Jump to content

Electric Planes?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A guy can like both girls and radial engines can't he? And maybe have the same emotional response to hearing both of them moan? 

I only came here because I thought it was about these - But I would prefer to see Miss Float Beaver.......  

300 mph with a 200 mile range is 40 minutes of operation. With a 750KW motor, that's 500KWh of energy. A typical group 27 sized LiFePo battery is good for about 1.5KWh so you'd need roughly 350 group

Posted Images

On 3/28/2019 at 10:33 AM, peragrin said:

And I can tell you that is exactly what happened in the scottish Orkney islands.

 

The local small airlines which has a max range of 30 miles between islands and the mainland, worked with their manufacturer to replace gas with electric.  primarily to cut down on spare parts and engines needed on every island.

 

It is easier to provide power, and with less moving parts there is less inventory to manage.

Also if you know the power to weight ratio, and wingloading, redesigning an existing airframe minimally to replace engines is something that happens every day. The 737 Max are just a slight redesign with bigger engines.  Of course that is an example of being stupid and expensive too. 

that's.... not really how this works. 

On 3/29/2019 at 11:00 PM, floating dutchman said:

And that raises another question.

Can all planes land full of fuel?  I thought that some planes had to dump fuel if they had to return to an airport for some reason.

Batteries don't get lighter when you use the electricity out of them.  Will this effect the planes ability to land?

Not really, since that will be taken into account of the design. However, yes there are planes with a MTOW > Max landing weight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 4:18 PM, nacradriver said:

Yeah, but if your contracted in at a specific rate, that's the distributor's problem. 

On the Pratt and Whitney PT6A I think the HSI is every 1800 hours, and total rebuild is 3000 hours...

What the Lycoming 0-320 is to the piston world the PT6 is to the turbo prop world... almost bullet proof and extremely reliable.. which I am sure you know..   But anything that is consuming dead dinosaurs is going to have its drawbacks.  If it were my money, and I was looking down the barrel at the care a feeding of those radials....  conversion to a turbo prop would be high on my list as this is a well proven upgrade, the approvals are already in place, and can happen today...  100% electric, yes it going to happen, but let someone else spend the millions in R&D money.  Who knows, there may even be a whole new plane coming out of this.

 

Yeah but you're missing one very important thing.... Radial beavers are fucking awesome. Just pure sex with wings bolted to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My house is near Kenmore air's flight path between Lake Union and the San Juan islands so I get to hear those radials on a regular basis. The only thing that sounds better than one radial is four of them, which I get to hear during Sea Fair when Aluminum Overcast is cruising around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

The price of a PT6 is in the vicinity a three quarter mill. The price of it's overhaul is about a quarter mill. 

 Those electric motors? Who knows exactly, but it's got about 1% of the parts in it, and there is no hot section to overhaul. The Harbor Air guy says charging the batteries would cost about $15.00 in electricity. To fill it with 100 gallons of jet A? Do the math. 

 

  There's clearly a long way to go, but it's hard to blame the dreamers for dreaming . 

Electric motors are *great* :D No one doubts they will rule in airplanes, boats, and cars 30 seconds after a battery that weighs 60 pounds has as much stored energy as 10 gallons of gasoline.

Don't get too hyped up on the cheap aspect. Overhauling ANYTHING to FAA/ICAO standards will NEVER be cheap, no matter what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

The price of a PT6 is in the vicinity a three quarter mill. The price of it's overhaul is about a quarter mill. 

There's clearly a long way to go, but it's hard to blame the dreamers for dreaming . 

If the dreamers really want to get this going, they need to start from scratch and build a whole new aircraft, carbon fiber/aluminum composite frame components and skins, solar panel wings, spartan accommodations, etc....  They have the power plant and the fuel source, now go and build the plane around it.  Otherwise they are trying to fit an oblong peg into a round hole...  Eventually it will work,  but how much work, to make it work?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, IStream said:

My house is near Kenmore air's flight path between Lake Union and the San Juan islands so I get to hear those radials on a regular basis. The only thing that sounds better than one radial is four of them, which I get to hear during Sea Fair when Aluminum Overcast is cruising around.

Camarillo, airport my home base has a CAF wing...  

There are a few B-25, P-51, and a few other "if I hit the Mega Millions lottery" toys.  Once in a while they'll be doing a photo shoot or something where they are all up... the sound is incredible.  The other day as I was pre-flighting, the P-51 and the F8 Bearcat did a low approach then a left 270 departure on their way to Chino Airport for the Planes of Fame airshow...   Spectacular!!!!B)

https://www.cafsocal.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was working one day at a small FBO when a B17 called on the Unicom to announce a low pass on his way north. We jumped on bikes and rode out to runway and this guy came down to about 30 feet or so and roared past with wingtip right over us. Ill never forget the sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IStream said:

My house is near Kenmore air's flight path between Lake Union and the San Juan islands so I get to hear those radials on a regular basis. The only thing that sounds better than one radial is four of them, which I get to hear during Sea Fair when Aluminum Overcast is cruising around.

