Bye Aerospace Electric Updates

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
491
Location
Boston Ma
I'm forever amazed that people still believe that corporations are our benevolent caregivers, and that if we just give them enough tax breaks and deregulation, they'll create a perfect world for us.

And I am forever amazed at how people still believe that government is our benevolent caregiver and if we just give them enough power they will create a perfect world for us.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
3,074
Location
Western US
And I'm an forever amazed at how people still believe that government is our benevolent caregiver and if we just give them enough power they will create a perfect world for us.

That's the logical fallacy of the "strawman argument." Feel free to back it up with the names and statements of the people who believe as you assert.
 

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
491
Location
Boston Ma
That's the logical fallacy of the "strawman argument." Feel free to back it up with the names and statements of the people who believe as you assert.


It's a take off on what RV7charlie wrote.

It's not a strawman if it's true. And it is very true that:

I am forever amazed at how people still believe that government is our benevolent caregiver and if we just give them enough power they will create a perfect world for us.

Nice try though.

Feel free to explain how the radiant energy from the Sun is so small, and CME's as so insignificant such that the "....earth is a close system. Near enough to make no difference"
 

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
491
Location
Boston Ma
See posts #97 & #102. Is your Boston MA in some country other than the USA?

Well to be honest I didn't know what you were getting at with #102. though I think that now I do.
If you mean I'm the government and so giving the power to make a rule to the "government" is giving it to me,
I'd have to say that's a ridiculous assessment. I'm pretty sure that you know as well as I do that
as you go up the governmental hierarchy, town, state Feds, you as a person have less and less say and influence.

And I'm also pretty sure that if you were to think on it for a bit you'd realize that I never said all regulation is bad.
You jumped to that conclusion. Wish you hadn't. It was a strawman and a waste of time.

But to help you out, look at it this way.

It's one thing to say:

You can't use oil. (Achieved by artificially increasing the price, through regulation, to where it's no longer competitive).
This is a horrible "regulation" which has the possibility of causing real pain to millions of people through higher energy
prices (because the alternative is more expensive than oil prices are now) and will also throttle the growth of poor
countries trying to better themselves.

It's another thing to make a rule that says:

You can't pollute the air and water.

This is an impossible regulation - stated to prove a point. Problem with that is all human activity would cease immediately and we'd all die.
That's just one of the problems with regulation: you can't make a simple rule. So there will be loopholes and qualifiers and payoffs to donors and consituencies etc.

And yet another thing to say:

"You must use catalytic converters."

The problem is that you have zero idea of what other better possibilities someone might have come up with. Maybe there are better alternatives. Do you know for a fact that there aren't? I don't.

A better regulation might be:

"Reduce emissions of (these compounds) from your car by 10%, by such and such a date, and introduce no other pollutants into the exhaust."

And let the not so benevolent car companies find the best most cost effective way. They MIGHT have come up with a better solution that CC's but now you'll never know, will you, because the government picked the winner.

Want another example?

Ma raised taxes on the boat ownership - considered a luxury - that it almost destroyed the entire industry. They had to repeal the tax it was so stupid. They never tried that again.

Regulation.


But even mandating Catalytic Converters, there's a problem: when catalytic converters came out, no one cared about CO2 emissions.
In fact back then the big concern was that we were entering an Ice Age. So what if back then the solution emmitted more CO2?
Would have been just fine and dandy back then.

Ok with you now?

BTW how much CO2 do catalytic converters emit? Do you know? is it zero? Less or more than without the converter?

Also, still waiting for that analysis on CO2 removal from you. I know I won't get it because it's not possible. Which is a huge part of my whole point here:

You have to be REALLY CAREFUL when regulating because you have no idea of:

1) how complicated the world really is
2) the better ideas you are foreclosing and
3) the ramifications of what your regulation says and how it will affect other people (see the post on how electric cars hurt the lower income people)
4) The government is not your friend...they don't see things the way you do and they don't measure things the way you do.
be careful what mandating power you give to them - you might not like the result.

Making a huge decision like artificially pricing out oil is such an egregiously stupid regulation and will have so many awful side effects that after the last 200 years of economic history I'm amazed that anyone would ever consider the idea for 3 seconds.

As for #97 I addressed that in a response to BoKu.

So I've recapped my whole point in today's series of exchanges and that's all I need do.

You (and BoKu) can have the last word on this.

I'm sure other people want to comment on other things in this thread.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,184
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I was part of spending, literally, billions of dollars to meet EPA air emissions standards. Shortly after it was going into service across the USA, the EPA suddenly realized that they had created a major land and water pollution problem.

Was threatened with jail because I approved a project to make more electricity for the same fuel burn, reducing both pollution and cost of generation. In the EPA's mind, that was the wrong thing to do. The State Utility Commission loved it. Shareholders paid for the project, and received nothing in return.


BJC
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,830
Location
Port Townsend WA
Regarding regulation and Bye electric aircraft of this thread…
The 2004 Sport Pilot regulation banned electric aircraft in that entry category! No change in almost two decades :confused:.
 

proppastie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
5,602
Location
NJ
It would be nice if a battery allowance 32 lb representing 5 gal of gas could be had for part 103......
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,001
Location
Pocahontas MS
Regarding regulation and Bye electric aircraft of this thread…
The 2004 Sport Pilot regulation banned electric aircraft in that entry category! No change in almost two decades :confused:.
To bring us up to speed, there is not nor was there ever a specific 'ban on electric aircraft' in that category, though the effect of the rule's wording had that effect. The rule simply says the a/c 'must have a single reciprocating engine'. FAA has publicly stated that electric a/c were unintentionally excluded when they wrote 'reciprocating engine' to prevent turbine installations in light sport (not sport pilot) aircraft. They've also publicly stated that electric a/c weren't even on their radar when they wrote the light sport rules, and that they are in the process of changing the rule to allow electric power.

This particular issue is more about the FAA's bureaucratic inertia (which is often frustrating, but not always bad). We could make the same complaint for the same reasons about them excluding turbines. At the time exclusion was almost certainly justified; their history with turbines was that they are complex beasts requiring extensive and recurrent training, but many of today's new tech turbines with computer controls completely remove the complexity and make them far simpler to operate than traditional reciprocating engines.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,830
Location
Port Townsend WA
No need to bring me up to speed about limiting regulations, Charlie. I was there two decades ago. And the two decades before that when other regulations would promise to save personal aviation. I only have perhaps two decades left.
 

John.Roo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,718
Location
Letohrad / Czech Republic
This took a vector off from a discussion about realistic battery performance and weight to complete a useful GA mission to how we'd charge said batteries if tech was adopted on a wide basis, replacing ICE. That's a fair question. The answer is- neither the required battery performance or generating/ distribution structure is in place at this time nor is it likely to be any time soon.

Short hops/ training around your home airport and back to charge at your hangar/ base is the mostly likely scenario in the next 5-10 years. This could work for some people and if it does, I say go for it. It's fascinating technology, sure to evolve as time goes on. I'll be watching how/ if Bye meets their lofty predictions.
Obviously I am not good in "vectoring" ;)
Well... this "discussion vector" is probbaly inevitable.

Some arguments in this thread are surprissing me.
Like the argument with recycling.
"Recycling is expensive so better not do that". And as sample has been used glass :D So seems that is better to produce new thinks and because recycling is expensive lets better make mountains of garbage.... No comment.
Doesn´t sound logical that is more difficult to dismantle something and separate materials? Of course is expensive, but using logic "is cheaper to produce waste" we could make all products the same way like bowling pins in Simpsons.


We are really, really lucky to live in times where we have "enough of everything". We really do. It was even better before - cheap fuel, no limitations of polutions, no limitation of noise, trash going into the sea or to the dump, no recycling etc.. Fuel consumption in cars or airplanes? Who was taking care.... We were (still are) burning 10 gallons of affordable fuel per hout just for sport fun flying. Super high comfort.
In this case is necessity of change something we don´t want to see. Or we can see it, but we are willing to accept that only till is not affecting our comfort zone.

We are discussing about efficiency of battteries. Too heavy, too expensive, production is not eco. Comparing with what... with fuel? Fuel is amazing energy storage. That amazing that we convert over 60-70% to heat. Is that not waste? And we don´t care because it is cheap.
I also use car. I also burn fuel. I also use batteries every day (mobile phone, flash light, notebook etc. etc.). I wrote many many times that electric propulsion actually make sense only in some specific areas of transportation. Trucks? No. Long range family cars? No. Big or fast airplanes? No. Small city cars? Yes. Self launch gliders? Yes. TMG? Yes....

So please... why we do discussing again and again about limitations of electric airplanes? I live near small mountains. 90% if my flying could be covered by electric propulsion. Even here could be my week "energy consumption for flying" covered by few cheap solar panels.
I am probably between 5% of sport pilots willing to accept that. In 5% of pilots I mentionned are glider pilots where is electric self launch possibility already well accepted and few sport pilots flying with TMG. This way of flying doesn´t need special infrastructure - normal electric plug is OK. 95% of pilots flying LSA and light GA planes are majority actually not willing to change their way of flying and (and that is most important) nobody is forcing them to do that. Use fuel. If possible please try to use lead-free fuel but fly as you wish.

If you have feeling you need to fight against users of batteries and any other energy storage please start with users of cell phones, notebooks etc. I personally beleive that even if I count batteries in all electric cars it will be still less than summary of other common applications. And batteries in electric airplanes? Well... probably even in your town are more batteries used by citizens than summary of batteries used in all electric airplanes actually existing (worldwide) ;)

In my opinon - the only really valid argument practically every pilot accept is.... price.
We can speak about the ecological or non-ecological aspects of batteries or production of electricity, but finally we take a look on final price for airplane + flight hour costs vs performance. Lower price = lower performance (comfort etc.) that is valid nearly everywhere. And we just look for balance between our pocket depth and performance we would wish to have. If is ecological or not - that is aspect far behind price (except you have a lot of money and you want to impress your friends).

Howgh ;)
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,184
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
So please... why we do discussing again and again about limitations of electric airplanes?
I think that most of us would / could enjoy owning an electric aircraft that would fit in a standard size hangar, be able to taxi, takeoff and land from typical airports without having to get out to fold / unfold wings, have sufficient energy to perform touch-and-goes (for example) for an hour, with adequate reserve energy, and recharge overnight from readily available power sources.

What riles me are the ridiculous claims for performance and environmental impact. Especially for CGI creations that don’t actually exist.


BJC
 

John.Roo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,718
Location
Letohrad / Czech Republic
I think that most of us would / could enjoy owning an electric aircraft that would fit in a standard size hangar, be able to taxi, takeoff and land from typical airports without having to get out to fold / unfold wings, have sufficient energy to perform touch-and-goes (for example) for an hour, with adequate reserve energy, and recharge overnight from readily available power sources.

What riles me are the ridiculous claims for performance and environmental impact. Especially for CGI creations that don’t actually exist.


BJC
Thank you!
That is finally technicall requirement 👍
I am from Europe so I need to know:
1) what is standard size of hangar (max. wing span is enough)
2) what is typical airport RWY length
3) how many touch-and-goes you make per hour

According to my personal experience with US airports (I did some flights in Florida - Melbourne, Merrit Island etc - beautifull!) I would say that:
1) typical hangar is for Cessna 172 = wing span 11 m (36 ft)
2) RWY lenght... nearly always over 2 000 ft = far more than enough.
3) well... that is a question of typical patern size. Lets asume 10 minutes / one circuit? It means 6 touch-and-goes per hour?

P.S.
"What riles me are the ridiculous claims for performance and environmental impact. Especially for CGI creations that don’t actually exist."
I totally agree :)
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,184
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I am from Europe so I need to know:
1) what is standard size of hangar (max. wing span is enough)
2) what is typical airport RWY length
3) how many touch-and-goes you make per hour
My criteria:
Max span of 38 feet.
Runway length of at least 1,800 feet, but wing tip clearance from signs and lights is a concern.
Rather than number of touch-and-goes per hour, think in terms of full power for 5 minutes followed by minimum power for 5 minutes, repeatable for for 70 minutes.

The criteria above is mine; different numbers may be adequate for others.


BJC
 

John.Roo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
1,718
Location
Letohrad / Czech Republic
My criteria:
Max span of 38 feet.
Runway length of at least 1,800 feet, but wing tip clearance from signs and lights is a concern.
Rather than number of touch-and-goes per hour, think in terms of full power for 5 minutes followed by minimum power for 5 minutes, repeatable for for 70 minutes.

The criteria above is mine; different numbers may be adequate for others.


BJC
Correct me if I am wrong... I suppose two seater side by side.
Now really roughly but as realistically as possible from my experience...

Power for takeoff...
Smallest reasonable and affordable engine for training I know is Rotax 912 (80 hp / 60 kW).
"Non-TMG" but not too "draggy" airplane min. power for horizontal flight... 20 kW?

Your request was an hour = 6 circuits.
70 min. means 7 circuits.

For that purpose you need roughly min. 250 but more realistic is 300 kg battery with capacity 55-60 kWh.

Light composite airframe.... 200 kg
Two pilots.... 2x 100 kg (US and EU standard) :cool:
Battery.... 300 kg
Motor, controller, wirign and other "cosmetics"... 50 kg
We are on 750 kg MTOM.

And now comming back to beginning... 80 hp for 750 kg airplane?
Well.... that is OK for 1 800 ft RWY but not expect "super racer". However "normal training flying" should be possible.

For comparizon....
Warning - I will use experience from my favorite TMG category ;)
150 kg battery (a bit over 30 kWh).
10x takeoff to 1 000 ft. but reducing power just after lift off, gently climbing (400 ft/min)
It means 60 kW less than 1 min., than "slower" 30 kW climbing.
From downwind position practically no power.
10x takeoff done with different pilots during event in Denmark.

Wing span 15 m.
With "short winglets" (10,6 m wing span) would be probably less takeoffs - not tested.
Winglets change (from 10,6-15 meters wing span) takes less than 60 seconds - but this doesn´t meets your requirement to "don´t touch wings" and keep wing span under 38 ft. On video you can see how to change wing span....

On this video is electric version flying with short 10,6 m wing span.


That is actual reality - no renders ;)
I use LSA TMG Phoenix like a sample because I know this type.
Similar situation is with Velis from Pipistrel etc.
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,979
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
Maybe we should let the free market determine the value of things like "safety" or "clean" or "quality" instead of it being mandated by our elected officials? If EV works, let it stand on merit and let the market judge.

I know where "clean" or "sustainable" falls on my personal list of requirements.
Lol that is simply allowing the free market to determine how much trespassing others are comfortable with on you.
Hint I don’t care what anybody else does as long as it never leaves property owned by them.
keep your chemicals yourself
Keep your light to yourself
Keep your noise to yourself
And have your stuff cleaned While you still own the property.
Not really that much to ask is it?
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
1,979
Location
Most of me is in IL but my hearts in Alaska
And I'm am forever amazed at how people still believe that government is our benevolent caregiver and if we just give them enough power they will create a perfect world for us.
Lol but it’s absolutely true.
Just keep two things in mind power is usually expressed as money and some people have more of it than you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top