Why battery-powered aircraft will never have significant range

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,014
Location
Outside Boston
Sorry no it is you who is incorrect:

In post #1645, EzyBuildWing posted that video and said that NONE of the issues presented in that video pertain to EV. That was the word he used: NONE.

My response then (#1669) and my recent statement in #1774 is still speaking to EzyBuildWing's statement in #1645.

You, on the other hand, just now tried to change the discussion by interjecting the word "standard":

" none of the standard issues why an ICE fails/stops apply to EV."

...without defining "standard".

In #1669, I then posted several examples from that very video that DO pertain to EV in post #1669. Some examples are:

1) The very FIRST category was "Mechanical Failure" at the 5:15 mark.

You're trying to tell us that electric propulsion DOES NOT have mechanical failure? Sheesh.....

3) Crankshafts fail due to prop strikes (around the 15:15 mark).

Are you trying to tell us that there will be no prop strikes with electric aircraft which then damage or destroy parts of the electric motor? You are still spinning a prop with lots of torque and rpm and there's still a prop shaft on bearings.


And here is the one that one of the Chevy Volt recalls match to:


4) 17:15 mark - failure because bolts were not torqued enough.

Are you trying to tell us that no mechanic will make a mistake and therefore there will be no failures due to bolts on the electric not properly torqued?



So sorry but you might want to read my reply a little more carefully.
Yes, NONE apply.
None of the types of mechanical failure I listened to in the video apply to EVs.
No prop strikes on electric aircraft (yet).
No MIF known (or widely published that I found), likely because so few EV planes are flying, plus dramatically simpler so less likely to have an issue.

Will we eventually have these issues, I think most likely yes. Will prop strikes and and MIF occur as often? I think not likely, but I have absolutely zero evidence to back up my logic :) Here is my thinking. Lower MIF because there are less moving parts, and less things to take apart and inspect, combined with much lower count of consumable/replaceable items (no alternator, no mags, no carbs, no injection system.... the list goes on). I think there will be fewer prop strikes because planes will have fewer design constraints on where to place the engine/prop combined with almost everyone going fixed gear.

Will we have failures in EV, very likely. I think most likely will be in the cooling and battery management systems. But we do NOT yet have such enough experience to know what theses issues will be.

Tim
 

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
287
Location
Boston Ma
Yes, NONE apply.
None of the types of mechanical failure I listened to in the video apply to EVs.
No prop strikes on electric aircraft (yet).


No MIF known (or widely published that I found), likely because so few EV planes are flying, plus dramatically simpler so less likely to have an issue.

Will we eventually have these issues, I think most likely yes. Will prop strikes and and MIF occur as often? I think not likely, but I have absolutely zero evidence to back up my logic :) Here is my thinking. Lower MIF because there are less moving parts, and less things to take apart and inspect, combined with much lower count of consumable/replaceable items (no alternator, no mags, no carbs, no injection system.... the list goes on). I think there will be fewer prop strikes because planes will have fewer design constraints on where to place the engine/prop combined with almost everyone going fixed gear.

Will we have failures in EV, very likely. I think most likely will be in the cooling and battery management systems. But we do NOT yet have such enough experience to know what theses issues will be.

Tim
It doesn't matter if there hasn't been a prop strike on an EV plane
(that I know of). What matters is that it is a failure - along with damage - that is listed in the video and is absolutely pertinent to EV.

You agree with me because you say: '.... so less likely to have an issue."

"Less likely" does not mean "can't happen". So EV shares assembly failures with ICe.

EzyBuildWings used the word "NONE" as in none of the failures in the video apply to EV.

But they do - you admitted that yourself just now.

Thank you for proving my point.

Had he said "some"I would have been in total agreement with him.
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
Yes, NONE apply.
None of the types of mechanical failure I listened to in the video apply to EVs.
No prop strikes on electric aircraft (yet).
No MIF known (or widely published that I found), likely because so few EV planes are flying, plus dramatically simpler so less likely to have an issue.

