Pipistrel $1.3M prize

[TTSS]

If I read ONE MORE article that describes an electric plane/car/boat/motorcycle as “zero emissions”, I’m going to find the author and strangle him/her.
75% of our electricity is generated by coal and gas.
Therefore, electric planes/cars, etc. are coal-powered vehicles.
Electricity generation and transmission are perhaps 30% efficient (similar to a car engine). Therefor, electricity is NOT cleaner than burning gasoline.
Electric planes/cars, are not any more “Green” than a 2012 Ford Mustang.
The government likes electric vehicles for the same reason they like income tax withholding. It makes it easier to hide the taxes!
The cost of “going Green” is around $120 billion per year (1% of GDP). Get ready to pay 20 cents per kilowatt hour for the luxury of accomplishing nothing.

[Seerjfly]

.

[mustangbuilder]

:D

[Kyle Boatright]

If I read ONE MORE article that describes an electric plane/car/boat/motorcycle as “zero emissions”, I’m going to find the author and strangle him/her.
75% of our electricity is generated by coal and gas.
Therefore, electric planes/cars, etc. are coal-powered vehicles.
Electricity generation and transmission are perhaps 30% efficient (similar to a car engine). Therefor, electricity is NOT cleaner than burning gasoline.
Electric planes/cars, are not any more “Green” than a 2012 Ford Mustang.
The government likes electric vehicles for the same reason they like income tax withholding. It makes it easier to hide the taxes!
The cost of “going Green” is around $120 billion per year (1% of GDP). Get ready to pay 20 cents per kilowatt hour for the luxury of accomplishing nothing.


I largely agree with your points, but IMO, the benefit is that coal powered vehicles don't consume petrol and/or its byproducts. I think that's good, because I'd like to conserve petrol for uses where electricity/coal is not practical.

Electric vehicles reduce our oil imports and trade deficit. That's good.

It is likely that there will be continued improvements in solar, wind, and other alternate sources of electrical generation. As that technology matures, I'd love to be able to run a reasonable portion of our transportation network on alternate energy, where economically justifiable.

IMO, the Pipstrel e-flight program is an excellent project to stretch the bounds of electric power.

[steveinindy]

IMO, the Pipstrel e-flight program is an excellent project to stretch the bounds of electric power.
As much as I get accused of being too negative about electric aviation, I would tend to agree with you there. Research is always a good thing as long as it is done in a valid and scientific manner.

That said, I am really getting tired of politically based threads like this on here. I'm reasonably certain that when the switch was made from whale oil to electricity, those with a stake in the whaling industry put out all sorts of negative commentary about their competition. Nothing new under the Sun.

[John Cotter]

If the US would move toward more solar/wind electricity generation, then the emissions of these type of vehicles begins to approach zero. Until politicos stop taking money from coal/oil/gas producers, nothing significant will change. The other thing that has to happen: citizens have to step forward and accept the new technologies. Yes it may cost a bit more in the present, but the payoff will come down the road when the cost to produce equals what we are paying today and we lower our environmental damage.

[Boeing B-17G 42-231465]

Always ironic how everybody is so against nuclear power, when coal plants put out 1,000's% more radiation than nuclear power. You get more radiation from your spouse in bed than you do a nuclear power plant. See going green doesn't require solar panels, or windmills, both produce limtied amounts of power, at high cost, and the latter kills thousands of birds - whats so green about killing our little birdy friends? See, natural gas is cheap, and cleaner than gasoline; with teh keystone pipeline, we'd have the natural gas to power fleets, and consumer vehicles over time. By replacing coal plants with nuclear ones, we have cleaner power, more power, and the ability to produce hydrogen so those fuel cells could actually work, and plug-in hybrids would work on a large scale too. This alternative energy they speak of in nonsense! There's no magic alternative to fossil fuels, it generates more power than any other fuel source, leave nuclear of course. Nuclear is the safest and best form of electricity generation, and those skeptics should know that the massive glowing orb in the sky just happens to be, along with that molten ball of metal under our feet, God's first nuclear reactors for us. The earth and sun give us more radiation than a nuclear power plant, so does a banana, or most anything on this earth that's alive, since everything that lives produces amounts of radiation. Eventually, gasoline will be replaced by natural gas (if all goes to plan), with natural gas powered-fleets and consumer vehicles; hybrid-electric natural gas vehicles and fuel cells will all be possible with the conversion to nuclear power.

