What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Tesla Electric powered RV

I don't own one

I drove double that one silly day. 1113 miles straight. Energy for the pickup truck came from gasoline that was easily refilled, and I was refilled by large coffees several times as well. I was driving to marry my wife, so significant motivation. I'd call it young and foolish, now almost 5 years later, it's a 2 day drive.

I have no doubt electric sport aircraft are coming, just not today. Well maybe technology demonstrator aircraft only. Certainty nothing practical or useful..yet. Look how far electric cars have come in the past 10 years, imagine what will happen in another 10 years.

Here's a great electric aircraft technology demonstrator: https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with-electric-powered-beaver-flight/. Although it wasn't a Tesla motor.

As for how environmentally friendly electric is, that depends on the local power generation technology. My area is predominately hydro-electric. Much of Ontario is nuclear and hydro-electric. Some wind and solar, but that's not a major contributor and mostly a "feel good" government project. All the coal plants are long decommissioned and being demolished, with the environmental disaster the toxic coal ash causes. One was turned into "bio-fuel" for a few years, ran on basically saw dust and scrap from the lumber industry. Nuclear is by far the best option for many areas. Yes nuclear has it's risks, but looking statically, a coal plant ash pile is significantly more damaging than the extremely rare nuclear accident or the nuclear waste storage/disposal. Hydro-electric is great too, but only works in areas with a steady and consistent water supply. Basically Great Lakes watershed.

Real world data of battery capacity degradation from Tesla cars through 2017. Electrek.co has a nice write up on the issue. Not as rosy as some would make it out to be. The Denver owner was not alone in his range. I will stick with the low tech for now and let the pioneers figure out how to make the system work. Maybe a propeller/generator on the back of the plane to balance weight and keep the batteries O so fresh!:D
 

Attachments

  • Tesla Battery Degradation.JPG
    Tesla Battery Degradation.JPG
    48.5 KB · Views: 169
what you need is the best of both worlds. For example current technology allows about 300watts/kg in a battery. So if you install a 20kwhr battery weighing about 70kgs in a plane and a small electric motor to drive your prop you probably have enough stored power to get any RV home/safe landing under electric power alone.

Alongside this you install a 230kw AUDI diesel engine as used in A6. This weighs about the same as a lycoming 0 -360 or 390 and produces as much power as a IO 540 or more. This engine only job is to keep the battery charged full so it needs no special design features as an aircraft engine. It will also run on Jet A.

You are safe because if the engine stops working you have a full electric battery to get you to safe landing spot and electric motors have almost no moving parts so very unlikely to break down. The AUDI engine will be about $10-$15k the battery price is about $120 a kw at present so $2400 in this scenario and you will need an electric motor and some electronics to manage the whole shabang...another $2k.

So for less than $20k you have a jet A fueled battery electric aircraft powerplant with the safety of battery power to get you home if the diesel engine gives up.....all the stupid engine rebuilds and maintenance issues almost disappear overnight

Oh it would be safe alright - you'll never get off the ground with all that weight. Hard to crash if you can't fly.
 
Not sure you are correct on that one. The AUDI engine is about the same weight as the lycoming and produces much more power. The only additional weight is for an electric motor and 70 kg battery about 100kgs in total. Given the engine produces higher power to weight than any lycoming dinosaur it makes up for the difference. Its true the aircraft weighs more but no more LL100 and much lower engine maintenance costs is a huge advantage.

Pipistrel have got the message and they are producing some of the nicest GAA aircraft around. The person who brings similar concepts to Kitplanes will leave the rest for dead, lycoming will pay the price for resting on their laurels for 50 years.

http://www.ifly.eu/Panthera/Hybrid
 
First flight of the electric Beaver was now over a year ago, practically in my back yard. A big splash of publicity in magazines and local TV news and then...nothing. I haven't heard of it being flown since. This was a megabuck effort with lots of really smart people. The motor and motor controls were excellent. I wasn't there, but I heard a rumor that the payload of eBeaver was 190 lbs, ie. the pilot (normal empty weight 3000 lb, normal gross weight 5100 lb). In other words, all the payload was taken up by the batteries.

