[prkaye]

I just realized, 2008 is the 35th year for Van's Aircraft! Over the last 35 years, Vans aircraft have certainly had a large part to play in the significant advancements in homebuilding. The landscape for homebuilders is quite different now than it was 35 years ago (not that I'm old enough to remember, but from what i've read!).

I think it's interesting to ponder how much different again the homebuilt landscape may be in 2043 (another 35 years). Or even another 10 or 20 years? Any predictions on what's to come? My first bet would be a massive shift to a powerplant that uses something other than gasoline. I won't try to predict what the alternative fuel will be. Also, electronics will continue to evolve and things like EFIS and avionics will get better and better. What else? Let's bounce around some predictions!

 

[Mel]

In the year BV...(Before Van's)

I remember before Van's, it was very common for someone to start a project, and then before they could get it finished, something new and better would come along. That has since changed!

 

[Vern]

Predictions (always dangerous!)

If I'm alive,I'll be 92! Therefore, you 'whippersnappers' will be running the show. I've met some of the early pioneers in air and space and feel like I'm a historical link to great aviation events and aviators. By then, we will have lost most of the links to the 'good old days.'
Will the excitement for all things that fly still be here? Will we still have the freedoms to fly? Will we be able to afford it? It is getting more expensive than it was. I remember $300-900 Cubs and T-crafts. I bought one Luscombe for $450 and another for $950. I bought a C-172 for $1500. I turned down a $8,000 Staggerwing. I turned down a $5,000 Stinson Gullwing. I still have magazine ads requesting bids for the warbirds. P-51's, B-25's C-47's,etc for a few thousand.
Will today's classic aircraft be serviceable? Will anyone want to work on them? What will fuel them? Will the FAA still be the 'Friendly Aviation Administration',or will national survival dictate a suspension of our hobby as more 9/11 events unfold?
Will EAA and AOPA still be for grass roots aviation, or be 'corporate?' Will the next generation still be public-minded enough to fight the battles that lie ahead?

 

[TSwezey]

I think it's interesting to ponder how much different again the homebuilt landscape may be in 2043 (another 35 years). Or even another 10 or 20 years? Any predictions on what's to come? My first bet would be a massive shift to a powerplant that uses something other than gasoline. I won't try to predict what the alternative fuel will be. Also, electronics will continue to evolve and things like EFIS and avionics will get better and better. What else? Let's bounce around some predictions!

My guess is electric.

 

[Sid Lambert]

Seeing the posts by Vern and TSwezty post reminds me of the old Aubrey Sweezy stories I heard from my father.

As a young 32 year old, I will never know aviation as it was back then.

 

[asav8tor]

Avgas will be a minimum of $25/gal.

 

[RichB]

Avgas will be a minimum of $25/gal.

So we'll probably be running on biodiesel or SVO (straight vegetable oil, doesn't need to be chemically refined like biodiesel). That'll be in either piston aero-diesels or (more likely) small Innodyne-like turbines optimised for the fuel. With fuel costs that high, the low efficiency of the small turbines at low altitude won't be issue, and the business case for selling small turbines will have improved.

[dreaming]Or maybe someone will be clever enough to make a 2-shaft U-shaped turbine that adds extra stages to improve the efficiency in a small package.[/dreaming]

 

[C-GRVT]

