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

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:40:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.

It's been way too long since I took chem to remember the reaction, but
I'd speculate that it would be aluminum oxide.

In other words... "Sapphire"... :-)

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.

Likely combustion equation:

4Al + 3O2 - 2Al2O3

The result on the right is Sapphire.

Or sandpaper unless you got it hot enough and cooled it slow enough.

--
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

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:19:52 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

"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 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



I was looking at one of my sons model aircraft batteries.
a LiPo about the size of a cigarette packet.
the maximim current draw was 54 amps!!!!

some of this technology has the potential to go somewhere if it hasnt
already plateaued (sp)

In the meantime I'll watch, and burn 100/130 avgas.
Stealth Pilot

wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.

Likely combustion equation:

4Al + 3O2 - 2Al2O3

The result on the right is Sapphire.

Or sandpaper unless you got it hot enough and cooled it slow enough.



That can't be good for exhaust valves.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.

Likely combustion equation:

4Al + 3O2 - 2Al2O3

The result on the right is Sapphire.

Or sandpaper unless you got it hot enough and cooled it slow enough.



That can't be good for exhaust valves.

Neither is the 7000 degree flame temperature.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
And what is the waste product for Aluminum burned in air? Really I don't
have a clue.
Likely combustion equation:
4Al + 3O2 - 2Al2O3
The result on the right is Sapphire.
Or sandpaper unless you got it hot enough and cooled it slow enough.



That can't be good for exhaust valves.

Neither is the 7000 degree flame temperature.


I think we can take burning Aluminum off the list of thing that will
power GA aircraft.