Will we eventually have these issues, I think most likely yes. Will prop strikes and and MIF occur as often? I think not likely, but I have absolutely zero evidence to back up my logic :) Here is my thinking. Lower MIF because there are less moving parts, and less things to take apart and inspect, combined with much lower count of consumable/replaceable items (no alternator, no mags, no carbs, no injection system.... the list goes on). I think there will be fewer prop strikes because planes will have fewer design constraints on where to place the engine/prop combined with almost everyone going fixed gear.

Will we have failures in EV, very likely. I think most likely will be in the cooling and battery management systems. But we do NOT yet have such enough experience to know what theses issues will be.

Tim
I think you are wasting time, the moderation must have removed or closed this thread long ago.

The title is just a fallacy and the thread is a big pinata made to bent lies, half-truths, smears etc to an aircraft technology, as a consequence of petrol industry propulsion monopoly. It's purpose is destructive and nobody will argue whatever the reasons shown with 1780 comments and 90 pages and counting.

Battery powered aircrafts are one of the few technologies that can deliver ultra long range or even continuous range or flying with an in-flight recharging system as photovoltaic.

This phrase alone and known fact must have been enough to sink the thread when it started, and then someone can use the argument that it's because they use glider design, then you can show a recent acrobatic electric airplane which can accomplish better centre of gravity and no internal inertial forces as it happens with pistons (besides less failure ratio, less maintenance, etc) and they will argue about range, battery capacity, battery life or whatever.

Surely battery electric have cons but this is just plan smears, denial and propaganda that can mislead anyone that clicks electric aircraft on internet.
 
Last edited:

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,241
Battery powered aircrafts are one of the few technologies that can deliver ultra long range or even continuous range or flying with an in-flight recharging system as photovoltaic.
Really? Please cite practical, existing examples as proof. Not wishful- thinking CGI stuff.
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
Really? Please cite practical, existing examples as proof. Not wishful- thinking CGI stuff.
First of all, any consolidated technology isn't proof of worth or widespread use, as for example petrol based internal combustion aircrafts were wishtful thinking in the early 1900s before the petrochemical refinery monopoly and governments support to petrol propulsion as standard and now it has the days counted as obsolete technology, contaminating, toxic, wasteful and almost depleted.

i have posted solar impulse and helios image in the previous post, two prototypes or concepts that were built and have delivered ultra long range and in-flight self recharging with continuous flying. they had issues, stops, crashes as any prototype or technology in development.

on the other hand batteries have the same widespread constrain and flaws than petrol as contaminating, toxic, wasteful and finite. that doesn't mean they can't be applied for specific or appropriate niche uses

The Solar Impulse project's goals were to make the first circumnavigation of the Earth by a piloted fixed-wing aircraft using only solar power and to bring attention to clean technologies.[3]
on 26 July 2016, more than 16 months after it had left, completing the approximately 42,000-kilometre (26,000-mile) first circumnavigation of the Earth by a piloted fixed-wing aircraft using only solar power.[19]

History of Solar-Powered Planes

Initially, some of the first solar-powered flights consisted of using 28 nickel-cadmium batteries replaced by 3,920 solar cells. [2] Starting in the 1980s, AeroVironment researchers experimented with solar-powered aircrafts in NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center. This research first resulted in the Social Challenger, itself able to carry 16,128 cells, while having nearly half the wingspan (46.5 feet) of the first solar-powered planes. [2]


This research of solar-powered planes expanded from the Solar Challenger to planes such as the Pathfinder, Pathfinder-Plus, and, currently, the Centurion. These planes have built on the successes of each other through reaching higher altitudes, modifying wingspan, and increasing the number of solar cells and produced power. From 1997 to 1998, the development of the Pathfinder to the Pathfinder Plus itself consisted of upgraded motors, more efficient solar arrays and longer wings. This resulted in the plane reaching altitudes nearly 10,000 feet higher (at 80,000 feet) and carrying an extra 68lbs of machinery. [2
 
Last edited:

Saville

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
287
Location
Boston Ma
"fizzle, post: 614828, member: 107199"


The title is just a fallacy and the thread is a big pinata made to bent lies, half-truths, smears etc to an aircraft technology, as a consequence of petrol industry propulsion monopoly.