Best I ever heard was early one morning at Oshkosh when some bright boys decided to wake up the whole place by buzzing the field with 5 (FIVE) B-17s.  I bet that many haven't been together and running in one place since the war.  Thousands of guys were spilling out of tents and campers in pajamas and underwear gawking at the sky.  It was a heavenly sound.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nacradriver said:

We need to find you a girlfriend....:lol:

A guy can like both girls and radial engines can't he? And maybe have the same emotional response to hearing both of them moan? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mustang__1 said:

A guy can like both girls and radial engines can't he? And maybe have the same emotional response to hearing both of them moan? 

Yes, but you have to be careful getting too physically involved with the radial, and too emotionally involved with the lady. It's a fine line.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Yes, but you have to be careful getting too physically involved with the radial, and too emotionally involved with the lady. It's a fine line.

you are wise beyond your years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Electric motors are *great* :D No one doubts they will rule in airplanes, boats, and cars 30 seconds after a battery that weighs 60 pounds has as much stored energy as 10 gallons of gasoline.

Don't get too hyped up on the cheap aspect. Overhauling ANYTHING to FAA/ICAO standards will NEVER be cheap, no matter what it is.

Well, apparently Harbor Air has ordered 10 planes.  So we will see.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

Well, apparently Harbor Air has ordered 10 planes.  So we will see.  

Ordering is one thing... taking delivery and deploying them is something else...    When Boeing first announced the 747, didn't Pan Am ordered the first 25 in 1966 and didn't take the first delivery until 1970? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mustang__1 said:

A guy can like both girls and radial engines can't he? And maybe have the same emotional response to hearing both of them moan? 

That would be the same as hearing cylinder chatter in the run-up and "no.... nothing is wrong....  you go ahead and go flying, I'll be OK...." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Ordering is one thing... taking delivery and deploying them is something else...    When Boeing first announced the 747, didn't Pan Am ordered the first 25 in 1966 and didn't take the first delivery until 1970? 

 

Ordering is one thing, indeed.  Ergo...We shall see about the rest.

Four years from writing the project launch order to the delivery of the biggest commercial plane made... Seems pretty speedy.  

I wonder if someone said, after PanAm wrote that order, "Ordering is one thing... taking delivery and deploying them is something else."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Ordering is one thing, indeed.  Ergo...We shall see about the rest.

Four years from writing the project launch order to the delivery of the biggest commercial plane made... Seems pretty speedy.  

I wonder if someone said, after PanAm wrote that order, "Ordering is one thing... taking delivery and deploying them is something else."

 

A company has many millions in design before they get the first order and those orders have many conditions. They are pretty much commitments to purchase an aircraft that delivers on or before a certain date with a number of defined performance requirements. The purchaser eventually converts to a firm order and only then has money at stake. It does get the early buyers a place at the front of the line. A truly successful airplane such as the 737 (current short term issues with the Max aside) pretty quickly builds a multi year backlog such as the 7 year order backlog for the 737. 

A Senior Boeing exec once described the business to me as every 10-15 years they literally bet the company on a new design. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Well, apparently Harbor Air has ordered 10 planes.  So we will see.  

There are airplanes certified to fly paying passengers powered by batteries available right now?

I don't think "order" means what you think it means in this case. More like the vendors that come around my work and ask if we would buy product X that does something we really need done faster, easier, and cheaper than the way we do it now.
I always say "Hell Yes where is it" and get "Well we don't actually have it working right now, but if we did would you buy it" :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nacradriver said:

If the dreamers really want to get this going, they need to start from scratch and build a whole new aircraft, carbon fiber/aluminum composite frame components and skins, solar panel wings, spartan accommodations, etc....  They have the power plant and the fuel source, now go and build the plane around it.  Otherwise they are trying to fit an oblong peg into a round hole...  Eventually it will work,  but how much work, to make it work?

 

 

 

   It should work, considering the mission perimeters. These first 10 only have to have 30 minutes and 30 minutes of reserve power to meet spec. That's about 80% of the flights Harbor Air does, and they do a hell of a lot of them. Very limited niche, for sure. But then again they are supposedly the biggest seaplane op in on the planet. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

   It should work, considering the mission perimeters. These first 10 only have to have 30 minutes and 30 minutes of reserve power to meet spec. That's about 80% of the flights Harbor Air does, and they do a hell of a lot of them. Very limited niche, for sure. But then again they are supposedly the biggest seaplane op in on the planet. 

 

 

 

Government here depends on Harbour Air and Helijet to act like cabs between Victoria and Vancouver. My wife flies all the time on either, it's cheaper than shipping her with a rental on a 4-hour ferry ride and back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

   It should work, considering the mission perimeters. These first 10 only have to have 30 minutes and 30 minutes of reserve power to meet spec. T

That is to meet the FAR and/or the Canadian version for VFR minimums...  3 miles visibility, 500 below the clouds, 1000 feet on top and 2000 feet horizontal.  What happens when the visibility and ceilings are below VFR?  Now what...  if you file IFR, you have to go to a 45 minute reserve, or cancel the flight...  In that neck of the woods, the weather can turn to crap pretty quick and as a pilot with the final authority I would be asking some questions let alone my dispatcher asking the same questions.

