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 » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$1 billion BMS Ooops...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old March 11th 21, 04:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kinsell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On 3/6/21 1:13 PM, Kenn Sebesta wrote:

The genius of all this is that as battery tech improves the existing plane just gets better and better. When you're looking at your replacement pack 5-10 years down the road you'll automatically benefit from all the improvements and your new pack will either be cheaper, or it'll fly longer, or it'll be lighter. Maybe all three. Certainly never saw 100LL get cheaper, better, and lighter!


Well, ten years ago the FES folks came out with with their Gen 1
batteries featuring 2.1 kWhr of capacity. Now we're up to Gen 2,
featuring a walloping 2.1 kWhr. See how much improvement there's been?
They did manage to take the metal filings out of the packs, so yeah I
guess they did get a little lighter.

Wonder if Nadler has ripped the batteries out of his 15 year old wings
and put in super cells to make an Antares Turbo? I'm guessing not.

So do people buying a self launcher only want to do a 1K' launch? The
guy in Connecticut thought he'd dip into the "excess capacity" somebody
was talking about, and squeak back to the airport at rooftop level.
Unfortunately he found himself below rooftop level in no time flat.
  #112  
Old March 11th 21, 06:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matthew Scutter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:49:45 PM UTC+10, kinsell wrote:
On 3/6/21 1:13 PM, Kenn Sebesta wrote:

The genius of all this is that as battery tech improves the existing plane just gets better and better. When you're looking at your replacement pack 5-10 years down the road you'll automatically benefit from all the improvements and your new pack will either be cheaper, or it'll fly longer, or it'll be lighter. Maybe all three. Certainly never saw 100LL get cheaper, better, and lighter!


Well, ten years ago the FES folks came out with with their Gen 1
batteries featuring 2.1 kWhr of capacity. Now we're up to Gen 2,
featuring a walloping 2.1 kWhr. See how much improvement there's been?
They did manage to take the metal filings out of the packs, so yeah I
guess they did get a little lighter.

Wonder if Nadler has ripped the batteries out of his 15 year old wings
and put in super cells to make an Antares Turbo? I'm guessing not.

So do people buying a self launcher only want to do a 1K' launch? The
guy in Connecticut thought he'd dip into the "excess capacity" somebody
was talking about, and squeak back to the airport at rooftop level.
Unfortunately he found himself below rooftop level in no time flat.


They're onto GEN3 now:
The GEN3 53Ah / 5.5kWh packs have 32% more energy in a package 13% larger.
The GEN3 70Ah / 7.7kWh packs have 85% more energy in a package 25% larger.
  #113  
Old March 11th 21, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
waremark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 377
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Thursday, 11 March 2021 at 01:33:34 UTC, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 10:42:32 AM UTC+10, waremark wrote:
Someone said:

"Electric self-launchers seem particularly
well-suited to partnerships, with their easier use of the motor."

The contrary may be the case for electric gliders with removable batteries. At our airfield the electricity supply will not be adequate for the potential recharging requirements of more electric gliders. At the moment the only FES gliders at the club are individually owned, and the owners take the batteries home to charge them. The batteries of a syndicate owned glider would have to be charged on site - which will become a problem.

On a completely different point, I have been flying an ICE self-launcher for 14 years. I like to take off with sufficient fuel on board for a relight and a self-retrieve. I have rarely needed it, but if I didn't I would need to make road retrieve arrangements before cross country flights. I won't change to an electric glider until it has that sort of endurance - which is unlikely in my gliding lifetime.

Incidentally, twice in the 14 years I have landed in a field (safely, I am happy to say). The first time I initiated the start sequence at 1,000 foot on downwind, and the engine failed to start. The second time, I was on a marginal final glide, I took a clear decision to continue below a safe engine start height in the knowledge that there were safe fields on the way to the airfield, and when the final glide became too marginal I landed in a field without considering deploying the engine. Happily, I have never had to start the engine other than over a safe place to land.

Is your airfield off-grid? How constrained is the capacity of your club's electricity connection that you wouldn't be able to handle charging gliders there? The FES chargers are 1200W, the Antares is similar. They seem to only charge at full current briefly and then start dropping down rapidly as the batteries approach full charge. Even with a single phase connection you should be fine for 12 gliders at max current simultaneously. I even charge my FES batteries off an inverter in my van (which has 2x135Ah Lithiums + 300W solar + 1000W inverter).


On grid - but of course we have a lot of draw for other purposes before people start charging gliders.
  #114  
Old March 12th 21, 02:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

waremark wrote on 3/10/2021 4:42 PM:
On a completely different point, I have been flying an ICE self-launcher for 14 years. I like to take off with sufficient fuel on board for a relight and a self-retrieve.


