Battery-Powered Plane Taxis, Set To Fly Soon

bigdaddy writes "'WORCESTER - At 10:01 a.m. yesterday, Cary Dillman fastened her shoulder belts in the pilot's seat of a sleek twin-seat airplane, closed the cockpit canopy, and taxied into aviation history sounding - in her words - "like a sewing machine." Dillman was piloting the first conventional airplane powered by electricity.' How cool is that! Full details in this story."

Comments

So...

[Error-404NotFound]

how long till we see a perpetual motion plane and taxi?

non polluting

[monadicIO]

The article says that the plane is non-polluting - something I hear often of electric-driven things. Is there any quantitative measure of how much lesser pollution results from the electricity generation itself?

Re:non polluting

[Ismilar]

No, because it depends where the power is generated.
If it's here where I am, most (if not all) of my electricity comes from hydro and nuclear. If it's in the US, it'll likely be fossil fuels, but since it's produced in large quantities it will be less fossil fuels than what the plane would produce...

So it isn't completely 'non polluting', but it's still much better than a regular plane.

Re:non polluting

[Waffle Iron]

Electric-powered vehicles usually pollute less because of the puny storage capacities of current battery technology. Since a battery can only store 1 or 2 orders of magnitude less energy per pound than a hydrocarbon fuel, this forces the vehicle designer to push for extreme efficiency in the vehicle to get any useful range at all.

The electric power may or may not pollute less per joule than the energy from a conventional engine, but since so many fewer joules are being used, pollution is lower.

If a better battery were to arrive that allowed you to get 300 miles range between charges driving a Lincoln Navigator at 80 MPH, you probably wouldn't be saving too much on overall pollution (at least with today's electric power generating mix).

Re:non polluting

[109 97 116 116]

"If a better battery were to arrive that allowed you to get 300 miles range between charges driving a Lincoln Navigator at 80 MPH, you probably wouldn't be saving too much on overall pollution (at least with today's electric power generating mix)."

So if you apply that logic, to save the world, we must:

1. Be willing to drive a vehicle that is inconveniently small so as to allow current electric motor technology to even be feasable.
and
2. Be willing to get there slower.

(Anyone done time studies on the economic impact of being late a percentage of the time?)
and
3. Be willing to maybe not be able to get there in the first place should the destination be a little too far between charges...

I don't know. I like the idea of electric vehicles, but I think the econimics are not there yet.

Re:non polluting

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, generation facilities can install multi-$$$ scrubbing / cleaning technologies on their stacks to prevent Nasty Stuff from getting into the air.

A jet engine, as far as I know, just burns the stuff and has no controls in place for some of the nastier chemicals that result.

Re:non polluting

[stephanruby]

One big power plant is better than thousands of small power plants.

Re:non polluting

[Anonymous Coward]

One big power plant is better ... aehm, no. Small power plants can be built to be very effective and transporting electricity means losing most of it in the form of heat.

Of course a big but dumb power plant means big money, too and since business people are short thinking but not short sighted they use to go for the money.

Re:non polluting

[s20451]

The idea is that electrical power is clean in principle, because it can be generated from renewable and non-polluting sources. If everything requiring energy could be efficiently powered with electricity, we would be a long way towards ending the use of fossil fuels.

Re:non polluting

[Anonymous Coward]

--I disagree. One big plant is great if you like the microsoft version of electrical generation and sales, ie, you rent your power forever, subject to political scams, corporate scams, government scams, half your money going to parasite middleman spot market traders, no cost guarantees, no availability guarantees, no "purity" guarantees. With tech out now, anyone can be their own electrical producer, and you get to pay the thing off. It's also much better for national and personal security. One vulnerable big target, or millions of electrical producing "nodes' spread out all over? which is better? One plant goes down, million peple lose power, just ducky-not.

Works for me, my electric bill for the next few decades is paid. Renting is a nice concept for something you only need once in awhile, like travel to another city by plane, rent a car for a week. Besides that, it's usually more practical to buy stuff. You can rent your furniture, your car, your tv, your computer-but why would most people want to do that? Electrcitity is the same way, the only honest reason we have electrical set up like it is now is from the monopolists a long time ago squelching local produced power-there wasn't enough profit in it, that and just inertia and laziness mostly, people don't want to be bothered, especially intternet armchair experts on home produced power. Can't tell ya how many people I have seen write me tell me my solar doesn't work, because they are some expert...uh huh. It's sitting here working, constantly. these are the same idjits complained about them new fangled hoss less carriages, then they complained that no one needed their own computer, that mainframes would be all we needed. Freeking pompous "experts".

In the 20's and 30's there was a booming business in wind generation for instance, google your way to jacobs corporation back then, big brother government stepped in, stole tax money, stole land from people, instituted socialised electricity, carved in legal stone a few monopolies and thei r way of doing electrical power, instituted their 'codes", poof, killed off promising technology, set it back by decades on purpose to make billions for a handful of big corporations. How lovely.

Screw them. Go home made power, it's the cool thing to do. Exactly the same as buy pre loaded windows machine, pick nose, never learn, never upgrade, OR, start from scratch, build your own box, learn how poots work, load free operating system, customise and tweak to your personal specs. Now, which is cooler?

Hope these guys with their electrical plane work out the bugs, sounds very interesting. I don't like they got tax money though, but oh well, one less junket for some bozo bureaucrats, the money was stolen anyway, that's carved in stone,so, might as well spend it on something cool.

Re:non polluting

[stephanruby]

I take back what I said.

Is this a good thing after 9/11 ?

[Krapangor]

Mad islamist madmen might use these for attacks with biological weapons.
You can block roads for cars but not the air for these buggers.
It would be better if everyone says on the ground.
I mean if we were meant to fly, why we haven't gotten wings then ?
And the result will be Bin Laden laughing in an afghanistan cave somewhere.

Re:Is this a good thing after 9/11 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, 200 million bin ladens, that's what it's gonna be.

not to mention...

[Trepidity]

...the batteries, which often have lots of nasty toxic compounds in them (though that's gotten a bit better recently).

History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[kylef]

As a private pilot, I saw the headline and became excited. But alas, when I actually READ the article, I learned that this fancy all-electric airplane has not actually FLOWN yet!

Taxiing is hardly a proof of concept when the point of the vehicle is to FLY!

I don't see how this could possibly represent a first in aviation history until the thing actually flies...

Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[pgrote]

Dunn is also working on Fuel Cell planes.

Fuel Cell and Aviation

He says, "There is a limitless supply of hydrogen, and it poses no environmental harm, unlike carbon dioxide and other compounds generated by traditional gasoline or diesel engines," Dunn said. "

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[GigsVT]

There is a limitless supply of hydrogen,

Uhhh, what? Hydrogen is not an energy source! It is merely a storage medium for energy.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[Anonymous Coward]

And the same can be said of natural gas, coal, and other hydrocarbons.

Your fucking point?

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[mc6809e]

Uhhh, what? Hydrogen is not an energy source! It is merely a storage medium for energy.

Counter-example:

4H -> He + neutrinos + energy

And as an anonymous coward already pointed out: If you claim hydrogen is merely a storage medium for energy, then you must also claim natural gas, coal, and oil are merely storage mediums.

I suspect that you were trying to say that energy must be used to create the hydrogen gas before the energy can be gotten from it, which is true, but to call it a "storage medium" is still incorrect. A more accurate thing you can say about it is that it is an element.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[GigsVT]

Yes, of course, it's the most abundant element in the universe. In theory it is limitless.

In practice, generating hydrogen takes more energy than it yields, therefore you really can't say it is an energy source, in practical terms.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[Fnkmaster]

The point is obvious brainiac. On the surface of the earth, elemental molecular hydrogen (H_2) is hard to come by. The other hydrocarbon compounds you mention are easy to come by as they are more stable.