And, as I have mentioned before that may be fine and dandy to meet the minimums for the government regulations if you are operation Part 91,  however, it may not be fine a dandy for your insurance carrier.   As a commercial operator they may have put some additional factors and minimums in place to reduce the "risk management" and their exposure.  As it was put to me once...  The FARs will tell you what you can't do, the insurance company will tell you what you can do..

It is going to happen....  there are few electric "concept" planes on display at Aero exhibition in Friedrichshafen this week.. the buzz is there, the current is moving, and people are getting charged up on this...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nacradriver said:

That would be the same as hearing cylinder chatter in the run-up and "no.... nothing is wrong....  you go ahead and go flying, I'll be OK...." 

We put an electroair electronic ignition on the mooney last year. Got two or three equivalents of "i'm fine" before we realized it definitely was not fine. You know, those little bumps where you look at the other person to see if they felt it too ? then there were one or two that were pretty significant. Bad coil on a brand new system *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

That is to meet the FAR and/or the Canadian version for VFR minimums...  3 miles visibility, 500 below the clouds, 1000 feet on top and 2000 feet horizontal.  What happens when the visibility and ceilings are below VFR?  Now what...  if you file IFR, you have to go to a 45 minute reserve, or cancel the flight...  In that neck of the woods, the weather can turn to crap pretty quick and as a pilot with the final authority I would be asking some questions let alone my dispatcher asking the same questions.

And, as I have mentioned before that may be fine and dandy to meet the minimums for the government regulations if you are operation Part 91,  however, it may not be fine a dandy for your insurance carrier.   As a commercial operator they may have put some additional factors and minimums in place to reduce the "risk management" and their exposure.  As it was put to me once...  The FARs will tell you what you can't do, the insurance company will tell you what you can do..

It is going to happen....  there are few electric "concept" planes on display at Aero exhibition in Friedrichshafen this week.. the buzz is there, the current is moving, and people are getting charged up on this...  

You should be placed in the chair for crimes against puns....

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Vancouver Sun. 26 March 2019:

A transition from seaplane to e-plane is set to begin.

Harbour Air is embarking on what is believed to be a world first, adding an electric plane to its fleet — a zero-emission aircraft powered by a 750-horsepower electric motor.

The company has 42 planes and 12 routes, and operates from centres such as Victoria, Vancouver and Seattle. It is North America’s largest seaplane airline, serving 500,000 passengers on 30,000 commercial flights every year.

“The intent is to eventually convert the whole fleet,” said Harbour Air’s founder and CEO. Greg McDougall. of the move to electric planes. “It would be a staged situation because the range of the (electric) aircraft presently, with the present battery capacity, would be around a half an hour with a half-an-hour reserve.

“But that’s changing very rapidly with the development of the battery technology.”

The first plane to be converted will be the six-passenger DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver, which is used across Harbour Air routes.

“The first one would be a prototype, which is basically proving the technology for Transport Canada and getting toward certification,” McDougall said.

Harbour Air is taking on the electric-plane venture with Washington state’s magniX — a company specializing in creating electric propulsion for air travel. The partners anticipate conducting the first flight tests in November.

floatplane1.jpeg?w=640&quality=55&strip=all

Harbour Air is embarking on what is believed to be a world first, adding an electric plane to its fleet — a zero-emission aircraft powered by a 750-horsepower electric motor. DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS

McDougall said nobody has ever flown a fully electric commercial flight.

“If you think about it, it’s the evolution of transportation toward electric propulsion,” he said. “The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development.

“It’s all about electric.”

Harbour Air is looking to get all needed approvals in a timely way as it moves toward electric power, McDougall said.

“We don’t want to be trying to get through the regulatory process after it becomes more economically viable, we want to do it now.”

Price comparisons between standard and electric planes are difficult to make because Harbour Air is still in the research-and-development phase, he said.

“What we’re doing here is retrofitting new technology to older technology. The cost is very similar to us putting a turbine engine on the aircraft, but the big win there is that the electric motor doesn’t have to be rebuilt every 2,500 to 3,000 hours.

“It’s got very few moving parts and it doesn’t consume fossil fuel.”

Roei Ganzarski, the magniX CEO, said that in 2018, 75 per cent of the world’s airline flights were about 1,600 kilometres or shorter, which is where Harbour Air fits in.

“With magniX’s new propulsion systems, coupled with emerging battery capabilities, we see tremendous potential for electric aviation to transform this heavily trafficked ‘middle mile’ range,” he said in a statement.

He said his company’s partnership with Harbour Air “will set the standard for the future of commercial aviation operators.”

jwbell@timescolonist.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chum said:

The way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large one.

the same as in boatbuilding, or so they say...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Electric RV anarchy? I just pulled the trigger on these,  https://www.continuousresources.com/products/lion-energy-safari-12v-100ah-1200wh-lifepo4-deep-cycle-battery?variant=10662460784676&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkP6b0out4gIVIR-tBh381gnJEAYYASABEgK9afD_BwE doubling the usefull capacity and maybe quadrupling (or more) the useful life of my battery bank at less than half the weight. Drop in lead acid replacement with on board battery management system to handle the different charge profile. Can handle up to 100 amp charge each. Lifetime warranty. We shall see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 10:58 PM, Ishmael said:

And people, it's Victoria Harbour with the bonus English vowel, thank you very much.

