system
Great article. Back to the basics. An airplane is a simple machine. Understanding the basics and keeping it simple is absolutely paramount to flying anything. Fly the airplane. Just fly the airplane and all will be well.
Great article. Back to the basics. An airplane is a simple machine. Understanding the basics and keeping it simple is absolutely paramount to flying anything. Fly the airplane. Just fly the airplane and all will be well.
I installed a needle ball a/s gage in my 1940 TCraft back in '60 so I could take my commercial check ride (out of BMI).
Had a wind generator & had NO problem flying the low freq range legs that the fed req’d for the instrument part.
The ball? - my butt always told me wether I was slipping or skidding.
Keep up the good work! America is leading the pack of countries vying for alternative energy vehicles and aircraft. This crucial science will free our population from the yokes of oil cartels and speculators, tax hiking government officials and “Climate Change” whiners. (They’ll find something else to whine about, though…) It’s heartening to see these technologies coming to fruition.
2 replies
It has a tail-mounted 310-horsepower Continental IO-550 however just like ethanol in the fuel, the electric motor makes it kinda sustainable.
I like the tech but …
Just because you moved your smoke to the power plant and the battery factory doesn’t mean you’ve saved the world.
A tail mounted 310 hp Continental should provide performance comparable to a 210 Cessna,which is a lot better than 135 mph cruise.
OK, substitute the total energy and pollution cost of your wind turbines, solar panels, or nuclear plants and there is still NO FREE LUNCH.
Also, I’m wrong that electrification does not SAVE THE WORLD? Really?
It would be interesting to see what percentage of the power was provided by the Continental as opposed to the electric motor. As Tom W. says, 135 mph is quite slow for a 310 hp engine, especially when combined with electric power. While I believe that electric aviation has a future, it’s hard to believe that the motor up front contributed a huge amount to the flight. The 341-statute-mile “record” sounds more like an electric motor going along for the ride to me.
1 reply
TBO for an electric motor should be outstanding, saving the owner thousands, also the torque curve of an electric motor may allow a fixed pitch prop, saving even more in money and weight.
Except on cloudy days, windless days, or except in states that have decommissioned radioactive power plants. How is the electric grid these days in California?
1 reply
Climate change has been real for billions of years. Adapt or die. That’s natural. The only reason (science says) we are here is because of successive catastrophic global events and extinctions. Same as it ever was…
Two IO-360 CB’s at 210hp ea = 420hp for an optimistic 160kts cruise speed for a stock C337.
With a rear mounted 310hp IO-550, the electric motor needs to generate only 110hp to equal stock C337 hp.
I am not an electrical engineer, but assume a 120KW motor equals to somewhere around 110-120hp. 135mph cruise speed indicates to me they flew a stiff legged flight. I have not spend a lot of time researching YouTube videos on Ampaire. For me, all I have seen as far as promo pictures is this 337 with the gear always down. Hence the 135 cruise speed gear down assumption.
I would like to see, as well as others have already commented, the time the electric motor actually ran, combined with its overall contribution to this very slow performing 337 from start to finish. Plus, what were the power settings of the IO-550?
However, kudos for actually flying a prototype rather than the usual artist renderings in addition to virtual computer generated videos that show nothing but the talents of the computer graphics animator. Action speaks louder than words.
Someone has to be first in any new endeavor. Even if it means this prototype is no faster and a lot less efficient than a 172.
2 replies
Why did they mute the sound of the gas engine in the video?
Electrification does save the world. It is completely wrong to somehow think all sources of electricity are ultimately just as dirty to the environment as coal. I have to laugh every time I look in the comments section of this website. In a country that invented the airplane, defeated polio, overcame two fascist empires in WW2 and beat the Russians to the moon, we now have a bunch of anti-technology whiners that think every electric airplane project is a waste of time and that global warming can’t be defeated so just shrug and keep belching out CO2 and lead from our obsolete airplanes.