Progress in aviation

I marvel both at the rapid advances in aviation (the United States puts men on the moon only 60 some years after Kitty Hawk), and at the same time some of the almost frozen in time aspects of what we do. "Stick and Rudder" published in 1944, is as relevant and useful a book today as it was in 1944.
When I take a break from building to watch a documentary on WWII aircraft, I see exactly the same building techniques used then as I am using now in my garage almost 70 years later.
I also wonder about the future of general aviation. I tend to think that the big drivers for change will not be so much advances in technology as external influences and pressures that will affect aviation incidentally - but will challenge our freedom/ability to enjoy this sport.
For example, governments (I'm thinking Canada and the U.S. here) jumping on the climate change bandwagon to restrict or make more costly the burning of fossil fuels (as an aside, I think the greatest risk in this climate change thing is rash overreaction by government); environmentalist types getting more traction with arguments that there has to be something wrong with airplanes in the sky that have no pollution controls and no mufflers; security types seeing a whole area of uncontrolled, unscreened activity in the skies; airlines lobbying to both shift costs to general aviation and limit access to the ever more crowded airspace - and governments wanting to be seen to be commiited to action on the security/airline/environment files. General aviation is an attractive target for government regulation being both highly visible and with limited political clout (who has sympathy for people foolish enough to risk their lives in small planes, who shouldn't be up in the sky anyway and cewrtainly not sharing airspace with commercial passenger aircraft, and who obviously must have too much money). I really do fear for the future.
But not enough not to order that $20,000 plus Lycoming clone!
Bill
RV-6A
Ottawa,
Canada

 

[sprucemoose]

The future

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/press/releases/pr_072407.html

I believe that this is the future of recreational aviation. And it will not take 35 years. It is my belief that this will be a commercial reality within 10 years. I for one find it fascinating and exciting.

 

[RichB]

http://www.sonexaircraft.com/press/releases/pr_072407.html

I believe that this is the future of recreational aviation. And it will not take 35 years. It is my belief that this will be a commercial reality within 10 years. I for one find it fascinating and exciting.

There's an interesting video about it over here... http://aeroconversions.com/e-flight/

Range still seems limited (up to 1 hour was mentioned), but it's still very very cool.

 

[captainron]

Originally Posted by asav8tor View Post
Avgas will be a minimum of $25/gal.

So we'll probably be running on biodiesel or SVO (straight vegetable oil, doesn't need to be chemically refined like biodiesel). That'll be in either piston aero-diesels or (more likely) small Innodyne-like turbines optimised for the fuel. With fuel costs that high, the low efficiency of the small turbines at low altitude won't be issue, and the business case for selling small turbines will have improved.

[dreaming]Or maybe someone will be clever enough to make a 2-shaft U-shaped turbine that adds extra stages to improve the efficiency in a small package.[/dreaming]

If avgas is only $25.00/gal. in 35 years, you can relax! That means it will be a lot cheaper than it is now! I'm not highly paid by any means, but I'm making about eight times more than my solidly middle-class father was making before he passed away in 1972. If salaries increase eight-fold in the next 35 years, it will take fewer minutes of work to buy a gallon than it takes now.

BTW, how much was avgas 35 years ago, and if you were working and flying then, how long did you have to work to buy a gallon then? Is it cheaper now?

Example: If you earned $12,000 thirty-five years ago, and avgas was $0.40/gal, you had to work 4.16 minutes to buy a gallon. How long do you work now to buy the same gallon?

 

[prkaye]

I think the intent of the statement was $25/gal in today's dollars.

 

[prkaye]

Electric

The electric powered sonex is VERY interesting to me. I guess you have to plug it in to recharge? This could be a problem as most airport ramp parking don't have electrical outlets ready for you to plug into. This doesn't seem practical for x-country without a change in infastructure. Unless you could pop the batteries out of the plane easily and take them with you to recharge.

With the appearance of all these hybrid powered cars now, I wonder if that's a possibility in the future for GA.

 

[David-aviator]

I just realized, 2008 is the 35th year for Van's Aircraft! Over the last 35 years, Vans aircraft have certainly had a large part to play in the significant advancements in homebuilding. The landscape for homebuilders is quite different now than it was 35 years ago (not that I'm old enough to remember, but from what i've read!).

I think it's interesting to ponder how much different again the homebuilt landscape may be in 2043 (another 35 years). Or even another 10 or 20 years? Any predictions on what's to come? My first bet would be a massive shift to a powerplant that uses something other than gasoline. I won't try to predict what the alternative fuel will be. Also, electronics will continue to evolve and things like EFIS and avionics will get better and better. What else? Let's bounce around some predictions!