Poland is looking for those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rasputin22 said:

The way those Beavers are going down in Alaska makes me wonder if they are a good match for electric power.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/two-dead-in-second-floatplane-crash-involving-taquan-air-officials-say

Three planes and 10 deaths in two incidents in less than a month. 

 

Shit happens in 3s'  One of them though was a collision... dinosaur or electric it wouldn't matter... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Second one was a collision with the water though, electric could have made the attempted rescue you see that took place one of those things that makes you go 'Huh?'

It is a moot point anyway....  many of the pro's (Commercial - ATPs) are all saying the same thing about flying them...   "no way in hell"

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

It is a moot point anyway....  many of the pro's (Commercial - ATPs) are all saying the same thing about flying them...   "no way in hell"

Many hansom cab drivers in 1900 said "No way" to automobiles as well.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

Many hansom cab drivers in 1900 said "No way" to automobiles as well.....

Point taken....  they also said Urder and Lyft would never survive, and there is a big difference with 4 wheels on the ground. 

Was at Areo Friedrichshafen a few weeks back and there were a lot of concept all electric planes and even a few hybrid trainers in certification right now.. Siemens who I feel is really leading the way with this is saying they are still a way off on the "all" electric passenger plane even though there may be one test flying pretty soon...  Problem is the plane they are working with the battery is half of the Max TO weight. They are hoping to start the certification process in 2022... give it three more years and a couple $100 million from there.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume (dangerous, I know) that the initial prototypes would be more adaptable to research and scientific type missions..... Of course the money is in pax, so that's where they're headed, but......

 It seems like it shouldn't be all that long before it becomes financially viable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Point taken....  they also said Urder and Lyft would never survive, and there is a big difference with 4 wheels on the ground. 

Was at Areo Friedrichshafen a few weeks back and there were a lot of concept all electric planes and even a few hybrid trainers in certification right now.. Siemens who I feel is really leading the way with this is saying they are still a way off on the "all" electric passenger plane even though there may be one test flying pretty soon...  Problem is the plane they are working with the battery is half of the Max TO weight. They are hoping to start the certification process in 2022... give it three more years and a couple $100 million from there.

 

 

There is a lithium/air lab animal out there with 1500 watt-hrs/kg.  compare to 30 for the average lead acid and 150 for present lithium.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get the zero emissions thing as there progressing battery tech much faster than clean power to charger them

pretty much no progress as There is to much profit involved in staying with oil/gas really only progress in moving away from coal 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tommays said:

I don’t get the zero emissions thing as there progressing battery tech much faster than clean power to charger them

pretty much no progress as There is to much profit involved in staying with oil/gas really only progress in moving away from coal 

the Pacific Northwest is powered by Hydro, with the evolution to using hydro as a buffer for wind/solar/tidal turbine.  The cost of energy is a heck of a lot less than coal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

the Pacific Northwest is powered by Hydro, with the evolution to using hydro as a buffer for wind/solar/tidal turbine.  The cost of energy is a heck of a lot less than coal.

And just think, they almost didn't build the Grand Coulee Dam...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 1:40 PM, nacradriver said:

Or bought out by one of the big players, Boeing, Textron, Continental, Pratt & Whitney, or Rolls Royce...

Boeing is in acquisition mode as of late..

Boeing already owned de Havilland at one time but sold it to Bombardier...

And now Viking (Victoria) bought the type certs for the first seven de Havilland aircraft types.

Which leads me to wonder if Viking might be somehow involved in this...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 6:00 AM, nacradriver said:

That is to meet the FAR and/or the Canadian version for VFR minimums...  3 miles visibility, 500 below the clouds, 1000 feet on top and 2000 feet horizontal.  What happens when the visibility and ceilings are below VFR?  Now what...  if you file IFR, you have to go to a 45 minute reserve, or cancel the flight...  In that neck of the woods, the weather can turn to crap pretty quick and as a pilot with the final authority I would be asking some questions let alone my dispatcher asking the same questions.

And, as I have mentioned before that may be fine and dandy to meet the minimums for the government regulations if you are operation Part 91,  however, it may not be fine a dandy for your insurance carrier.   As a commercial operator they may have put some additional factors and minimums in place to reduce the "risk management" and their exposure.  As it was put to me once...  The FARs will tell you what you can't do, the insurance company will tell you what you can do..

It is going to happen....  there are few electric "concept" planes on display at Aero exhibition in Friedrichshafen this week.. the buzz is there, the current is moving, and people are getting charged up on this...  

   This might seem shocking... but maybe those boys don't "do" IFR. They aren't going to airports, and perhaps they have some special waivers. For seaplanes in that neck of the woods there are runways all over the place.

 I'm wondering about the fire hazard of those batteries. The Samsung Scenario has to be considered.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Laker said:

the Pacific Northwest is powered by Hydro, with the evolution to using hydro as a buffer for wind/solar/tidal turbine.  The cost of energy is a heck of a lot less than coal.