If you would actually read what most people are saying who are skeptics, they are NOT saying what the title says.

We/they are saying (for about the 5 zillionth time) that we hope the tech works out but we have been promised so much by so many that HAS NOT worked out that any new statements about what the future will bring are discarded.


It's purpose is destructive and nobody will argue whatever the reasons shown with 1780 comments and 90 pages and counting.

Battery powered aircrafts are one of the few technologies that can deliver ultra long range or even continuous range or flying with an in-flight recharging system as photovoltaic.

Uh until nightfall. Then what? Going to run a long extension cord to the wind mill?

This is PRECISELY the kind of statement that turns people off to EV fortune tellers.


This phrase alone and known fact must have been enough to sink the thread when it started,

But nobody has been actually paying attention to the title for many months. You really need to actually READ what people are writing,. Constantly referencing a thread title that almost no one supports makes you dismissable.

and then someone can use the argument that it's because they use glider design, then you can show a recent acrobatic electric airplane which can accomplish better centre of gravity and no internal inertial forces as it happens with pistons (besides less failure ratio, less maintenance, etc) and they will argue about range, battery capacity, battery life or whatever.

range, battery capacity, battery life has been the point by most skeptical responses - which you would know if you....

READ THE POSTS


Surely battery electric have cons

...and we point them out. Tough for you.

The whole point here is that it would be wise to STOP telling us that magnificent performance is right around the corner.

Because we've heard about 40 years of that crud and simply refuse to listen to you any more.

Which is why I say (for the 5 zillionth and 1 time):

Show us the working hardware.

We hope that someday you can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AOG

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
"fizzle, post: 614828, member: 107199"


The title is just a fallacy and the thread is a big pinata made to bent lies, half-truths, smears etc to an aircraft technology, as a consequence of petrol industry propulsion monopoly.

If you would actually read what most people are saying who are skeptics, they are NOT saying what the title says.

We/they are saying (for about the 5 zillionth time) that we hope the tech works out but we have been promised so much by so many that HAS NOT worked out that any new statements about what the future will bring are discarded.


It's purpose is destructive and nobody will argue whatever the reasons shown with 1780 comments and 90 pages and counting.

Battery powered aircrafts are one of the few technologies that can deliver ultra long range or even continuous range or flying with an in-flight recharging system as photovoltaic.

Uh until nightfall. Then what? Going to run a long extension cord to the wind mill?

This is PRECISELY the kind of statement that turns people off to EV fortune tellers.


This phrase alone and known fact must have been enough to sink the thread when it started,

But nobody has been actually paying attention to the title for many months. You really need to actually READ what people are writing,. Constantly referencing a thread title that almost no one supports makes you dismissable.

and then someone can use the argument that it's because they use glider design, then you can show a recent acrobatic electric airplane which can accomplish better centre of gravity and no internal inertial forces as it happens with pistons (besides less failure ratio, less maintenance, etc) and they will argue about range, battery capacity, battery life or whatever.

range, battery capacity, battery life has been the point by most skeptical responses - which you would know if you....

READ THE POSTS


Surely battery electric have cons

...and we point them out. Tough for you.

The whole point here is that it would be wise to STOP telling us that magnificent performance is right around the corner.

Because we've heard about 40 years of that crud and simply refuse to listen to you any more.

Which is why I say (for the 5 zillionth and 1 time):

Show us the working hardware.