To make hydrogen gas may even take more energy than you get back from it (if for example you hydrolize it from water, then use it in a fuel cell, you have a net loss of energy unless your processes are all 100% efficient).

That's why hydrogen is commonly considered a storage medium rather than energy source on planet earth.

If you happen to be a large, high pressure ball of gas in outer space with a superheated, ultradense cloud of hydrogen as one of your primary components, then yes, hydrogen makes a fine source of energy via high temperature fusion. Hydrogen may also be harvestable elsewhere in the solar system, but we were really just talking about planet earth here.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[NelsChristian]

I know of coal mines, oil wells, and gas wells. Where would I find a hydrogen mine or well?

Until such a mine or well is found, the use of 'storage medium' or 'transmission medium' is a reasonable metaphor. It isn't perfect, but does imply that the energy used when burning hydrogen originated from the extraction of coal or oil or gas, or (to a declining level in the USA) nuclear power.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a laugh. Hydrogen is less stable than a chain of molecules consisting of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon? What? Does the Hydrogen just spontaneously split?

My point, jackass, is that the distinction is entirely inaccurate. You claim that Hydrogen can not be considered a source of energy because we can not efficiently tap it. You claim that hydrocarbons are sources of energy because we can. Yet at another time, we couldn't efficiently tap those resources because of the excessive resources required to obtain them. Thus, hydrocarbons are not a source but a storage medium. Either way, it doesn't fucking matter.

If you'll recall, no one is proposing that Hydrogen be obtained by electrolysis, because of the reasons you have mentioned. Instead, other methods have been proposed. Consider the proposed method of using algae to extract Hydrogen. Surely this method would reduce the required energy to just above nil.

Your point about storage mediums vs. sources is entirely rooted in semantics, and is a foolishly pretentious distinction to make. Just because a source can not be efficiently tapped does not mean that it ceases to be a source. Get real.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[smithmc]

Counter-example:

4H -> He + neutrinos + energy

So are you suggesting that we're going to start seeing general-aviation craft with Mr. Fusions mounted inside? 'Cause otherwise, the equation above is a non sequitur for this discussion.

And as an anonymous coward already pointed out: If you claim hydrogen is merely a storage medium for energy, then you must also claim natural gas, coal, and oil are merely storage mediums.

One small difference: The energy is already present in the fossil fuels; it merely needs to be liberated (which also happens to be very easy to do). We have to put the energy into the hydrogen before we can use it (unless you happen to know of a plentiful source of naturally existing gaseous hydrogen). That energy still has to come from somewhere.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well

[Fnkmaster]

1) Hydrogen IS less stable than long chain hydrocarbons. It spontaneously combines with other atoms to form more long term stable compounds like water, at least at temperatures and pressures like that on earth.

2) I am not a jackass. In scientific terms, there is OBVIOUSLY no difference. If you can combust it and extract energy then it IS a source of energy. Of course, what matters here on planet earth (remember that place?) is what we have available to us as a source of energy.

Your argument about availability of hydrogen is fallacious. The fact is based on simple chemical energy calculations you can show that it is easy to extract energy from naturally occuring hydrocarbons via combustion. To extract energy from hydrogen, we need to first look at the energy required to produce hydrogen from the molecules AVAILABLE ON EARTH that contain it.

3) Who said electrolysis was the only way to get hydrogen? It's just the most obvious one since water is so abundant on earth. Producing hydrogen from algae is a reasonable way to get it - of course, this is also known as converting and storing solar energy into hydrogen. The required energy is still quite large, it just comes from the sun via photosynthesis. I realize a similar natural process occurred millions of years ago to produce hydrocarbons we pull from the ground but that's the entire point - we have to set up and run algae farms as a mechanism to convert solar energy to a combustible chemical form (hydrogen).

4) I didn't make the distinction, others have made it. The reason it's important to make is because many people are putting their hope for clean cars and a cleaner environment on hydrogen cars, fuel cell technology, etc. Most people, even on Slashdot, do NOT understand that you have to make/extract hydrogen and that it's not just a matter of figuring out efficient ways to do that, it's a FACT that you can calculate the molecular bonding energies of most common hydrogen containing compounds on earth and show what a large output of energy is required to make/extract hydrogen and that energy MUST come from somewhere. It's not just some "efficiency" factor solvable by better engineering methods, it's fundamental molecular physics.

Of course, it's still possible - and if somebody can make a cost and resource efficient algae-based hydrogen production process, then god bless them, but that process isn't just incidental, it's the entire key to using hydrogen as a fuel.

If you can explain how this is "just semantics" then please do. I find this discussion insulting at this point since your argument is not based on science (you misunderstand the concept of energy input in breaking bonds to release pure hydrogen, and you illustrate your lack of understanding of the idea of chemical entropy and stability a la a basic college or high school AP level chemistry class) and certainly not based on economics (which you seem to think are irrelevant).

Come back when you've got an education and some exposure to the real world.

Yes, actually.

[skinfitz]

Actually - it would be a good thing. For example, if the jet that hit the pentagon was electrically powered rather than by aviation fuel, then it would not have done anywhere near as much damage. A great deal of the damage was due to to the fact that jets are essentially a flying fuel tank. All that fuel is heavy, and it's explosive.

Re:Yes, actually.

[GigsVT]

All that fuel is heavy

Batteries are heavier. That's the whole point of why this is "news", because batteries have a lot lower energy density than fuel.

Re:Yes, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be even better is if we could make all airliners out of sytrofoam. For example, if the jet that hit the pentagon was made of styrofoam rather than aluminum, titanium, and steel then it would not have done anywhere near as much damage. A great deal of the damage was due to to the fact that jets are essentially a flying mass of metal. All that metal is heavy, and it's explosive when it hits things at high speed.

Sheesh.

Re:Yes, actually.

[BlueUnderwear]

Actually, they are speaking about replacing the current lithium-ion batteries with hydrogen-powered fuel cells later on in the project...

Re:Yes, actually.

[joib]

Well, if jetliners were fueled by hydrogen, the WTC towers would probably be standing today. Remember, the theory is that the burning kerosene weakened the steel support bars. If the planes had been fueled by hydrogen (which is a gas, and a very light one too) the hydrogen which wouldn't have been consumed in the initial explosion would have exited real quickly through the newly created ventilation holes in the building. Of course, this depends on how the hydrogen would be stored in the plane.

Stealing the plane

[BgJonson79]

I went to WPI and living in Worcester has taught me that it's only a matter of time till someone steals the plane and sells it to a chop shop.

Re:Stealing the plane

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah WPI, *WOOT*

Re:Stealing the plane

[0xffffffff]

Yeah, Worcester is a tough place (or at least, it was in 1999 when I graduated). I still don't think they give the WPI police enough to do though - maybe they can watch the plane, instead of harass good kids like me.

This + Tilley foundation?

[sterno]

So, all we need to do is combine this plane with the tilley foundation's amazing electric engine and then people can fly forever. Oh wait, that's assuming the tilley foundation isn't a complete hoax :)

Re:This + Tilley foundation?

[avocade]

FYI, the Tilley's said they would actually bring an airplane with them for their next test-run in about 30 days.

I don't think anything about the Tilley device yet, until it is definately proved to be either a hoax or a blessing. I must say though, that if Tilley is a fraud and not just self-disillusioned, he's also incredibly stupid, because we all know what will happen to frauds in our time.

Anyone has any good suggestion what we should do with him?

Re:This + Tilley foundation?

[Anonymous Coward]

current odds on Tilley:
15% chance he's just a plain old fraud.
50% chance he's just seriously delusional.
35% chance it's combination of the two. .01% chance he's really on to something.

