Smallest Manned Electric Plane Flies 131
garymortimer writes "EADs have successfully flown an electrified Cri-Cri aircraft. The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine . At only 4.9 m (16.1 ft) wingspan and 3.9 m (12.8 ft) length, it is a single-seater, making an impression of a dwarf velomobile with wings at close range. After its manned flight trials the airframe will be configured for autonomous flight. Obviously once the pilot is removed payload increases dramatically and the airframe itself has been approved for manned flight so certifying it for UAV flight should be simpler."
QOTD (Score:4, Funny)
At first glance I thought they were going to complete the conjunction by saying "and the plane cannot fly." But Cpt. Obvious reminded me that UAV is the new aviation buzzword (trend?).
Re: (Score:2)
Brain usage would help.
We live in the year 2010. Ever heard of a remote control?
UAV= unmanned aerial vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its like those amateur railways where the drivers sit on (or barely in) scale model trains.
Re: (Score:2)
2 != 4 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the image more carefully you can see four props (two pairs of contra-rotating three-blade props).
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the image more carefully you can see four props (two pairs of contra-rotating three-blade props).
Observational skills severely lacking. No wonder outsourcing is so prevalent!
Re: (Score:2)
Inline counter-rotating... hmm, propably not too efficient.
Re:2 != 4 and Motors != Engines (Score:2)
four brushless electric motors
Tim S.
Reminds me of a Peel P50 (Score:2, Funny)
Next thing you know, someone will be dragging this into a parking space at work, raving about the ecological benefits, and simultaneously getting denied both life and medical insurance!
Well yea... (Score:1)
If it didn't fly you couldn't really call it a plane now could you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not a successful one.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Does it scrape off small bits of wood to make a smooth and level surface? Does it incline to allow one to move a weight to a higher level with less energy? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like 4 motors in this picture. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link to the same story with a picture taken from the side, much more revealing. Four motors total grouped in two pairs.
http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/cri-cri-the-all-electric-aircraft-gets-airborne [aviationbusiness.com.au]
Copy and paste summary (Score:5, Informative)
The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine .
At first I thought the writer of the summary had simply messed up when editing and repeated the same thing twice. But when you check wikipedia, it has the same mistake, even down to the space in front of the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colomban_Cri-cri&oldid=383417426 [wikipedia.org]
At least when you copy and paste verbatim from wikipedia, read the sentence and see if it makes sense.
Cri-cri short for Cricket? (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone has an odd idea of 'short'.
Video on Youtube found of Electric Cri-Cri (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a video of this Cri-cri.
Angle of attack seems high, and the landing looked a little rough.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else but an Anonymous Coward could bravely offense an entire nation with that tired, old, lame joke ? ;-)
30 minutes of flight! (Score:3, Funny)
"The combined utilisation of these environment-friendly technical innovations enables the Cri-Cri to deliver novel performance values: 30 minutes of autonomous cruise flight at 110 km/h, 15 minutes of autonomous aerobatics at speeds reaching up to 250 km/h, and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec."
30 minutes of flight as a UAV! Sounds like those little rc helicopters from walmart
Re: (Score:2)
30 minutes? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll have to go read up on my copy of FAR/AIM, but a 30 minute cruise... for anything other than a developer-owned experimental, I'm not 100% sure that would even be legal for sale, even as a kit. It would certainly never make IFR, as that has a next-airport-plus 45-minute reserve hard requirement (FAR 91.167) regardless of commercial-vs-experimental status. Yes, I know, it's a development vehicle, not intended for sale. A little ways to go.
Climb is 1000 feet per minute. That would be under full power, which aerobatics would also almost certainly be under. So assuming you want a good 5000 feet of "oops" between you and a dirt-nap, that's 5 minutes burned in climb, leaving 10 minutes of playtime (they mention 15 minutes of "aerobatics power"), assuming you're fine with a glide home. Any retired Komet pilots or BD5-J jockeys out there want to give this one a shot? :) That being said, I'd have no hesitation to fly an all-electric as long as it has been demonstrated to have a good 5000-hour MTBF and 4 hours plus IFR reserve in real-world at-altitude conditions.
It's an interesting development on a path to all-electric or hybrid manned flight, certainly a milestone to be proud of, but I'll stick with a 172 until my RV10 is finished...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This electric power plant would be great on a motor glider.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends how it's used. A paraglider doesn't have the capability to stay airborn to nearest airport + 45 minutes.
Some tiny planes have stall-speeds so low they can land on any random flat patch of ground, and with a speed low enough that even if you where to crash at landing-speed, you'd have excellent chances of walking away unharmed.
