Big Buzz For $60,000 Electric Flight Prize 78
gilgsn writes "Electric Light Sport Aircraft are sprouting up all over. Now that the Experimental Aircraft Association is offering a 60,000 prize for the best ones, manufacturers are gearing up for the competition to be held the last week in July, at AirVenture 2011 in Oshkosh, 'The World's Greatest Aviation Celebration.' Airplanes will be tested for endurance, speed and time-to-climb. Pilots, charge up your batteries.."
Fo? (Score:4, Informative)
Fo sho?
Or perhaps the editor meant "for".
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't any commercial avgas or Jet-A fueling stations at 30kft, either.
The only fueling stations at 30kft are by the military, and they could probably create an in-air charging system, too.
Whoosh!! (Score:1)
The sound you just heard was an electric plane, carrying the joke, flying right over your head (at 30,000 feet).
Re: (Score:2)
The sound the rest of us heard was Anonymous Freak's point, which you've managed to miss in spectacular fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes a minute to pump 1000 gallons of kerosene at 30,000 feet.
Takes 6 hours to pump that many joules of excess electrons.
Chemical fuels will be used for performance aircraft for as long as they can be found or synthesized.
Re: (Score:1)
Takes 6 hours to pump that many joules of excess electrons.
That's not the main issue: You could even leave the battery recharging, pick another one and fly, like we do with electric model aeroplanes.
The real problem is power to weight ratio, which is critical on aeroplanes and which, on electrical systems, is orders of magnitude lower than a equivalent combustion system due to the low energy density of batteries compared to fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about what your Light Sport Aircraft at 30,000 feet, you'll find the fueling station infrastructure at lower altitudes is quite fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about what your Light Sport Aircraft at 30,000 feet.
No kidding. By definition [sportpilot.org] they are not pressurized. Which makes breathing a bit of an issue for starters.
Re: (Score:3)
There are aircraft supplemental oxygen systems - either cannulas or masks, so breathing at altitude isn't an issue.
No, the big issue is that LSA aircraft is they're not IFR equipped, and above FL180, it's IFR-only.
Re: (Score:1)
No kidding?
I thought the entire point of this thread was kidding.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what all of the current attempts at electric aircraft are - powered sailplanes with ultra-light batteries and an electric motor instead of the small gas engine common on powered sailplanes.
(Well, that and the ultra-ultra-light solar jobs...)
Re:what means "electric flight"? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.yuneec.com/index.html [yuneec.com]
http://www.electraflyer.com/ [electraflyer.com]
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/research/e-flight.html [sonexaircraft.com]
None of these have the same glide ratio as a motor glider, and are the beginnings of an emerging electric light sport aircraft industry. A long way to go, but with the rising prices and limited availability of Avgas in many regions of the world, many changes are needed within the General Aviation community to ensure a sustainable future.
Is electric flight the way forward? Maybe, maybe not in the short term. With options like Rotax engines already commonly available for many types and "diesel" (JetA1) engine options also growing for many legacy airframes, as well as new models, there is hope and a number of different routes GA could end up going down.
Re: (Score:2)
Is electric flight the way forward?
Why not? All the Armed Forces UAVs use electric motors I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted a subject like that... (Score:2)
BONG BONG son! sitty stacks fo lectric planes kid.
Fo' Sho' Brotha! (Score:2, Informative)
The best design will have: (Score:3, Interesting)
Switched reluctance motors and Toshiba SCiB batteries.
As of today, there is no way to do it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor [wikipedia.org]
http://www.toshiba.com/ind/product_display.jsp?id1=821 [toshiba.com]
Just sayin'
Umm.. heres a lunacy thought (Score:2)
how about-- how much of the battery is depleted on takeoff?
could you power takeoff through induction instead of on-board batteries, then switch to the batteries for level flight?
just unroll a mother of a long coil down the side of the takeoff path...
hmmm???
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Switched reluctance motors have from double to 7 times the torque per pound of weight as rare earth magnet brush less dc motors. Also your typical Li-ion (Lithium cobalt) batteries can not come close to the peak power output, or regenerative charge rate as the Toshiba SCiB batteries.
I'd say this was a case of talking through your ass.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
I found this more informative on the reluctance motor http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_13/4.html [allaboutcircuits.com]. Of course you would still want to incorporate solar panels on the top surfaces of the wings just to get that bit of extra free energy into the system, especially if done properly as the wing surface so no additional weight. Add to that an inflatable aircraft http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/06/weekend-wings-20-inflatable-aircraft.html [blogspot.com] (using hydrogen or helium) and away you go.
Is it just me or...? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What the fuck is this thread? It can hardly be called a Troll or Flamebait, esp. the GP, and there's no affiliate site that appears to be benefitting from it, so it's not spam. Can someone please explain the parent post and it's grandparent post?
Re: (Score:2)
Spam filter testing? I have never been able to figure it out either, I even get some in my inbox.