Anyone care to place a bet?

Re:This + Tilley foundation?

[BaldingByMicrosoft]

I was gonna post something to this effect -- nice work ;-)

FYI, Tilley kept me digging around overunity sites for several days. Here is the best overview document I've found -- it doesn't include any 'it's-the-end-of-the-world' references that seem to be attracted to the concept...

http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

Cheers

How much time

[Lolaine]

until petrocorps buy the patent? Lets start the countdown

Re:Pictures?

[superpeach]

this page might be talking about the same thing, and it has a pic.

Another useless adventure in battery power...

[Shivetya]

An airplane with 100 mile range, goes great with your car's 100 mile range, and your tax-payer paid for Ginger's 18 mile range.

Fortunately I doubt the public will get soaked for this ludicrous attempt. We already get soaked with special tax breaks and such for electric cars and its obvious Segways were only developed to be sold to Government. (who else would blow 8k on something with so little use except to haul overweight bureaucrats around?)

Batteries are a dead-end option for helping the environment. Far better to call them coal-fired future environmnetal hazards!

Amazing, we had a 100 mile range car in the late 20s or early 30s, are we just that stupid to keep going this route?

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[Anonymous Coward]

if oil companies would stop buying out alternative sources to energy for automobiles we would not have these problems.

ahhh, the fucking assholes of the Oil Industry.

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[egg troll]

Amazing, we had a 100 mile range car in the late 20s or early 30s, are we just that stupid to keep going this route?

Hear, hear! Egg Troll dislikes the limited range of electric vehicles. Its well known that the biggest inconvenience in driving today is the limited range of petroleum-based automobiles. Thus Egg Troll supports government-funded research on a nuclear-powered car. Imagine being able to drive for several years without having to stop for gas!

Its the way of the future!

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[hitzroth]

nuclear-powered car

My god! Just imagine what it'd cost for a tune-up.

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[Anonymous Coward]

and i thought the 3$ "Waste disposal" fee was high...

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[dhogaza]

A Cessna 172R specs claim a range of 580 NM. 100 NM's not that bad. Fuel cells will greatly extend the range and make it practical and that's the technology they're really targetting, as the article points out.

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[spagbol]

It is an excellent start on fixing a problem that is could stop general avaition in is tracks. 100LL fuel (most piston airplanes use this fuel) will be outlawed for use by the EPA in the not too distant future. There are only two alternatives; diesel and electric. Diesel has quite a head start but it still uses fossil fuels burned in the aircraft. Congrats to this group in trying to come up with an alternative. I look forward to my first chance to fly an electric airplane

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[Raven1]

100 NM is absoblutely useless. See, you have to have half an hour reserve when flying during the day in nice weather. So it really has a 50 NM range. Stupid.

Re:Another useless adventure in battery power...

[ToiletDuck]

100LL fuel (most piston airplanes use this fuel) will be outlawed for use by the EPA in the not too distant future. There are only two alternatives; diesel and electric.

And automotive gasoline. The vast majority of piston aircraft engines will burn automotive gas just fine, and many of them already do.

One problem...

[skinfitz]

I can just picture the faces of all the rich people who run out to buy one of these when they get it home and read the small print:

Batteries not included

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm going to keep my bookmarks in an unreliable site. If you want to offer that "service", you might want to make sure your web server at least stays up.

Taxis?

[Streiff]

What will hailing these cabs in New York be like?

Re:Taxis?

[Anonymous Coward]

BYO-EMF

Hopefully the pilots...

[kingkade]

..are less physcotic that normal [sic] NYC cabbies.
Last time I took a cab my driver winged through central park at a ludicrous speed nearly maiming a couple courageous joggers. I've never seen a hotdog vendor move so nimbly.

Re:Hopefully the pilots...

[Anonymous Coward]

..are less physcotic that normal [sic] NYC cabbies.

Just put "[sic]" after every word you wrtie or, better yet, cut off your hands at the wrists.

Sewing machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, most of us are computer geeks, not clothing geeks. You expect us to know what a sewing machine sounds like?

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[bellers]

As someone who works in the aviation sector, I can tell you that aviation works in babysteps.

You start the engine before you taxi.

You slow taxi before you high-speed taxi.

All these things begin to tell you how the aircraft will behave and handle, as well as it's structural integrity, without putting the pilot's life in immediate peril. Only when you're absolutely as sure as you can be that the whole thing wont fly to pieces around do you accelerate and rotate.

Would YOU sit in an untested prototype plane and throw the throttle to the stops without having any idea what was going to happen? Any problem you might encounted at 0 feet AGL is a lot more serious at 1000 feet AGL.

We'll ALWAYS need oil qjkx

[Anonymous Coward]

Things will never change. Give up your damn utopian dreams of progress. Oil will never go away. No go back to your jobs in nursing homes. Technology is dead. OP.

Re:p l p !

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, while we at the CLIT appreciate your page-lengthening post, we are afraid that you have failed in your attempt at page-widening on both Mozilla 1.1 and IE 6.0.

Nevertheless, continue your page-widening and lengthening efforts. We at the CLIT applaud your due dilligence, and claim this second post.

Re:Time to buy stock

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLOLOLO!!!! Mod parent up pls!!!!!!

Cary Dillman

[Perdo]

Is a member of the Worcester Area Pilots Association.

Nice little slashcode site.

Definite honorary member of the cool geek society.

sounds like a candidate for

[Anonymous Coward]

ZERG RUSH! KekekekekekekKEKEKEKEkekekekeKE! ^_____________^

Eureka!

[hotgrits]

The goal [is] to create a plane that might be simple to build and maintain, would be reliable, would produce no emissions, and would be inherently quiet.

In other words, recreate the blimp.

Re:Eureka!

[RebelTycoon]

and fit into a normal sized garage...

What does a blimp and your mama have in common?

Beats me... I don't know your mama!

Electric car Vs Plane

[phorm]

Personally, I wouldn't mind driving an electric car, but I'd be somewhat reticent to get aboard an electric plane "beta." If the batteries for some reason die or don't quite last as long as expected, I'd much rather have my car power down along the side of the highway, than have my plane suddenly choke up in midair.

The first few tests will take a lot of courage. Bravo to those that participate. Chances are we won't be seeing electric-powered helicopters until long afterwards however... they tend to resemble rocks when the power gives out to the rotors.

Re:Electric car Vs Plane

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAHP (I am not a helicopter pilot), but I was under the impression that helicopters cope quite well after losing power. The rotors are forced to spin as the aircraft descends, and because of the energy required to turn the engine over through the gearbox, the helicopter drops at a much slower speed than you might expect. A bit like engine-braking on a car, really.

Re:Electric car Vs Plane

[nelsonal]

Your airplane doesn't have this feature but it does have the handy advantage of wings so it becomes a heavy glider. Its usually part of, I believe instrument training, to make an unpowered landing. I have a cousin who had to stay on a glide path without using rudders, elevators, or flaps. He steered using the doors. The added drag of opening the door, turned the plane slightly. As long as you did not enter a stall when the batteries died, and there is something flat under you, you will probably walk away from the incident.

Re:Electric car Vs Plane

[Anonymous Coward]

you get engine out training way before your instrument rating. all private pilots have to know what to do in the event of an engine failure.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[rob-fu]

Sorry, but the headline never actually said that the plane flew-- it taxied, but it was 'set to fly soon'.

In other words, the headline indicated that it had not flown yet. This was pretty obvious, I believe.

Won't be that quiet.

[Gordonjcp]

You can have a very well silenced piston engine aircraft, but most of the noise comes from the propeller. The Chevvron 2-32C sounds like an electric strimmer two gardens away, with its 32hp two-stroke engine. At full throttle, all you can hear is a faint buzz from the engine, and quite a bit of noise off the prop.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[n6mod]

Only when you're absolutely as sure as you can be that the whole thing wont fly to pieces around do you accelerate and rotate.

And only then have you reached an aviation milestone. Until then, you've built an inefficient, funny looking car.

Look at Eclipse. They've been doing all sorts of taxi tests, engine tests, and so on for months, even years. But only with the first flight have they silenced the naysayers.

Better do those calculations carefully

[NeoSkandranon]

because God help you if your batteries go dead at 3000 feet. Personally I'd rather be in a conventional aircraft. That way (assuming there's more than one engine) a malfunction doesnt automatically mean I'm going to crater

Re:Better do those calculations carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely the plane is light enough to glide to safety, unless of course your over the ocean... in which case your a shark snack in a sinking tuna can. The again, with the weight of the batteries :)

Re:Better do those calculations carefully

[vipw]

Are you joking?

Batteries, much like a fuel tank, drain. And it's just as easy to rip a hole in the tank or feed tubes as to disrupt the electronics going to a battery of batteries.

Compare the mechanical complexity of electric and combustion motors. I would expect an electric plane to be much more mechanically reliable than a internal combustion or jet engine aircraft.

BTW, unpowered landings in these small and slow airplanes are actually pretty safe, it's mostly depends on ability to find appropriate terrain.

Re:Better do those calculations carefully

[aaarrrgggh]

While I do agree with you, jet fuel is much less temperature dependant for its reliability. A rapid decrease in the temperature of the batteries would make the charge all but disappear. Keep in mind that the ambient temperature at 10,000m is what... -70C?

Re:Better do those calculations carefully

[nelsonal]

Last time I was on a jet at 40,000 ft (~13,000 m) temps were in the -40 to -45 C range. I doubt a plane that is only going 100 miles would make it about 10,000 ft (~3000 m). I think the air is well above 0 C there.

Actually, Re:Yes, actually.

[skinfitz]

At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," said Professor of Structural Engineering, Mete Sozen. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact.

Instead the combined mass of everything inside the plane, particularly the fuel, that had the effect of a huge river crashing into the Pentagon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2255459.stm

If you use Openbsd

[Anonymous Coward]

Get redy for a BlowfishJob

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done for years already with radio control. Electric motor technology is great, the problem is with batteries. Lithium Ion stores a decent amount of energy, but it can't deliver the required current to make a plane fly with good performance. NiCad can deliver enough current, but it stores less energy per unit weight. NiMh is inbetween in both respects.

Safe flying

[Anonymous Coward]

"(...) to create a plane that might be simple to build and maintain, would be reliable, would produce no emissions, and would be inherently quiet."
... and would not blow up a building if it ever hits one.

Re:Safe flying

[chrysrobyn]

"(...) to create a plane that might be simple to build and maintain, would be reliable, would produce no emissions, and would be inherently quiet."

... and would not blow up a building if it ever hits one.

You must mean that the airplane with the long extension cord (i.e. not covered by this story) would have that ability. Or, you're suggesting that these batteries and fuel cells be replaced by an inert substance. I see a Nobel prize for the first guy who can store energy (not kinetic, and not height delta potential) in an inert substance. Don't we get this power from a chemical reaction?

Re:Safe flying

[another_henry]

"...I see a Nobel prize for the first guy who can store energy (not kinetic, and not height delta potential) in an inert substance." e=mc^2 ?

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground! Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU should be their battery tester. Stick out that tongue. Way out.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well You would need

[Anonymous Coward]

A Zeppelin sized blimp to carry enough hydrogen to get this little plane across Jersey. You idiot.

OT:reply to comment

[skinfitz]

Sorry you had a bad experience. Unfortunately I don't own the server and so am not directly responsible for it's up time. If you can suggest a good reliable (reasonably priced) alternative I'll investigate.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxiing is hardly a proof of concept when the point of the vehicle is to FLY!

I don't see how this could possibly represent a first in aviation history until the thing actually flies...

You have obviously never worked with experimental aircraft before. Certain milestones must be achieved before the FAA will allow an experimental aircraft to fly. Taxi tests are a very important milestone in this process. Yes, a flight test would be even more impressive, but the taxi test must come first, and in this case it indicates a serious attempt to produce a flying prototype of an all-electric aircraft.

Solar-Powered Sailplane

[baboon]

I remember back in 91 or 92 landing at Virginia Tech, and as I taxied in the little 152, there was a crowd gathered and pointing. Apparently they weren't in awe of my piloting skills; they were actually pointing behind me at what looked like a small sailplane landing.

The wings were covered in solar collectors and the small cockpit had two instruments in the panel, a handheld radio, a flimsy plastic seat, and a rack of batteries. They said it could take off on its own power. This sounds a lot more non-polluting than plugging a stack of batteries into the wall (although I'd assume they probably pre-charged the plane beforehand).

I can't find a link as my searches all point to things that look more like stick-and-cloth ultralights. This one was a sleek little fiberglass plane.

Re:Solar-Powered Sailplane

[Moofie]

Wallah. The word you're looking for is "electric motorglider". There are several flavors available, and it's a really really cool idea. The solar panels don't provide enough power to continually run the motor, but they can supplement the batteries under powered flight and recharge them when in gliding flight. Some motorgliders have retractable propellers to improve performance while gliding.

In other words, it's a super-cool way to fly.

Re:Fuel Cell Plans as Well You would need

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where you are going. Use the plane as a cockpit for the blimp. Thats a great idea. Just watch out for the dope. Its FLAMMABLE.

Problem...

[MattCohn.com]

"Oh my god! The battery is DEAD! Alright now, WHO left the headlight on?!"

Let me get this striaght...

[evilviper]

Okay, so this is newsworthy? They say that it hasn't flown yet, and will only fly for an hour when it does get going. Additionally, then mention that electric planes have already been made that have flown over the English Chanel, and such.

So... What is so exciting? It's like saying:

"Look I've got the first T.V.... No it's not the very first one, but it's the first working one with square-shaped knobs! And by the way, we don't know that it works yet."

Re:Let me get this striaght...

[Anonymous Coward]

It happened in Worcester, MA which is a feat unto itself. Worcester is the location where Goddard fired the first rocket from his back yard -- yes I went to WPI. They're all fired up over nostalgia, sickening really.

Re:Let me get this striaght...

[KFury]

I assume you'd be similarly cynical about the Wright Brothers. Their first day of flying yeilded speeds slower than a bicycle and a distance of less than 100 yards, yet it proved that the technology was feasable.

The way I see it, students and volunteers working on a low-budget proof of concept would probably see at least half an order of magnatude improvement when working with refined tools, a plane specifically built around the flight tolerances expected, more heavily researched and mass-produced.

True, it would be nice if it got off the ground, but the forecasted specs for this prototype, 100mph and 100mi range, don't bother me in the least.

Re:Let me get this striaght...

[evilviper]

The Wright Brothers proved that powered flight was possible... This announcement admits that this is not new, it's more or less just the first time that THEY have done it (and they haven't even really done it yet). Just another press release that inexplicably gets a front-page spot on /..

Hey Taxi!

[Burl Ives]

Wow, it would be so cool to hail one of these taxis! "Hey driver, take me to the roof!" It's gonna be a "Blade Runner" future, for sure. Battery powered Flying taxis, who da thunk it?

Re:How much time Thats right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they can store the plane right next to the car that get 180 miles per gallon that just happens to be sitting in the garage of some goddamned republican in Kansas.

Re:Electric car Vs Plane Not to mention

[Anonymous Coward]

what would happen if he started blaring the stereo. I guess it might be nice because he could not hear his own screams.

