Future of aviation, or flash in the pan??

[kinsell]

The nine px Alice prototype suffered a setback in Arizona as a fire on
the ground damaged the plane significantly, ahead of planned taxi tests.

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/eviation-alice-prototype-damaged-by-electric-fire-in-arizona/136327.article

In other electrifying news, a U.K. company is working on another
electric conversion of a small commuter airplane, this one featuring an
innovative turbine powered generator tucked inside the fuselage to top
up the batteries on those long flights. So it will be powered by
electricity, JET-A, and a $12 million government grant.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/u-k-company-building-short-hop-electric-airliner/

[kinsell]

On 1/23/20 7:17 PM, kinsell wrote:
> The nine px Alice prototype suffered a setback in Arizona as a fire on
> the ground damaged the plane significantly, ahead of planned taxi tests.
>
> https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/eviation-alice-prototype-damaged-by-electric-fire-in-arizona/136327.article
>
>
> In other electrifying news, a U.K. company is working on another
> electric conversion of a small commuter airplane, this one featuring an
> innovative turbine powered generator tucked inside the fuselage to top
> up the batteries on those long flights.Â* So it will be powered by
> electricity, JET-A, and a $12 million government grant.
>
> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/u-k-company-building-short-hop-electric-airliner/
>


Link to some of the video for those without a FB account:

https://prescottenews.com/index.php/news/current-news/item/34755-fire-at-prescott-regional-airport

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.

Somehow that just reminds me of when I was doing maintenance runs of a MD 520N helicopter in front it's rather large hangar and large taxiway. The hangar owner from across the taxiway came over and told me to shut down because the helicopter was making too much noise, at the airport. I tried so hard not to laugh at him but a chuckle still escaped.

[kinsell]

On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>

Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.

[Ray Lovinggood[_2_]]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:13:49 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>
> Somehow that just reminds me of when I was doing maintenance runs of a MD 520N helicopter in front it's rather large hangar and large taxiway. The hangar owner from across the taxiway came over and told me to shut down because the helicopter was making too much noise, at the airport. I tried so hard not to laugh at him but a chuckle still escaped.

Back in the mid 1980's, a military spouse, who lived on the same base where I was stationed, complained of jet noise - at a USAFE base in Germany.

Ray

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 9:21:41 AM UTC-8, kinsell wrote:
> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
> >
>
> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.

But the weight efficiency of those LiCo bats is phenomenal. Let's see, 900KWH is the same energy in......154 lbs of Jet-A. Not sure how much energy is in 8200 lbs of LiCo if you light it on fire though.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:19:09 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

>...Let's see, 900KWH is the same energy in......154 lbs of Jet-A. Not sure how much energy is in 8200 lbs of LiCo if you light it on fire though.

Fully-charged lithium battery fires generally release as heat 1.6 times the stored electrical energy over the course of the runaway. So it'd be about like 250 lbs of Jet-A.

[kinsell]

On 1/24/20 1:07 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 11:19:09 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
>
>> ...Let's see, 900KWH is the same energy in......154 lbs of Jet-A. Not sure how much energy is in 8200 lbs of LiCo if you light it on fire though.
>
> Fully-charged lithium battery fires generally release as heat 1.6 times the stored electrical energy over the course of the runaway. So it'd be about like 250 lbs of Jet-A.
>

What ever the number is, it can pack a punch. Relevant stuff starts
about 5:00


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os&t=1326s

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
> >
>
> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.

Somehow flying that thing makes me think of the guy riding the H-bomb in Doctor Strangelove.

I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even higher.

[kinsell]

On 1/24/20 8:07 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>>>
>>
>> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
>> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.
>
> Somehow flying that thing makes me think of the guy riding the H-bomb in Doctor Strangelove.
>
> I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even higher.
>

Good analogy. That was Slim Pickens, wasn't it?

Someone at Eviation said the thing is (or was) basically a battery with
a picture of an airplane painted on it. I wouldn't have guessed they
could get 8200 lbs of lithium battery in there and still have room for
px. It's am ambitious project, 600 mile range, but at some point
reality starts to rear its ugly head.

[kinsell]

On 1/24/20 12:29 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> kinsell wrote on 1/23/2020 6:17 PM:
>> The nine px Alice prototype suffered a setback in Arizona as a fire on
>> the ground damaged the plane significantly, ahead of planned taxi tests.
>>
>> https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/eviation-alice-prototype-damaged-by-electric-fire-in-arizona/136327.article
>>
>>
>> In other electrifying news, a U.K. company is working on another
>> electric conversion of a small commuter airplane, this one featuring
>> an innovative turbine powered generator tucked inside the fuselage to
>> top up the batteries on those long flights.Â* So it will be powered by
>> electricity, JET-A, and a $12 million government grant.
>>
>> https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/u-k-company-building-short-hop-electric-airliner/
>>
>
> Why are we talking about electric airplanes instead of electric
> sailplanes? Even stodgy Schleicher now has a really nice 18M electric
> self-launcher at at an interesting price. It should be very appealing to
> pilots that want a really good motorglider without the cost, operating
> complexity, and maintenance of the fossil fueled motorgliders.
>
> An the 15M GP15 also looks like a good choice: smaller, lighter,
> cheaper, but still very good gliding performance. The miniLak and Silent
> 2 FES gliders seem perfect for pilots looking for decent performance and
> freedom from the tow plane.
>
So why are we talking about electric airplanes? Sure beats talking
about phoney movies on ballooning in the 1860's, doesn't it?

I see some great similarities between stuffing lithium-cobalt batteries
in a glider and adding an electric motor, and doing the same with a
power plane. They both suffer from limited battery capacity, safety
concerns, significant cost, and charging hassles. Lots more work being
done currently on power planes than gliders. When a Pipistrel Alpha
Electro goes for a swim in a cold lake in Norway, it's hard to tell if
that's a power plane or motorglider.

I'm less impressed with the current crop of electric gliders than you
are. Couple of friends got in the very first orders for GP-15's and
have been waiting years for delivery. I keep seeing gliders certified
for self-launch taking tows, because they can self-launch or
self-retrieve, but not both. The gas-powered solutions aren't great,
but IMHO better than the electrics, or heaven forbid the jets.

-Dave

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:27:45 -0700, kinsell wrote:

> On 1/24/20 8:07 PM, wrote:
>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>>> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
>>> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.
>>
>> Somehow flying that thing makes me think of the guy riding the H-bomb
>> in Doctor Strangelove.
>>
>> I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is
>> much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even
>> higher.
>>
>>
> Good analogy. That was Slim Pickens, wasn't it?
>
> Someone at Eviation said the thing is (or was) basically a battery with
> a picture of an airplane painted on it. I wouldn't have guessed they
> could get 8200 lbs of lithium battery in there and still have room for
> px. It's am ambitious project, 600 mile range, but at some point
> reality starts to rear its ugly head.

With a big motor on each wingtip (in the photos they look bigger than the
rear motor) I do wonder about its handling if one of the wingtip engines
fails/gets hit by a goose, etc., or do they just shut down the other
wingtip motor and land wherever possible.



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[kinsell]

On 1/25/20 2:54 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:27:45 -0700, kinsell wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/20 8:07 PM, wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>>>> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
>>>> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.
>>>
>>> Somehow flying that thing makes me think of the guy riding the H-bomb
>>> in Doctor Strangelove.
>>>
>>> I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is
>>> much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even
>>> higher.
>>>
>>>
>> Good analogy. That was Slim Pickens, wasn't it?
>>
>> Someone at Eviation said the thing is (or was) basically a battery with
>> a picture of an airplane painted on it. I wouldn't have guessed they
>> could get 8200 lbs of lithium battery in there and still have room for
>> px. It's am ambitious project, 600 mile range, but at some point
>> reality starts to rear its ugly head.
>
> With a big motor on each wingtip (in the photos they look bigger than the
> rear motor) I do wonder about its handling if one of the wingtip engines
> fails/gets hit by a goose, etc., or do they just shut down the other
> wingtip motor and land wherever possible.
>
>
>

Slick presentation from Paris Air Show here:

https://simpleflying.com/eviation-alice-electric-aircraft/

Quick answer is they intend to shut down opposite motor in case of
trouble with one wingtip. Supposedly they can takeoff on just the rear
after V2.

Like Harbour Air, making claims of really fast recharge times. Fly for
two hours, recharge in one. Good way to fry your batteries, maybe this
thing uses copious quantities of snake oil for cooling.

Harbour Air CEO was quoted in one of the articles as saying there are no
constraints in how fast you charge lithium batteries, just pump in more
current if you want a faster charge. I wonder if these guys actually
believe their own hype? Scary.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

kinsell wrote on 1/24/2020 9:39 PM:

>>
>> Why are we talking about electric airplanes instead of electric sailplanes? Even
>> stodgy Schleicher now has a really nice 18M electric self-launcher at at an
>> interesting price. It should be very appealing to pilots that want a really good
>> motorglider without the cost, operating complexity, and maintenance of the
>> fossil fueled motorgliders.
>>
>> An the 15M GP15 also looks like a good choice: smaller, lighter, cheaper, but
>> still very good gliding performance. The miniLak and Silent 2 FES gliders seem
>> perfect for pilots looking for decent performance and freedom from the tow plane.
>>
> So why are we talking about electric airplanes?* Sure beats talking about phoney
> movies on ballooning in the 1860's, doesn't it?
>
> I see some great similarities between stuffing lithium-cobalt batteries in a
> glider and adding an electric motor, and doing the same with a power plane.* They
> both suffer from limited battery capacity, safety concerns, significant cost, and
> charging hassles.* Lots more work being done currently on power planes than
> gliders.* When a Pipistrel Alpha Electro goes for a swim in a cold lake in Norway,
> it's hard to tell if that's a power plane or motorglider.
>
> I'm less impressed with the current crop of electric gliders than you are.* Couple
> of friends got in the very first orders for GP-15's and have been waiting years
> for delivery.* I keep seeing gliders certified for self-launch taking tows,
> because they can self-launch or self-retrieve, but not both.* The gas-powered
> solutions aren't great, but IMHO better than the electrics, or heaven forbid the
> jets.

I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore. Call
the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Emir Sherbi]

When you have so much battery capacity. You have a lot power to spare (discharging or charging). If they use the full capacity in two hours without counting the reserve the rate of discharge is 0,5C. And the chare rate is 1C. That is not much workload for most of the popular cells. But you need a extremely big super charger.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Emir Sherbi wrote on 1/25/2020 8:07 PM:
> When you have so much battery capacity. You have a lot power to spare (discharging or charging). If they use the full capacity in two hours without counting the reserve the rate of discharge is 0,5C. And the chare rate is 1C. That is not much workload for most of the popular cells. But you need a extremely big super charger.
>
Yes, for example, some of the Teslas can "take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%,
40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 2:21:06 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> kinsell wrote on 1/24/2020 9:39 PM:
>
> >>
> >> Why are we talking about electric airplanes instead of electric sailplanes? Even
> >> stodgy Schleicher now has a really nice 18M electric self-launcher at at an
> >> interesting price. It should be very appealing to pilots that want a really good
> >> motorglider without the cost, operating complexity, and maintenance of the
> >> fossil fueled motorgliders.
> >>
> >> An the 15M GP15 also looks like a good choice: smaller, lighter, cheaper, but
> >> still very good gliding performance. The miniLak and Silent 2 FES gliders seem
> >> perfect for pilots looking for decent performance and freedom from the tow plane.
> >>
> > So why are we talking about electric airplanes?Â* Sure beats talking about phoney
> > movies on ballooning in the 1860's, doesn't it?
> >
> > I see some great similarities between stuffing lithium-cobalt batteries in a
> > glider and adding an electric motor, and doing the same with a power plane.Â* They
> > both suffer from limited battery capacity, safety concerns, significant cost, and
> > charging hassles.Â* Lots more work being done currently on power planes than
> > gliders.Â* When a Pipistrel Alpha Electro goes for a swim in a cold lake in Norway,
> > it's hard to tell if that's a power plane or motorglider.
> >
> > I'm less impressed with the current crop of electric gliders than you are.Â* Couple
> > of friends got in the very first orders for GP-15's and have been waiting years
> > for delivery.Â* I keep seeing gliders certified for self-launch taking tows,
> > because they can self-launch or self-retrieve, but not both.Â* The gas-powered
> > solutions aren't great, but IMHO better than the electrics, or heaven forbid the
> > jets.
>
> I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
> Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
> glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
> performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
> Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore.. Call
> the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 2:21:06 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > kinsell wrote on 1/24/2020 9:39 PM:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Why are we talking about electric airplanes instead of electric sailplanes? Even
> > >> stodgy Schleicher now has a really nice 18M electric self-launcher at at an
> > >> interesting price. It should be very appealing to pilots that want a really good
> > >> motorglider without the cost, operating complexity, and maintenance of the
> > >> fossil fueled motorgliders.
> > >>
> > >> An the 15M GP15 also looks like a good choice: smaller, lighter, cheaper, but
> > >> still very good gliding performance. The miniLak and Silent 2 FES gliders seem
> > >> perfect for pilots looking for decent performance and freedom from the tow plane.
> > >>
> > > So why are we talking about electric airplanes?Â* Sure beats talking about phoney
> > > movies on ballooning in the 1860's, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > I see some great similarities between stuffing lithium-cobalt batteries in a
> > > glider and adding an electric motor, and doing the same with a power plane.Â* They
> > > both suffer from limited battery capacity, safety concerns, significant cost, and
> > > charging hassles.Â* Lots more work being done currently on power planes than
> > > gliders.Â* When a Pipistrel Alpha Electro goes for a swim in a cold lake in Norway,
> > > it's hard to tell if that's a power plane or motorglider.
> > >
> > > I'm less impressed with the current crop of electric gliders than you are.Â* Couple
> > > of friends got in the very first orders for GP-15's and have been waiting years
> > > for delivery.Â* I keep seeing gliders certified for self-launch taking tows,
> > > because they can self-launch or self-retrieve, but not both.Â* The gas-powered
> > > solutions aren't great, but IMHO better than the electrics, or heaven forbid the
> > > jets.
> >
> > I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
> > Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
> > glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
> > performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
> > Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore. Call
> > the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.

I don't think you will find a self launcher for less than AS 34.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 9:27:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 2:21:06 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > kinsell wrote on 1/24/2020 9:39 PM:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Why are we talking about electric airplanes instead of electric sailplanes? Even
> > >> stodgy Schleicher now has a really nice 18M electric self-launcher at at an
> > >> interesting price. It should be very appealing to pilots that want a really good
> > >> motorglider without the cost, operating complexity, and maintenance of the
> > >> fossil fueled motorgliders.
> > >>
> > >> An the 15M GP15 also looks like a good choice: smaller, lighter, cheaper, but
> > >> still very good gliding performance. The miniLak and Silent 2 FES gliders seem
> > >> perfect for pilots looking for decent performance and freedom from the tow plane.
> > >>
> > > So why are we talking about electric airplanes?Â* Sure beats talking about phoney
> > > movies on ballooning in the 1860's, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > I see some great similarities between stuffing lithium-cobalt batteries in a
> > > glider and adding an electric motor, and doing the same with a power plane.Â* They
> > > both suffer from limited battery capacity, safety concerns, significant cost, and
> > > charging hassles.Â* Lots more work being done currently on power planes than
> > > gliders.Â* When a Pipistrel Alpha Electro goes for a swim in a cold lake in Norway,
> > > it's hard to tell if that's a power plane or motorglider.
> > >
> > > I'm less impressed with the current crop of electric gliders than you are.Â* Couple
> > > of friends got in the very first orders for GP-15's and have been waiting years
> > > for delivery.Â* I keep seeing gliders certified for self-launch taking tows,
> > > because they can self-launch or self-retrieve, but not both.Â* The gas-powered
> > > solutions aren't great, but IMHO better than the electrics, or heaven forbid the
> > > jets.
> >
> > I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
> > Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
> > glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
> > performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
> > Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore. Call
> > the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.

It might be more interesting, and with an ultimately larger market, to sell an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers. The engineering and installation should be relatively simple. If my Wankel seizes I'd be tempted to do that, rather than replace it at great cost.

[Emir Sherbi]

If you step by the SSA convention you will see one ;)

[kinsell]

On 1/25/20 9:16 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Emir Sherbi wrote on 1/25/2020 8:07 PM:
>> When you have so much battery capacity. You have a lot power to spare
>> (discharging or charging). If they use the full capacity in two hours
>> without counting the reserve the rate of discharge is 0,5C. And the
>> chare rate is 1C. That is not much workload for most of the popular
>> cells. But you need a extremely big super charger.
>>
> Yes, for example, some of the Teslas can "take about 20 minutes to
> charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on
> the original 85 kWh Model S".
>

For fast charging, a Tesla 3 does an intelligent preheat if you're
driving to a supercharger station, then uses active liquid cooling to
keep the temps from getting too high. Pipistrel is adding liquid
cooling to their batteries also.

A 1C charge rate for the Alice would be about a megawatt, which would
require a considerable investment in infrastructure.

If Eviation has all this figured out, it begs the question why they just
burned up a prototype of a $4 million dollar airplane with a battery
fire. They have stated the prototype is "intact", which appears to be a
highly creative use of the term.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 1/26/2020 9:27 AM:

>>
>> I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
>> Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
>> glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
>> performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
>> Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore.. Call
>> the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.

>
> Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.
>
Have you priced an ASH 31Mi? That will make the '34 look more affordable. Or check
out the others I mentioned: GP15, miniLAK, Silent 2 Electro - all significantly
less than the AS 34. But, I am surprised at the $200K figure. I was quoted $180K a
couple months ago, which seemed quite reasonable.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 10:32:42 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 1/26/2020 9:27 AM:
>
> >>
> >> I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
> >> Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
> >> glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
> >> performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
> >> Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore.. Call
> >> the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
>
> >
> > Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.
> >
> Have you priced an ASH 31Mi? That will make the '34 look more affordable. Or check
> out the others I mentioned: GP15, miniLAK, Silent 2 Electro - all significantly
> less than the AS 34. But, I am surprised at the $200K figure. I was quoted $180K a
> couple months ago, which seemed quite reasonable.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Eric, my estimate includes $20k for a trailer, $10k for instruments and $4k for ocean freight.

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 7:14:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> ...an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers.
> The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.

Um, not on this planet.

[[email protected]]

> > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
>
> Um, not on this planet.

"Designing an airplane is easy, if you don't know how."

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 1/27/2020 6:48 PM:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 10:32:42 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> wrote on 1/26/2020 9:27 AM:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
>>>> Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
>>>> glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
>>>> performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
>>>> Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore.. Call
>>>> the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
>>
>>>
>>> Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.
>>>
>> Have you priced an ASH 31Mi? That will make the '34 look more affordable. Or check
>> out the others I mentioned: GP15, miniLAK, Silent 2 Electro - all significantly
>> less than the AS 34. But, I am surprised at the $200K figure. I was quoted $180K a
>> couple months ago, which seemed quite reasonable.

> Eric, my estimate includes $20k for a trailer, $10k for instruments and $4k for ocean freight.

The $180K I was given was for the glider, with trailer and typical instruments,
delivered to the US.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
> >
> > Um, not on this planet.
>
> "Designing an airplane is easy, if you don't know how."

Very nice Mark!
For those of you who don't know the reference, here's the source:

https://evtol.news/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Hirschberg-VFS-HeliExpo-2019-5.pdf

(slide 27)

Amusing to see him hold it up next to the Lilienthal quote (which I've also seen more often in slightly different version and attributed to others): "To invent an aircraft is nothing. To build one is something. To fly is everything."

A recent example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/inside-larry-pages-kitty-hawk-returned-deposits-battery-fires-boeing-cora/#646fe858ab40

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 10:32:42 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > wrote on 1/26/2020 9:27 AM:
> >
> > >>
> > >> I know several people WA state that are happy self-launching in their Silent
> > >> Electro and miniLaks. The GP15 has been delayed, in part because they are a new
> > >> glider company, and in part due the technical difficulties of producing a high
> > >> performance, self-launching sailplane. It still has a long order list. And when
> > >> Schleicher thinks it time to enter the field, it's not the future anymore.. Call
> > >> the Schleicher dealer and place your order for one, before the list gets too long.
> >
> > >
> > > Eric, I did just that, requested a quote for the AS 34. Full system price with trailer delivered to the US was just under $200k. That's really a lot for a non-flapped 18 m "Standard Class" glider that was developed over 25 years ago. I don't agree with you that this is "affordable". I also heard that sales are not so hot, you can get one this summer. If they had put this into a '29 or '33 I might be interested.
> > >
> > Have you priced an ASH 31Mi? That will make the '34 look more affordable. Or check
> > out the others I mentioned: GP15, miniLAK, Silent 2 Electro - all significantly
> > less than the AS 34. But, I am surprised at the $200K figure. I was quoted $180K a
> > couple months ago, which seemed quite reasonable.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Eric, my estimate includes $20k for a trailer, $10k for instruments and $4k for ocean freight.

I think $20K for the trailer is a bit light and $4K for ocean transport must be to East coast?

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 7:14:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > ...an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers.
> > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
>
> Um, not on this planet.

Perhaps you did not catch the "relatively"? Engine bay is already there, the doors are there, it is engineered and built for the weight, the extraction mechanism is already there, even the prop and boom. So yes, "relatively simple" compared to retrofitting say an ASW27, which is being done, and has none of those things.

I am not a stranger to complexity, or aircraft design.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 1:48:48 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 7:14:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > ...an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers.
> > > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
> >
> > Um, not on this planet.
>
> Perhaps you did not catch the "relatively"? Engine bay is already there, the doors are there, it is engineered and built for the weight, the extraction mechanism is already there, even the prop and boom. So yes, "relatively simple" compared to retrofitting say an ASW27, which is being done, and has none of those things.
>
> I am not a stranger to complexity, or aircraft design.

"How hard could it be"
That depends.
Certainly if you already have an engine bay, and lift mechanism, you have a great start. No engineering the hole in the fuselage, etc.
If you have a proven drive system, much of the next part is more easily accomplished.
2 meaningful issues with converting the later Schleicher ships:
1) Where do the batteries go? Engine bay has some room but CG possibilities become limited. Wing installation would most certainly involve major stuff in any of the hard tank wings. Support and service access are non trivial.
This is the major task on the '34. The rest is mostly transplanting proven motor and drive into the '34 from the 32E.
2) Engine bay size matters because it limits available prop diameter and this is a real issue in getting performance out of the drive.

I have some practical experience with this as I am now starting test flying of an ASW-24E that has been converted to electric.

How hard could it be?