Not very practical (Score:1)
The problem is, it takes a lot of energy to power an aircraft. While a car engine runs at only a very small percentage of its rated power most of time, aircraft engines run at 60% or 70% of full power all the time. We need to store a lot more energy per unit time than we do for a car, and more energy per unit energy source weight. So far, petroleum products store more en
Re: (Score:3)
It comes down to efficiency, and energy management.
The limit in the energy capacity for current battery technology (vs weight) simply means we need to push for far more efficient airframes.
Nobody is suggesting smacking an electric engine on the front of a Cessna 150 is going to work well, because the energy to push a brick through the air is just to much.
Composite materials, highly streamlined, slippery as hell, fancy stuff like reflex flaps, long thin glider inspired wings... an extremely efficient aircraf
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a contest to improve conversion of electric energy to a viable aircraft bio-fuel would be a more worthy effort than this.
Re: (Score:3)
Burt Rutan has this if he wants it.
There's not much time until the competition so something new is out of the question, but I think there a suitable starting point for several of the records in the Model 76 Voyager [wikipedia.org]. It could carry 3 tons of batteries and needs about 100 hp. How long would 6,000 lb of lithium batteries last running a 100 hp motor?
Another choice would be the GlobalFlyer [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Take the lower limit to account for inefficiencies, packaging,...
Re: (Score:2)
Practical for the Right Application (Score:1)
Burt Rutan had comments about this at last year's EAA Convention.
He recommended that the next step be an electric plane with a special purpose design for doing aerobatics in air shows.
A standard act is only about 15 minutes, which is within the current practical power design restrictions.
Burt stated that propeller drives didn't need to be only put on the front or back of the plane inline with the forward motion. Smaller propellers with motors could be put on the wing tips and/or tail to create unique aeroba
Game the contest. (Score:2)
Install an APU, an Inverter and an electric motor. Win every event. You'd have to in order to pay for the APU.
I'm sure they thought of that, the sight is /.ed so I can't tell for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
From the official rules:
Re: (Score:1)
Except that a hybrid design makes a lot less sense in an airplane than in a car, where you can recover braking energy etc. In a plane, the point would be moot. Even a setup like the Chevy Volt wouldn't have much potential, since airplane engines typically run in their most effective range anyway.
Oh, wait, you were just talking about gaming the contest, not doing anything actually useful... Well, i guess the rules are always open to interpretation by the judges, especially as "electric propulsion system" ca
Re: (Score:2)
A Light Sport Aircraft is limited in the amount of horsepower it can produce, the max speed in level flight and the range. It doesn't say anything about takeoff performance.
Use a small, lightweight, relatively weak Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) with an electric motor/generator
Re: (Score:2)
This whole contest doesn't do anything 'actually useful' so WTF is your point?
My point was and remains that chemical fuel, engine, generator combinations are still the most energy dense sources of electric power.
Build an airplane on the Diesel locomotive model and you would win this contest if you can rule-lawyer your way in.
I know it's clarified it in the title, but... (Score:3, Funny)
The prize is 60,000? Really? That's not hard, here's a 60,000 just for asking, and i can offer a lot more than that. How about 600,000? Or 6,000,000? Really i can sit here and hold the "0" key down all day, so you can have as big of an integer as you want. (Though at a certain point i might have to switch to scientific notation.)
Re: (Score:2)
The prize guarantees a modest (or, really, minimal) return on investment, and adds an element of competition to the overall goal. The X prize and lunar X-prizes are no different. Those prizes don't come remotely close to allowing a company to recoup what was invested to (or eventually, in the case of the Lunar X-prize) reach the goal. However, winning the prize ensures a little bit more publicity and some bragging rights for the folks who win.
Look at it this way: The Lombardi trophy (the trophy teams are aw
Re: (Score:1)
GP's point is 60,000 != 60,000 USD; the exchange rate between USD and NULL is undefined...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My daughter won "Best of show" at the local fair for her gorgeous photography. She competed against tens of thousands of participants, almost none of whom spent less on the picture frame than the $10 won in prize money.
As a private pilot familiar with experimental aviation, I can say that the money is not the point. EA types will spend 2 years tweaking a plane to fly 10 knots faster with the same fuel burn rate and payload, or provides a 50 pound payload improvement, etc.
It's mostly about establishing wheth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Same thing that happens when the fuel tanks run dry? The prop stops spinning, and the pilot makes a non-powered landing on a nearby flat surface (preferably an airport).
Nuclear Powered (Score:1)
The future of aviation is nuclear. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Big year for aviation tech competitions (Score:4, Informative)
Besides this EAA Electric Airplane [eaa.org] prize, there's 3 more that I know of:
- The biggest purse is the CAFE foundation Green Flight Challenge [cafefoundation.org] $1.6M Presented at Airventure [airventure.org] in Oshkosh this July
- The Lindberg Electric Aircraft prize [lindberghprize.org] is an annual prize that started last year at Oshkosh
- The Berblinger prize [aero-expo.com] 3 weeks from now in Germany
Not just for cool RC model airplanes any more. E-flight is on the rise - the first killer app will be UAV's and motorgliders.
great..... (Score:1)
Now we'll have more airplanes "landing" on US 41 and other random farm fields during that week.
I think we allready have a winner: Taurus (Score:1)