Wake up, Space Taxi on commodore 64... damn...

[tcc]

Nobody seems to recall space taxy on Commodore 64

Oh well...

Lightning strike?

[rufusdufus]

What happens to the motor in the event of lightning strike? A gas engine will not lose power after a lightning strike, but an electric engine would probably be fried.

Re:Lightning strike?

[xilmaril]

uh... true. if a modern day plane get's zapped by electricity, a fuel shortage won't be the problem. but it will either only flow over the skin of the plane, in which case an electric one is safe to, or it'll somehow get into the engine, which in case you had any doubt makes the plane screwed regardless of what it runs on.

hint. computer-controlled. the flight of a passenger flight is largely automated. you think they turn the wingflaps by hand? or with a gas motor? NO.

Re:Lightning strike?

[rufusdufus]

Flaps are unnecessary to fly a plane. The main controls on most planes are direct connections from the controls to the control surface. Some big planes use hydraulics, but they do not require electrical power to operate.

Re:Lightning strike?

[Slashamatic]

It depends upon the plane's construction. Lightweight aircraft use a lot of GRP, especially sailpanes. They definitely do not provide any Faraday cage around the plane and systems. Flying near a thunderstorm is definitely a no-no. In any case, most casual flyers can only fly VFR which keeps them away from clouds.

Re:Lightning strike?

[Moofie]

Many modern jets use fly by wire, which means that there is no mechanical linkage btw the pilot and the control surface. Just a flight computer, some wire, and an electric motor.

So, for those sorts of planes, you have to be real careful about how you engineer for lightning strikes. I know this has been a big concern with the ATF (F22) and JSF (F35) fighter programs.

Great but...

[khrustee]

That's going to be one LONG extension cord.

how embarrassing for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put "[sic]" after every word you wrtie or, better yet, cut off your hands at the wrists.

Your high-school english teacher (for whom I have untold amounts of sympathy for) should be able to explain to you when grown-ups use "sic" in paraphrasing. Re-read the post you replied to please, and see if you can't figure it out cletus.

Re:how embarrassing for you

[BlueUnderwear]

It was not obvious from context who kingdade was quoting. To the naive reader, it looked as if he was saying sic at his own prose.

Clue: when quoting text you use "sic" after words which seem weird enough (due to creative spelling, unintentional oxymorons, inappropriate use, etc) that the reader might wrongly assume that they are misquoted. By using "sic", the writer acknowledges the weirdness of the quote and makes it clear for the reader that the quote is true to the original, and that the spelling mistake (or the application of the word "normal" to NYC cabbies) was indeed in the original text rather than having been inadvertantly added by the quoter.

Re:how embarrassing for you

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, u'r like, a fucking echo /.

Been flying battery powered planes for years ...

[dougmc]

Electric R/C planes have been quite popular for several years now -- in fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if people were drawing on the experience gained there to design/improve this plane.

They tend to suffer from the same problems, however -- low flight times. You can have an electric R/C plane that's extremely high performance and fly for 3 minutes (with Ni-cads), or a very very tame flying plane that flys for 30 minutes (using Li-ion cells.) With a glow or gas engine, you can have a very high performance plane that flies for 30 minutes -- or you can try and fly across the Atlantic in an 11 lb plane.

Electrics are quieter, cleaner (no oil sprayed everywhere) and easier to deal with, which are the main reasons for their popularity. You can fly them where gas/glow planes would not be allowed.

Still, a plane that carries a passenger (i.e. not a model) for only 100 miles per charge really isn't going to be that useful. They're going to need to be able to make the fuel cells work before this plane will be accepted as anymore more than a toy. Either that, or they're going to need to make a *massive* improvent in battery technology -- such as being able to hold 5x as much charge. It may happen eventually, but it's not likely to happen soon.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[kylef]

Yes, and looking back, I should not have gotten excited about it in the first place.

All I meant to imply is that a TRUE aviation milestone requires flight. Not taxiing.

Obviously taxiing must come first, but how interesting is it? Show me that this plane will fly (which is the question), and then it becomes very exciting news.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[BlueUnderwear]

Would YOU sit in an untested prototype plane and throw the throttle to the stops without having any idea what was going to happen?

Why not make the first prototype remote-controlled? (with the control circuitry being on separate batteries than engine power)

Novelty value

[Patrick]

Dunn, giddy over the success of the exercise, responded: ''This is the future of flight.''

That's unlikely. Batteries weigh far too much for the amount of energy they can store. Jet fuel is hard to beat from an energy density standpoint. Weight matters a lot on an airplane.

A practical electric car would be much more useful. Cars spend more time idling, have less efficient engines, and do all their polluting in a relatively small space. Airplanes, in contrast, fly efficiently, generate thrust efficiently, and spread out their pollution better. There's a lot less need for electric planes, even if the weight and refueling problems could be solved.

At least he didn't suggest hybrid planes that employ regenerative, um... braking.

One last question: why did the electric motor cost $20,000?

Re:Novelty value

[cybermace5]

$20,000?

Go check your junk box, see if you have an electric motor that is light, and at the same time powerful enough to tow an airplane without burning up.

Fuel vs. Battery

[autocracy]

As a generalized reply to people who have been saying "what if the batteries die," you need to realize that the batteries would have a very predictable rate of degeneration. To say gasoline engines (or jet fuel, whatever) makes you more comfortable is foolish. It's just as possible to run out of gas as it is battery power; all you have to do is start ignoring the instruments.

Re:Fuel vs. Battery

[dhogaza]

Not to mention that a simple eletric motor ought to be inherently more reliable than a piston engine.

TVA

[SHEENmaster]

Those of us down here in hillbilly land are sold power by the Tennessee Valley Authority, from electric dams.

Don't worry, I was born up north.

Hydrogen

[FueledByRamen]

Follow the reasoning carefully, now...

Well, they plan on powering a future version with a fuel cell, right? Those require hydrogen. Hydrogen is lighter than air, right? Well, if they fill the plane with enough hydrogen, who needs wings? It can just float into the sky! And to power it, it can still just burn the hydrogen!

Oh, damn. Never mind.

Re:Hydrogen

[RKloti]

Hydrogen is lighter than air, right?

Not in liquid form it isn't. And in gas form, H is rather inconvenient, having a fairly low density.

Re:Hydrogen

[Vegeta99]

i'd like to see you find me a gas bottle that can handle enough pressure to hold liquid hydrogen.

Re:Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, didnt they used to use Hydrogen in Blimps
WOW - your idea could really fly ;)
--oh and burn just like the Hindenburg Disaster!?!?!
NOT A GOOD IDEA AT ALL!
If your going to carry enough hydrogen to lift 100 people, Id suggest you dont burn it!!
-also the amount of hydrogen needed in a blimp is far larger than to the amount needed in a fuel cell (proved by the enormity of the Hindenburg explosion really).

Re:Pictures?

[JayateMo]

Yes, seems so. Here is another one (pic). Note the air intakes. Wonder what those are they for. Cooling?

Small jets like the Eclipse 500 are the future

[kylef]

I like to see this sort of competition in the aircraft industry. Why buy a Cessna Caravan turboprop for $1.4 million when you can get a 6-seat Eclipse jet for $850k?

The Eclipse 500 is fuel-efficient, quiet, and inexpensive. Not to mention it has already flown! In short, it appears to be a superior aircraft (I have not personally seen one and have certainly not flown one).

But it doesn't run on electricity, so it isn't sexy to the ecologists and it won't turn heads on /.

But in my opinion the first flight of the Eclipse 500 is much more of an aviation milestone than the first taxi of a battery-powered plane that will have a 100-mile range.

Re:Small jets like the Eclipse 500 are the future

[nelsonal]

I don't know about this one, but after you get to the airport, finish the preflight checks, taxied your way to the run way, and done all the landing procedures on the other end, you have to fly more than 100 miles to have any real time savings. With only a hundered mile range, your will arrive faster driving to your destination. Battery technology is not good enough to match cars, which do not have to operate with anywhere near the same power to weight ratio as planes.
Making an exclipse prototype fly is easy, they spent quite a bit more than a production model, making planes that actually sell for 850k will be an amazing achievement in aviation. Even so, it is still much more significant than this electric jet.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has read a history book or wo, I can say this claim is a boast, till the airplane takes off. This does not diminish the babysteps required. You don't claim your baby of 8 months old is the best runner in town, do you?

I'm disappointed...

[Junior J. Junior III]

After seeing the headline, I thought that I was going to get to read about how I can hail a cab when I need to go somewhere, only now I'll have the choice between a big yellow car and a cool electric plane. The reality is far less pleasing.

Taxi planes!

[MagFox]

I thought this was going to be about planes serving as taxis! What a gyp.

Re:Taxi planes!

[i chose quality]

hey, me too..!
but it sounded too futurama-ish to be true..!

while the page was loading i was horrified about the implications it would bring. i DID puke in a lot of taxis around the world, but they never REALLY left the ground. this could be a disturbing new experience..! :)

Why was this modded as a Troll?

[Sergeant Beavis]

Everything he just wrote was absolutely true. Until they make batteries that are practical for more than running a remote control or power tools all these engineering studies are a waste of time and resources. If you want to make electric powered vehicles, then you need to put more funding into energy storage. Flywheel technology is a better storage medium than a battery and doesn't need the toxic chemical that a battery does. Chrysler has toyed with the concept for a while now but didn't go on to overcome the technological hurdles of the technology. Fuel cells, as stated many times in this thread, have vastly better potential than any other technology out there for powering personal vehicles. The powerplant is now small enough to be practical. Now they just need to work out fuel storage or conversion to bring it to market.

Re:Better do those calculations right this time ;)

[avocade]

You saying that a heavy combustion engine that's also dead, is better than a lighter electric engine? I've never seen any extra fueldunks in any of my flights, and even if I did, I sure wouldn't want to climb out on the wing to refuel it at 3000'.

With an electrical/hydrogen plane if the electricity run out, you just use your walkman batteries and fly home...

This is great

[Daimaou]

I can't wait to hear, "This is your captain speaking. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your head between your knees. I'm going to change the batteries now."

Not cool, dude!

[Mika_Lindman]

"How cool is that!"

Not really that cool. If you compare it to things like having groupsex with two gorgeous blondes. Or even having sex, actually.

Batteries can't beat combustion

[mc6809e]

Energy Density of Some Materials (Wh/kg)

Hydrogen ---------------> 38,000
Gasoline ---------------> 14,000
Compressed Air ---------> 2,000 / m^3
Flywheel, Fused Silica -> 900
Hydrostorage -----------> 300 / m^3
Flywheel, Carbon Fiber -> 200
Zinc, Al Air Batteries -> 200
Lithium Iron Batteries -> 150
Nicad Batteries --------> 55
Flywheel, Steel --------> 50
Lead Acid Batteries ----> 40

Batteries just can't compete on weight with other sources of energy. Looking at the above table, we see that the best batteries (Zinc Air with sacrificial anode) provide just 1/70th the energy kg for kg that gasoline provides. Electric vehicles seem to be a dead-end to me. A lot of energy is spent just moving the batteries themselves from place to place. The physics are strongly against battery-powered vehicles.

A much better approach would be to determine how we can produce gasoline from CO2 and H2O or coal, using some other source of energy to get the job done. It's already possible to produce natural gas this way.

Re:Batteries can't beat combustion

[smannell]

You're assuming that to get the energy out of gasoline or hydrogen you have to burn it. When you do that most of the energy is lost to heat. Heat engines have very limited efficiencies. Batteries may be underpowered, but the power they produce is almost all usable. Fuell cells offer the best of both worlds. You get the energy density of hydrogen , gasoline, alchol, etc.; but in a usefuel form: electricity. Not to mention the simplicity of an electric motor compared to an internal (or external) combustion engine. Batteries may be a dead end, but electric vehicles certainly are not.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[rob-fu]

Obviously taxiing must come first, but how interesting is it? Show me that this plane will fly (which is the question), and then it becomes very exciting news.

Welcome to Slashdot, my friend.

One can hope...

[sterno]

It would be nice if the tilley thing turns out not to be a fraud, but thermodynamics seems to suggest it is. If this Tilley device works as it seems to claim, then I could hook up the crankshaft of the car to turn a generator. In essence I could create energy out of seemingly thin air. I'm looking forward to either their revelation as a fraud or a detailed explanation of how the physics of this thing actually works.

Does anyone else see the military applications?

[Yonder Way]

The U.S. military is already making use of unmanned spy planes to get a view of the other side of a battlefield before committing troops. However, these are not supersonic planes so they can be heard before they are seen. There is a lot to be said for the concept of a short/medium range unmanned aircraft that makes almost no sound until it is on top of you, and has a very small radar signature (if it even flies high enough to be seen). When you don't have to carry 200 lbs of pilot and the extra weight of the plane needed to safely carry that pilot you can extend the range quite a bit. 200 miles round trip would be very doable and very useful. The whole aircraft could fit in the bed of a pickup truck and be assembled and ready to fly in minutes. Total cost of the aircraft could be a fraction of what manned aircraft cost. Maintenance would be much cheaper. They could be refeuled cleanly in the field, without the need to ship feul in (attractive target for NME!). The U.S. military has shown a heightened interest in unmanned and autonomous aircraft in recent years. I would not be in the least bit surprised if the results of this experiment contribute greatly to the sorts of aircraft we use in battle ten to twenty years from now.

Re:Does anyone else see the military applications?

[Anonymous Coward]

well aren't you the fucking genius. of course it has military applications -- it's a goddamn plane. it's not like planes have never been used in warfare before.

Cost of Ownership

[dpm]

Airplanes are expensive to own and fly, and one of the main problems is the internal-combustion engines. Even a little Cessna 172 needs an engine overhaul every 2,000 hours or so, at a cost of US $15,000 or more each time. The engines on a six-seat twin can cost far over USD 50,000 to overhaul. Go online and look at how many used small planes for sale have a time since major overhaul (SMOH) of close to 2,000 hours -- the owners are forced to sell because they cannot afford an overhaul.

Electric motors don't have cylinders that get scored, seals that leak, and so on. A lot of small plane owners like to go up for a quick spin on nice weekends, and it doesn't sound like the battery technology is too far off for them (2 hours would be fine for a sport plane) -- it might just make flying affordable.

I agree that we're a long way off from a battery-powered 747, if such a thing were even worthwhile.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[bellers]

Making a prototype vehicle remote controlled isnt as easy as sticking a futaba R/C radio set in it like it's a model.

Making a real full-size vehicle remote-controlled requires firstly a communications link capable of streaming all your commands, plus returning everything you want to know about how the aircraft is responding. And you have to do this over long ranges. and unless you are the military, you have to do this within FCC civilian broadcast guidelines.

It's not easy to do, and it's much cheaper to simply do it like it's been done for almost a century, with a human test pilot behaving very cautiously.

A human is the I/O, the sensors, the actuators, the flight control processor, and everything else.
Automating a small plane would most likely double the cost, at least.

Maybe not, but...

[the grace of R'hllor]

Gasoline combusts, producing heat, which is (among other reasons) why we cool engines.

Unless you're having way too much fun, batteries do not combust, and produce very little heat.

It's not just about energy content, it's about how you translate that energy into motion.

Hmm:
Anyone up for an internal combustion/steam powered hybrid plane?

saw this at oshkosh

[type40]

As far as the air frame goes its nothing new under the sun, looks like another KIS of Lancair knockoff. The Motor is simlar to the ones used in home EV converts. The real neat bit it the batterys, If I recall correctlly he said that a car battery would be about the size of a CD jewel case and weigh about 8-10 OZ. He was very nice and willing to explain every thing in great detail.

bigger issues

[type40]

if you get hit by a bolt of lightning in a composite airplane you would have problems anyway. in a metal airplane the lighting would pass right through you, gas of electic you wouldn't be grounded so no big deal.
the real killer with lightning strikes is the heat generated by the 1.21 gigawatts.
In a fiberglass and foam airframe it's the big hole in the wing that kills you.
Not lossing your engine.

I think a few years ago Lancair solved this by putting a clear matalic coating on the plane, it was sposed to help if not solve the problem.

It's Amazing What 100 Years Can Do

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing, we had a 100 mile range car in the late 20s or early 30s, are we just that stupid to keep going this route?

Gawd, I hope so!

In 1903, when the Wright brothers flew a mere HALF a mile, people knew that, while it wasn't practical just YET, in time the idea would take off. [Pun]

Until that time, people had ZERO experience with above-the-ground travel. They speculated wildly that the ~1km hop meant a space pod in every garage and evil overlords with funny metal helmets.

Now fast-forward a hundred years to 2003; on MY fingers, that's about three-and-a-half months from now. How far have we come?

The space pod still has four wheels (so far, we seem to have coped) and the evil overlords still wear funny hats, but depending on your definition of evil, some are turbans and some are baseball caps.

I have to admit, though, that the idea of "space taxis" freaks me out a little bit; I've seen some crazy-ass cab drivers out there. I don't know how comfortable I'd feel letting them off the ground -- traffic tie-ups are bad enough as it is without adding LIFT to the equation.

Still, public accessibility to air travel can only be a good thing. By adding an entire new dimension to human mobility, we not only extend our individual range, but we can unlock a virtually unlimited number of possibilities.

Every time one system (in this case air travel) evolves by using technologies developed for other systems (e.g., fuel cell-driven motors for ground-based vehicles) the entire concept of "travel" is enhanced across the board.

Still, though, it's dangerous to equate airplane travel with driving in your car: planes can't idle. As long as you're converting thrust into lift, you can't simply hover at a red light.

What's so great about 'conventional'?

[KFury]

It's interesting that the article completely ignores Helios, NASA's tested and proven high-altitude, entirely solar and battery-powered aircraft.

It seems absurd to say that the only route to a viable ZEV passenger aircraft is to stuff batteries into a conventional aircraft, and try to make it more efficient. Conventional aircraft have evolved based on the assumption of a significant power source.

Avenues of research involving the creation of ZEV aircraft, like Helios or a glider with a battery booster, that work well for their given tasks, are just as, if not more, viable ways to reach the destination of a viable ZEV commuter craft.

Mandating novel energy sources but ignoring novel form factors seems pretty short sighted. I hope it's only the Globe article's author who pooh-poohed such avenues, and not the researchers in the field.

Re:What's so great about 'conventional'?

[Moofie]

Only problem with something like Helios is that you have to a) fly at an absurdly high altitude, so bring your space suit (and your FAA clearance) and b) fly at such an absurdly low speed that you'd be better off walking.

Helios is a good aircraft, for its task. Using a similar design to carry people, especially people trying to get to work, especially especially people who would like a vehicle that won't fold in half if they glare at it fiercely, will prefer "conventional" aircraft.

What's so great about conventional? It WORKS.

Re:What's so great about 'conventional'?

[KFury]

Helios *can* fly at an absurdly high altitude (100,000 feet) but it flies *better* at lower altitudes (60,000 feet) and can hold 6 times as much payload doing so.

My point is that when you're faced with different constraints, it's often better to start from the ground up with a design that fits those constraints. If it were me, I would start with a glider as a base, and modify the structure to accomodate a little more weight, and a relatively small electric engine.

Conventional is great for the task it was designed and iterated for. That's why it becomes considered conventional. However, changing one aspect to something unconventional, while still sticking with the other attributes, just because they are conventional, is false thinking.

In short, things are conventional because they're good at what they do. They're not good at what they do because they're conventional. If you change a part of it, and it no longer becomes as good at what it does, it doesn't matter that it's 80% based on conventional ideas, because the new product itself will never be conventional.

Conventional is fine, but when you tinker with it, conventional doesn't always make the best base to iterate from.

Re:What's so great about 'conventional'?

[Moofie]

There are electric motorgliders that do what you suggest...but they don't have a sufficient payload to replace a typical general aviation aircraft.

You're right, going conventional just because it's conventional is dumb. But, reinventing the wheel (or choosing a bad starting point for your task, like Helios for this application) are equally costly, both in performance and in design time.

So, yes, innovative aircraft design is a good idea, but one is wise to evaluate all possible solutions. These engineers have done so, and they're a lot farther along than I would have guessed. I'm not going to be rushing right out to buy one of these things (I think electric power is way overrated) but it's a neat exercise.

For what it's worth, aircraft design is what I will be doing for the next year. I'm working on one team to do a conceptual design of a mach 25 air-breathing SSTO spaceplane, and I'm a member of another team that will design and build a large r/c airplane for the AIAA Design-Build-Fly competition. For the SSTO, I'm trying to use J58 engines from the SR-71 for the "low speed" flight regime (up to Mach 3.5), because they're proven reliable technology. No sense re-inventing the thing. The airframe's going to look a lot like the failed NASP X-30, because that's really the only shape that makes a lot of sense at these speeds.

So, aircraft design has ALWAYS been about reimplementing good ideas in new designs. It's not an artifact of sloppy or un-creative thinking, but rather a decision to leverage pre-existing technology. Much like code re-use.

Re:What's so great about 'conventional'?

[horza]

It's interesting that the article completely ignores Helios [nasa.gov], NASA's tested and proven high-altitude, entirely solar and battery-powered aircraft.

A fantastic feat of engineering it may be, but you missed out the rather crucial word "unmanned"...

Phillip.

Re:What's so great about 'conventional'?

[KFury]

"A fantastic feat of engineering it may be, but you missed out the rather crucial word "unmanned"..."

Boy, it's a good thing those first rockets had people in 'em. Otherwise they'd have been worthless at getting us to be able to build rockets that could hold people.

Re:Pictures?

[Anonymous Coward]

cooling is probably right. i'm sure the electric motor generates some heat. plus you have to cool the avionics in any plane.

History?!

[Ethanol]

There've been electric-powered planes for at least 25 years. Paul MacCready's team, the same ones who built the first human-powered airplane in the 1970s, built a solar-powered (and thus, obviously, electric) airplane called the Gossamer Penguid.

And six years ago, a team at the University of Stuttgart built this, a fully solar-powered self-launching motorglider (that is, an airplane which is intended to shut off its engine and glide once it reaches altitude).

This is only an early step...

[n6mod]

OK, lots of people have adequately made the point that taxi tests aren't interesting, and to be honest, this isn't a new airframe.

To understand what's actually being worked on here, you'd have to do two things that exceed the ability of the average slashdotter...

a) read the article
b) think

The article says that they're also working on Fuel Cell aircraft. Even the average /. reader will know that the output of a Fuel Cell is electricity.

So here's the plan, such as I can infer from the press coverage:

1. Take existing airframe
2. Retrofit for electric power
3. Prove electric power in flight tests from batteries ...and only after you have that working...
4. Replace batteries with Fuel Cells

Actually, if there's room in the weight budget, you could keep all or part of the batteries as emergency reserve. It would be pretty compelling to have 100NM of reserve in the event of a fuel cell failure, though the motor itself seems far more likely to fail.

