OSM Aviation orders 60 all-electric planes

have placed an order for 60 all-electric planes from Colorado-based aircraft manufacturer Bye Aerospace. These will be used for training at the OSM Aviation Academy flight training centres to qualify pilots for the future on sustainable wings.

https://osmaviation.com/osm-aviation-ai ... en-future/

https://www.hegnar.no/Nyheter/Naeringsl ... r-60-elfly



OSM Aviation AS is a Norwegian staffing company that provides services to the aviation sector - and is the first company that offers 'Total Crew Management' - a complete range of management and recruitment services for the aviation industry. The customer list includes Norwegian, Finnair, TuiFly and Turkish Airlines.



Great ! When can we expect a Boeing 777 to go all electric ?

What are the specs of these aircraft? Can they compete with C172? Is it justified to call them Tesla of aircraft?

anshabhi wrote:

What are the specs of these aircraft? Can they compete with C172? Is it justified to call them Tesla of aircraft?

Info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Impressive, 220 orders as of Dec 2018. I guess this makes it 280 orders now

Looks like a nice little plane! Unlike a car range anxiety isn’t really an issue with a bug smasher as you have to know where you are going anyway. Battery pack should be about the same as a model s so charging times should be broadly equivalent.

I wonder if it will be available with a ‘hot swap’ battery? Like a fork lift truck? That’s would be ideal for a flight school.

I think this will be the start of the end of the piston GA machines.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

The wall, same as the internet and water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

priced to attract people who can afford Robison helicopters but a four seater would be better. it isn't much fun for them if they can't show off their conspicuous consumption to guests.

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

solar, wind, natural gas. the same way all electricity is gonna be made

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

32andBelow wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Mortyman wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

What are the specs of these aircraft? Can they compete with C172? Is it justified to call them Tesla of aircraft?

Info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Some trainer, unless it is just for post-soloing...

General characteristics

Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger

My gas powered T210 can carry six. And get me across the country in a day.

AirFiero wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

What are the specs of these aircraft? Can they compete with C172? Is it justified to call them Tesla of aircraft?

Info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Some trainer, unless it is just for post-soloing...

General characteristics
Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger

My gas powered T210 can carry six. And get me across the country in a day.

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

GCT64 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Some trainer, unless it is just for post-soloing...

General characteristics
Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger

My gas powered T210 can carry six. And get me across the country in a day.

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

Ok, I read it wrong.

Edit...

Empty weight: 1,460 lb (662 kg)
Gross weight: 1,900 lb (862 kg)

Yeah, I suppose you can get two persons in there. Should work for a trainer, but not much else. If the recharge time is as long as current cars, you’ll get one maybe two training flights a day.

I’m very skeptical of their numbers, such as the cost per hour of operation. What electricity rate is that based on?

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Within the environmental circles this is being addressed. There is a group that are waking up to the reality we cant plant massive solar arrays and wind farms across the entire country. They are advocating for nuclear and natural gas plants. Electricity seems cheap now. Replace 100 million cars and every airplane without equally expanding electricity production and it wont be that cheap anymore. Early adopters are reaping a benefit of cheap fuel for their cars. That will change if we dont aggressively expand our grids.

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Not their role in the greater scheme of things. Electricity is fungible and if recharging overnight the balance of renewable to hydrocarbon sourced electricity will be at its best. The most interested Eco-activists will be buying their own powerwalls or subscribing to eco energy providers and chargning from there.

GCT64 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bye_Aerospace_eFlyer_2

Some trainer, unless it is just for post-soloing...

General characteristics
Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger

My gas powered T210 can carry six. And get me across the country in a day.

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

Going by that article isn't $350k too expensive for a very basic trainer aircraft?

Battery technology still has a long way to go in energy density before it can replace petroleum. A battery charged, or not, is a serious weight penalty to overcome.

Elementalism wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Within the environmental circles this is being addressed. There is a group that are waking up to the reality we cant plant massive solar arrays and wind farms across the entire country. They are advocating for nuclear and natural gas plants. Electricity seems cheap now. Replace 100 million cars and every airplane without equally expanding electricity production and it wont be that cheap anymore. Early adopters are reaping a benefit of cheap fuel for their cars. That will change if we dont aggressively expand our grids.

