The new Electric Cessna 172

Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

wrote:
Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
can recharge.

On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
wrote:
Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
can recharge.



And lack of range

george152 wrote:
On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
wrote:
Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
can recharge.



And lack of range

The claimed endurance is 2 hours, which would be enough for most training,
which is usually about an hours worth, but is marginal at best for cross
country flights with a reserve.

And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.

In article ,
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 22/12/12 16:11, wrote:
wrote:
Ideal for flight schools. The amazing
brushless electric ring motors which
I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.
static thrust.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk

--
Mark

Nope, not for flight schools as basic physics limits how quickly you
can recharge.



And lack of range

The claimed endurance is 2 hours, which would be enough for most training,
which is usually about an hours worth, but is marginal at best for cross
country flights with a reserve.

And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.

Andy Hawkins wrote:

And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.

In places with significant hail, its best to keep *any* plane hangared. I
remember seeing statics years ago stating that the largest category for
insurance payouts for aircraft not in motion was hail damage.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

On 12/22/2012 6:20 PM, wrote:
And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.
If you keep the plane in a hanger, there is really little point to
having solar panels at all because the panels would rarely see
significant sunlight. (They won't do you much good for the relatively
brief periods the plane is actually flying. Their unreliable and
relatively meager output is unlikely to measurably increase range.)

Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.

Vaughn wrote:
On 12/22/2012 6:20 PM, wrote:
And you had better keep this thing hangered in places with any significant
hail with those solar panels on top of the wings.
If you keep the plane in a hanger, there is really little point to
having solar panels at all because the panels would rarely see
significant sunlight. (They won't do you much good for the relatively
brief periods the plane is actually flying. Their unreliable and
relatively meager output is unlikely to measurably increase range.)

If you look at the wing area of a 172 and calculate how much power you
can get, you find they aren't much good for charging the battery either
unless you go days between flights.

Also, solar panels aren't terribly vulnerable to hail. Otherwise, there
would be little point in mounting them on rooftops.

Rooftop solar panels are mounted at the latitude of the location to
receive maximum power, so a hailstone will hit at an angle of about 30
to 45 degrees from most of the US and tend to glance off.

The solar panels on a wing are going to be horizontal and will take a
direct hit from a hailstone.

There are many places in the US where it is not unusual for hailstones
to dent the tops of cars.

There was a contest recently where one had to demonstrate more than 200 passenger miles per gallon equivalent, and an engineering team from Penn State won it with a battery powered airplane.

See

http://live.psu.edu/story/55543

for details.




On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:02:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Ideal for flight schools. The amazing

brushless electric ring motors which

I mentioned before, produce 600 lbs.

static thrust.



http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-pl...na-172-skyhawk



--

Mark

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:10:37 AM UTC-5, a wrote:
There was a contest recently where one had to demonstrate more than 200 passenger miles per gallon equivalent, and an engineering team from Penn State won it with a battery powered airplane.



See



http://live.psu.edu/story/55543



for details.


http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/sup...-electric.html

--
Mark