Now, who wants to develop the next electric airplane? Anyone? Cessna 172-E?

Edited May 10, 201313 yr by linux731

Now, who wants to develop the next electric airplane? Anyone? Cessna 172-E?

 

That would be great. Maybe make the entire wing structure some kind of spread out light weight batteries with solar panels on top. Fuel is heavy so if the Batteries can be in the wings and use less weight, and produce enough power it would work. But I think there isn't a battery around yet that has that much storage capacity for a long range flight. You may get a few circuits out of a battery that is out there now.

 

That is where innovation starts though, with good ole R&D

Flying in overcast weather is prohibited then.

Here you go, now get to work! I read somewhere that some version of these may hit the market in the next 2-3 years.

 

http://inhabitat.com/new-tiny-lithium-ion-battery-is-2000x-more-powerful-and-can-charge-1000x-faster/

I can imagine what the cost would be to do it now, consider a new 172S costs $307,500 today. Therefore a Cessna 172E (Electric) would probably sell for around 2 million dollars by the time you put the technology into it.

Technology is affordable over time. I could see it happening over the next 10 years

 

Edit: Here is one company doing it right now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electravia

That would be great. Maybe make the entire wing structure some kind of spread out light weight batteries with solar panels on top. Fuel is heavy so if the Batteries can be in the wings and use less weight, and produce enough power it would work. But I think there isn't a battery around yet that has that much storage capacity for a long range flight. You may get a few circuits out of a battery that is out there now.

 

That is where innovation starts though, with good ole R&D

 

Check out the Solar Impulse. Not very useful for most people yet, but it's a start.

 

http://www.solarimpulse.com/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22414444

Reminds me of when I lived in Detroit and everyone was touting electric cars and Bob Lutz asked when you plug them in what is making the electricity?

 

I could ad that when my Baron which consumed 28 gallons an hour ( and no muffler ) broke down and I had to rent a c172 to get home it took me 8 hours with and extra fuel stop in the 172 vs . A direct trip in 2.5 hours in the Baron.

 

Sometimes math is compelling...

Flying in overcast weather is prohibited then.

Not necessarily.

 

When there is insufficient solar power (or none at all at night) then the plane would fly on batteries and you can fly it like a regular fuel powered aircraft where range is limited by the charge stored in the batteries.

 

When there is enough sunlight the charge in the batteries would either be reduced at a lower rate or not at all if the plane can fly on solarpower alone.

Then the range for a given charge would be higher or infinite.

 

To deal with unexpected weatherchanges you determine the batterycharge at a given point on your route and then calculate the aircraft's range on battery alone.

Then you must divert to an airfield within that range.

Pe11e, on 09 May 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

Why is consumption way higher than the car with the same hp engine?

It's because cars don't have to constantly fight gravity.

 

 

Pe11e, on 09 May 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:
Why is consumption way higher than the car with the same hp engine?

It's because cars don't have to constantly fight gravity.

 

Sure they do!  Gravity affects everything.  :-)

 

But seriously, think of it this way:  Take a 200HP car, and a 200HP piston airplane.  For the vast majority of its time the car's engine loafs along, using only a fraction of its HP - only very occasionally and very briefly does the car actually approach 100% power.  Contrast that with the airplane.  Let's take a sea level scenario to make things simple - at takeoff, power is advanced to 100% (full 200HP) and left there throughout the takeoff process.  At some point power is reduced for climb, but is still probably in the 70-80% range, and even in cruise, power will typically be set somewhere in the neighborhood of 60%.  And stay there.

 

That means that other than during ground operations, the aircraft engine spends its entire life using 60-100% of its power.  That's a VERY different picture from the power use model of the car.

 

Another way of looking at it is that the 200 HP car spends its time running 60MPH or under.  A 200HP aircraft will spend most of it's time flying double that value and over.

 

Scott

Sure they do!  Gravity affects everything.  :-)

You know what I meant,smart@rse! :-P

 

 

You know what I meant,smart@rse! :-P

 

You betcha!  :lol:

 

Scott

when you compare vehicles to aircraft you really have to look at distance traveled. Lets say on average cars get 20 mpg highway and the average aircraft burns 7 gph. At 60 mph you will use 3 gal of gas per hour to go 60 mi. At 120 kts in an aircraft you will travel roughly 138 mi. So to go 138 mi in a car you will use 6.9 gal of gas and 7 gal of fuel in an aircraft. not really that much difference.

Sure they do!  Gravity affects everything.  :-)

 

But seriously, think of it this way:  Take a 200HP car, and a 200HP piston airplane.  For the vast majority of its time the car's engine loafs along, using only a fraction of its HP - only very occasionally and very briefly does the car actually approach 100% power.  Contrast that with the airplane.  Let's take a sea level scenario to make things simple - at takeoff, power is advanced to 100% (full 200HP) and left there throughout the takeoff process.  At some point power is reduced for climb, but is still probably in the 70-80% range, and even in cruise, power will typically be set somewhere in the neighborhood of 60%.  And stay there.

 

That means that other than during ground operations, the aircraft engine spends its entire life using 60-100% of its power.  That's a VERY different picture from the power use model of the car.

 

Another way of looking at it is that the 200 HP car spends its time running 60MPH or under.  A 200HP aircraft will spend most of it's time flying double that value and over.

 

Scott

 

Actually Scott is right on the gravity front...  That is why when Bugatti designed the Veyron they said it took 250 HP to reach 155 MPH.  As the speeds increased and the forces AGAINST the car increased the additional 100 MPH to the 255mph top speed took an additional 750 HP!!!  Hence the 1001 HP.  

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bugatti5.htm

 

 

HOW MUCH GAS IS THAT?

 

• 1,000 horsepower is equivalent to roughly 2.6 billion joules per hour. A gallon (3.8 liters) of gasoline contains 132 million joules, so a 1,000-hp engine has to be able to burn just over 20 gallons of gasoline per hour.
• However, car engines are only about one-quarter efficient -- three quarters of the gasoline's energy escapes as heat rather than as power to the wheels. So the engine actually has to be able to burn at least 80 gallons per hour, or 1.33 gallons (5 liters) per minute.
• Let's convert over to metric. Gasoline requires about 14.7 kilograms of air to burn 1 kilogram of gas. Air weighs 1.222 kilograms per cubic meter at sea level. A gallon of gasoline weighs 2.84 kilograms. So the engine has to be able to process 2.84*1.33*14.7 kilograms of air per minute, or roughly 45 cubic meters of air per minute. That's 45,000 liters of air per minute.
• If a V-8 engine is turning at 6,000 rpm, it can inhale a total of 24,000 cylinders' full of air per minute. If it needs to inhale 45,000 liters of air per minute, it works out to roughly 2 liters per cylinder-full. That's a 16-liter engine.

Now, who wants to develop the next electric airplane? Anyone? Cessna 172-E?

Elon Musk could tackle this project.  Is there nothing this genius can't do?   Solar luxury cars, panels, space exploration, this fella is having quite the week.   I only regret not buying stock in Tesla before there earnings announcement Wednesday night, I chickened out, but it's now up 57% since then!!  This man is on FIRE!