The grid could be better. Sometimes the allegedly free market interferes:
"The root cause analysis also faults market mechanisms put in place by the Independent System Operator, a nonprofit corporation that oversees the power grid for most of the state. A program known as convergence bidding, in particular, is meant to help keep electricity prices steady but instead “masked tight supply conditions” during the August heat wave, the analysis concluded.
Another way markets didn’t function as intended: Energy providers collectively under-scheduled the amount of electricity they expected to need. That allowed power plant operators to sell their juice to customers in other states, resulting in thousands of megawatts being exported even as the Independent System Operator warned that rolling blackouts were imminent."
The only function I can see for a hybrid system is to use a fuel burning engine of sufficient size for cruise power as a pusher in the rear for noise isolation; and a small electric engine (better visualization) up front providing the extra power needed for takeoff and climb, which is feathered during cruise. This limits the weight of batteries and takes advantage of the much greater energy density of carbon based fuel and permits use of a lighter weight internal combustion engine running at the most efficient point on it’s power curve.
“Electrification does save the world”.
Great to hear that, and a nice strawman argument on the rest.
Neither of you addressed the battery pack though. Lithium mining, refining, and then the retirement cost and recycling of the old battery packs which don’t last forever. I said at the outset that I liked the tech.
TANSTAFL.
Yep … notice how the write-up conveniently leaves out if the electric motor was running alone or if the piston engine was running and working. It could be calculated how much electric energy would be required to fly the airplane 341 miles purely on electric power … it’d require more energy than the airplane could carry.
Everyone is so “giddy” that this event occurred but what would the useful load be if this thing was running purely on batteries.
82 kw = 110 hp.
This tech is under development. The main focus should not be ‘smoke’, which is liberal parlance for Increasing Taxes (If you doubt that, look what Newsom did during California’s recent forest fires. To liberals, tax hikes will ‘save the world’…) This technology will wrest the Middle East from our necks, and free America from having to deal with oil cartels. Every time some Arab mucky muck stubs his toe, we’re informed that we’ll experience “Pain at the Pump”.
Please elaborate on those 'Mountains of Data". I’m sure we’ll all grovel in deference to your empirical knowledge of Climatology.
Could you explain to the unwashed how the Great Lakes were created? He won’t, so I will: Those bodies of water formed after mile-thick glaciers melted when the earth’s climate warmed.
(And not because Fred Flintstone didn’t get his car smogged.)
Mankind’s entire cumulative effect upon the Earth’s Climate can be favorably compared to a Mouse Fart in a Shopping Mall. The climate changes, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Hi Kate, Everyone’s asking for it; please update us on what was up with the rear engine on this flight and confirm/establish what portion of this flight was powered by the batteries rather than the fuel. Thank you!
Yup.
You’re correct. The Mix Master was never that fast to begin with. The one advantage this plane provided was a Center-Line of Thrust, which eliminates the “Critical Engine”. I’ll suggest that was why they chose this design as a test bed; to evaluate their engine without concern for asymmetric thrust. I heard Cessna was going to offer a diesel powered Skylane, but it looks like they dropped that model.
I think the author implied but missed the opportunity of explaining the relevance of the airspeed indicator in explaining how to maintain straight and level flight in IMC with “needle/ball & airspeed” instruments. Please let me know whether you think I am correct in the following assertions:
The airspeed indicator would tell you pitch, if power is a constant, by showing rate of change and direction of change, when flying straight and level: increasing airspeed = pitch attitude low (need to increase AOA) ; decreasing airspeed pitch = attitude high (need to decrease AOA).
You need to know your straight and level target airspeed relevant to the current power setting.
One thing I don’t understand is how you would initiate and keep a constant rate turn with N/B&A, since, if you are lining the needle up with a turn marking (with ball centered of course), without a power change, airspeed have to decrease to maintain a constant altitude. How are level turns done with N/B&A?