Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:18 AM - Fuselink vs. blade fuse (John Ciolino)
2. 05:01 AM - Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse (user9253)
3. 05:13 AM - Re: Tosten grip wiring with car-relay for trim (user9253)
4. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse (CORRECTION) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:58 AM - Future of flight . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:03 AM - Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (William Hunter)
8. 10:44 AM - Re: Future of flight . . . (John B)
9. 10:44 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (Charlie England)
10. 11:05 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:16 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 11:27 AM - Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? (William Hunter)
13. 12:13 PM - Re: Future of flight... ()
14. 12:44 PM - NiB - Dynon Skyview Touch 10" SV-D1000T For Sale... (Matt Dralle)
15. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Tim Yoder)
16. 05:17 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Rick Beebe)
17. 05:30 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Charlie England)
18. 06:01 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Tim Olson)
19. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Alec Myers)
20. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (William Greenley)
21. 06:25 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Charlie England)
22. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Alec Myers)
23. 06:57 PM - Re: Future of flight . . . (Ken Ryan)
24. 06:59 PM - Re: Re: Future of flight... (Charlie England)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Fuselink vs. blade fuse |
All,
I am confused over the difference between using a fuselink and a blade fuse.
Bob's Z-11 diagram shows a fuselink on the wire between the buss bar and the
master switch. The rest of the electrical circuits are protected by blade
fuses, why not use a blade fuse here? From Bob's write up on circuit
protection in the AeroElectric Connection a fuselink is just another form of
circuit protection. Why not just use a blade fuse everywhere?
John Ciolino
Bearhawk Patrol builder
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse |
That fuselink is part of the crowbar over-voltage circuit. Since the crowbar circuit
is more likely (than any other circuit) to nuisance trip its over current
device, a circuit breaker is used to make it easier to reset. In many aircraft
the circuit breaker might be located quite some distance from the main power
bus. That long wire needs to be protected on the source end; thus a fuselink.
Why not use a fuse? Because a fuse is fast blowing. A fuse, even a much
larger fuse, will blow quicker than a smaller circuit breaker in series with
it.
I see no reason why the circuit breaker needs to be mounted on the down steam
side of the master switch. Connect the circuit breaker directly to and close
to the main power bus. Then no fuselink is needed.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470318#470318
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Tosten grip wiring with car-relay for trim |
To avoid compass interference, do not run a single wire anywhere near the compass.
Run the positive and negative wires together in a twisted pair.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470319#470319
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse |
>I see no reason why the circuit breaker needs to be mounted on the
>down steam side of the master switch. Connect the circuit breaker
>directly to and close to the main power bus. Then no fuselink is needed.
Not so much 'down stream' as 'adjacent to'
that switch.
Emacs!
Fuse blocks are generally mounted out of sight,
out of mind. The necessity for a single breaker
to be part of the mix calls for extending the
bus to the switch location . . . hence protection
more robust than fuses, less robust than
breakers, i.e. fusible link.
Bob . . .
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuselink vs. blade fuse (CORRECTION) |
>I see no reason why the circuit breaker needs to be mounted on the
>down steam side of the master switch. Connect the circuit breaker
>directly to and close to the main power bus. Then no fuselink is needed.
Not so much 'down stream' as 'adjacent to'
that switch.
Emacs!
Fuse blocks are generally mounted out of sight,
out of mind. The necessity for a single breaker
to be part of the mix calls for extending the
bus to the switch location . . . hence protection
more robust than BOTH fuses and breakers, i.e.
fusible link.
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Future of flight . . . |
http://tinyurl.com/ybztoq3g
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
Hi All,
I need to rearrange the wires on this AMP 12 pin connector and my hope is to
simply pop out the terminal ends and leave the wires still connected and
just move them to the proper pin locations and pop them back in (I might
have to re-bend the metal retainer tabs).
The questions are:
Does anyone know what terminal connector this is?
How does one (me) unseat the terminal ends from the connector and what tool
should be used?
..
THANKS!!!
Bill Hunter
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Future of flight . . . |
Yes, the electric airplane...
Eventually, we will have viable electric airplanes. The model airplane
folks have largely gone to electric power...