We hope that someday you can.
No one has the duty to enlighten you or anyone, you have a working brain and i won't answer to your nonsense, you can read the links by yourself.

Also I can publish an entire library with incidents regarding the development of petrol internal combustion aircrafts during the 1900s with crashes, deaths, design and engineering errors, decades with billions wasted in research, etc and also about the problems and limitations of that technology and now you can fly with a petrol ice aircraft with some relative security until the oil field is empty and the waves flip over your beach house.
 
Last edited:

AOG

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
8
Location
South Florida, USA
Think about it, no reversible chemical change process will ever match, lb. for lb., the convertibility, portability and calorie output of energy capability of petrol. I don't get it. Electric cars and airplanes, by the laws of physics, are less efficient then their gas eating counterparts. From the proper perspective, petrol is, hands down, the most efficient non-rechargeable battery. In aviation, there is no advantage of having rechargeable batteries. We just replace it by filling the tank.

Every breathless mention of battery technology ignores the fact most electricity to charge those batteries are fossil fuels. No matter what, every energy state change imparts a tax. Chemical batteries waste natural resources when used as a primary battery source. What is the fascination.

Considering leading edge and presumed future technologies this is an absolute for a while.
Electricity begins with fossil fuel, converts to heat converts to mechanical then converts to electricity then converts to a chemical reaction, a secondary chemical reaction converts to electricity then it is converted to mechanical. Each step is a loss of efficiency, a waste of fossil fuels. If we had nuclear FUSSION producing electricity and a cornucopia of lithium we would have it made.

It must be, Tesla users, unless they have their home covered in solar panels and drive less than 15 miles a day, are energy hogs and don't care about the environment. The electricity from the power plants leave a "footprint." Footprint, another silly concept due to natural homeostasis. .

Hybrids work on cars, sort of, with a gas/hydraulic hybrid being most efficient. When airplanes use the system, they are called HyBIRDS.

Cars very in power demands. Cars have two needs in a powerplant. One is the low demand for maintaining speed, the other is to provide power for acceleration. The hybrid car is powered by an electric motor using converted electricity from a gas engine to provide the minimal demand profile. . The engine also provides a small percentage of power of charging batteries for peak power commands. The batteries store shorter term performance. The multiple energy state conversion penalize this system and make the smaller engine efficiency hardly worth it. I read and figured, at one time, the fuel saving does not exceed the higher vehicle cost. It would only provides aircraft with weight penalties.

In other words, unless we decide to approach the fussion process like we approached the Manhattan Project, develop whole new battery technology, manned e-flight will be nothing more than a hobby curiosity. I personally would never invest capital in manned e-flight attempting to make a profit. The only people who make money are the scammers. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

It is fun to talk about it and watch people tinker but serious talk about viability makes me question sanity, mine.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,099
Location
CT, USA
I think you are wasting time, the moderation must have removed or closed this thread long ago.
We don't remove threads or posts because we disagree with the content. We do remove threads or posts when they degenerate into name calling or personal attacks.

The title is just a fallacy and the thread is a big pinata made to bent lies, half-truths, smears etc to an aircraft technology, as a consequence of petrol industry propulsion monopoly...
So answer, with facts, what the other posters in this thread have said. Crying about the big bad petroleum industry isn't answering; it just makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist, just like the "100mpg carburetor that the oil companies are suppressing".

Really? Please cite practical, existing examples as proof. Not wishful- thinking CGI stuff.
First of all, any consolidated technology isn't proof of worth or widespread use, as for example petrol based internal combustion aircrafts were wishtful thinking in the early 1900s before the petrochemical refinery monopoly and governments support to petrol propulsion as standard and now it has the days counted as obsolete technology, contaminating, toxic, wasteful and almost depleted.

i have posted solar impulse and helios image in the previous post, two prototypes or concepts that were built and have delivered ultra long range and in-flight self recharging with continuous flying. they had issues, stops, crashes as any prototype or technology in development.
Point design technology demonstrators and prototypes don't count as "practical, existing examples".

Nobody is disputing that electric aircraft have successfully flown. For certain, very limited missions, they may even be "practical". But the technology is a LONG way from being practical for even a small portion of what aircraft are used for today. There is no known battery chemistry, real or theoretical, that can match the mass energy density of gasoline. There is no battery that can recharge nearly as fast as filling a gas tank. Maybe there will be some great physics or chemistry breakthrough that changes that... but I wouldn't bet on it any time soon, and incremental changes in battery technology won't get us there. Yeah, fuel cells... they've had limited use for a long time, but practical ones that power a practical vehicle have been coming out Real Soon Now for sixty years.

So, successful electric aircraft... what's out there? Show me a PRACTICAL aircraft for any of today's real world missions.
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
We don't remove threads or posts because we disagree with the content. We do remove threads or posts when they degenerate into name calling or personal attacks.



So answer, with facts, what the other posters in this thread have said. Crying about the big bad petroleum industry isn't answering; it just makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist, just like the "100mpg carburetor that the oil companies are suppressing".




Point design technology demonstrators and prototypes don't count as "practical, existing examples".

Nobody is disputing that electric aircraft have successfully flown. For certain, very limited missions, they may even be "practical". But the technology is a LONG way from being practical for even a small portion of what aircraft are used for today. There is no known battery chemistry, real or theoretical, that can match the mass energy density of gasoline. There is no battery that can recharge nearly as fast as filling a gas tank. Maybe there will be some great physics or chemistry breakthrough that changes that... but I wouldn't bet on it any time soon, and incremental changes in battery technology won't get us there. Yeah, fuel cells... they've had limited use for a long time, but practical ones that power a practical vehicle have been coming out Real Soon Now for sixty years.

So, successful electric aircraft... what's out there? Show me a PRACTICAL aircraft for any of today's real world missions.

I try not to use petrol and I have read the history of rockefeller, i have knowledge about petrochemicals and petrol refinery processes, i have studied internal combustion engines, etc.

still, petrol has been a punctual source energy that has promoted extraction and resource waste, so don't try to place petrol in the centre as if matters because it is almost depleted and accounts for a bluff of 100 years of humanity history.

i don't support widespread use of battery technology, however it's ready and in the case of aircrafts they have been proven successful, there are electric aircrafts in the showroom ready to be bought and referring to the tittle, yes solar battery electric aircrafts have ultra long range (ahhh, and the great p-e-t-ro-l aircrafts don't, they run out of fuel and crash)

thread closed
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,014
Location
Outside Boston
@AOG

You need to update your stats. Only 69% of large power plant production of electricity is fossil fuel based in 2020 per the US Govt Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) . This number does not include the very significant amount of local renewable energy. And the 69% as a portion of our power mix has been declining every year for twenty years, with the largest acceleration in the decline of that number in the last decade.

As for efficiency, the answer is it depends. It depends on how you define it, what is the input box what is the output box.

Tim
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
even with is flaws as battery cooling problems, the solar impulse have the records of uninterrupted flight duration with 118 hours


Circumnavigating the globe without any fuel wasn’t the only record Solar Impulse 2 broke. The longest leg, an 5,545-mile flight from Japan to Hawaii, lasted some 118 hours and saw one pilot (Borschberg) break the world record for longest uninterrupted solo flight in terms of duration. But it didn’t end there. Upon landing, Solar Impulse 2 broke a total of 19 official aviation records.

and now unmanned

A lightweight, solar-powered drone with a massive 73-foot wingspan flew above the clouds for 14 days straight, shattering long-standing aviation endurance records, according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.


THREAD UPDATE

more records
A solar-powered aircraft from the European aerospace giant Airbus has completed a maiden flight lasting 25 days, 23 hours, and 57 minutes.
 