[bwilson4web]

The Pipistrel is not the first electrically power airplane. The Japanese built and flew a battery powered one at least four years ago. Then there is the manned, solar power aircraft that the Swiss flew overnight. NASA also has an unmanned, solar power plane. Then there is the German, multi-rotor, electric platform described in Sport Aviation.



If I read ONE MORE article that describes an electric plane/car/boat/motorcycle as “zero emissions”, I’m going to find the author and strangle him/her. . . .

It has been my experience that there is an inverse relationship between quality, award winning engineering, and the use of threats and/or 'political' laments. In General Electric, I called them "electro-political" problems meaning a technical solution rejected for "political" reasons. This was always the stink of intellectual rot that let me know it was time to find another place where people want to get something done . . . not waste time in idle BS. So to lament about oil, coal, or natural gas powered plants with "strangulation" begs a reply in kind:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/shot.jpg
My target is the "strangulation" threat.

We have two, Prius hybrid electrics and both get 52 MPG in ordinary driving. When towing a modified, pontoon boat trailer with an airplane, 28 MPG:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/dragonfly/2012/trailer_260.jpg
Around town, I use the 2003 Prius because it has higher clearance. On the 600 mile tow, I used the 1.8L Prius:
http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/dragonfly/2012/trailer_200.jpg
Yet since the first month of owning our Prius, ignorant, foolish, 'political idiots' have made it a point to tell me what is wrong. So six years, 90,000 miles with the 1.5L Prius and two years, 26,000 miles with the 1.8L we are still getting lifetime averages of 52 MPG at the pump. MY money paying for that gas!

There are technical challenges with practical electrical airplanes and cars. But "strangulation" is not a technical discussion. As for emissions, I'm old enough to have experienced:

carbon monoxide poisoning from open flame, gas heaters in 1960
eyes teared up to blindness on an off-ramp in Riverside CA in 1972
idiots who rip-out their emissions systems and de-tune their pickups, 2011
I really don't care about emissions anyone else prefers to ingest. So when a Sarah Palin claims,"I love that smell of the emissions!" I am thinking she hasn't had enough.

Efficiency is the best emissions control and that is what our Prius deliver. In like fashion, I choose my plane because of efficiency. But I'm not converting it to a hybrid electric . . . at least not yet. There are 'low hanging fruit' I need to test first.

So let's do this . . . swear off 'strangling' and I'll just practice at the range. If you don't like a technology, perhaps it is time to take the advice from Disney, "If you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all." It is better to be thought ignorant than to post and remove all doubt.

Bob Wilson

[steveinindy]

whats so green about killing our little birdy friends?

Not part of the low and slow club then eh? I often wonder how much of an effect fly-ins like Oshkosh have on the local songbird population....

[Frank Giger]

Steve, for several days after they can be seen flying in long rows and waggling their wings before landing on three regularly spaced locations, and their songs turn into low octive rumbles.


This is replaced by furious pecking in a rectangular area, which ornathologists have posited might be a means of expressing their frustration at the high price of water, squirrels running around too fast in no-squirrel zones, and the overabundance of hawks, eagles, and other birds of prey.

[edit]

I ain't touching the transferrance of pollution from one site to another in the gas-vs-coal-generated-electricity with a ten foot cattle prod! Nor will I address the much gas one can buy with the difference in price between hybrids and gas only cars...

I firmly believe that if someone has the means and the desires to purchase a thing and it does no harm to anyone else it's really not my business. I would fail the Beanie Babies - discuss essay question, for example. Then again I wouldn't fare much better on the WWI Scaled Replica - discuss one, either!

However, without big prizes for aviation firsts big advances in aviation would have come much slower. I'm thinking specifically about long distance prizes that lead to pilots wanting to fly at night and in low visibility....which lead to instrument flight, radio beacons, etc.

IF there was an electric option that had the power, weight, and range of petrol engines that were also economically viable I'd probably bite. We're not there yet.

