i look for special plane

[Tequila]

I'm zero.
I think I have understood that you require very close administration to the maximum feasible.
I suggest that in optimal conditions, the plane does what is required, but if there is wind against it? If it rains? if the manager takes a product sample from the weight of 10 kg holding on his knees? and if one day the driver who gives him is an overweight guy?
or will they land on the meadows?

so I guess we will have to predict an increase in load to the theoretical one.
I also imagine that it serves a further safety margin to compensate for any problems of performance of batteries (after a few charges do not make the 100% theoretical), of the engine, etc.
so perhaps, you will have to take into account an additional security margin. 20%, 30%?

at the end you want to be sure that that plane runs 100km, always, in all conditions you will need to use a theoretical autonomy of 150km or more.

Is that possible?

In fact, for this reason it is best to manage an aircraft in place of an ulm. for the weight will have max data of transport (passeggero+bagaglio).
for the batteries I know that there is a circuit (I miss the name) that can give you the optimal power even if the battery is running out and just before getting angry reduces the power to allow you a sustenance flight for a few minutes.

 

[athlon]

this as a line is similar to the taurus of the pipistrel, i.e. two-seat glider flanked with double retractable rhotine under the fuselage. the only difference not recently is the rotax 914 (Turkish version) that with the cost of the motor alone you buy a luxury car.

well, considering that the motor in case of conversion from an endothermic would be one of those things that advance and that you can sell if it has market is better

 

[athlon]

I'm zero.
I think I have understood that you require very close administration to the maximum feasible.
I suggest that in optimal conditions, the plane does what is required, but if there is wind against it? If it rains? if the manager takes a product sample from the weight of 10 kg holding on his knees? and if one day the driver who gives him is an overweight guy?
or will they land on the meadows?

so I guess we will have to predict an increase in load to the theoretical one.
I also imagine that it serves a further safety margin to compensate for any problems of performance of batteries (after a few charges do not make the 100% theoretical), of the engine, etc.
so perhaps, you will have to take into account an additional security margin. 20%, 30%?

at the end you want to be sure that that plane runs 100km, always, in all conditions you will need to use a theoretical autonomy of 150km or more.

Is that possible?

for now I am using an average weight per person of 100kg
As a range the plane has to do about 170 km (maybe less) , I'm doing the project by providing a range of 300km more' svalico
the expected dod of the batteries is 80%, this means that there will be no decrease of yield before a minimum of 3 years or 1500 cycles, past this term the batteries will have to be deratate or replaced


in case of wind, rain, jet, heavy luggage, overweight people etc. etc. or go in the car or take the learjet 55 parked next to:biggrin:

 

[athlon]

if you are around 30-35 kg of engine is good

the engine part is that which gives me less scratches there are many jewels that are phenomenal, weigh little and cost little, with less than 3000 euros you bring home a continuous 35kw (60 peak) that weighs 11 kg and is not even the lightened version

remaining on the aircraft you have no limits of quotas and zones to fly as everything would be managed with planes. It also assesses the possibility of using the aircraft for flight ifr, in winter at 16 o'clock in the afternoon it is already dark especially in mountain areas.. .

Okay, I'll take this into account, and I'll pass the info to those who need it, but I think they already have clear ideas about it.

ok, possibly made to say by those in the field if it treats it sondrio-bolzano as flight plan is a straight line or if you have to follow a particular route, so the 170 km could increase.

170km are calculated on gmaps following the state road of the tonal pass with all the bends and various turns of ribs, in theory it is possible to fly almost in straight line from bolzano to sondrio without going up excessively of altitude according to the valley bottom and it would be a distance of 120km , I to stay on the side of the safe prevedo 170km as if the plane should take all the turns and all the bends
(http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm put as a sondrio-edolo-bolzano route to get the air line)

the variable step propeller serves, for quick decollies in short spaces and to reduce the consumption on the cross. the increase of the wing surface will give you more portance but consequently you will have more resistance, all must be well evaluated so the choice of a wing type glider.

I had thought of the increase in the surface of the wing in case of changes to an e430 to make weight that would be greater than the maximum permissible weight with standard wing. If the advantages of the variable pitch propeller are due to the fact that the gasoline engine is better then it is not worth it

consider well other "small" aspects. in winter it flies better, the air is denser so lifting from the ground is easier, in summer with the warmer and more rarefied air it is more difficult to generate portance for which to make quota is more difficult. each flight is different from the previous one for which it evaluates well the energy consumption speech to make quota from 200 mt slm to 2000 mt slm.
to me it happened when I was flying in the mountains of the days with strong descendants and there was no way to make quota even at all motor. my ulm weighed with me on board and full of fuel less than 300kg and with 64cv motor.

Hi.

in winter the batteries if not preheated (air-conditioned hangar) could have slightly worse performances, for the quota speech if you meet descendants you return home, at the marketing level an accident with an electric plane for a company that wants to propose a "electric" way of life would have devastating consequences

 

[athlon]

In fact, for this reason it is best to manage an aircraft in place of an ulm. for the weight will have max data of transport (passeggero+bagaglio).
for the batteries I know that there is a circuit (I miss the name) that can give you the optimal power even if the battery is running out and just before getting angry reduces the power to allow you a sustenance flight for a few minutes.

the bms management system is the part of the electronic battery that deals with how much charge it is still available in the cells, if there were no electronic limitations the cells could give the maximum power up to the last drop of energy, the fact that the power seems to come down to the approximation of the end is an electronic artifizio made by the motor control unit on order of the bms to give the pilot an important feedback on the state of charge of the batteries ( many the

 

[Tequila]

... for the variable stepped elephant there is to consider that the electric motors have constant efficiency on a wide range of regimes, if the advantages of the variable step propeller are due to the fact that it turns better the gasoline engine then it is not worth it...

I might be wrong but I assume that the propeller will not be in direct grip with the electric motor, but mounted on a gearbox... on aircraftmodels is in direct grip but you cannot compare it to the real planes.

the variable step propeller also serves if you use an electric motor, because on small planes usually do not exceed the 3000 rpm for which you mount on endothermic motors type rotax from 6000 rpm you are forced to reduce the turns, first because at those turns you would break the blades from the hub and second because above a certain peripheral speed of the ends of the shovel the yield drops sharply and you have no indifferent vibrations.
so you must also see this point for the choice of the engine and on what maximum range of turns it go to have the necessary torque to the flight.
then if you presume to fly the plane to a 180kmh cross if you do not flood the passage of the propeller the latter will create resistance during the advance, while in takeoff on the contrary will help you to have a greater thrust, but everything depends also on the parameters of the medium you want to get. if I don't remember badly up to 130-150kmh the variable step propellers don't use them even because they cost

 

[athlon]

The beauty of electric motors is that playing on the number of poles you can choose the regime you like most.

Usually electric motors for aircraft have a regime between 2000 and 3000 laps and are born to be coupled directly with the propeller.

outside this optimum range the engine efficiency drops a few percentage points, typically from 95% to 91-92%.

the pair is practically constant from zero rpm to maximum value.

As you see an electric motor behaves very differently from an endothermic, the variable step would make sense if it increases the efficiency of the propeller, but for the motor there is never any problem

 

[Tequila]

The beauty of electric motors is that playing on the number of poles you can choose the regime you like most.

Usually electric motors for aircraft have a regime between 2000 and 3000 laps and are born to be coupled directly with the propeller.

outside this optimum range the engine efficiency drops a few percentage points, typically from 95% to 91-92%.

the pair is practically constant from zero rpm to maximum value.

As you see an electric motor behaves very differently from an endothermic, the variable step would make sense if it increases the efficiency of the propeller, but for the motor there is never any problem

great then, so reduce of another 15-20 kg of reducer that will go in batteries. :finger:

 

[Er Presidente]

...the expected dod of the batteries is 80%, which means that there will be no decrease of yield before a minimum of 3 years or 1500 cycles, past this term the batteries will have to be deratate or replaced

I feel optimistic, don't trust what the builders say.
kokams are great, but waiting for more than 800 cycles is risky.

 

[athlon]

I feel optimistic, don't trust what the builders say.
kokams are great, but waiting for more than 800 cycles is risky.

In fact, I've been hearing that the kokam have not improved as much as the competitors (let's say they've been sitting on the laurels a bit) but also admitting 800 cycles and thinking of flying every day round and back (240 days a year) are almost 2 years of service, I doubt that this plane will fly so many hours (960 hours a year considering 2 hours the average time of the route)

 

[Er Presidente]

In fact, I've been hearing that the kokam have not improved as much as the competitors (let's say they've been sitting on the laurels a bit) but also admitting 800 cycles and thinking of flying every day round and back (240 days a year) are almost 2 years of service, I doubt that this plane will fly so many hours (960 hours a year considering 2 hours the average time of the route)

I agree, but I still haven't seen a cell of any type, model, size, exceed 600 cycles.
Now a battery is called that because it's an array of cells.

I make an example (subdole), if you design a truck that has, say, 18 tires, and a tire lasts, say 180.000 km, every kilometers you will have to change a tire?

If a cell "lives" 1500 cycles (maybe!) and you have 100 cells in your battery, how many cycles will you have a spoiled cell?

and what do you do when you spoil a cell (in the sense, first in flight, and then on the ground)?

p.s.: I apologize for my useless contributions, but it's my job, and I can't help it.
:smile:

 

[athlon]

:biggrin::biggrin: figurati , I worked for many years in computer science and redundancy, mtbf, single point of failure were my daily bread.


Fortunately the failure curves of the batteries are not linear, so if a cell lives 1500 cycles and you have 100 cells you don't have to change a cell every 150 cycles.

in the case of critical applications (such as this) an in-depth characterization of the single cell and of the rod/assessment cycles is made to make evident the typical infant mortality present in the cells.

Secondly, there is a very great work on the part of the bms that is not for nothing equipped with single temperature sensors and voltages for each cell, a beautiful tabellina in memory with the initial characteristics of each single cell of the package and a beautiful schedina sim gsm to nail help in case a cell begins to drift, i.e. to show a behavior that does not conform with what is expected from normal.

However, in the worst case, it is always a glide of more than 20:1 and pilots who know well the route and a route with many flying fields on the route ... on the other hand, even a biella can give off of crash at a sudden.

 

[paverik]

Hello everyone,
Excuse me if I ask myself for some questions.
are a small civil pilot, flight from 1985 with monorotors, toys type pa 28, dv20, roben, tampico etc.

Does your project target an electrically certified aircraft in Italy?
is there certified by rai italia already something on the market?

personally in 95 I saw a test of a very nice ulm glider with foldable gondola is electric motor. the performance however were disappointing did not take off and the engine served only to allow some "adventurous traverse". (transverses are straight-line shifts from one thermal to another).

I would be curious to see something electrical, even if according to my model experience, even if the lipo batteries have made giant steps, I don't think they can plead for a final generation heat, especially on a medium that willingly accepts any problems.

If something goes wrong, you put your skin back on.

excuse the intromission to the interesting discussion.

richer

 

[Er Presidente]

Besides, even a biella can give off of magic all of a sudden.

every 1,000,000 hours!
:smile:
Unfortunately, the reality of electric vehicles is made of two events, a break of a cell, or a false bms alarm (a simple heat that "closes" and gives you a false alarm of "cell on fire").
everything always has as a consequence the sudden opening of the line switch and consequent "veiling flight".
Now the question to ask is:
How many statistical hours is such an event acceptable?
once or twice in a pilot's life or once or twice a year?
For this reason I would like to insist on a hybrid solution that would give greater security for a number of reasons:
- reduction of the number of cells and resulting in fewer components/wires/channels to manage.
- existence of a second source of independent energy which, in case of emergency, would make less traumatic the "recovery on the ground" of the aircraft.
- not least the possibility to use "buffer" accumulations of brute power that have very high kwh costs but efficiencies and remarkable stability (ultracap).

 

[sail]

I have a few seconds, I write a few considerations and then go into the evening.

by aliantist:

1 gusts, winds etc are not a problem: the gliders by their nature are averagely more robust than normal planes, keeping quietly 4-6 g even in non-acrobatic configuration.

2 weight per manager + battery. even here would not be a problem, the gliders, even the two-seater, are in fact loaded with several liters of water in the wings to increase the performances in the race

3 cart: if it is true that most gliders have the single ventral track, perhaps you can think of putting sustenance rootini in a little intrusive way to the wing ends.

4 speed: 100kmh are quietly feasible, indeed we are very close to the speed of maximum efficiency. in competitions (without motor), averages of 170 km/h were made on linear distances, therefore also considering the weather in thermal. the vne however is about 250-270 kmh

considerations:

a possibility would be offered by the gliders with auxiliary motor. are normally two-seat, perhaps flapped, of generous size and performance (gl =40+). have a gondola on the back that exits and unfolds a motor, currently gasolined, which allows sustenance.

on the contrary, in current configurations they cannot take off without towing/winch (which I know at least, to deepen).

luggage space is limited, however you can board 350kg of stuff between pilot, pax and batteries.

I leave you with a photo and a link to the data of a dg1001

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/technische-daten-1000-e.htmlIf you read here this is already electric. http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg1000te-e.html

 

[sail]

Ah, my coat of arms flew it. not bad but the 50s of memory effency seem optimistic

 

[Tequila]

per sailautonomous take-off gliders are also electrical. an example is the silenthttp://www.alisport.com/eu/silent2electro_ita.htmthe taurus of the pipistrel is a two-seater flanked with 2 wheels and motor (rotax 503) on retractable dorsal fin. an aliant friend of my parts (voice of Augustine :biggrin had the silent first model with burst motor, now seems to have returned to free flight in hang glider and with a swift

 

[athlon]

For this reason I would like to insist on a hybrid solution that would give greater security for a number of reasons:
- reduction of the number of cells and resulting in fewer components/wires/channels to manage.
- existence of a second source of independent energy which, in case of emergency, would make less traumatic the "recovery on the ground" of the aircraft.
- not least the possibility to use "buffer" accumulations of brute power that have very high kwh costs but efficiencies and remarkable stability (ultracap).

but if the electric is so unreliable because never the planes when they have to restart a flight engine rely on a battery and an electric motor:


In my experience, I didn't see cells drop by, I saw doa, I saw infant mortality, and I saw cells give a lot of signals that only if completely ignored lead to catastrophic failure.

a thermal input that goes short is recognized by a minimally evolved bms like a sensor failure, not a difficult cell, especially the voltage of the cell does not show signs of anomaly, plus there is also to consider infrared photos transistors inside the package, also they are those that control the temperature of the cells, to detach a remote so correct solution to avoid dangers

With two parallel packages there would also be no need to reduce too much power if one of the two were to give problems, in my opinion it is better to have a second lithium pack than a gasoline scooter that maybe does not start or a supercap counter that goes right to make a couple of blocks

 

[athlon]

Hello everyone,
Excuse me if I ask myself for some questions.
are a small civil pilot, flight from 1985 with monorotors, toys type pa 28, dv20, roben, tampico etc.

Does your project target an electrically certified aircraft in Italy?
is there certified by rai italia already something on the market?

personally in 95 I saw a test of a very nice ulm glider with foldable gondola is electric motor. the performance however were disappointing did not take off and the engine served only to allow some "adventurous traverse". (transverses are straight-line shifts from one thermal to another).

I would be curious to see something electrical, even if according to my model experience, even if the lipo batteries have made giant steps, I don't think they can plead for a final generation heat, especially on a medium that willingly accepts any problems.

If something goes wrong, you put your skin back on.

excuse the intromission to the interesting discussion.

richer

Yes, the ultimate goal is to get something completely certified and "production ready" , today there are many electric motors on the market both "self-launching" and not, the first ones are able to start from the ground and arrive up to a quota of 1500-2000 meters with their batteries to then close the engine and plan quietly, the second instead use only the engine as "help" emergency meadows to return to a field flight and not have to land

Of course none of these are able to be used as a real plane with abundant security margins, let's say that I have to do 31, these electric gliders arrive at 25-26, close to 30 but I have to do both 30 and 31 to complete my work.

realize that self-launching gliders have 6-8 kwh batteries, those with "emergency" motor have 3-3,5 kwh batteries.... what I need is a thing that weighs like a glider but has inside a 35-40 kwh battery (about 250-300kg batteries)

