Why battery-powered aircraft will never have significant range

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

patrickrio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
350
look= CELERA 500L...
I hope that the Celera can be efficient on electric, but based on the existing data points, the efficiency improvement happens most on the lightest, most efficient airframes.

The break even should happen there first I think....
 

tallank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
64
Calling the improvements in battery,solar,computation,material sciences,etc
"incrimental" is missleading,the rate of improvements is greater than say the historical
developement of internal combustion or mecanical enginering.That incrimemt is also
accelerating.
Then there is a tipping point coming soon.
The big players in the automotive sector are pushing full electric veihicles because they know that they are going to lucky to around in
10 years with electrics and humorous historical
footnotes if they dont,even with trade wars,politics,wild media schenanigans and all that.
The quantum geinie is both in the bottle and out of the bottle,but the researchers
of today are in the bottle partying with the genies whilst informationaly
entangled with the outside world.
I love trying to parse the very dense jargon
of cutting edge researchers,but what gives me greater joy is the pictures of them proudly holding up there proof of concept work that is bliethly overturning what was the established
doctrine.
Electric powered cars predate ICE powered cars by about 30 years. They competed with ICE cars for quite a few years until the early finicky ICEs were improved. Edison created an electric powered model T Ford. 45mph and 75 mile range. I have seen this vehicle. Also electric powered vehicles have been with us forever. We call than golf carts. https://sweetbeacon.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/edison-electric-car-jan2011wpa.pdf
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,205
Yup, early 1970’s technology.


BJC
Is that the same tech that wind turbines use? One of the guys that looks after a bunch of those told me they weren't RPM-dependent. The 60 Hz grid signal controlled the output frequency somehow.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,598
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Is that the same tech that wind turbines use?
I don’t know. The big wind turbines all seem to be running at the same speed, so I would think that they are synced to the grid.

One of the guys that looks after a bunch of those told me they weren't RPM-dependent.
The ones that I was somewhat familiar with back in the ‘70’s were originally developed for providing stable frequency electricity from combustion engine driven portable engine-generator sets. IIRC (I evaluated the technology for a large privately owned business conglomerate that was considering investing in the technology - about 45 or 50 years ago), an electronic controller triggers a semiconducting excitation hoop, rather than a fixed field winding, at the location necessary to produce the target frequency.

The 60 Hz grid signal controlled the output frequency somehow.
Don’t know what today’s standard is, but some years ago, a 0.2 second frequency correction in 24 hours was a big correction.


BJC
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,475
Location
KTHA
...Your post clearly stated that you knew the minds of millions of people you never met and you told us exactly what those people (divided into two groups) were thinking...
And yet, none of those words were in my post. Generalizations are quite common. Politicians will say things like, "Americans don't want this to happen", yet no one with average intelligence really believes them to be claiming to know the mind of every single American. That's ridiculous. One of the disadvantages of communicating on the internet is that you don't get the kind of non-verbal clues you get when talking face to face. That means it isn't unusual at all for misunderstandings to occur. Most people simply ask for further explanation. You choose to attack and insult.

...I called you out on that. For one reason, because it can mislead people into thinking there was a concensus where there clearly is not...
Oh, so now I'm claiming a consensus instead of claiming to know the minds of millions? Which misinterpretation would you like to stick with?

...A fact which you now are, with this post, willing to admit.

So thank you - my mission is accomplished.

For another I found it offensive because, in my opinion, you painted the entire ICE group - YOUR CREATION - as closed minded. I.E. that they "dislike" the concept of electric airplanes.
Your mission to attack and insult? Yep, you've accomplished that in spades.

...You can insist that the focus of my post was some other thing besides you using a broad brush...
Sort of like insisting you know what I was trying to say and I didn't?

...and try to accuse me of doing what I was illustrating ought not be done (confuse skepticism with dislike), but I think it's clear that my post in no way did that.
Exactly as I thought my post to be. So what makes you worthy of praise doing the same thing as I did? Besides, I was being sarcastic, but maybe that didn't come across either. But yes, you did exactly that. You assumed I meant to convey a universal dislike when I said nothing of the sort. Biased people tend to view what they like with rose colored glasses, and what they don't with a very critical eye, skepticism in fact. That is true and you very well know it.

You know, this isn't about what I said or how you interpreted it. It's about viciously attacking people instead of asking for clarification or explanation, like most civilized people do. Quite frankly your opinion mattered a lot more to me before you engaged in this assault, but I no longer care what you have to say.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,205
Don’t know what today’s standard is, but some years ago, a 0.2 second frequency correction in 24 hours was a big correction.
IIRC, the 60 Hz tolerance is +/- .0033 percent. I had to find that once when I needed some authoritative source to certify our optical tachometer checkers. Setting the optical tach for a two-blade prop and holding it up toward a fluorescent light, it should read 3600 RPM. The .0033% tolerance was good enough for the feds.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,960
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
I probably should have qualified that by saying aircraft,
That IS aircraft. General Electric put an airplane engine on a truck bed, with a dyno, drove it to the top of Pike's Peak ( 1918 ) and tested Turbocharging. And other supercharging systems, but mainly to develop the Turbo Supercharging systems they'd make in mass production for the future.

Correction, the book is Superchargers For Aviation by Dr. Sanford A. Moss for the National Aeronautics Council inc. 1940.

First Turbocharger in America built by GE, in 1918 for a Liberty engine. First plane with a Turbocharger in America, LePere, tested at Wright Field, 1919.
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,598
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I have seen this vehicle. Also electric powered vehicles have been with us forever. We call than golf carts.
Lots of golf carts here at the airpark, and more than 50,000 in The Villages, about three miles away. In my daughter’s town, there are an estimated 18,000. Everything in both communities is accessible by cart. They are great for getting around town or the airpark. Many of them are electric, and the range of newer electric carts is impressive.

People with larger airplanes prefer the electric carts for moving their aircraft for two reasons. Creeping speed control is much better, and the weight of the heavy batteries provides better traction.


BJC
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
578
This Electric Vehicles Do Battle On Pikes Peak

is an interesting history of the Pikes peak
hill climb done electricaly,which is now the only
way to be competitive and have any chance of
setting a record.
And time to climb records are going electric as well.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,960
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
don´t deny that ICE engines are improving.
Actually, I would, and be partly correct. The engines in cars today are about as efficient as is practical, they are well into tiny percentages of improvement. Not to say they aren't freaking amazing. I can get 20 mpg all day long, push a button, and then cover the 1/4 mile so fast I get kicked off the track for not having a roll cage. Admittedly, that's a Demon and a bit rare, but when you hit that button, the cabin AC shuts down and the entire AC system then acts through the intercooler. At the other end of the "walk right in an buy it" scale, are 200 hp 2 liter engines that get over 30 mpg, and better performance than late 1970's V-8 engines, with so little pollution that it's hard to measure.

You can argue that Smokey Yunick had this stuff figured out 50 years ago, and that only government & consumer pressure made the car makers improve, ( and I wouldn't argue against either statement.. Cheating, eh? ) but overall, we are in a Golden Age of Internal Combustion. True, you can't buy a Camaro with a 454 big block today, but honestly, the 650 hp Supercharged model available today is faster, and If you want to build a Big Block for your 1971 Camaro, you can build a much better one than you could in 1975.

A Lycoming? Not a lot of improvement if you mean More Power, but some incremental stuff... The problem is today, they can't change as much as they'd like to. Liquid cooling and geared engines just didn't sell, despite literally flying around the planet non stop.

Electric motors do have some growing up to do. There hasn't been that big a demand for light motors in the power range you want in the Next Gen Cessna. I'm sure they are coming. And batteries have always been the limiting factor.

I look forward to the next few years. But I'm probably going to be flying IC because, A. It Works. and B. I can't afford the Rich Kid's Toys.
 

