Page 2 of 3
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 2:54 pm
by 3Dreaming
TimTaylor wrote:
I'm not sure I necessarily buy the argument that the FAA is the problem. Has anyone developed an electric motor option that will fly 400 nm on a charge, then plug into a regular 120v ac circuit and recharge 100 percent in an hour? Until they do, I don't see there is anything the FAA needs to change. If it already exist, then I agree the FAA needs to approve it.
You say develop something and then ask the FAA to change the rule. I ask why would anyone risk the cost of development to design and build something that the current rules will not allow, risking everything on hopes the FAA might change the rule?
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 3:05 pm
by ScottyB
But then if you look into the ultralights they are not restricted to how many Motors engines are power plants if you look on YouTube bathtub quads, they're using RC technology to fly 20-30 minutes with for electric motors attached to a fiberglass bathtub with a person in it and it is light enough to qualify as an ultralight
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 3:16 pm
by ScottyB
https://youtu.be/pbZCPtNXO38
This is technically an electric flying ultralight
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 3:55 pm
by TimTaylor
Warmi wrote:That’s not the point.
Since technology changes constantly, it is simply unwise to codify implementations and frankly there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
If the goal is to limit Light Sport planes to certain category of simple and low performance planes, it is sufficient to llist/limit their performance capabilities and let the market decide what is the best way to achieve that.
But that's my point. Unless electric is viable, it's moot. Why don't they allow nuclear powered?
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 3:58 pm
by TimTaylor
3Dreaming wrote:TimTaylor wrote:
I'm not sure I necessarily buy the argument that the FAA is the problem. Has anyone developed an electric motor option that will fly 400 nm on a charge, then plug into a regular 120v ac circuit and recharge 100 percent in an hour? Until they do, I don't see there is anything the FAA needs to change. If it already exist, then I agree the FAA needs to approve it.
You say develop something and then ask the FAA to change the rule. I ask why would anyone risk the cost of development to design and build something that the current rules will not allow, risking everything on hopes the FAA might change the rule?
Develop on paper and computer. If it's viable, ask the FAA to change the rule.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 4:03 pm
by TimTaylor
Will that fly 400nm in 4 hours and recharge in 1 hour. I'll be interested when it can.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 4:49 pm
by 3Dreaming
TimTaylor wrote:
Will that fly 400nm in 4 hours and recharge in 1 hour. I'll be interested when it can.
Pipistrel has a two seat electric trainer already in production. It doesn't meat your performance requirements, but then again that is not what it was designed for. Your requirements would limit development of everything except a cross country cruisers. Why limit development to only 100 knot plus aircraft with 4 hours endurance? Is an hour plus flight in the flight training environment not worthy of development?
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 5:59 pm
by ScottyB
Most of my flights last probably the maximum of 45 minutes then I'm to where I want to be
If electric was able to be used in light sport, it could be further developed
Personally I like to get in my plane fly up at 50 miles from my home airport to another Airport have coffee and check the job with the guys for maybe hour and a half and in that time my plane could be recharged and ready for the return flight home
A lot cheaper than 91 octane or av gas even maybe even get a few extra miles if you have solar generators on the wings
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:04 pm
by TimTaylor
It doesn't need to MEET my requirements, but I doubt an airplane with 2 hours max endurance will sell at almost any price.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:05 pm
by Type47
My prediction would be that the Faa would get a bunch of industry insiders together to develop the new rule.
Everyone on the committee will be 55 or older and they would decide to have it weigh at least 850 lbs and have an old Continental up front.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:07 pm
by TimTaylor
Continental doesn't make an electric motor as far as I know. This discussion is about electric powered aircraft.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:09 pm
by Type47
The discussion is called Engine/motor.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:14 pm
by TimTaylor
ScottyB wrote:The Light Sport Aircraft Rule: The FAA defines a light sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or Powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:[6]
Max. Gross Takeoff Weight: 1,320 lbs (600 kg) or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes (650 kg)
Max. Stall Speed: 51 mph / 45 knots CAS
Max. Speed in Level Flight (at sea level In the US Standard Atmosphere):138 mph / 120 knots CAS
Seats: Two (max.)
Engines / Motors: One (max. if powered.)
Propeller: Fixed-pitch or ground adjustable
Cabin: Unpressurized
Fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
Landing Gear: Fixed (except for seaplanes and gliders) this is from the light sport rule
An engine is a reciprocating power unit and a motor is under definition: electric. If that is so why do they list Motors as:one
But in other paragraphs in light sport the electric motor is disallowed?
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm
by TimTaylor
This discussion reminds me of the Tesla. It's a great car (I think), but it doesn't seem like a lot of people are willing to pay a high price for a great car with a limited range. They are getting better, however. My oncologist has a model S and paid $250,000 cash in advance for one of these to be delivered in 2020:
https://www.tesla.com/roadster
He also has a Ford GT.
Re: Engine/motor
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 6:26 pm
by dstclair
Pipistrel and a local flight school have 4 Electros certified as Experimental. They plan to test them out as trainers and are working with the FAA to change the LSA language. Also, if you search the federal register, Pipistrel has filed a petition to change the LSA definition as well. The flight school folks seem to think they can get the change in 10 months. Probably wishful thinking.
https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/all-elec ... on-faa-us/
https://thebusinessjournal.com/electric ... le-change/