Might not be at the edge, but it's far beyond the demands on the car's engine.
Not my experience at all. I’ve been assisting the younger generations find their path in the aviation industry for many years and have seen a shift away from legacy aviation. While I think MOSAIC’s changes will bring some back into the fold so to speak, I don’t see any surge comparable to the 70s or 80s. However, when the e-aviation side filters down to the recreational level, then I think you’ll see a surge and maybe even at the prices you claim with your E/E 172. Time will tell.
Not sure why you felt the need to post your resume, given that we seem to agree that aircraft engines are not being run at the edge of performance.
Too many CFIs getting minted lately (2x previous decade run rate) anyhow. Is there another space where a newly certified professional mints the next class immediately?!
This is a good idea.... on paper.
Presuming you mean electrically powered, the current state of the art in battery technology just isn't there yet.
Isn't that a reflection of the pig working its way through the snake? CFI is just a stop on the train to airline cockpit. Send a bunch of ab initio pilots into one end of the tube, you're going to see a bulge in CFIs along the line.
The military uses the very best pilots as the next teachers - not so much in the civilian world.
Presuming you mean electrically powered, the current state of the art in battery technology just isn't there yet.
I understand one of the selling points of electric cars is full torque at any speed. Isn't that benefit wasted turning a propeller through air?
They have. There was one out of Canada and one out of Brazil that I recall, but I believe it was a 180 clone. End result too expensive build vs other options available.
You do realize your average Lycoming or Continental run well past recommended OH hours? Do some specific models need cylinder work before then? Sure. But all in all how long an engine lasts is directly proportional to how it was broke-in and operated. For example, I knew a pipeline guy who consistently got 3000+ hours out of his engines. On the auto engine side, as mentioned previously, the only auto engines that come close to meeting the performance and safety standards as aircraft recips are purpose-built racing engines. And if you check the price of those race engines you'll see that Lycoming is still the better deal.
The context of my post was only directed to what it would take to increase the participation on the recreational aviation side. However, considering at this point the 1st certified commercial eVTOL operation started this year overseas, they are finishing up the eVTOL operational certifications in a 2nd country, and both US based eVTOLs are about to start the final phase of the FAA type certification process, I believe the battery tech is sufficient for what your average recreational owner does today.
Define "recreational".
Privately owned, non-commercial or business use. The weekend warrior and burger clan. But I didn't state it would be a "plane." Again, the context of this is growing participation of the younger generations into that recreational group. So while it won't fit your specific needs at this point, from what I've seen and heard these younger folks tend to put more faith in drones than your Bonanza. And so far, the current use of eVTOLs has already shown they're beyond the fringe novelty stage with more examples to come in the next couple years.
sorry...just ment standard direct operating cost. ..fuel, engine reserves and oil
foolishness? maybe we should have considered your points when designing our system.... even our GM engineer that worked on the GM engine we used would have benefited from your insight and wisdom. Or our team engineer from the boat industry that converts same V8 from auto to boat applications (which is even harder on engines than planes) ... I only wish you could of counseled us on the foolishness of our design before we even started. I would also pled you advise Continental and other certified diesel engine manufacturers that used MB car engines of your opinion and their foolish mistake, as well. Thank you for setting record straight.
Big radials also had torque gauges.
OK. so now we know that you have NO real experience in maintaining aircraft engines. As the Director of Aircraft maintenance for a flight school, I bought numerous Lycoming overhauls and ran them to TBO with NO cylinder work at all. No cam or lifter work either. I estimate about 35,000 hours of air time during my time in that position.
I ran across many engines with ~1500 hours on them that had last been built or rebuilt 40 and 50 years earlier. I found mags that had not been opened in 1700 hours.
I read the same comments here about electric cars when they first came out. They are practical now.
Yes, because they could increase the weight of the vehicle substantially to use batteries. Nearly a ton of batteries to replaced about 120 to 150 pounds of liquid fuel.
And that battery limitation is why you see such movement to increase the hybrid-propulsion offerings. While the initial eVTOL designs meet the required performance goals with batteries only, the Gen2 versions and some eSTOL designs use turbo-generators to supply the main electrical power with only a nominal battery pack. However, that weight increase is offset by the increased efficiency of the propulsion unit. Plus it provides a certain level of scalability for future designs.
Hybrid design make zero sense in weight-critical applications. Why would anyone accept the weight penalty of duplicating both the motor/engine and the fuel storage? Maintenance cost and complexity?
How does hybrid help for aircraft? In cars, a substantial part of the their advantage is the infinite torque at zero speed, which greatly helps improve efficiency in the worst part of the gas engine curve - the 0 to 5 or 10 mph start. Also helps with acceleration when at speed for the same reason. Thought that was why unlike gas vehicles, hybrids often have better mileage in the city (stop and go) than on the highway, the inverse of a gas vehicle.
One reason that might pencil out would be to have a less powerful three or four cylinder engine for cruise, but boosted by an electric motor during takeoff. So the takeoff power of a 260hp io540, but the weight of a 90-100hp smaller engine a small battery, motor and a motor coupling.
It's helpful to actually read my reply. You are comparing apples to oranges. Your post is like saying "electric cars are impractical because they don't do the same as my pickup truck". I really don't care that you fly a bonanza. I'm happy with a plane that flies slower, 100 to 120 knots, and I'm happy with 2 1/2 hours (2 hours plus VFR reserves), with a ten minute recharge. Going from 250 knots for a Bonanza to 125 knots reduces the drag to 1/4 that of the bonanza. Reducing the range from 900 nm to maybe 300 also reduces the energy needed to be carried on board. I only need 2 seats, but I don't expect any efficiency because I'll replace the weight of the passengers with batteries.
eVTOL (or any VTOL) is rather inefficient in range and speed compared to an airplane that can carry the same payload with the same power.
What's the weight e-train? 25 lbs for the battery? 25 for the motor and mount? that would save 100lbs if it can be done.So a 400 lb O-540 (avg) vs a O-235 which is 250 (avg). Now add in that small battery, electric motor and a system to integrate it and............where's the weight savings?
How much for the mechanism to drive the prop from the electric motor? I would assume this will be automatic, so how much for the wiring? Additional battery cables? Computer? Brackets? Plus the gas engine will need modifications.
For five minutes at take off, yes.
Because aircraft hybrid is completely different than auto hybrids. In aircraft the turbo-generator only provides electrical power to the props with zero mechanical interface. And while turbo-generators have been around aviation for decades its only been in the last 10 years or so were they are being scaled to provide primary propulsion power vs aux power. So a completely different dynamic than found in vehicles. For example, in its current use, the turbo-generator produces 75% of the power and the battery pack supplies the additional 25% for take-off and landing. Plus while in cruise the turbo-gen recharges the batteries.
Except the eSTOLs are flying now and most turbine engine OEMs are developing purpose built hybrid propulsion systems to meet the future demand.
Since VTOLs were never designed to replace airplanes there really is no comparison on an efficiency level except maybe at the STOL level.
Yes. Did you miss the entire point of my question? The entire point was whether there might be an approach to hybrid that had a benefit for take off.
More slowly after the e-boost is used up.
Dunno. Different problem than the one I'm wondering about.
Agreed. That was why I broke out eVTOL from eAirplanes because someone won't make the distinction between them with respect to range. This one does surprisingly well:
