2 2
DJL

Electric Aircraft - The Thread

Recommended Posts

On 10/1/2019 at 8:22 AM, DJL said:

Share it.  This post is for learning about these developing methods.  For us that birdy needs to turn so that's what I'm most interested in.  For basic airline usage they may be able to afford a 30 minute to hour long sit on the ramp but we can't.

Tesla batteries are lasting about 200,000 miles with frequent fast charging.  That's about 3500 hours of operation.  (For comparison, Lycoming recommends engine rebuilds after 2000 hours.)  So it will be a tradeoff between recharge speed and lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Tesla batteries are lasting about 200,000 miles with frequent fast charging.  That's about 3500 hours of operation.  (For comparison, Lycoming recommends engine rebuilds after 2000 hours.)  So it will be a tradeoff between recharge speed and lifetime.

I guess it'll matter what's required to maintain flight plus 30min?  80% charge time is about 40 min from zero so that seems better than I thought.

 

And in latest news.  NASA and GE work to make an inverter better suited to commercial flight.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ge-nasa-partner-to-advance-the-future-of-electric-flight/

Share this post


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

I guess it'll matter what's required to maintain flight plus 30min?

Well a typical 206 engine is rated (sea level max) at about 220kW, so 130kW at 12,500.  So average 175kW to match the performance of a C206, which means about 90kwhr for the climb.  Add 10kwhr for a 30min reserve (that's OK to rate at best-economy speed) and you're at 100kwhr per load.  That's one Tesla battery, so you'd probably be looking at an actual design of two of them (for redundancy and reduction in charge time.)

Fastest current chargers charge at about 3C, so to get 100kwhr into a 200kwhr battery at 3C will take just under 10 minutes.

Share this post


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

Well a typical 206 engine is rated (sea level max) at about 220kW, so 130kW at 12,500.  So average 175kW to match the performance of a C206, which means about 90kwhr for the climb.  Add 10kwhr for a 30min reserve (that's OK to rate at best-economy speed) and you're at 100kwhr per load.  That's one Tesla battery, so you'd probably be looking at an actual design of two of them (for redundancy and reduction in charge time.)

Fastest current chargers charge at about 3C, so to get 100kwhr into a 200kwhr battery at 3C will take just under 10 minutes.

Then it's just a question of whether it's better for the batteries to "top off" while boarding or charge the full cycle.

OK, someone go buy one of these C206's and all the necessary electrical infrastructure and let's see how it goes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DJL said:

Then it's just a question of whether it's better for the batteries to "top off" while boarding or charge the full cycle.

OK, someone go buy one of these C206's and all the necessary electrical infrastructure and let's see how it goes!

"Topping off" takes longer so they will likely avoid that.

I don't know of any civilian skydiving operation that buys new airplanes for jumpers.  (Ray Ferrell's PAC may be an exception here.)  Given that, it's going to be a while before such aircraft are available to skydivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, DJL said:

OK, someone go buy one of these C206's and all the necessary electrical infrastructure and let's see how it goes!

There is no C206 electric conversion program. There is work ongoing on a DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver conversion. Both C-208s and C-206s are regularly fitted with a cargo pod under the fuselage. I could easily image a swapable battery being fitted into that space.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

There is no C206 electric conversion program. There is work ongoing on a DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver conversion. Both C-208s and C-206s are regularly fitted with a cargo pod under the fuselage. I could easily image a swapable battery being fitted into that space.

That's right.  They were testing an engine on a 208 test frame.

https://www.flyer.co.uk/magnix-tests-new-electric-motor-on-cessna-ironbird/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it took off from the Flying Beaver Restaurant at dawn on Tuesday, 2019 December 10.

The Flying Beaver Restaurant is on the South Fork of the Fraser River where it passes Sea Island and Vancouver International Airport. That dock is where you can board floatplane flights to Victoria, Seattle, Nanaimo and Vancouver's Inner Harbour.

Great hamburgers too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still useless for skydiving and it is going to remain such for a long time. As previously mentioned, you would need a 100kWh battery pack to get a load with a 206 up. The most advanced battery pack on the market currently (the one found in Tesla M3) weighs 168 Wh/kg. So a 100kWh battery pack weighs about 600kg. The one that would be made specifically for a plane wouldn't have such density, but lets ignore that.

A C206 has a max payload of around 650kg.

You will get some weight saving with the engine which is only 72kg as opposed to the 220kg of the IO520.

So with the engine weight saving you would get around 200kg of usable payload. So a pilot and 2 very light skydivers.

The Caravan would get you slightly better results, but still unusable for a real operation. The are mentioning 105 miles of range - yeah, but at a very low power setting, in cruise.

 

Share this post


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

It is still useless for skydiving and it is going to remain such for a long time. As previously mentioned, you would need a 100kWh battery pack to get a load with a 206 up. The most advanced battery pack on the market currently (the one found in Tesla M3) weighs 168 Wh/kg. So a 100kWh battery pack weighs about 600kg. The one that would be made specifically for a plane wouldn't have such density, but lets ignore that.

From the article, doesn't seem like they're using standard production batteries for their test flights.  Perhaps this will help to push the "NASA Batteries" into production use.  Even if the ROI is similar to turbines you have to imagine the short haul market would see the value and help develop it.

Share this post


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

It is still useless for skydiving and it is going to remain such for a long time. As previously mentioned, you would need a 100kWh battery pack to get a load with a 206 up. The most advanced battery pack on the market currently (the one found in Tesla M3) weighs 168 Wh/kg. So a 100kWh battery pack weighs about 600kg. The one that would be made specifically for a plane wouldn't have such density, but lets ignore that.

A C206 has a max payload of around 650kg.

You will get some weight saving with the engine which is only 72kg as opposed to the 220kg of the IO520.

So with the engine weight saving you would get around 200kg of usable payload. So a pilot and 2 very light skydivers.

The Caravan would get you slightly better results, but still unusable for a real operation. The are mentioning 105 miles of range - yeah, but at a very low power setting, in cruise.

 

I would very much like to know where you get fuel that weighs 0kg...now that would be a bigger game-changer than electric :P

In any case, here are the official weights from the Cessna website for the Turbo Stationair HD Cargo:

Maximum Ramp Weight     3,806 lb (1,726 kg)
Maximum Takeoff Weight     3,789 lb (1,719 kg)
Maximum Landing Weight     3,600 lb (1,633 kg)
Usable Fuel Weight     522 lb (237 kg)
Usable Fuel Volume     87 gal (329 l)
Basic Empty Weight     2,212 lb (1,003 kg)
Useful Load     1,594 lb (723 kg)
Maximum Payload     1,388 lb (630 kg)
Full Fuel Payload     1,072 lb (486 kg)

You won't really lose that much payload with electric, and they're just getting started :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

I would very much like to know where you get fuel that weighs 0kg...now that would be a bigger game-changer than electric :P

You must not be aware of the Helium Blend now available in limited markets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I would very much like to know where you get fuel that weighs 0kg...now that would be a bigger game-changer than electric :P

In any case, here are the official weights from the Cessna website for the Turbo Stationair HD Cargo:

Maximum Ramp Weight     3,806 lb (1,726 kg)
Maximum Takeoff Weight     3,789 lb (1,719 kg)
Maximum Landing Weight     3,600 lb (1,633 kg)
Usable Fuel Weight     522 lb (237 kg)
Usable Fuel Volume     87 gal (329 l)
Basic Empty Weight     2,212 lb (1,003 kg)
Useful Load     1,594 lb (723 kg)
Maximum Payload     1,388 lb (630 kg)
Full Fuel Payload     1,072 lb (486 kg)

You won't really lose that much payload with electric, and they're just getting started :)

Why does the fuel weight really matter? Based on the data you gave the numbers aren't that much different.

Empty plane 1003kg, max landing weight 1633. You then have 630kg available. When you calculate the engine weight saving you have extra 148kg available. This means total 778kg.

Batteries weigh 600kg, so that gives you 178kg available for passengers and pilot.

"NASA batteries" isn't really a thing yet and it is not going to be for a few decades, and when it comes it is going to be super expensive.

Even if they are not using standard production batteries they are not getting much better energy density the Tesla packs have.

 

Share this post


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

Why does the fuel weight really matter? Based on the data you gave the numbers aren't that much different.

Empty plane 1003kg, max landing weight 1633. You then have 630kg available. When you calculate the engine weight saving you have extra 148kg available. This means total 778kg.

Batteries weigh 600kg, so that gives you 178kg available for passengers and pilot.

"NASA batteries" isn't really a thing yet and it is not going to be for a few decades, and when it comes it is going to be super expensive.

Even if they are not using standard production batteries they are not getting much better energy density the Tesla packs have.

 

Something must be getting mixed up I think in the comparison, if those beavers on floats are going to be doing commercial service, they gotta be taking up the same or near the same number of passengers, don’t you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the longest flight they did was 3min. And for passenger service you don't need constant full power, like you do for skydiving.

You can check the data avaliable for Pipistrel Alpha Electro: https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/alpha-electro/#technical_data

And then get a sense of what they are getting - but basically they have a 22 kWh battery pack + a 60kW motor and mentioning up to 1h endurance. Then when you read into it, they say up to 45min minutes with cruise at 18kW power.

And the same is with the Beaver.

Edited by coticj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 10:48 PM, coticj said:

It is still useless for skydiving and it is going to remain such for a long time. As previously mentioned, you would need a 100kWh battery pack to get a load with a 206 up. The most advanced battery pack on the market currently (the one found in Tesla M3) weighs 168 Wh/kg. So a 100kWh battery pack weighs about 600kg. The one that would be made specifically for a plane wouldn't have such density, but lets ignore that.

A C206 has a max payload of around 650kg.

You will get some weight saving with the engine which is only 72kg as opposed to the 220kg of the IO520.

So with the engine weight saving you would get around 200kg of usable payload. So a pilot and 2 very light skydivers.

The Caravan would get you slightly better results, but still unusable for a real operation. The are mentioning 105 miles of range - yeah, but at a very low power setting, in cruise.

 

Let's see - 

A single battery module from a Model S gives you 5300 watt-hours and weighs 55 lbs.  That's an energy density of 212 wh/kg.  So using them, your battery now weighs 471kg, and your useful load is now ~400kg.  (I also subtracted fuel.)  That's a pilot and 3 jumpers; with standard skydiver weight and balance math it's 4 jumpers.

And that's using a car battery.  An aviation battery is going to be a lot lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2