Living in California, all I can tell you is I will believe that when I see it. With the advocacy for fighting “global warming”, anything and everything is being thrown at it and very little thought to the potential consequences seems to be given.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Battery technology still has a long way to go in energy density before it can replace petroleum. A battery charged, or not, is a serious weight penalty to overcome.

And you cannot trade gasoline or range for payload.

The transmission is far from efficient however and does not compare to internal combustion engines. That being said, a battery driven motor is far easier to maintain and safer to operate than the centuries old combustion engines...

anshabhi wrote:

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

Going by that article isn't $350k too expensive for a very basic trainer aircraft?

For a relatively high utilization training aircraft, the maintenance and fuel costs dominate the purchase price. This plane will be much cheaper to operate than a piston trainer.

mrwhistler wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

Going by that article isn't $350k too expensive for a very basic trainer aircraft?

For a relatively high utilization training aircraft, the maintenance and fuel costs dominate the purchase price. This plane will be much cheaper to operate than a piston trainer.

Except training aircraft utilization is not all that high, and long charging times will reduce it further imho

arcticcruiser wrote:

mrwhistler wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Going by that article isn't $350k too expensive for a very basic trainer aircraft?

For a relatively high utilization training aircraft, the maintenance and fuel costs dominate the purchase price. This plane will be much cheaper to operate than a piston trainer.

Except training aircraft utilization is not all that high, and long charging times will reduce it further imho

I said relatively high. Higher than a typical general aviation plane that sits in the hanger 350 days a year.

AirFiero wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Within the environmental circles this is being addressed. There is a group that are waking up to the reality we cant plant massive solar arrays and wind farms across the entire country. They are advocating for nuclear and natural gas plants. Electricity seems cheap now. Replace 100 million cars and every airplane without equally expanding electricity production and it wont be that cheap anymore. Early adopters are reaping a benefit of cheap fuel for their cars. That will change if we dont aggressively expand our grids.

Living in California, all I can tell you is I will believe that when I see it. With the advocacy for fighting “global warming”, anything and everything is being thrown at it and very little thought to the potential consequences seems to be given.

Once those people cant live their life of comfort because the green grid couldnt keep up. It will change. Surprisingly the best argument against some of these "green" initiatives is the damage they do to the environment. Solar farms require clearing of acres upon acres of land. Killing\moving every animal, destroying the underlying ecology. And nobody seems to have a plan for when the tiles in these plants are set to be disposed. Wind farms require blotting the landscape and kill many large birds. Some of them endangered. And neither can be considered mainline power sources as they are subjected to the weather.

Using massive batteries to store power for peak times is fraught with its own issues. How many batteries would be required to power a small city for 24 hours? How many acres of earth need to be mined to gather enough rare earth metals to build these batteries?

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

That sounds like many of these electric car salesmen marketing cars for more than double their realistic range.

This aircraft doesn't have the range to practice navigation nor cross-country flying, yet flying circuits is energy-intensive and won't be able to do that either for very long. 1.5 hours at best and then it needs to stay down for charging.
Perhaps that is why they float it as a 3.5 hour endurance without specifying at what power setting or speed?
A glider can stay afloat for days and you don't even need a motor.

Elementalism wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

Within the environmental circles this is being addressed. There is a group that are waking up to the reality we cant plant massive solar arrays and wind farms across the entire country. They are advocating for nuclear and natural gas plants. Electricity seems cheap now. Replace 100 million cars and every airplane without equally expanding electricity production and it wont be that cheap anymore. Early adopters are reaping a benefit of cheap fuel for their cars. That will change if we dont aggressively expand our grids.

Living in California, all I can tell you is I will believe that when I see it. With the advocacy for fighting “global warming”, anything and everything is being thrown at it and very little thought to the potential consequences seems to be given.

Once those people cant live their life of comfort because the green grid couldnt keep up. It will change. Surprisingly the best argument against some of these "green" initiatives is the damage they do to the environment. Solar farms require clearing of acres upon acres of land. Killing\moving every animal, destroying the underlying ecology. And nobody seems to have a plan for when the tiles in these plants are set to be disposed. Wind farms require blotting the landscape and kill many large birds. Some of them endangered. And neither can be considered mainline power sources as they are subjected to the weather.

Using massive batteries to store power for peak times is fraught with its own issues. How many batteries would be required to power a small city for 24 hours? How many acres of earth need to be mined to gather enough rare earth metals to build these batteries?

One major concern that I have is that leftists have a tendency to leap before they look. They pass a bunch of feel good legislation that becomes law, and then we are stuck with the unintended consequences.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

That sounds like many of these electric car salesmen marketing cars for more than double their realistic range.

This aircraft doesn't have the range to practice navigation nor cross-country flying, yet flying circuits is energy-intensive and won't be able to do that either for very long. 1.5 hours at best and then it needs to stay down for charging.
Perhaps that is why they float it as a 3.5 hour endurance without specifying at what power setting or speed?
A glider can stay afloat for days and you don't even need a motor.

Ah, the math. 70kw continuous from a 90kw battery pack = 3.5 hours endurance? Hmmmm.

Elementalism wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

Within the environmental circles this is being addressed. There is a group that are waking up to the reality we cant plant massive solar arrays and wind farms across the entire country. They are advocating for nuclear and natural gas plants. Electricity seems cheap now. Replace 100 million cars and every airplane without equally expanding electricity production and it wont be that cheap anymore. Early adopters are reaping a benefit of cheap fuel for their cars. That will change if we dont aggressively expand our grids.

Living in California, all I can tell you is I will believe that when I see it. With the advocacy for fighting “global warming”, anything and everything is being thrown at it and very little thought to the potential consequences seems to be given.

Once those people cant live their life of comfort because the green grid couldnt keep up. It will change. Surprisingly the best argument against some of these "green" initiatives is the damage they do to the environment. Solar farms require clearing of acres upon acres of land. Killing\moving every animal, destroying the underlying ecology. And nobody seems to have a plan for when the tiles in these plants are set to be disposed. Wind farms require blotting the landscape and kill many large birds. Some of them endangered. And neither can be considered mainline power sources as they are subjected to the weather.

Using massive batteries to store power for peak times is fraught with its own issues. How many batteries would be required to power a small city for 24 hours? How many acres of earth need to be mined to gather enough rare earth metals to build these batteries?

We already done that with farming, suburban development, infrastructure development like highway, airports, railways.

Solar panel farm usually located in a really hot arid place. Nevada, California, Arizona, etc. As you might notice, big percentages of these areas are Hot Arid place with almost no tall trees or significant vegetations. Which is perfect for solar panel.
It could also be installed in urban or suburban areas which is the biggest market for these panel are. Houses, public buildings, parks, on top of STREET LIGHTS and UTILITY POLES like many people already do. Next to railways, highways, etc.
It's solar panel, not Nuclear Power Plant.

For windmill in the US. They killed around 7000 birds every year. Which is quite low compared to other dirty industries ran by sub-human with sub-par IQ.
http://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

I'm not an advocate, but I'll weigh in with my conclusion based on following the industry from a relatively neutral perspective as a curious engineer.

Yes, I've done calculations. If we replaced ALL general aviation aircraft with electrics like this doing an average of two, maximum range flights per day (I'm over-estimating on flight frequency, because using this aircraft as a proxy under-estimates energy consumption for larger GA aircraft, and I just want to get in the rough ballpark), then it would increase our national electricity consumption by 0.3%. That can be absorbed relatively easily by the energy industry.

Electric cars are a far, far bigger integration challenge than electric general aviation aircraft based on potential scale. But even how that works out is starting to be looked at, and I'm pretty confident we are going to see increasingly common time-of-use metering plans along with the ability for owners to schedule their charging based on rates to encourage car charging to take place when demand is low or supply is high.

This is a market that is going to evolve over decades, though. The electric industry is going to have the opportunity to observe demand changes and respond to them.

And customers are only going to switch large scale to electric powertrains if they are cost-effective.

Electric airliners are not close enough to viability to be worth discussing in detail at this time.

anshabhi wrote:

GCT64 wrote:

"The two seater is designed for the flight training market with a single tractor electric motor powered by Lithium-ion batteries.
I think the capacity is 1 Crew + 1 Passenger = 2, strange way of defining it though.

Going by that article isn't $350k too expensive for a very basic trainer aircraft?

A Cessna 206 (a reduced cost version of the aforementioned 210, with fixed gear) costs twice as much as the Eflyer 2. The real point of comparison would be other 2-seaters, like the Diamond DA20 that lists for about $185,000.

What the Eflyer 2 will need to do to succeed is prove to have enough of a fuel burn and maintenance cost advantage to make up for that initial cost difference. From some quick math, it looks like fuel cost alone won't suffice, so it will likely need to prove lower maintenance costs.

arcticcruiser wrote:

Except training aircraft utilization is not all that high, and long charging times will reduce it further imho

As I understand it, flight instructors usually accrue 1/2 to 2/3 as many flight hours per day compared to the time they spend with students.

If they start out the day with a full charge, and get 30-60 minutes of charging in between flights at a rate of 1/4 the speed of Tesla fast charging (which is bad for the battery and should be done sparingly), they should be able to manage a reasonably full day of instruction.

AirFiero wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

That sounds like many of these electric car salesmen marketing cars for more than double their realistic range.

This aircraft doesn't have the range to practice navigation nor cross-country flying, yet flying circuits is energy-intensive and won't be able to do that either for very long. 1.5 hours at best and then it needs to stay down for charging.
Perhaps that is why they float it as a 3.5 hour endurance without specifying at what power setting or speed?
A glider can stay afloat for days and you don't even need a motor.

Ah, the math. 70kw continuous from a 90kw battery pack = 3.5 hours endurance? Hmmmm.

A motor rated for 70kW continuous does not have to draw 70kW continuous, just like a 160 hp Lycoming engine in a Cessna does not produce 160 hp continuous. In the latter case, for example, that would drain the fuel tank in a little over 3 hours. The normal endurance of a Cessna 172 is about 6 hours.

The ratio of max versus cruise energy consumption will differ between internal combustion engines and electric power, so the numbers shown do not really surprise me, especially if the Eflyer is indicating a significantly lower typical cruise speed relative to its maximum sustained speed.

Even under the downright absurd assumption that it could only get that endurance at its stall speed, it would be capable of fulfilling even the multi-leg cross-country flight requirement without recharging.

AirFiero wrote:

Ah, the math. 70kw continuous from a 90kw battery pack = 3.5 hours endurance? Hmmmm.

70 kW (95 hp) is not the power for cruise. 70 kW ist the power, the electric engine can deliver for an unlimited time without overheating.

If you want to get an endurance of 3.5 h from a 90 kWh battery pack, you can only use rough 25 kW (34 hp). The power of the good old Beetle engine.

The question is, if 25 kW is enough for sustained level flight with that a/c.

I'm a little bit surprised to read the hull weight of the plane. Only 662 kg. This is not much more than the typical weight of a 90 kWh electric car battery pack alone. AFAIK the TESLA Model S 90 kWh battery weighs between 500 and 600 kg. What did I miss?

May be they left of all the crash proof protection housing, that a BEV car battery has. I don't know, if it is a good idea to have a big 90 kWh LI-ION battery in an aircraft without any protective housing. Ask Boeing. And the Dreamliner's LI-ION battery is tiny compared with this one.

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If planes are going to be Electric in the future, just like cars, where is all the Electricity coming from?.

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Renewables are already more efficient than fossil fuels and far more efficient than nuclear. Electric storage (e.g. by having your electric car plugged in overnight) acts as a very effective buffer and *reduces* rather than increases required grid capacity. The revolution is already in full swing, it's just that a lot of people aren't aware of it yet...

This topic has come up a handful of times on a.net over the last couple of years - so once again I shall post the (now outdated) video from Fully Charged which has been surpassed in the meantime by actual developments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k7k3Mzknm8&t=16s

Heinkel wrote:

Only 662 kg. This is not much more than the typical weight of a 90 kWh electric car battery pack alone. AFAIK the TESLA Model S 90 kWh battery weighs between 500 and 600 kg. What did I miss?

Tesla S batteries are older tech than Tesla 3 batteries.
Here is the state of the art for automotive batteries as of 2019
https://pushevs.com/2019/03/30/catl-ach ... ery-cells/

weight for cooling on an airplane application is probably lower too.

Heinkel wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Ah, the math. 70kw continuous from a 90kw battery pack = 3.5 hours endurance? Hmmmm.

70 kW (95 hp) is not the power for cruise. 70 kW ist the power, the electric engine can deliver for an unlimited time without overheating.

If you want to get an endurance of 3.5 h from a 90 kWh battery pack, you can only use rough 25 kW (34 hp). The power of the good old Beetle engine.

The question is, if 25 kW is enough for sustained level flight with that a/c.

I'm a little bit surprised to read the hull weight of the plane. Only 662 kg. This is not much more than the typical weight of a 90 kWh electric car battery pack alone. AFAIK the TESLA Model S 90 kWh battery weighs between 500 and 600 kg. What did I miss?

May be they left of all the crash proof protection housing, that a BEV car battery has. I don't know, if it is a good idea to have a big 90 kWh LI-ION battery in an aircraft without any protective housing. Ask Boeing. And the Dreamliner's LI-ION battery is tiny compared with this one.

They are listing a cruising speed of 135kts. A Cessna 172 cant touch that, and this electric airplane isn’t going to cruise at that speed on 1/3 throttle. Or as you said, is that enough for level flight?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

A power plant. Hopefully a renewable one. But even if it wasn’t renewable the fossil fuel
Power plant is much more efficient than the motor in your car or plane.

Have any of you electric car/plane advocates done any calculations on how much energy is required for all the cars and planes you think we can run on electricity? The simple statement “power plants” seems a bit too simplistic, especially given the parameter that power plants allegedly cause global warming. I’d like to see so math on this.

Renewables are already more efficient than fossil fuels and far more efficient than nuclear. Electric storage (e.g. by having your electric car plugged in overnight) acts as a very effective buffer and *reduces* rather than increases required grid capacity. The revolution is already in full swing, it's just that a lot of people aren't aware of it yet...

This topic has come up a handful of times on a.net over the last couple of years - so once again I shall post the (now outdated) video from Fully Charged which has been surpassed in the meantime by actual developments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k7k3Mzknm8&t=16s

Renewables are “more efficient “? How so? Fossil fuels are available 24/7, most renewables are not.

As far as having your electric car plugged in all night, where are you getting the power from at night? Not solar.

I am just commenting here as I'm interested to see where this goes. Unfortunately, there does not seem a way to subscribe to threads it seems, hence doing it this way.

Delete

leghorn wrote:

Heinkel wrote:

Only 662 kg. This is not much more than the typical weight of a 90 kWh electric car battery pack alone. AFAIK the TESLA Model S 90 kWh battery weighs between 500 and 600 kg. What did I miss?

Tesla S batteries are older tech than Tesla 3 batteries.
Here is the state of the art for automotive batteries as of 2019
https://pushevs.com/2019/03/30/catl-ach ... ery-cells/

weight for cooling on an airplane application is probably lower too.

Thanks for the link. Manufacturer claims 304 Wh/kg for the new cells. So that is 296 kg for 90 kWh. And that's the weight for the bare cells only. No case, no connectors, no chargers, no battery management. Not to mention protective housing. And they need cooling, however this is done.

So only rough 350 kg left for the rest of the plane.

And manufacturer quotes, that these new cells are "mid term development projects". So nothing from the shelf and certified for aviation use. I don't want to rely on an experimental battery in a single engined aircraft.

AirFiero wrote:

As far as having your electric car plugged in all night, where are you getting the power from at night? Not solar.

well it depends, it’s likely a mix of highly efficient coal and gas turbine plants, nuclear, tidal, hydroelectric, wind and depending on how you define “night” potentially some PV. The same as where you get electricity from now.

There is a chance this will overload the current generating capacity then extra capacity wild be provided to the network. As the current peak times are during the day then there is clearly some capability in the network at off peak times. A more even usage if the power around the clock is a good thing for the efficiency and utilisation of the network.