Ssssssh!  We don't want them all moving here.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

   This might seem shocking... but maybe those boys don't "do" IFR. They aren't going to airports, and perhaps they have some special waivers. For seaplanes in that neck of the woods there are runways all over the place.

Yes, they are going to airports...  seaplane bases are charted and considered and airport, some even have a beacons and their own CTAF/AWOS  frequencies.   For instance https://www.airnav.com/airport/W55

You should know this with the knowledge you project here..   Regarding the wavier and out of the norm OppSpecs, would you care to elucidate on this?  And, regarding that waiver, do you want your signature at the bottom of the page? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Yes, they are going to airports...  seaplane bases are charted and considered and airport, some even have a beacons and their own CTAF/AWOS  frequencies.   For instance https://www.airnav.com/airport/W55

You should know this with the knowledge you project here..   Regarding the wavier and out of the norm OppSpecs, would you care to elucidate on this?  And, regarding that waiver, do you want your signature at the bottom of the page? 

 

 

 

 

 

Do they have approaches?

I wouldn't have much problem with with signing off on a ban on passenger ops in bad weather for an operator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

Do they have approaches?

I wouldn't have much problem with with signing off on a ban on passenger ops in bad weather for an operator. 

I think there are a couple, but not many do, hence the issue...   Here is one that I know of...  to shoot this approach Part 135 what is your ceiling and visibility requirement?  And why is this a circling approach and not an LPV if WAAS equipped, which I am pretty sure is the norm now of days.

Ban on flight in bad weather...  this sort of contradicts your statement that maybe they have special permission to do this because of a waiver..

05935RB_C.pdf

05935RB-1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nacradriver said:

I think there are a couple, but not many do, hence the issue...   Here is one that I know of...  to shoot this approach Part 135 what is your ceiling and visibility requirement?  And why is this a circling approach and not an LPV if WAAS equipped, which I am pretty sure is the norm now of days.

Ban on flight in bad weather...  this sort of contradicts your statement that maybe they have special permission to do this because of a waiver..

05935RB_C.pdf

05935RB-1.pdf

   Just responding to your assertion implying that that the 30 minute limit precludes IFR ops...and yet this project goes along anyway. That would mean ether they don't do IFR or have perhaps a special waiver of some sort, would it not it not? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mark K said:

   Just responding to your assertion implying that that the 30 minute limit precludes IFR ops...and yet this project goes along anyway. That would mean ether they don't do IFR or have perhaps a special waiver of some sort, would it not it not?  

 

As I noted earlier there are many companies looking to do this..  Siemens and some company in Israel are looking to start flight testing within the year, but these are SEL and MEL. and this is a "from scratch" airplane designed around the battery and the motor.. They are not trying to shoe horn something into an existing air frame.  Along with that, there are plenty of other hybrid projects out there..  again a floor up design..

My assertion is they're going to have to overcome at the minimum the VFR fuel requirement. FAR 91.151 as does the CAR 602.88 states that no pilot can begin a flight unless consideration of wind and weather will allow the flight to reach the planned destination with enough fuel to cruise for 30 minutes at a normal power setting, or 45 minutes at night.  Having a total range of 30 minutes or even an hour is what has some pilots saying "hell no." 

For IFR it is more stringent as: no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing... fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed.

For not doing IFR...  and with the weather in the PNW the way it is there are going to be a lot of canceled flights...  so many that maybe their customers start looking at alternatives and they are there.  Nothing kills a scheduled carrier more so than an inconsistent schedule.

If the project is soldering on, good on them.. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.electrive.com/2019/05/23/blackbird-orders-110-electric-aircraft-from-bye-aerospace/

 

May 23, 2019 - 02:19 pm

BlackBird orders 110 electric aircraft from Bye Aerospace

bye-aereospace-eflyer2-elektro-flugzeug-electric-aircraft-02

The US manufacturer Bye Aerospace announced another large order for their electric aircraft. After the Norwegian company OSM Aviation recently ordered 60 electric-powered aircraft, BlackBird now ordered 110 electric aircraft.

The on-demand flight service, also known as kind of a “Uber for Aircraft”, is purchasing 100 four-seater eFlyer 4 and ten two-seater eFlyer 2 to integrate them into its platform starting next year. The eFlyer 2 is currently undergoing an FAA certification process. Once the process is complete, it’s eFlyer 4’s turn. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the four-seater model could be released in the fourth quarter of 2020.

Bye Aerospace has not yet published any concrete performance data on eFlyer 4. Unlike the eFlyer 2, which we reported on under its former name Sun Flyer 2: In April 2018, Bye Aerospace announced the successful maiden flight of the eFlyer 2. In February of this year, the eFlyer took off for the first time with its 70 kW continuous and 90 kW peak output Siemens engine, which will be on board as standard. In principle, the two-seater electric aircraft should be able to stay in the air for up to three and a half hours.

