Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
$2.50/fl-hour Fuel Cost By Electric Aircraft!  
User currently offlineBOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 624 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

Hi, this may look like a promo video, but it doesn't contain much of commercial information, apparently there is an electric aircraft that can be charged up and flown for about $2.50/hour in the US and China - What do you think of this concept ? Could it bring general aviation costs / risks down more, or would it increase the cost / risk ?

See video (with sound) here: Yuneec International E430 Electric Aircraft

Also, what do you think about the aesthetics of this aircraft ?


Up, up and Away!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Well, it is interesting. However, most of the people who can afford a private aircraft would most probably prefer to pay like 20$ more an hour and have a "proper" aircraft. As in general the aircraft won't really be powerful. From an eviromental point of view, I have to say, that about anything with electricity powered (cars etc.) is so much hyped. Most of the people just think as the car itself doesn't produce any CO2. However, depending on the engery mix (atomic powerplant, Coal, gas etc.) there really isn't such a big difference inbetween a normal fuel-optimized car with a small engine compared to electric cars and if you look at the complete energy balance they sometimes are even worse as to produce the batteries a lot of CO2 is produced.

Many thanks for the link though!



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3777 times:



Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 1):
From an eviromental point of view, I have to say, that about anything with electricity powered (cars etc.) is so much hyped.

You mean it's all marketing? That companies are selling these things to people willing to fork out premiums just to be green? Say it ain't so...  Wink

Green - it's the new Big Oil.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3706 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
You mean it's all marketing? That companies are selling these things to people willing to fork out premiums just to be green? Say it ain't so... Wink

Well, yes and no. There is a lot of marketing behind it, and (as usual in marketing) not all is true. First of all, hybrid cars pure marketing I'm telling you when it comes to polution. It takes about 100.000 to 150.000 km (so up to around 100.000 miles) until the engery (and CO² balance) is equalized by a hybrid. So the saving in CO² really is small (of course no company producing these cars tell you about this and politicans who are all for hybrids don't really know anything or at least not that much).

Then, again, elecricity obviously is pretty cheap, so you might save some money when driving on it. However, when we are talking "enviroment" friendly most people are that shortsighted that they said that it is enviroment friendly, as the car doesn't produce any CO². They really seem to forget that, however CO2 is produced by producing the electricity. Of course, if you had a share of 50% renewable energy (wind-, solar- or waterpowerplants) this would look different, however in 95% of the industrialised world this share is faaaaaar below 10%.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
Green - it's the new Big Oil.

Well, Green yes, but electricity isn't green. H² might be.
For electricity beeing the fuel of the future, two things have to be realiesed. First of all, a faster charging of the battery has to be realised. The MIT already made a huge leap forward this year in terms of research (I think they made it possible to recharge a complete battery in about 3-4 min. if I remember correctly). So this part will be available in rather short time. The second will have too be electricity which is produced with a very large share of renewable energy (in the end it won't make a difference in terms of enviroment if you burn the oil in a powerplant or in the car itself) and this will take a loooooooong time. 20-30 years at least in most countries.

If you really want to help the enviroment it is far more important to check your driving habit, and not which car you drive. If you don't believe me, here a rather extreme example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

I'm too lazy to sit thru the whole video-- do they ever say what the thing's range and payload are supposed to be?

User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3561 times:



Quoting Timz (Reply 4):
I'm too lazy to sit thru the whole video-- do they ever say what the thing's range and payload are supposed to be?

Naa, however:

Motoroutput: 40kW (54hp)
payload a little bit more than 200kg

Don't know about topspeed. However, I would guess not (far) more than 60 mph.



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineBerblinger From Germany, joined Aug 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

I am not sure whether batteries will provide the needed energy density needed for aircrafts being able to travel longer distances. Among alternative propulsions, fuel cells might be more promising. Recently, the motor glider Antares took off for first fight.

The link http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10/60_read-18278/ claims about Antares and its efficiency:
"The total efficiency of the drive system from tank to powertrain, including the propeller, is in the region of 44 percent, making it about twice as efficient as conventional propulsion technologies based on combustion processes. Systems powered by kerosene or diesel only contribute about 18 to 25 percent of their energy to propulsion."

A video (in German) is available under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KW0ySzNzsQ&feature=fvsr
Here, the following properties are mentioned:
Range: 750 km
Flight time: 5 hours
Electric power of fuel cell: 25 kW
Needed power for straight flight: 10 kW


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3435 times:



Quoting Berblinger (Reply 6):
"The total efficiency of the drive system from tank to powertrain, including the propeller, is in the region of 44 percent, making it about twice as efficient as conventional propulsion technologies based on combustion processes. Systems powered by kerosene or diesel only contribute about 18 to 25 percent of their energy to propulsion."

Well, and here it comes. As I mentioned before. The company just leaves out the powerinput needed to make the fuelcell functioning (it's not like it is a perpetuum mobile)... so this figures will look different when taking everything into account. People just have to stop wearing their blinders and realise that nothing offered to day really is a miracle in terms of enviroment (talking about consuming vehicles, not powerplants like wind or solar energy)



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineBerblinger From Germany, joined Aug 2009, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

Comparison of Yuneec E430 (lithium polymer battery) with Antares (fuel cell):

Yuneec E430, http://yuneeccouk.site.securepod.com/Aircraft_specification.html :
Weight of battery pack (10 units): 130 kg
Energy of battery pack (10 units): 20 kWh (66.6V x 30 Ah x 10 units)
Energy density: 154 Wh/kg

Antares, http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10/60_read-18278/ :
Weight of 2 containers for fuel (H2) and fuel cell: 200 kg
Energy of fuel cell: 50 kWh (derived from data given in article)
Energy density: 250 Wh/kg

In fact, the advantage of Antares regarding energy density might be even larger than indicated by these numbers since the weight not only includes the fuel cells and the fuel but also the complete containers mounted beneath the wings.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Build more nuclear power plants... all the green this world will ever need. Nuclear waste will not always be waste, in 65 years look how far we've come, in another 65 all that nasty waste will be able to be properly discarded. When that happens I can see electrical powered (fill in the blank)


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3319 times:



Quoting Berblinger (Reply 8):
Weight of 2 containers for fuel (H2) and fuel cell: 200 kg
Energy of fuel cell: 50 kWh (derived from data given in article)
Energy density: 250 Wh/kg

Well, if yu would look at howmuch energy is used for getting the H² you will quickly see that in terms of enviroment it unfortunately is no match to normal fuel (yet)



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineEcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

I personally like the idea, I can do without the noise.

As an owner of an Ultra Light aircraft with similar power to this electric aircraft I could picture myself flying it.
I do have my doubts about the range on a full charge though.

The design is good looking!

Ecuadorian MD11.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Earning Money By Cleaning Aircraft! Help? posted Sun Mar 15 2009 01:59:33 by Virginblue4
Oil, Av Fuel Cost, Hedges, & Effect On Airlines posted Mon Nov 17 2008 12:00:21 by Tugger
BA Fuel Charges By Weight/Space posted Wed Jun 25 2008 06:53:06 by BlueFlyer
Which USA Cities Have The Highest Jet-A Fuel Cost? posted Tue Apr 22 2008 08:51:28 by BP1
Being Stalked By An Aircraft posted Wed Mar 5 2008 14:06:13 by Pa747sp
Only WN Hedges Fuel Cost? posted Thu Nov 29 2007 03:12:37 by ThirtyEcho
Non-precision Approaches By Mainline Aircraft? posted Tue Dec 6 2005 00:39:17 by KELPkid
Fuel Cost, Where Is The Highest? posted Mon Jul 4 2005 16:08:28 by TP727
QFs Affected By Emptier Aircraft And Oil posted Wed Apr 6 2005 14:01:50 by 777ER
Air Jamaica To Add $40US To Cover Fuel Cost. posted Wed May 26 2004 17:29:52 by JMIslandman