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/ybztoq3g
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
On 6/21/2017 12:02 PM, William Hunter wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I need to rearrange the wires on this AMP 12 pin connector and my hope
> is to simply pop out the terminal ends and leave the wires still
> connected and just move them to the proper pin locations and pop them
> back in (I might have to re-bend the metal retainer tabs).
>
> The questions are:
>
> Does anyone know what terminal connector this is?
>
> How does one (me) unseat the terminal ends from the connector and what
> tool should be used?
>
> ..
>
> THANKS!!!
>
> Bill Hunter
>
It *looks* like what most would call a 'molex' style connector. If the
pins are made like typical molex pins, there are 'barbs' on the pins,
instead of in the connector body, as you see with dSub style connectors.
The release tool would be inserted on the pin end to release the pin,
instead of the wire end. Back before I learned to avoid molex's like
the plague, I used to retract the barbs using a very small jeweler's
screwdriver (too cheap to buy the proper tool).
If it's really like a molex, here's a search for pin removal technique:
https://www.google.com/search?q=molex+connector+pin+removal&oq=molex+connector+pin&aqs=chrome.5.0j69i57j0l4.10241j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Since yours is an AMP brand connector, it may be made completely
differently from the molex products.
Here's a search for AMP pin removal:
https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+connector+pin+removal&oq=amp+connector+pin+removal&aqs=chrome..69i57.171741j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
At 12:02 PM 6/21/2017, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I need to rearrange the wires on this AMP 12 pin connector and my
>hope is to simply pop out the terminal ends and leave the wires
>still connected and just move them to the proper pin locations and
>pop them back in (I might have to re-bend the metal retainer tabs).
>
>The questions are:
>
>Does anyone know what terminal connector this is?
>How does one (me) unseat the terminal ends from the connector and
>what tool should be used?\
What does the other end look like?
TE Connectivity (AMP) offers a series of
mate_n_lock connectors which all use
the same pins
If you look over this array of pins
http://tinyurl.com/y8r989bn
you will find that the 'business end'
of pins and sockets are uniform while
the wire ends are available in a range
of sizes. I believe they all extract
with the same tool.
It would really help to see the other
side of the connector.
Bob . . .
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
It would really help to see the other
side of the connector.
I 'think' this is the tool you'll need
TE CONNECTIVITY 305183
or one very similar. exact p/n to be
determined.
Bob . . .
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Does Anyone Recognize This AMP 12 Pin Connector? |
Thanks for the information... I knew I could count on you. I will report
back
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
On Jun 21, 2017 11:21 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> It would really help to see the other
> side of the connector.
>
> I 'think' this is the tool you'll need
>
> [image: TE CONNECTIVITY 305183]
>
> or one very similar. exact p/n to be
> determined.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Future of flight... |
"Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for
local flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost
there already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That
will take a while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part,
it will be the charging infrastructure.
Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up
for electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the
economics involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
I wish it were not true, because I would LOVE to have an electric car
(but can't afford a Tesla), and there is no "fast-charge" station in
between Dallas and Austin that would allow me to drive a Chevy Bolt
(which would be my preferred "inexpensive" electric vehicle) from my
home and my kids' place in Austin. Even with a 200+ mile range, I would
need a charge before I got to their house...
I suspect we'll experience similar stuff with electric planes for many,
many years.
Jim Parker
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | NiB - Dynon Skyview Touch 10" SV-D1000T For Sale... |
I have a brand new in box Skyview Touch 10" screen for sale. Dynon web site price
is $3905. I'll let this one go for the first $3500.
I can accept Visa/MC for a 5% fee. Check's okay too, but it will have to clear
before shipping.
I'll send pictures of the actual unit upon request.
I will ship it anywhere for the cost of required shipping (UPS/FedEx/USPS).
I was going to use this unit in my RV-4 project, but decided to go with an HDX
instead.
Best Regards,
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
925-963-1130 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Future of flight... |
Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
millions of his own money.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jim@poogiebearranch.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:12 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Future of flight...
"Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
charging infrastructure.
Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
I wish it were not true, because I would LOVE to have an electric car (but
can't afford a Tesla), and there is no "fast-charge" station in between
Dallas and Austin that would allow me to drive a Chevy Bolt (which would be
my preferred "inexpensive" electric vehicle) from my home and my kids' place
in Austin. Even with a 200+ mile range, I would need a charge before I got
to their house...
I suspect we'll experience similar stuff with electric planes for many, many
years.
Jim Parker
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
My 2 electric cars are powered by solar panels on my roof, not by coal.
I choose it because it's still less expensive than gasoline, doesn't
fund terrorist countries and doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Plus
they're fun to drive. When I drive regular cars now, I despise the noise
and vibration.
I'm excited about the explorations of electric aviation. Of course
battery technology is still too heavy and limited to allow for anything
beyond short flights right now (although battery capacity is increasing
quite dramatically) however I think we could see some very cool hybrid
applications. Designs can be innovative. Using electric motors to drive
props and ducted fans can be far more efficient than using gear boxes or
long odd drive shafts. Engines or turbines running generators can run at
their most efficient speed instead of what's most efficient for the
prop. Small battery banks can provide a buffer, allow "silent" taxiing
and give emergency power in case the generator quits.
I also think it could be ideal for helicopters since a large part of
their maintenance and wear items are gearbox related. There are some
really interesting developments going on in electric mult-rotor
designs--full size drones essentially.
And Tesla seems to be doing fine without any of our tax dollars.
--Rick
On 6/21/2017 4:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>
> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
> millions of his own money.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
> charging infrastructure.
>
> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
Cole who? And why would he want to power my car? As to T. Boone, it
might be worthwhile to expand your news sources a bit, to get a better
picture.
If you want to see a real tax dollar, and
lobbied-government-forced-consumer dollar boondoggle, google 'Kemper
County coal power plant'. Current (pardon the pun) construction spending
total (and it's not over yet) that is roughly five Hundred BILLION
dollars *over budget* at >$700Billion, and they have conceded that they
can never burn coal there economically so they have shifted to natural
gas. The rate payers in that plant's service area were forced to
pre-fund a huge percentage of that cost, until the Public Service
Commission was forced to realize that the consumers it was supposed to
serve were being ripped off.
Do the math. A significant percentage of their customer base could have
had 30KW (gross overkill) solar systems *complete with battery storage &
generator backup*, for the money wasted on that plant.
I'm always amazed that people closely tied to tech (airplanes and what
powers them) don't believe in how quickly tech advances....
Charlie
On 6/21/2017 6:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>
> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
> millions of his own money.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jim@poogiebearranch.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Future of flight...
>
>
> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
> charging infrastructure.
>
> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>
> I wish it were not true, because I would LOVE to have an electric car (but
> can't afford a Tesla), and there is no "fast-charge" station in between
> Dallas and Austin that would allow me to drive a Chevy Bolt (which would be
> my preferred "inexpensive" electric vehicle) from my home and my kids' place
> in Austin. Even with a 200+ mile range, I would need a charge before I got
> to their house...
>
> I suspect we'll experience similar stuff with electric planes for many, many
> years.
>
> Jim Parker
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
Well said. It's interesting...you have 2 electrics. I have 2 electrics. Another
RV buddy of mine has 2 electrics. My opinion is, if more people would just
try one and buy one, they'd soon see why they are so nice to have. We wouldn't
buy 2 if they weren't making us happy. My second one I just got as a 3 year
lease return and when purchased with 22k miles on it, was a better deal all
the way around than any comparable used car with a gas engine.
And, mine is usually powered by the local hydro dam...
Other times it's powered by a nuke plant not too far away. Too bad more people
don't embrace nuke....it's really the best choice for mass populations.
Tim
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Rick Beebe <rick@beebe.org> wrote:
>
>
> My 2 electric cars are powered by solar panels on my roof, not by coal. I choose
it because it's still less expensive than gasoline, doesn't fund terrorist
countries and doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Plus they're fun to drive. When
I drive regular cars now, I despise the noise and vibration.
