Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Electric / hybrid aircraft propulsion (NOT cars)

I wonder what kind of engine they use for driving the generator. Could they use a non-certified engine for that purpose since they can use (can they?) the battery as backup. Of course they would still need some minimum certification in order to prove that the engine won’t light up the plane when it fails.

EDQH, Germany

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/first-commercial-grade-aircraft-flies-on-hydrogen-fuel-cells/

The Brits did it again.. After Frank Whittle now this

Nice idea to use the vast space of an airfield for solar panels to provide the energy to make hydrogen. But I can see a NOTAM here: ‘due to a recent runway excursion no fuel available’

Last Edited by aart at 26 Sep 13:54
Private field, Mallorca, Spain

Anyone know how much a Pipestrel Electric costs on annual insurance premiums? I heard 1500£/year for third party and up to 15000£/year for it’s hull value, given that electric aircraft would average less than Avgas peers in training setup (200/year vs 300h/year ?) that would make a big +50£/h in direct costs?

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Would a gas turbine driving a generator driving two electric motors be more efficient than pouring the same amount of jet-a1 into two turboprop engines?

It certainly could be, if it allows the turbine to run at best efficiency. The problem with gas turbines is not low efficiency in particular, but rather that the range in power where it has OK efficiency is very narrow. Outside that range the efficiency is abysmal.

For an aircraft there is also the weight problem.

The larger issue is what exactly is it you are going to solve with electric planes? When thinking of mass transport of humans, it’s largely a 1’st world problem. The only reason we travel as much as we do is because it is fast and cheap, not because we have to. We go on holiday to Grand Canaria and Thailand instead of going on local trips. Unless someone comes up with a propulsion system enabling long distance travelling equally fast and cheap without using fossil fuel, then 80-90 % of the market is gone. It’s as simple as that. Other ways of using surplus money at a better value will take over. For the moment, there really is no known way in the realms of technology for anything that can substitute fossil fuel based tech, and that is without looking at the economics of it.

Therefore, I believe that electric or some other form of clean propulsion will create different markets than today. It will not be mass transport of drunk holiday guests. GA, at least large parts of it, may in fact be such a market, and may very well be the only market for relatively cheap air travel for several decades to come.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

“For the moment, there really is no known way in the realms of technology for anything that can substitute fossil fuel based tech, and that is without looking at the economics of it.”

Actually, there is here.

T28
Switzerland

LeSving wrote:

GA, at least large parts of it, may in fact be such a market, and may very well be the only market for relatively cheap air travel for several decades to come

Isn’t that a contradiction? GA and cheap air travel? I’ve flown 2000 nm CAT cheaper than 100 nm GA, and that’s with a modern Rotax powered A210. Even if Covid-19 and the economic crisis in aviation make CAT 5x as expensive as now, it would still be cost-effective compared to GA on many routes.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Actually, there is here.

Yes we’ll, there is biofuel as well, and it has been used for CAT already. The same problem: land use.

Even if Covid-19 and the economic crisis in aviation make CAT 5x as expensive as now, it would still be cost-effective compared to GA on many routes.

I don’t see how that would make a difference. The important thing is, how much CAT would there be if it was 5 X as expensive as today? Maybe 10-20% of today ? The only reason there is a market is it is cheap today. Increase the price, the market is gone. Why? Because 80-90 % of it is non essential surplus money that easily will find other uses giving more value for the individual.

Long distance air travel without using fossil fuel is way into the future. GA using electric power is not. It’s currently restricted to an hour or so, but that is enough in many cases. The economics of it is also favourable, just like cars, and will only become better.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

#LeSving wrote:- When thinking of mass transport of humans, it’s largely a 1’st world problem. The only reason we travel as much as we do is because it is fast and cheap, not because we have to. We go on holiday to Grand Canaria and Thailand instead of going on local trips.
This just isn’t true as anyone who has worked and travelled in countries like Pakistan and India can attestify. It’s the distances between areas, poor roads, and lack of high speed rail that sees aircraft full in these countries.
Then there is the annual Haj. There are probably more people using airlines to travel to Mecca in one month than use the whole Norwegian fleet does in 1 year.
Would electric aircraft help out here? That’s difficult to say as we have yet to see an electric airliner which can compete with their jet engined counterparts on any route.

France

MedEwok wrote:

Isn’t that a contradiction? GA and cheap air travel? I’ve flown 2000 nm CAT cheaper than 100 nm GA, and that’s with a modern Rotax powered A210. Even if Covid-19 and the economic crisis in aviation make CAT 5x as expensive as now, it would still be cost-effective compared to GA on many routes.

Today yes. Before low-cost airlines it was quite different. In the 1980s I frequently flew business trips myself at lower cost than commercial — particularly to out of the way locations. I recall flying Uppsala-Dundee in a rented TB20 for a lower cost than commercial. Another time I and a colleague flew together Uppsala-Lisbon (1600 NM) in a rented PA28 for less than two commercial air tickets. (Of course, given that it took two days each way, we mainly did it for fun, but our employer paid!)

With no low-cost airlines we could find ourselves in a similar situation again.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

It still is simply a question of the cost of a ticket. Travelling is cheap, and that is the reason people travel. If it’s to Mekka for superstitious reasons, or to London for “shopping”, makes no difference. Increase the cost 5x and the market for non essential travelling is gone.

There is no feasible way today to create mass market, long distance flight without fossil fuel. One thing is the lack of technology, the main reason is the cost. GA and some drone like stuff is in a much better position.

Maybe some genius invents a MACH 2 cruising vessel using some exotic synthetic fuel. This may very well happen, but unless that fuel is produced “for free” as fossil fuel essentially is in comparison, there won’t be a mass market. It will be a very small market for the very rich. Maybe only 1-2% of today’s international market.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top