HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jul 19, 2014, 09:27 PM
Registered User
wcc963's Avatar
United States, FL, Pompano Beach
Joined May 2006
231 Posts
Discussion
Hows this for a large EDF?

I thought this was pretty cool. I've never seen it posted here

http://allthingsaero.com/general-avi...than-you-think
wcc963 is offline Find More Posts by wcc963
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jul 19, 2014, 10:38 PM
Registered User
Joined Oct 2009
1,014 Posts
Definitely very unique with it's twin fuse mounted nacelles. The plane itself seems more suited (and probably be more efficient) with a single prop up front.

That is a large wing designed to be very stable and operate at low air-speeds. They probably needed to do this as a proof of concept first.

Hopefully the next version will be in something resembling a jet, and with the EDF unit inside the body of the plane.
nighthawk0077 is offline Find More Posts by nighthawk0077
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2014, 12:44 AM
turbonut's Avatar
upland CA
Joined Dec 2004
7,198 Posts
Yea the edf design is so in efficient that they need to motor to drive the main wheel just to get it up to speed for take off...edf just is not the way to go
turbonut is online now Find More Posts by turbonut
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2014, 03:59 AM
Registered User
United Kingdom, England, Southampton
Joined Oct 2013
1,793 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbonut View Post
Yea the edf design is so in efficient that they need to motor to drive the main wheel just to get it up to speed for take off...edf just is not the way to go
Agree. EDF is nowhere near as efficient as a regular prop. Particularly two small ones. I suspect Airbus (EISA) have no real intention of putting it in regular production, it's just a bit of fun for them. They already have a ten year waiting list of confirmed orders for their airliners.

Electric light aircraft? They are even less practical than electric cars. You can't use an electric light aircraft for any kind of 'place to place' flying, just local bumbling about and return to the same airfield. I fly light aircraft myself. What do we do? 'Bumble about locally' yes. But we also visit other airfields. And with the very limited range of electrics they will (1) have to have charging facilities at the airfield you are visiting (2) you will have to hang around for maybe several hours until it is recharged. Useless.

Also very few 'hobby' pilots can afford both a Cessna, Cherokee or whatever for regular use AND one of these just for bumbling around locally.

It's the same with models. There is quite a good thread at the moment about "How big do you make your electric planes?" It is NOT the usual glow vs electric thread.

But both this and the thread I mention have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. No sensible person should care much about glow, electric, gasoline, turboprop, whatever. It just makes the propeller go round and they all do that. Both in model and fullsize it is the plane that matters, not the engine. These threads, though interesting, miss the point completely. We are not 'power unit' enthusiasts, we are 'aircraft' both model and fullsize, enthusiasts. And the advocates of electric fullsize planes miss that point too, though they are interesting, in the same way Saturns rings are interesting, but that's about all..
Mark Powell is offline Find More Posts by Mark Powell
Last edited by Mark Powell; Jul 20, 2014 at 04:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2014, 09:49 AM
Aka: Tom Jenkins
ApexAero's Avatar
Palm Beach County, Fl.
Joined Aug 2008
4,393 Posts
http://www.france24.com/en/20140426-...es-off-france/
ApexAero is online now Find More Posts by ApexAero
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2014, 11:30 AM
Registered User
United Kingdom, England, Southampton
Joined Oct 2013
1,793 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApexAero View Post
Never believe anything you read.

The headline says it is the worlds first - it isn't.

The commentator says it is the worlds' first to take off under it's own power. It isn't that either.

There have been quite a few in the US and the UK. A Chinese one was demo'd some years ago too. And in France there has been an electric Cri_Cri for several years. Maybe more than one.

What they mean is it the first one they have heard of, having never paid any attention whatsoever to such things prior to a couple of months ago. Why don't they say that?
Mark Powell is offline Find More Posts by Mark Powell
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2014, 02:05 PM
Official Boat Bum
Eddie P's Avatar
United States, NV, Reno
Joined Mar 2000
7,064 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Powell View Post
Never believe anything you read.

The headline says it is the worlds first - it isn't.

...

What they mean is it the first one they have heard of, having never paid any attention whatsoever to such things prior to a couple of months ago. Why don't they say that?
Ha ha! Funny. And true.

For me, I'm a little more bullish as far as my opinion goes and electric power and sport aviation. I indeed do see a future for it, sooner than later. However, it's not going to be an "all purpose every man's airplane" sort of thing from the get go.

Here is my crystal ball... wait... the smoke is clearing... OK now... I see the future.... And the future is... electric.

I suspect the future - 20 years from now - for "go up and have a joy ride" kind of flying (at least 80 percent of the certificated pilot, non training missions in GA flying) will involve some sort of purpose built, light sport airframe with an electric power plant. What will start to drive the movement down into the grass roots of GA aviation, after a few high dollar commercial releases, will be the adaptation by the home builders out there that are currently putting 2 stroke and light 4 stroke small power plants on light sport (heavy ultralights) as well as light, traditional looking light sport aircraft. In the short term future, the electric motor is a 2 stroke killer. I can't see much of a future for Rotax 2 strokes out from 10 years and beyond. Sure, I agree, Rotax has not lost more than a hand-full of sales yet to an electric motor but that won't be the case in 5 years. 20 years out the electric motor will have all but killed the 100-150 hp horizontally opposed direct drive air cooled engines in newly designed and built, experimental aircraft of this class.

OK, smoke entering the crystal ball again. It says "insert coin". What does that mean? Did the ESC die and release the magic smoke??
Eddie P is online now Find More Posts by Eddie P
RCG Plus Member
Old Jul 20, 2014, 11:20 PM
Registered User
Daren's Avatar
Los Alamos, NM, USofA
Joined Nov 2000
3,119 Posts
Until technology can come up with a way of replacing the energy in a battery as quickly as we can fill a gas tank, electrics will remain a fringe power source.

With models, we get around the recharge time by bringing many battery packs to the flying field, but that's not really practical for mainstream transportation needs.

Sorry, Eddie. I guess my crystal ball must be made by a different manufacturer than yours.

Daren
Daren is offline Find More Posts by Daren
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 05:22 AM
Registered User
fredmdbud's Avatar
USA, MD, Frederick
Joined Jan 2010
3,926 Posts
The article mentions that Airbus is interested in the light electric market, particular for training. Like the RFB Fan Trainer, this could be positioned as a low-speed, low-noise introduction to jet flight characteristics.
fredmdbud is offline Find More Posts by fredmdbud
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 06:57 AM
Registered User
United Kingdom, England, Southampton
Joined Oct 2013
1,793 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie P View Post
Ha ha! Funny. And true.

For me, I'm a little more bullish as far as my opinion goes and electric power and sport aviation. I indeed do see a future for it, sooner than later. However, it's not going to be an "all purpose every man's airplane" sort of thing from the get go.

Here is my crystal ball... wait... the smoke is clearing... OK now... I see the future.... And the future is... electric.

I suspect the future - 20 years from now - for "go up and have a joy ride" kind of flying (at least 80 percent of the certificated pilot, non training missions in GA flying) will involve some sort of purpose built, light sport airframe with an electric power plant. What will start to drive the movement down into the grass roots of GA aviation, after a few high dollar commercial releases, will be the adaptation by the home builders out there that are currently putting 2 stroke and light 4 stroke small power plants on light sport (heavy ultralights) as well as light, traditional looking light sport aircraft. In the short term future, the electric motor is a 2 stroke killer. I can't see much of a future for Rotax 2 strokes out from 10 years and beyond. Sure, I agree, Rotax has not lost more than a hand-full of sales yet to an electric motor but that won't be the case in 5 years. 20 years out the electric motor will have all but killed the 100-150 hp horizontally opposed direct drive air cooled engines in newly designed and built, experimental aircraft of this class.

OK, smoke entering the crystal ball again. It says "insert coin". What does that mean? Did the ESC die and release the magic smoke??
It's very pretty an' all and I would like to have a go.

BUT, and despite your crystal ball, most private flyers can hardly afford it at all anyway. That's why they form syndicates and groups, to share the initial cost of the aircraft and the 'standing' costs, such as hangarage. I'm in a group of four.

Microlights are good. This is very popular in the UK. It is German, and comes as a kit. All in, complete and ready to fly it is about $60,000. But you DO have to build it yourself. It outperforms a Cessna 150 in all respects except cruise speed, where it is about equal. The Ikarus C42.



Next up are the light sport aircraft. They are about $120,000 upwards.

Finally there are the old-fashioned, all metal things like the Cessna Skyhawk and the Cherokee. They are expensive to operate, maintain, and keep certified. For 'fun' purposes they are virtually obsolete, but unlike the previous types they can (usually) carry four people. The only 'modern' one is the Cirrus, which is quite popular, all composite, and exceeds the performance of all the 'old-fashioned' ones. But it is expensive.

My crystal ball doesn't see ANY electric fitting into this, least of all an EDF twin. Unlike cars, where many can afford a second car, aircraft are just too expensive. So the market for a short range, probably expensive 'toy' will be very small. And with the limited range they have all got they will remain a 'toy' for many years. Don't believe the many reports of 'miracle' batteries. People who fall for those have not looked the Periodic table of Elements. Though charge times may improve. Batteries are expensive. The car ones are used very gently so life is long. You can't use them gently in an aircraft as you then waste their potential power density. And weight is far more important in an aircraft.

Here's a nice example of electric technology 'willy waving' from BMW. It's $170,000 equivalent in the UK, a hybrid, and only does 23 miles on its electric motor. Utterly pointless. Just like the Airbus electric

Mark Powell is offline Find More Posts by Mark Powell
Last edited by Mark Powell; Jul 21, 2014 at 07:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 11:25 AM
turbonut's Avatar
upland CA
Joined Dec 2004
7,198 Posts
I can say first hand that Electric flight is a real option. we still need to do a lot or work to have the final product but we are not that far off. the biggest problem now is the FAA has no rules to allow us to fly the electric planes.
Dan, you are correct about the need to change batts out quick. In the e430 it takes about 3min. and the airframe has a built in winch to lift the batt, in and out. really its faster than fueling my Cessna.
mark, I really don't get your logic. When has flying full size ever been a cost effective hobby...I am the type of pilot that will go to the airport just to fly around the pattern 2 or 3 times just for fun. with the electric aircraft I can fly for about 3 to 6 dollars per hour of flight. If you use solar panels to keep your batteries charged I can fly for free..its not about mass usage yet just fun flying. and even with our current battery systems we can get 60mph for 2 hours. so local airport hopping and burger runs are a real option. Most FBO will let you plug in a 120volt charger and top up your pack while you eat lunch..Its not that far off from every day use!
turbonut is online now Find More Posts by turbonut
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 02:20 PM
Registered User
United Kingdom, England, Southampton
Joined Oct 2013
1,793 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbonut View Post
I can say first hand that Electric flight is a real option. we still need to do a lot or work to have the final product but we are not that far off. the biggest problem now is the FAA has no rules to allow us to fly the electric planes.
Dan, you are correct about the need to change batts out quick. In the e430 it takes about 3min. and the airframe has a built in winch to lift the batt, in and out. really its faster than fueling my Cessna.
mark, I really don't get your logic. When has flying full size ever been a cost effective hobby...I am the type of pilot that will go to the airport just to fly around the pattern 2 or 3 times just for fun. with the electric aircraft I can fly for about 3 to 6 dollars per hour of flight. If you use solar panels to keep your batteries charged I can fly for free..its not about mass usage yet just fun flying. and even with our current battery systems we can get 60mph for 2 hours. so local airport hopping and burger runs are a real option. Most FBO will let you plug in a 120volt charger and top up your pack while you eat lunch..Its not that far off from every day use!
My logic is the expense. Unless you are happy with flying around the circuit a few times and strictly 'local' flying it will be a 'second' aircraft. And most of us can hardly afford one. And many people do go to more far away places. Our field has about 100 light aircraft and most of us do, if not often. Few will buy a plane that can't do that at all.

And at a guess it will cost twice as much as the C42 I showed. And you can buy a whole lot of fuel for sixty thousand dollars! Or $120,000 dollars if you share the fuel cost with your passenger, which we commonly do.. He/she as an occasional passenger is not likely to pay for half of your plane just to 'save' 20 dollars in fuel costs on each of two or three flights a year.

And as you know, fuel is not the only cost. It's not usually even the major one. Hangarage, inspections, etc. will still have to be paid for.

At least most European aviation authorities have no inherent objection. And an electric power system should cost no more to certify than the usual Rotax, and it only needs to be done once, by the manufacturer. Plus the power unit/plane usual certification. And that is a 'one off' as well.

The whole thing will likely be in the 'experimental' category, as is the C42 and similar here. The FAA will come round, I am sure.

Solar charging? Will YOUR field allow you to erect semi-permanent panels? And such panels don't come for free either.

You mention quick battery changes. How many sets of batteries can YOU afford?

I'm not against it. If I could afford a likely very expensive 'second' plane the EISA EDF would be very nice. Not that I see any advantages over a more conventional one. It seems all disadvantages actuaklly. It's a twin, and EDFs are not as efficient as props. I suspect it is 'willy waving' while having some fun. No more than a 'technology demonstrator'. Rather like IBMs 'Watson' in the computing field.

Power assisted electric gliders are more practical, and there are some around. They can take off themselves, land/takeoff at other fields, and with the usual glider pilot skills they can stay up for hours. And of course they avoid the total pain in the ass of launches and retrievals. A couple of European manufacturers already have them in regular production (I believe) with a fold out from the top of the fuselage prop.

It's like that car I showed. Only a lunatic would buy it unless he felt he had something to 'prove'. I have looked at the specs thoroughly. It's hopeless for the money, even compared to other BMWs, let alone other $170,000 two seaters. You might get 5 minutes curiousity when you turned up at my local English pub in it for the fist time, but that's all. And the EISA EDF is the same.
Mark Powell is offline Find More Posts by Mark Powell
Last edited by Mark Powell; Jul 21, 2014 at 02:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 06:08 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2005
2,220 Posts
Well as for me

When I was getting my license I spent quite a bit of time in the pattern, and most training hops were at right around an hour. Even after I got my license (and I rent don't own - its just a money thing), Id take my lunch hour and hop in a plane, they were 3 miles from work at the time and fly in the pattern doing touch and go's. I got my tail dragger checkout and the stick and rudder work was good therapy for 30 minutes - and Id get back in time to punch the clock.

I have been reading Aviation Week for a long long time and seeing the developments with electric flight, as with the cars its coming like it or not. For training purposes a two hour duration is plenty for most of the training I did. Yes this is not a cross country ride but its not meant to be ( YET ). The idea as Turbonut stated 3 to 6 bucks for an hour of power, WOW I just checked SNA Avgas is $6.25 per gallon, so in a Cessna 150 (I'm not sure but ill say about 4 or 5 gallons per hour) that's $25.00 to $30.00 per hour just for fuel. I don't know how many cycles the battery has and how the hourly cost compares when you need to replace the battery, but the overhaul for the engine is nonexistent so that factors in to the operating costs.

It has been some time since I flew and it looks like its going to be some time until I will. I have a cost sheet from 1998 the last time I rented a plane and a 172 was going for $85.00 per hour and now its $175.00. Instruction was $30.00 per hour now they charge $75.00. So it looks like toy airplanes for me as far as I can tell. Id like to see what an electric plane will rent for, and it would seem for training its a good idea.

Also, I don't think the idea of this plane being the first electric is what they should have said. It does look like the first ducted fan electric and that is very cool.

The article does talk about flight schools and training so I don't understand the conversation about long range travel (yet). Its not a commuter.
Air Head is online now Find More Posts by Air Head
Last edited by Air Head; Jul 24, 2014 at 01:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2014, 11:24 PM
Registered User
Australia, VIC, Melbourne
Joined Feb 2010
1,591 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daren View Post
Until technology can come up with a way of replacing the energy in a battery as quickly as we can fill a gas tank, electrics will remain a fringe power source.
How long does it take to fuel a small aircraft?

With current tech and a significant power source 15-20mins is doable for a re-charge.
desertstalker is offline Find More Posts by desertstalker
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2014, 12:05 AM
turbonut's Avatar
upland CA
Joined Dec 2004
7,198 Posts
Well I guess you can be a nay sayer all you want ...You dont have to buy one.....I still think your logic is flawed..the truth is owning any aircraft is not logical...for 99% of all of us. So its not about just the cost. The target market for our Electric aircraft is flight schools. 90% of the flying is local. And the cost of 2 to 3 batteries when you purchase 2 or 3 planes to rent is not a huge additional expence. And installing solar cells in not a big deal on any hanger. Or you can just set up a rack next to your plane if you want it to sit out side all day. it is all just a matter of how much any person wants to play with new tech.There is a lot of ways to make it work if you have the mind to do it...Or not...Is it for everyone nope! but there is a market and some of us will fill it when the time comes.
turbonut is online now Find More Posts by turbonut
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Dr. Mad Thrust/RCLander 90 EDF's with stators loose. How do you fix this? T-CAT Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 45 Jun 28, 2014 10:28 AM
Discussion Large Learjet 35 for twin EDF conversion. Concordefan2 Large EDF Jets 4 Feb 01, 2014 03:39 PM
Discussion How Do YOU Measure Power on Large EDF Systems A10pilot Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 20 Nov 02, 2011 12:50 PM
Discussion So how many brought large EDF to AEF09? PhilLin Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 40 Jan 31, 2009 11:40 AM
Question How about this motor for your EDF ScienceGuy Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 9 Jun 27, 2004 01:52 PM