Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However, folks don’t consider the environment impact of manufacturing the fuel cells themselves.  All that lead, acid and other heavy and rare metals that go into manufacturing these cells contributes much to environmental damage. This conversation is starting to echo the pro-nuke/anti-nuke argument. All one need do is watch the headlines lately, to see precisely how "safe" traditional energy sources truly are.  How many coal miners died in the Ukraine last week?   How many miners needed to be rescued, barely alive, last week in the U.S.? And, of course, how many have died in pursuit of oil? Versus how many have died in the creation of nuclear power? Modern-day "environmentalists" seem to blithely skate away from these truths, without regard to the harm they are causing.  I guess it all comes down to how (and where) you measure your pollution, and how (and where) you measure your "danger"… — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993

Are you suggesting that "environmentalists" are in favor of  fossil fuels? You might just be a little out of touch. I would also suggest  that everyone is an"’environmentalist" when it is his own environment that someone else starts to screw up. Sometimes it comes down to something as simple as a dog shitting on an "anti-environmentalist;s" lawn.  An instant convert, if only momentarily.

Response:

That’s all great, but just illustrates my point that electric engines (even in automobiles) are not practical in today’s world.  I don’t care if I ever fly or drive behind an electric engine (IC engines are working fine for me), but if I’m going to, I don’t want to give up anything that I have today.  Most of what you’ve outlined below are "theories" that "should be the case."  That’s nice, but they’re not the case today. With regard to the hydrogen fuel issue, let me add "safety" to the list of things that I don’t want to give up.  Perhaps a hydrogen-powered engine or fuel cell could be made safer regarding storage of the fuel, but with a weight penalty that would probably make it impractical in an airplane. Bottom line for me is that I’m not giving up convenience or paying significantly more for a less-reliable product because some wacko thinks the world is going to end if I continue to drive or fly behind an IC engine.  Once the technology is there, processes to make the technology work are in place, and the market permits a cost-effective adoption, then I wouldn’t have any problem moving to electrically-powered vehicles.  As of now, that’s not even close to being a reality. JKG In article – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To be practical for me, I want AT LEAST matched reliability, performance, endurance, and cost, and convenience as today’s petrol-powered engines. Let’s take your criteria one at a time: RELIABILITY: Because an electrical motor has only one moving part, there is no question that it can be significantly more reliable than an IC engine.  (An electric motor is mechanically analogous to a cooler running gas-turbine.)  But, the batteries, fuel-cell, and control electronics necessary to power the motor add considerable opportunity for  malfunction.  However, none of them requires any moving parts, so in theory, electrical power can be more reliable than current gasoline powered aircraft engines.   PERFORMANCE:  Electrical motors are capable of providing horsepower comparable to IC engines, but their weight is an issue.  Induction motors require a dense mass of steel in both the rotor and stator to provide magnetic force to turn the shaft.  Either the rotor or stator can be replaced by ceramic magnets to save weight and electricity, but short of superconductivity, there still has to be a significant amount of heavy steel/iron.  So, while electrical horsepower is comparable to IC horsepower, there currently is probably a weight penalty compared to a Lycoming. ENDURANCE: The total amount of energy in a cc of gasoline probably far exceeds that of a similar sized battery today.  That is clear. But it isn’t that simple. A fuel-cell can be made to run on hydrogen.  Hydrogen is significantly lighter than aircraft fuel.  Even liquid hydrogen would be lighter, and it wouldn’t require heavy steel bottles to contain it.  So there is a possibility of exploiting that fact to carry additional fuel to provide increased range.   A fuel cell can be made to operate on gasoline also, but there needs to be a lot of mechanical apparatus to support it.  That would add weight and complexity.  So, the choice of fuel is a critical issue. COST: In theory, the cost could be significantly less, because an electric propulsion system doesn’t require near the amount of precision hardware of an equivalent Lycoming.  Initially, the government might subsidize electrically powered aircraft, as they currently do automobiles through tax incentives, to nurse the inceptive technology.   CONVENIENCE: With the notable exception of the inconvenience of a nonfunctional magnetic compass, you’d find an electric powered aircraft considerably easier to operate.  The reversible electrical motor could provide the same convenience as a propeller in beta pitch. (I’m glad you didn’t say when you wanted those criteria met.)  :-) Call me selfish, but I don’t see how moving backward in any of those areas is a step forward. It’s not going to happen all at once.  You are beginning to see electrically powered vehicles on the highways.  Electrically powered aircraft have been flying for several years.  But, other than Dr. Paul Paul MacCready’s, most are scientific experiments at best.   Here are some interesting links: http://www.astroflight.com/whoarewe.html http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Helios/Large/index.html http://www.skytowerglobal.com/ http://www.skytowerglobal.com/news-index.html http://www.aerovironment.com/

Response:

Once the technology is there, processes to make the technology work are in place, and the market permits a cost-effective adoption, then I wouldn’t have any problem moving to electrically-powered vehicles.  

That is probably the sentiment of most airmen, and obviously most motorists.   As of now, that’s not even close to being a reality.

With Boeing whipping its engineers to the task of creating an electrically powered aircraft, the reality may not be as far in the future as it once was.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can anyone who attended AirVenture provide a review of the flight of the FASTec electrically powered aircraft?  What does the installation look like?  How large is the motor?  Was there batteries etc. in the cabin area?  How was the performance? This is all the information I am able to find: August 1, 2002 News Wire: "…While Electric Effort Plugs Along…  While the debate over liquid fuels goes on, a university project based in Massachusetts is working with an electrifying alternative. The Foundation for Advancing Science and Technology Education Curriculum (FASTec) was seen at AirVenture last week showing off a two-place plane with a 110-hp electric motor. Project leader James Dunn said the plan is to eventually couple the highly efficient motor to a fuel cell and batteries, to give it a 500-mile range. Initially, however, the plane will run on battery power alone and will be limited to 100 miles. It’s expected to fly in the fall with former astronaut and now-racing pilot Hoot Gibson at the controls. Dunn said the plane will perform like a piston single except it won’t lose power at higher altitudes because it doesn’t need air to produce power. It’s also virtually silent and that’s attracted the attention of NASA and the military. "It’s the ideal stealth aircraft," he said. Before the plane becomes practical, however, there needs to be a breakthrough in fuel-cell use in cars. The aircraft market is too small to give fuel-cell manufacturers the volume they need to get prices to an affordable level. If fuel cells take off for cars, however, Dunn said the airplane could cost as little as $100,000. Development costs so far are about $1 million, most of it in donations, supplemented by the sweat equity of students at Worcester Polytechnic and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University." November 29, 2001 News Wire: http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0148b.html#4 "Boeing Joins The Race For Electric Airplanes  Boeing Commercial Airplanes announced Tuesday that it will build a fully electrically powered small, single-engine aircraft using fuel-cell technology. For those of you who don’t know, fuel cells can use hydrogen as fuel for the electrochemical process that runs emissions-free — unless you count drinking-quality water. Fuel cells are expected to soon run in a manner that will be more reliable and easier to maintain, not to mention quieter and safer than conventional combustion power. While it may be a stroke of genius for Boeing to pursue the effort, don’t give them credit for originality. The idea has been around for a while, and back in July, James P. Dunn, a former National Security Agency official and IBM executive, championed the idea at Oshkosh. Dunn is working on the project with a team at FASTec. As of July, his idea was already well on its way — at least promotionally — in a phased project that hopes to create an operational prototype that will fly for up to 500 miles (he’s using the American Ghiles Lafayette III kitplane) by 2004. Dunn also has popular airshow personalities Wayne Handley and Bruce Bohannon, as well as retired astronaut Robert "Hoot" Gibson, lined up as potential test pilots. Boeing, on the other hand, has not picked an airframe to serve as their testbed, but has said, coincidentally, it plans to start test flights in Spain in early 2004. Ultimately, though, Boeing is only aiming to put the technology to work as auxiliary power units. Boeing Madrid will design and integrate the experimental aircraft’s control system with the help of NASA, the automotive industry and several European universities." I could not locate any information about their electrically powered aircraft on the FASTec web site: http://www.fastecfund.org/ But, the kit aircraft information is available here: http://www.aircraftkit.com/press.html

I did not attend Airventure this year, but if I had, I would have been manning the AviationTomorrow booth. I don’t know the specific performance figures you’re looking for, but will talk to the project manager next week and find out what I can.

I’m curious about the following:         Normal cruise speed         Vy Rate of climb and speed         Endurance         Weight of motor         Weight of controller         Weight of batteries         Volume of fuel and containment         Weight of fuel and containment The web site you mentioned answers most of those questions:     The Electric Airplane, or Electra-plane, will be developed around     an all-carbon French-built DynAero Lafayette III [excellent     lift-to-drag performance [~16-to-1] and the highest empty-to-gross     weight ratio (3-to-1) of any two-place, single-engine, general     aviation aircraft available today], donated by American Ghiles     Aircraft of Dijon, France, which will be powered by an advanced     electric motor. The aircraft has a maximum gross weight of 1,100     pounds,     There will be three flight development stages:     First, the plane will be equipped with a 30 kW Solectria electric     high-energy, [320-lb; 20 kWh] lithium-ion batteries and flown. It     will have about a 100-mile range.  Fred Lofgren, director of     manufacturing at Advanced Technology Products (ATP),  told     AirVenture Today,

Related Articles

• Chlorpheniramine. Question for Young Medicine Master Margrove
• 20mg of inderal/propranolol instead of 10mg?
• Can changes in weather affect sinuses?
• Stopping repetitive swallowing
• OT: *Bonus* Question of the day…. 3/29/06