![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
....And now for a slight thread-hijack:
OK, so no one here is arguing against the end-product: An electrically-powered propeller or ducted fan. Can I stop for a minute and say "WTF?" to the recent article about how jet engines are the future of self-launch? (I think this was in SOARING magazine, IIRC) Jets are wonderful devices for specific missions (especially sustained thrust at higher speeds, where props become less efficient). But in a glider, at low speed and for short periods of time? The article talks about how the jets are improving and becoming more and more suited to use in a sailplane... But: 1) You still have to carry a dangerous, liquid, flammable fuel. Oh, and that fuel can turn to vapor that might incapacitate the pilot if breathed, and the fuel can EAT your aircraft's core materials in some cases, if it seeps into the structure - yipes! 2) Despite being reliable and simple compared to an internal- combustion engine, jet engines still have as much or more complexity than a simple electric motor. The heat and stress on bearings and other parts has got to be higher than an electric motor, right? 3) Jets put out a LOT more HEAT than an electric motor. Can anyone tell me how resins that cure at ambient-temperature levels are supposed to hold up well when a jet engine retracts inside the fuselage while its still hot? I've heard that they can cool down efficiently in as little as 30 - 45 seconds; but what about operator error? What about the distance / altitude lost during that wait period? I know the drag of a turbine is less than a big ol' prop; but still... 4) With a jet, you already need electrical equipment, for the starters and igniters and such. Why add a whole second fuel/energy-delivery system (i.e. Jet-A) when you can stick with a single source and a single output? OK, OK, I'll quit ranting... :-P --Noel |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Weight and size. (you did ask)
noel.wade wrote: ...And now for a slight thread-hijack: OK, so no one here is arguing against the end-product: An electrically-powered propeller or ducted fan. Can I stop for a minute and say "WTF?" to the recent article about how jet engines are the future of self-launch? (I think this was in SOARING magazine, IIRC) Jets are wonderful devices for specific missions (especially sustained thrust at higher speeds, where props become less efficient). But in a glider, at low speed and for short periods of time? The article talks about how the jets are improving and becoming more and more suited to use in a sailplane... But: 1) You still have to carry a dangerous, liquid, flammable fuel. Oh, and that fuel can turn to vapor that might incapacitate the pilot if breathed, and the fuel can EAT your aircraft's core materials in some cases, if it seeps into the structure - yipes! 2) Despite being reliable and simple compared to an internal- combustion engine, jet engines still have as much or more complexity than a simple electric motor. The heat and stress on bearings and other parts has got to be higher than an electric motor, right? 3) Jets put out a LOT more HEAT than an electric motor. Can anyone tell me how resins that cure at ambient-temperature levels are supposed to hold up well when a jet engine retracts inside the fuselage while its still hot? I've heard that they can cool down efficiently in as little as 30 - 45 seconds; but what about operator error? What about the distance / altitude lost during that wait period? I know the drag of a turbine is less than a big ol' prop; but still... 4) With a jet, you already need electrical equipment, for the starters and igniters and such. Why add a whole second fuel/energy-delivery system (i.e. Jet-A) when you can stick with a single source and a single output? OK, OK, I'll quit ranting... :-P --Noel |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 10, 10:52 pm, Bruce wrote:
Weight and size. (you did ask) I did. :-) Weight: Hopefully Cui's battery improvements (or some similar change) will alleviate the need to carry many pounds of batteries. Size: Have you seen how small a powerful brushless electric motor is these days? The prop has a large dimension in one direction; but at least it can lie parallel to the mast and not take up much total volume. I'm surprised there hasn't been more work on a ducted fan solution - maybe the blades would just have to be too short to be efficient, and still fit inside the aft fuselage... *shrug* Take care, --Noel |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Noel
This has exercised my little brain for some time. The brushless DC motor is a perfect motive unit. Small, relatively light, simple and reliable, and its performance is perfect for the job. It produces almost flat torque, and will swing an efficient propeller with the same torque at the high density altitudes I fly at. The batteries are getting smaal enough that it could be done - Existing improvements like the A123 Lithium batteries are not only safe but have much better energy densities. However - the batteries size comes with shape constraints as well, whereas you can put that smelly dino stuff into just about any shape you want. And the other part is also a problem, the propeller demands a large hole in the structural strength determining skin of the boom. So you need to add lots of heavy strengthening as well as doors etc. If I ever work out how to do it and stay under the "non-lifting" limits my Std Cirrus will be an experimental self launcher... Bruce noel.wade wrote: On Apr 10, 10:52 pm, Bruce wrote: Weight and size. (you did ask) I did. :-) Weight: Hopefully Cui's battery improvements (or some similar change) will alleviate the need to carry many pounds of batteries. Size: Have you seen how small a powerful brushless electric motor is these days? The prop has a large dimension in one direction; but at least it can lie parallel to the mast and not take up much total volume. I'm surprised there hasn't been more work on a ducted fan solution - maybe the blades would just have to be too short to be efficient, and still fit inside the aft fuselage... *shrug* Take care, --Noel |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 8, 10:01 pm, sisu1a wrote:
Here is a link to an article about the first manned fuel cell flight. It has been in the works for some time, and wonderful to see it coming to fruition:http://www.gizmag.com/first-manned-f...e-flight/9117/ For those who don't know, Boeing converted a Dimona motorglider to have an electric motor, and on board proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells (integrated with L-ions) that generate enough juice to power the aircraft during powered level flight. Neat stuff! Paul Now if they could only get the 787 into the air. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...nG=Search+News |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
World's First Fuel Cell Powered Aircraft Flies | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | April 7th 08 04:25 PM |
Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 28 | August 3rd 07 07:51 PM |
Boeing prepares fuel cell Motorglider | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | March 29th 07 06:40 PM |
uh oh, Plane flies over Bush motorcade | Mutts | Piloting | 38 | July 29th 03 04:20 AM |
Boeing to fly fuel-cell GA plane... | DeltaDeltaDelta | Piloting | 6 | July 15th 03 07:25 PM |