Electric Aircraft interest?

So I take it with a large dose of salt

Whatever became of sodium batteries? :-)

 

 

Sodium batteries are still struggling to make any inroads onto Lithium batteries. They suffer from size problems and dendritic growth problems - and a lack of cycle life.

 

The ABC journos have been reading our thread and have done a little bit of research. Nothing really enlightening in what they've put up, though.

 

Where are our next-gen batteries?

 

 

Nothing really enlightening in what they've put up, though.

Well often the simple truth isn't very exciting.

 

But it's still the truth.

 

 

GS Yuasa to double EV range with new battery from 2020: Nikkei

 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s GS Yuasa Corp will begin mass-producing as early as in 2020 a new lithium-ion battery that would double the range of electric vehicles while keeping prices steady, the Nikkei business daily reported on Tuesday.

 

The report sent the company’s shares up as much as 15 percent in early trade.

 

The new battery, to be developed by a joint venture with Mitsubishi Corp and Mitsubishi Motors Corp, will be supplied to Japanese and European automakers, the paper said.

 

 

Back to the original question, yes I would be interested in a small 2 seat electric plane even with limited range.

 

Any shape would be fine with me, exotic, like the facet, would capture my interest. Many posts assume you are aiming at a market like Australia but I have not read anything you have posted that indicates that. There are many markets other than ours.

 

I also would be happy for it to be non certified, fit under experimental VH rather than RAAus so weight would not be an issue.

 

Keep at it, I love following your builds, your imagination and your get out there and give it a go attitude.

 

Thanks

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

Yes Australia is first market purely due to comfort and connections, ease of testing etc, then of course "MURICA!".

 

See what happens soon when we get this new factory deal finalized and the second application for the research grants, missed out on the first round due to a stupid reason, sigh, that has been not only rectified, but in an even stronger position than before, the failure may have even increased our chances for a larger sum due to the experienced gained through it, and the corrections put in place.

 

In the interim, a company I know well has developed an 800cc VTwin with large genny, meant for hybrid application, annoyingly I know little in the area so need to learn more.

 

 

 

Peter, the Swiss Ruppert Archaeopteryx is available with an electric propulsion pack. It adds 16kgs for the battery packs, and 7kgs for the electric motor, prop and driveshaft, to the machine weight.

 

The Archaeopteryx is described as a hang glider, but it certainly fits the description of "aircraft" to me, with solid wings and tail, fitted with moveable control surfaces.

 

Unfortunately, being Swiss, it will set you back US$93,000 without the electric propulsion option, and would most certainly be over US$100,000 with it.

 

This type of pricing seems to be quite self-defeating to me, but hey - whenever has anything of Swiss origin or manufacture, come cheap?

 

 

 

Peter, the Swiss Ruppert Archaeopteryx i

I'm not the sort of manufacturer that starts rumours about my competition about the wings falling off, the paint peels and they're built by the children of Polish immigrants, because I play fair, but I would mention that I would never buy a plane with a name I can't pronounce.

 

would most certainly be over US$100,000

$100K? How much for one?

 

At least mine won't fall over when it stops!

 

 

It's pronounced Arki-opter-ix, and it's named after this fellow below, who it appears, was all about eating the opposition ...

 

You can live in the hope, that your design progeny does the same.

 

http://www.bakip.net/gfresteig/images/644017.jpg

 

 

"All electric" aircraft are a complete crock. Hybrid maybe, but that involves some kind of hydrocarbon fuelled engine and an alternator plus at least one electric motor.

 

Hybrid as VTOL makes more sense. Electric for vertical flight, less than one minute for takeoff and transition to wing borne flight, maybe two for landing and IC motor for cruise. Much less battery required. Airports can then be much smaller. The aircraft too as the wings are sized for cruise not for low stall speed and takeoff and landing. The landing gear is lighter too as it touches down vertically, gently, under automatic control. The guidance system for vertical mode (and cruise) would fit in a two inch cube for a quad redundant system. Batteries, motors and controllers to do this already exist. One electric motor/prop out case can be handled. As the electric motors are used only in vertical flight they are optimised for essentially static thrust only, hence fixed pitch. This thing wouldn't even be all that expensive.

