Electric Rag and Tube

[Cosmick]

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/norways-electric-car-mix-rises-to-54-per-cent-128023/

 

While other Nations provide tax incentives to Electric vehicle purchasers Australia (Victoria) wants to tax EV's per km. Wrong attitude.

[facthunter]

Maybe, but  other road users PAY with fuel tax so the principle and equity are served. How many people can afford an electric vehicle at current prices and get FREE use of the roads?  Nev

[spacesailor]

The NRMA poured  $ millions into EVs, 

But, Will not even give their IC car members a WOF check for free !.

Who the hell pays them,

spacesailor

[facthunter]

It's not compulsory to join the NRMA. The members have the remedy of there's a problem. Nev

[octave]

The NRMA has built and is rapidly expanding its charger network including in regional areas including  Ultra-rapid chargers 350kw.  I imagine this is worth so much more to NRMA EV drivers than a free WOF check.

[nomadpete]

Did I hear talk of Joe Blakes?

 

Ever since my pet tiger snake came to guard my shed door,

I haven't seen a single taipan, death adder nor red belly.

 

 

[spacesailor]

BUT

If resigning from the organisation, And holding shares !.

Will, it be like shooting ones self in the foot ?.

spacesailor

[nomadpete]

BTW, I don't really think NRMA sponsors electric rag'n'tube aircraft either.

 

Back to topic?

[danny_galaga]

Very simple to charge on all types of vehicles road use equitably nowadays. All new cars are or can be connected to the internet. Simple matter for your car to log the odometer. Tax can be on the odometer reading for electric cars once there's enough of them to warrant the change.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by danny_galaga

[spacesailor]

BUT

One day there will be Insufficient fuel tax to pay for those greedy pollies.

Then either raise that fuel levy Plus the 10% GST on the remaining ICE cars.

Forcing those left, to drive less,

OR

TAX THEM ALL THE SAME, ( milage tax ) ,as in NZ.

spacesailor

[octave]

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

TAX THEM ALL THE SAME, ( milage tax ) ,as in NZ.

Victoria is set to become the first state in Australia to introduce a tax on electric vehicles.

From July 1, owners of fully electric cars in Victoria will pay 2.5 cents per kilometre and owners of hybrids will be slugged two cents per kilometre.

This will be paid at registration time and is forecast to cost drivers up to $300 each year.

[danny_galaga]

22 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

BUT

One day there will be Insufficient fuel tax to pay for those greedy pollies.

Then either raise that fuel levy Plus the 10% GST on the remaining ICE cars.

Forcing those left, to drive less,

OR

TAX THEM ALL THE SAME, ( milage tax ) ,as in NZ.

spacesailor

I would suggest that would happen over time. Petrol cars will become more expensive to operate as the fuel price goes up. That will encourage more people to buy electric. Hopefully in a general sense this happens as electric car prices get lower. I for one can't afford a new electric car right now. My current car should see me to the end of the ICE age and then electric or I just taxi anywhere I need to go. I really think we should phase out petrol and diesel passenger vehicles as soon as possible because we still need fossil fuel for heavy transport and aircraft. Burn fuel only where there is no visible alternative.

 

Back on the topic, I think a part 103 type ultralight is perfect for electric. Most of those aren't flown for more than an hour at a time. I kinda wish I didn't have my current project- id build an electric rag and tube for sure!

Edited April 21, 2021 by danny_galaga

[jackc]

The last paragraph......WINNER 🙂

 

[kasper]

17 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

much clipped

Back on the topic, I think a part 103 type ultralight is perfect for electric. Most of those aren't flown for more than an hour at a time. I kinda wish I didn't have my current project- id build an electric rag and tube for sure!

I'm pretty sure you would not like a part 103 rule ... under 103 your batteries are included in the max 115kg airframe weight ... unlike IC engines where they get to carry a max of 5USG/19.9L/14.3kg in addition to the 115kg airframe ... just to make sure electric is just that much more difficult.

 

Under 95.10 in Australia you can have 300kg of MTOW (if you have 10m^2 of wing) and you can use it any way you like between airframe/people/batteries/toothbrush.  Plus you are allowed to go as fast as you like and are not limited to a max speed at wide open throttle.

 

If but for cost you can already buy a plug and play electric setup (motor, folding prop, controllers, batteries with BMS, flight instruments and even a nice little throttle lever) see https://www.geigerengineering.de/en/avionics/products

 

The Australian design envelope for single seaters is VERY much better than the USA ... always has been and hopefully will remain so.  The gripes and bitching is around the regulatory structures in OZ vs USA ... they win because they have none and are actively allowed to kill themselves ... not so in OZ. 

[turboplanner]

On 20/04/2021 at 12:47 PM, walrus said:

As with everything it is LOGISTICS that counts be it Covid19 or electric vehicles. In fact electric powered vehicles can easily be more versatile and higher performance than IC engine vehicles - and that includes (propeller)  aircraft.

 

 

The problem is the logistics of getting volts and amps to the motor - ie batteries, fuel cells or storage media. Power generation and distribution.

 

The example quoted to me was Britian - it uses something like 1 TwH annually for domestic use and 2 TwH for transport in the form of liquid fuels. So you see the scale of the problem - triple electric energy production and distribution to replace liquid hydrocarbons.

 

Visit any petrol station on the Hume or Pacific freeways. Look at the volume of traffic at the pumps. Now imagine if each has to take 30 minutes to charge. Can you see the problem? Then can you see the size of the mega voltage, ultra high amperage power lines joining each station to some super power station? We don't have the grid technology, battery technology, network topology let alone operating rules, legal, financial or safety infrastructure.......yet

 

 

 

Good examples.