Predicting the future is risky. But there are computer models trying to do just that today based on current and immediate past trends. In fact, you can pick your model and find a future that meets your needs with regard to changing climate.

Demographics is another area of future speculation. Based on current projections, Muslims will rule Europe in 35 years (or less).

Recreation flying will continue and won't change that much except it will get more expensive and exclusive. Pilot training is way off, there will be fewer of us. Not even a war will promote pilot training as most of it will be push button. Electronics won't advance as much as it has, GPS is already down to one meter accuracy, so it gets down to 6 inches, big deal. We have on board weather without radar. We do not need auto land systems as they simply degrade pilot skills.

Hopefully, someone will invent an engine that runs on CO2 and emits H2O. Based on scientific advances in the past 200 years, could that happen? Maybe, maybe not.

We are accustomed to rapid change but things may be slowing down. There was a time when important printing was done by hand on velum the skin of calves and did not change for about 3000 years. I don't see things changing too much in 35 years. How much better can computers get. I am already bored with the new models which was not true 15 years ago.

We are due for a period of stability to consolidate where we are. I will not see as much change as I've seen as there isn't much time left. I do believe in a life after life and look forward to some traveling around the universe to see what else is going on out there. For sure this planet is not the only show in the universe.

 

[breister]

The rate of technological advance is accelerating, not moving ahead in a linear way as would be the intuitive sense. Thus, next year there will be MORE new discoveries than there were THIS year, in a near exponential progression.

Electric power is the future; we are only waiting for the batteries. There are new announcements almost every week now of new breakthroughs; which one will win out in the marketplace is almost irrelevant. Some top contenders are Nanowire Batteries (this article solves 1/2 of the problem for batteries with 5-10 times the energy density of current Li-Ion) and Carbon Nanotube Capacitors (better than batteries because, lacking chemical reactions, they could be recharged virtually an unlimited number of times). I suspect the latter are some ways off (say, 10 years) while the former will probably exceed the energy density of AvGas within 5 years in an economically feasible package.

The motors are already here - and we don't need (nor in all probability WANT) fancy AC converters in an aircraft when a much simpler solution is obvious. AC = Alarming Cacophony of electrical noise. Instead use MANY SMALL DC motors all driving a common shaft, perhaps with a drive pulley which can freewheel to avoid drag when not providing power. Instant multi-engine centerline thrust for safe operation over water or rugged terrain! Power output = HP per motor * number of motors turned on, no loss with altitude. Without the deadly power pulses of piston engines, electric prop hubs can be made which are much more responsive than the current crop of MT and their competitors.

Charging in your hanger? Well, as long as there is no way a fire can start then sure. Most hangers have at least 15 amp service, and although it would take all week to charge at 10 amps / 120 volts that might be just fine with many pilots. If that's not good enough, your local utility company will be happy (for a price) to install high capacity 220 service. That $200 fillup would evaporate to a $10 - $30 electric bill at todays' prices. You could easily cross the United States for under $100.

So, should you throw away your plane? Heck, no. Using combinations of small motors and cleverly designed packs of batteries, you will be able to package an electric drive into virtually any existing airframe. Maintenance will become mostly a thing of nostalgia.

 

[N941WR]

The electric powered sonex is VERY interesting to me. I guess you have to plug it in to recharge?

You still need to produce that electricity some place. Today most of that comes from coal.

As for the batteries, they are one nasty product and I suspect that in 35 years they will be banned as we know them because of production and disposal issues. This is going to be a real issues when people start replacing the batteries in their hybrids. Even bigger

 

[rph142]

Fortunately gliders will always be an option. I say we all start heaping our trash in nice long ridges so in the future we can all go trash ridge soaring.

 

[AntiGravity]

Don'f forget to unplug it!

The electric powered sonex is VERY interesting to me. I guess you have to plug it in to recharge?

