Electric Nieuport?

[Louis]

I have a set of Graham Lee 7/8 Nieuport plans that has been following me around for about the last 30 years. Don't know if I'll ever get started on it, but after watching a video on electric power for ultralights it got me thinking...It doesn't look like the motor with the batteries would weigh much more than a two stroke Rotax, but the price would be about double. Not a cross county machine by any stretch of the imagination, but should give one about 45 minutes of bugs on your teeth fun...any thoughts?

[rwanttaja]

I'd wonder about Center of Gravity. The electric motor will probably weigh less than a two-stroke or VW, and you'd end up with a bit of a Pinocchio nose. Not really what one wants, for a historical replica. The original engines weighed around 300 pounds. The original Nieuports had a VERY short nose.

What would be cool is if one could assemble an annular battery; in the shape of a cylinder with a hole in the middle where the motor itself would stick through. Say, three feet in diameter and two in depth.

Classically, electric aircraft are low drag to maximize flight time, and a Nieuport isn't low drag. But you're not interested in range, as long as you get the ~45 minute flight time. One problem is 14CFR 91.151, "Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight." To comply with that on a 45-minute flight, your battery would have to give you at least 75 minutes of flight time.

Ron Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

Couldn’t the 91.151 endurance requirement be “side stepped” if one were to operate under the definition as a local flight??
...1) Local operations mean operations performed by aircraft which:(i) Operate in the local traffic pattern (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=474b944dbbd3c932586a193604247a9c&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3) or within sight of the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3);
(ii) Are known to be departing for, or arriving from flight in local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3); or
(iii) Execute simulated instrument approaches (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=fc51a02e8710c55b9167aa5e91599722&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3) or low passes at the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3).

[rwanttaja]

Couldn’t the 91.151 endurance requirement be “side stepped” if one were to operate under the definition as a local flight??
...1) Local operations mean operations performed by aircraft which:(i) Operate in the local traffic pattern (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=474b944dbbd3c932586a193604247a9c&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3) or within sight of the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3);
(ii) Are known to be departing for, or arriving from flight in local practice areas located within a 20-mile radius of the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3); or
(iii) Execute simulated instrument approaches (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=fc51a02e8710c55b9167aa5e91599722&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3) or low passes at the airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=2104a335f5942093be3f6b62fd76db89&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:J:Part:170: Subpart:A:170.3).

I think that would be a hard sell, as the section you quote is not in Part 91. It's in Part 170, which addresses ATC services.

A better point in arguing is that electric don't have a discrete "out of fuel" point. When the battery gets low, power is degraded, but doesn't abruptly terminate. The trouble is, 91.151 defines range as at the normal cruising speed.

I think the FAA is going to need to redefine this....perhaps as part of MOSAIC.

Personally, I'd absolutely *love* an electric Fly Baby. I've run electric RC aircraft, and have been impressed with their simplicity and power.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

Personally, I like to hear that noise the exhaust makes, guess that's why I had motorcycles and have a Flow Master muffler on my truck. But that's just me.
Bob, old school, no headphones in 1973, hand held mics and a speaker at your head.

[DaleB]

Personally, I like to hear that noise the exhaust makes, guess that's why I had motorcycles and have a Flow Master muffler on my truck. But that's just me.
Bob, old school, no headphones in 1973, hand held mics and a speaker at your head.
WHAT???

[rwanttaja]

Personally, I like to hear that noise the exhaust makes, guess that's why I had motorcycles and have a Flow Master muffler on my truck. But that's just me.
Bob, old school, no headphones in 1973, hand held mics and a speaker at your head.

They've got noise simulators for electric cars like Teslas... make them sound like they have a V-8. No reason you couldn't add the same thing to an electric Nieuport, and simulate a LeRhone. Or make an electric Fly Baby sound like it has an R-985.

Personally, though, I'd like to get the "Flubber" sound from the original "Absent-Minded Professor" starring Fred Murray.....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Just out of curiosity, I looked up some of the specs for the Pipistrel Alpha Electro. Its motor weighs just 45 pounds, and it has 270 pounds of batteries. The company specs list it as having a 60-minute endurance PLUS reserve. The motor is rated at 85 HP for one minute, then 67 HP continuous.

Sounds like it'd be just jim-dandy for a full scale Nieuport. If you can arrange the battery in a ring like I suggested earlier, the total weight of the batteries and motor will be just about that of a LeRhone. It would work for a sub-scale replica, too, though you'd probably want to distribute the battery a bit rather than packing it all under the cowl.