The largest barrier is a lack of proven motor/ controller systems to incorporate into a project.
FWIW
UH

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 1/28/2020 6:59 AM:
>> Perhaps you did not catch the "relatively"? Engine bay is already there, the
>> doors are there, it is engineered and built for the weight, the extraction
>> mechanism is already there, even the prop and boom. So yes, "relatively
>> simple" compared to retrofitting say an ASW27, which is being done, and has
>> none of those things.
>>
>> I am not a stranger to complexity, or aircraft design.
> "How hard could it be" That depends. Certainly if you already have an engine
> bay, and lift mechanism, you have a great start. No engineering the hole in the
> fuselage, etc. If you have a proven drive system, much of the next part is more
> easily accomplished. 2 meaningful issues with converting the later Schleicher
> ships: 1) Where do the batteries go? Engine bay has some room but CG
> possibilities become limited. Wing installation would most certainly involve
> major stuff in any of the hard tank wings. Support and service access are non
> trivial. This is the major task on the '34. The rest is mostly transplanting
> proven motor and drive into the '34 from the 32E. 2) Engine bay size matters
> because it limits available prop diameter and this is a real issue in getting
> performance out of the drive.

There is a significant size compartment between the engine bay and gear wheel that
could hold batteries, and more space in the gear well that has the 16 liter fuel
tank. Some batteries can be placed in the engine bay, as an electric motor is
lighter than the Wankel and all it's accessories (starter, muffler, oil tank, etc).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 6:59:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 1:48:48 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 7:14:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > > ...an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers.
> > > > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
> > >
> > > Um, not on this planet.
> >
> > Perhaps you did not catch the "relatively"? Engine bay is already there, the doors are there, it is engineered and built for the weight, the extraction mechanism is already there, even the prop and boom. So yes, "relatively simple" compared to retrofitting say an ASW27, which is being done, and has none of those things.
> >
> > I am not a stranger to complexity, or aircraft design.
>
> "How hard could it be"
> That depends.
> Certainly if you already have an engine bay, and lift mechanism, you have a great start. No engineering the hole in the fuselage, etc.
> If you have a proven drive system, much of the next part is more easily accomplished.
> 2 meaningful issues with converting the later Schleicher ships:
> 1) Where do the batteries go? Engine bay has some room but CG possibilities become limited. Wing installation would most certainly involve major stuff in any of the hard tank wings. Support and service access are non trivial.
> This is the major task on the '34. The rest is mostly transplanting proven motor and drive into the '34 from the 32E.
> 2) Engine bay size matters because it limits available prop diameter and this is a real issue in getting performance out of the drive.
>
> I have some practical experience with this as I am now starting test flying of an ASW-24E that has been converted to electric.
>
> How hard could it be?
>
> The largest barrier is a lack of proven motor/ controller systems to incorporate into a project.
> FWIW
> UH

So how hard was it, for a very skilled and practiced professional? Will you be publishing an article in Soaring, a pre-writeup on RAS? Sounds very interesting.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 6:59:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 1:48:48 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-8, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 7:14:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > > > ...an electric retrofit for the AS self launchers.
> > > > The engineering and installation should be relatively simple.
> > >
> > > Um, not on this planet.
> >
> > Perhaps you did not catch the "relatively"? Engine bay is already there, the doors are there, it is engineered and built for the weight, the extraction mechanism is already there, even the prop and boom. So yes, "relatively simple" compared to retrofitting say an ASW27, which is being done, and has none of those things.
> >
> > I am not a stranger to complexity, or aircraft design.
>
> "How hard could it be"
> That depends.
> Certainly if you already have an engine bay, and lift mechanism, you have a great start. No engineering the hole in the fuselage, etc.
> If you have a proven drive system, much of the next part is more easily accomplished.
> 2 meaningful issues with converting the later Schleicher ships:
> 1) Where do the batteries go? Engine bay has some room but CG possibilities become limited. Wing installation would most certainly involve major stuff in any of the hard tank wings. Support and service access are non trivial.
> This is the major task on the '34. The rest is mostly transplanting proven motor and drive into the '34 from the 32E.
> 2) Engine bay size matters because it limits available prop diameter and this is a real issue in getting performance out of the drive.
>
> I have some practical experience with this as I am now starting test flying of an ASW-24E that has been converted to electric.
>
> How hard could it be?
>
> The largest barrier is a lack of proven motor/ controller systems to incorporate into a project.
> FWIW
> UH

The engine bay is quite large, and would be unoccupied by motor and muffler, and requires about 170 lbs to achieve normal W/B. The space in the wheel well used for the fuel tanks is also available, though the volume in the engine bay alone is probably enough. In my post I suggested that Schleicher do this (instead of the 34), they have already developed the motor/battery/controller for use in other gliders, so that is not a barrier for them. Thus "relatively simple". I'll stand by that characterization.

[[email protected]]

I wonder if you had a plane with ballast bags, if that would make wing batteries easier.

Not sure if the wing structure expects such concentrated loads?

[kinsell]

On 1/24/20 8:07 PM, wrote:

>
> I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even higher.
>
>

Reading more on the Alice project, they intend to do an Extended Range
version with about 750 mile range, pressurized cabin, and dramatically
upgraded batteries.

Aluminum-air batteries, with much more energy density than
lithium-cobalt. Aluminum anodes are reduced to hydrated aluminum.
Unfortunately they're primary batteries, not rechargeable. To reuse,
you just extract the anodes, and refine them back to aluminum. Easy in
theory, but may slow down a commercial operation. Or you keep spare
batteries on hand, and swap them out. Probably not with a fork truck,
didn't see any cargo doors on the Alice.

This will be certified and in commercial operation by 2023, buy your
tickets now.

-Dave

[Dan Marotta]

An interesting question.Â* How does the mass of the batteries compare to
that of water?Â* In my old LS-6a the water was held in bags which ran
from the root almost to the tip ahead of the spar.Â* They were drawn in
by a light rope and pulley system.Â* I would imagine that the battery
cells could be arranged in line, like a machine gun belt and pulled into
the wing thus distributing the load.Â* A lot would depend on the weight,
I suppose.

