Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Electric airplane

J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin said:
This CNN.com feature is optimized for Adobe Flash Player version 8 or
higher.

You are currently using Flash Player 9

On my PC it just sits there. No message, nada, zip, zilch.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
This CNN.com feature is optimized for Adobe Flash Player version 8 or
higher.

You are currently using Flash Player 9

So, I am using 9 too, and no problems.
about:plugins
Shockwave Flash

File name: libflashplayer.so
Shockwave Flash 9.0 r124

MIME Type Description Suffixes Enabled
application/x-shockwave-flash Shockwave Flash swf Yes
application/futuresplash FutureSplash Player spl Yes

:)
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
On my PC it just sits there. No message, nada, zip, zilch.

You have to wait a few minutes, has been like that all day, perhaps
too many clicks, commercial comes first too, ignore it.
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:06:05 +0200) it happened Martin Griffith
<[email protected]> wrote in
So, I am using 9 too, and no problems.
about:plugins
Shockwave Flash

Re-clicking on the video hyperlink at bottom of page is lot faster
than waiting for link made by OP.

Incidentally, I started studying last year for my Private Pilot's
license. I was warned in advance that, in general, pilots have major
egos, which, from my experience with real life pilots, seems to be
partially true, but certainly not as bad as I was told, certainly
nothing to give much thought too.

OTOH, pilots in rec.aviation.piloting...ahem.... lets just say that
there are some of them you might have a drink with, and some of them
you would not want to rescue you from be stranded island in Pacific.
The rudeness of the latter is immeasurable. Those who are rude believe
that their knowledge and experience in aviation gives them license to
be rude. What's remarkable is that some other pilots actually
subscribe to principle. I wonder how well Bob Pease would be received
if he uttered expletives to random strangers online more than 10
times/ day on average, and then said, "I'm allowed to do this. I'm
brilliant."

But on topic of airplanes, I have strong suspicion that there is a
"tertiary" model for flight, in addition to propeller and jet, just as
there are multiple models for amplifiers (vacuum tube, BJT, FET). It
would likely reduce noise and vibration considerably if it worked. I
don't know the details yet, just a hunch. ;) But I do know that there
are a lot of people, pilots and aerodynamacists alike, who probably
have inccorect understanding of lift:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

In such cases, there is often great opportunity to be realized, if
only someone would actually takek the time to figure out what's really
going on. That person will not be I of course, but it's always
tempting to fidget. :)

This reminds me of the development of Carnot cycle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Léonard_Sadi_Carnot

....where engineers were very much deep into developing and using the
steam engine without [really] understanding how it works.

IMHO, the prevaling "backwash directly causes lift", IIUC, is suspect
- it violates basic Newtonian physics. Of course, I could be
misinterpreting what is meant by it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
R

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian

Jan 1, 1970
0
be rude. What's remarkable is that some other pilots actually
subscribe to principle. I wonder how well Bob Pease would be received
if he uttered expletives to random strangers online more than 10
times/ day on average, and then said, "I'm allowed to do this. I'm
brilliant."

Probably about the same as Thompson - he actually _believes_ he's as
"brilliant" as he claims to be. ;-)

He's not really, you know; he's an analog IC savant. His politics are
somewhere between Genghis Khan and Mussolini.

Cheers!
Rich
 
M

Martin Griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Probably about the same as Thompson - he actually _believes_ he's as
"brilliant" as he claims to be. ;-)

He's not really, you know; he's an analog IC savant. His politics are
somewhere between Genghis Khan and Mussolini.

Cheers!
Rich
Hmm , 'lectric aeroplanes to Genghis"Thompson" Khan in six posts,
without invoking Mr Godwin, congrats :)

Reasonable but utterly non related video here
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html
with a modern "Beatles" haircut, and matching jeans


martin
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hmm , 'lectric aeroplanes to Genghis"Thompson" Khan in six posts,
without invoking Mr Godwin, congrats :)

Reasonable but utterly non related video herehttp://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider....
with a modern "Beatles" haircut, and matching jeans

It's too bad that the people in rec.aviation.piloting cannot engage in
the same type of gentleman'ly banter that goes on between Rich and
Jim.