The electric Pipistrel sells for about $100K. *If* the powerplant portion of that is ~1/3rd the value, it's about twice the cost of a Rotax 912.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

Personally, though, I'd like to get the "Flubber" sound from the original "Absent-Minded Professor" starring Fred Murray.....

Now that would be sweet !
Bob

[Dana]

That full scale Nieuport won't do well on 85HP unless the motor is turning the same low rpm and spinning the same huge prop as the original Le Rhone. Many replicas with fast turning modern engines, even with several times the HP, have had marginal performance.

[rwanttaja]

That full scale Nieuport won't do well on 85HP unless the motor is turning the same low rpm and spinning the same huge prop as the original Le Rhone. Many replicas with fast turning modern engines, even with several times the HP, have had marginal performance.

Good point. I wonder, though, if that 85 HP electric motor *could* turn an original LeRhone prop at the appropriate RPM. Electric motors have scads of low-end torque, and that is what it'd take.

Reminds me of Boeing's 50th anniversary back in the '60s. They hired a company to build a full-scale replica of the B&W, Boeing's first airplane (Pete Bowers helped with the research). The original had a Hall-Scott engine of 125 HP, and the replica builders installed a Lycoming GO-435 of 170 HP. But the Lycoming had a teensy, skinny prop, and I understand that the replica could barely get out of its own way.
8888

Seattle's Museum of Flight sells a nice little model of the B&W. But it's got the teensy prop of the Lycoming-powered version.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Well, the Graham Lee Noop is 7/8ths scale and tube-and-gusset, so weight of the airframe isn't the problem. My Airdromes Noop is heavier by design, and even with my overly enthusiastic painting went 492 pounds empty.

The problem, as Ron pointed out, is CG. The motor and the PSRU isn't the issue; the batteries are. To get a decent flight time (say an hour, as that seems to be the naturally duration of a flight, at least for me), the plane is going to be too heavy over all, and there's just not a lot of room to put the batteries.

In rebuilding mine, I went for the maximum depth of the fuselage of 36 inches - but that's sort of misleading, as the bottom lines are that of a curve; the sides of the firewall are only twenty seven, and she sweeps up towards the tail pretty darned quickly.

@Dana - I'd agree if these planes were replicas. They're not. They're representational, meaning they may look like a Nieuport 11, but that's about it.

[rwanttaja]

The problem, as Ron pointed out, is CG. The motor and the PSRU isn't the issue; the batteries are. To get a decent flight time (say an hour, as that seems to be the naturally duration of a flight, at least for me), the plane is going to be too heavy over all, and there's just not a lot of room to put the batteries.
I think it depends on what battery architecture is possible.

We tend to think of "batteries" as discrete units; the silver cylinders we stick in our remote controls, or the big black things that tuck under the hoods of our cars. But the car batteries are just a convenient way of assembling six cells, and even the remote controls take two separate AAA cells.

I've already mentioned an annular battery to go under the rotary engine cowl. Obviously, any additional battery capacity needed could be packed elsewhere in the airplane. And that could mitigate, to a great extent, the CG issues...though not, necessarily the total weight issues. And the massive cables needed for connection of these items are left as an exercise for the student.

Let's take another look at an electric Fly Baby. Based on the Pipistrel example, it'd need about 280 pounds for the battery, and another 45 for the motor itself. That's about 325 pounds.

Pretty damn steep, when you look at the ~210 pounds or so an O-200 might weigh (with all its exhaust, generator, starter, etc. that won't be needed).

The electric version is 115 pound heavier? Not so fast, pilgrim. Remember we're *getting rid of the liquid fuel*. I've got a 15-gallon tank in my Fly Baby...which means the penalty would be only 25 pounds for the electric version.

THAT'S more in the ballpark. The builder of my Fly Baby ended up with a plane weighing about 125 pounds heavier than stock. So a decently light airframe with an electric conversion could come out lighter than my C85-powered version.

Certainly, the infrastructure isn't there...nowhere to get a quick charge on a cross-country. But for going out searching for whales and shooting some touch and goes... quite possible. Mind you, it's tougher for you guys in Kansas.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

We're agreeing in different ways, if you get my drift.

A Fly Baby sounds like a much better candidate than a Graham Lee Nieuport.

325 pounds for motor and batteries on an aircraft that weighs less than 500 ready for flight is huge.

The bug engine weighs around 130 pounds (oil and accessories), and removing the ten gallon fuel tank gets one another 60 pounds. 115 pounds more might not sound like much, but one is going to reach diminishing returns pretty quickly on flight performance.