On 1/28/2020 9:58 AM, wrote:
> I wonder if you had a plane with ballast bags, if that would make wing batteries easier.
>
> Not sure if the wing structure expects such concentrated loads?

--
Dan, 5J

[Emir Sherbi]

El martes, 28 de enero de 2020, 15:02:36 (UTC-3), Dan Marotta escribió:
> An interesting question.Â* How does the mass of the batteries compare to
> that of water?Â* In my old LS-6a the water was held in bags which ran
> from the root almost to the tip ahead of the spar.Â* They were drawn in
> by a light rope and pulley system.Â* I would imagine that the battery
> cells could be arranged in line, like a machine gun belt and pulled into
> the wing thus distributing the load.Â* A lot would depend on the weight,
> I suppose.
>
> On 1/28/2020 9:58 AM, mail.com wrote:
> > I wonder if you had a plane with ballast bags, if that would make wing batteries easier.
> >
> > Not sure if the wing structure expects such concentrated loads?
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

In my case the battery pack weight is 18kg and 1.5m long.

That mass in that distributed area is not that critical.

[kinsell]

On 1/25/20 2:54 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:27:45 -0700, kinsell wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/20 8:07 PM, wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 12:21:41 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/20 9:58 AM, Steve Leonard wrote:
>>>>> Good to run those tests at night so you can see the fire sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good point. But if the main battery ever lit up (8200 lbs of
>>>> lithium-cobalt) it ought to make quite a bonfire.
>>>
>>> Somehow flying that thing makes me think of the guy riding the H-bomb
>>> in Doctor Strangelove.
>>>
>>> I do hope they find safer battery chemistries before long. LiFePO4 is
>>> much safer, but the energy density is even poorer and the cost even
>>> higher.
>>>
>>>
>> Good analogy. That was Slim Pickens, wasn't it?
>>
>> Someone at Eviation said the thing is (or was) basically a battery with
>> a picture of an airplane painted on it. I wouldn't have guessed they
>> could get 8200 lbs of lithium battery in there and still have room for
>> px. It's am ambitious project, 600 mile range, but at some point
>> reality starts to rear its ugly head.
>
> With a big motor on each wingtip (in the photos they look bigger than the
> rear motor) I do wonder about its handling if one of the wingtip engines
> fails/gets hit by a goose, etc., or do they just shut down the other
> wingtip motor and land wherever possible.
>
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsJ0vYnrMxo

A little more detail at about 18:20. They claim a climb rate at sea
level of 1200 fpm on just the rear engine. All three engines are the same.

Interesting comments at 11:15, using differential thrust in combination
with tail surfaces to handle cross winds. They say they'll demonstrate
35 mph crosswind landings.

[kinsell]

On 1/25/20 9:07 PM, Emir Sherbi wrote:
> When you have so much battery capacity. You have a lot power to spare (discharging or charging). If they use the full capacity in two hours without counting the reserve the rate of discharge is 0,5C. And the chare rate is 1C. That is not much workload for most of the popular cells. But you need a extremely big super charger.
>

What may work for one cell doesn't necessarily work for massive
series-parallel arrays of cell. If the cells don't stay well balanced,
interesting things can happen when you start pumping a million watts
into them.

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> How hard could it be?

Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote on 1/31/2020 12:15 PM:
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>> How hard could it be?
>
> Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
> http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm
>
Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?

The Force.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dave Nadler wrote on 1/31/2020 12:15 PM:
> > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> >> How hard could it be?
> >
> > Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
> > http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm
> >
> Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?
>
>Some controllers use Hall sensors for position sensing and phase control.
Others sense back EMF generated by the motor to do the controlling. If those signals aren't "clean", not so good stuff happens.
That is the "simple" explanation.
UH

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 05:25:44 -0800, unclhank wrote:

> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Dave Nadler wrote on 1/31/2020 12:15 PM:
>> > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5,
>> > wrote:
>> >> How hard could it be?
>> >
>> > Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
>> > http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm
>> >
>> Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?
>>
>>Some controllers use Hall sensors for position sensing and phase
>>control.
> Others sense back EMF generated by the motor to do the controlling. If
> those signals aren't "clean", not so good stuff happens.
> That is the "simple" explanation.
> UH

Indeed, two problems: the above and what seems to have been an
overheating problem with the original controller.

A later post explains that they are switching to a better, heavier duty
controller, but it is physically bigger and/or needs a different mounting
system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 10:23:42 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 05:25:44 -0800, unclhank wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Dave Nadler wrote on 1/31/2020 12:15 PM:
> >> > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> How hard could it be?
> >> >
> >> > Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
> >> > http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm
> >> >
> >> Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?
> >>
> >>Some controllers use Hall sensors for position sensing and phase
> >>control.
> > Others sense back EMF generated by the motor to do the controlling. If
> > those signals aren't "clean", not so good stuff happens.
> > That is the "simple" explanation.
> > UH
>
> Indeed, two problems: the above and what seems to have been an
> overheating problem with the original controller.
>
> A later post explains that they are switching to a better, heavier duty
> controller, but it is physically bigger and/or needs a different mounting
> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for another and then doing all the integration again.
You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
UH

[kinsell]

On 2/1/20 9:25 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 10:23:42 AM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Feb 2020 05:25:44 -0800, unclhank wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:27:53 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> Dave Nadler wrote on 1/31/2020 12:15 PM:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 9:59:56 AM UTC-5,
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> How hard could it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an update from another skilled practitioner:
>>>>> http://www.streifly.de/news-e.htm
>>>>>
>>>> Any idea what the "electromagnetic disturbances" are disturbing?
>>>>
>>>> Some controllers use Hall sensors for position sensing and phase
>>>> control.
>>> Others sense back EMF generated by the motor to do the controlling. If
>>> those signals aren't "clean", not so good stuff happens.
>>> That is the "simple" explanation.
>>> UH
>>
>> Indeed, two problems: the above and what seems to have been an
>> overheating problem with the original controller.
>>
>> A later post explains that they are switching to a better, heavier duty
>> controller, but it is physically bigger and/or needs a different mounting
>> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
>> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin | martin at
>> Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for another and then doing all the integration again.
> You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
> UH
>