There are a lot of skilled engineers and real estate devoted to digging Dino juice out of the ground right now, let’s not pretend that useful innovations and markets, usage and capability will not arise.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AirFiero wrote:

Renewables are “more efficient “? How so? Fossil fuels are available 24/7, most renewables are not.

As far as having your electric car plugged in all night, where are you getting the power from at night? Not solar.

Fossil fuels require exploration, mining, transport, disposal - renewables need none of that.

How can you compare something which can be run 24/7 *providing you have an ENTIRE INDUSTRY constantly running 24/7 behind it* with something which is basically plug and play?

And by the way, the current system actually *suffers* due to its inability to manage usage against generation. Did you know that if you have grid generation and storage on your property in Europe the dynamic grid pricing will actually pay *you* to take and store energy at night?

I can't be bothered to go find figures yet again (I'm pretty sure your user name has popped up on the previous threads) but numerous trade organisations and government bodies acknowledge renewables as by far the most cost-effective (as well as having virtually no environmental impact). Offshore wind power in particular is the preferred generation choice these days.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

We've been over this is other threads. If I remember correctly you were getting all the calculations wrong in the other thread and you are probably adding things up wrong now.

Piston engines or gas turbine engines produce significantly less power at higher altitudes. Electric motors maintain power at any altitude. So at cruising speed the electric motor might only be putting out 25-30kw which explains the range.

Full power is used for takeoff and climb. Looking at the range and SFC figures of a typical piston aircraft they usually cruise at roughly a third of the power of the takeoff thrust.

We can easily make an electric aircraft today that could do 90% of the ATR flights.

RJMAZ wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

We've been over this is other threads. If I remember correctly you were getting all the calculations wrong in the other thread and you are probably adding things up wrong now.

Piston engines or gas turbine engines produce significantly less power at higher altitudes. Electric motors maintain power at any altitude. So at cruising speed the electric motor might only be putting out 25-30kw which explains the range.

Full power is used for takeoff and climb. Looking at the range and SFC figures of a typical piston aircraft they usually cruise at roughly a third of the power of the takeoff thrust.

We can easily make an electric aircraft today that could do 90% of the ATR flights.

Dear RJMAZ.
I didn't get any math wrong and I have proven in the Norway thread that current methods of electricity storage, generation and charging are not viable for commercial use, not even for an E-A380 to carry an ATR 42 worth of payload.

We will get there, it's just not here yet.

Good luck doing touch and go's at 30% power.

The EASA pre-check ride cross-country flight has to be minimum 150 nautical miles with landings at two different airports.
In theory this will work, but remember that you can't always find airfields that are the exact distance you need, and you always need to keep energy for diversions and final reserves, even for the solo cross country training flight.
Getting lost on these solo cross country flights is a very real possibility. When I did mine for my PPL, I got into unforecasted low ceilings and had to abandon my planned navigation to keep clear of high rising obstacles and maintain VFR. While taking the detour, I had lost the fix on my position due to lack of ground cues or usable VOR, so had to revert to taking back a rough heading towards an unmissable landmark. The only thing that I didn't need to worry about was the remaining endurance.
This is the reality of flight training.

For illustrative purposes only: Should all of the electricity needed for the US were produced in the four corners region, it would take a chunk about the size of Vermont and New Hampshire - obviously noticeable, but not overwhelming. But the first reduction in that is wind power which co-exists with farming, ranching, and forestry (as well as deserts) to at least 30% of needed power.

The lowest tech energy storage is simply enough timed hot water heating to last for 24 hours. (we used a variant of this as backup when we lived in the country)

And to the surprise of most, total electricity use per person has been steady or declining.

I'm not buying the range numbers either. A typical piston engine airplane will cruise at 55-75% power at altitude. This is easily tabulated in the POH based on density altitude and RPM. The L/D is about twice that of a 152, implying they're getting most of their benefit from a slippery airframe, not a more efficient power supply.