...and the associated accident reports: "pilot neglected to unplug before flight. Takeoff terminated at length of extension cord!"

 

[sprucemoose]

With the appearance of all these hybrid powered cars now, I wonder if that's a possibility in the future for GA.

I seriously doubt it. I don't believe that you will be able to buy a hybrid car in 10 years, maybe even 5. The MPG delta vs. the same car with a gas engine is just not that great. Many are sold on emotion and not mathematical logic. I know, my wife bought one last summer Plus the manufacture and disposal costs...

I think the current hybrid will be eclipsed by fuel cell/ hydrogen/ ??? in the 5-10 year out time frame.

Electric flight may not be practical for X/C, but for the 1-2 hour recreational flight it will fit the bill nicely. And let's face it, that's what most of us do most of the time. Think of a Cub for the 21st Century!

 

[Steve Brown]

The rate of technological advance is accelerating, not moving ahead in a linear way as would be the intuitive sense. Thus, next year there will be MORE new discoveries than there were THIS year, in a near exponential progression.

Electric power is the future; we are only waiting for the batteries. ......................................................

The motors are already here - and we don't need (nor in all probability WANT) fancy AC converters in an aircraft when a much simpler solution is obvious. AC = Alarming Cacophony of electrical noise. Instead use MANY SMALL DC motors all driving a common shaft, ........................................................

...............................................

...............................

I agree about the acceleration of technology advancements. Also that we are waiting for batteries.
The problem is, we have been waiting for batteries for decades with only small and slow advancements. Batteries have not kept pace with all the gadgets that use them.

Well engineered hydrogen fuel cells are likely practical for cars, possibly for airplanes if they can be made light enough.

The power electronics / motor control for an airplane is a different story. That technology is well advanced. Motor control for an airplane is inherently simple - move the lever forward to get more power, back for less. auto control is much more complex because of stop/starts, energy recovery braking, etc.

So, the power electronics is not at all the limiting factor for electric flight.

By the way, "DC Motor" is a misnomer. A true DC motor does not exist. So called DC motors use either an electromechanical stator or a power converter to create the moving field (AC) needed to run the motor.

IMO, recharging is not going to fly (NPI) except for local recreational flying. For cross country flying, a way of putting fuel into the airplane (hydrogen?) quickly is a must.

 

[prkaye]

moore's "law"

The rate of technological advance is accelerating, not moving ahead in a linear way as would be the intuitive sense. Thus, next year there will be MORE new discoveries than there were THIS year, in a near exponential progression.

I have this discussion with other scientists frequently. We've seen a massive expolosion of technology in the last few decades, but much of that can ultimately be traced back to the invention of the transistor (often indirectly - computing power has been applied to many other areas of science, and so they too owe their rapid advancements to the transistor). But Moore's "Law" is not a fundamental law of nature, it's just a trend, and for digital computers we will see it flattening out soon, I promise. My own area of expertise is in quantum computation, and I would be very surpised if this becomes a useful "technology" in anything near 35 years. Moore's "law" for digital computers (the power of which drives advancements in many other areas of science) is limited by fundamental physics. Once we make transistors too small, classical physics, implicit in their design, no longer holds. This limit is coming sooner than you may think.

Technology has its roots in physics. Lee Smolin, a leading theoretical phycisist whom i have met several times at the Perimeter institute in Waterloo, has a new book called "the trouble with physics". The trouble with physics is that really nothing fundamentally new has been discovered for the last 30 years. String theory is very likely a dead-end, or at least not useful in making predictions (which is the very purpose of science).

As someone else posted earlier, there was for a time a "moore's law" type trend in aerospace technology. How rapidly we went from the first flight of the Wright brothers to landing a man on the moon. But rocket technology has not really changed in decades, and we're still flying fundamentally the same piston and jet-powered airplanes we were decades ago. Only the computers on them have really changed much (sure there have been other incremental improvements, but certainly not exponential-type leaps forward). Ramjets and Scramjets have yet to really pan-out. So that was an example of the Moore's "law" that lasted only a few decades before flattening out. Just like Moore's "law" for digital computers will flatten out in the coming decades.

