Electric powerplant on RV?

[vlittle]

Originally Posted by Aluminum

This one makes a whole lot of sense.

This is not a joke: This song inspired the development of Opener’s aircraft.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo

Seriously, an electric aircraft would benefit from a clean sheet design. Notice that the Blackfly has no landing gear? That saves a lot of weight and is amphibious. It does require VTOL capability, though.

Oh, the Blackfly is an Ultralight and can be completely fly-by-wire. A passenger carrying drone!

I worked on electric vehicle development in the 70’s. It’s taken a while(!) and we still are waiting for the Dalhousie batteries to be adopted. See https://electricautonomy.ca/2020/07/...ahn-interview/

It’s coming, but the optimal electric aircraft design will not look conventional.

Here I am in 1978. This Vehicle used a 3-phase induction motor with a large inverter system. One of the team members (not pictured) went on to GM to work on the EV-1. When he left GM, he founded Statpower (became Xantrex, then Schneider). If you have ever purchase an inverter system (RV, Boat, PV system, portable power unit), he’s the man!

https://vansairforce.net/community/a...1&d=1599579303

I don’t have as much hair now.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Mike S

It does???

Range 25 miles.

Recharge time 5.5 to 7.4 hours for the most commonly found electrical source.

A hundred mile flight thus equates to 4 flight legs, with a minimum of 22 hours charging time to make the flight.

At the 62 mph listed, that is slightly over 1.5 hours flight time, 22 hours charging time. Toss in 10 minutes each charging session just to get hooked up , unhooked and misc.

So, your 100 mile flight has taken 24 hours to accomplish.

Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me.

Yes, it is interesting tech, and a fun looking craft with an interesting flight capibility.

IMHO for electric flight to get to be more than just a novelty, you need to be close to the performance of gas powered aircraft in; load carrying ability, range, speed, refueling (charging) time and cost.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against electric flight, I am just trying to see the total picture and ignore the koolaid. I look forward to the time I can plug in my plane at night and then go fly out for an hour or two, at 150 mph. Then turn around and fly home and land with the same reserves my gas powered plane has. Plug it in again and be ready for the next flight tomorrow

Maybe someday.........

Take a look at the people behind this.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by gasman

Take a look at the people behind this.

I already did.

No question that they have a boat load of talent, and the possibilities are very intriguing, but they are not there at this time. Lots of development and major breakthroughs still needed to achieve what I stated before --------"IMHO for electric flight to get to be more than just a novelty, you need to be close to the performance of gas powered aircraft in; load carrying ability, range, speed, refueling (charging) time and cost."

[rv8ch]

Originally Posted by vlittle

...Here I am in 1978. ...
https://vansairforce.net/community/a...1&d=1599579303

I don’t have as much hair now.

But Vern, I'm sure you still look good in shorts!

[David Carter]

This recent episode of the Aviation News Talk podcast has an interview with the founder of Bye Aerospace, and he goes into a good bit of detail about why you need an airframe designed for electric propulsion (and not a converted lycosaurus-powered plane) to get the real benefits.

https://aviationnewstalk.com/podcast...th-george-bye/

https://byeaerospace.com/electric-airplane/

[Northernliving]

Battery technology(power density) will have to dramatically improve before these will be anything more than a science fair project. I'm not saying that what people are doing/trying isn't important. That's how we advance. Motors over engines will be a massive improvement in comfort and reliability, but the batteries just aren't there yet. I've owned an electric car, and it always felt like I was "filling the tank" with an eye dropper. Fun to drive, but not practical for my lifestyle.

[Aluminum]

Originally Posted by Mike S

It does???

Range 25 miles.

Recharge time 5.5 to 7.4 hours for the most commonly found electrical source.

A hundred mile flight thus equates to 4 flight legs, with a minimum of 22 hours charging time to make the flight.

At the 62 mph listed, that is slightly over 1.5 hours flight time, 22 hours charging time. Toss in 10 minutes each charging session just to get hooked up , unhooked and misc.

So, your 100 mile flight has taken 24 hours to accomplish.

Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me.

Mike, you get First Prize for Missing the Big Picture!

Now look at the positives:

- One doesn't need an airport.

- One doesn't need a pilot's license nor a driver's license (it's Ultralight!).

- One doesn't need any flying skills nor specialized knowledge.

- Such a One won't be able to intrude into "precious" airspace and endanger others.

- If it annoys one's neighbors to zoom in/out of one's backyard, trailer it two blocks away and have it land itself back onto the trailer.

- Park it in the garage.

- Range/speed is limited by the aforementioned Ultralight constraint. Lift the constraint, range/speed increases accordingly.

- If one needs more range, make it a gasoline series hybrid with a tiny battery to supply the burst for vertical takeoff. (Oh, and provide a toilet for us young-at-heart.)

The whole point of this exercise isn't to make a better airplane; it is to make a flying thing fit in places where airplanes and helicopters don't, enabled by batteries and Neodymium. (Vacuum cleaners look nothing like brooms.) By that measure this is a smashing success, love-child of a quad-copter and a biplane. I want one!

[tjo]

The problem is, to have roughly half the range of your typical RV, you would need about 1800 lbs of batteries. Not feasible for an RV airframe, unless you are just building a science experiment.

Tim

[mchargmg]

Hi all,

As technology improves, I wonder if electricity will come into its own as the second plane. I do not know what percentage of pilots have multiple planes, but many that do have a "fun" plane as their second plane. Something you tool around the local area in for an hour fits the bill of an electric plane pretty well. I know Pipistrel made the argument for the Alpha electro that most training flights are an hour. Doing that multiple times a day, day in and day out, while cutting out the maintenance was a big driver for them actually getting the plane to the market. I guess time will tell if this comes to anything or not.

Blue skies,

Geoff

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

My motivation is not environmental or political, but primarily economic - I still can’t swallow the concept of paying $30k for a new Lycoming and $5/gal for a fuel which will only go up in price and get harder to find..

I see no evidence that an electric motor and batteries will be any less to purchase than a Lycoming especially when they get the power density of the batteries up, they will probably require some exotic materials.
Oh, and electricity is not free. Nor is the overhaul, and or disposal of warn out batteries.

Originally Posted by tjo

The problem is, to have roughly half the range of your typical RV, you would need about 1800 lbs of batteries. Not feasible for an RV airframe, unless you are just building a science experiment.

Tim

Yes, and you have to carry all 1800 lbs from beginning of flight to end. No efficiency advantage to lower weight as you burn off fuel. All flights will be at gross weight from take off to landing.

Happy people are working the issues, but I will be long gone by the time My Lycoming is a relic. ( I guess it already is yet it has survived billions of dollars of internal combustion engine development by the auto industry over the last 100 years)