All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna • Hacker News Board

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#21

Post by sgnelson » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

dmd wrote: post #11

DrScump wrote: post #5

It seems like an obvious feature would be to have solar cells on the upper wing surfaces... I guess the energy payout isn't sufficient for the area?

That might be sufficient to power half of the avionics (i.e., maybe 0.01% of the power consumption. )

I can't say anything to the power efficiency of solar cells, but I can see how they could be useful for when you're not flying. "Free" energy for when you're ready to fly if you don't fly the plan daily, but instead just fly on the weekends or such. In the middle of nowhere without fuel or electric hookup? Wait a few days and at leas the plane will have energy to fly out of there. I'm not saying that will be the case, but an interesting aspect of solar panels on wings.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#22

Post by sokoloff » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

yompers888 wrote: post #15

ams6110 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, petroleum fuels still have a vastly higher energy density than batteries.

I believe you're agreeing with me, but there seems to be some confusion.

He was answering your "Is this a lesser concern..." question.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#23

Post by CPLX » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

Zombieball wrote: post #3

My concern about training on an aircraft of this fashion is that you get no exposure to controls such as carb heat, fuel mixture, etc. I wonder if a distinction will be made (in the not so far future) between getting rated on a combustion plane vs. electric? Much like you get rated for high-performance or twin engines today.

> no exposure to controls such as carb heat, fuel mixture, etc.

Right. None of which are relevant to turbine aircraft anyways, which is the majority of all planes in the sky.

It's relevant sure but the big things you learn in flight training are how to figure out where in the sky you are and should be, lift/drag stick and rudder stuff, and endless amounts of regulations.

The means of propulsion is important sure but it's a small minority of the info you absorb.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#24

Post by jessaustin » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:34 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #16

wp1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would gladly pay for 5 hours of training for a combustion endorsement, if I could avoid fuel costs for 40+ hours of training to get my private certificate.

Fuel for a typical 4-cyl trainer will be around 8 gph at < $5/gal. 40 * 8 * 5 is $1600. 5 extra hours of dual in a rented piston plane is going to run you more than half of that possible savings. The net savings will be several hundred dollars, pretty much a drop in the bucket for flying expenses.

Why would it have to be "extra"? ISTM they could just train as they do now, except that they would concentrate all the ICE issues in the five hours in which they're flying with ICE.

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#25

Post by ams6110 » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:34 PM UTC

yompers888 wrote: post #15

ams6110 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, petroleum fuels still have a vastly higher energy density than batteries.

I believe you're agreeing with me, but there seems to be some confusion.

I am agreeing. The "No" was in answer to your question "Is this a lesser concern..."

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#26

Post by AdrianB1 » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

Zombieball wrote: post #3

My concern about training on an aircraft of this fashion is that you get no exposure to controls such as carb heat, fuel mixture, etc. I wonder if a distinction will be made (in the not so far future) between getting rated on a combustion plane vs. electric? Much like you get rated for high-performance or twin engines today.

In 2016 having a fuel mixture in a plane makes me wonder why is that needed; not only that some popular engines (like Rotax 912 family) do not need it, but processor controlled injection engines definitely do not need it. Fuel mixture is so 1960 and carb heat so 1990... (I'm a pilot in my free time flying propeller driven 2 seaters).

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#27

Post by sgnelson » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:36 PM UTC

Zombieball wrote: post #3

My concern about training on an aircraft of this fashion is that you get no exposure to controls such as carb heat, fuel mixture, etc. I wonder if a distinction will be made (in the not so far future) between getting rated on a combustion plane vs. electric? Much like you get rated for high-performance or twin engines today.

Serious question from someone who knows very little about planes. Do they seriously still have new carbuereuted planes? I can understand if it's a Cessna from the 50's, 60's, 70's, but I'm surprised they haven't been converted to EFI just from an efficiency and reliability stand point. Does that have to do with all the certification required for aircraft? (ie, if you change the engine, the aircraft has to go through another inspection by the FAA or whomever?)

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#28

Post by sokoloff » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #24

sokoloff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuel for a typical 4-cyl trainer will be around 8 gph at < $5/gal. 40 * 8 * 5 is $1600. 5 extra hours of dual in a rented piston plane is going to run you more than half of that possible savings. The net savings will be several hundred dollars, pretty much a drop in the bucket for flying expenses.

Why would it have to be "extra"? ISTM they could just train as they do now, except that they would concentrate all the ICE issues in the five hours in which they're flying with ICE.

Every new airplane type takes some type-specific instruction. True, it could count towards the FAA-minimum 40 hours, but almost no one takes a checkride with 40.0 hours in their logbook. I was a pretty dedicated student and at least a fair stick, and I was still in the 55-57 hour range when I took the checkride. Most people training at towered fields are in the 60-75 hour range at the ride.

Fuel isn't the dominant cost in flight training. (Source: I bought my first airplane during flight training and have been flying for almost 2 decades now. Fuel is more than a rounding error, but tends to run around 1/4 of my all-in costs.)

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#29

Post by sintaxi » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #10

An electric powerplant with effectively one moving part should also have dramatically lower mantenence cost than a traditional, gasoline-powered engine of more than 1,000 components I see this sort of statement made about electric cars also, and I think it's really not true. Modern internal combustion engines are very reliable, and need very little maintenance. Yes they need oil changes every so often, and I guess th…

Conventional wisdom around owning a gas powered vehicle is to maintain it until either the engine or the transmission goes. The reason for this is not because engines and transmissions are unreliable its because they are insanely expensive to manufacture and repair which often exceeds the value of the vehicle in the first place. As far as I'm aware with an electric vehicle there is no transmission and the electric motor is basically a spinning coil without any significant point of friction so its orders of magnitude cheaper to manufacture and replacement would be something your average consumer could potentially do themselves.

Batteries are definitely the bottleneck but its basically the only area further innovation is needed for the foreseeable future.

Basically what this means is that with electric vehicles you can continually drive and repair them until the chassis is no longer serviceable OR more likely your EULA runs out and you are forced to upgrade for licensing (software) reasons because there will be significant services revolving around these vehicles (autonomous driving, parking, recharging, repairs).

edit: word

Re: All-electric trainer aircraft, cheaper than Cessna

#30

Post by AdrianB1 » Sun, May 29, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

The big problem with the small planes is not the engine and fuel (still can't beat AVGAS in term of efficiency), but price; any part that exists in the automotive industry gets a 3 time price increase if it is used in aviation, 5 times if it is certified. A 1.4 liter 4 cylinder engine with 100 HP, that would be maybe 15-2000$ in a car, is ... 17.000$ for a small plane. A mobile radio for aviation starts from $300, a fixed one from $1500. That makes me believe the simple to maintain electric engine will have a 10 times price increase when used in an aircraft, just because they can and also because of all the crazy litigation system in US where 50% of the price of a new plane is put aside to pay for future litigations. In Europe we have huge taxes, so the price is even higher.