VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2015, 04:27 AM
Wedgetail Wedgetail is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North of the penguins, South of the crocodiles
Posts: 9
Default Siemens 260kw electric motor weighs 50kg...

http://interestingengineering.com/si...-for-aircraft/


2mm flexible solar panels on UML of wings, battery packs, and the electric motor.
Perhaps also a small IC motor driving an AC alternator/rectifier?

Anyone want to start planning for vans fitment?
Brings me to the next question:

What will the 2025 experimental vans rv look like !

Last edited by Wedgetail : 06-10-2015 at 04:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-10-2015, 07:01 AM
GalinHdz's Avatar
GalinHdz GalinHdz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: KSGJ / TJBQ
Posts: 2,034
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedgetail View Post
Brings me to the next question: What will the 2025 experimental vans rv look like !
Maybe something like this:



The RV-X wing, Van's first multi engine bi-plane. But it might require a Garmin R2D-296 (or similar) navigator for 2025 ADS-B compliance.
__________________
Galin
CP-ASEL-AMEL-IR
FCC Radiotelephone (PG) with Radar Endorsement
2020 Donation made
www.PuertoRicoFlyer.com

Last edited by GalinHdz : 06-11-2015 at 07:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-10-2015, 07:40 AM
meloosifah meloosifah is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 216
Default

I am still waiting for the miracle battery pack. Great advances in motors still leave us tied to fuel because it's the batteries that weigh so much. I have an electric motor for a model that paired up would power a small plane - just can't get any endurance due to energy storage weight.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-10-2015, 09:07 AM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,408
Default Welcome to VAF!

Julian-------welcome to VAF

You are at least the third person to "Discover" this motor, and post a thread about it.

Hopefully someday the science and engineering folks in the battery world will be able to catch up with those in the motor world.

It is a nice dream---------but at the current state of reality, only a dream for us.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-10-2015, 09:27 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,515
Default

Welcome Julian,

Function Replacement theory requires some new thinking. What if . .

the airframe (w/o powerplant and fuel) weighed (gross) at 1160 pounds, and it had a best glide sink rate of 2 ft/sec, and it was already carrying 450 lbs of ballast? Think - - sailplane. That is 3.1 kw BTW to keep the velocity and zero sink rate. If my calculations were correct.

Now, think replace that 450 lbs of ballast with 400 lb of batteries. At 150 watt-hrs/kg. That yields 7 hour range with an 80% motor/inverter energy conversion! The catch is takeoff and climb. But, at least it is a start.

Oops, forgot about prop efficiency, drop the range by another 20%.

Now, back to work on something mundane, like fiberglass work on my 7.
__________________
Bill

RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-10-2015, 09:46 AM
bret's Avatar
bret bret is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Gardnerville Nv.
Posts: 2,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL View Post
Welcome Julian,

Function Replacement theory requires some new thinking. What if . .

the airframe (w/o powerplant and fuel) weighed (gross) at 1160 pounds, and it had a best glide sink rate of 2 ft/sec, and it was already carrying 450 lbs of ballast? Think - - sailplane. That is 3.1 kw BTW to keep the velocity and zero sink rate. If my calculations were correct.

Now, think replace that 450 lbs of ballast with 400 lb of batteries. At 150 watt-hrs/kg. That yields 7 hour range with an 80% motor/inverter energy conversion! The catch is takeoff and climb. But, at least it is a start.

Oops, forgot about prop efficiency, drop the range by another 20%.

Now, back to work on something mundane, like fiberglass work on my 7.
10,000 farad CAP for take off...http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sun...tor-2015-05-06
__________________
7A Slider, EFII Angle 360, CS, SJ.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-10-2015, 11:46 AM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
Default

My favorite quote from that article:

quote:
The power-to-weight ratio of this engine, which breaks all previous records, opens up the possibility of larger aircraft with takeoff weight of up to two tons and capacity for up to 100 passengers to use an electric propulsion system.
unquote

(Do the math.)

Having said that, I think that the naysayers are a bit like ferriers in the early 20th century who saw no need to retrain for other jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-10-2015, 12:20 PM
sblack sblack is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,456
Default

If you look at any very large scale electric powered model, and there are lots out there, the motors are tiny relative to the airframe. It's sort of like a turbine engine in that they are tiny and put out massive hp for their size. But the battery for the electric is the issue, just like the extra fuel burn is the issue for the turbine. So a new super light motor does not change the equation.

Back in the 80s we were flying 6 cell nicad rc models, made like old rubber powered designs so as to be light as possible. We were getting 3 min on a good day and the gas guys would laugh at us and shake their heads. Then lipos came out and over night everything changed. You could fly two 15 min flights one one charge with the same performance as the "Slimers". Ok we had the odd fire but hey...that's the orice if progress.

Electric airplanes are at the same stage as electric rc was in the 80s - for die hard tinkerers and very high tech super light, low drag airplanes. But if there is a new battery technology it will change very quickly.
__________________
Scott Black
Old school simple VFR RV 4, O-320, wood prop, MGL iEfis Lite
VAF dues 2020
Instagram @sblack2154
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-10-2015, 01:03 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,408
Default "Do the Math"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie View Post
The power-to-weight ratio of this engine, which breaks all previous records, opens up the possibility of larger aircraft with takeoff weight of up to two tons and capacity for up to 100 passengers to use an electric propulsion system.


(Do the math.)
OK, 100 passengers at the FAA mythical 160 lbs is 16,000 pounds or 8 tons. In reality it will most likely be higher.

Add the two tons of airframe--------pretty mythical also for a hundred passengers (The Concorde carried about a hundred passengers, and weighed 80+ tons-------empty. Boeing 737-100 apx 100 passengers, 30+ tons empty. DC 7--just under a hundred passengers, 29 tons) -------and you get 10 tons.

Now you want to fly that on 350 HP???

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv7charlie View Post
Having said that, I think that the naysayers are a bit like ferriers in the early 20th century who saw no need to retrain for other jobs.
I think the horse shoers are safe for a little longer.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."

Last edited by Mike S : 06-10-2015 at 01:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-10-2015, 03:04 PM
Jordan1976 Jordan1976 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bret View Post
I can design a 10,000F capacitor that can't power a watch for more than a second and a 1uF capacitor that has enough energy to take a 747 across the Pacific.

Without stating what voltage it operates at, the capacitance measurement is worthless in determining how much energy it stores. It's exactly the same as saying "I have a 400V battery!" without mentioning that it has only 1mA of capacity.

For instance, that capacitor at 1.2V (Standard for a Graphene capacitor) would only produce 200HP for .05 seconds (yes, 1/20th of a second).

For a 2 hour flight, you'd need 144,000 of them. At the current weight/volume of supercapacitors, that would be about 300,000 lbs and 4,800 cubic feet of volume.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:00 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.