Not to say it couldn't be done - there are just better candidates for electrification, IMHO.

[rwanttaja]

We're agreeing in different ways, if you get my drift.

A Fly Baby sounds like a much better candidate than a Graham Lee Nieuport.

325 pounds for motor and batteries on an aircraft that weighs less than 500 ready for flight is huge.
...
Not to say it couldn't be done - there are just better candidates for electrification, IMHO.

Yes, I think we're screaming the same things at each other. :-)

Graham Lee designed his Nieuport as an ultralight (by Canadian rules) so of course an electric power package for it would probably not be workable.

But it might be doable as a full-scale aircraft. Wikipedia says the Nieuport 17 had an empty weight of 827 pounds; coincidentally, within 25 pounds of my Fly Baby's empty weight. The original Le Rhone weighed about 300 pounds, which is VERY close to the weight of the Pipistrel power package. No long nose, no added wing sweep.

Ron Wanttaja

[JLS]

I did a spreadsheet for the Graham Lee Electric Nieuport 11, it may work for a
Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide Battery at 0.22KWh/kg (that is quite
optimistic).

Graham Lee Nieuport XI induced drag. Cd0 is a guestimate counted at 0.05.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UQrzsDNxQ62SyFfKzpUIDA7YpyYE-ZSC/view?usp=sharing

GoogleSheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KJ689HjyipALPhP5e4oj1_nIQXmyL80IvJQgL3Ail8Q/edit?usp=sharing
You can play with Cd0 guestimate.

Any questions or comments are welcomed.

P.S : Sorry for "access denied", I missed something in GoogleDrive sharing

[rwanttaja]

"Access Denied"

Ron "I am not a number, I am a free man" Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

Is the structure even stressed for for 300 lbs??

[JLS]

It seems that high end(pricey) solutions for electric aircraft (engine, battery and its controller) come
from here:
https://www.mgm-compro.com/

30-50kw electric motor
https://www.mgm-compro.com/products/30-50kw-electric-motors/

I found elsewhere (engineered and made in China)
https://www.freerchobby.cc/collections/electronic-speed-controller/products/big-thrust-torque-238100-50-kw-brushless-motor-for-paratrike

Have you others (reliable) providers ?

[Frank Giger]

Hmmmm, digging around a bit and there's a number of electric ultralights out there.

One thing we haven't talked about is the tremendous drag of the Neiuport. It is, well, tremendous. One need never slip a Nieuport - simply retard the throttle to lose altitude!

Landing is under power, as landing without it requires an immense concentration on energy conservation - trust me. ;)

When I had my engine out, I was about 1200 feet AGL, and it wasn't a time for being picky on landing spots. She flew well, make no mistake on that, and best glide made it easy to flare to a stall (unfortunately for me, it was a perfect landing on top of a tall tree), but time was short and options few owing to the rapid descent.

During flight testing I put her straight and level and pulled the throttle many times, and the sink rate was 600 ft/minute.

Taking off, I get around 500 ft/minute at best climb over time, and 300 best climb over distance. There's a bit of a joke going around that, owing to the drag, it might well be impossible to reach the Vne of 98 mph.

[JLS]

Fitting Graham Lee datasheet with rotax 503 numbers gives you a CD0=0.07 (parasitic and interference
drag of whole aircraft). It gives a L/D ratio of 7 (with induced drag K=0.0725), so I trust you that
deadstick landing must be quite "hot".

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AJEJxA0g0ksdQ511lVX8e73F2cbbsJBlSEhiPcprGUE/edit?usp=sharing

[Frank Giger]

Not really; 32 miles an hour (stall) horizontal speed and zero descent, according to the CloudAhoy data.

It was the spinning fall out of the damned 55 foot tall tree that did the damage. :)

[Louis]

Thanks, folks. A great discussion with some good information there. Sounds like the Graham Lee Nieuport may not be ideal for electric power....but who knows in a few years. Rwanttaga, funny you should mention the Fly Baby. I've been holding a set of Fly Baby plans for even longer than I've had the plans for the Nieuport, since the 70's. I should add, thanks for joining our chapter (EAA 1129 in Fairbanks AK) on zoom a while back. That was a lot of fun. Actually, all things considered, neither the Nieuport or Fly Baby would be great projects for me, as my wife wouldn't be too keen on me disappearing into the workshop every night to work on a single place plane. I wonder how a Murphy Renegade would work with electric power. I think that's a really nice looking little biplane and seems like the longer nose might be an asset for finding a place to put batteries.