But grousing about how it's unfeaseable won't ever make it happen.

[bwilson4web]

Thanks Frank,

. . . But grousing about how it's [electric aircraft are RJW] unfeaseable won't ever make it happen.
I was thinking about this going to sleep last night:

electric engine assist - my 60-65 hp VW engine would be helped with an additional 12-15 HP during takeoff. The additional electric torque would provide the extra rpm to allow a climb prop to get off and climb high enough to lower the nose and get the speed up. So back-of-the-envelope looking at say 15 HP / 750 w/hp ~= 20 kW for about 120 seconds, or ~0.8 kWh. Round it up to 1-1.6 kWh for longer battery life and we're talking about a reasonably light weight Li power pack. The Buick e-assist has a 15 HP motor generator about the size of an oversize alternator that with gearing could also be the starter.
motor-generator wheels - provide the electric assist during the takeoff run to shorten distance and regenerative braking with ABS and traction control during landing . . . the end of hydraulic brakes.
But I'm not headed that direction . . . yet. I have more immediate goals and objectives with my plane.

Bob Wilson

[steveinindy]

Steve, for several days after they can be seen flying in long rows and waggling their wings before landing on three regularly spaced locations, and their songs turn into low octive rumbles.


This is replaced by furious pecking in a rectangular area, which ornathologists have posited might be a means of expressing their frustration at the high price of water, squirrels running around too fast in no-squirrel zones, and the overabundance of hawks, eagles, and other birds of prey.

...and this is why I like you Frank.

[steveinindy]

IF there was an electric option that had the power, weight, and range of petrol engines that were also economically viable I'd probably bite. We're not there yet.

But grousing about how it's unfeaseable won't ever make it happen.

I don't think it's unfeasible. I just don't think as a 31 year old I will see within my lifetime electric propulsion with those criteria for anything but the UL or LSA classes.

[Jim Hann]

I don't think it's unfeasible. I just don't think as a 31 year old I will see within my lifetime electric propulsion with those criteria for anything but the UL or LSA classes.

Remember Orville Wright's lifespan saw man exceed the speed of sound. Never say never.

[bwilson4web]

Remember Orville Wright's lifespan saw man exceed the speed of sound. Never say never. Indeed! There are refactory temperature fuel cells (Google up "Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells") that if the materials can be worked out could run off of coal or really crappy hydrocarbons (aka., bunker oil anyone?) For peak efficiency, the cooling air would be from a compressor and the heated air exhausted through a turbine. . . . It isn't trivial nor around the corner but this is the one fuel-cell path that is not to be confused with the various fool-cell programs in the recent past. - Bob Wilson

[steveinindy]

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just looking at the odds of it happening within a given time frame. If I were told to bet money on it, I'd say a plane the size and with the performance and reliability of a Cessna 172 is a good 15-20 years out at a minimum. A commercial aircraft? Probably 50 years out if at all. We are simply at the same gap between a functional GA airplane powered by electric propulsion that the average pilot would consider useful as the folks in 1903 were from the Bell X-1. We are also not likely- especially given the conservative suspicion of environmental science and its push for green technology that pervades large portions of American society including the pilot population (which is surprising given how well educated a lot of pilots are)- to encounter the electric aircraft equivalent of the developmental stimulus that was World War II. I recall a history of the development of supersonic flight lecture by one of the Bell engineers who worked on the X-1 in the late 1980s that I attended (one of his proteges was a member of the congregation I was part of at the time so I was taken along for the presentation) who made the comment that without WWII, it probably would have been an additional 10-15 years before supersonic flight in straight and level flight was achieved.

Also, I would tend to point out that there is a difference between breaking the sound barrier in a single seat research aircraft and having something practical in service. It took another six years to see a supersonic fighter (the F-100) and twenty-two years before a practical* civilian application was developed and put into service (the Concorde).


*-Practical being an arguable choice of words here.

[Floatsflyer]

As much as I get accused of being too negative about electric aviation, I would tend to agree with you there. Research is always a good thing as long as it is done in a valid and scientific manner.

