How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C

On Jun 22, 9:20 am, Scott wrote:
Richard Riley wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for
2 hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a
lot brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd
agree it is about 7.5 HP.

Scott

True, KWH is a measure of energy, whereas HP (and KW) is a measure of
power. Of course, this makes me wonder why the OP said the battery has
a "power output" of 5.6KWH; that statement doesn't make any sense.
Granted, he was obviously talking about the capacity of the battery,
not the power output, but if somebody is making an electric plane one
would hope they would know their terminology

Scott wrote:
Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.


1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for
2 hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a
lot brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd
agree it is about 7.5 HP.

Scott



The OP stated the motor was 18 H.P. "This year Fishman hopes to fly his
new ElectraFlyer-C (a re-engined Moni motorglider with an 18-horsepower
electric motor)..."

"Scott" wrote in message
...
Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.


1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

Wait a second...5.6 KWH doesn't really tell you how much HP it is, does
it? All it says is that it consumes 5.6KW in an hour. If you only ran
the motor for 5 minutes per hours, the HP would be 12 times that or
approx. 90 HP. Using KW HOURS doesn't tell the whole story. Running a
100W light bulb 10 hours uses 1 KWH and so does running a 500W bulb for 2
hours but the 500W bulb does more work at any instant in time (it's a lot
brighter!). Now, if that motor was rated at 5.6KW, then yes, I'd agree it
is about 7.5 HP.

Scott

You have a good point, but the KW Hours rating of the battery does seem a
bit low. Even when you consider that cooling drag nearly absent, what
little I think I know about the base airframe suggests that the battery
rating needs to be at least twice the stated amount in order to provide the
stated performance and endurance. The usual power of ten error in
transcription does not make much sense in this case, but there are
apparently two batteries of equal sive--and everything that I could find
appeared to originate from a single article.

In any case, it is interesting; but the economics really do not work based
upon the stated maximum10 year and 1000 hour battery battery life. Even if
the electricity was free and gasolene was more than twice its current cost,
the gasolene powered airplane, on which it is bsed, would still give much
greated utility for less cost. Nontheless, my hat's off to him for the
effort.

Peter

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines. And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better. We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.
I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.

In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:
On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines.

And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.

And when...

And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better.

Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.

We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.

What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
the Nautilus was launched in 1954?

What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
for about a half century, an extension cord?

Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
century?

Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
small house?

I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.

In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
later.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.


The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines.


And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.

And when...


And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better.


Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.


We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.


What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
the Nautilus was launched in 1954?

What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
for about a half century, an extension cord?

Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
century?

Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
small house?


I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.


In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
later.


I think his point was that the "standard" lead acid battery has been
around in its basic form and pretty much unchanged for many years. If
that is, in fact, what he means, I agree. Newer technologies have
really only appeared in the last 20-30 years, ie NiCd, NiMh, Lithium
Ion, etc. If we had been working to make "better" batteries as we have
with planes, trains and automobiles, we'd have some pretty sweet
electric power now...just my opinion.

Scott

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.


The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines.


And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.

And when...


And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better.


Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.


We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.


What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
the Nautilus was launched in 1954?

What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
for about a half century, an extension cord?

Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
century?

Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
small house?


I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.


In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
later.


I think his point was that the "standard" lead acid battery has been
around in its basic form and pretty much unchanged for many years. If
that is, in fact, what he means, I agree. Newer technologies have really
only appeared in the last 20-30 years, ie NiCd, NiMh, Lithium Ion, etc.
If we had been working to make "better" batteries as we have with planes,
trains and automobiles, we'd have some pretty sweet electric power
now...just my opinion.

Scott

We are talking about Lithium batteries, which power the Electra Flyer, and
they are included in the price list at
http://www.electraflyer.com/prices.html

The capacity and endurance numbers still look wrong to me--unless the
demonstration aircraft is using two of the largest battery packs. But the
point is that these technologies will remain immature for the remaining
lifetimes of most members of this group.

Also, in case anyone has not been watching, gasolene engines have continued
to mature and now weigh less than the did just twenty years ago.

Peter

In rec.aviation.piloting Scott wrote:
wrote:


I think his point was that the "standard" lead acid battery has been
around in its basic form and pretty much unchanged for many years. If
that is, in fact, what he means, I agree. Newer technologies have
really only appeared in the last 20-30 years, ie NiCd, NiMh, Lithium
Ion, etc. If we had been working to make "better" batteries as we have
with planes, trains and automobiles, we'd have some pretty sweet
electric power now...just my opinion.

Lead acid batteries have changed a lot since they were invented.

Other types of batteries have been around for way more than 30 years.

The nickel-cadmium battery was invented in 1899 the Nike-Ajax missle
had them in the 1950's.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 24, 6:59 am, Scott wrote:
wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Andrew Sarangan wrote:

On Jun 21, 11:42 pm, Richard Riley wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:37 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel

The motor is powered by a 78 pound, custom-built lithium-ion polymer
battery with a power output of "5.6 kilowatt hours"; projected life is
300 to 500 full discharge cycles or more than 1,000 partial cycles.
The battery can be recharged in as little as two hours using a
220-volt charger (or six hours with a 110-volt charger). The cost for
a full recharge is 70 cents with the 110-volt charger. Fishman says
it's feasible to carry a small 110-volt charger as baggage on
cross-country flights.

1 horsepower = .75kw. So 5.6 kilowatt hours is only 7.51 horsepower
hours. Good enough for a short burst to get you to altitude and soar
the thermals, bu you aren't going anywhere cross country.

Compare it to a really inefficient 2 stroke, burning .6 lb/hp-hr.
Your battery is equal to .75 gallons of gas.

The technology is immature, but this is on the right track. When a
suitable battery is invented, there is no arguing that it will easily
replace small gasoline engines.

And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

And when anti-gravity is invented, it will replace airplanes.

And when...

And battery development is just
getting started, so things can only get better.

Batteries have been under development for well over a hundred years.

We have not invested
in batteries other than for portable electronics.

What do you think powered ALL the world's submerged submarines before
the Nautilus was launched in 1954?

What do you think powers the stuff in torpedoes and missiles and has
for about a half century, an extension cord?

Have you any idea what has powered telephone offices for over a
century?

Do you know what a UPS is and have you ever seen one the size of a
small house?

I am sure many in 1903 argued that a horse drawn carriage could go
much farther and safer than the Wright flyer.

In 1903 both the airplane and the car were new; it is now 105 years
later.

I think his point was that the "standard" lead acid battery has been
around in its basic form and pretty much unchanged for many years. If
that is, in fact, what he means, I agree. Newer technologies have
really only appeared in the last 20-30 years, ie NiCd, NiMh, Lithium
Ion, etc. If we had been working to make "better" batteries as we have
with planes, trains and automobiles, we'd have some pretty sweet
electric power now...just my opinion.

Scott

You can add fuel cells to that list too, as a recent development. But
I am sure one could claim that fuel cells are in the Smithsonian
museum as a century-old technology.

My opinion is that the current oil prices is not a crisis, but a
necessary condition to refocus our technology. No one took electric
powered automobiles seriously when oil was less than $60.

Any transformative technology is not going to happen in a couple of
years. I think 2050 is still very optimistic for fusion power, but
that is still worth investing in. We can't always be thinking of
ourselves and screw the rest after we die. We owe it to our
children.

On Jun 23, 11:05 pm, wrote:


And when fustion reactors are invented they will replace coal and
fission plants.

You mean fusion? Take a look at ITER: International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor. It is far from reality, but it is not science
fiction either.

You can think what you want, but investment in batteries and fuel
cells have seen a huge growth in the last few years. If batteries have
been intensely developed for over a century and is very mature, all
these investors and their expectations must be pretty foolish.