How long a self-retrieve distance is the minimum acceptable to you?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #115  
Old March 12th 21, 04:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

Matthew Scutter wrote on 3/10/2021 9:19 PM:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:49:45 PM UTC+10, kinsell wrote:
On 3/6/21 1:13 PM, Kenn Sebesta wrote:

The genius of all this is that as battery tech improves the existing plane just gets better and better. When you're looking at your replacement pack 5-10 years down the road you'll automatically benefit from all the improvements and your new pack will either be cheaper, or it'll fly longer, or it'll be lighter. Maybe all three. Certainly never saw 100LL get cheaper, better, and lighter!


Well, ten years ago the FES folks came out with with their Gen 1
batteries featuring 2.1 kWhr of capacity. Now we're up to Gen 2,
featuring a walloping 2.1 kWhr. See how much improvement there's been?
They did manage to take the metal filings out of the packs, so yeah I
guess they did get a little lighter.

Wonder if Nadler has ripped the batteries out of his 15 year old wings
and put in super cells to make an Antares Turbo? I'm guessing not.

So do people buying a self launcher only want to do a 1K' launch? The
guy in Connecticut thought he'd dip into the "excess capacity" somebody
was talking about, and squeak back to the airport at rooftop level.
Unfortunately he found himself below rooftop level in no time flat.


They're onto GEN3 now:
The GEN3 53Ah / 5.5kWh packs have 32% more energy in a package 13% larger.
The GEN3 70Ah / 7.7kWh packs have 85% more energy in a package 25% larger.

Our current situation reminds me of 25 years ago, when I got my ASH26E. Pilots with or wanting
self launchers were reminded that "real glider pilots" did not need motors to go soaring, and
it was essentially cheating to use one for records or contests. Now, motorgliders (at least gas
powered ones) are accepted and desired by those that don't have one. Nonetheless, the prejudice
and bias have not disappeared, but have shifted the focus to electric motorgliders and their
pilots. Those pilots are reminded that "real glider pilots" want the power and range that only
a gas powered glider can deliver, and will soon regret their foolishness if they stick with or
choose electric gliders.

I don't think it will take 15+ more years for electric gliders to be accepted and desired like
gas powered gliders are now. With FES and mast-mounted electrics available from all the major
manufacturers, I think this year is the "tipping point", and sales of electrics will "soon"
increase faster than the gas powered sales; unfortunately, I don't know of any good way to
track sales.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #116  
Old March 12th 21, 07:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...



One of the things that attracts me about FES is precisely the relatively shorter range, so you still depend largely on your soaring skills to make it back, while still able to self launch and only occasionally relight just enough to get that last 1000 feet climb when the day died a little too early....

Ramy





On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 7:33:55 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Matthew Scutter wrote on 3/10/2021 9:19 PM:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:49:45 PM UTC+10, kinsell wrote:
On 3/6/21 1:13 PM, Kenn Sebesta wrote:

The genius of all this is that as battery tech improves the existing plane just gets better and better. When you're looking at your replacement pack 5-10 years down the road you'll automatically benefit from all the improvements and your new pack will either be cheaper, or it'll fly longer, or it'll be lighter. Maybe all three. Certainly never saw 100LL get cheaper, better, and lighter!


Well, ten years ago the FES folks came out with with their Gen 1
batteries featuring 2.1 kWhr of capacity. Now we're up to Gen 2,
featuring a walloping 2.1 kWhr. See how much improvement there's been?
They did manage to take the metal filings out of the packs, so yeah I
guess they did get a little lighter.

Wonder if Nadler has ripped the batteries out of his 15 year old wings
and put in super cells to make an Antares Turbo? I'm guessing not.

So do people buying a self launcher only want to do a 1K' launch? The
guy in Connecticut thought he'd dip into the "excess capacity" somebody
was talking about, and squeak back to the airport at rooftop level.
Unfortunately he found himself below rooftop level in no time flat.


They're onto GEN3 now:
The GEN3 53Ah / 5.5kWh packs have 32% more energy in a package 13% larger.
The GEN3 70Ah / 7.7kWh packs have 85% more energy in a package 25% larger.

Our current situation reminds me of 25 years ago, when I got my ASH26E. Pilots with or wanting
self launchers were reminded that "real glider pilots" did not need motors to go soaring, and
it was essentially cheating to use one for records or contests. Now, motorgliders (at least gas
powered ones) are accepted and desired by those that don't have one. Nonetheless, the prejudice
and bias have not disappeared, but have shifted the focus to electric motorgliders and their
pilots. Those pilots are reminded that "real glider pilots" want the power and range that only
a gas powered glider can deliver, and will soon regret their foolishness if they stick with or
choose electric gliders.

I don't think it will take 15+ more years for electric gliders to be accepted and desired like
gas powered gliders are now. With FES and mast-mounted electrics available from all the major
manufacturers, I think this year is the "tipping point", and sales of electrics will "soon"
increase faster than the gas powered sales; unfortunately, I don't know of any good way to
track sales.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

  #117  
Old March 12th 21, 09:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Friday, 12 March 2021 at 04:33:55 UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I don't think it will take 15+ more years for electric gliders to be accepted and desired like
gas powered gliders are now. With FES and mast-mounted electrics available from all the major
manufacturers, I think this year is the "tipping point", and sales of electrics will "soon"
increase faster than the gas powered sales; unfortunately, I don't know of any good way to
track sales.


Just one datapoint, Jonker in their latest newsletter reported the following about their electrical JS3 RES:
"The first 5 JS3 RES gliders are currently in production with another 30 planned for 2021."
If they plan to produce 35 electrical JS3s in 2021, I assume that will be most of their production of JS3s. They produced their 100th JS3 last year, 4 years after it was introduced, so up until then average production was around 25 per year.

Of course, they don't have any combustion engine self launch version of the JS3 to compare with, though the heavily delayed JS2 is about to enter production. Don't know any order numbers for that one.
  #118  
Old March 12th 21, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

Hows a self launch starting at 6,200' MSL up to 18,000' MSL followed by
a distance of 350 nautical miles? That's what I'll be doing in June to
relocate the Stemme from Moriarty, NM to Rifle, CO. And it might use
half a tank of gas.

Of course, I'll only do it that way if soaring conditions don't support
gliding the whole way.

Dan
5J

On 3/11/21 6:18 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:


How long a self-retrieve distance is the minimum acceptable to you?

  #119  
Old March 13th 21, 04:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

Dan Marotta wrote on 3/12/2021 10:30 AM:
Hows a self launch starting at 6,200' MSL up to 18,000' MSL followed by a distance of 350
nautical miles?* That's what I'll be doing in June to relocate the Stemme from Moriarty, NM to
Rifle, CO.* And it might use half a tank of gas.

Of course, I'll only do it that way if soaring conditions don't support gliding the whole way.

Dan
5J

On 3/11/21 6:18 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:


How long a self-retrieve distance is the minimum acceptable to you?

Ok, you are not a current candidate for an electric motorglider (I knew that already :^) )

But, I'm still interested in Waremark's far smaller requirements. So far, the majority of the
pilots I've talked to that are considering moving to an electric self-launcher think 100 sm is
enough retrieve distance, and some think 50 miles is plenty. These are the people that are
willing to drive from where they live to where they want to fly. I'm one of those people,
because my wife and I like to travel in a motorhome with her sewing projects and sewing machine
in it.

  #120  
Old March 13th 21, 08:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default $1 billion BMS Ooops...

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote on 3/12/2021 10:30 AM:
Hows a self launch starting at 6,200' MSL up to 18,000' MSL followed by a distance of 350
nautical miles? That's what I'll be doing in June to relocate the Stemme from Moriarty, NM to
Rifle, CO. And it might use half a tank of gas.

Of course, I'll only do it that way if soaring conditions don't support gliding the whole way.

Dan
5J

On 3/11/21 6:18 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:


How long a self-retrieve distance is the minimum acceptable to you?

Ok, you are not a current candidate for an electric motorglider (I knew that already :^) )

But, I'm still interested in Waremark's far smaller requirements. So far, the majority of the
pilots I've talked to that are considering moving to an electric self-launcher think 100 sm is
enough retrieve distance, and some think 50 miles is plenty. These are the people that are
willing to drive from where they live to where they want to fly. I'm one of those people,
because my wife and I like to travel in a motorhome with her sewing projects and sewing machine
in it.


Those must be flat-landers that don't have to clear even taller hills, let alone mountains. Your self-retrieve "distance" vanishes the moment you have to climb to clear an obstacle. Also, the electric self-launchers like the GP15 don't specify the retrieve distance when launching at MTOW. Think of it as getting you to a safe out-landing field which is how one pilot did at Ely last summer (and he took tows).

Tom
 




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
The Navy Obfuscates On Shock Testing The $13 Billion USS Ford - The 13 Billion Dollar 'Berthing Barge' USS Gerald R. Ford, sitting in a shipyard.jpg ... Miloch Aviation Photos 1 October 25th 19 02:36 AM
Wow! Ooops, take #3 Dave Nadler Soaring 21 April 4th 15 09:26 PM
Ooops... Zomby Woof[_3_] Aviation Photos 0 April 21st 09 04:36 AM
ooopS! my Bdadd Bertie the Bunyip[_2_] Piloting 4 March 29th 07 10:40 PM
Ooops - Correction Bill Denton Piloting 0 August 9th 04 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.