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
275
Location
Boston Ma
And yet, none of those words were in my post.

Actually it was. Right here:

"To ICE fans, the development of things like turbochargers and electronic ignitions were dramatic leaps in technology. But advancement in battery technology doesn't impress them that much because it just isn't something they're very interested in."

And here:

"However, fans of ICE are generally happy to see advancements in battery powered tool technology.

The phrase "To ICE fans.." that's the entire group whether you like it or not.

"
doesn't impress them"...who are the "them"?

Why ICE fans.....all of them.

"
fans of ICE are generally happy to see..."

You haven't a clue what millions of ICE fans think about anything.



Actually it's precisely about that. It's YOU who are trying to make it be something else.Generalizations are quite common.

Another word for "generalization" is "stereotype". Which is what you are doing.

Besides which you cannot generalize/stereotype about millions of people you never met. Sorry.

You simply DO NOT KNOW what any of those people think about anything and to say you do is ludicrous.


Sorry if you don't like the fact that you were caught lumping in millions of people into 2 groups and then telling us all precisely what the thought of each group means. Not to mention treating each individual group as homogeneous in thought.


Politicians will say things like, "Americans don't want this to happen",

If you want to put yourself in the same group as politicians as an excuse for pretending to be omniscient be my guest hahahahaha.

yet no one with average intelligence really believes them to be claiming to know the mind of every single American. That's ridiculous. One of the disadvantages of communicating on the internet is that you don't get the kind of non-verbal clues you get when talking face to face. That means it isn't unusual at all for misunderstandings to occur. Most people simply ask for further explanation. You choose to attack and insult.

You deserved to be called out. If you wish to think that exposing a mistake of yours is an attack I can't help that.

Had you replied with something like, "Well ok so I can't speak for everyone in those groups." We wouldn't be having this back and forth.

But no, first you try to deflect the issue with a strawman argument and then you try to weasel with excuses.


Oh, so now I'm claiming a consensus instead of claiming to know the minds of millions? Which misinterpretation would you like to stick with?

Another weasel strawman. You claimed to know the minds of millions - I quoted you right up above to remind you.

I then gave you an example of how doing that is a mistake by using my own views as the example.

Sort of like insisting you know what I was trying to say and I didn't?

Ah yet another straw man huh? I quoted you exactly. You wrote what you wrote, very clearly, and what you wrote was ridiculous and you were called out on it.

Exactly as I thought my post to be. So what makes you worthy of praise doing the same thing as I did? Besides, I was being sarcastic, but maybe that didn't come across either. But yes, you did exactly that. You assumed I meant to convey a universal dislike when I said nothing of the sort.

I assumed nothing. I read your words. You wrote clear simple sentences.

No ambiguity at all.


Biased people tend to view what they like with rose colored glasses, and what they don't with a very critical eye, skepticism in fact. That is true and you very well know it.

You know all those millions of people are biased? No you don't. Yet another straw man.

You know, this isn't about what I said or how you interpreted it

Actually it's precisely about that. It's YOU who are trying to make it be something else. See your words repeated at the top
You claimed to know the thoughts of millions of people and gave us those thoughts as if they were Natural law. Your sentences were clear an unambiguous.

I can't help it if you don't like the fact that you did that and got called out on it.

I then gave my personal views on the subject as an example as to why it's wrong to do that. And I find it offensive.

Too bad if you don't like that.

If you don't want that to happen, write without a massive broad brush.

Do not pretend you can generalize/stereotype about millions of people you never met.

Or simply admit the fact that you wrote carelessly.

This is my last post dealing with you on this. It's not advancing the topic any.
 

EzyBuildWing

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
324
Location
Sydney NSW Australia
eFlyer2...... 3 hrs flying time plus 30 minute reserve..... 350 kg batteries........ 130 mph...... 20:1 Glide....... 2-seats......
some interesting numbers in this convincing vid:

 
Top