Electric Airplane Wins NASA Prize
Discussion
Absolutely.
NASA's aviation heritage is every bit as strong as their space heritage. Do people not realise where the famous NACA duct was first devised or where all those NACA aerofoil wing sections originated?
NASA and its predecessor, the NACA, have almost 100 years or aeronautical research under their belt.
NASA's aviation heritage is every bit as strong as their space heritage. Do people not realise where the famous NACA duct was first devised or where all those NACA aerofoil wing sections originated?
NASA and its predecessor, the NACA, have almost 100 years or aeronautical research under their belt.
Well either we shall all be flying across the Atlantic in electric airliners by 2020, or it's a sop to the green movement. And unless the electricity comes from sun or wind, you still have to burn carbons to make it.
An amusing diversion, that's all. But hang on, what's this? 'The Pipistrel airplane used a bit more than a half-gallon of gas for each passenger.'
Special electric petrol no doubt.
Plus, it gets better:
'Among the 14 airplanes competing, only three met the requirements for the competition... All told, the competing teams invested more than $4 million in their airplanes.' Nuff said. Rubbish.
An amusing diversion, that's all. But hang on, what's this? 'The Pipistrel airplane used a bit more than a half-gallon of gas for each passenger.'
Special electric petrol no doubt.
Plus, it gets better:
'Among the 14 airplanes competing, only three met the requirements for the competition... All told, the competing teams invested more than $4 million in their airplanes.' Nuff said. Rubbish.
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 5th October 08:42
Simpo Two said:
Well either we shall all be flying across the Atlantic in electric airliners by 2020, or it's a sop to the green movement. And unless the electricity comes from sun or wind, you still have to burn carbons to make it.
You don't "burn carbon" plonker! At least with electricity we have a choice of production methods, most of them less poluting than IC, no one is saying we'll have electric airliners but the competition has probably led to work on lightweight electric motors, airframes, batteries etc which benefit us all.Simpo Two said:
An amusing diversion, that's all. But hang on, what's this? 'The Pipistrel airplane used a bit more than a half-gallon of gas for each passenger.'
Good thing you read the article.... it says the equivelent of 1/2 a gallon's worth of petrol in electrical energy was used.Simpo Two said:
'Among the 14 airplanes competing, only three met the requirements for the competition... All told, the competing teams invested more than $4 million in their airplanes.' Nuff said. Rubbish.
14 brand new, revolutionary, economical aircraft for only $4million is a total bargain.Competitions and research lead to (eventually) better products for us, or should we all crawl back into caves and carry clubs again?
Bl**dy trolls.
There's no doubt this is excellent stuff, and I don't agree with Simpo's implied argument that it's a waste of time.
However....
"You don't "burn carbon" plonker!"
- No, I think Simpo Two is right in fact.
A large chunk, if not the main part of the combustion going on in IC engines, gas turbines etc is oxidation of carbon atoms. I'm sure the chemistry is v complex than that, but ultimately a lot of the heat energy developed will be from oxidation of carbon, and all the energy produced in such engines will be from oxidation of atoms of one sort or another...
"no one is saying we'll have electric airliners"
- there is serious talk of electric airlines aongst aeroengine makers. As I understand it the aeroengine manufacturers are considering, or already are, putting some serious effort into it.
The idea would be to have a gas turbine, as we have currently, but that it would power an electric motor turning (naked ?) props, instead of being directly connected to a fan.
Personally I cannot see how this is more efficient than a direct mechanical linkage.....
"Good thing you read the article.... it says the equivelent of 1/2 a gallon's worth of petrol in electrical energy was used."
- to be fair it says "...to fly 200 miles in two hours or less on less than a gallon of fuel (or the equivalent in electricity)" and...
"The Pipistrel airplane used a bit more than a half-gallon of gas for each passenger."
- which implies ths plane did burn oil based fuel.
Simpo Two said -
"'Among the 14 airplanes competing, only three met the requirements for the competition... All told, the competing teams invested more than $4 million in their airplanes.' Nuff said. Rubbish.."
- $4M is in fact a truly bargain price to do this sort of thing. I can only see this costing that little if they've scaveneged existing airframes, which some of them appear to have done.
Can you imagine BAe, Airbus, Boeing etc doing anything for just $4M ?
Personally I cannot see how it is possible that it is more efficient to produce some electrical energy somewhere (from PV or wind ?), transport this over some distance, store it in a battery, some time later release it and drive a prop, than it is to burn oil based fuel in an engine. Every step in the former process is loss loss loss... no ?
Anyone give me a clue as to why ?
However....
"You don't "burn carbon" plonker!"
- No, I think Simpo Two is right in fact.
A large chunk, if not the main part of the combustion going on in IC engines, gas turbines etc is oxidation of carbon atoms. I'm sure the chemistry is v complex than that, but ultimately a lot of the heat energy developed will be from oxidation of carbon, and all the energy produced in such engines will be from oxidation of atoms of one sort or another...
"no one is saying we'll have electric airliners"
- there is serious talk of electric airlines aongst aeroengine makers. As I understand it the aeroengine manufacturers are considering, or already are, putting some serious effort into it.
The idea would be to have a gas turbine, as we have currently, but that it would power an electric motor turning (naked ?) props, instead of being directly connected to a fan.
Personally I cannot see how this is more efficient than a direct mechanical linkage.....
"Good thing you read the article.... it says the equivelent of 1/2 a gallon's worth of petrol in electrical energy was used."
- to be fair it says "...to fly 200 miles in two hours or less on less than a gallon of fuel (or the equivalent in electricity)" and...
"The Pipistrel airplane used a bit more than a half-gallon of gas for each passenger."
- which implies ths plane did burn oil based fuel.
Simpo Two said -
"'Among the 14 airplanes competing, only three met the requirements for the competition... All told, the competing teams invested more than $4 million in their airplanes.' Nuff said. Rubbish.."
- $4M is in fact a truly bargain price to do this sort of thing. I can only see this costing that little if they've scaveneged existing airframes, which some of them appear to have done.
Can you imagine BAe, Airbus, Boeing etc doing anything for just $4M ?
Personally I cannot see how it is possible that it is more efficient to produce some electrical energy somewhere (from PV or wind ?), transport this over some distance, store it in a battery, some time later release it and drive a prop, than it is to burn oil based fuel in an engine. Every step in the former process is loss loss loss... no ?
Anyone give me a clue as to why ?
I normally don't get involved in green, battery powered or electrical discussions (unless they involve lobbing vibrators out the window) but isn't it a given that:
1) The green thing is about saving the planet
Despite which
2) The next ice age is now well on it's way, regardless?
Either way, the performance figures sound pretty impressive to me!
1) The green thing is about saving the planet
Despite which
2) The next ice age is now well on it's way, regardless?
Either way, the performance figures sound pretty impressive to me!
Bedazzled said:
Combustion engines are only 20% energy efficient, modern jet engines may be slightly better but you still have to transport the fuel to them, generating electricity centrally could be more efficient, depending on how the numbers stack up. If they use windy mills instead of proper power plants, as is the fashion, the numbers as well as common sense probably go out of the window.
Wiki about Jet engines - "fuel efficiency that is about as good as piston and propeller aeroengines".Electricity isnt free & doesnt avoid inefficiencies. By the time you have burned coal, gas or oil, transformed that , transmitted it, transformed it again, charged batteries, drained batteries, turned that into motion, your looking at poorer efficiency than just putting diesel into a car.
And dont start on the joke that is wind power.
I applaud NASA for this, but it is 'out there' research pushing the boundaries, not directly relevant to day today stuff.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff