Airbus and Siemens vs Pipistrel

Katamarino

Katamarino

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
1,975
Location
Kent, UK
Display Name
Display name:
Katamarino
Airbus got wind of the fact that Pipistrel were planning to fly their all-electric aircraft across the channel this week, beating Airbus's own attempt which they've been pouring lots of money and publicity into. So, they leaned on the supplier of the electric motor to Pipistrel, and had them forbid Pipistrel from using it for the flight (I guess it was leased or borrowed, and not purchased).

Pathetic behaviour by the two big companies here.

http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/newsfeed.php?artnum=2326
 
If I was Pipestrel, I'd do,it anyway. Eff them.
 
Unit74 said:
If I was Pipestrel, I'd do,it anyway. Eff them.
Click to expand...

If payment had been made on the motor and there was nothing in the sales contract to say otherwise, then Siemens was making a vacuous demand.

On one hand, going forward with the flight anyway would, at a minimum, have forced Pipistrel to find another motor supplier for its electric aircraft. On the other hand, how can Pipistrel now trust Siemens as a motor supplier? It can't. Besides, from the articles it sounds like Siemens had cancelled future sales anyway, so going ahead wouldn't have cost Pipistrel anything.

I see that this strong-arming by Airbus and Siemens is getting some traction in the press, so they should be paying the deserved price in negative PR.
 
Sweeet! Not cool about shutting down Pipistrel, but VERY happy they got beat by the Cri Cri.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Sweeet! Not cool about shutting down Pipistrel, but VERY happy they got beat by the Cri Cri.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I suspect the Cri-cri won't make the record books because it was towed aloft because he didn't have permission to take off. I'll try to find a reference.

Edit- the ref in an earlier post indicated he was towed.
 
What I don't get is why this is a big deal, what is it, like 20-25 miles?

I get the historical significance, but arent these electric planes getting like an hour or more endurance, not sure what they're proving here. (that it can fly half as long as the estimated endurance?, or that they're brave enough to put it to the test over big water?)
 
I am sure Tesla could provide a lighter and more powerful motor to Pipistrel.
 
wishboneash said:
I am sure Tesla could provide a lighter and more powerful motor to Pipistrel.
Click to expand...

They probably could, but at this point it's a little late. Glad to hear airbus got beaten to the punch, even if they will put an asterisk on it.
 
I'm not seeing the importance of any of this after a solar powered plane flew from Japan to Hawaii...
 
Think the difference is these planes are more "practical." Yes, a solar plane made it a much longer distance, but that design is not one that will be sitting on a GA runway in 25 years.
 
There is an article in this month's Flying magazine about the Airbus E-Fan 2.0 battery/electric aircraft. The article unintentionally shows why it makes no sense to build it. There's really not any reason to develop an electric aircraft until battery and motor technology advances far beyond today's product.

The planned 2.0 version will have "enough battery power to allow flight lessons of perhaps 40 minutes (plus reserves) confined mainly to the traffic pattern and practice areas near the airport."

"As soon as one lesson ends, the E-Fan 2.0's depleted battery packs can be removed and fresh packs slid into the wing in their place so the next lesson can begin. Meanwhile, the old batteries are plugged in for recharging. Fully charging a set of depleted batteries is expected to take a few hours, so multiple battery packs would be required at busy flight schools."

Purchasing the aircraft and "multiple battery packs" is beyond the resources of every flight school I can think of, with the possible exception of major airlines performing ab initio training. Even so, what can be accomplished in 40 minute flights accompanied by a battery swap requiring an hour or so to perform?
 
Electric will happen, just like drones did and just like electric cars will. And it might just be the savior of GA. Ease of use, reliability and radically lower costs is the only way we can stop the bleeding and save this.

Don't understand the electric skeptics. That expensive 50 year old piston powered aircraft certainly hasn't saved anything, it's just made it worse. Maybe it's time to try a new approach? :mad2:
 
Last edited:
What a lot of douche baggery over in Europe over an "aviation first" that nobody cares about.

Another attempt to cross the Channel in an electric plane by Slovenian company Pipistrel in its Alpha Electro propeller plane was called off earlier this week after motor engine supplier Siemens prohibited the use of its technology in a flight above water.

"We deeply regret the action of Siemens which prevented the flight - especially because it would be Siemens that would have enabled the flight, being that our aircraft used a Siemens electric motor. This is why we find this decision even more bizarre and incomprehensible," said Ivo Boscarol, Pipistrel general manager.



However Siemens denied it had pulled the plug on Pipistrel’s cross-Channel attempt at the behest of Airbus. Although Siemens does not supply the engine for the E-Fan, it has stickers on the plane.
Click to expand...

Apparently, Siemens motors do know when they're over water!! I wonder if they can be used at night? :rolleyes2: :mad2:

More miserable behavior-

“We applaud the intrepid aviator Hugues Duval for his flight in his Cri Cri!,” Airbus said by e-mail when asked about the feat. The planemaker said it welcomes all efforts to advance electric and hybrid flight -- though couldn’t resist adding: “He plays in his category,” suggesting the Frenchman didn’t play by the same rules.

In fact, the Cri Cri was obliged to take off attached to another plane, and then drop off, after authorities blocked it from taking off solo, said Christian Vandamme, director of production at Electravia.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... I wonder if the "authorities" could have been influenced by one of France's biggest companies... hmmmm... :mad2:

Wear it proud Airbus!! You spent a lot of money building a useless airplane demonstrating unimpressive technology to make your government happy, probably earn some carbon credits and hope to get some great PR out of the deal. Sorry, the general public can spot a douche bag when they see one!
 
stratobee said:
Electric will happen, just like drones did and just like electric cars will. And it might just be the savior of GA. Ease of use, reliability and radically lower costs is the only way we can stop the bleeding and save this.
Click to expand...

"Ease of use" and "radically lower costs" don't describe electric airplanes. Owning a few battery packs and changing them out for every 40 minutes of flight time doesn't sound appealing to me. Battery energy density will need to increase ten times to equal the the 3.5 hour endurance of a piston powered Skyhawk.

People tend to equate a future electric aircraft to a car like the Tesla. It goes a couple of hundred miles, so with a little tech advancement a viable electric aircraft can't be far off, right?

Except for one thing. A car cruising at highway speeds only uses 30 or 40 horsepower. An airplane cruising at a speed one would expect from a $500K machine used for transportation requires about 150 horsepower.

Now consider the weight and cost of an electric propulsion system for this aircraft.
 
3393RP said:
"Ease of use" and "radically lower costs" don't describe electric airplanes. Owning a few battery packs and changing them out for every 40 minutes of flight time doesn't sound appealing to me. Battery energy density will need to increase ten times to equal the the 3.5 hour endurance of a piston powered Skyhawk.

People tend to equate a future electric aircraft to a car like the Tesla. It goes a couple of hundred miles, so with a little tech advancement a viable electric aircraft can't be far off, right?

Except for one thing. A car cruising at highway speeds only uses 30 or 40 horsepower. An airplane cruising at a speed one would expect from a $500K machine used for transportation requires about 150 horsepower.

Now consider the weight and cost of an electric propulsion system for this aircraft.
Click to expand...

Wright brothers' longest flight on the first day of flying lasted 59 seconds.
I guess aviation had no future.
 
They should learn to play nice ,in the sandbox,it's not that big a sandbox.
 
Has everyone forgotten the McCready Solar Challenger? Beat all of them by 34 years.

I guess they are claiming the record on the basis of it being battery rather than PV cell powered.

Pipistrelle demonstrated the Taurus G4 4 years ago flying 4 people 200 miles at over 100 mph, so they are more than capable of a hop across the channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top