>
> I'm excited about the explorations of electric aviation. Of course battery technology
is still too heavy and limited to allow for anything beyond short flights
right now (although battery capacity is increasing quite dramatically) however
I think we could see some very cool hybrid applications. Designs can be
innovative. Using electric motors to drive props and ducted fans can be far more
efficient than using gear boxes or long odd drive shafts. Engines or turbines
running generators can run at their most efficient speed instead of what's
most efficient for the prop. Small battery banks can provide a buffer, allow "silent"
taxiing and give emergency power in case the generator quits.
>
> I also think it could be ideal for helicopters since a large part of their maintenance
and wear items are gearbox related. There are some really interesting
developments going on in electric mult-rotor designs--full size drones essentially.
>
> And Tesla seems to be doing fine without any of our tax dollars.
>
> --Rick
>
>
>
>> On 6/21/2017 4:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
>> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
>> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
>> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
>> millions of his own money.
>> Tim
>> -----Original Message-----
>> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
>> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
>> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
>> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
>> charging infrastructure.
>> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
>> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
>> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
>> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
>> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
Flight schools will be the very last adopters of electric airplanes if ever. Flight
schools only make money by keeping their aircraft in the air every hour of
every sunny weekend day, to make up for all the down time. You can refuel an
empty gas powered 172 in two minutes while the next pilot is performing a preflight
inspection and get it earning money with essentially no gaps.
Lets see what the equivalent electricity requirements are. Lets say we burned 15
gallons in our 172 in our 90 minute flight, and we need to achieve a five minute
recharge.
The energy density of gasoline is 45MJ/litre, which is 171MJ/gallon
15 gallons of gasoline has 2.6GJ of energy.
2.5GJ serviced in 5 minutes is about 8.7 MW.
An 8.7MW draw is 800 amps from a dedicated 11,000kV distribution substation.
That is an entirely absurdly large amount of power to have to provide to an airport:
the infrastructure doesnt exist, would have to be built, and paid for.
So lets bundle together stunningly efficient airplanes, that fly with 50% of the
power required at present. Lets lengthen the charge time to an hour, throw in
multiple battery packs that we can quick change, whatever else you like. By
the time you have more than two airplanes on the ramp the cost of the electrical
infrastructure to recharge them is beyond belief.
Now lets price the cost of electricity with equivalent energy content to a gallon
of 100LL:
171 MJ is 47.5kWh, I dont know what the industrial price for electricity is but
the retail price is 12 US cents per kWh, so that gallon equivalent of energy
is costing you $5.70 anyway. Not a lot of savings there.
Youre welcome to power your electric airplane from solar panels on your roof, and
it might work if you only want to fly a couple of hours a week. Thats not going
to cut it for anyone who uses an airplane for anything serious.
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Rick Beebe <rick@beebe.org> wrote:
>
>
> My 2 electric cars are powered by solar panels on my roof, not by coal. I choose
it because it's still less expensive than gasoline, doesn't fund terrorist
countries and doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Plus they're fun to drive. When
I drive regular cars now, I despise the noise and vibration.
>
> I'm excited about the explorations of electric aviation. Of course battery technology
is still too heavy and limited to allow for anything beyond short flights
right now (although battery capacity is increasing quite dramatically) however
I think we could see some very cool hybrid applications. Designs can be
innovative. Using electric motors to drive props and ducted fans can be far more
efficient than using gear boxes or long odd drive shafts. Engines or turbines
running generators can run at their most efficient speed instead of what's
most efficient for the prop. Small battery banks can provide a buffer, allow "silent"
taxiing and give emergency power in case the generator quits.
>
> I also think it could be ideal for helicopters since a large part of their maintenance
and wear items are gearbox related. There are some really interesting
developments going on in electric mult-rotor designs--full size drones essentially.
>
> And Tesla seems to be doing fine without any of our tax dollars.
>
> --Rick
>
>
>
> On 6/21/2017 4:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
>> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
>> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
>> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
>> millions of his own money.
>> Tim
>> -----Original Message-----
>> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
>> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
>> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
>> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
>> charging infrastructure.
>> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
>> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
>> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
>> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
>> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>
>
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
Slight correction, total cost is now looking at just over 7 billion, not
700 billion. It was supposed to be a model for environmental technology to
create a clean coal power plant.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ceengland7@gmail.com>
>
> Cole who? And why would he want to power my car? As to T. Boone, it might
> be worthwhile to expand your news sources a bit, to get a better picture.
