Honest reporting on electric airplanes

Have another cup of Kool-Aid.
If you believe CO2 is the great bugaboo, then I suggest you investigate the actual carbon footprint of corn liquor fuel--from planting to irrigation to fertilization to harvest to fermenting to distillation to finished product. In the end you're still burning an evil hydrocarbon and releasing the deadly CO2. From an total carbon footprint, I'll bet natural gas has a lower carbon footprint.

The energy density of the fuel is also a factor. Ethanol has an energy density of 27MJ/kg. Methane has an energy density of 50MJ/kg. So you have to burn twice the amount of ethanol to get as much work done as burning the same amount of methane.
One of the things I taught my undergrads in my Energy classes is that modern agriculture is how we turn petroleum into food. Bio-ethanol takes this one step further, turning petroleum into food into petroleum. This is right up there with using electricity for heating when the electrical grid is still 60% or more fossil fuel based. Nothing makes more ;) sense than generating electricity with fossil fuels at 40% efficiency to heat your home, when you could burn that same fossil fuel in your home and heat with 95% efficiency. When the grid is 80% rnon-fossil fuel, then electric heating will make more environmental sense.

If you want to make progress on carbon burden, we need to figure out how to improve on Fischer-Tropsch chemistry to fix CO2 into high energy carbon compounds.
 
Ha. Maybe get on the horn and remind Toyota, Hyundai, United, and all the others of the dangers? I'm sure they would be grateful. ;)
We have a historical precedent for stuff like this. Before and after WW2 there were dozens of companies building airplanes in the US and Canada alone. Everyone was going to fly, and the demand would make the aircraft manufacturers rich. It failed, bigly. No shortage of investors that lost their money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_aircraft_manufacturers_of_the_United_States

The list has many companies that failed more recently, but an older pilot will recognize many of those listed as light aircraft manufacturers of the 1930s-1950s. They've seen some of those airplanes at fly-ins. And these were aircraft that actually flew, and flew well and safely. But the market was far smaller than anyone dreamed.
 
We have a historical precedent for stuff like this.
With conventional aviation and aircraft I would agree with you. However, with the UAM transport concept no real precedent exists except the previous attempts over the years with helicopters. It was a transport concept without a viable vehicle until the last 5-10 years.

The UAM concept is historical but it’s the current line of aircraft (eVTOLS/VTOLs) that will set the precedent for UAM. If it works, it will create a new commercial aviation market that never existed on a large scale with the potential to become the largest in market value and size in the industry. Hence the reason so many people are positioning themselves to take advantage of its creation on so many levels.
 
That's not true of the newer approaches that use renewables to power the ethanol and bio-diesel production processes.

Make sure you are taking into account the massive amount of energy and fossil fuel feedstock required to manufacture ammonia (fertilizer) to grow the plants to produce the sugar to power the fermentation to produce the alcohol. Corn is among the worst in this regard, as it can't fix nitrogen. Plus that anaerobic fermentation blows off two atoms of carbon as carbon dioxide for every 6 atoms of fixed carbon in the sugar fermented. Plant-sourced ethanol production is horribly inefficient at industrial scale.

If we want to make zero impact carbon fuels, we need to figure out how to efficiently fix CO2 from the atmosphere. But it is very energy intensive to reduce CO2, so good sources of non-fossil fuel energy will be required: solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, etc. Burning fossil fuels to produce fossil fuels is a thermodynamic loser.
 
With conventional aviation and aircraft I would agree with you. However, with the UAM transport concept no real precedent exists except the previous attempts over the years with helicopters. It was a transport concept without a viable vehicle until the last 5-10 years.

The UAM concept is historical but it’s the current line of aircraft (eVTOLS/VTOLs) that will set the precedent for UAM. If it works, it will create a new commercial aviation market that never existed on a large scale with the potential to become the largest in market value and size in the industry. Hence the reason so many people are positioning themselves to take advantage of its creation on so many levels.

You keep bringing up UAM but the title of this thread is electric airplanes. Since when is UAM planning to use airplanes?
 
You keep bringing up UAM but the title of this thread is electric airplanes. Since when is UAM planning to use airplanes?
Simple. Because in the OPs video and several posts in the thread, UAM developments and equipment are intermixed into the conversation of “electric airplanes” which is a separate venture. I merely try to show the difference.

