View Single Post
  #68  
Old March 6th 21, 04:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Herbert kilian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 10:28:29 PM UTC-6, kinsell wrote:
On 3/5/21 10:16 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/5/2021 8:29 AM:
On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 8:22:34 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 3/3/2021 6:11 PM:

...

ICO glider engines have been developed over the last 70 years or
so. And, then, many of them have come from the 2-cycle engine
applications such as snowmobiles and ultralights. The electric
glider market is much more immature..

That immaturity means they have a lot of promise, compared to the
ICE gliders. We know in 5
years the performance of the electrics will increase significantly;
the fossil fueled ones -
not nearly so much. Even at the current immature stage, they are so
desirable, all the major
manufacturers, and some of the second tier, offer at least two
electric models in mast or FES
varieties.

I suggest that in maybe 5, but certainly in 10 years, the
discussions will no longer be about
gas vs electric, but which electric to buy.
--
yhttps://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1


Wishful thinking duly noted. The development, deployment and
long-term flight experience of aircraft takes time. Ten years is a
good estimate for a single model such as the Antares. Its first
flight was in 2003, so development must have started about 20 years
ago. I think that in 5 to 10 years we will be thinking "Boy, those
electric gliders looked promising at the time, but if we knew then
what we know now I would never have bought one." Successful product
development just can't be rushed.

It's not wishful thinking when there are four companies selling
electric glider power systems:
Lange, Solo, Pipistrel, and LZ Design (FES). The glider manufacturers
do not have to design
their own system, like Antares had to. That speeds development (even
eliminates it in some
cases), reduces their cost, and increases reliability.

While the glider market is very small, the main component - batteries
- is under intense
development by major corporations around the world. We will benefit
from this investment,
without investing a dime in it.

As for glider pilots feeling sorry for their current electric choices
in 5 or 10 years, well,
I'm going to suggest many glider pilots will be feeling sorry for
their current gas engine
choices ;^)
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1


Predicting the future is ALWAYS wishful thinking. If you could
actually do it reliably you would be a billionaire. Having four
companies doing it doesn't mean the development is 4 times as fast,
you just get 4 possible failures instead of one.

There are already some pieces of "common wisdom" that have been
debunked. One is that electric is inherently more reliable than ICE.
The fire incidents are of greatest concern. Dave's issues with his
Antares are also troubling - systems that are dependent on complex
software can have failure modes that are only found by extensive
testing. I know of another Antares owner who had to fly a technician
over from Germany to fix the problems with his glider. And the small
numbers of electric gliders means that buyers will ultimately do most
of the testing themselves. Long term support of these complex systems
is yet another question.

I apologize to all readers for the repetition: The Antares was a
pioneering effort, and you can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his
back. Schleicher, Schempp-Hirth, Jonkers, and others, are not following
the Antares path. They are not pioneers, but cautious "settlers" that
follow after the pioneers have showed them where to go.

There are far more FES gliders flying than Antares, and very
successfully. The problems that occur are solved by LZ Design, not the
glider manufacturers. The eglider segment of gliding has reached the
"specialization" stage, and to talk about Dave's Antares problems is to
miss the future because you are focusing on a pioneering glider designed
and built almost two decades ago.

The future, which is now, includes mast-mounted options from several
manufacturers. The "old" manufacturers got old by not being too bold:
they are cautious, risk-adverse companies that see a burgeoning
opportunity they have to join. There will not be fleets of egliders from
these companies 5 or 10 years from now, sitting on the ground, unused.

I've seen this happen before, with the ASH26E (my current glider), which
was quite bold in 1994: the first retracting self-launching sailplane
from Schleicher, using a Wankel engine, and - horrors - only a 18m
wingspan when there was no 18M class! There were problems, especially in
the first 5 years, but they made it work, didn't they? You've owned one!
And they (and the other manufacturers) will make the egliders work, and
work well.

Don't think anybody is going to predict the future five years out.
Maybe there will be some big breakthrough in batteries, maybe not.

FES gliders have been out almost 10 years now, what is clear is their
history. Underpowered back then, underpowered still today. Makes you
wonder where these huge improvements in capacity are hiding. Some are
being sold as self launchers, even when flown as sustainers they're
still landing out.

CNN proclaimed back in 2017 that lilium was just around the corner.
Four years later, they have one burned up prototype, another one that
hasn't flown, and now they're saying they didn't really intend to
certify that design anyway. Huge shock for Herb, but not everything you
hear on CNN is true.

The electric beaver folks have been awful quiet after demonstrating a
single three minute flight. They claimed they were going to be in
commercial operation in 2022. Uh-huh. Not sure why you'd certify a
passenger plane that has no room left for passengers. Made for lots of
phony press releases though.

The Alice in Wonderland folks burned up their prototype last year, now
they're back with a radically different airframe design, and claiming
first flight will be in 2021. You betcha. Maybe they burned that proto
because the knew it never was going to fly? They did have a fire engine
standing by.

The electric Caravan folks fried their inverter during their big demo
flight, put the turbine back on it and are trying to sell it.

Maybe electrics will make huge progress, wouldn't that be great? But
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Nor am I excited about the
current offerings.

Dave, I'm honored to yet a mention from you! You wouldn't believe how little CNN I watch but who cares? Regarding batteries, I have flown RC with most of the available chemistries for the last 20 years and the improvements are mostly in motors, controllers and max discharge amperages as well as slightly more battery cycles vs. earlier times. Still, you are lucky to get 50-100 cycles out of the now listed 50-80C LiPo batteries we fly in RC. Nothing on the horizon that even promises a doubling of capacity. Give me a self-launcher that replaces the tow plane (2k-3k launch) and lets me replace the low cost but fire-safe batteries easily. I'd be interested.

Herb, J7