Largest Hybrid Electric Plane Set To Take Flight (zdnet.com) 68
Ampair, a Los Angeles clean tech company in my neck of the woods, is set to begin accepting orders for a hybrid electric aircraft at the EAA AirVenture airshow in Wisconsin next week. Dubbed the EEL, the aircraft is in fact a retrofit of a Cessna 337, an aircraft that has a forward-mounted prop engine that pulls and a rear-mounted prop engine that pushes. Ampair's retrofit will replace one of those internal combustion engines with an electric motor powered by batteries. ZDNet reports: Ampair believes hybrid power may be a stopgap, providing fuel savings while still retaining many of the benefits of an internal combustion drivetrain. "The Ampaire Electric EEL is the first step in bringing lower emissions, lower-operating costs, and quieter operations to general aviation through electrification," according to the company's CEO Kevin Noertker. "The original Cessna 337 provided great utility, and this hybrid electric conversion retains those advantages while reducing fuel cost and maintenance by about 50 percent." The EEL is now undergoing a 30 month test program, which began in June. One of the tests will be demonstrating reliable single-engine climbs on each powerplant. Ampair expects the aircraft to be certified by 2021. Ampair's EEL aircraft will seat four or six passengers. The company says the aircraft cost will be competitive with comparable piston twins.
I only trust Elon Musj (Score:1)
No, thanks. Like many here on Slashdot, I won't use any electric transportation that wasn't produced by Elon Musk, inventor of the electric car and the safest autopilot system in the world. Besides, we really need to focus on getting to Mars and the hyperloop is going to make flying obsolete anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I only trust Elon Musj (Score:1)
He also invented rockets. I'm hoping for the day when he can put the first humans on the Moon and then Mars where he'll be the Supreme Lord God Emperor.
If Trump could cut taxes further to boost the economy some more, maybe there will be some government money to help out.
We'll see. The war with Iran - we have always been at war with Iran - will cost a bit. But our chocolate rations will increase to 5grams next month.
A weekend in Vegas is NOT a good reason! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A weekend in Vegas is NOT a good reason!
This is why we need HSR.
Think about why the box is there. (Score:4, Insightful)
When thinking outside the box one should keep in mind why that box is there. The limits of the performance envelope consists of edges and corners, kind of like this box they are thinking outside of, one corner is called the coffin corner for a reason. This is an airplane that may in fact have more than one such corner. Don't push the envelope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Electric planes make no sense when we have the technology to turn electricity to hydrocarbon fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is especially nonsensical when one engine is still burning a hydrocarbon based fuel.
Let's find some energy sources that offer the best energy return on energy invested, one's with a low carbon footprint, and pair that with a fuel synthesis system. Here's a place to start this search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Think about why the box is there. (Score:4, Informative)
Converting electricity to hydrocarbon fuel (called e-diesel) is a proprietary Audi process that isn't being mass produced. It's a tiny niche, and not cheap. This hybrid aircraft can run on normal, widely available fuel. Not sure if it has plug-in capability.
What I would like to know is why not use two electric motors and a generator? My guess is that it's probably a much harder conversion to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Converting electricity to hydrocarbon fuel (called e-diesel) is a proprietary Audi process
Converting electricity to air pollution is a proprietary Audi/VW process
that isn't being mass produced.
. . . and thank God for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Converting electricity to hydrocarbon fuel (called e-diesel) is a proprietary Audi process that isn't being mass produced. It's a tiny niche, and not cheap.
Then look further down that page to see similar projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This hybrid aircraft can run on normal, widely available fuel.
You mean fossil fuels, which introduce CO2 into the air, as opposed to synthetic fuels, which are a net zero addition since the CO2 is taken out of the air during production.
Not sure if it has plug-in capability.
If it's going to replace fossil fuels like they proposed then it must.
What I would like to know is why not use two electric motors and a generator? My guess is that it's probably a much harder conversion to do.
Why don't you try it? Then you'll find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Blindseer did. His whole post is leading up to his cherry picked statistic for pushing nuclear power which he links to as his final link.
He pushed the "energy returned on energy investment" statistic, which is economically and financially meaningless, as it is the one metric available where nuclear power does not do worse than other zero CO2 options.
Re: (Score:3)
Blindseer did. His whole post is leading up to his cherry picked statistic for pushing nuclear power which he links to as his final link.
I have accomplished my mission. I'm getting people to mention nuclear power before I do. I'm getting people to think of nuclear power when they see a news article on energy production and, in this case, alternative fuels.
He pushed the "energy returned on energy investment" statistic, which is economically and financially meaningless, as it is the one metric available where nuclear power does not do worse than other zero CO2 options.
Cherry-picked? Tell me what metrics we should be using to choose our sources of energy for the future?
Should it be safety? CO2 output per energy produced? Reducing the raw materials needed? Take a look at the article linked to below and tell me which come out on top.
http://cmo-ripu.bl [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody seems to bring an argument based on logic any more, because there is no logical argument against nuclear power any more.
We do not bring logical arguments against trolls, it is pointless. Whether they are flat-earthers, homeopaths, or nuclear delusionists. It's been done, we had the discussions, we tried our best to make the kooks see reason.
I still prefer Natalie Portman and hot grits.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an electric plane. It is a conventional hybrid plane. This means that it is powered by hydrocarbon fuel all of the time. The electric part simply allows maximally efficient operation of the conventional ICE, and allowing it to be smaller since the battery and electric motor provide the temporary power boost needed to take-off and climbing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also going to be quieter and less smelly for passengers.
Fuel cost per flight is $340. Electricity costs? $12.50 (Hydro power in Canada is cheap). They were interviewed on the news last night - and with a fleet of 100 planes, this is not a one-off.
Re: (Score:2)
and there is a lot of skepticism about the practicallity
of this plan, especially since it will involve new,
untested technology which must be certified by Transport Canada
before they can take paying passengers.
Not cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, an incel like you probably has low or non-existent tea, which is why women like me make you feel so so threatened.
Too bad for you, but all my ID, from my birth certificate on up, say I was born female. In a bathroom bill state, I would be required by law
Re: (Score:2)
If men are so insistent on requiring that foetus be carried until it can survive outside the body, why aren't men volunteering to have the foetus transplanted into their abdomen and leaching off their large bowel until it can be delivered by c section?
Afraid that taking estrogen to better duplicate the female host environment will permanently shrivel up your balls? Don't want morning sickness? Sore breasts? An even bigger beer belly while not being allowed to drink? Sore back. Hard to find a comfortable
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way this has any range (Score:4, Interesting)
The website says the electric motor is 215HP, which is about 160KW.
Li-ion battery density tops out around 265 Wh/kg. So for even 1 hour of operation you're looking at about 600kg of batteries, which is most of the useful load of the 337. (You'll probably pick up another 100kg or so swapping out the second avgas powerplant for the electric motor, but that's not going to move the needle much.)
If instead the goal is to run a generator off the avgas engine with minimal battery storage, that itself would cut the stock range in half (a good deal less, actually, given the conversion inefficiencies and given the fixed 45-minute fuel reserve requirement). But I don't think so, given the claim that this mod cuts fuel cost in half.
So this basically looks like a cute toy for short hops with minimal passengers/gear. There's simply no free lunch that will address the miserable energy density of batteries compared to conventional fuel.
Re: (Score:1)
Ahem. It appears that you do not know how conventional hybrid vehicles work.
They are powered by hydrocarbon fuel just like non-hybrid vehicles. They are not electric vehicles. They do not run off battery power during normal cruise operation, they run off of the power generated by the ICE all of the time. This is a conventional hybrid configuration with both the ICE and the battery connected to the transmission system. The value that hybrids provide is that the batteries serve as an energy cache, allowing th
Re: (Score:3)
It appears that you do not know how conventional hybrid vehicles work.
I actually do -- the trick is that I also know how conventional airplanes work. This specific plane we're discussing is a conversion of a dual-engine airplane where both engines are indeed intended to run throughout the flight. And the engines already run at a fairly constant speed over the vast majority of a flight -- there's just not much opportunity to capture stop-and-go inefficiencies as there is in cars.
Re: (Score:3)
I"m sure you know better than the engineers working on this project too.
Ah, but you've unwittingly stumbled onto the problem: it's clear this project is being driven by marketeers, not engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll probably pick up another 100kg or so swapping out the second avgas powerplant for the electric motor, but that's not going to move the needle much.
By pick up, d oyou mean gain extra weight or recover some of that weight? I assume the latter as electric motors have good power to weight ratios.
Already obsolete when it flies (Score:2)
There are plenty of Beavers in operation in the north, so there's a ready market to
Re: (Score:3)
Cost savings are much more than fuel... (Score:2)
...maintenance costs are regular and extremely expensive for fossil fuel engines. Electric is proven low wear so long as it is kept within its design limits. Indeed it would be interesting to know if you could fly through volcanic ash clouds... if the electric motors are air cooled there might be a problem but nothing like the air breathing aviation fuel based engines.
Instead of the mega seat planes (think bus) we might see more regular small planes maybe. And these smaller planes can land on shorter ru