However, certain “electric airplanes” do have their place in the overall picture as part of the RAM transport concept which a number of years ago was expanded from the original UAM and is now all under the AAM, or Advanced Air Mobility. Plenty of public info out there if you care to read about it.
 
... In the end, rooftop solar with backup battery is the single most expensive energy source per kWh. In contrast, the cheapest power on the planet comes from a large utility-scale solar farm in the middle east.
Built over unproductive desert.

As I have flown around the states I mourn the loss of agricultural land to massive wind and solar installations and the impact on natural ecosystems. The same folks who want to stop land development for toads or guppies or bugs are the same ones clamoring to tear up the ground and plant wind turbines or tear up the ground and shade it with solar panels.
 
Built over unproductive desert.

As I have flown around the states I mourn the loss of agricultural land to massive wind and solar installations and the impact on natural ecosystems. The same folks who want to stop land development for toads or guppies or bugs are the same ones clamoring to tear up the ground and plant wind turbines or tear up the ground and shade it with solar panels.
But the EPA and others will delay it because of impact to the endangered Arizona desert earthworm. The other downside is similar to wind power, where transmission losses are significant because the area where it is produced (middle of desert) are generally not where the energy needs to be consumed. So running transmission lines hundreds of miles away results in a lot less energy making it to the end point than what was actually generated. Easier/less land-intensive just to build modern nuclear, imo.
 
As I have flown around the states I mourn the loss of agricultural land to massive wind and solar installations and the impact on natural ecosystems.
:yeahthat:

Just a few miles down the road from me, large orange groves have been replaced with solar fields, and now our local citrus processing plant is importing some of its oranges. "Florida's Natural" brand of OJ isn't entirely from Florida anymore and I think that's sad.
 
Discussions like these inevitably get politicized, which distracts from an unbiased consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies.

For short range applications, electric powertrains are lighter, simpler, and more reliable than internal combustion.

As desired range increases, the mass based energy density of batteries becomes a disadvantage.

EV cars are a good example. So much nonsense has been written on both sides from people who see everything through the lens of their political beliefs. Current EV cars are better than ICE for daily commuting in an urban or suburban environment, and worse for longer trips and rural areas. Plenty of vehicles of both types exist, so buy the vehicle that fits your needs better.

Aviation applications are likely to follow a similar trajectory. For scheduled airline travel, it will be many years before batteries have any hope of equaling fossil fuel energy density. However, for short range applications such as air taxis and short range VTOL, electric powertrains have advantages. Those advantages may make some modes of transportation economically viable that previously were not.

ICE rotorcraft are complex, expensive machines that require considerable skill to fly and maintain. Consequently, regular VTOL travel is only economically viable for the very wealthiest segment of the population. Whenever a TV show wants to let the audience know that a character is rich and important, they are shown debarking from a helicopter.

Short range electric rotorcraft have the potential to be simpler, lighter, cheaper, and easier to fly and maintain. Some designs such as quad copters are not practical with ICE propulsion, but are relatively easy to implement with electric powertrains. Quads in particular lend themselves to computer assisted flight by relatively unskilled operators, which is why drones are exploding (literally, in Ukraine). As that technology matures, it has the potential to open up VTOL travel to more people in more situations. That's a good thing.
 
:yeahthat:

Just a few miles down the road from me, large orange groves have been replaced with solar fields, and now our local citrus processing plant is importing some of its oranges. "Florida's Natural" brand of OJ isn't entirely from Florida anymore and I think that's sad.

The culprit is disease, not solar panels. Over 50% of Florida orange groves have been destroyed in the last 20 years: Citrus Greening Abandoned groves are everywhere. There is one right off the end of the runway at my home drome.

There is no shortage of unusable land in our area of Florida. The area south of Lakeland and Bartow is a hellscape of abandoned phosphate strip mines that cannot be farmed or built on.
 
Discussions like these inevitably get politicized, which distracts from an unbiased consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies.

For short range applications, electric powertrains are lighter, simpler, and more reliable than internal combustion.

As desired range increases, the mass based energy density of batteries becomes a disadvantage.

EV cars are a good example. So much nonsense has been written on both sides from people who see everything through the lens of their political beliefs. Current EV cars are better than ICE for daily commuting in an urban or suburban environment, and worse for longer trips and rural areas. Plenty of vehicles of both types exist, so buy the vehicle that fits your needs better.

Aviation applications are likely to follow a similar trajectory. For scheduled airline travel, it will be many years before batteries have any hope of equaling fossil fuel energy density. However, for short range applications such as air taxis and short range VTOL, electric powertrains have advantages. Those advantages may make some modes of transportation economically viable that previously were not.

ICE rotorcraft are complex, expensive machines that require considerable skill to fly and maintain. Consequently, regular VTOL travel is only economically viable for the very wealthiest segment of the population. Whenever a TV show wants to let the audience know that a character is rich and important, they are shown debarking from a helicopter.

Short range electric rotorcraft have the potential to be simpler, lighter, cheaper, and easier to fly and maintain. Some designs such as quad copters are not practical with ICE propulsion, but are relatively easy to implement with electric powertrains. Quads in particular lend themselves to computer assisted flight by relatively unskilled operators, which is why drones are exploding (literally, in Ukraine). As that technology matures, it has the potential to open up VTOL travel to more people in more situations. That's a good thing.
I'm not sure I agree with the "lighter" part. Even my Lithium-battery powered yard edger weighs more than the ICE versions. Those batteries weigh a significant amount, generally more than the ICE they are competing against.
 
The culprit is disease, not solar panels. Over 50% of Florida orange groves have been destroyed in the last 20 years: Citrus Greening Abandoned groves are everywhere. There is one right off the end of the runway at my home drome.

There is no shortage of unusable land in our area of Florida. The area south of Lakeland and Bartow is a hellscape of abandoned phosphate strip mines that cannot be farmed or built on.

Greening and canker have been problems, but landowners are finding it’s to their financial advantage to sell for other uses rather than replanting. In some cases they can collect insurance and government assistance to rip out the trees, then they sell the land for development.

I understand the reasons; I just find it sad. This was once a beautiful rural area, full of groves and pastureland and farms and woods, but it’s all being flattened and paved and built. We may relocate soon.

I’m familiar with that area near Bartow and Lakeland, and there’s even a sand mine across the road from my home. I’m not sure, but there may be environmental cleanup that’s a barrier to using the land.
 
I think Peter Garrison, in FLYING, mentioned avgas has 18 times the energy density of batteries. I could imagine some improvement as tech evolves - but not nearly that much. Physics is real. . .hydrogen probably won't cut it, in airplanes or cars. It mostly uses dead dinosaurs for production, and there is already a shortage of Iridium required for the cells. We need more nukes!
 
I think Peter Garrison, in FLYING, mentioned avgas has 18 times the energy density of batteries. I could imagine some improvement as tech evolves - but not nearly that much. Physics is real. . .hydrogen probably won't cut it, in airplanes or cars. It mostly uses dead dinosaurs for production, and there is already a shortage of Iridium required for the cells. We need more nukes!
1716315861839.jpeg

Ron Wanttaja
 
I think Peter Garrison, in FLYING, mentioned avgas has 18 times the energy density of batteries.

OTOH, an ICE motor weighs 10 times more than an electric motor, and requires a transmission to maintain RPM in optimal range.

An electric power train with short range can be made considerably lighter than an equivalent ICE.

As desired range increases, the lightness advantage of the electric motor is offset by increasing battery weight.
 
Seen at an Iron Butt competition:

52844472442_5fbfa78905_z.jpg
 
OTOH, an ICE motor weighs 10 times more than an electric motor, and requires a transmission to maintain RPM in optimal range.

An electric power train with short range can be made considerably lighter than an equivalent ICE.

As desired range increases, the lightness advantage of the electric motor is offset by increasing battery weight.

Agreed. At the moment, based on prototype airplanes, the crossover point seems to be around 30-60 minutes, more or less. To make a truly useful airplane that can be used for meaningful XC travel, or jobs like cargo hauling, the batteries will need to improve by 6x to 10x, which is about in line with the differences in energy density.

We're talking rough numbers here, but in order for electric airplanes to take over the jobs being done by small ICE planes the battery capability will need to improve by an order of magnitude, and that's not just around the corner.

UAM is an entirely new business, tailored to the near-term capabilities of electric aircraft, and will have to take customers away from the current ground transportation options. I'm skeptical that it will be able to do that profitably.

It's similar to the Christensen "disruptive technology" model where a new technology taps a new market and develops its capability there, until the capability reaches a level where it takes over the larger existing market being served by an older technology. There are many examples, but they require the new technology to be profitable and thrive in the new market it creates and to improve its capability rapidly.