 

To avoid certification issues build as homebuilt kit. I cannot even think why anyone would build a certified aircraft of any kind unless they have the resources of Boeing or Airbus.

 

 

I think that new planforms will eventually dominate the market. Irrational emotional attachment to the cruciform layout is what's held the industry where it's at, but the next generations are much more openminded. The cruciform layout makes sense for a bird, who's wing motion is their drive system, however localized air movement driven planes can make use of the induced flow to enhance lift. This was proven by the Custer Channel wing, and the technology was successfully stolen by Fairchild, in the design of the A-10 Warthog. Further, as the flying flapjack proved, very low aspect ratio wings, with 0 tip losses are possible, by using your air movers to counteract vortex induced tip losses. I've got some idea's around this. I think the facet plane is very inspiring, however what I think is that the drive for efficient flight pushes us toward larger propellors. In conventional layouts, prop swing is limited by landing gear height. This was the failure of the flying flapjack, enormous gear. In my joined wing design, I'm looking at having the whole upper wing pivot (not shown in the concept model here). These are just very raw concept models, I've done dozens to a hundred or so, looking for an optimal layout of upper and lower wing, control surfaces, etc. I'm hoping to start RC modelling some of my more promising models soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting concept for sure

 

 

I think that new planforms will eventually dominate the market. Irrational emotional attachment to the cruciform layout is what's held the industry where it's at, but the next generations are much more openminded...

What a breath of fresh air, Drewrt! Us old flying farts are soooo conservative...

 

New, super-strong materials and computerised control systems should make such revolutionary aircraft viable.

 

I love your concept drawing, but I fear your design is too traditional... Who says pilots must sit upright? Why not prone like the Wrights, or even reclining like a Roman senator?

 

... the Custer Channel wing, and the technology was successfully stolen by Fairchild, in the design of the A-10 Warthog...

My next aeroplane is likely to incorporate the Channel Wing concept, but I can't see it in the A10. Tell us more.

 

 

Alternate seating arrangements are reclining or semi reclining, as in some gliders, and in F1 race cars, or prone as shown in posts #267 and #301 of the Guess this Aircraft thread.

 

 

Seating in twin astir and std astir is great

 

 

Custer Channel Wing - Wikipedia

Look at the video from 6 min mark

 

 

 

"All electric" aircraft are a complete crock..

I'm in intensive study at the moment and learning some interesting things, better than I thought actually.

 

Stick with a simple, air cooled DC setup, big amps can be applied for about the right amount of time to get up, then back off and settle into cruise before overheating.

 

That setup consists of batteries, DC motor and very simple DC controller, that's it. Still investigating but more suitable for homebuilt than AC which for various reasons is the preference for production aircraft such as the Pipistrel.

 

 

What a breath of fresh air, Drewrt! Us old flying farts are soooo conservative...New, super-strong materials and computerised control systems should make such revolutionary aircraft viable.

I love your concept drawing, but I fear your design is too traditional... Who says pilots must sit upright? Why not prone like the Wrights, or even reclining like a Roman senator?

 

My next aeroplane is likely to incorporate the Channel Wing concept, but I can't see it in the A10. Tell us more.

Custer sued the builder of A10 for this. Custers thesis was that lift was proportional to speed of flow over wing, having as a child been in a building whose roof lifted off and flew away largely intact, he recognized that inducing flow could also create lift. He took that to the next step, by wrapping the wing around the prop, creating a semi duct. In the A10, known amoung pilots for it's ability to "hang", the intakes are positioned so as to induce flow (by suction, same as Custer). His suit failed as I don't think he found any evidence that it was the intent of the designers to copy him, may have just been a happy accident.