The folks on the Islander conversion project say they're doing
everything with off-the-shelf components. Can't you just run down to
Grainger and pick up something suitable? Heck there may still be one in
an attic in Connecticut you could use.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

kinsell wrote on 2/1/2020 8:43 AM:
> On 2/1/20 9:25 AM, wrote:
...
>>> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
>>> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin*** | martin at
>>> Gregorie* | gregorie dot org
>>
>> I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for another and
>> then doing all the integration again.
>> You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
>> UH
>>
>
> The folks on the Islander conversion project say they're doing everything with
> off-the-shelf components.* Can't you just run down to Grainger and pick up
> something suitable?* Heck there may still be one in an attic in Connecticut you
> could use.

Adding self-launching to a single-seat sailplane (especially the small, light
Libelle!) that was not designed for it is going to be a significant project,
whether you are using electric, jet, or ICE. Changing propulsion systems is likely
easier, which is the case in the Islander.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:59:46 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> kinsell wrote on 2/1/2020 8:43 AM:
> > On 2/1/20 9:25 AM, wrote:
> ...
> >>> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
> >>> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> MartinÂ*Â*Â* | martin at
> >>> GregorieÂ* | gregorie dot org
> >>
> >> I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for another and
> >> then doing all the integration again.
> >> You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
> >> UH
> >>
> >
> > The folks on the Islander conversion project say they're doing everything with
> > off-the-shelf components.Â* Can't you just run down to Grainger and pick up
> > something suitable?Â* Heck there may still be one in an attic in Connecticut you
> > could use.
>
> Adding self-launching to a single-seat sailplane (especially the small, light
> Libelle!) that was not designed for it is going to be a significant project,
> whether you are using electric, jet, or ICE. Changing propulsion systems is likely
> easier, which is the case in the Islander.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

They are all significant projects because of the lack of developed, compatible, proven, and documented components.
A few years from now that will be a much smaller issue.
UH

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Having done some industrial D.C. Drives before.....getting bits is "sorta easy", controlling it (back feed from a windmilling prop) can be another.
Then add in low volumne for our use, whole new rats nest.
Even a "done deal" can be an issue as UncklHank has found on the -24E project. In his case, European time difference, lack of English as a prime language, shipping time back and forth, etc., etc.,.......figure it out.
Electrifying a US sailplane from gas is a project....period.....

[kinsell]

On 2/1/20 10:12 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:59:46 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> kinsell wrote on 2/1/2020 8:43 AM:
>>> On 2/1/20 9:25 AM, wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch to fit
>>>>> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> MartinÂ*Â*Â* | martin at
>>>>> GregorieÂ* | gregorie dot org
>>>>
>>>> I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for another and
>>>> then doing all the integration again.
>>>> You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
>>>> UH
>>>>
>>>
>>> The folks on the Islander conversion project say they're doing everything with
>>> off-the-shelf components.Â* Can't you just run down to Grainger and pick up
>>> something suitable?Â* Heck there may still be one in an attic in Connecticut you
>>> could use.
>>
>> Adding self-launching to a single-seat sailplane (especially the small, light
>> Libelle!) that was not designed for it is going to be a significant project,
>> whether you are using electric, jet, or ICE. Changing propulsion systems is likely
>> easier, which is the case in the Islander.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> They are all significant projects because of the lack of developed, compatible, proven, and documented components.
> A few years from now that will be a much smaller issue.
> UH
>

Yep. Salvation is always just a couple years away. Now we have a
battery-powered 737 killer on the horizon. Undoubtedly using
off-the-shelf components.

http://sustainableskies.org/wright-electric-reveals-big-plans/

Maybe they should get the puddle-jumpers working first before biting off
projects like this.

[Dan Marotta]

I saw a picture the other day of an electric super charger connected to
a diesel generator.Â* It was probably a gag, but who knows?Â* These
electronazis never seem to say just where the electricity comes from.

On 2/4/2020 7:09 AM, kinsell wrote:
> On 2/1/20 10:12 AM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:59:46 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell
>> wrote:
>>> kinsell wrote on 2/1/2020 8:43 AM:
>>>> On 2/1/20 9:25 AM, wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> system, so they have to redesign the system almost from scratch
>>>>>> to fit
>>>>>> everything into the fuselage. Watch this space...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> MartinÂ*Â*Â* | martin at
>>>>>> GregorieÂ* | gregorie dot org
>>>>>
>>>>> I have gone through the same thing, abandoning one controller for
>>>>> another and
>>>>> then doing all the integration again.
>>>>> You can't buy experience, but you DO pay for it.
>>>>> UH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The folks on the Islander conversion project say they're doing
>>>> everything with
>>>> off-the-shelf components.Â* Can't you just run down to Grainger and
>>>> pick up
>>>> something suitable?Â* Heck there may still be one in an attic in
>>>> Connecticut you
>>>> could use.
>>>
>>> Adding self-launching to a single-seat sailplane (especially the
>>> small, light
>>> Libelle!) that was not designed for it is going to be a significant
>>> project,
>>> whether you are using electric, jet, or ICE. Changing propulsion
>>> systems is likely
>>> easier, which is the case in the Islander.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>>> email me)
>>> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>>
>> They are all significant projects because of the lack of developed,
>> compatible, proven, and documented components.
>> A few years from now that will be a much smaller issue.
>> UH
>>
>
> Yep.Â* Salvation is always just a couple years away.Â* Now we have a
> battery-powered 737 killer on the horizon.Â* Undoubtedly using
> off-the-shelf components.
>
> Â*Â* http://sustainableskies.org/wright-electric-reveals-big-plans/
>
> Maybe they should get the puddle-jumpers working first before biting
> off projects like this.
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 9:38 AM:
> I saw a picture the other day of an electric super charger connected to a diesel
> generator.* It was probably a gag, but who knows?* These electronazis never seem
> to say just where the electricity comes from.