Genetics on the other hand, is right at the beginning of the "Moore's law" type trend... I bet we'll see a massive explosion of that technology over the next 35 years which will dramatically change things (and hopefully we can manage the risks associated with it). It too will eventually flatten out though... only a finite subset of the structure of the universe can be accessible to finite minds. As an immediate corollary, science and technology cannot increase without bound.

 

[breister]

You still need to produce that electricity some place. Today most of that comes from coal.

Excellent point - but another point that is missed by most proponents of ecological solutions is that once we HAVE practical energy storage, we don't NEED to produce electricity LOCALLY.

The Rocky Mountains have enough geothermal energy easily / cheaply tappable at a cost 1/2 of coal (or less) to last the next 50,000 years. Now, load up a train with boxcars filled with batteries; replace the diesel motor with more batteries and a current converter; and you have nearly created perpetual motion. The "cost" of transporting such a load to, say, New York becomes thousands of times cheaper than trying to push the electricity across wires.

As for the batteries, they are one nasty product and I suspect that in 35 years they will be banned as we know them because of production and disposal issues. This is going to be a real issues when people start replacing the batteries in their hybrids. Even bigger

Newer batteries, unlike the nickel metal hydride, are completely recyclable. But, I absolutely agree that the carbon nanotube capacitors with their unlimited number of recharge cycles will supplant them once they get the bugs worked out.

 

[breister]

Fortunately gliders will always be an option. I say we all start heaping our trash in nice long ridges so in the future we can all go trash ridge soaring.

As motors and storage shrink, most folks will probably opt for self-launching electric gliders. Not only more convenient, but adds a safety factor to allow short bursts of propulsion in case you don't quite catch the thermal you were hoping for...

 

[breister]

Keeping in mind that I don't have any SPECIAL knowledge of the future, and that what really happens may be a complete surprise to me, too...

I agree about the acceleration of technology advancements. Also that we are waiting for batteries.
The problem is, we have been waiting for batteries for decades with only small and slow advancements. Batteries have not kept pace with all the gadgets that use them.

The Human Genome Project was started with a goal of identifying all of the major genes within a 15 year timespan. 7 1/2 years into the project, they had identified less than 1% of the genes, and pundits were writing it off saying, "it was too ambitious."

They finished early.

It is easy to say that we have been "waiting for batteries for decades" and predict that it will thus be more decades before a solution appears. It is much more challenging for most of us (myself included) to remember that the rate of advancement accelerates beyond our intuitive expectations.

Well engineered hydrogen fuel cells are likely practical for cars, possibly for airplanes if they can be made light enough.

The downfall of hydrogen is space, not weight. Even liquid hydrogen is too bulky for cross country flight - it is a dead end of the paradigm of combustion power.

The power electronics / motor control for an airplane is a different story. That technology is well advanced. Motor control for an airplane is inherently simple - move the lever forward to get more power, back for less. auto control is much more complex because of stop/starts, energy recovery braking, etc.

When considered as a space / weight penalty to add the features that cars need, the difference is immaterial. It is just software.

So, the power electronics is not at all the limiting factor for electric flight.

Correct. Here is a good example of horsepower to weight:
Raser Technologies

By the way, "DC Motor" is a misnomer. A true DC motor does not exist. So called DC motors use either an electromechanical stator or a power converter to create the moving field (AC) needed to run the motor.

Picky! Yes, the rotation of the motor causes the DC current to energize successive coils, constantly placing the magnetic field in a position to continually attract / repel the correct magnets to cause continuous one-way rotation.

My point was just that the AC controllers are currently in the neighborhood of $10-15 thousand - and we don't need them for those of us looking to upgrade inexpensively. The only "price" of going the cheap route would be annual inspection / replacement of brushes and power solenoids.

IMO, recharging is not going to fly (NPI) except for local recreational flying. For cross country flying, a way of putting fuel into the airplane (hydrogen?) quickly is a must.

It really depends on how dense they can store the power. If you can store, say, 3,000 miles of flying in a charge, would you want to pay "away from home" prices for electricity? Because, they will charge (pun intended) a serious markup on that juice. Too, once they master the carbon nanotube capacitors (or whatever actually transpires that is equivalent), charging may become a 15 minute affair in the barn. We would just have a similar capacity "battery" in the hanger ready to discharge at 10,000 amps for a rapid recharge; this "accumulator" would be on constant charge to the grid.

 

[MacNab]

Still waiting for the invention of the Shipstone...

 

[Ola]

I can only make one sure prediction. The TV of 2042 might be holographic or telepathic, but the "technology of the future" shows it will display will feature the Moller Skycar as still in development.

 

[breister]

I have this discussion with other scientists frequently. We've seen a massive expolosion of technology in the last few decades, but much of that can ultimately be traced back to the invention of the transistor (often indirectly - computing power has been applied to many other areas of science, and so they too owe their rapid advancements to the transistor). But Moore's "Law" is not a fundamental law of nature, it's just a trend, and for digital computers we will see it flattening out soon, I promise. My own area of expertise is in quantum computation, and I would be very surpised if this becomes a useful "technology" in anything near 35 years. Moore's "law" for digital computers (the power of which drives advancements in many other areas of science) is limited by fundamental physics. Once we make transistors too small, classical physics, implicit in their design, no longer holds. This limit is coming sooner than you may think.

Technology has its roots in physics. Lee Smolin, a leading theoretical phycisist whom i have met several times at the Perimeter institute in Waterloo, has a new book called "the trouble with physics". The trouble with physics is that really nothing fundamentally new has been discovered for the last 30 years. String theory is very likely a dead-end, or at least not useful in making predictions (which is the very purpose of science).

As someone else posted earlier, there was for a time a "moore's law" type trend in aerospace technology. How rapidly we went from the first flight of the Wright brothers to landing a man on the moon. But rocket technology has not really changed in decades, and we're still flying fundamentally the same piston and jet-powered airplanes we were decades ago. Only the computers on them have really changed much (sure there have been other incremental improvements, but certainly not exponential-type leaps forward). Ramjets and Scramjets have yet to really pan-out. So that was an example of the Moore's "law" that lasted only a few decades before flattening out. Just like Moore's "law" for digital computers will flatten out in the coming decades.

Genetics on the other hand, is right at the beginning of the "Moore's law" type trend... I bet we'll see a massive explosion of that technology over the next 35 years which will dramatically change things (and hopefully we can manage the risks associated with it). It too will eventually flatten out though... only a finite subset of the structure of the universe can be accessible to finite minds. As an immediate corollary, science and technology cannot increase without bound.

Based on your occupation, I will assume for arguments' sake that you are "smarter" than I am - the many tests I have taken across the years peg me at the top 1/2 of 1%, which just means that there are still 30 MILLION folks smarter than I am! Kinda helps keep things in perspective...

Still, even smart folks can get caught in a paradigm of thinking which distorts their perspective. Just because we have not achieved the expertise in materials; propulsion; engineering; etc. to ECONOMICALLY fly faster than current jets does not mean we have not advanced. It took 5,000 years of struggling for man to exceed 30mph in travel; looking at a "normalized" exponential curve our rapid advancement to supersonic flight would indicate that the curve just isn't perfect, not that the trend is wrong.

I would fundamentally disagree that the transistor is the primary invention of the last 50 years - in fact, it was not even much of an invention except in that it made manufacture of logic devices much more economical.. Logic gates existed before the transistor; it was merely one of many advances in materials and engineering and physics which enabled placing computers in smaller places. However, I will agree with you that computation will ultimately be the paradigm which supplants humans as the smartest intelligences on this planet.

Nor are we truly nearing the limits of miniaturization. We have yet to successfully explore 3 dimensional manufacture of circuits - that alone guarantees us another decade or so of Moores' Law.

If you have not already done so, I would heartily recommend reading, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil (whose name may be familiar to you for his work in Artificial Intelligence). Dummy that I am, I can't read more than about 5 pages at a time before I have to take a week to think about what he relates about what is really happening in science today. Basically, it is not any ONE field of advance in our knowledge which is fueling the exponential growth in knowledge, but the interplay between the various fields.

Of course, at the end of the day Life doesn't really care what you or I think! But I'm sure that whatever happens, the next 50 years will be fascinating.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[prkaye]

However, I will agree with you that computation will ultimately be the paradigm which supplants humans as the smartest intelligences on this planet.

Ha!! I actually have real doubts about that... but the philosphy of mind is perhaps too far-afield to debate on VAF forums Penrose has some good books on that topic.

I am familiar with Kurzweil's singularity idea, and I don't buy it for one minute! It's a neat argument, but I don't buy it. However the idea about new progress being at the interface between discliplines is right-on. Quantum computing has physicists and computer scientists talking to each other like never before, and each of those disciplines brings powerful new ideas to the other. I love hearing cosmologists use information theory to explore ideas about black holes. Anyway, debates about this sort of thing merit an entire forum on their own... so probably VAF is not the place to go too far with this. The easiest way to settle this is to talk again in 35 years and take stock of the advanges in technology then.

By the way, having a PhD doesn't really say a whole lot about one's intelligence (except that it's probably above some reasonable threshold). The guy in the office next to me "only" has a Master's, and he's waaaaaay smarter than I am. He's no good with his hands though, so he says he could never build a plane.

 

[sprucemoose]

it will display will feature the Moller Skycar as still in development.

That is the funniest thing I have read here in a while. Well done!

 

[Steve Brown]

.............
The Human Genome Project was started with a goal of identifying all of the major genes within a 15 year timespan. 7 1/2 years into the project, they had identified less than 1% of the genes, and pundits were writing it off saying, "it was too ambitious."
They finished early.
............
The downfall of hydrogen is space, not weight. Even liquid hydrogen is too bulky for cross country flight - it is a dead end of the paradigm of combustion power.
...................
My point was just that the AC controllers are currently in the neighborhood of $10-15 thousand - and we don't need them for those of us looking to upgrade inexpensively. The only "price" of going the cheap route would be annual inspection / replacement of brushes and power solenoids.

It really depends on how dense they can store the power. If you can store, say, 3,000 miles of flying in a charge, would you want to pay "away from home" prices for electricity? Because, they will charge (pun intended) a serious markup on that juice. Too, once they master the carbon nanotube capacitors (or whatever actually transpires that is equivalent), charging may become a 15 minute affair in the barn. We would just have a similar capacity "battery" in the hanger ready to discharge at 10,000 amps for a rapid recharge; this "accumulator" would be on constant charge to the grid.

You analogy with the human Genome project is flawed for several reasons.
-That is "exploration" not engineering. They didn't design a human Genome, they simply mapped out what was there.
-The Genome project was recently conceived due to the recent discovery that there even is a Genome.
-The Genome project had only very speculative commercial value
-Etc

Electric cars (propulsion) has been in existence for over 100 years. Battery power of other gadgets: radios, watches, computers, phones, etc, has provided a very tangible & strong commercial incentive to improve. The slow pace of development has been related to battery chemistry - storing energy in a reversible chemical reaction.

The big advancements have come with different reactions: NiCad, NMH, Lithium (in various flavors). Each one comes with it own challenges that can take decades to master.

I don't completely disagree with your assertions about hydrogen. It is bulky, and hard to store. I don't think I would go as far as saying its a "dead end".