Regarding the name change from “Sun Flyer” to “eFlyer”, George E. Bye, founder and CEO of Bye Aerospace, explains that the latter designation better represents the all-electric propulsion system of the aircraft. “We originally thought solar cells would be standard on the airplane’s wings,” said Bye. “However, with eFlyer’s primary markets being flight training and air taxi services, it makes more sense to make the price of the aeroplane as reasonable as possible.”

Recently, the Colorado-based manufacturer stated that it had received requests from a total of 298 potential customers for its two models. The 110 of BlackBird will now be added on top of it. At present the on-demand service operates a fleet of 600 airplanes. “At less than $50 an hour to operate, the eFlyer 4 is the future of aviation,” rejoices BlackBird CEO Rudd Davis. His company’s flight booking app currently displays prices that vary widely depending on location and date. According to Electrek, the cheapest flights are offered from a number of Californian airports, but the service also seems to be growing on the east coast. There, BlackBird aims to score with flight packages in the New York City area.

electrek.co, medium.com, sfchronicle.com, byeaerospace.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Laker said:

https://www.electrive.com/2019/05/23/blackbird-orders-110-electric-aircraft-from-bye-aerospace/

 

May 23, 2019 - 02:19 pm

BlackBird orders 110 electric aircraft from Bye Aerospace

bye-aereospace-eflyer2-elektro-flugzeug-electric-aircraft-02

The US manufacturer Bye Aerospace announced another large order for their electric aircraft. After the Norwegian company OSM Aviation recently ordered 60 electric-powered aircraft, BlackBird now ordered 110 electric aircraft.

 

The order for the Norwegian company was announced at Areo Friedrichshafen ..  They are ordering them as trainers...  but there is a catch... the commitment to purchase has a shelve life.

And, here is another one for you...

https://www.eviation.co/

Pay note to the fact they are touting this is "on demand" transportation, not "scheduled carrier" transportation...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaggy,

    That little Silent 2 Electro is almost enough to make me start a Go Fund Me drive to buy me one so I can go fly it around and save the world! I'm working on my schtick now. Want to kick in?

 

    I bought my sailplane trailer from a guy who had the Silent 2 with a pop up gas motor just behind his seat and he loved it. The Electro version with the FES front end folding prop is far superior. I think my little Russia AC-4 could accept one of the FES units and if the price ever comes down...

    When they first started doing the FES system they would tow with a car or truck until getting the ground a ways before starting the power to the prop because of prop clearance with the ground. The folding props are so efficient now that they have reduced the diameter and they have no problem with tip clearance and launch with just a wingrunner for the first few yards until the ailerons can keep the wingtip up. It still pays to do a car tow because acceleration and rollout til airborne on grass eats up a lot of amps which is better used once in the air. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 6:14 PM, nacradriver said:

As I noted earlier there are many companies looking to do this..  Siemens and some company in Israel are looking to start flight testing within the year, but these are SEL and MEL. and this is a "from scratch" airplane designed around the battery and the motor.. They are not trying to shoe horn something into an existing air frame.  Along with that, there are plenty of other hybrid projects out there..  again a floor up design..

My assertion is they're going to have to overcome at the minimum the VFR fuel requirement. FAR 91.151 as does the CAR 602.88 states that no pilot can begin a flight unless consideration of wind and weather will allow the flight to reach the planned destination with enough fuel to cruise for 30 minutes at a normal power setting, or 45 minutes at night.  Having a total range of 30 minutes or even an hour is what has some pilots saying "hell no." 

For IFR it is more stringent as: no person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing... fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed.

For not doing IFR...  and with the weather in the PNW the way it is there are going to be a lot of canceled flights...  so many that maybe their customers start looking at alternatives and they are there.  Nothing kills a scheduled carrier more so than an inconsistent schedule.

If the project is soldering on, good on them.. 

 

What do you make of this? 

 https://www.airnav.com/airport/0W0

It's their home base. "No instrument procedures"  

  My guess is they are limited to daylight, VFR ops only. Right in the middle of an effin' city? Probably have noise issues with ops at night, and only a fool would land in a lake in that crowded bit of real estate at night, right? Some drunks probably row out on the thing at night, and the houseboats?? Those folks put up with 750hp radials right outside their front doors at night? Probably not.  

 I.B. Speculatin... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark K said:

What do you make of this? 

 https://www.airnav.com/airport/0W0

It's their home base. "No instrument procedures"  

  My guess is they are limited to daylight, VFR ops only. Right in the middle of an effin' city? Probably have noise issues with ops at night, and only a fool would land in a lake in that crowded bit of real estate at night, right? Some drunks probably row out on the thing at night, and the houseboats?? Those folks put up with 750hp radials right outside their front doors at night? Probably not.  

 I.B. Speculatin... 

 

Ring me back up when they solve the minimum fuel requirement regulation and announce a FAR Part 23 certification or a supplemental type certificate approved for Part 135... until then I am putting a bottle of McAllen 18 in hibernation with two shot glasses... and you're welcome to one of them..   It will probably be McAllen 25 by the time this happens...   Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can put their mass fortunes behind it, but that pig ain't flying until this problem is solved.. 