 

[athlon]

thanks 1000 for the intervention

I have a few seconds, I write a few considerations and then go into the evening.

by aliantist:

1 gusts, winds etc are not a problem: the gliders by their nature are averagely more robust than normal planes, keeping quietly 4-6 g even in non-acrobatic configuration.

excellent , means that wanting it is possible to make a derating of the specifications and to weigh a little the aircraft

2 weight per manager + battery. even here would not be a problem, the gliders, even the two-seater, are in fact loaded with several liters of water in the wings to increase the performances in the race

every kg must become battery and so we are really at the limit (I'm also considering the hypothesis of making the battery cases work as a structural element stressed to save weight

3 cart: if it is true that most gliders have the single ventral track, perhaps you can think of putting sustenance rootini in a little intrusive way to the wing ends.

I would go with a classic retractable tricycle like almost all aircraft, if everyone uses it, there will be a reason

4 speed: 100kmh are quietly feasible, indeed we are very close to the speed of maximum efficiency. in competitions (without motor), averages of 170 km/h were made on linear distances, therefore also considering the weather in thermal. the vne however is about 250-270 kmh

the speed of cruise quite high serves if by chance you find wind against not being "sold back" too easily, for the rest being the fairly short route (air line 120 km) most of the time will be lost on the ground for takeoff and landing that not actual flight

a possibility would be offered by the gliders with auxiliary motor. are normally two-seat, perhaps flapped, of generous size and performance (gl =40+). have a gondola on the back that exits and unfolds a motor, currently gasolined, which allows sustenance.

configurations with pull-out gondola have a bad aerodynamic efficiency with extracted motor, better something with integrated propeller in the muse and internal motor

on the contrary, in current configurations they cannot take off without towing/winch (which I know at least, to deepen).

the best self-launched take off independently and arrive up to 2000 meters before finishing the batteries

luggage space is limited, however you can board 350kg of stuff between pilot, pax and batteries.

I have to load 300 kg of batteries + pilot + pax + total luggage about 500kg


thanks 1000 for the intervention

I have a few seconds, I write a few considerations and then go into the evening.

by aliantist:

1 gusts, winds etc are not a problem: the gliders by their nature are averagely more robust than normal planes, keeping quietly 4-6 g even in non-acrobatic configuration.

excellent , means that wanting it is possible to make a derating of the specifications and to weigh a little the aircraft

2 weight per manager + battery. even here would not be a problem, the gliders, even the two-seater, are in fact loaded with several liters of water in the wings to increase the performances in the race

every kg must become battery and so we are really at the limit (I'm also considering the hypothesis of making the battery cases work as a structural element stressed to save weight

3 cart: if it is true that most gliders have the single ventral track, perhaps you can think of putting sustenance rootini in a little intrusive way to the wing ends.

I would go with a classic retractable tricycle like almost all aircraft, if everyone uses it, there will be a reason

4 speed: 100kmh are quietly feasible, indeed we are very close to the speed of maximum efficiency. in competitions (without motor), averages of 170 km/h were made on linear distances, therefore also considering the weather in thermal. the vne however is about 250-270 kmh

the speed of cruise quite high serves if by chance you find wind against not being "sold back" too easily, for the rest being the fairly short route (air line 120 km) most of the time will be lost on the ground for takeoff and landing that not actual flight

a possibility would be offered by the gliders with auxiliary motor. are normally two-seat, perhaps flapped, of generous size and performance (gl =40+). have a gondola on the back that exits and unfolds a motor, currently gasolined, which allows sustenance.

configurations with pull-out gondola have a bad aerodynamic efficiency with extracted motor, better something with integrated propeller in the muse and internal motor

on the contrary, in current configurations they cannot take off without towing/winch (which I know at least, to deepen).

the best self-launched take off independently and arrive up to 2000 meters before finishing the batteries

I leave you with a photo and a link to the data of a dg1001
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/technische-daten-1000-e.htmlIf you read here this is already electric. http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg1000te-e.html

Given the photos and details... I hope for them to update the electric motor as soon as possible, mount an agni, a bit of time ago was great but nowadays it's like going around and saying that the alfasud boxer is a motor to the last cry:biggrin: