What do you thing about "e-soaring"?

Discussion in 'Soaring' started by John.Roo, Dec 5, 2013.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 6, 2014 #41

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    459
    Location:
    krakow,poland
  2. Feb 6, 2014 #42

    Aviator168

    Aviator168

    Aviator168

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,205
    Likes Received:
    249
    Location:
    Brookville, NY. USA
    Randall Fishman is selling an electric-powered ultralight (103). The battery can last for 2hrs. I think we use it as a glider.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
  3. Feb 7, 2014 #43

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Letohrad / Czech Republic
    Hello Aviator,
    yes, I know ultralight Song - another nice Czech construction (producer is company Gramex from Zbraslavice).
    What is your opinion – are batteries for 2 hour flight included in EW 120 kg? J
    Best regards!
    Martin
     
  4. Feb 7, 2014 #44

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Czech
  5. Feb 7, 2014 #45

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Mitja - if you check your diagram the one marked WRONG you will see that it actually is RIGHT -- provided the direction of rotation is reversed and each blade is rotated anti clockwise in pitch in the case of a tractor (it would be better to have much lower RPMs and gear up to a dynamo but the lift vector and camber and twist are OK ) stopping a prop to feather can be a bit difficult for the reason of windmilling .
     
  6. Feb 7, 2014 #46

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Slovenia
    prop-windmill-dellusion.jpg
    Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you really, really sure? If so, then think again please! Draw speed vectors for yourself!

    The midle sketch I drawn is prop blade rotated for 90° as Henryk said. Such propeller could be used as windmilling object, but it is way wrong regarding twist distribution along the blade. Compare it with sketch on the far right!
    This one is proper as it has proper twist, meaning that each blade section has proper angle of attack. Just in this case you can expect some efficiency, othervise just a portion of blade work at proper ange of attack and rest of it work wrong... as matter a fact it even act as a brake against rotation at certain speeds.

    The easiest way to convert propeller from tractor to windmill is just stay at current prop blade (as Martin suggest), but using simetric airfoil and accept lower than perfect efficiency.


    PROP00.jpg
    Above: from left to right... more "plastic" presentation of my drawing above, commented by Aircar.

    PROP01.jpg
    Above: each prop blade section make the same forward distance at each propeller turn, hence high angle of attack at root and small at the tip.

    PROP02.jpg
    Above: path of each blade section. Note that pitch angle is lower at the tip, than at the root.

    PROP04.jpg
    Above: if we just rotate blade for 90° each blade section is oriented wrong to be effective at windmilling. Red traces are each section angle "theoreticlal path", while it should be where silver lines are drawn.

    PROP05.jpg
    Above: this is a proper pitch distribution. Each section travel the same forward path at each prop revolution.

    PROP06.jpg
    Above: close view on the proper pitch distribution of the windmilling propeller.

    I hope I was clear enough... I am not willing to loose much time explaining myself endlessing....

    Regards!
    Mitja
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  7. Feb 7, 2014 #47

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    459
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    "Controllable-pitch three-bladed propeller with regeneration potential has patented blades"

    =Windward = I think,similar to IVOPROP...
     
  8. Feb 10, 2014 #48

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    ultralajt

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Wow.. did I kill all the fun?
     
  9. Feb 10, 2014 #49

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Czech
    Yes, shame on you Mitja. ;)
    Well, not really I guess.

    I'm trying to find Windward's propeller/windmill patent, but still not succeeded.
    It may be useful as a benchmark.
     
  10. Feb 10, 2014 #50

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Letohrad / Czech Republic
    Not at all dear Mitja J
    I am very glad that we are discussing and of course part of discussion are different opinions.
    By the way… you have beautiful design ideas in thread “Rigid glider with performance like paraglider”.
    Very good job! As I wrote before - I really hope to have once possibility to test fly your Kanja glider.

    I was looking (also with no success so far) for more info about “Etlantic” patented propeller.
    Well maybe they will present some ideas on AERO Friedrichshafen.


    By the way…
    Dear friends if some of you are planning to visit AERO Friedrichshafen 2014 please make stop in Foyer West (E-Flight EXPO).
    I will be there with PhoEnix and for sure I will have with me some Czech beer
    J


    And beside our stand we will have boys with Crossover project (
    http://www.eurosportaircraft.com/) – also interesting design and new ideas.
    For me is especially interesting their “range extender” system.


    Best regards!

    Martin
     
  11. Feb 10, 2014 #51

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Good to hear, I'll definitely walk by as well. I was curious about the Crossover project, but didn't learn much last year, let's see if this year I'll succeed.
     
  12. Feb 10, 2014 #52

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    This is the first time anyone has talked about the range extender for the eurosport crossover. Any specs on the unit?

     
  13. Feb 10, 2014 #53

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    There have been some articles. Can't recall where, Aerokurier and Cafeblog? There was also the range-extender opposite to Lange and DG, but forgot their name.
     
  14. Feb 10, 2014 #54

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    saini flyer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Thanks Jarno, I found a mention in may 2013 article in cafe on 90lbs genset so I think we are looking at <20KW unit...maybe even lower as the engiro is about that weight for the 20KW.

    When do they plan on selling these and how will these be certified... twin engine/single engine with twin motors.... It was already too much for FAA to look at eflight and now this with twin electric motors ..:gig:
     
  15. Feb 11, 2014 #55

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Sorry Mitja -this thread is a bit off the mainstream for me (belongs in "new technology' perhaps) I wasn't shunning you . Naturally the inner part of the prop is not going to be optimum if simply reversed but with the camber facing aft it will work as a windmill (just take a prop on a shaft and walk out into a strong wind --I would envisage though it gearing up so as to turn much slower revs and hence better matching the ideal pitch. I used to do target towing with a windmill powered RAF WW2 winch (and 4000 ft of steel cable --that was our "insurance" ) --the prop was 'feathered' when not in use by rotating end on into the airstream .

    The rotation of the (prop) blades may need to be more than 90degrees -- we used Bolly carbon fibre props on the Cobra and on their own they could be rotated (in pitch) as far as wanted --they would windmill (just on the hub, not on the aircraft) but that is not taking any power out of course, just playing around .

    Even a desk fan will show that the fan can work in reverse --try it in some wind or take one in a car . 'Working' is not the same as being ideal -- I did preliminary design of a 15 metre diameter wind turbine in 1980 for the solar energy council here and have some of the 'bibles' on wind turbine design --we even made one with no twist at all that nearly flew apart from centrifugal force .

    BTW what is the 'range extender" ? I posted a link to the Crossover on HBA quite a while ago --the wing position looks a bit odd --not pylon nor high but inbetween and looking draggy to my eye , the retraction of the motor pylons takes out a lot of fuselage structure and causes some concern for that --the threat from debris going from the wheels into the props is also a worry ( I flew on the first flight of the SV 10 Tardis in 1983 -it had two Fuji Robin 250cc engines mounted just aft of the wing and a spring landing gear of similar type to the crossover --we chipped a prop by about the third landing from a stone thrown up .)
     
  16. Feb 11, 2014 #56

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Czech
    I'm not convinced that range extender (genset of IC engine and generator) is good idea for aircraft. It brings to many compromises and extra weight.
    Especially for sailplane when main distance of flight can be done unpowered. For car it could make sense in mean time when waiting for better accumulators.
    I like more energy regeneration idea, it makes more sense to me.
     
    John.Roo likes this.
  17. Feb 11, 2014 #57

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    John.Roo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Letohrad / Czech Republic
    Hello friends!
    Saini Flyer is right – configuration with two electric motors is very difficult for certification.
    But on Crossover team web (I thing latest info is on Facebook
    https://www.facebook.com/Eurosportaircraft?fref=ts) you can see already different configuration with motor in the fin (like e-Genius).


    Range extender is system used in some electric cars for example.
    You have a pure electric car but to extend range you can use small combustible engine/generator in trunk or in trailer (
    http://www.eptender.com/).
    For electric airplanes would be enough power of +-20kW = small combustible engine.
    I thing that Silence airplane (
    http://silence-aircraft.de/en/aircraft/) had version with electric motor and removable range extender below fuselage. Maybe was only concept… it is long time ago…

    Pipistrel and Diamond are working on hybrid solution so we will see more on AERO I hope
    J

    My opinion?
    Electric airplanes are actually perfect for glider pilots. With acceptable L/D pilot needs only power for takeoff and then some reserve for safe flight back home…
    For real cruiser is much better to have combustible engine. Simple refueling and long range is result of high power density of petrol in compare with energy density of batteries.
    It is a pitty that due to difficult certification is not easy to transfer car engines technology to airplanes. You have cars with 100kW power and fuel consumption 8 l/h and even less. Automotive engines are far away ahead and I don´t think so they are significantly less safe. It is even more difficult to understand why airplane is synonym for enormous fuel consumption, because in airplane during cruise you can let engine run on optimal rpm – without necessity to change gear.

    Coming back to “electric solutions”…
    Question is – do we need to compare electric airplanes with combustible airplanes? When I discuss on airshow with “normal” pilots interested in electric airplanes I always hear the same – I like the idea, but I need to fly 500 km (1 000 km, 1 500 km…. however) distance. When this will be possible I will buy it because I want to decrease petrol costs. My question is – how often do you fly 500 km (1 000 km…. however) distance? When I visit most of airfields, I see pilots flying 30 min to 1 hour (mostly above the airfield or nearby) and then 2-3 hours discussing with other pilots drinking coffee
    J This is situation in Czech Republic please don´t take it like fact valid worldwide, for example in USA pilots take airplane more like car flying often super long cross-country flights.

    Typical glider pilot request? Give me enough power for 2x takeoff to 600 m (or 1x to 1 000 m) and possibility to use the rest of available power for 150 km flight coming back home. That sounds reasonable
    J


    So as a summary…
    All special systems (range extenders, hybrids) are destroying idea of “simple” flying. If you have combination of fuel and batteries you have system much more complicated then only electric / only combustible system. And complicated = expensive, difficult for maintenance and with higher possibility of failure. When we started PhoEnix project idea was to produce electric motorglider with costs below of Rotax 912 version. Actually I have to say that electric motor, controller, batteries and chargers are about the same cost. With 8kWh capacity you have already mentioned 45-60 min. flight endurance = add you own opinion about comparison with Rotax 912 J My expectations for future? As with everything new… cost of electric solution will go down.

    But nothing from above written is solving my biggest problem…

    Like every “big boy” I like to play with “new and expensive toys” and electric airplanes are really great “playground” of possible development J

    Best regards!
    Martin
     
    JenDAG and henryk like this.
  18. Feb 11, 2014 #58

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    459
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    " You have cars with 100kW power and fuel consumption 8 l/h and even less. "

    -today,thanks HCCI technology it is possible to big reduce of the fuel consumption,
    extremally solution=0.5l/h !!!=

    Suzuki engine converted into Gun-Engine

    =NO cooling system,NO exhaust system!
     
  19. Feb 11, 2014 #59

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    JenDAG

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Czech
    Martin, you nailed it! :)

    Henryk, HCCI technology is not matured enough at the moment and you can't run engine with fixed compresion ratio on petrol(gasoline) (or petrol like fuel) at all loads what you need only in CI regime.
     
  20. Feb 11, 2014 #60

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands

Share This Page



arrow_white