If you're 5 meters wide (including wings) and can land at 45mph, there's -plenty- of landing-spots around, in most areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know, it's a development vehicle, not intended for sale.
So the point of your rant is..... what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
As I see more and more focus on aircraft fuel efficiency, I keep wondering if somewhere down the road we will see catapults for regular airports to cut down on the amount of (portable) energy expended on takeoff. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean super-high-performance catapults like you see on an aircraft for extreme-short-runway takeoff. What I mean would be a system that provides similar acceleration to what the aircraft experiences now, but with most of the force coming from an external source so the a
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Your reply gets angrier with each sentence. You need to cut down on the coffee before bed.
Brochures? Um, no. You have no basis to come to that conclusion. Empennage, tailcone and wings done, fuselage section queued up. I'm not whining and pining. I'm mashing rivets. What are you doing?
MTBF is not the same as MTBO. MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures, and is a reliability calculation. MTBO is Maximum Time Between Overhaul, and is a maintenance interval and a regulatory requirement. I think you have t
But on the other hand... a good use: (Score:5, Interesting)
...motorized self-launching glider. That's an application for which 30-ish minutes of power would be just fine, and an electric motor plus NiCad pack of batteries may well beat out a gas motor plus fuel on weight. Additionally, there would likely be greater reliability for a high-altitude restart. Make it sexy like a Stemme S10 and you're in business!
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go. [lange-aviation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Cri-Cri (Score:1)
An Accomplishment? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Short for Cricket? (Score:3, Funny)
How is Cri-Cri short for Cricket? They're both two syllables and both 7 characters long ...
Apparently the engineer, Michel Colomban, no longer sells the plans for this craft. Probably because he's involved in a defense contract through EADS.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's actually not, Cricket was the name the Canadians gave it when they sold the kits for the plane, Cri-Cri was the designer's daughter's nickname!
Not the smallest (Score:5, Informative)
How is this? (Score:2)
How is cri-cri, which is the same number of characters and syllables but harder to say, short for "cricket?" This makes no sense.
Reminded me of the BD-5 (Score:2)
Richard Bach in a BD-5 [bd5.com]
The BD-5 and other Jim Bede creations [bd5.com]
I believe the BD-5 made an appearance in a James Bond film.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the BD-5 made an appearance in a James Bond film.
Yes it did in Octopussy.
Re: (Score:2)
There has also been a jet powered Cri-Cri, powered by two turbines as used by RC modellers. (The cheapest twinjet time on the planet).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BD-5 will also probably kill you (especially the 5J which is a total death trap).
The Cri Cri is a bit more benign.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Faster = Longer range? (Score:2)
If you go by the article the range of the aircraft at 110km/h is 55 kms but at 250km the range is 62.5km. How can an aircraft go faster, with the increasing drag proportional to the square of the speed, go farther? Would it not take more energy to overcome the drag and therefore decrease the range?
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: "15 minutes of autonomous aerobatics at speeds reaching up to 250 km/h"
Note the 'up to' part, which I assume would be max speed in a powered dive, much slower climbing back up. :-)
And 62.5km range in a powered dive puts you somewhere south of Moho, at which point you'll be having bigger concerns
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to what the sibling post said, maximum range and maximum duration aloft generally are not the same flight profile in traditional aircraft, with a maximum duration resulting in significantly less (10-20%, iirc) than the maximum range. It's been a long time since my undergrad aero classes, but that odd fact stayed with me.
Conversion for a meaningful number (Score:2)
and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec.
Which is roughly 1040 feet per minute for climb performance. For a lightly loaded single engine ICE, on a moderately warm day and low altitude, that's not that bad. For a twin, that's fairly anemic given that these numbers represent an almost ideal test. Of course, its climb performance may have as much to do with wing design (low lift and good cruise) than available power. But then again, 110kph is roughly 60 knph, which is slow. In comparison, a new Cessna 172 will cruise at 115 knph and have roughly the
future batteries will not ??? (Score:2)
In the near future batteries will not able to propel larger aircraft.
What does that mean? Tim S.
Multiple electric motors (Score:2)
What I find most interesting about this craft is that it is powered by four small electric motors.
There are a lot of interesting designs of future electric or hybrid aircraft powered by a large number of small electric motors. They are just as efficient as one large electric motor, but can be distributed in fashion that aids aerodynamics and reduces propeller noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since it was presented at Le Bourget, it's a fair bet to say the electricity to recharge the batteries was provided by some nuclear powerplant.
