Connect with us

Electric airplane

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Jan Panteltje, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    On my PC it just sits there. No message, nada, zip, zilch.
     
  2. 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

    :)
     
  3. You have to wait a few minutes, has been like that all day, perhaps
    too many clicks, commercial comes first too, ignore it.
     
  4. 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-
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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
     
  7. 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-
     
  8. 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
     
  9. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    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.

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

    That would be fun!
     
  10. 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-
     
  11. 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?
     
  12. "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?
     
  13. Beautiful, lost of technical details.
    75 cents per hour at 70 mile / hour, 2 hour recharge.
    This is waaaaaaaaaaaaay cool!!
     
  14. 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 :)
     
  15. 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...?
     
  16. 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.
    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".
    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-
     
  17. Guest

    AlL It taKEs Is A rAT BraiN:
    NeXt TimE PoInT THeM tO tHIs lINK
    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html

    Splinter
     
  18. 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. ;)
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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].
    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.
    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-
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-