Indeed
Agreed but its a false comparison.
The thermodynamic ability of internal combustion is adequate for these accomplishments, batteries are not. Electric motors are not the stumbling block but batteries are. See my post below.
Although I care don’t care about ‘anthropomorphic global warming’, even if it exists, I’m not opposed to electric motors powering airplane, its the batteries that are a non starter.
From an earlier post I made in a related thread:
'The only problem I have with the concept is the battery power. That aspect can’t work because of the weight, fire hazard, long charge times, short energy duration, and inevitable degradation and loss of what meager range there was when the pack was new.
Hydrogen fuel cell or turbine driven generator would work better, but especially with the latter solution the expense and complexity becomes even more prohibitive.’
This appear to me to be a somewhat hastily-rewritten press release. (Such things happen in the fast-moving e-zine world. Cut Mark some slack.) Exactly how did owning Enstrom Helicopters benefit F. Lee Bailey’s law practice, more than simply owning ‘a’ helicopter?
It is remarkable how many folks see a rather astounding technological feat, and respond with a “yeah, but …” argument to diminish it. The AvWeb community skews older; do none of you remember that radical idea of the “all-electric home” of the fifties, and the scorn of those who couldn’t imaging heating and cooling the air, water, and food in it from a mere electrical line?
We have not yet seen any significant penetration of the fixed wing aircraft market by electric airplanes, but it’s coming. Given that it took 36 years after the Wright brothers for Sikorsky to develop a practical flying helicopter, I’d suggest that this electric R44 is being fast-tracked.
At least, continuing development of the electric drive components can be considered useful. When those repeatedly announced breakthrough batteries that will provide the needed 2500% increase in power density hit the market we can have a fleet of flying machines sitting ready to plug them into.
It makes sense in as much as Avweb is a business and EV topics raise hot discussion and clicks and ad views. I respect that and I’m glad to have the website’s information and discourse.
Again, the dead end is the batteries not the motor.
HFC or a gas turbine or diesel powering a generator would work, but would be cost, weight, and complexity prohibitive.
But it would still be better than a battery.
A 2500% increase in power density would help a lot, but at a price analogous to a tank of Jet A or Avgas, with a favorable safety profile, it’s about as likely as seeing Biden at a Mensa meeting.
‘anthropomorphic global warming,’ even if it exists. ’
It does, in the form of Mickey Mouse or Mr. Krabs. What you may be referring to is anthropogenic global warming, which, alas, can also be shown to exist. ?
“Funny how an article about a simple test to further R&D generates thinly-veiled arguments pro and against climate change. Once again Trumpians not just coming out and bleating their disdain for anything electrical.”
Did the article mention Trump? Yet it is YOU that seems to tie this non-accomplishment to Trump (who had nothing to do with the project) or to denigrate those who coincidentally may have supported him (or NOT). From the comments, it appears that there are both supporters and detractors aplenty for the EV project.
Don’t let your politics color your comments–unless those political comments are a direct response to something someone in government supports or opposes–THEN limit your comments to what the actual person the government actually said–NOT those who may or may not agree with that person.
Haha!
Haha!
Brian, they have been working on electric propulsion for LONGER than there have been aircraft! What we see after 100+ years of electric research is that electric still is not a viable option for aircraft. Aircraft, especially VTOL, need lots of energy. The Wrights, Lindbergh, Apollo 11 and now F-35’s all used liquid fuel becaus it was BETTER for the task of flight.
R.N. The disdain is for taking a working design and making it perform worse!
If “I” was needing an organ flown in immediately “I” don’t want it to arrive too late because of range limitations. Call me selfish.
Dave, It does exists, but it’s actual influence is so low as to be undetectable with current measurement devices and is also masked by the 10,000 other influences on global climate.
Chip, Electric heating is terribly inneficient. Thank goodness I have a natural gas service to heat the home. I was nice and warm during last years ice storms while others nearly froze to death in their “all electric homes”.
Get with the public school program. Only one religious group suffered in WWII, only one skin color were ever slaves, and only CO2 controls the climate. Simple answers for simpletons. Details only make it complicated 
Agreed. Trying to electrify a helicopter is among the hardest tasks that they could have chosen. Let’s see how long it can hover on batteries.
No, the biggest challenge will be keeping the extension cord out of the rotors.
If you’re right, Arthur, then the citizens of Earth have nothing to be concerned about.
I don’t have the science background in this or a related field to opine either way. My field is the science of human behavior, and from what little I have learned in a lifetime of that work, for this subject I can ascribe to Mark Twain: ‘To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.’
Either way, let’s plant more trees.