I'm doubtful that electric air vehicles will be able to do either, for two reasons: (1) it's not creating a new market; it's tapping one that's already being served adequately, so it will have to offer a significant price/performance advantage, and (2) I don't expect battery technology to advance rapidly enough.
 
Last edited:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN did experiments on the feasibility of nuclear powered aircraft.


Those test towers are still standing, fairly close to our E TN home.

Here the 2 Nuclear Powered J47 prototypes a the Idaho National Labs.
1716329564726.png
 
Pretty good rundown on eVTOL infrastructure efforts in FL, suggesting that the FAA is an obstacle.

Infrastructure is a big problem when airports have to be every 15 miles to accommodate the range capabilities.
 
the future risk is always higher than the past risk (until you actually have one)
I don't think this is true. There isn't some invisible presence that knows you've flown X hours and you're becoming "due" .. I go get in a rented airplane that's flown 25000 hours in its life engine failure free, that plane doesn't know if I am a zero hour brand new student or a 10,000 hr seasoned accident free aviator who's 'due' for an event. My statistical chance of an engine failure is the same every time I get in a plane

But I digress, back to the thread..
 
I don't think this is true. There isn't some invisible presence that knows you've flown X hours and you're becoming "due" .. I go get in a rented airplane that's flown 25000 hours in its life engine failure free, that plane doesn't know if I am a zero hour brand new student or a 10,000 hr seasoned accident free aviator who's 'due' for an event. My statistical chance of an engine failure is the same every time I get in a plane

But I digress, back to the thread..
That ignores the fact that the older a machine gets, the more likely it is to fail. These engines get (or should get) overhauled at reasonable intervals, and they should get overhauled in strict accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Field overhauls sometimes fall short of that; I've seen it. It's scary. Even at that, the 25,000 airframe hours have no bearing on the engine's hours. None.

Control surface cables and pulleys wear out. Cables fray and will eventually fail if they're not inspected, and inspecting them involves removing lots of stuff sometimes, and so it gets pencil-whipped. Pulleys seize up. Hinge bracketry cracks. Engine controls are not usually replaced at engine overhaul, but they should be. I have seen one failed throttle cable and two failed carb heat cables. That 25,000-hour airplane you rent, if it has not been meticulously inspected, will have cracked airframe components. Every airframe design has its weak points.

I've had two engine failures. One was a broken crankshaft. The engine had been field-overhauled without the manufacturer-specified NDT during overhaul. The crank had cracked due to a long-ago propstrike. The other failed because its carb fell off due to no locking of the carb's retaining nuts. I later bought that airplane, and when I tore the fabric off the wings I found the rear spars of both wings cracked, one of them 3/4 of the way through, and that crack had been there a long time, judging by the wear of the wood in the crack due to movement. It could have come apart in flight in any real turbulence or spin recovery.

Stuff like that made me a careful mechanic and a skeptical pilot. As the Director of Maintenance for a flight school, the government flight-test personnel told me that our airplanes were the only flight-school airplanes in their whole region that they weren't afraid to get into.
 
Last edited:
I don't think this is true. There isn't some invisible presence that knows you've flown X hours and you're becoming "due" .. I go get in a rented airplane that's flown 25000 hours in its life engine failure free, that plane doesn't know if I am a zero hour brand new student or a 10,000 hr seasoned accident free aviator who's 'due' for an event. My statistical chance of an engine failure is the same every time I get in a plane

But I digress, back to the thread..
If the past risk is zero (ie. you've never had an engine failure), then the future risk is higher than zero regardless of how small that risk is. I wasn't insinuating that every pilot, plane, or engine, has a time when it's "number is up." You're exactly right: planes are dumb. They don't know who's at the controls or whether they are over land or water. All they know is if the angle between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind doesn't exceed the critical angle of attack, it will keep flying. :)
 
I've had two engine failures. One was a broken crankshaft. The engine had been field-overhauled without the manufacturer-specified NDT during overhaul.
I hope you didn't make the newbie mistake of discarding that crankshaft, Dan.
I found a guy who can fix them up for us:

 
There isn't some invisible presence that knows you've flown X hours and you're becoming "due" .. I go get in a rented airplane that's flown 25000 hours in its life engine failure free, that plane doesn't know if I am a zero hour brand new student or a 10,000 hr seasoned accident free aviator who's 'due' for an event.
For some strange reason mine seems to know when I'm over water or other unfriendly terrian ... :biggrin:
 
"The odds don't remember." One of the first things taught when I took a probability course.
Assuming each event is independent, like a toss of a coin. But that is often not the case with mechanical failures.
Example: a crack forms in your engine case. It gradually propagates until it fails. The odds of failure increase with each prior flight that does not end in failure, because the crack is longer.
 