That picture might be from Australia, where the roads in the outback are long, the
small towns along them are very isolated, and their electricity comes from diesel
generators. The diesel powered charging stations are very efficient, and electric
cars using them use no more fuel than a comparable gas car or diesel car. Of
course, the initial 100-300 miles of the trip is from the car's battery (charged
from the grid), so the overall trip might use very little diesel.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

But where did the diesel fuel for the charging station come from and how
was it delivered?Â* My point for not being very supportive of electric
vehicles is the lack of acknowledgement of all the fossil fuels that
went into the mining, manufacturing, disposal, electrical generation,
etc., spent on these vehicles.Â* I think they're technologically terrific
but the complete story is never told.Â* Some day, just not today...

A friend sent me a link from Europe stating that charging station prices
would increase by 500% starting this past January 31.Â* Can anyone from
Europe chime in and say if that was real or fake?

On 2/4/2020 11:01 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 9:38 AM:
>> I saw a picture the other day of an electric super charger connected
>> to a diesel generator.Â* It was probably a gag, but who knows?Â* These
>> electronazis never seem to say just where the electricity comes from.
>
> That picture might be from Australia, where the roads in the outback
> are long, the small towns along them are very isolated, and their
> electricity comes from diesel generators. The diesel powered charging
> stations are very efficient, and electric cars using them use no more
> fuel than a comparable gas car or diesel car. Of course, the initial
> 100-300 miles of the trip is from the car's battery (charged from the
> grid), so the overall trip might use very little diesel.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

The diesel fuel is brought by the same trucks that deliver diesel fuel to the
town. My understanding is a town uses a lot more diesel than the charging station.

The "complete story" is told in a number of places, but remember, gasoline powered
cars must also be built. Disposal is similar, except the batteries are very
valuable and are definitely recycled. The emissions from electricity to charge
them is well-quantified, and obviously varies considerably across the country;
generally, even using electricity from the worst coal power plants gives them
emissions no worse than a comparable gasoline car. In some areas, like the Pacific
NW where I live, electric cars produce almost zero emissions, since most of the
electricity is from hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar.

Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 10:20 AM:
> But where did the diesel fuel for the charging station come from and how was it
> delivered?* My point for not being very supportive of electric vehicles is the
> lack of acknowledgement of all the fossil fuels that went into the mining,
> manufacturing, disposal, electrical generation, etc., spent on these vehicles.* I
> think they're technologically terrific but the complete story is never told.* Some
> day, just not today...
>
> A friend sent me a link from Europe stating that charging station prices would
> increase by 500% starting this past January 31.* Can anyone from Europe chime in
> and say if that was real or fake?
>
> On 2/4/2020 11:01 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 9:38 AM:
>>> I saw a picture the other day of an electric super charger connected to a
>>> diesel generator.* It was probably a gag, but who knows?* These electronazis
>>> never seem to say just where the electricity comes from.
>>
>> That picture might be from Australia, where the roads in the outback are long,
>> the small towns along them are very isolated, and their electricity comes from
>> diesel generators. The diesel powered charging stations are very efficient, and
>> electric cars using them use no more fuel than a comparable gas car or diesel
>> car. Of course, the initial 100-300 miles of the trip is from the car's battery
>> (charged from the grid), so the overall trip might use very little diesel.
>>
>


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Dan Marotta]

Good answer!

On 2/4/2020 12:04 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> The diesel fuel is brought by the same trucks that deliver diesel fuel
> to the town. My understanding is a town uses a lot more diesel than
> the charging station.
>
> The "complete story" is told in a number of places, but remember,
> gasoline powered cars must also be built. Disposal is similar, except
> the batteries are very valuable and are definitely recycled. The
> emissions from electricity to charge them is well-quantified, and
> obviously varies considerably across the country; generally, even
> using electricity from the worst coal power plants gives them
> emissions no worse than a comparable gasoline car. In some areas, like
> the Pacific NW where I live, electric cars produce almost zero
> emissions, since most of the electricity is from hydro, nuclear, wind,
> and solar.
>
> Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 10:20 AM:
>> But where did the diesel fuel for the charging station come from and
>> how was it delivered?Â* My point for not being very supportive of
>> electric vehicles is the lack of acknowledgement of all the fossil
>> fuels that went into the mining, manufacturing, disposal, electrical
>> generation, etc., spent on these vehicles.Â* I think they're
>> technologically terrific but the complete story is never told.Â* Some
>> day, just not today...
>>
>> A friend sent me a link from Europe stating that charging station
>> prices would increase by 500% starting this past January 31.Â* Can
>> anyone from Europe chime in and say if that was real or fake?
>>
>> On 2/4/2020 11:01 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> Dan Marotta wrote on 2/4/2020 9:38 AM:
>>>> I saw a picture the other day of an electric super charger
>>>> connected to a diesel generator.Â* It was probably a gag, but who
>>>> knows?Â* These electronazis never seem to say just where the
>>>> electricity comes from.
>>>
>>> That picture might be from Australia, where the roads in the outback
>>> are long, the small towns along them are very isolated, and their
>>> electricity comes from diesel generators. The diesel powered
>>> charging stations are very efficient, and electric cars using them
>>> use no more fuel than a comparable gas car or diesel car. Of course,
>>> the initial 100-300 miles of the trip is from the car's battery
>>> (charged from the grid), so the overall trip might use very little
>>> diesel.
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J