Last edited:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,099
Location
CT, USA
i don't support widespread use of battery technology, however it's ready and in the case of aircrafts they have been proven successful, there are electric aircrafts in the showroom ready to be bought
Again, name one electric aircraft available today that's practical for a real world mission. Note that "practical" also includes being at reasonably close pricewise to a comparable gasoline powered model.
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
Again, name one electric aircraft available today that's practical for a real world mission. Note that "practical" also includes being at reasonably close pricewise to a comparable gasoline powered model.
you can make it at home, private companies are constrained by patents rights, labor costs, components purchases, high cost machinery, they apply obsolete technology instead recent research, etc

go for it if you are so concerned about some specific requirements and price. isn't this a homebuilt forum? because all i heard here is corporate "success" bias, a problem that has also boatdesing.net.

there are many people living offgrid with solar panels and batteries with continuous energy, you can use your phone continuously with a solar panel because you use batteries, it's pretty obvious.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,099
Location
CT, USA
you can make it at home
But you said, "there are electric aircrafts in the showroom ready to be bought." Now you're saying they aren't in the showroom, but you have to build them?

there are many people living offgrid with solar panels and batteries with continuous energy, you can use your phone continuously with a solar panel because you use batteries, it's pretty obvious.
Have you calculated how large a solar panel you need to power a man carrying aircraft?
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,014
Location
Outside Boston
Again, name one electric aircraft available today that's practical for a real world mission. Note that "practical" also includes being at reasonably close pricewise to a comparable gasoline powered model.
I define the mission as training for PPL or reviews; mostly in the pattern or nearby.
Pipistrel Elecktro.

Tim
 

fizzle

Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
122
But you said, "there are electric aircrafts in the showroom ready to be bought." Now you're saying they aren't in the showroom, but you have to build them?



Have you calculated how large a solar panel you need to power a man carrying aircraft?
you misinterpret my words, i said that you can make your own electric plane, even the motor, for the requirements you ask or whatever the specs.

i see you don't read my posts, the experimental airbus aircraft lasted 25 DAYS in the air 2-5 d-a-y-s, talk about range...

i have posted the images of planes for sale in the other post, here you have ready to buy

pipistrel velis, alpha an taurus and more to come

3c.jpg

3a.jpg

alphaelectroc.jpg

alphaelectrod.jpg



2b-6.jpg



2d-2.jpg

3e-1.jpg

Pipistrel-Velis-Electro3-1030x742.jpg
Velis_Electro_horizontalSlider2-1030x537.jpg
Velis_Electro_horizontalSlider4-1030x686.jpg
 
Last edited:

BFE_Duke

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
13
It must be, Tesla users, unless they have their home covered in solar panels and drive less than 15 miles a day, are energy hogs and don't care about the environment. The electricity from the power plants leave a "footprint." Footprint, another silly concept due to natural homeostasis.
The average home solar panel system yields about 25 kwh per day. Average electric car uses ~250 wh/mi. That would yield about 100 miles per day from that solar panel system. Now obviously that system would be designed for the house's energy usage, and someone who wants to be grid neutral would size a bigger solar panel system to account for the car usage. Keep in mind that the average person drives about 29 miles per day. It doesn't take much more to cover average usage. The Law of Large Numbers has a cushioning effect on fluctuations.

Electricity begins with fossil fuel, converts to heat converts to mechanical then converts to electricity then converts to a chemical reaction, a secondary chemical reaction converts to electricity then it is converted to mechanical. Each step is a loss of efficiency, a waste of fossil fuels. If we had nuclear FUSSION producing electricity and a cornucopia of lithium we would have it made.
Even if a particular region's power comes from petrol burning utilities, a gallon of petrol burnt to power a utility to power a battery electric car still yields twice as much range as burning the fuel directly in an combustion car. Depending on what state you're in, a battery electric car gets 2-5 times the range on an equivalent gallon of gas, and is considerably cheaper to fill up.
 
Top