Slashdot Mirror
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."
...the batteries, which often have lots of nasty toxic compounds in them (though that's gotten a bit better recently).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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...
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. "
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.
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.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
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.
This space for rent.
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!
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Is a member of the Worcester Area Pilots Association.
Nice little slashcode site.
Definite honorary member of the cool geek society.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
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.
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.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
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."
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Nobody seems to recall space taxy on Commodore 64
Oh well...
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
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.
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.
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?
"(...) 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?
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.
SIG: HUP
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.
Say no to software patents.
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.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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?
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.
Kevin Fox
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).
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.
/. reader will know that the output of a Fuel Cell is electricity.
...and only after you have that working...
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
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
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.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
... the Perpetual Motion DeLorean
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
i'd like to see you find me a gas bottle that can handle enough pressure to hold liquid hydrogen.