Break!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Ring me back up when they solve the minimum fuel requirement regulation and announce a FAR Part 23 certification or a supplemental type certificate approved for Part 135... until then I am putting a bottle of McAllen 18 in hibernation with two shot glasses... and you're welcome to one of them..   It will probably be McAllen 25 by the time this happens...   Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can put their mass fortunes behind it, but that pig ain't flying until this problem is solved.. 

Break!

What the hell??  

Are you suggesting these guys will never be allowed to place these electric planes in service? If not, wtf is your point? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

What the hell??  

Are you suggesting these guys will never be allowed to place these electric planes in service? If not, wtf is your point?

My point is what it is has been all along... And, that is exactly what I said.. and it is what I have been saying as well as a few other folks here have stated..   unless the FAA and/or TCCA grant them a Supplemental Type Certificate or re-certify the airplane under FAR Part 23 to operate those "specific" aircraft with that  specific "motor" they are not flying Part 135 or Part 121.  One of the hurdles is going to be the "fuel" range and reserve problem which thy have not solved..  then there is going to be the weight and balance issue, spin issue, passenger safety issue, and a few other legal thingies.. 

They can however fly the plane today as as and Experimental.. But, I would go read 14 CFR 91.319.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

14 CFR 91.31

 

8 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

My point is what it is has been all along... And, that is exactly what I said.. and it is what I have been saying as well as a few other folks here have stated..   unless the FAA and/or TCCA grant them a Supplemental Type Certificate or re-certify the airplane under FAR Part 23 to operate those "specific" aircraft with that  specific "motor" they are not flying Part 135 or Part 121.  One of the hurdles is going to be the "fuel" range and reserve problem.  They can however fly the plane today as as and Experimental.. But, I would go read 14 CFR 91.319.

Do I need to dumb this down further?

 

 

Ah, I see it now. You are assuming Lake Union Air is dumb enough to not consult with the FAA about the certification of 135 ops for these birds before investing in them...or maybe that they are are dumb enough to think they are going to get an OK on a part 135 operation flying experimental aircraft, right?  

    

    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a pedant, but there is no "Lake Union Air". The main operator of that field is Kenmore Air. And they're not the ones who've hatched this cockamamie electrification scheme. That's Harbour Air out of British Columbia. And Harbour Air may very well not have consulted with the FAA because the routes they're talking about electrifying are within Canada. Thanks for your attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 

Ah, I see it now. You are assuming Lake Union Air is dumb enough to not consult with the FAA about the certification of 135 ops for these birds before investing in them...or maybe that they are are dumb enough to think they are going to get an OK on a part 135 operation flying experimental aircraft, right? 

Yeupppp if Harbour Air in Canada invested in this with no chance of these planes being legal to fly carring freight and/ passengers with out solving some basic but expensive problems before they even think to contact their governing agency to apply for the STC or re certification ...  the yea the are pretty "effing" stupid..

Or put it this way, when they announce an IPO, try to find a way to short the stock.. you'll be better off..

1 hour ago, IStream said:

Not to be a pedant, but there is no "Lake Union Air". The main operator of that field is Kenmore Air. And they're not the ones who've hatched this cockamamie electrification scheme. That's Harbour Air out of British Columbia. And Harbour Air may very well not have consulted with the FAA because the routes they're talking about electrifying are within Canada. Thanks for your attention.

The Canadian Air Regs just about mirror the US regs... a few little nuances in terminology and measurements

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 3:30 PM, Rasputin22 said:

 

 

My last post here was about my fantasy of fitting an electric FES (Front Sustainer System) to my Russia AC-4A sailplane in the manner seen in this video. I think I am over it after hearing all the horror stories about Lithium battery fires and the limited flight times. Just found this which shows my Russian girlfriend with some serious augmentation on the order of Double D 44's in the form of two small jet engines. I had hoped to see inflight stowing of the power pod and subsequent deployment but I guess these Ruskies are just satisfied with boring holes in the sky and strafing their buddies on the ground.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 12:26 PM, Laker said:

May 23, 2019 - 02:19 pm

BlackBird orders 110 electric aircraft from Bye Aerospace

Here some additional info on this...  they are even touting that they are at least two years away from certification and they have been at it since 2016.. play close attention to what he is saying about certification and the hoops he is jumping through to get this plane there  The plane is still registered Experimental

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=502SF

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Here some additional info on this...  they are even touting that they are at least two years away from certification and they have been at it since 2016.. play close attention to what he is saying about certification and the hoops he is jumping through to get this plane there  The plane is still registered Experimental

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=502SF

 

Man that thing looks suspiciously close to a Lancair 360... Bigger tail, definitely a different wing, but that cockpit and cowl, and even the empenage look nearly identical. That said, trainers are definitely the ideal market for electrics right now. I hope BYE the best of luck! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mustang__1 said:

Man that thing looks suspiciously close to a Lancair 360... Bigger tail, definitely a different wing, but that cockpit and cowl, and even the empenage look nearly identical. That said, trainers are definitely the ideal market for electrics right now. I hope BYE the best of luck! 

