Slashdot Mirror
Smallest Manned Electric Plane Flies
garymortimer writes "EADs have successfully flown an electrified Cri-Cri aircraft. The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine . At only 4.9 m (16.1 ft) wingspan and 3.9 m (12.8 ft) length, it is a single-seater, making an impression of a dwarf velomobile with wings at close range. After its manned flight trials the airframe will be configured for autonomous flight. Obviously once the pilot is removed payload increases dramatically and the airframe itself has been approved for manned flight so certifying it for UAV flight should be simpler."
"Are you saying this sucker's nuclear???"
:q! Oh crap, not again...
If you're the pilot, why would you crash it on purpose in the first place?
"Obviously once the pilot is removed payload increases dramatically"
At first glance I thought they were going to complete the conjunction by saying "and the plane cannot fly." But Cpt. Obvious reminded me that UAV is the new aviation buzzword (trend?).
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
I can't quite tell from the summary.
Hmmm, TFA mentions 4 engines grouped in pairs with counter-rotating props...not 2 engines.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Since it was presented at Le Bourget, it's a fair bet to say the electricity to recharge the batteries was provided by some nuclear powerplant.
Also, the electric version has four engines; making Cri-Cri the smallest 4-engined aircraft now, too.
One that hath name thou can not otter
And what stops you from ejecting/jumping off the plane??
Next thing you know, someone will be dragging this into a parking space at work, raving about the ecological benefits, and simultaneously getting denied both life and medical insurance!
It's not an engine, it's an electric motor.
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Think of it in the categories of simple, small, homebuilt aircraft (which it is)
One that hath name thou can not otter
If it didn't fly you couldn't really call it a plane now could you?
You can't take the sky from me.
Here's a link to the same story with a picture taken from the side, much more revealing. Four motors total grouped in two pairs.
http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/cri-cri-the-all-electric-aircraft-gets-airborne
Nate
The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine .
At first I thought the writer of the summary had simply messed up when editing and repeated the same thing twice. But when you check wikipedia, it has the same mistake, even down to the space in front of the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colomban_Cri-cri&oldid=383417426
At least when you copy and paste verbatim from wikipedia, read the sentence and see if it makes sense.
An engine (or motor) is a machine designed to convert energy into useful mechanical motion.
I'd say an electric motor qualifies as an engine.
Someone has an odd idea of 'short'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbgcIOaDpw
Here is a video of this Cri-cri.
Angle of attack seems high, and the landing looked a little rough.
Being so small means that they could put a parachute on that. Of course, you'd have to do stuff like not blow up or catch fire midflight or play chicken with a mountain and you'd have to have some way of activating it, possibly via automatic means.
No, an engine converts thermal energy (e.g. expansion of chemical reaction, but also the heat in an external combustion engine) into mechanical energy.
A motor converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
Most cars with an engine use a motor to start the engine.
FTFA:
"The combined utilisation of these environment-friendly technical innovations enables the Cri-Cri to deliver novel performance values: 30 minutes of autonomous cruise flight at 110 km/h, 15 minutes of autonomous aerobatics at speeds reaching up to 250 km/h, and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec."
30 minutes of flight as a UAV! Sounds like those little rc helicopters from walmart
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Engine != (though includes obviously) heat engine.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I'll have to go read up on my copy of FAR/AIM, but a 30 minute cruise... for anything other than a developer-owned experimental, I'm not 100% sure that would even be legal for sale, even as a kit. It would certainly never make IFR, as that has a next-airport-plus 45-minute reserve hard requirement (FAR 91.167) regardless of commercial-vs-experimental status. Yes, I know, it's a development vehicle, not intended for sale. A little ways to go.
Climb is 1000 feet per minute. That would be under full power, which aerobatics would also almost certainly be under. So assuming you want a good 5000 feet of "oops" between you and a dirt-nap, that's 5 minutes burned in climb, leaving 10 minutes of playtime (they mention 15 minutes of "aerobatics power"), assuming you're fine with a glide home. Any retired Komet pilots or BD5-J jockeys out there want to give this one a shot? :) That being said, I'd have no hesitation to fly an all-electric as long as it has been demonstrated to have a good 5000-hour MTBF and 4 hours plus IFR reserve in real-world at-altitude conditions.
It's an interesting development on a path to all-electric or hybrid manned flight, certainly a milestone to be proud of, but I'll stick with a 172 until my RV10 is finished...
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
It's "NEWQ YOU LERRR". Get it right or I'll worsh your mouth out.
...motorized self-launching glider. That's an application for which 30-ish minutes of power would be just fine, and an electric motor plus NiCad pack of batteries may well beat out a gas motor plus fuel on weight. Additionally, there would likely be greater reliability for a high-altitude restart. Make it sexy like a Stemme S10 and you're in business!
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Playing chicken with a Mountain in a 747 is fatal too.
It's sorta instinct if you're a beta tester...
or death by Cri-Cri??
I thought it was hard to build large, useful electric vehicles. It turns out the real innovation is in small, impractical ones. Well done fellas.
The Ballistic Recovery System. A fine idea, but heavy. For a Cessna 172 (2700 pounds max weight), it's 79 pounds, which is 13 gallons of fuel, or about 180 miles farther you can fly. The smaller version for 500-ish pound ultralights is 18 pounds. I'm not certain that's the best possible way to spend the weight. Of course, if I really want one, I can go to the gym and get at least part of that weight back. :)
See http://www.brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx for details on what is certainly a fascinating piece of tech.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
I have seen four engined aero models.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Hard to imagine it being simple and cheap if EADS are involved.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
How is Cri-Cri short for Cricket? They're both two syllables and both 7 characters long ...
Apparently the engineer, Michel Colomban, no longer sells the plans for this craft. Probably because he's involved in a defense contract through EADS.
*DrugCheese rants*
General Motors and Ford Motor Company might disagree with your redefinition of the word motor. And by the way, don't put motor oil in the starter.
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
It also moves very slowly. Unlike airline crashes, most passengers walk away from private plane crashes. The stories with fatal endings get more coverage and skew the news reports.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
If the source of pollution is removed from sight does it make it "clean and green"?
Is there some unique property of coal-generated electricity that a solar panel or nuclear generator couldn't replicate?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Not by far. There are ultralight planes and some come with electric engines If you actually read the article as opposed to the incorrect summary posted, you see no claims for smallness. It is just the first ever FOUR engine all electric plane. The only important thing here was the 4 electric engines, not size.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
For a Cessna 172...
Excellent point. I was surprised by the specs for a new 172 with a payload rating of 450 to 725 pounds depending on the range you need. If you actually try to fill all 4 seats or carry luggage there is not much spare capacity for anything else.
Christ.
"Engine" has the same root as "ingenious," and is attested in the English "engine," "gin," (like cotton gin) "ginny," and "jenny" (like "spinning jenny").
If it transduces force (force of a working fluid under heat/pressure or any other force) into motion, it's an engine. It's a positively ancient concept and the use of the term (and its cognates) predates the industrial revolution.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The sole reason this story is notable is the power source, which happens to be electric.
OP may be incorrect, since it's likely that nuclear power was used to charge the batteries in question, but this story is about electric power.
Questioning the efficiency, practicality or environmental consequences of electric power is not offtopic, even if makes some people uncomfortable.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
How is cri-cri, which is the same number of characters and syllables but harder to say, short for "cricket?" This makes no sense.
Throttling, sun comes and goes, nuclear plants don't wind up and down enough in a day, Coal is more flexible though natural gas is still needed to fill the gaps. Batteries do a small and growing amount of load leveling and can extend grid capacity. To me this is a heart warming battery story. It is also enticing story about quieter aviation. This plane might just manage to outperform a pterodactyl of similar dimensions.
So you don't see the ecological value of a vehicle that isn't picky about where it's energy comes from?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Is there some unique property of coal-generated electricity that a solar panel or nuclear generator couldn't replicate?
Coal-generated electricity isn't extravagantly expensive.
The Cri-Cri has been around since it's maiden flight in 1973. To date there have been Internal Combustion and Jet (Google cricri jet) versions created. This is just the next step in the Cri-Cri's evolution.
More information
As has been pointed out by others, most small aircraft (especially the aluminium ones) are just the pilot wrapped in tin foil. They are ALL designed to be light - not crashable.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
No engine. Less space than a Cessna. Lame.
Unless the mountain blinks.
If you actually try to fill all 4 seats or carry luggage there is not much spare capacity for anything else.
You can fill the tanks, or you can fill the seats (with adults).
You can't do both at the same time, and stay under the gross weight limit.
[I used to own a 172, although without the ballistic recovery system]
Scary is watching someone take off fully loaded (fuel, people, luggage) and barely make it off the ground before terrain.
But with airline crashes most passengers also walk away. In fact, airliners are between on and two orders of magnitude less fatal (per time of flying) than general aviation.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I wasn't aware even midgets are light enough to fly those.
Seriously., those models a bit out of context, don't you think? (especially considering that, when using smallest electric motors, sub-0.5m wingspan is doable)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Although the AC is right as to the connotations that the two words have developed over the years, you're right, strictly speaking they mean the same thing.
One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
'ingenious' maybe we shouldn't call an ICE an engine then, seeing that it wastes 75% of the energy provided to it ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
This is pretty cool, but I couldn't help being reminded of Jim Bede's BD-5, which as a kid I thought was THE coolest thing ever. Ultimately it was jet powered and looked awesome. Here's a couple of links:
Richard Bach in a BD-5
The BD-5 and other Jim Bede creations
I believe the BD-5 made an appearance in a James Bond film.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I want one where you lie down on your front, get all strapped in with cushy stuff, put your arms out into the wings, and pedal for dear life... charge the main battery up, then take a little rest.. and start pedaling like mad again while the battery discharges into the motors for takeoff..
If you go by the article the range of the aircraft at 110km/h is 55 kms but at 250km the range is 62.5km. How can an aircraft go faster, with the increasing drag proportional to the square of the speed, go farther? Would it not take more energy to overcome the drag and therefore decrease the range?
Considering it has to work as described by unforgiving thermodynamic cycles and within limitations of real world (limits of materials, changing operating conditions, avoidance of excessive emissions & noise, a need to fit into specific budget), it's not too bad.
One that hath name thou can not otter
electric engines : >90%
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Yes, the safety of its waste. That said, I wonder if the wings could be fitted with solar cells. Not necessarily enough to fly continuously on, but just enough to charge the batteries when parked outside. I don't know how heavy solar cells are though, and what impact they have on the strength of the structure (can you laminate them on or do you have to drill holes?).
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Correct. Likewise, 'motor' comes from the latin 'moto', 'to set in motion'.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
What's your point? Electric motors run on electricity, which is very low-entropy and easy to use. Internal combustion engines run on heat produced by a chemical reaction. Given their power source and the constraints on responsiveness, power to weight ratio and performance, internal combustion engines are goddamn amazing.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
[...](single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.).
The rear engine / rear propeller is simply referred to as a 'pusher prop' configuration. Often pusher prop light planes are configured with a canard wing.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec.
Which is roughly 1040 feet per minute for climb performance. For a lightly loaded single engine ICE, on a moderately warm day and low altitude, that's not that bad. For a twin, that's fairly anemic given that these numbers represent an almost ideal test. Of course, its climb performance may have as much to do with wing design (low lift and good cruise) than available power. But then again, 110kph is roughly 60 knph, which is slow. In comparison, a new Cessna 172 will cruise at 115 knph and have roughly the same climb rate at this. Snails and dogs with flying dog houses will pass this thing all day long and likely means they have a wing design for slow speed and good lift, which is opposite of what I originally contended.
Not really encouraging and far from exciting.
So the plane is about the same size as a BD5?
BD5's have been flying for 30 years, so how is this news?
The wingspan is 4.9m (16.2ft using proper rounding), and the length is 3.9m (12.9ft using proper rounding).
Is there a Slashdot article coming up that focuses on hybrid ships and subs and locomotives?
I guess if you are an idiot, that would be news.
In the near future batteries will not able to propel larger aircraft.
What does that mean? Tim S.
four brushless electric motors
Tim S.
Which totally ignores electricity generation, transmission and storage.
One that hath name thou can not otter
generating electricity (even with gasoline!) and transmitting the electricity, putting it in the battery, taking it out of the battery, and converting it to motion: is MORE efficient than burning the gasoline in an ICE ...
google it: Piles of links to support that statement.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
my point? ICE's are (even after 100+ f&cking years!) awfully inefficient. 25% ? you've got to be kidding me ... ICE's have no claim to be ingenious.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
But it's nowhere near 90%, so don't throw that number around. And ignores that ICE-equipped (lately also ICE / will resolve a problem of constantly changing operating conditions for example) are improving, too.
One that hath name thou can not otter
That's a FULL 10 second search on google ... :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle
'electric motors often achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency[31] over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely controlled.'
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
And again, you're reverting to talking only about the motor part, sheesh...
One that hath name thou can not otter
yeah, well, the 25% quoted is also only for the oil in the tank, not for pumping it up, transporting it and refining it. (which would bring the 25% close to 10% ...)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
...while so conveniently forgetting about ICE hitting 50% when the condition become right, high energy density of liquid hydrocarbons (that's why we use them in the first place), or additional inefficiences of various kind introduced by, say, large battery (also its manufacturing)
Look, I can't wait for electric vehicle when my current one reaches end of its useful life in 5+ years (when those using also electric engine should become quite mature / at least first one probably with small diesel ICE optimised for constant speed (when diesel shines), to keep it always going anyway); but stop worshipping them.
One that hath name thou can not otter
What I find most interesting about this craft is that it is powered by four small electric motors.
There are a lot of interesting designs of future electric or hybrid aircraft powered by a large number of small electric motors. They are just as efficient as one large electric motor, but can be distributed in fashion that aids aerodynamics and reduces propeller noise.
ICE hitting 50% when the condition become right
NEVER in a car.
Sure, electric vehicles are currently limited by batteries(best is currently 300miles or so with the tesla), but NOT by their engine. The best solution would probably be cars with permanent links to the grid (like trains) but I don't see that happening.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Of course in a car...
Latest car diesels are around 45% RIGHT NOW, already significantly more than your "only 25%!", with solid prospects of hitting 55% quite soon. Down the line, new materials / ceramics should allow for more, diesels are limited only by their strenght & operating temperature when trying to bring them nearer to their thermodynamic maximum. They tend to last longer, too.
Materials for high efficiency & decently light batteries won't become easier & more efficient to get with rising popularity, too.
One that hath name thou can not otter
http://jagadees.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/ic-engine-efficiency/
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Oh, look, a Wordpress blog. Try this:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/may04/crc0304c.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1694562/Environmental-Protection-Agency-eberhardt
Drop the worshipping finally; it will only bring trouble down the line / your deamons had similar faithfull at the beginning who pushed them too much.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Lots of "Green" in the article, and a comparison with a velomobile ? It's not really green, unlike a real velomobile.
1/Tracks and buses are hardly cars, diesel/petrol vehicles are more fuel efficient the bigger they get. And even for those heavy vehicles engine effiency not fuel to wheel efficiency(think about transmission losses, brake losses, idling ...) is not even 50%(how can you consider that a good number ???).
2/it seems you are the one worshipping diesels, I am not worshipping electric cars nor diesel/petrol cars. I am only saying diesel/petrol cars are horribly inefficient.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
This applies also to latest car turbodiesels, dig a bit more. How convenient for you to omit engine to wheel/etc. losses with electric, again...
Within real world / physics / practical advantages of ICE - 50% is quite good.
Saying something almost "just because it's so" again and again, while grossly overstating its "poor" state & choosing (?) to forget some gotchas with electric does hint at something...
I, if anything, worship real world; where diesels are one of the most important parts of the puzzle to limit emissions; certainly not to be dismissed. And even then I will continue to carry a folding bike in the trunk of my non-daily driven car... (a hub model, essentially - if some place is too impractical to get to by anything except a car, it's still often quite nice to have a bike always at hand while there; and noncritical claims of uberwundersuperiority of something work against such approaches, people can just tell themsevles they are sooo great with their uberwundersuperior electric car; similarly to how cars generally got way too much adaption in many places)
One that hath name thou can not otter