I think we'll be waiting a long time before the power density of batteries allows a commercial payload to be carried.

Keep in mind that the batteries used on the Beaver were conventional lead-acid type... They were restricted to using batteries already approved for aviation use. Just switching to EarthX batteries would cut the battery pack weight in half, if Transport Canada allowed it. 1000lb of payload isn't a lot when you're talking about a Beaver, but it is four people.

Correction: The batteries were Lithium Ion, but they were batteries already approved for aviation use and were based on older Lithium technology with much lower energy density.
 
Last edited:
Alongside this you install a 230kw AUDI diesel engine as used in A6. This weighs about the same as a lycoming 0 -360 or 390 and produces as much power as a IO 540 or more. This engine only job is to keep the battery charged full so it needs no special design features as an aircraft engine. It will also run on Jet A.

You are safe because if the engine stops working you have a full electric battery to get you to safe landing spot and electric motors have almost no moving parts so very unlikely to break down. The AUDI engine will be about $10-$15k the battery price is about $120 a kw at present so $2400 in this scenario and you will need an electric motor and some electronics to manage the whole shabang...another $2k.

So for less than $20k you have a jet A fueled battery electric aircraft powerplant with the safety of battery power to get you home if the diesel engine gives up.....all the stupid engine rebuilds and maintenance issues almost disappear overnight

I assume you're talking about the 3.0L V6 here. It weighs a lot more than a Lyc. 360 ready to run, especially once you fit a cooling system. You'll need some smarts getting an ECU to run it properly as well and have to line up the huge generator required (yet more weight) No easy task even for a savvy gearhead/ engineer type.

It's nice to dream but until you do something like this and get 500 reliable hours on it, that's all this is- a very heavy dream.
 
Keep in mind that the batteries used on the Beaver were conventional lead-acid type... They were restricted to using batteries already approved for aviation use. Just switching to EarthX batteries would cut the battery pack weight in half, if Transport Canada allowed it. 1000lb of payload isn't a lot when you're talking about a Beaver, but it is four people.

The test Beaver used a Lithium ion battery pack.
 
Last edited:
I have read that temperature can cause batteries to deliver less power than rated. Can anyone put some numbers around that? One thing I have not seen in this thread is the impact of temperature at altitude. Some of these RVs can get into flight levels. Commercial planes obviously can. If we are now talking about wing temperatures well below zero due to low OAT at altitude, do we need to double that battery size yet again to compensate for those losses?

Computers and wiring love low temperatures, but batteries normally do not. I can't even keep my (older) iPhone turned on in my jacket pocket when I ski below 20F since it gets too cold to know it has a full charge.

Would we need to engineer more weight into a battery heating system?
 
I think the environmental heating and cooling of batteries in an airplane would be very challenging. First, you have hot summer days where your wings would literally bake them, worse than the batteries built into the floors of your cars. But that same day, you may experience sub-freezing temps at altitude on a flight. Might be good for keeping the batteries cool, but the cold also decreases range/energy if they get too cold. A challenge to find a good compromise.

Personally, I don't feel that fossil fuels are ever going away for most aircraft.

That said, I think the best approach is for all of us to move to driving electric as much as possible, so that we can reserve our fossil fuels for where they will be most required. Cleaner and more efficient for our daily use, while accepting the perhaps more polluting aircraft engines because it's really the only thing that works for the task.
 
I assume you're talking about the 3.0L V6 here. It weighs a lot more than a Lyc. 360 ready to run, especially once you fit a cooling system. You'll need some smarts getting an ECU to run it properly as well and have to line up the huge generator required (yet more weight) No easy task even for a savvy gearhead/ engineer type.

