kasper

I think you mean the OV-10 Bronco not Bravo.

I’ll go with the gloster e28/39. The me262 is reported to have flown the month before but that was with piston engines with turbojets after the gloster. caproni was not a true turbojet so not like for like

BUT if they had not be directed to design around a jet engine (not suited to role) but instead allowed to use a turboprop this may have been a replacement for the AN-2 ... even though the AN-2 is now getting a turboprop.

If readers are interested you can easily google "Queensland Criminal Code" and quite easily read through what Fraud is, that dishonesty on Fraud is indictable and that attempts = same as complete acts ... and its indicatable with max of many years in extended sleepover at taxpayers expense. Always loved the fact that Qld and Tas codified their criminal laws WAY back ... made studying law in Tassie all those decades ago much easier than it was when I migrated north and started practice in NSW with dozens of pieces of legislation and case law to work through ... might explain why I decided tax and corp law was more to my strength. Don't get me wrong - Qld and Tas have multiple legislative instruments and case law built up around the Codes but that central core codification was always an easy starting point. An on this case ... if they can prove that cash changed hands for non-legal cost share without an AOC (which on the reporting seems to be pretty well accepted given he has been reported to have been convicted) it looks like Mr Hoch is looking at an extended sleepover at tax payers expense. Cheers.

A bit exaggerated- the airframe never existed. The pics are all cobbled together artists impressions. There never was an airframe from the 747 family with 3 engines however there were several 5 engines 747’s …. All were 747s flying on 4 with a spare engine literally slung under the wing or slapped on the side of the fuselage to allow transport of a spare engine to a stranded aircraft that needed a swap out and that was the quick way to get it there.

Nope. The certificate specifies the operating limits. So an Australian RAAus registered certified aircraft is limited in its Australian certificate to the Australian limits. This applies equally to the MTOW as the flight manoeuvres allowed when certified in Australia. No RAAus Reg airframes from any factory in the world are certified in Australia at a MTOW greater than that allowed under the CAO in Australia nor are they certified to perform any flight manoeuvre that is outside the operational limits ever permitted for the category in which it is certified and registered in Australia.

There are NO RAAus planes certified to spin. Full stop no quibble. There ARE airframes that are RAAus registered that IF they were registered in another category or country may be certified to spin but once it has RAAus numbers on the side its definitely NOT certified to spin.

Hate to say it but buy a simple CAD (D for Drafting) program like DeltaCad and do it yourself. - US$40 and its yours forever. I moved off Aautocad years ago when the costs for the licences became prohibitive and moved to DeltaCad for all my drawings as I was not doing complex design work requiring computer assembly and fit integration. Drafting programs like Deltacad can't do design integration and 3d but it can do the drafting with about 10 min self training and it will spit out the appropriate files to pass to the CAM machine of your choice - for me mostly waterjet and mills As an example I drafted up the full 16 pages of the EPB1 plank drawings over a week of evenings while watching TV - its not too hard or time consuming. Cheers.

Yep. That’s why it took until I could reasonably get an ultralight out to around 2 hours endurance for not a huge cost in power plant before I decided to have a go. all those ifs are on top of the minimum I set for what I need. If all those ifs were required then I’d not be even starting to plan. My system will probably meet my needs. Thanks all I need.

The advantage - sort of - with an battery electric system is that it’s pretty flexible as to what throws electricity at the motive system. if a better batter comes along with better recharge and energy density it’s only part of the system that needs changing. An expensive part but only part. if 10 min fast charge battery systems become available in a few years then it’s its a yes room of if it can be used to replace what I’ve already got. if hydrogen PEM stacks and storage come down in price and overall weight they might be an option. The trouble at the moment is a 6kw PEM stack while only 9kg is US$28k - not viable at this point. im happy fitting what’s pretty much off the shelf into what is really my aircraft design based on the sapphire. It’s not really a sapphire anymore when it’s got a different power train. Different wing section. Different wing area. Different wing platform and will have a different flight envelope and handling.

Im a middle aged man who has the same trouser size as I did at 21. Losing weight is not in my mindset I’m happy with not gaining more. my bms is off the shelf and has 2 temp sensors …. I know that is not enough when I’m splitting the pack into three areas in the airframe but the draw on the pack is well within the specs for the batteries so I’m considering this area of management. as for recharge it’s still an open item. The charger is NOT going in the plane and I’m still working on options. The hangar/shed has 6kw of solar and 25kwh of agm batteries so the slow recharge from that alone will sit at around 5-6hrs to 80% as I can’t push too much current around without losing efficiency or getting heat issues on recharge. not sure what I’ll do if it works and I want to go somewhere. Can’t really pull over to a Tesla supercharger 🤣 but this is not intended to be a go somewhere plane. It’s my let’s see if I can do this plane. I have other planes with IC engines to go somewhere in or fly when the sapphire is on recharge.

well IF e=mc^2 is perfectly applicable my 14.5khw batteries will be about 580 nanograms lighter ... that is 580 time a nanogram a nanogram is 1 thousand millionth of a gram ... that is 1 / 1,000,000,000,000 of a kilogram ... Lets just say they weigh the same for all practical purposes.

Yes BUT they are not being fully honest ... 353 kg is the bare mass of the cells themselves not the weight of the assembles battery packs. There will be additional weight in the airframe that is required to assemble a useful battery pack even an air cooled system like the Ducati or my system. The thing that was interesting to me in the linked youtube video was the clear discussion of how a battery capacity more closely matched to the draw is supportive of an aircooled/low weight battery pack compared to high draw packs that really will need liquid/active cooling etc. It was one of the reasons I chose a relatively large capacity battery pack as a starter for the airframe install system ... I ran a test setup of the motor on a small capacity test battery pack and was not impressed with how quickly and how hot the pack got ... and even less happy with having cooked a new battery pack so badly it was scrap.

And the reason this is all terribly hard to do ... energy density and conversion to work. I have an electric motor and control system that is VERY efficient in taking kw in the battery and converting it into rotational kw at the prop ... I'm looking at around 90-95% efficient. That means my 14.5kwh of battery can be converted into 13kw of work ... and that 13kw of work weighs 88kg. That 13kw will keep me up around 2hrs. A small two stroke petrol engine to do the same work runs at 9lph in cruise ... and that engine is approx 9kw of power in cruise to the redrive which as a belt is around 90% efficient so its near 8kw of work. So 2 hrs of petrol is 18L ... and that is 13kg. Battery system is 6.76 times the installed weight of the petrol equivalent ... and believe me working out how to shove nearly 90kg of weight into an airframe that is only 90kg AND keep the CofG in an acceptable location AND still have room for my well padded body has been interesting. Yes the electric motor is lighter than the IC engine but at the low power end of aircraft the saving on motor is not really helpful to offset against the battery weight. This is why small power systems will be very low endurance for a long time in my opinion.

Hmmm I'm using LIFEPO4 chemistry which is not the lightest lithium battery (but quite a bit less flammable) and I have a 14.5kwh battery setup for the Sapphire that with the BMS weighs in at 88kg before I start slotting it around the airframe. Prorata for the capacity difference my setup is exactly the same kg/kwh as Ducati get ... maybe I am on the right track. Admitted my 88kg does not include the battery boxes I've built into the new wing and behind the seat but they are all vac bagged carbon and very light so my system is stacking up so far. My concern with the Eflyer is that they are going to be using a lot of power even in economical cruise to stay up there so they will need lots of battery ... and these things are still heavy per kwh. Just think - Eflyer has 110kw motor, - guessing it uses 30-40kw to fly at endurance - they claim 3hrs endurance - they need around 90-120kwh of battery - LIFEPO4 systems weigh 6kw/kwh This would imply a battery pack of around 540-720kg That is not believable. Even if using really good (very flammable) lithium batteries its not much better - the current Tesla 100kwh lithium pack comes in at 625kg. I just cannot see how they can possibly get the performance they claim out of the available technology.

😂 😂 oh bless - you honestly believe the average Joe n Jill are 85kg. and I followed this development for years and never heard of any flight more than a couple of circuits so I believe nothing about it’s claimed endurance or range.

The link works …. It’s just it’s a link to THIS post so not useful. as this airframe has been knocking around for 6 yrs and has been through company mergers and a lot of money and two motor providers I’d like to know if the post was for something new. it never really added up when I read about it - only 200kg payload so toothbrush and credit card if you have a passenger. - never clear how much battery capacity they actually have to give the claimed 3.5hrs and at what actual cruise/reserve the system was

Respect. I’m still hobbling along on my avmap geopilot ii. I’m sure it’ll die one day. From experience avmap support in oz is poor and give the IV was retired and replaced with the V you are likely left with replace or attempt to get it repaired independently eg the spotty goth running your local phone and tablet repair store. My local guy is called Callum 😛

Morane-Saulnier Epervier or sparrow hawk. MS1500. Was prototypes only

Physically can you swap them? Yes - they have the same mast bolt patterns. Technically should you swap them - maybe not - the hang angle between the two airframes is slightly different and your thrust line with reference to the hang angle makes a BIG difference to handling on a trike and I am not certain the thrust lines will be maintained between the two airframes. Legally are you allowed to swap them - NOT WITHOUT AIRBORNE CONFIRMING IT IS WITHIN THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION AND NOT UNTIL YOU HAVE FOLLOWED THE RAAUS/SAFA MODIFICATION PROCESSES AND SIGN OFFS.

Spacey, just use an ecs. What you are effectively describing is the old mechanical motor controllers as used in trams and trains through to the late 80’s. You get jumpy power moves and your described system of segregating batteries is even worse because you’re leaving capacity in batteries not in the circuit and available if needed. Plus if course mechanical switching is sparks-r-us on contactors. just use an ecs and all of the issues with your proposed system go away and you get full smooth power and access to every drop of battery capacity.

It’s not a matter of getting away with anything. I’ve set a $ budget to achieve a system of x kw power with y kwh of storage. the system I’m going with meets my specs of need so 👍 I did seriously consider a twin rotomax 150 set up but the cost of two controllers and motors pushed the drive component to nearly as much as the battery/bms/charge half and I’m not spending that much.

Not really. The V into the motor is the V out of the controller not the V out of the battery. it’s entirely possible to have a 48v battery run a 100v motor … not the most efficient but it can be done. my set up is 48v all through and it’s reasonably efficient electrically speaking … just not efficient $$$$ wise because it’s three times the cost of an IC Paramotor engine of the same power. It’s just smoother, quieter and less polluting at pint of use.

If you wander around alibaba for electric motors scrolls down and the details are there Model No: MP238/50 70KV brushless motor Max voltage: 100V Max current: 350A Rated current: 170A No load current: 12..2A Resistance: 0.0052ohm Dimension: 238mm*50mm Weight: 5kg ESC: 120V 500A Thrust: 85kg-90kg Propeller: 4213 or 5095 carbon fiber propeller and the real challenge is to get a really good esc to control the motor. Core motors are relatively simple manufacturing challenges and quality does not cost a lot in a motor. and 15kg for this output is really heavy. That power output for a well designed outrunner should be half of that at worst. This list from alibaba shows it at 5kg which is believable the controller on the other hand is a nightmare of electronic unicorn dust covered magic … unless you are THAT one forum member who could design and knock one up with one hand behind his back. a good controller has to both be designed well and manufactured well or you are a very heavy glider far too often for my liking. cheers

Don’t forget that lithium batteries - most chemistries - are solid state batteries and can be mounted in any orientation. Laying a 13.5cm battery on its side and making a LONG battery box that runs the batteries out into the wing will work. Allows the weight to be designed into the airframe at a nice position for core cofg management and weight Int eh wings can be nice to help with structural loads as it can assist with lower bending moments to design to at the wing/fuselage connections.