PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: Palmpilot on May 27, 2016, 07:35:24 PM
-
This looks interesting:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-a-practical-electric-plane-for-nasa (http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-a-practical-electric-plane-for-nasa)
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/Mjc1NjQxMg)
-
Ummm, I don't think "energy storage" is the challenge with this "design"
" Instead of mounting them conventionally, on the wing or fuselage, I put them in my design atop the plane’s V-shaped tail, where the airflow is cleaner."
-
It's based on fuel cells and drag reduction more than energy storage, but his article doesn't really discuss potential mechanical issues in the mounting of the motors.
-
You're done. Build a website, make a video, promise awesome performance and a delivery date of late 2017 and start collecting deposits today!!! ;)
-
OK, in all seriousness I love the concept of electric airplanes and can't wait to have one. I have repeatedly said on forums that fuel cells look to be the best way to get there. However hydrogen is not the way to go. They need to devise a way to use a liquid fuel source so that the current infrastructure can be utilized. If it's a petroleum based fuel, even better and we can have this up and running in no time.
-
Look at the center of thrust. Now look at the presumptive center of mass and the arm of the motor mounts.
Torque calculations are left as exercise to the student.
-
Yes, in addition to the moment arm, the requirement for the empennage to withstand the weight, thrust, and vibration from the motors looks like a tall order.
-
OK, in all seriousness I love the concept of electric airplanes and can't wait to have one.
Why? I don't understand why anyone would want an electric car or plane. Internal combustion rocks.
-
Why? I don't understand why anyone would want an electric car or plane. Internal combustion rocks.
I don't understand why anyone would want to keep using 19th century technology with all the misery it causes when it was well understood over a hundred years ago that the electric motor was a far superior way to propel a vehicle? Imagine if every elevator in America had to depend on a gasoline engine to go up and down. Thankfully long dead engineers saved us from that potential nightmare!
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to keep using 19th century technology with all the misery it causes when it was well understood over a hundred years ago that the electric motor was a far superior way to propel a vehicle? Imagine if every elevator in America had to depend on a gasoline engine to go up and down. Thankfully long dead engineers saved us from that potential nightmare!
Problem is you have to GENERATE and STORE the electricity that runs the motor. What's the end to end efficiency? Solar is a loser in most of the industrialized world.
-
Just to clarify, this is not a solar powered design. As I understand it, there are many ways to produce hydrogen.
-
Ummm, I don't think "energy storage" is the challenge with this "design"
" Instead of mounting them conventionally, on the wing or fuselage, I put them in my design atop the plane’s V-shaped tail, where the airflow is cleaner."
Those engines up there would cause a significant pitch moment about the CG if you were to ask me.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to keep using 19th century technology with all the misery it causes when it was well understood over a hundred years ago that the electric motor was a far superior way to propel a vehicle? Imagine if every elevator in America had to depend on a gasoline engine to go up and down. Thankfully long dead engineers saved us from that potential nightmare!
The problem is energy density.
There is no battery technology in existence that packs as much energy into a pound as internal combustion.
-
The problem is energy density.
There is no battery technology in existence that packs as much energy into a pound as internal combustion.
That's why this design relies on fuel cells, not batteries.
-
Those engines up there would cause a significant pitch moment about the CG if you were to ask me.
Give that man a ceeegar.
-
That's why this design relies on fuel cells, not batteries.
Even fuel cells don't approach the energy density of internal combustion.
-
Even fuel cells don't approach the energy density of internal combustion.
Yes, that's discussed in the article. It drove some of the design decisions he made, as well as leading him to design for a slower speed than NASA targeted.
-
The problem is energy density.
There is no battery technology in existence that packs as much energy into a pound as internal combustion.
Problem is you have to GENERATE and STORE the electricity that runs the motor. What's the end to end efficiency? Solar is a loser in most of the industrialized world.
Yes and... DUH!! I originally said I can't wait to have an electric airplane. Another poster said that he couldn't understand why anyone would want an electric airplane, or electric car. There was never any discussion as to where the energy was to come from. I suggested fuel cells just as the creator of the vaporware plane had done.