>
> If you want to see a real tax dollar, and lobbied-government-forced-consumer
> dollar boondoggle, google 'Kemper County coal power plant'. Current (pardon
> the pun) construction spending total (and it's not over yet) that is
> roughly five Hundred BILLION dollars *over budget* at >$700Billion, and
> they have conceded that they can never burn coal there economically so they
> have shifted to natural gas. The rate payers in that plant's service area
> were forced to pre-fund a huge percentage of that cost, until the Public
> Service Commission was forced to realize that the consumers it was supposed
> to serve were being ripped off.
>
> Do the math. A significant percentage of their customer base could have
> had 30KW (gross overkill) solar systems *complete with battery storage &
> generator backup*, for the money wasted on that plant.
>
> I'm always amazed that people closely tied to tech (airplanes and what
> powers them) don't believe in how quickly tech advances....
>
> Charlie
>
> On 6/21/2017 6:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>
>> ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com>
>>
>> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
>> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
>> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
>> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
>> millions of his own money.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> jim@poogiebearranch.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:12 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Future of flight...
>>
>>
>> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for
>> local
>> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
>> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
>> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be
>> the
>> charging infrastructure.
>>
>> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
>> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
>> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
>> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
>> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>>
>> I wish it were not true, because I would LOVE to have an electric car (but
>> can't afford a Tesla), and there is no "fast-charge" station in between
>> Dallas and Austin that would allow me to drive a Chevy Bolt (which would
>> be
>> my preferred "inexpensive" electric vehicle) from my home and my kids'
>> place
>> in Austin. Even with a 200+ mile range, I would need a charge before I got
>> to their house...
>>
>> I suspect we'll experience similar stuff with electric planes for many,
>> many
>> years.
>>
>> Jim Parker
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
Well for starters, you conveniently leave out the percentage of the
gasoline's energy that actually propels the plane. I won't go any
farther; doesn't seem to be any point.
Charlie
On 6/21/2017 8:07 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> Flight schools will be the very last adopters of electric airplanes if ever.
Flight schools only make money by keeping their aircraft in the air every hour
of every sunny weekend day, to make up for all the down time. You can refuel
an empty gas powered 172 in two minutes while the next pilot is performing a preflight
inspection and get it earning money with essentially no gaps.
>
> Lets see what the equivalent electricity requirements are. Lets say we burned
15 gallons in our 172 in our 90 minute flight, and we need to achieve a five
minute recharge.
>
> The energy density of gasoline is 45MJ/litre, which is 171MJ/gallon
> 15 gallons of gasoline has 2.6GJ of energy.
> 2.5GJ serviced in 5 minutes is about 8.7 MW.
> An 8.7MW draw is 800 amps from a dedicated 11,000kV distribution substation.
> That is an entirely absurdly large amount of power to have to provide to an airport:
the infrastructure doesnt exist, would have to be built, and paid for.
>
> So lets bundle together stunningly efficient airplanes, that fly with 50% of
the power required at present. Lets lengthen the charge time to an hour, throw
in multiple battery packs that we can quick change, whatever else you like. By
the time you have more than two airplanes on the ramp the cost of the electrical
infrastructure to recharge them is beyond belief.
>
> Now lets price the cost of electricity with equivalent energy content to a gallon
of 100LL:
> 171 MJ is 47.5kWh, I dont know what the industrial price for electricity is but
the retail price is 12 US cents per kWh, so that gallon equivalent of energy
is costing you $5.70 anyway. Not a lot of savings there.
>
> Youre welcome to power your electric airplane from solar panels on your roof,
and it might work if you only want to fly a couple of hours a week. Thats not
going to cut it for anyone who uses an airplane for anything serious.
>
>
>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Rick Beebe <rick@beebe.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My 2 electric cars are powered by solar panels on my roof, not by coal. I choose
it because it's still less expensive than gasoline, doesn't fund terrorist
countries and doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Plus they're fun to drive. When
I drive regular cars now, I despise the noise and vibration.
>>
>> I'm excited about the explorations of electric aviation. Of course battery technology
is still too heavy and limited to allow for anything beyond short flights
right now (although battery capacity is increasing quite dramatically) however
I think we could see some very cool hybrid applications. Designs can be
innovative. Using electric motors to drive props and ducted fans can be far more
efficient than using gear boxes or long odd drive shafts. Engines or turbines
running generators can run at their most efficient speed instead of what's
most efficient for the prop. Small battery banks can provide a buffer, allow
"silent" taxiing and give emergency power in case the generator quits.
>>
>> I also think it could be ideal for helicopters since a large part of their maintenance
and wear items are gearbox related. There are some really interesting
developments going on in electric mult-rotor designs--full size drones essentially.
>>
>> And Tesla seems to be doing fine without any of our tax dollars.
>>
>> --Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/21/2017 4:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>>> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
>>> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
>>> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
>>> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
>>> millions of his own money.
>>> Tim
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
>>> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
>>> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
>>> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
>>> charging infrastructure.
>>> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
>>> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
>>> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
>>> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
>>> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>>
>>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
it's about 30%.
Do you think the percentage of energy you can get out of a battery into useful
propulsion is much better?
On Jun 21, 2017, at 21:28, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
Well for starters, you conveniently leave out the percentage of the gasoline's
energy that actually propels the plane. I won't go any farther; doesn't seem to
be any point.
Charlie
> On 6/21/2017 8:07 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
> Flight schools will be the very last adopters of electric airplanes if ever.
Flight schools only make money by keeping their aircraft in the air every hour
of every sunny weekend day, to make up for all the down time. You can refuel
an empty gas powered 172 in two minutes while the next pilot is performing a preflight
inspection and get it earning money with essentially no gaps.
>
> Lets see what the equivalent electricity requirements are. Lets say we burned
15 gallons in our 172 in our 90 minute flight, and we need to achieve a five
minute recharge.
>
> The energy density of gasoline is 45MJ/litre, which is 171MJ/gallon
> 15 gallons of gasoline has 2.6GJ of energy.
> 2.5GJ serviced in 5 minutes is about 8.7 MW.
> An 8.7MW draw is 800 amps from a dedicated 11,000kV distribution substation.
> That is an entirely absurdly large amount of power to have to provide to an airport:
the infrastructure doesnt exist, would have to be built, and paid for.
>
> So lets bundle together stunningly efficient airplanes, that fly with 50% of
the power required at present. Lets lengthen the charge time to an hour, throw
in multiple battery packs that we can quick change, whatever else you like. By
the time you have more than two airplanes on the ramp the cost of the electrical
infrastructure to recharge them is beyond belief.
>
> Now lets price the cost of electricity with equivalent energy content to a gallon
of 100LL:
> 171 MJ is 47.5kWh, I dont know what the industrial price for electricity is but
the retail price is 12 US cents per kWh, so that gallon equivalent of energy
is costing you $5.70 anyway. Not a lot of savings there.
>
> Youre welcome to power your electric airplane from solar panels on your roof,
and it might work if you only want to fly a couple of hours a week. Thats not
going to cut it for anyone who uses an airplane for anything serious.
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Rick Beebe <rick@beebe.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My 2 electric cars are powered by solar panels on my roof, not by coal. I choose
it because it's still less expensive than gasoline, doesn't fund terrorist
countries and doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Plus they're fun to drive. When
I drive regular cars now, I despise the noise and vibration.
>>
>> I'm excited about the explorations of electric aviation. Of course battery technology
is still too heavy and limited to allow for anything beyond short flights
right now (although battery capacity is increasing quite dramatically) however
I think we could see some very cool hybrid applications. Designs can be
innovative. Using electric motors to drive props and ducted fans can be far more
efficient than using gear boxes or long odd drive shafts. Engines or turbines
running generators can run at their most efficient speed instead of what's
most efficient for the prop. Small battery banks can provide a buffer, allow
"silent" taxiing and give emergency power in case the generator quits.
>>
>> I also think it could be ideal for helicopters since a large part of their maintenance
and wear items are gearbox related. There are some really interesting
developments going on in electric mult-rotor designs--full size drones essentially.
>>
>> And Tesla seems to be doing fine without any of our tax dollars.
>>
>> --Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/21/2017 4:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>>> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near $2.00 / gal.
>>> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will require a few
>>> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has happened to
>>> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after spending
>>> millions of his own money.
>>> Tim
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting airplanes for local
>>> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're almost there
>>> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That will take a
>>> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part, it will be the
>>> charging infrastructure.
>>> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure built up for
>>> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the economics
>>> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
>>> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's IF all the
>>> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug / etc.
>>
>>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Future of flight . . . |
Let's not forget that a solar powered airplane has already flown around the
world.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM, John B <jbsoar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the electric airplane...
> Eventually, we will have viable electric airplanes. The model airplane
> folks have largely gone to electric power...
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ybztoq3g
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Future of flight... |
oops. You're right. I guess it just seems like 700 billion, after
watching that fiasco for so long.
To return the favor; slight correction to your evaluation; it was
*marketed* as a model for environmental technology to create a clean
coal power plant. Talk about alternate facts....
On 6/21/2017 8:19 PM, William Greenley wrote:
> Slight correction, total cost is now looking at just over 7 billion,
> not 700 billion. It was supposed to be a model for environmental
> technology to create a clean coal power plant.
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <ceengland7@gmail.com <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>>
>
> Cole who? And why would he want to power my car? As to T. Boone,
> it might be worthwhile to expand your news sources a bit, to get a
> better picture.
>
> If you want to see a real tax dollar, and
> lobbied-government-forced-consumer dollar boondoggle, google
> 'Kemper County coal power plant'. Current (pardon the pun)
> construction spending total (and it's not over yet) that is
> roughly five Hundred BILLION dollars *over budget* at
> >$700Billion, and they have conceded that they can never burn coal
> there economically so they have shifted to natural gas. The rate
> payers in that plant's service area were forced to pre-fund a huge
> percentage of that cost, until the Public Service Commission was
> forced to realize that the consumers it was supposed to serve were
> being ripped off.
>
> Do the math. A significant percentage of their customer base could
> have had 30KW (gross overkill) solar systems *complete with
> battery storage & generator backup*, for the money wasted on that
> plant.
>
> I'm always amazed that people closely tied to tech (airplanes and
> what powers them) don't believe in how quickly tech advances....
>
> Charlie
>
> On 6/21/2017 6:22 PM, Tim Yoder wrote:
>
> <ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com <mailto:ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com>>
>
> Why would you choose to buy a Cole powered car with gas near
> $2.00 / gal.
> headed toward $1.00 for the next several years. Tesla will
> require a few
> more billions of our tax dollars to stay afloat. Look what has
> happened to
> the solar plants. T. Boone Pickens gave up on wind power after
> spending
> millions of his own money.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>] On
> Behalf Of
> jim@poogiebearranch.com <mailto:jim@poogiebearranch.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Future of flight...
>
> <jim@poogiebearranch.com <mailto:jim@poogiebearranch.com>>
>
> "Viable" for certain missions, sure. For an FBO renting
> airplanes for local
> flights, training flights, and $100 hamburger runs, we're
> almost there
> already. But "viable" for extended cross-country flights? That
> will take a
> while. It's not the airplane end that will be the slow part,
> it will be the
> charging infrastructure.
>
> Look how long it is taking to get the charging infrastructure
> built up for
> electric vehicles using the highway system, then imagine the
> economics
> involved in setting up "fast chargers" (2-4 hours for a full
> charge) at all the GA airports across the nation. And that's
> IF all the
> electric airplane vendors standardize on a charger type / plug
> / etc.
>
> I wish it were not true, because I would LOVE to have an
> electric car (but
> can't afford a Tesla), and there is no "fast-charge" station
> in between
> Dallas and Austin that would allow me to drive a Chevy Bolt
> (which would be
> my preferred "inexpensive" electric vehicle) from my home and
> my kids' place
> in Austin. Even with a 200+ mile range, I would need a charge
> before I got
> to their house...
>
> I suspect we'll experience similar stuff with electric planes
> for many, many
> years.
>
> Jim Parker
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|