Also, the electric version has four engines; making Cri-Cri the smallest 4-engined aircraft now, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen four engined aero models.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware even midgets are light enough to fly those.
Seriously., those models a bit out of context, don't you think? (especially considering that, when using smallest electric motors, sub-0.5m wingspan is doable)
Re: (Score:2)
An engine (or motor) is a machine designed to convert energy into useful mechanical motion.
I'd say an electric motor qualifies as an engine.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Christ.
"Engine" has the same root as "ingenious," and is attested in the English "engine," "gin," (like cotton gin) "ginny," and "jenny" (like "spinning jenny").
If it transduces force (force of a working fluid under heat/pressure or any other force) into motion, it's an engine. It's a positively ancient concept and the use of the term (and its cognates) predates the industrial revolution.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
'ingenious' maybe we shouldn't call an ICE an engine then, seeing that it wastes 75% of the energy provided to it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it has to work as described by unforgiving thermodynamic cycles and within limitations of real world (limits of materials, changing operating conditions, avoidance of excessive emissions & noise, a need to fit into specific budget), it's not too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
electric engines : >90%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which totally ignores electricity generation, transmission and storage.
Re: (Score:2)
generating electricity (even with gasoline!) and transmitting the electricity, putting it in the battery, taking it out of the battery, and converting it to motion: is MORE efficient than burning the gasoline in an ICE ...
google it: Piles of links to support that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
my point? ICE's are (even after 100+ f&cking years!) awfully inefficient. 25% ? you've got to be kidding me ... ICE's have no claim to be ingenious.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's nowhere near 90%, so don't throw that number around. And ignores that ICE-equipped (lately also ICE / will resolve a problem of constantly changing operating conditions for example) are improving, too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a FULL 10 second search on google ... :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle [wikipedia.org]
'electric motors often achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency[31] over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely controlled.'
Re: (Score:2)
And again, you're reverting to talking only about the motor part, sheesh...
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, well, the 25% quoted is also only for the oil in the tank, not for pumping it up, transporting it and refining it. (which would bring the 25% close to 10% ...)
Re: (Score:2)
...while so conveniently forgetting about ICE hitting 50% when the condition become right, high energy density of liquid hydrocarbons (that's why we use them in the first place), or additional inefficiences of various kind introduced by, say, large battery (also its manufacturing)
Look, I can't wait for electric vehicle when my current one reaches end of its useful life in 5+ years (when those using also electric engine should become quite mature / at least first one probably with small diesel ICE optimised
Re: (Score:2)
ICE hitting 50% when the condition become right
NEVER in a car.
Sure, electric vehicles are currently limited by batteries(best is currently 300miles or so with the tesla), but NOT by their engine. The best solution would probably be cars with permanent links to the grid (like trains) but I don't see that happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course in a car...
Latest car diesels are around 45% RIGHT NOW, already significantly more than your "only 25%!", with solid prospects of hitting 55% quite soon. Down the line, new materials / ceramics should allow for more, diesels are limited only by their strenght & operating temperature when trying to bring them nearer to their thermodynamic maximum. They tend to last longer, too.
Materials for high efficiency & decently light batteries won't become easier & more efficient to get with risin
Re: (Score:2)
http://jagadees.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/ic-engine-efficiency/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look, a Wordpress blog. Try this:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/may04/crc0304c.pdf [epa.gov]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1694562/Environmental-Protection-Agency-eberhardt [scribd.com]
Drop the worshipping finally; it will only bring trouble down the line / your deamons had similar faithfull at the beginning who pushed them too much.
Re: (Score:2)
1/Tracks and buses are hardly cars, diesel/petrol vehicles are more fuel efficient the bigger they get. And even for those heavy vehicles engine effiency not fuel to wheel efficiency(think about transmission losses, brake losses, idling ...) is not even 50%(how can you consider that a good number ???).
2/it seems you are the one worshipping diesels, I am not worshipping electric cars nor diesel/petrol cars. I am only saying diesel/petrol cars are horribly inefficient.
Re: (Score:2)
This applies also to latest car turbodiesels, dig a bit more. How convenient for you to omit engine to wheel/etc. losses with electric, again...
Within real world / physics / practical advantages of ICE - 50% is quite good.
Saying something almost "just because it's so" again and again, while grossly overstating its "poor" state & choosing (?) to forget some gotchas with electric does hint at something...
I, if anything, worship real world; where diesels are one of the most important parts of the puzzle to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Engine != (though includes obviously) heat engine.
Re: (Score:2)
If the source of pollution is removed from sight does it make it "clean and green"?
Is there some unique property of coal-generated electricity that a solar panel or nuclear generator couldn't replicate?