Re:This is only an early step...

[joib]

Actually, if there's room in the weight budget, you could keep all or part of the batteries as emergency reserve. It would be pretty compelling to have 100NM of reserve in the event of a fuel cell failure, though the motor itself seems far more likely to fail.


Umm, why? I'd say the fuel cell and it's support systems are much more likely to fail than the engine. While the article doesn't say, I don't think they used a DC engine with failure-prone brushes. A AC induction motor or a switched reluctance (SR) motor with assorted power semiconductors to control them is much more simpler, lightweight and efficient. Of course they could have used a permanent magnet motor too, but those are expensive as hell. Fuel cells, on the other hand, are a relatively unproven technology. There's lots of stuff there that could break. Maybe not the cell itself, but stuff like air compressors, fuel pumps etc.

Wall Street Journal on Hybrid Cars:

[rapidweather]

An Electric Airplane? Wall Street Journal reports that the two hybrid cars from Honda and Toyota seem to be powered by "two squirrels on a treadmill", according to some who have driven them. There are toy electric airplanes, but I can't imagine a useful full size airplane powered by electricity alone.
Having said that, there are solar-powered drones that have set some impressive records, using extremely fragile construction, and enormous wingspans.
So much has been done in aviation over the years, it may be possible that the electric airplane in this project could actually fly. (unlike this post, struggling to get off the ground and make an interesting point)
There's a lot on the Discovery Wings Channel on cable about the efforts that have been made over the years to get all kinds of aircraft airborne. It's all been amazing, really.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Moofie]

Say it with me.

Pro-to-type.

That means it's the first one, and they want to be awful damn sure that the thing's not going to fold its wing in half when they take off.

Test pilots are brave, but they are NOT stupid. They are also /very/ thorough, since it's their ass on the line when the plane takes off.

Right after we see...

[Nick Driver]

... the Perpetual Motion DeLorean

Not that expensive.

[Nick Driver]

My little Piper Cherokee cost me $25K... about the same price as a new SUV or extended cab pickup truck. The engine was freshly overhauled when I bought it. If I fly about 100 hours a year, and nothing major breaks on the engine, then that 2000 hour TBO translates to 20 years. Lycoming suggests 2000 hours or 12 years on my O-320-E2A, whichever comes first. In actuality I fly more like 150-200 a year which means the engine has at least 10 years of useful service life but still, that $25K SUV or pickup truck will be worn out and worthless after 10-12 years of regular driving. The Piper will last forever, and will simply only need another engine overhaul then, and it will always retain it's resale value.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[djblair]

A human is the I/O, the sensors, the actuators, the flight control processor, and everything else.
Automating a small plane would most likely double the cost, at least.

Absolutely right. In addition, whomever is "flying" the remote-controlled plane will need to be able to interpret the incoming data very quickly. One miscalculation (or a bad sensor for that matter) could cause a crash and destroy your prototype, even if everything was working perfectly.

I think "baby steps" are the way to go here. We're in no hurry to mass produce these crafts. The more time spent in research and development, the better the outcome will be. I can't wait to hear the results of the fuel cell plane.

Depends on source, but generally better than ice

[MichaelPenne]

The electric engine itself of course is non-polluting as it runs as well as silent. The silence is particularly golden as small planes are very noisy.

The source of the electricity might range from clean sources like hydro, geothermal, wind, to less clean like solar or nuclear to downright dirty like coal (solar panels require some rather dirty manufacturing processes).

However, generally, even coal generated electricity in the uS is cleaner than what comes out of the tail pipe of a small plane, or even a car with smog equipment, as the coal plants generally have to clean their exhaust to higher standards than the car.

Fuel Cells use hydrogen to generate electricity

[MichaelPenne]

And the plane is being prototyped with batteries, but the plan is to eventually power it with hydrogen fuel cells (which produce electricity, which powers the moter).

See for more on hydrogen fuel cells:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/h2fuel.html

Winter is cold

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]the ''e-plane'' takes off in earnest this winter.

Yes, good idea, wait till it's colder out. Batteries like cold.

It ain't flown yet.

[darktroll]

Say no more. I can taxi a remote controlled toy as far as that aircraft has gone so far.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're in no hurry to mass produce these crafts."

We? Are you involved in the project?

There is also a solar powered plane

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would qualify as electric as well would it not? Anyway a solar powered plane is cooler IMHO.

burning jet kerosene and steel

[Anonymous Coward]

--that's the story the suited goons want you to believe. Look it up yourself, I'm too lazy right now, but find out the melting point of steel, and what jet fuel burns at. Even jet fuel mixed with office furniture. There's several hundred degrees difference, it ain't possible. And where's some pictures of puddles of molten steel from the wtc towers wreckage? Oh ya, they don't exist. Just nice sharp chunks of beams, no puddled steel. Kinda funny they didn't dig any up and parade it on the TV as "proof" of the molten steel theory, isn't it?

Yep, those planes hit the towers, but a little later on, charges went off inside. Those towers collapsed as neat as any other controlled implosion, and now there's seismic records available to back up that deal. They did not collapse from burning jet fuel. The wtc towers strike was a massive reichstagg event, problem/reaction/solution, following the hegelian dialectic, history will show this, and using the internet, you can deduce it yourself.

I know this is offtopic from the electric airplane, but it's a VERY important topic to be aware of, IMO

transmitted power

[Anonymous Coward]

---there has to be some EE here who can comment on the latest developments with transmitted electrical power. Wasn't this one of tesla's gigs? I can see an electric plane being good once you can get the power beamed to it, perhaps from a satellite. I don't know, will let some person who does comment on that. There has simply got to be some advanced research going on in this field you would think.

Practically, version 2, I think once they can get a handle on gravity it will be a lot better. Power requirements for motive travel would be a lot less once some way to negate gravity or redirect it are apparent, or to produce super lightweight and strong materials for the airframe. There's sure something keeps the big triangles up in the air, but perhaps it is just helium or hydrogen, I don't know, but they are there, are flying, seem to work. My guess is black budget stuff. Now an electrical powered wing shaped blimp-what the big black triangles probably are-that I can see. A hard heavier than air craft that needs the prop spinning real hard all the time to just stay aloft-cute trick, good for stunts right now, perfectly good for R&D though because it's just "neat". Never underestimate human motivation that comes from "neat", enthiasm leads to skull sweat and knuckle scrapping, which leads to 'stuff that works". We get a lot of good practical stuff from that eventually.. Look at cars, detroit doesn't innovate, professional racing does, because it's "neat", the honesty enthusiasm is there, just like linux is getting better from enthusiasm, instead of 9-5 drudgery in the borg shop in redmond, anyway, cars, racers build "neat", then detroit snags the tech. Same deal probably with this electric plane, something cool will come from it no doubt.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[Anonymous Coward]

solution: get rid of the FCC. I don't know about you, but I say we're in the day and age when dynamic radio licensing should be available. The FCC is too dumb and slow to do this. We need to be able to say, I want to transmit on 100Mhz for 5 hours at $1.00 per hour or something. The FCC does not provide this and AFAIK never intends to. DOWN WITH RADIO LICENSES! UP WITH DYNAMIC RADIO SPACE LEASING!

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA
They mentioned this stupid joke specifically.
Don't be so predictable.
Lamer.

Re:History!? It didn't leave the ground!

[smithmc]

Would YOU sit in an untested prototype plane and throw the throttle to the stops without having any idea what was going to happen? Any problem you might encounted at 0 feet AGL is a lot more serious at 1000 feet AGL.

Of course. But still, does that make this newsworthy? When they've at least been in the air for a few minutes, then it'll be interesting.