That said, I am really getting tired of politically based threads like this on here. I'm reasonably certain that when the switch was made from whale oil to electricity, those with a stake in the whaling industry put out all sorts of negative commentary about their competition. Nothing new under the Sun.


Hey Steve, don't want to burst your idealic bubble, but everything is politics, everything is political because of competing interests and differing points of view, correct or incorrect, intelligent or ignorant. Non-BS is what we should all be striving for. The pure definition of politics is the allocation of scarce resources. And speaking of scarce resources, fossil fuels from this good Earth will be tapped out in about 100 years from now so our reliance on oil must be replaced quickly by new innovations and technologies in new energy sources that are taking place now and into the future. Our continued existance as human beings is dependant on it. You could look it up!

[steveinindy]

don't want to burst your idealic bubble

LOL You don't know me well at all if you think I'm at all idealistic.


The pure definition of politics is the allocation of scarce resources.

Actually, that's the definition of economics as well. ;)


Non-BS is what we should all be striving for.

That's what I was getting at but then one side or the other contests the evidence and it goes right back to being a massive swirling cloud of ****.


so our reliance on oil must be replaced quickly by new innovations and technologies in new energy sources that are taking place now and into the future. Our continued existance as human beings is dependant on it. You could look it up!

Oh, I agree completely. I just don't believe that we are going to see electric aircraft replacing internal combustion engines anytime soon (except for the extreme low end of the ultralight and light sport bug smasher crowds). We are far more likely to come to rely upon biodiesel or something like that. However, making such suggestions tends to turn into the "Keep your ethanol out of my gas! Y'all hear? *shotgun being racked*" sort of debate. I try to stay away from alternative fuel discussions as much as possible in circles (such as this forum) where I know the slant is distinctly "conservative" (said as a moderate Republican). It just does not end well.

[tdm]

Barring any unforeseen rapid advances in the energy density of batteries, I agree with the majority of posters here. I think all electric aviation is not currently practical nor does it appear to soon be practical. But I don't think the current powerplant technologies utilized in general and even commercial aviation represent anything resembling an apex of development!

Internal combustion engines, turbine engines, and even fuel cells could all benefit from combined cycle (combined power and power) additions, if the weight of such a recovery cycle could be made practical. With the rising price and likely future scarcity of high octane gasolines, general aviation engines burning diesel (taking Diamond aircraft's approach with the DA42), or even burning natural gas or methanol could become practical.

And with commercial aviation, any increase in the thermodynamic efficiency of a high burn efficient turbofan, combined with aerodynamic improvements, such as contra-rotating fan and pitch control fan, I think could pay for their development costs quite nicely, especially with today's fuel prices.

All electric control systems, however, on larger aircraft combined with increasingly powerful batteries, I think are ready to replace hydro-mechanical servocontrols, right now and with current technology. (Clever electromagnetic shielding and redundancy would have to be engineered in of course, for safety.)

Overall, I hope, (and expect, (perhaps (probably) over-optimistically)) that the average general/small commercial aviation aircraft manufactured 15 years from now will be vacuum/pneumatic/hydraulic system free, completely solid state glass instrumentation, all composite airframe, and not a vor or adf in sight. And with an extremely efficient cheap natural gas burning combined cycle FADEC engine. (Now I'm dreaming..)

Or we will still be flying aluminum avgas burners..

[Joe LaMantia]

Nice Discussion!

I'll add my 2 cents by advocating that a possible solution may be coming from research being done on "bio-fuel" produced from algae. There is a project underway where tanks of algae are located at a coal fired power plant. The algae feeds on CO2 which is captured via the coal burning process, so this maybe a practical way to produce electricity, provide a viable replacement for oil use in vehicles and be CO2 neutral. This isn't some futuristic pipe dream it is actually being done on a small scale. I don't know anything about the economics of building or operating this system but on the surface it would seem to be a simple capital improvement that creates a completely new source of revenue for power plant operators. This could be the American Innovation we are all hoping to find. I'm staying out of the politics, change always brings conflict.

As for electric planes we have seen some early examples which so far don't provide a practical solution that would replace the current fleet. I like reading articles that bring these innovations to light, it's just a continuation of the advancements in aviation we have seen since the Wright Bros.

Joe
:cool: