The new Electric Cessna 172

On a straight economic matter, we'll be seeing battery improvements first in high demand areas like laptops and cell phones, and then cars. Only when those high volume needs are filled will rational people want to invest money in batteries as the prime energy source is airplanes.

In article ,
a wrote:

On a straight economic matter, we'll be seeing battery improvements first in
high demand areas like laptops and cell phones, and then cars. Only when
those high volume needs are filled will rational people want to invest money
in batteries as the prime energy source is airplanes.

There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
other vehicle.

But for aircraft, batteries are a long way off from being viable (well,
for aircraft bigger than radio controlled ones - all of my RC aircraft
are electric, including helicopters weighing almost 7kg)

On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
stations are becoming a regular sight.

I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
in the marketplace.

In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
like "never" and "preclude".

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
stations are becoming a regular sight.

I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
in the marketplace.

In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
like "never" and "preclude".

All you have to do is run the engineering math. The "200 mile-range
electric car" is one of those "100 mpg economy run" type situations
where all systems are shut down, except the drive train; temperature is
optimum; no stops; -- in short, not applicable to the real world.

Practical range for electrics is on the order of 40-80 miles, with 4-8
hour recharging.

Since you are carrying ALL the energy needed to run, the weight climbs
out of sight (15:1 air:fuel ratio + storage medium).

In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

No offense intended Orval, but...

In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
match the reality around you. ;-)


Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.

Vaughn

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2012-12-31, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

Well, not for cars - there are already all-electric cars with a 200 mile
range. With it being entirely normal for most households to have two or
more cars, it's entirely practical that one be electric in most instances,
since anything that demands cross-country driving can be done in the
other vehicle.

That is 200 miles on the highway with the windows up and no air conditioning.

This makes them an expensive niche vehicle as is evindenced by their lack
of sales.


But for aircraft, batteries are a long way off from being viable (well,
for aircraft bigger than radio controlled ones - all of my RC aircraft
are electric, including helicopters weighing almost 7kg)

Absent some earth shaking new physics, batteries will never be viable
for a general purpose aircraft; motor gliders maybe, but something
equivelant to a C-172, nope.

Vaughn wrote:
On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Yeah, they are on the market by government mandate but not selling.

Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
stations are becoming a regular sight.

I live in California.

Charging stations are few and far between in the majority of areas.

Some cities thought they would be "green leaders" and installed charging
stations. Most of those stations are essentially unused.

Electric cars, other than hybrids, are a rare sight.

I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
in the marketplace.

In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
like "never" and "preclude".

Or someone that understands electrochemistry and physics.

Vaughn wrote:
On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

No offense intended Orval, but...

In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
match the reality around you. ;-)


Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.

Vaughn

The sales numbers for hybrids are decent, but pure electric cars are not
selling.

There is a BIG difference between a hybrid and a pure electric car.

As for "emerging technology", the lithium battery was invented in 1912.

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

On 12/31/2012 10:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.

No offense intended Orval, but...

In short, you seem to be having difficulty in adjusting your opinions to
match the reality around you. ;-)


Electric vehicles are here, and on the roads. There's nothing you or I
can do to change that reality. They don't fit my needs, and likely not
yours, but the needs of many commuters match the capabilities of a
100-mile range vehicle...or even a sub-100 mile range vehicle. It's
still an emerging market and an emerging technology, but the vehicles
seem to be selling as quick as they come off the assembly lines.

Vaughn

No offense, but they are just a fad and are highly subsidized by our tax
money. As soon as operational reality sets in, they will disappear --
just as they did 100 + years ago. Their inherent weakness is energy
storage density.

Now, if someone comes along with something like the fictional "zero
point module" or "dilithium crystals," then it is a whole different
story.