A useful load of 440lb, devoted solely to passengers/baggage isn't bad for a trainer. My guess is this is going to be competing with the 152 and Tomahawk, not the 172. But I suspect its probably a mighty tight cockpit to keep drag low and airframe weight down with the added battery weight. There's always going to be a compromise until we take a revolutionary leap in battery energy density. I am all for electric aircraft, but I think the money needs to be spent in the energy storage, not the airframe. Any airframe that gets piston-like specs using current battery technology will be significantly compromised somewhere else.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Full power is used for takeoff and climb. Looking at the range and SFC figures of a typical piston aircraft they usually cruise at roughly a third of the power of the takeoff thrust.

Good luck doing touch and go's at 30% power.

So take-off and climb are at 100% power
But cruise around the circuit is at 30% power
Then I do some touch-and-go's
Do I continue my descent and approach at 30% power?
What would happen to my speed if I simply pointed the aircraft at the runway and maintained cruise power?

How about I use less than 30% power while descending and decelerating, and I use more than 30% power whilst accelerating and ascending?

I'm not suggesting it's a zero-sum equation, but the average power setting during touch and go's should be closer to 50%.
The real problem comes with landings and full stops, where all the kinetic energy is wasted as brake heat. Whereas touch and go's are an example of energy conservation.

The EASA pre-check ride cross-country flight has to be minimum 150 nautical miles with landings at two different airports.
In theory this will work, but .....
….This is the reality of flight training.

Fair enough, so for certain tasks you will still need a gasoline engine trainer a/c.
I don't have a problem with that.

In fact, the bigger problem would be a new pilot who has not received any training on a gasoline engine a/c!!!!
Primarily because at this point in time, the next a/c after flying training will almost certainly have a Rotax or Lycoming gasoline engine. Or worse.

The electric a/c is gong to be useful for getting the basics done, and building up some hours. After that, you need to spend some time in Cessna or similar.
If you gain a PPL by only training on electric a/c, you should only be allowed to fly electric a/c thereafter.

For now at least...

JibberJim wrote:

Norway has been overwhelming renewable electricity generation for a very long time (well over 90%), it's a great place for hydro power (and wind too) and is currently an exporter of electricity, so filling up a few planes shouldn't be a problem.

These 60 all electrical planes I am guessing is going to be used by their flight school in the USA.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Fossil fuels require exploration, mining, transport, disposal - renewables need none of that.

uh, not exactly. Look into the controversy over the rare earth materials needed to make solar panels and other renewable components.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_ea ... y_in_China

Environmentalists want hydro power REMOVED
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-k ... story.html

This also addresses the (misguided) concern over gas power plant emissions
https://www.twincities.com/2018/09/30/i ... ic-plants/

And by the way, the current system actually *suffers* due to its inability to manage usage against generation. Did you know that if you have grid generation and storage on your property in Europe the dynamic grid pricing will actually pay *you* to take and store energy at night?

Yes. I have solar panels on my house, and California has a similar program. I’ve never gotten a check.

I can't be bothered to go find figures yet again (I'm pretty sure your user name has popped up on the previous threads) but numerous trade organisations and government bodies acknowledge renewables as by far the most cost-effective (as well as having virtually no environmental impact). Offshore wind power in particular is the preferred generation choice these days.

If you can’t be bothered to provide proof of your statement about the cost effectiveness of renewables, then I have every right to remain skeptical.

RJMAZ wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I am skeptic.

First of all, how long does it take to charge these birds?

Second, a 90kW engine with 70kW continuous. 70kW is comparable to a Cessna150, just that thing is like 50% heavier.
Then a 92kWh battery capacity.
3.5 hour endurance.
Something clearly doesn't add up.

We've been over this is other threads. If I remember correctly you were getting all the calculations wrong in the other thread and you are probably adding things up wrong now.

Piston engines or gas turbine engines produce significantly less power at higher altitudes. Electric motors maintain power at any altitude. So at cruising speed the electric motor might only be putting out 25-30kw which explains the range.

Full power is used for takeoff and climb. Looking at the range and SFC figures of a typical piston aircraft they usually cruise at roughly a third of the power of the takeoff thrust.

We can easily make an electric aircraft today that could do 90% of the ATR flights.

1/3 the power? Have you ever flown a small plane? Although you can cruise at *reduced* power, you will not maintain level flight at 1/3 thrust.