The problem with carbon nanotube capacitors, or any high density capacitor technology is charge/discharge rates. High capacity does not correlate to fast charge rates. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. The geometry that dramatically increases the plate surface are of the capacitor also dramatically increases the equivalent series resistance (ESR) of the capacitor. Ohm's law is the enemy:
Power = current^2 x Resistance

That is why as a general rule the RMS current ratings go down as storage density goes up. Fast charge or discharge rates are limited by heating of the capacitor.

That "general rule" only changes (significantly) when you use a different conductive material (silver, copper, aluminum, etc). Carbon is not a great conductor so I'm doubting a carbon nanotube capacitor will have a relatively high RMS current rating.

Brushes, solenoids, etc - electromechanical devices, are neither as efficient or as reliable as their solid state counterparts. Highly efficient electric motors using brushes are not reality. Neither are highly reliable ones.They are also much noisier from an RF standpoint since their operation inherently involves arching to some degree. Electromechanical switching for electric powered flight is not even a dead end, it a non-starter.

The good news is that the production cost of power electronics has very good economy of scale. Also, once volumes go up the competition is brutal. There is no reason for this stuff to cost $10k-15k in volume. I'm going to shoot from the hip and say that the cost should be somewhere between the cost of a fixed pitch prop and a constant speed prop in volume.

BUT: I'm sticking to my main assertion that "charging" will never be a practical means of electric powered cross country flight. The "fill up" is going to be in play until long after I am dead. If a fill up for electric power is not workable, then electric power is not workable for (cross country) flight.

 

[breister]

You analogy with the human Genome project is flawed for several reasons.
-That is "exploration" not engineering. They didn't design a human Genome, they simply mapped out what was there.
-The Genome project was recently conceived due to the recent discovery that there even is a Genome.
-The Genome project had only very speculative commercial value
-Etc

Electric cars (propulsion) has been in existence for over 100 years. Battery power of other gadgets: radios, watches, computers, phones, etc, has provided a very tangible & strong commercial incentive to improve. The slow pace of development has been related to battery chemistry - storing energy in a reversible chemical reaction.

The big advancements have come with different reactions: NiCad, NMH, Lithium (in various flavors). Each one comes with it own challenges that can take decades to master.

I don't completely disagree with your assertions about hydrogen. It is bulky, and hard to store. I don't think I would go as far as saying its a "dead end".

The problem with carbon nanotube capacitors, or any high density capacitor technology is charge/discharge rates. High capacity does not correlate to fast charge rates. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. The geometry that dramatically increases the plate surface are of the capacitor also dramatically increases the equivalent series resistance (ESR) of the capacitor. Ohm's law is the enemy:
Power = current^2 x Resistance

That is why as a general rule the RMS current ratings go down as storage density goes up. Fast charge or discharge rates are limited by heating of the capacitor.

That "general rule" only changes (significantly) when you use a different conductive material (silver, copper, aluminum, etc). Carbon is not a great conductor so I'm doubting a carbon nanotube capacitor will have a relatively high RMS current rating.

Brushes, solenoids, etc - electromechanical devices, are neither as efficient or as reliable as their solid state counterparts. Highly efficient electric motors using brushes are not reality. Neither are highly reliable ones.They are also much noisier from an RF standpoint since their operation inherently involves arching to some degree. Electromechanical switching for electric powered flight is not even a dead end, it a non-starter.

The good news is that the production cost of power electronics has very good economy of scale. Also, once volumes go up the competition is brutal. There is no reason for this stuff to cost $10k-15k in volume. I'm going to shoot from the hip and say that the cost should be somewhere between the cost of a fixed pitch prop and a constant speed prop in volume.

BUT: I'm sticking to my main assertion that "charging" will never be a practical means of electric powered cross country flight. The "fill up" is going to be in play until long after I am dead. If a fill up for electric power is not workable, then electric power is not workable for (cross country) flight.

Hey Steve,

Well, those are all good sounding arguments but we are right back to, "It doesn't matter what you and I believe."

Let's drink to different opinions, and revisit in about 10 years to see who can say, "I told you so!"