Trainer market is hot right now...  just look at what the used 152, 172, and the basic PA28 (despite the wing AD scare) are selling for...  :o 

Piper is bringing back the PA28 Cadet calling the Pilot 100i, Cessna, after their failure with the 162 has been contemplating and following Piper with bringing back a basic rock sold 172...  but this is just a rumor I heard...  just a rumor I say!

I would like to see BYE pull it off, and they may do it...  But I think the 2021 delivery date is very optimistic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, chum said:

What’s the AD on the Piper about?

Embry Riddle had a crash where the wing came off in flight resulting in two fatalities.. The NTSB noted the cause was wing spar fatigue and when they inspected a few other ERAU planes they found the same...   They; ERAU, are saying it was Piper's fault due to wing spar fatigue.  Piper is saying it is their fault for beating the living crap out of the airplane and not doing the required "Piper Recommend Scheduled" maintenance and inspections as there have been no other problems with the fleet.   The FAA is reviewing a proposed AD to have a mandated  inspection in place predicated on the 100 hour inspections...  They have come up with a formula that is sort like dog years... the more 100 hour inspections the higher time on the air frame... as example... 4000 hour air-frame with no 100 inspections is a 4000 hour air-frame..  A 3000 hour air-frame with 30 -100 hour inspections is a 7000 hour air frame and requires a very expensive invasive inspection....  can you say "cutting some new inception ports!!!!"    

I was looking at real nice PA28 a while back that had a lot of 100 hour inspections on it... until the dust settles on this...no thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

What’s the AD on the Piper about?

edit: looked it up, that could be ugly. Corrosion to a spar cap that’s not acceptable. Sounds like the old spar AD on the Ercoupe.

the inspection isn't bad, only a couple plane bucks. If they find anything........ depends on the value of your engine and panel if it's worth fixing the corrosion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Embry Riddle had a crash where the wing came off in flight resulting in two fatalities.. The NTSB noted the cause was wing spar fatigue and when they inspected a few other ERAU planes they found the same...   They; ERAU, are saying it was Piper's fault due to wing spar fatigue.  Piper is saying it is their fault for beating the living crap out of the airplane and not doing the required "Piper Recommend Scheduled" maintenance and inspections as there have been no other problems with the fleet.   The FAA is reviewing a proposed AD to have a mandated  inspection in place predicated on the 100 hour inspections...  They have come up with a formula that is sort like dog years... the more 100 hour inspections the higher time on the air frame... as example... 4000 hour air-frame with no 100 inspections is a 4000 hour air-frame..  A 3000 hour air-frame with 30 -100 hour inspections is a 7000 hour air frame and requires a very expensive invasive inspection....  can you say "cutting some new inception ports!!!!"    

I was looking at real nice PA28 a while back that had a lot of 100 hour inspections on it... until the dust settles on this...no thanks.

i believe many planes already have the inspection panels there. The piper owner's group had several people that did do the testing and overall it didn't seem too expensive..... of course, if they find anything, then it gets expensive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chum said:

I meant to say corrosion not accessable. On the coupe it was a ball buster if corrosion was found on the carry through.

if the eddy current test finds issues, then the wing needs to come off. $$$

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 276 watt-hrs/kg may be a bit enthusiastic for present technology.  However, great strides are being made and the size and type of aircraft will follow the curve of technology.  My present religion on this is direct ammonia fuel cells.  Might as well let the fuel weight as low as possible.  Going to have to make crash proof ammonia bottles though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 1:12 PM, nacradriver said:

Yeupppp if Harbour Air in Canada invested in this with no chance of these planes being legal to fly carring freight and/ passengers with out solving some basic but expensive problems before they even think to contact their governing agency to apply for the STC or re certification ...  the yea the are pretty "effing" stupid..

Or put it this way, when they announce an IPO, try to find a way to short the stock.. you'll be better off..

The Canadian Air Regs just about mirror the US regs... a few little nuances in terminology and measurements

Do you really think they are that stupid?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Do you really think they are that stupid?  

Nacradriver runs on and on like the consultant who never gets the job because he harps on all the questions but knows none of the answers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Why don't you mortgage the farm and go invest in the company if you feel that what I am saying is heresy.  

 

I doubt they are publicly traded, and massive profits are not necessary for a thing to be real.

   I don't think what you are saying is heresy, it's that it is contradicted by the reports on the issue currently in the press. The latest say testing is already underway and the tentative schedule for line deployment is in summer of 2022, and both the Canukistani and Federalis are overseeing it. 

 Meanwhile, and Israeli company signed on with the engine maker for their line of what appear to be to be trainers. 

   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark K said:

I doubt they are publicly traded, and massive profits are not necessary for a thing to be real.

   I don't think what you are saying is heresy, it's that it is contradicted by the reports on the issue currently in the press. The latest say testing is already underway and the tentative schedule for line deployment is in summer of 2022, and both the Canukistani and Federalis are overseeing it. 

 Meanwhile, and Israeli company signed on with the engine maker for their line of what appear to be to be trainers. 

   

 

Not profits but lots of greenbacks are to make this thing real...  And, do they not have Venture Capitol on your planet? 

Oh!  Do you a cite on your last sentence?

Link to post
Share on other sites