 

 

Custer sued the builder of A10... ...His suit failed...

So... it was kind of his "last stand"?

 

 

Derr...

 

Unlike his military namesake, the work of this Custer helped humanity. One day I hope to fly my own design incorporating his ideas.

 

So... it was kind of his "last stand"?

So... it was kind of his "last stand"?

Wa Wa.... yea, it was.

I've had the chance to correspond with his son, who sent me unpublished video of him taking off and flying while someone ran along side the plane (his son did a lot of test pilot flying for his dad). Very low take off speed with very short roll, no headwind. And that was in his first try. The US Army tests showed that it had incredible lift, but were enamoured by newfangled helicopters. It's also often repeated that he had a lot of disdain for conventional engineers, and was not easy to get along with.

 

What he showed quite conclusively is that induced flow is just as valuable as "real" flow in terms of lift created. The big problem they had was control at low speeds. Since the induced flow wasn't going over control surfaces (unlike the A10), you had lift, but no control.

 

 

Getting back on track to the original subject - electric aircraft - there are a lot of subtle gains connected to the electric motive power change, as compared to IC engines.

 

1. The smooth, continuous rotary operation of an electric motor totally dispenses with the basically, very rough, constant reversing, power-pulsing actions happening inside an IC engine. The resultant lack of power pulses and associated severe vibration, will result in a longer airframe life.

 

2. The lack of loud exhaust noise from continuous staccato fuel-firing events will result in much, much quieter aircraft operation. This will be a boon to all occupants, and the "aircraft noise" haters on the ground.

 

3. An electric motor only utilises the HP or Kw required to maintain flight. An IC engine wastes a lot of HP or Kw at cruise, because it's producing more power than actually needed for flight, due to serious losses in friction and heat. I haven't sighted any precise figures, but the efficiency level of electric motors (expressed as a % of available energy utilised for the job) is definitely much higher than any IC engine. IC engines rarely get over 30% efficiency, electric motors often exceed 75% efficiency.

 

4. Electric motive power now has a major edge - it's called electronics. Substantial improvements in electronics in recent years means electric motor control and electric current flow can be now be greatly improved, monitored and maximised. Just as inverters have revolutionised welders and air-conditioners in recent years, so have electronic motor controllers and microprocessors become important additions to the advantages of electric motive power.

 

5. The electric motor can have regenerative power immediately you start to descend. You can utilise the inherent energy available in the aircraft dropping, to produce power.

 

6. Advances in photo-voltaic cell technology, such as the improvement in PV cells, using nano-crystal technology, to enable the printing, or painting on, of PV cells, will enable aircraft to carry PV cells over virtually the whole structure of the aircraft.

 

The CSIRO and its partners are at the forefront of this new technology, and I would expect to see viable commercial results in the near future.

 

Printable solar cells for lightweight energy - CSIRO

 

 

Getting back on track to the original subject - electric aircraft - there are a lot of subtle gains connected to the electric motive power change,

"Subtle gains" is correct, still there has been no real ground made in terms of weight reduction, and the way that numbers of American and Chinese are spending billions on opening new factories to produce lithium batteries as we know them know now, then the presumption is their own experts also don't believe there's anything new 'just around the corner' as is oft reported.

 

 

Subsonic Jet aircraft have not increased cruise speed significantly since the B 707. Supersonic costs. Piston engines are horrible really although I've worked on them my whole life It's love /hate. You have the efficiencies in the ball park but I wouldn't bank on the regenerative aspect being of a lot of use in the electric case.. Regenerative acts the same as drag if you use it and will alter the cruise/descent proportions. Longer cruise and steeper descent. electric power is nowhere like as power dense as combusting fossil fuels. You could convert the hydrogen directly to electricity. or go nuclear. While it's got problems one can't eliminate undiscovered aspects before they are available to assess. Nev