When I typed "I can't wait..." that sort of implied that I understood that the technology was not here now to make electric planes practical. By extension, that might suggest I understand the batteries just aren't good enough today. So I ask you guys, energy supply aside, which is better, an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor for moving people from point A to point B?
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to keep using 19th century technology with all the misery it causes when it was well understood over a hundred years ago that the electric motor was a far superior way to propel a vehicle? Imagine if every elevator in America had to depend on a gasoline engine to go up and down. Thankfully long dead engineers saved us from that potential nightmare!
We're not talking about elevators where weight is meaningless in the propulsion area. We are talking about vehicles where weight matters. What misery has gasoline propulsion caused? What the eff are you talking about?
-
We're not talking about elevators where weight is meaningless in the propulsion area. We are talking about vehicles where weight matters. What misery has gasoline propulsion caused? What the eff are you talking about?
They have incubated a certain class of liberal Eco-freaks and helped fuel the rise of Al Gore.
-
We're not talking about elevators where weight is meaningless in the propulsion area. We are talking about vehicles where weight matters. What misery has gasoline propulsion caused? What the eff are you talking about?
Yes weight matters. The electric motor is much, much lighter than the internal combustion engine. The electric motor is superior to the piston engine in every single way. The example of the elevator illustrates that when you think of how stupid and ridiculous a gasoline powered elevator would be. The Tesla Model S also illustrates this as it crushes piston powered cars costing much more as well as heavily modified cars.
Your original question was "Why would anyone want an electric vehicle?" This is why. It is far superior. The railroads figured this out ages ago. Electric cars, electric planes, electric boats, electric motorcycles, they will eventually become the norm and will so superior that people will only use the internal combustion engine as a hobby. Are we at this point today? No and I never said we were, but I will say that we are headed there and I can't wait to have better vehicles.
As to the miseries I spoke of, there are two. One is environmental and it's pointless to talk about that one. It's obvious to everyone that internal combustion engines have had a large impact on the planet, but to most here I'm sure it's a non-issue with nothing to see, so move along.
The second misery is that of ownership and operation of internal combustion engines. All the maintenance, the break downs, the constant care and feeding required. It's taken over one hundred years, but finally in the case of automobiles, they have become pretty reliable and easy to use, but still the electric car and it's maintenance schedule makes the gas car look silly. That's why established car dealerships are resistant to selling electric cars on their lots. They know that they won't be seeing many of these customers down the road for repairs and routine oil changes, etc.
You can talk about range and energy density and recharge times, etc, but it should be noted that I never said that electric vehicles were at a stage where they were equivalent to gas powered cars today. They're not, but they're getting closer. Cost is what's holding them back from wider spread adoption. They're getting better all the time, so like I said, I can't wait. I personally think the solution that will allow them to take over entirely is in fuel cells and not batteries, but time will tell.
-
They have incubated a certain class of liberal Eco-freaks and helped fuel the rise of Al Gore.
Oh brother... ::) You might be shocked to find out that people that give a shit about the environment come from both sides of the isle, however it is true that historically the right wing of politics has put business and making money at higher premium than conserving the environment. I personally think it is good to have great concern about the water, the air, the land and the animals around us. As we continue to multiply in numbers by the billions and all of these new people desiring the American, or European standard of living, the environment is going to take a serious beating. It is good that "they" are incubating generations that give a shit.
-
Yes weight matters. The electric motor is much, much lighter than the internal combustion engine. The electric motor is superior to the piston engine in every single way. The example of the elevator illustrates that when you think of how stupid and ridiculous a gasoline powered elevator would be. The Tesla Model S also illustrates this as it crushes piston powered cars costing much more as well as heavily modified cars.
yep, the electric motor is lighter. Nice of you to ignore the weight of getting the energy to the electric motor.
"every single way"? let me know when you can drive an electric car across country, stopping to pee and switch drivers.
Your original question was "Why would anyone want an electric vehicle?" This is why. It is far superior. The railroads figured this out ages ago. Electric cars, electric planes, electric boats, electric motorcycles, they will eventually become the norm and will so superior that people will only use the internal combustion engine as a hobby. Are we at this point today? No and I never said we were, but I will say that we are headed there and I can't wait to have better vehicles.
Yep, electric locomotives power all the big long trains... oops. I think you are ignoring the source of the electricty.
As to the miseries I spoke of, there are two. One is environmental and it's pointless to talk about that one. It's obvious to everyone that internal combustion engines have had a large impact on the planet, but to most here I'm sure it's a non-issue with nothing to see, so move along.
because generating electricity is pollution free! ::)
The second misery is that of ownership and operation of internal combustion engines. All the maintenance, the break downs, the constant care and feeding required. It's taken over one hundred years, but finally in the case of automobiles, they have become pretty reliable and easy to use, but still the electric car and it's maintenance schedule makes the gas car look silly. That's why established car dealerships are resistant to selling electric cars on their lots. They know that they won't be seeing many of these customers down the road for repairs and routine oil changes, etc.
yep, a vast conspiracy to sell maintenance-free vehicles. good grief.
btw - some car dealership and the service department are separate entities. Not a lot of salesmen care about service down the road (no pun), they care about the sale today and this month.
You can talk about range and energy density and recharge times, etc, but it should be noted that I never said that electric vehicles were at a stage where they were equivalent to gas powered cars today. They're not, but they're getting closer. Cost is what's holding them back from wider spread adoption. They're getting better all the time, so like I said, I can't wait. I personally think the solution that will allow them to take over entirely is in fuel cells and not batteries, but time will tell.
yep, the electric motor is superior in every way, except for range, cost, total cost of ownership.
-
yep, the electric motor is lighter. Nice of you to ignore the weight of getting the energy to the electric motor.
"every single way"? let me know when you can drive an electric car across country, stopping to pee and switch drivers.
Yep, electric locomotives power all the big long trains... oops. I think you are ignoring the source of the electricty.
because generating electricity is pollution free! ::)
yep, a vast conspiracy to sell maintenance-free vehicles. good grief.
btw - some car dealership and the service department are separate entities. Not a lot of salesmen care about service down the road (no pun), they care about the sale today and this month.
yep, the electric motor is superior in every way, except for range, cost, total cost of ownership.
Why are people on the internet such crappy readers? OK, you don't really want to read my posts and understand my points, fine. You have an anti electric car agenda to push, fine.
One of two things is going to happen going forward into the future. Either electric cars will be exposed for the fraud they are and they will disappear from the marketplace as people wise up and look beyond the hype and all the green weenies, or they will continue to gain market share until eventually ICE powered cars will become the minority and eventually disappear from the market place, or perhaps at best become a boutique exotic.
One of us will be right. The future will tell.
-
Oh brother... ::) You might be shocked to find out that people that give a shit about the environment come from both sides of the isle, however it is true that historically the right wing of politics has put business and making money at higher premium than conserving the environment. I personally think it is good to have great concern about the water, the air, the land and the animals around us. As we continue to multiply in numbers by the billions and all of these new people desiring the American, or European standard of living, the environment is going to take a serious beating. It is good that "they" are incubating generations that give a shit.
I've posted many times that I am an avid environmentalist. But I am also a realist. I admit that my avgas contains lead, but the amount I burn is pretty insignificant. What galls me is stories like the one where Leo DiCaprio was at the Cannes film fesitval when he found out he had been won some sort of environmental award. So he got in his private jet, flew to N.Y. to pick up his award, and then flew back to Cannes.
It is not the environment, or those that wish to protect it that I am at war with. It is the fake environmentalists that give the subject a bad name. People like Al Gore.
-
I've posted many times that I am an avid environmentalist. But I am also a realist. I admit that my avgas contains lead, but the amount I burn is pretty insignificant. What galls me is stories like the one where Leo DiCaprio was at the Cannes film fesitval when he found out he had been won some sort of environmental award. So he got in his private jet, flew to N.Y. to pick up his award, and then flew back to Cannes.
It is not the environment, or those that wish to protect it that I am at war with. It is the fake environmentalists that give the subject a bad name. People like Al Gore.
Where do you draw the line between fake environmentalists and real ones? Pretty much all pilots of powered aircraft burn a lot more fuel per mile than the transportation means used by the average person. So a non-pilot might see all pilots who express concern over the environment as "fake environmentalists."