A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The new Electric Cessna 172



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 12, 03:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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
Ads
  #2  
Old December 22nd 12, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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.



  #3  
Old December 22nd 12, 08:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george152
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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
  #4  
Old December 23rd 12, 12:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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.


  #5  
Old December 29th 12, 10:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andy Hawkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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.


  #7  
Old December 30th 12, 07:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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.



  #8  
Old December 30th 12, 08:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Frank Stutzman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

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

  #9  
Old December 31st 12, 12:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

On 12/30/2012 1:16 PM, wrote:
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.


Agree. However, if someone wants to own a $200,000 plane and just wants
to fly it for an hour or so once a week it might work. Are there any
folks like that? Yes! But few of them would admit that to themselves
before buying a plane. It's a behavior they drift into later.

I can tell you that most of the non-FBO planes at my local airport
seldom fly. Even some of the FBO leasbacks sit unused for days at a time.


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.


I have watched my share of hail, and seldom does it fall at a 90 degree
angle, so I doubt your theory. My home's panels are mounted at a less
than optimum angle because I am quite worried about hurricane winds and
not worried at all about hail, even though hail happens here.

Today's solar panels aren't glass and aren't terribly fragile. A
rooftop isn't a terribly friendly environment, yet panels last for
decades. I would judge that most PV panels are less prone to hail damage
than a typical aluminum wing skin, certainly no more.

Still, we agree that solar panels on a wing make little sense. They
would be costly, they would add little to the usefulness of the plane,
and they would add weight and complexity.

Also, nobody has remarked on those little wind turbines. Yes, I know
that they are an attempt to recover energy from the wingtip vortex, but
those things will add weight and drag. It would make far more sense to
reduce the vortex with winglets or a better wing design.

Further, adding blades to a prop is unlikely to improve its efficiency.

When you add the questionable solar panels, the questionable prop, and
the questionable wind turbines, I find myself thinking "vaporware".

Vaughn

  #10  
Old December 31st 12, 01:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default The new Electric Cessna 172

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

On 12/30/2012 1:16 PM, wrote:
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.


Agree. However, if someone wants to own a $200,000 plane and just wants
to fly it for an hour or so once a week it might work. Are there any
folks like that? Yes! But few of them would admit that to themselves
before buying a plane. It's a behavior they drift into later.

I can tell you that most of the non-FBO planes at my local airport
seldom fly. Even some of the FBO leasbacks sit unused for days at a time.


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.


I have watched my share of hail, and seldom does it fall at a 90 degree
angle, so I doubt your theory. My home's panels are mounted at a less
than optimum angle because I am quite worried about hurricane winds and
not worried at all about hail, even though hail happens here.

Today's solar panels aren't glass and aren't terribly fragile. A
rooftop isn't a terribly friendly environment, yet panels last for
decades. I would judge that most PV panels are less prone to hail damage
than a typical aluminum wing skin, certainly no more.

Still, we agree that solar panels on a wing make little sense. They
would be costly, they would add little to the usefulness of the plane,
and they would add weight and complexity.

Also, nobody has remarked on those little wind turbines. Yes, I know
that they are an attempt to recover energy from the wingtip vortex, but
those things will add weight and drag. It would make far more sense to
reduce the vortex with winglets or a better wing design.

Further, adding blades to a prop is unlikely to improve its efficiency.

When you add the questionable solar panels, the questionable prop, and
the questionable wind turbines, I find myself thinking "vaporware".

Vaughn


.... and balonium technology!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric jets where are You? nrepeb General Aviation 5 March 13th 11 09:56 PM
FS: Electric tow Bug Dout General Aviation 0 October 16th 10 06:27 PM
6CH Electric RC Helicopter for $169 GTY Rotorcraft 0 October 27th 05 08:59 PM
Electric RC Helicopter for $83 NYPT Man Home Built 0 October 24th 05 06:47 PM
Electric DG Robbie S. Owning 0 March 19th 05 04:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.