As the Director of Maintenance for a flight school, the government flight-test personnel told me that our airplanes were the only flight-school airplanes in their whole region that they weren't afraid to get into.
....and fly to POH and/or TCDS limitations?
 
Assuming each event is independent, like a toss of a coin. But that is often not the case with mechanical failures.

True, and a fact that is often overlooked. When I taught analog circuit tolerance analysis, we spent some time discussing this. A circuit might have many requirements, and its statistical performance against some specs might be uncorrelated, while others might be highly correlated. The analysis can get unwieldy unless you make some assumptions and approximations.

Also, there's an assumption that the mechanical system remains undisturbed, but none of our engines do. We change oil, clean sparkplugs, replace a cylinder, etc.. (You can get into a Ship of Theseus discussion; was the probability of the boat sinking changing as each plank was replaced?)
 
I hope you didn't make the newbie mistake of discarding that crankshaft, Dan.
I found a guy who can fix them up for us:

That crank is from an auto engine. In the world of aircraft, that sort of thing is so risky it's not funny. An auto crank delivers only torque, and a failure means coasting to the side of the road. The aircraft crank takes terrific thrust and gyroscopic precession loads as well as the torque, and often has fewer but much bigger cylinders that really make torque spikes.

Lycoming says this in their Direct-Drive engine overhaul manual:

1716667976518.png
And this:

1716668025064.png

About bent cranks, Lycoming says this in their manual:

1716667748931.png

FAR 43.13 says this:

1716668945190.png

So the work must be done in accordance with the manufacturer's current manuals. Lycoming forbids the re-use of any cracked crankshaft, which would certainly cover broken crankshafts as well.

We sometimes used a nearly engine shop for cylinder work or NDT after a propstrike. The owner told me that a fellow came in one day, from the airside of the shop, and asked about the O-200 crank that was in the scrap barrel. He wanted it, and the owner would not give it to him. It was cracked between the prop flange and first main bearing surface. That crank disappeared overnight, and nothing was heard until one day the Transport guys came in and asked if they'd sold a used crank to a certain homebuilder. They had a picture of the guy, and it was the guy that wanted that cracked crank. Well, he'd swiped it, gouged out the crack, and welded it up and put it in his homebuilt. In flight, the front end of the crank broke at the weld, and the prop came off and flew up and went through the windshield, killing the guy. Crash. Legal maybe, but really stupid.

In a previous career I was the shop foreman in a machine shop where we rebuilt air brake compressors, valves, and a bunch of other stuff. Compressors are driven by the truck or earthmover's engine, and some of them had weaknesses at the drive end. Some were being driven off an engine pad and internal gearing that was designed for a hydraulic pump. But a compressor is a reciprocating load, not at all like a hydraulic pump, and it lashes the drive every time the piston goes over TDC and the residual air in the cylinder pushes the piston down, forcing the crankshaft forward, that the crank is forced back again by the next compression cycle. This beats up the drive splines.

Those cranks were expensive. Some shops were welding them up and having lots of failures. I developed a process using a MIG wire of equivalent strength to the crank's steel, and after machining all the old splines off and to a level deeper than the the weld fusion would reach, I'd weld them up carefully, two beads at a time, one on each side, and let them cool before doing any more welding. This reduced the chances of cracking in the weld interface as it cooled. Once they were all welded up, I machined them to the right diameter and cut the splines into them on the mill. They worked well unless the mechanic installed them into worn splines in the drive gear in the engine. That lash soon tore them up. That happened with brand-new cranks, too. We also did some cast iron cracks this way, but it was much more difficult due to the high carbon content of gray cast, and I had to use pure nickel wire to get adhesion. With cast, you don't want penetration or the dilution creates a hard, glass-brittle transition zone that will soon fail. The weld has to stick to the iron much like brazing would. After I left that place, they started taking shortcuts with the welding, and crank breakage happened in nearly every compressor of that drive type. I had warned them against that. Keep it cool I had said, and don't turn up the amperage. Take your time. But no, someone ignorant higher up in the company demanded speed, and got big warranty problems. Saving money no matter how much it costs, just like that homebuilder.
 
Back
Top