Would be a lot more fun to read. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
M

Martin Griffith

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's too bad that the people in rec.aviation.piloting cannot engage in
the same type of gentleman'ly banter that goes on between Rich and
Jim.

Would be a lot more fun to read. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-
I went for my PPL about 15 years ago, gave up 'cos driving a 10 yo
beat up Cessna is a bit like driving a 2CV JoergeMobile, boring, and
the bit of arrogance at the airfield didn't help.

Still read that pilot bloke on Salon though

Rich and Jim should do a youtube show


martin
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin said:
I went for my PPL about 15 years ago, gave up 'cos driving a 10 yo
beat up Cessna is a bit like driving a 2CV JoergeMobile, boring, and
the bit of arrogance at the airfield didn't help.

Reminds me of a Belgian pilot at our airfield there. He had an airplane,
his own, kept it spiffy and up to date. It looked really good, not like
our parachuting Cessna where occasionally something would fall off. The
_only_ other vehicle he owned was a rickety old moped where the wheels
weren't even straight.

Still read that pilot bloke on Salon though

I subscribe to Flying Magazine since who knows when, maybe ten years now.

Rich and Jim should do a youtube show

That would be fun!
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
I went for my PPL about 15 years ago, gave up 'cos driving a 10 yo
beat up Cessna is a bit like driving a 2CV JoergeMobile, boring, and
the bit of arrogance at the airfield didn't help.

Still read that pilot bloke on Salon though

Rich and Jim should do a youtube show

I am up to my neck in a large research project that is finally coming
to a close. After I am done with this, I would really like to get
into avation. Not flying, but thinking/designing.

I don't need to convince anyone here that electronics/software can
revolutionize the cockpits of almost any aircraft, including the new
Airbus A380. But it has been slow-coming due to a peculiar social
dynamic at play in aviation industry between

1. private pilots
2. commercial pilots
3. airlines
4. military pilots
5. FAA
6. student pilots
7. instructors
8. general public
9. suppliers of technology to the aviation industry.

In a nutshell, aircraft manufactures do for $1 what could be done for
a dime many areas. The under-utilization of electrical and software
controls is so extreme, it makes an electrical engineer want to get
down on all fours and gnaw and the gastroc with gnashing teeth. And if
one even thinks about suggesting an alternative method, the fightback
is abrupt, rigid, and sustained - by the pilots, who view paying $800
for a headset, or $10,000 for a $120 computer as a rite of passage.
Ironically, out of the parties listed above, the one that is most
likely to consider new ideas, most apt to encourge cross-discipline
contributions, most likely to sponsor technological advancement, most
likely to cast out the old if the new is better...is,

the FAA:

http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

From what I seen, the biggest impediment to advancing aviation is not
the FAA. It's the people who sit in the cockpit, many of whom will not
hesitate to let it be known the last thing they want in the cockpit is
advanced technology. They prefer to fiddle with the knobs and
gadgets.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

In such cases, there is often great opportunity to be realized, if
only someone would actually takek the time to figure out what's really
going on. That person will not be I of course, but it's always
tempting to fidget. :)

This reminds me of the development of Carnot cycle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Léonard_Sadi_Carnot

...where engineers were very much deep into developing and using the
steam engine without [really] understanding how it works.

IMHO, the prevaling "backwash directly causes lift", IIUC, is suspect
- it violates basic Newtonian physics. Of course, I could be
misinterpreting what is meant by it.

Lift seems simple to me.
Take a sheet of wood, hold it at a slight angle
\
\ <------------- direction of motion.
\

^
|
| upwards force

move forward, you feel the upwards force !
So, a wing can just as well be flat, in my view.

I really like the idea of an electric airplane, that this guy just
did it and it really takes of is great.

He says: 18 Hp electric motor.
So let's see 18 x 746 Watt = 13.428 kW
It flies 90 minutes so let's say 60 :)-)) make 13.5 kW / h.

For a 100V battery pack 13.5kW = 134 Ampere.
134 Ah capacity at 100 V requires abour 9 car batteries.