... nuclear generator couldn't replicate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the safety of its waste.
The waste from coal burning isn't particularly safe, whether we are talking the solid parts or the gas. We have a bit more experience in handling large quantities of it, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't see the ecological value of a vehicle that isn't picky about where it's energy comes from?
Re: (Score:2)
The sole reason this story is notable is the power source, which happens to be electric.
OP may be incorrect, since it's likely that nuclear power was used to charge the batteries in question, but this story is about electric power.
Questioning the efficiency, practicality or environmental consequences of electric power is not offtopic, even if makes some people uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't quite tell from the summary.
4. I can tell from TFA:
The all electric Cri-Cri, jointly developed by EADS Innovation Works, Aero Composites Saintonge and the Green Cri-Cri Association has made its official maiden flight at Le Bourget airport near Paris on Thursday. This Cri-Cri is the first-ever four-engined all-electric aerobatic plane. The event has been supported by the French Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace.
The plane became airborne at 11:12 CET. Take-off and climb were smooth, no vibrations could be felt and manoeuvrability was excellent. All systems performed well and the plane returned safely after 7 minutes.
“This aircraft flies very smoothly, much more quietly than a plane with conventional propulsion”, said Didier Esteyne, who piloted the all-electric Cri-Cri. “But we are still at the beginning and have a lot to learn. We are allowed to start aerobatic manoeuvres only after five hours of flight and 15 landings.”
“The Cri-Cri is a low-cost test bed for system integration of electrical technologies in support of projects like our hybrid propulsion concept for helicopters,” stated Jean Botti, EADS’s Chief Technical Officer. “We hope to get a lot of useful information out of this project.” In the near future batteries will not able to propel larger aircraft.
The aerobatic plane incorporates numerous innovative technologies such as lightweight composite structures that reduce the weight of the airframe and compensate for the additional weight of the batteries, four brushless electric motors with counter-rotating propellers which deliver propulsion without CO2 emissions and significantly lower noise compared to thermal propulsion, and high energy-density Lithium batteries.
The combined utilisation of these environment-friendly technical innovations enables the Cri-Cri to deliver novel performance values: 30 minutes of autonomous cruise flight at 110 km/h, 15 minutes of autonomous aerobatics at speeds reaching up to 250 km/h, and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec.
With research projects on algae based biofuel, a helicopter hybrid propulsion system combining electrical power with piston engines and the all electric Cri-Cri, EADS is exploring technologies for environmentally friendly air travel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
It also moves very slowly. Unlike airline crashes, most passengers walk away from private plane crashes. The stories with fatal endings get more coverage and skew the news reports.
Re: (Score:2)
But with airline crashes most passengers also walk away. In fact, airliners are between on and two orders of magnitude less fatal (per time of flying) than general aviation.
Re: (Score:2)
[...](single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.).
The rear engine / rear propeller is simply referred to as a 'pusher prop' configuration. Often pusher prop light planes are configured with a canard wing [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it in the categories of simple, small, homebuilt aircraft (which it is)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to imagine it being simple and cheap if EADS are involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Being so small means that they could put a parachute on that. Of course, you'd have to do stuff like not blow up or catch fire midflight or play chicken with a mountain and you'd have to have some way of activating it, possibly via automatic means.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Ballistic Recovery System. A fine idea, but heavy. For a Cessna 172 (2700 pounds max weight), it's 79 pounds, which is 13 gallons of fuel, or about 180 miles farther you can fly. The smaller version for 500-ish pound ultralights is 18 pounds. I'm not certain that's the best possible way to spend the weight. Of course, if I really want one, I can go to the gym and get at least part of that weight back. :)
See http://www.brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx [brsparachutes.com] for details on what is certainly a fascinating
Re: (Score:2)
For a Cessna 172...
Excellent point. I was surprised by the specs for a new 172 with a payload rating of 450 to 725 pounds depending on the range you need. If you actually try to fill all 4 seats or carry luggage there is not much spare capacity for anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually try to fill all 4 seats or carry luggage there is not much spare capacity for anything else.
You can fill the tanks, or you can fill the seats (with adults).
You can't do both at the same time, and stay under the gross weight limit.
[I used to own a 172, although without the ballistic recovery system]
Re: (Score:2)
Scary is watching someone take off fully loaded (fuel, people, luggage) and barely make it off the ground before terrain.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Unless the mountain blinks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More information [flight.cz]
As has been pointed out by others, most small aircraft (especially the aluminium ones) are just the pilot wrapped in tin foil. They are ALL designed to be light - not crashable.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)