It's nice to dream but until you do something like this and get 500 reliable hours on it, that's all this is- a very heavy dream.

yes i must admit i thought it up this AM so the details may not be ready for production runs just yet :) but i think pipistrel are certainly on the way with something similar and i bet hybrids are common in years to come. Maybe i am over specifying the engine required to charge the battery

http://www.ifly.eu/Panthera/Hybrid
 
Kevin brought up a good point I didn't even consider on the range discussion. Looking at cars, their range is based on cruising at a very low consumption. Similar case is made all the time on here and other places why IC motors designed for cars don't work in airplanes. They are designed to use very little power most of the time. What range would the most efficient longest range car get if it was ran at 75% power or greater for the entire trip? Something like trying to climb an infinite grade.
 
Keep in mind that the batteries used on the Beaver were conventional lead-acid type... They were restricted to using batteries already approved for aviation use. Just switching to EarthX batteries would cut the battery pack weight in half, if Transport Canada allowed it. 1000lb of payload isn't a lot when you're talking about a Beaver, but it is four people.

Not according to the COPA article:

"The batteries used in this prototype were lithium iron. This technology was selected as the batteries are less volatile than ordinary lithium ion batteries. The prototype’s batteries will be removed from the test aircraft and repurposed as energy sources for start carts."

https://copanational.org/en/2019/12/12/harbour-airs-e-beaver/

I attended a webinar presented by the motor manufacturer (and systems integrator). Everything on the electric Beaver was state of the art.
 
Not sure you are correct on that one. The AUDI engine is about the same weight as the lycoming and produces much more power. The only additional weight is for an electric motor and 70 kg battery about 100kgs in total. Given the engine produces higher power to weight than any lycoming dinosaur it makes up for the difference. Its true the aircraft weighs more but no more LL100 and much lower engine maintenance costs is a huge advantage.

Pipistrel have got the message and they are producing some of the nicest GAA aircraft around. The person who brings similar concepts to Kitplanes will leave the rest for dead, lycoming will pay the price for resting on their laurels for 50 years.

http://www.ifly.eu/Panthera/Hybrid

You're forgetting the generator head and coupling to get the Audi to produce the electricity, and cooling for both the engine and generator.

If this stuff was really that easy, we would be flying them today instead of talking about them.
 
Last edited:
hybrids are common in years to come


I am not that convinced. Reliability is nearly always inversely related to complexity. A hybrid drive is more complex, therefore, less reliable. Now you can mitigate the impact in reliability by what happens when one component fails (e.g. electric engine fails you still fly on gas engine) which might help you preventing an off field landing but unless you are willing to take off with a partially broken system you will have more days where you want to fly and are grounded then I have in my old Lycoming greatly reducing the utility of the airplane.

That's one of the reason modern airliners have 2 not 4 or more engines. Odds of not being able to take off because of an engine anomaly on a 4 engine airplane are twice then on a 2 engine airplane generating twice the cost for the airlines.

Now an electric only drive has the potential of a less complex engine (more reliable very appealing) but a quite complex battery setup considering all the environmental etc. Not sure how that compares overall as a system and of course you run into the weight/energy density issues people pointed out.

Oliver
p.s. Don't get me wrong. I am all for experimenting so please built one I would be thrilled to see it fly. Unfortunately that doesn't make it the answer for the main stream... .
 
Amusing comparison of energy sources by volume

As impressive as Li-ion batteries are, by volume they store about as much energy as a ham and cheese sandwich.

energybargraph.png


https://www.wired.com/story/how-far-can-a-car-go-using-different-fuel-sources/
 
Nuclear Car

I want a Plutonium-238 powered car. I'd never need to refuel if I can get over a million miles from a "liter of plutonium". Although the reactor and the rest of the car around the reactor might not be as pleasant and convenient as we've become accustomed.
 
Well, how about this? Hydrogen is here.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2020-hyundai-nexo-review/

The Hyundia Nexo. Hydrogen fuel cell/ lithium battery. 161 HP, 291 ft lbs torque. Cool.

Buy one(~$60K), strip the motor, fuel cell and battery, add bulbous tip tanks for the bulky hydrogen fuel and fly 1500 miles. We're THERE! Electric flight. ;)

Again, a sober reminder. The energy ratio by weight of lithium batteries to gasoline is ~60 to 1 in favor of gasoline and double that for hydrogen vs battery. Lithium batteries are amazing in one respect. I started a ford diesel pick-up with a lithium gadget the size a flashlight. But, that illustrates power vs energy. Practical airplanes are power AND energy hogs. You need both. I do think that a hydrogen aircraft could be practical in the not to distant future. . Seeing this fuel cell auto on the market is confirmation for me.

BTW, I'm not a greenie. The power plants that kick out electricity which in turn makes the hydrogen will produce carbon dioxide in similar quantities as our Lycomings considering conversion losses along the way. But I do get an uplifting feeling knowing that the end of fossil fuel will not be the end of this metaphysical experience - flight.

Ron
 
Last edited:
I want a Plutonium-238 powered car. I'd never need to refuel if I can get over a million miles from a "liter of plutonium". Although the reactor and the rest of the car around the reactor might not be as pleasant and convenient as we've become accustomed.

Government already spent big time trying that:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

based on some of the books I read main issue was balance of weight of shielding vs life expectancy of pilot and the fact that it would distribute radioactive material all over the us while flying... .

Oliver
 
The test Beaver used a Lithium ion battery pack.
I had to go back and find the pilot's statement to confirm, but you're right! Here's what he said:

HarbourAir said:
“What certainly hasn’t been done before is to fill a Beaver’s cabin with lithium-ion batteries, taking the plane to its gross weight. As a technology demonstrator, this eBeaver isn’t carrying passengers — there isn’t room — and will only have a 15-minute endurance with a 25-minute reserve.

These are batteries that NASA is using, but they’re not batteries that we’d use if we were going to try and make it economical to fly today, because they’re very low in watt-hours per kilogram...”

The takeaway is that they used batteries that were nowhere near the current technology standard. Moving to a Tesla-style pack that optimizes use of space better would cut the size in half. And moving to newer battery tech would cut it in half again.
 
I once worked on the design of a hydrogen fuel tank for a hydrogen-powered airplane. The entire fuselage shape was designed to accommodate the tank, which was relatively large for the mass of fuel it contained, hydrogen being low-density. The volumetric energy density of hydrogen is low.

The tank itself was significantly more complex and difficult than a liquid fuel tank would have been, even though (I think) it might have been fueled with liquid hydrogen. As the hydrogen got used, it changed to a gas. Fuel tanks and airplanes being what they are, the tank needed to be able to withstand but internal pressure and a vacuum, as well as the normal flight loads.

Bottom line is that it'll be a while before hydrogen fuel can be used on our kit airplanes.

Dave
 
Fuel tanks and airplanes being what they are, the tank needed to be able to withstand but internal pressure and a vacuum, as well as the normal flight loads.

Bottom line is that it'll be a while before hydrogen fuel can be used on our kit airplanes.

Dave

I think Dave wins the prize for understatement of the year. Given how much trouble people have building Van's tanks that are able to withstand 1 PSI, and how many QB tanks even come from the factory with leaks, whatever pressures Dave was using in his experimental planes are well out of reach of our meager rivet-and-proseal skills.
 
While the airplane would be considered experimental if we built it, it was developed for a governmental entity. I was fairly far down that line, being a consultant to a contractor to the company that was developing the airframe.

One thing I remembered was that my client had difficulty with both the physical construction of the tank and the verification of it. They needed to create some dedicated test equipment, even beyond the tank. I don't know how that project finished because I retired right after my phase was done. But later I did see a photo of the airplane in Aviation Week, flying. I have no knowledge of whether the tank I worked on was used. Other changes were evident.

Really, this just ain't gonna happen in our world. Stick with liquid fuels and think about electricity.

Dave
 
low tech

I think a really long extension cord is lighter than current batteries for the same amount of endurance.
 
One thing I haven't seen discussed much WRT to electric-powered aircraft is cooling drag. If you're cruising at 150HP and 33% efficiency on an ICE, you have to dissipate 300HP worth of heat. Cruise at 150HP with an electric motor, and you're dissipating somewhere in the region of 15HP of heat. If cooling drag accounts for about 7% of all drag, it's not a huge percentage, but it does move the needle a bit.

On the subject of hybrid engines, I'd love to see Toyota build one. The Prius hybrid systems have a very good reputation for reliability.

But what I'd *really* like to see is a diesel-electric fuel cell system. You'd get the range and speedy refueling of a traditional aircraft, the efficiency and lower cooling drag of electric motors, and the low cost of Jet-A.
 
....The Prius hybrid systems have a very good reputation for reliability....

That's certainly been my own experience. However, after 14 years I needed to replace the nickle hydride traction battery. The old was was worth about $200 core and the replacement, a Toyota brand one, cost about $2,500 installed. For current technology lithium batteries, regardless of type, I think that a periodic battery replacement would need to be added to the operating cost like a Lycoming overhaul would need to be accounted for. And we should expect that the airplane batteries, storing a lot more energy than a Prius battery, will cost a lot more to replace.

Dave
 
So far there is nothing that comes close to the power to weight ratio of good old fashioned petroleum. It is also quite quick to refuel.

Electric cars still don’t make any sense without government subsidies. The up front cost is still quite high and the batteries won’t last the life of the car. Replacement batteries are expensive. When you add up all the costs for the life of the car a similar sized gas powered car is still the cheapest.

I can imagine batteries getting light enough and cheap enough to be used in local trainers. That is the first place electric aircraft might be competitive with those that run petroleum. The lower maintenance costs would be helpful in reducing overall costs.

Of course they would look better sooner with huge government subsidies.
 
So far there is nothing that comes close to the power to weight ratio of good old fashioned petroleum. It is also quite quick to refuel.

Electric cars still don’t make any sense without government subsidies. The up front cost is still quite high and the batteries won’t last the life of the car. Replacement batteries are expensive. When you add up all the costs for the life of the car a similar sized gas powered car is still the cheapest.

I can imagine batteries getting light enough and cheap enough to be used in local trainers. That is the first place electric aircraft might be competitive with those that run petroleum. The lower maintenance costs would be helpful in reducing overall costs.

Of course they would look better sooner with huge government subsidies.

Fully agree with your position concerning the economics of electric vehicles. I would posit however there are individuals buying electric vehicles motivated by other factors besides the economy of the purchase and ownership of them.

Somewhat analogous to us aircraft owners in general. There are other viable reasons we aircraft owners find for justification of spending money on our passion for flight.

Live Long and Prosper!
 
I can imagine batteries getting light enough and cheap enough to be used in local trainers. That is the first place electric aircraft might be competitive with those that run petroleum. The lower maintenance costs would be helpful in reducing overall costs.

Of course they would look better sooner with huge government subsidies.

It seems at my airport there are quite a few Cubs and Cub clones that just fly the pattern as well as a Cherokee 140 that never gets more than a couple miles from the airport. These are flown mostly by older guys that just want to get in the air and hack around. I find that as I have gotten older I just like to go fly around locally for 45-60 minutes (see attachment below showing my recent flights). This plus the light sport training aircraft constitute a significant number of flights at my airport. (Still wonder if you get your light sport ticket flying electric whether there will need to be some short training needed to also fly gas). All these flights are within current electric airplane technology level.

I think there may already be a market for electric powered just not yet the economics or mindset for electric. I love the flying qualities of my RV even if just burning holes in the sky. I think if Van offered ether a smaller RV-15 that was electric powered with the performance of a super Cub or an Electric powered RV-4 with equivalent performance, I would be interested in building it.

I do think it is quite a ways off for typical GA cross country and definitely commercial to go electric.

15BFBA03-7C86-4B3C-9BEA-F88AFFC1EA35.jpg
 
It doesn’t take me long to get my RV fix either. 30 minutes will do it.
I Think of what it might sound like and the dynamic braking that might be available.
If a 150 KW/2500 RPM engine became available I would be tempted to try it.
 
Do any of you posting here drive an electric car?

I charge my Tesla for 1/10th the cost of gasoline. I charge at night when the grid is mostly unused.

At 245,000 miles on a 2014 model, I expect to drive another 200,000 without replacing the battery. When I replace it the battery becomes high quality ore and will be used to make another battery.

My Tesla is a single speed gear reduction that has been extremely reliable. I could see a constant speed prop and electric gear reduction flying for two hours with a 45 minute reserve. Yes, take off and land aircraft weight will be the same.

Internal combustion engine (ICE) cars are converted to electric all the time. Vans likes simplicity. With so few moving parts an electric motor is quite simple. Where the simplicity fails Vans is in the digital control of the electric vs analog control of 1940s ICE technology.

Charging my converted RV at home in my hangar at night will be no problem. In fact, way more convenient for me than having to go to an airport with a fuel pump. 99% of my flights are already a 1 hour excursion. If I’m going to lunch it is two flights of 1 hour each at most.

For long cross countries (i.e. SC to Airventure or SC to CA) I can take another airplane running on whatever fuel is available at airports along the way. It will be decades before 250kW charging will be available at airports.

Just look how long the recently approved 100UL took to get through the beaurocratic system. Experimental gives us the freedom to press ahead with safe alternatives without the red tape.

I’m looking forward to seeing those who know what they are doing leading the way with instant torque electric options. I’m already enjoying watching the Continental diesels that are reliable, modern torque machines.
 
Do any of you posting here drive an electric car?

I charge my Tesla for 1/10th the cost of gasoline. I charge at night when the grid is mostly unused.

At 245,000 miles on a 2014 model, I expect to drive another 200,000 without replacing the battery. When I replace it the battery becomes high quality ore and will be used to make another battery.

My Tesla is a single speed gear reduction that has been extremely reliable. I could see a constant speed prop and electric gear reduction flying for two hours with a 45 minute reserve. Yes, take off and land aircraft weight will be the same.

Internal combustion engine (ICE) cars are converted to electric all the time. Vans likes simplicity. With so few moving parts an electric motor is quite simple. Where the simplicity fails Vans is in the digital control of the electric vs analog control of 1940s ICE technology.

Charging my converted RV at home in my hangar at night will be no problem. In fact, way more convenient for me than having to go to an airport with a fuel pump. 99% of my flights are already a 1 hour excursion. If I’m going to lunch it is two flights of 1 hour each at most.

For long cross countries (i.e. SC to Airventure or SC to CA) I can take another airplane running on whatever fuel is available at airports along the way. It will be decades before 250kW charging will be available at airports.

Just look how long the recently approved 100UL took to get through the beaurocratic system. Experimental gives us the freedom to press ahead with safe alternatives without the red tape.

I’m looking forward to seeing those who know what they are doing leading the way with instant torque electric options. I’m already enjoying watching the Continental diesels that are reliable, modern torque machines.

See posts 36 and 38. Charging your Tesla is directly related to the costs of natural gas and coal. BTW, your green vehicle also makes plenty of pollution, but does so "remotely". If you take HC emissions out of the equation (by relying upon renewable energy), these costs would skyrocket. As the Levelized Cost of Electrical Storage continues to decrease more in-line with the Levelized Cost of Electricity, the costs between base load, peak, and off peak electricity will flatten-> won't matter what time of day you buy electricity for your e-vehicle.

This all assumes the 48-1 energy density issue for batteries versus HC fuels magically collapses. This a a great article, BTW if you haven't already read it.

https://www.flyingmag.com/the-future-of-aviation-is-steam-power/

There are plenty of Electric Aircraft companies that will gladly take your investment money. Personal fortunes will be made off of these investors.

I'm a big fan of pushing and advancing tech but you have to know all of the boundary conditions. It's just not that simple; the tech (bounded by weight restrictions) or the economics.
 
Do any of you posting here drive an electric car?

I charge my Tesla for 1/10th the cost of gasoline. I charge at night when the grid is mostly unused.

At 245,000 miles on a 2014 model, I expect to drive another 200,000 without replacing the battery. When I replace it the battery becomes high quality ore and will be used to make another battery.

My Tesla is a single speed gear reduction that has been extremely reliable. I could see a constant speed prop and electric gear reduction flying for two hours with a 45 minute reserve. Yes, take off and land aircraft weight will be the same.

Internal combustion engine (ICE) cars are converted to electric all the time. Vans likes simplicity. With so few moving parts an electric motor is quite simple. Where the simplicity fails Vans is in the digital control of the electric vs analog control of 1940s ICE technology.

Charging my converted RV at home in my hangar at night will be no problem. In fact, way more convenient for me than having to go to an airport with a fuel pump. 99% of my flights are already a 1 hour excursion. If I’m going to lunch it is two flights of 1 hour each at most.

For long cross countries (i.e. SC to Airventure or SC to CA) I can take another airplane running on whatever fuel is available at airports along the way. It will be decades before 250kW charging will be available at airports.

Just look how long the recently approved 100UL took to get through the beaurocratic system. Experimental gives us the freedom to press ahead with safe alternatives without the red tape.

I’m looking forward to seeing those who know what they are doing leading the way with instant torque electric options. I’m already enjoying watching the Continental diesels that are reliable, modern torque machines.

The problem is the Tesla battery package weighs about 1100 lbs. it generates enough power in the recommended use range to provide 4 hours of driving generating about 40hp at 65 MPH. That probably translates to 1 hour at the 120HP we probably need at cruise. With the need to carry 1100lbs all the time you are looking at 2200 lb landing weight. That means you have to beef up the airframe and probable wing area. Now the aircraft is even heavier. Batteries are going to need to get vastly better before it becomes a reality.
 
Tesla

I think y'all are going the wrong way. Almost a century ago Tesla (the original one) successfully demonstrated wireless energy transmission. He never was able to go large scale as funding for the project was pulled. (interesting story)

Point is, if you had wireless energy transmission, batteries wouldn't be an issue for any vehicle; neither would range or endurance...:D
 
The problem is the Tesla battery package weighs about 1100 lbs. it generates enough power in the recommended use range to provide 4 hours of driving generating about 40hp at 65 MPH. That probably translates to 1 hour at the 120HP we probably need at cruise. With the need to carry 1100lbs all the time you are looking at 2200 lb landing weight. That means you have to beef up the airframe and probable wing area. Now the aircraft is even heavier. Batteries are going to need to get vastly better before it becomes a reality.

Yep.... Two people and baggage = 3100#

I would hope when Van's goes electric, they fly a RV6 solo with FP prop and very low on fuel and make that the mark for the handling characteristics of the RVE17A
 
Electric power

I have a simple question to GDRudolf….no fossil fuel?? Where do you think electricity comes from? Oh yes, either fossil fuels or perhaps nuclear. But there again the conversion from fossil to electricity is very inefficient compared with a good recip
 
well

The main hurtle to get over with wireless energy is the extreme loss of energy. Very inefficient to date.

It is too bad that N. Tesla was not allowed to complete his research and the large scale test. That set us back almost 100 years.

It is an interesting story, though. Dig into it and you will likely find that the blossoming big oil companies were terrified at what a successful test would mean...
 
I recently finished reading N. Tesla's autobiography "My Inventions", and his biography by M. Cheney "Tesla Man Out of Time". It seems to me N. Tesla was as much a promotor and sensationalist as he was a technologist. I suspect that the "wireless energy" invention was not efficient enough to be practical and that there were laws of physics that couldn't be broken.
 
Back
Top