Lead acid batteries are about 30Wh / kg (wikipedia),
so he needs about 450 kg batteries.
Not likely he uses lead acid
Maybe NiMh?
NiMh is 30 - 80 Wh / kg, so at best 167 kg batteries.

Maybe he uses lithium iron, that is 150 to 200Wh/kg.
Makes at best 67.5 kg.
This last thing seems doable !

Any ideas?
 
G

George Herold

Jan 1, 1970
0
In such cases, there is often great opportunity to be realized, if
only someone would actually takek the time to figure out what's really
going on.  That person will not be I of course, but it's always
tempting to fidget. :)
This reminds me of the development of Carnot cycle...

...where engineers were very much deep into developing and using the
steam engine without [really] understanding how it works.
IMHO, the prevaling "backwash directly causes lift", IIUC, is suspect
- it violates basic Newtonian physics. Of course, I could be
misinterpreting what is meant by it.

Lift seems simple to me.
Take a sheet of wood, hold it at a slight angle
\
 \                <------------- direction of motion.
  \

 ^
 |
 | upwards force

move forward, you feel the upwards force !
So, a wing can just as well be flat, in my view.

I really like the idea of an electric airplane, that this guy just
did it and it really takes of is great.

He says: 18 Hp electric motor.
So let's see 18 x 746 Watt = 13.428 kW
It flies 90 minutes so let's say 60 :)-)) make 13.5 kW / h.

For a 100V battery pack 13.5kW =  134 Ampere.
134 Ah capacity at 100 V requires abour 9 car batteries.

Lead acid batteries are about 30Wh / kg (wikipedia),
so he needs about 450 kg batteries.
Not likely he uses lead acid
Maybe NiMh?
NiMh is 30 - 80 Wh / kg, so at best 167 kg batteries.

Maybe he uses lithium iron, that is 150 to 200Wh/kg.
Makes at best 67.5 kg.
This last thing seems doable !

Any ideas?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For a 100V battery pack 13.5kW = 134 Ampere.
134 Ah capacity at 100 V requires abour 9 car batteries."
Jan, I've always wanted to know the Ah capacity of my car battery.
So is the answer something like 100-150 Ah?
BTW If you know something about batteries.... I was reading somewhere
that the "charging efficency" of NiMH's was only 70% or so. That is
for every 10 electrons you pushed into the battery only 7 of them
stayed... the other 3 leak away somewhere. Is this true? It seems
like an ineffeicient storage mechanism. Are Lithium ion any
better?
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Better site:


JF

Beautiful, lost of technical details.
75 cents per hour at 70 mile / hour, 2 hour recharge.
This is waaaaaaaaaaaaay cool!!
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
"For a 100V battery pack 13.5kW = 134 Ampere.
Jan, I've always wanted to know the Ah capacity of my car battery.
So is the answer something like 100-150 Ah?
BTW If you know something about batteries.... I was reading somewhere
that the "charging efficency" of NiMH's was only 70% or so. That is
for every 10 electrons you pushed into the battery only 7 of them
stayed... the other 3 leak away somewhere. Is this true? It seems
like an ineffeicient storage mechanism. Are Lithium ion any
better?

100Ah is a lot for a car battery, maybe it is more like 45?
Bigger cars / trucks bigger batteries.
Hi I do not know a lot about batteries, but wikipedia does :)
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Maybe he uses lithium iron, that is 150 to 200Wh/kg.
Makes at best 67.5 kg.
This last thing seems doable !

So started wondering.. .you know fuel costs kills many airlines these days...
looked up Boeing Dreamliner on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
What if we scale up that electric airplane to 250 passengers.
Then (do?) we need 250 x 67.5 kg = 16250 kg battery pack.
But we want to fly 15000 km, not only 100 km,
so x 150 makes 2 437 500 kg.

The Dreamliner 787-8 has a fuel capacity of 126 000 liter,
maybe 100000 kg... but we do not need full power all the time,
at cruise much less, so we are in the same order of magnitude.

Now jet fuel is 335.3 cents per gallon
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm
so to fill up that Dreamliner costs 33,528 x 335.3 cents = 11238585.6 cents =
112 386 dollar.

100 x .75 x 250 for the electric plane makes 18 750 dollar.
Almost 1/10 of the fuel costs.

And you do not get on fire if crash landing.... and plenty
of power for your laptop....
Engines are silent, only problem would be the low speed,
takes days to cross the Atlantic, more meals need to be served,
well, but anyways, maybe Dreamliner could do better electric.

Did anybody ever consider going electric for big airplanes...?
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
The glass cockpit is rapidly gaining ground in GA here in the US. This
is actually causing more of a "heads down" attitude in the cockpit as
folks play with the gadgets.  In the "steam gage" age there was not
much to look at so you keep your eyes looking outside.  Jim Weir,
RST Engineering, has a great tongue-in-cheek article on his site about
the TSO'd pencil(http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/articles/tsodpencil.pdf)
Helps to explain the 10K computer that should be 100 bucks.

Haha..funny read, and gullible old me, I almost thought it was true
until I read "Horse Cave, Kentucky." Horses do not live in caves.
I dont agree with you that the impediment is in the cockpit.  If you
go to any of the EAA or AOPA shows, the avionics booths are packed with
folks looking for the latest in glass cockpit, moving map, etc.

Agreed. However, there is something strange going on here, which
baffles me to this day. Those folks do like avionics, but if you tell
them that the same avions can be had with commoditized PC versus their
$9000US model, strangely, they want the $9000 model. They will cite
the usual TSO/STC-approval-necessary to justify the cost. I then
asked, hypothetically, what would they prefer if FAA approval were not
necessary, and they said the $9000 model because of their own safety.
I then asked, what would they prefer if, not only were FAA approval
not necessary, but God told them that the device was ok and would not
fail. A suprisingly large number (essentially all) of them said that
they would *still* want the $9000 model. There reason: they actually
like the look-and-feel of the $9000 model. They said that there was
more to flying than just sitting their and letting a computer do all
the work. They want to work the controls and knobs themselves. I asked
about the percentage of non-pilots who would become pilots if the cost
were brought down by advanced technology. They said

1. There is no such advanced technology
2. Even if there were, those people do not count, because they are not
"part of general aviation".
 Here
in the US, it seem that some new gadget pops up every month for the
experimental aircraft crowd - engine monitoring, autopilots,
led navigation lighting, entertainment systems, the list goes on.
It's the FAA that's the real problem.  Just take something as "simple"
as LED strobes and try and get it certified.  You better have a lot
of time and money before you start the task.  The FAA has been working
on "updating" the 60+ year old standard repair practices manual for
at least 4 years.  Maybe, just maybe, they will update the section
on welding 4130.

Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, TX

We're pratically neighbors. I'm in NW Austin.

If you see skinny guy on 1431 doing 150mph on white VFR-800 in Marble
Falls in about 4 hours, that's me. Just got back from shop with new
Pilot Road II tires, so I need to break them in. ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
Kinda like designing an automobile without knowing how to drive?  I'm
not sure I would like that kind of auto.  It would probably look like
a Star Trek walking machine.

Idea I have in mind would look somewhat futuristic. Only thing I can
say right now is that, at first sight, it will be really hard to find
or hear the propeller. ;)
Actually, I once had someone of a similar idea.  I bought part
interest in an avionics shop.  We were considered opening a branch
shop at the local airport with me as the tech.  The problem is that I
don't fly but can repair avionics, computahs, some instruments, etc. A
little marketing research (asking stupid questions of various pilots)
convinced me that nobody would trust their airplanes to someone that
doesn't have a pilots license and doesn't fly.  That should give you a
clue for your upcoming credibility challenge.

Well, I will be licensed pilot in few months. I'm a student pilot now.
From what I have learned so far, flying is mostly a mental activity,
which might explain some of the attitudes I have observed in flight
school lounges and online. Motorcyle riding, on other hand, at 125+
mph, sustained, requires a bit more skill. I know a lot of pilots who
would not think of trying that. And though I will be licensed, in
retrospect, it is not necessary to have a pilot's license to make a
well-designed aircraft. There are plenty of people who design machines
of high quality that they themselves have never operated, no ever
will.
Yep.  The same applies to any industry where safety is more important
than functionality.  You'll find a similar situation in military,
medical, nuclear, and some industrial electronics.  If you want it to
just work, it's cheap.  If you want it totally reliable, tested,
blessed, and as near perfect as humanly possible, you gotta pay the
price.

But if you decompose these devices, often the parts are COTS. There
was a big push in the late 1960's/1970's for example, to use COTS
components. The military, in fact, was one of the biggest proponents.
They realized that, while safety is important, the doomsaying was out
of line with reality.
I can see you've never hung out in the lounge at an airport.  All you
hear are pilots complaining about this and that.  The FAA is a
favorite target, although various revenue collecting (tax) agencies
are a close second.  There's also the traditional $100 hamburger:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_Hamburger>

Oh I have. The pilot's do complain. But I think their complaints are
biased [in favor of pilots of course]. The FAA is actively
encouraging the development of Personal Air Vehicle, for example,
which has been openly ridiculed multiple times in discussions I had in
one such lounge. Part of the problem is that pilots come from all
walks of life. Many of them are not engineers or scientists, and only
retain basic knowledge of physics, or whatever. Anything that is out
of their realm of knowledge, they tend to reject. One day, it was so
bad, that owner of the pilot school I was at interrupted them to tell
them I was right about a choice of metal that should be used for sub-
structure. Obstinate would be gross understatment when
characterizing some of these pilots. The owner, however, _did_ have
strong understanding of physics.
Incidentally, a typical Dave Clark headset retails for about $250.  If
you want noise canceling, about $650.  The new X11 ENC ANR is about
$750.  There are cheaper brands with headsets for about $125.

Figure on $60/hr for a Cessna 172 dry, plus about 10 gallons per hour
for fuel at about $6/gal.  So, a 2 hr joy ride will cost $240 or the
cost of a headset.  Play with your computer flight simulator for a
day, instead of flying, and you've paid for the headset.

Yes, it's a cycle, but I'm sorry. I cannot blame the FAA. Part of it
is that aviation itself is simply not advanced enough to allow Grandma
to take a quick trip cross-country. Low-volume means higher prices,
etc. This is not the FAA's fault. They are doing what they can
[actively asking scientist and engineers to improve the technology].
$10,000 is cheap for a complete EFIS or glass cockpit control and MFD
display system.  However, if you're flying a mult-million dollar
business jet, it's just spare change.  As far as I know, you can't
legally install a general purpose computah in an airplane.  The RFI
would cause havoc to the much of the RF based navigation.  I suppose a
Tempest qualified laptop might be approved.  Incidentally, most small
aircraft run on 24VDC, which adds a small obstacle to OTS products.

You can if it's experimental. Many people have done it. So yes, there
are people who are trying to do better. But the problem still exists.
What often happens is that someone will take an existing $100,000
plane, and add a $1000 general purpose PC. So the total cost is
$101,000. Still too much. A systemic approach is necessary, and the
FAA, with their various experimental support programs, has said,

"Look...we do want you to be safe, but we do not want to impede
innovation. If you think you can make an ultra-advanced aircraft with
ultra-advanced controls, hydraulics, electronics, software, for
$50,000 show us. No we not let you fly it over Manhattan, but if you
prove that you can do it, we will grease the path as best as we
reasonably can for certification."

The problem is that no one is doing it. Only incremental ($100,000 +
$1,0000 = $101,000) designs are being pursued.
The retro aviation crowd doesn't worry me (much).  It's the yuppies
with more money than good sense or patience that worry me.  They LOVE
gadgets in their airplanes.  The more gizmos, the better.  Too bad
they don't spend the time to learn how to use them.  I just hate
trying to collect from the pilots estate after he trashes the plane
because he was too busy fiddling with the knobs and gadgets instead of
paying attention to the surroundings and instruments.

Hmmm...

One of the key criteria of the FAA's advanced experimental aircraft
programs is that future pilots, old-and-scruffy or polished-and-yuppie
will not look outside the plane at all. Instead they will use
virtual, networked cockpits with markups of simulated everything as
the way of the future [something you might know a thing or two about].
This is why I have a hard time believing that the FAA is the culprit
for slow progress of innovation. They are doing as much as a
government organization with their responsibility can be reasonably
expected to do in this area.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
Top