minutes of power.
If the battery ends up empty at 15,000 feet, the motor can suddenly come alive again at 2,000 and help power in to a safe landing.
That is definitely not in the current POHs.


(me: Only a PPL pilot; Lithium-Ion BMS engineer)

I realize those points, but the current Part 23 and 25 address them. For example, landing gear strength.

FlyJSH
07-04-2019, 06:05 PM
With traditional fuel, when the tank is dry, the plane just glides.
With Li, gliding at Vbg can actually recharge the batteries and get you another couple minutes of power.
If the battery ends up empty at 15,000 feet, the motor can suddenly come alive again at 2,000 and help power in to a safe landing.
That is definitely not in the current POHs.


Sure will recharge the batteries. It will also add a ton of drag.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/98539-drag-windmilling-vs-dead-prop.html

Knock the rust off the old MEL training: for the checkride we had to do a drag demo. In the Seminole I learned in, one windmilling prop added about the same sink as leaving the gear extended. IIRC the value was about 400 ft/min.

Ignoring the basic drag of the windmilling props, I wonder how much recharging there would be at best glide. I would think it would take an airspeed significantly higher than best glide to provide sufficient revs to build a useful charge.

Excargodog
07-04-2019, 06:58 PM
https://youtu.be/m_8QGBv4v7E

joepilot
07-04-2019, 10:05 PM
Umm...that’s not how you do a crosswind landing. I could do differential thrust in a number of aircraft. If I did, they’d ask what the hell was wrong with me.

A crosswind landing is done either in a crab, wing low, or a combination thereof. Any of those choices produces a velocity vector that equals the crosswind component.

Crab would give the prop clearance, but causes a swerve-fishtail upon touchdown. (Or else you go off into the weeds).

Wing low is usually the smoothest, but requires bank at touchdown. Most transport category jets have limits of about 7 degrees. The low speed of the Eviation would require more bank for a given crosswind.

I’m curious as to your background if you think yaw from differential power solves crosswind landings. (Because it doesn’t). And if you wanted yaw...then just use the rudder. No algorithm required.

Because I’d bet that IF this thing ever makes it to production, the bank and crosswind limit will be low.

Hi UAL

This is only in reference to the crosswind problem.

I can think of several ways that this problem has been solved. You have certainly flown the T-38 more recently than I have, but if I remember correctly that aircraft was landed in a crab, with a 45 knot crosswind limit.

The 727 used the crab kickout method, rather than the usual airline slip method.

The C-5 had a crosswind gear that allowed landing with the aircraft in a crab, but the wheels rolling straight down the runway.

I'm guessing that the crosswind gear might be easiest to design for this aircraft.

Joe

UAL T38 Phlyer
07-05-2019, 07:07 AM
Joe:

True on the Operational standard to land in a crab in the T-38, but the rationale: “the wings are too short; it raises your stall speed!” was bunk. So was the standard to land on the upwind side of the runway (which would make you move towards the near upwind edge of the runway upon touchdown).

Been five years since I flew it, but I think the crosswind limit was 25 kts; maybe 30. I landed in some winds pushing those limits, and used a combination wing-low/slight crab.

I think the real reason for both directives was 1. Guys overcontrolled the rudder, (so the Air Force said “crab”) and 2. They wouldn’t crab enough, so if aiming upwind...they’d drift and end up on the downwind side. “Better aim upwind...” :rolleyes:

Guys wouldn’t apply crosswind controls during T&Gs either on huge crosswind days, so the downwind tires would get trashed. (I taught my students otherwise; crewchiefs were always amused my tires were worn evenly ;) ).

Anyway, the Alice could have crosswind gear....but that will add more weight to a weight-critical design. And even if landing in a crab is their stated solution, turbulence and gusting winds can cause undesired banks in the flare. ie, prop strikes.

There was a post about the weight of the batteries, aircraft Max Gross, and useful load. The batteries were over half the weight of the plane. I’d guess they are in the wings, which is why the motors were tip-mounted...for weight distribution and bending-moment. I’m not sure if these batteries are the type that can spontaneously combust like Lithium, but a battery fire in a thin wing does not bode well for structural integrity.

Is it sleek, futuristic, and cool-looking? Yes. Does it have socio-political appeal for the climate-change crowd? Yes. Did they make aerodynamic compromises to achieve strength, weight, and electrical objectives? I would guess yes.

rickair7777
07-05-2019, 07:15 AM
Sure will recharge the batteries. It will also add a ton of drag.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/98539-drag-windmilling-vs-dead-prop.html

Knock the rust off the old MEL training: for the checkride we had to do a drag demo. In the Seminole I learned in, one windmilling prop added about the same sink as leaving the gear extended. IIRC the value was about 400 ft/min.

Ignoring the basic drag of the windmilling props, I wonder how much recharging there would be at best glide. I would think it would take an airspeed significantly higher than best glide to provide sufficient revs to build a useful charge.

Yes, there's so much induced drag that charging while gliding would likely be impractical. A fast charge takes a LOT of current, and a slow charge won't help. It works for helo autorotations only because they plummet straight down so ALL potential energy is available to spin up the rotor disc. For a glider most of your potential energy is going to lift generation.

FlyJSH
07-05-2019, 05:28 PM
There was a post about the weight of the batteries, aircraft Max Gross, and useful load. The batteries were over half the weight of the plane. I’d guess they are in the wings, which is why the motors were tip-mounted...for weight distribution and bending-moment. I’m not sure if these batteries are the type that can spontaneously combust like Lithium, but a battery fire in a thin wing does not bode well for structural integrity.



I'm not sure a LiPo fire under everybody's hind quarters is much better! :p:D

Excargodog
07-06-2019, 06:29 AM
https://youtu.be/2y1FK0YXFdQ

Light sport electric

rickair7777
07-06-2019, 07:17 AM
I'm not sure a LiPo fire under everybody's hind quarters is much better! :p:D

That's the other big issue with airplane batteries... pushing the boundaries on specific energy is the name of the game, all of these developers are designing electric/hybrid/UAM today on the premise that the business case depends on significantly better batteries being available in a few years, about the time these things are certified and ready to take off.

Bleeding edge battery tech is fundamentally incompatible with batteries which don't catch on fire :confused:

If they push the envelope too hard on that they are going to set themselves back by a couple decades when flaming electric planes full of flaming, screaming pax start falling out of the sky.

atpcliff
07-10-2019, 12:59 PM
All these news stories about "Electric Aviation is around the corner!" make for great press, and I'm sure a lot of clicks for MSNBC/Fox/CNN, etc. But the devil-is-in-the-details, and all of these "proposals" are woefully short on details.

Airbus is currently working with SAS on a hybrid electric aircraft...