Each form of vehicle down the ages has had to produce two things; performance which meets the requirement of the people who buy it, and a cost those people can afford.

Horse drawn vehicles met the requirement for thousands of years when were were a village society, and if necessary you could breed or eat the power unit.

Steam, heated by wood, coal or other combustable material succeeded in the 18th and 19th century, and in fact was responsible for the development of many regional cities and towns, but it had an incredible number of controls that constantly needed to be managed, was not suited to mass production, and while it could be scaled down to carry five people on pneumatic tyres, the operation, maintenance cost, and constant hunting for fuel and water on trips kept it out of road use.

The ICE vehicle exploded into use because it was cheap, you could switch it on, start the engine and go, it was faster than horses, and you could refuel and go in a few minutes, so effectively had unlimited range as long as there was infrastructure on the route.

Eelectric vehicles were tried early in the 1800s and faded out, then again early in the 1900s expanding rapidly into buses, trams and trucks where thousands of electric milk and bread vans delivered the milk every morning and charged up the rest of the day, then they faded out based on cost and range.

Then we saw minor variants.

LP gas was a few cents a litre so people started selling conversions and manufacturers started supplying LP models down line. The infrastructure never got close to petrol for refuelling, the government applied excise tax to cover road use at the same rate as for petrol, the price of gas went up, and it was killed off by the Australian Design Rule iteration for exhaust emissions.

At around that stage diesel was a lot cheaper than petrol, and the Japanese started selling small diesels for cars and 4WDs. One Isuzu car model could travel at 100 km/hr on 66 mpg, and the 4WDs fuel consumption was a fraction of car cost, sp the market expanded, and today is the biggest sector of the car market, but excise was applied to diesel, diesel price increased massively, and diesel quality dropped, and today we are in the middle of a shift across to petrol where there are total cost of life models already cheaper that diesel, and new compression ignition petrol engines in some models.

EVs in todays format are not new. I can remember motor magazines discussing regen braking in the 1960s, and I've been hanging on a promise from Isuzu that they had made a battery break-through in 1986, and after 30 or so years in Australia waiting for the break throughs, total EV market share is 0.5%

The last time we discussed Electric aircraft, we were basing them on an upscale of RC electric, which is reasonablly priced and reliable, but they don't have to deal with range which is based around a 10 minute session.

At that time I was thinking of a 20 or 30 minute training flight around the circuit.

You could still upscale that simpe technology.

If you want to think of cross-country flights, or 1 to 2 hour flights, then you have to move up to car type systems and technology.

I've been talking about Nissan Leaf, because it's about the smallest system on the market, with two different power models - 110 kW (147 hp) and 160kW (214 hp)

Nissan quote a road range of 315 to 385.

There's a big difference in range between cruising along at 80 km/hr (under the Air Resistance red zone) and passing cars at 100 km/hr) and the manufacturers have been quoting the lower, but for an aircraft we are going to require full power cruise where air resistance is a major factor.

That power is being distributed through four motors in a car, so the first issue is to find a motor which for a Rag and Tube would need to produce about 80 hp(60kW) from the one engine.

Instead of a four branch electrical circuit you would have one, but its cables would need to be heavier.

For a range calculation, you can drop rolling resistance, but you still have to factor in grade resistance, and you get a benefit on descent (but no regeneration factor which the car provides with its regen system.

If you're good at Performance and Operations calcs, you'll have a good idea of what power draw to factor in on takeoff and climb x time to cruise altitude, and what you can credit to the system for time on descent, and you can calculate various power draws for the cruise. With a head wind, no more power per minute is being used, you just have the time factor. If you've got the money you can buy as many batteries as you need for your chosen Max Range, but you are limited  by (ICE/equipment/fuel tank etc/fuel) taken out and the electrical system, which itself is heavy, and you're left with battery mass to take the AC to equivalent of Wet Mass. I may have skipped a few things there, but it's as easy as that. The Aircraft frame I was thinking of was the Skyfox with faric skins.

[kasper]

And I am thinking of the 95.10 thick wing Sapphire as the test vehicle for electric ... it can accommodate the batteries within the wing and can operate on around 20kw of power (currently has 20.5kw of KFM107ER in it)

 

And that is easily doable with the plug and play from Geiger 

New system - a 4kg engine, 31kg of batteries and 8kg allowance for everything additional you are at around 43kg installed system

Old system - the IC engine, heavy mount and fuel system and that is 32kg ... the fuel not carried takes the removed system weight to 46kg

 

Like for like comparison ... I get a weight saving of around 3kg and accept an endurance of 1 hr allowing for 1 climb to 2,500ft  (I did the calcs based on the power settings required on the KFM I am looking to take out)

 

Now all I need it approval from he-who-must-be-obeyed for the spend and I am seriously looking at converting to electric ... esp. as their folding prop would allow better gliding in the big wing sapphire and I have 6wk of solar on the roof that are better charging my batteries than feeding back to the grid.

[jackc]

1 hour ago, kasper said:

I'm pretty sure you would not like a part 103 rule ... under 103 your batteries are included in the max 115kg airframe weight ... unlike IC engines where they get to carry a max of 5USG/19.9L/14.3kg in addition to the 115kg airframe ... just to make sure electric is just that much more difficult.

 

Under 95.10 in Australia you can have 300kg of MTOW (if you have 10m^2 of wing) and you can use it any way you like between airframe/people/batteries/toothbrush.  Plus you are allowed to go as fast as you like and are not limited to a max speed at wide open throttle.

 

If but for cost you can already buy a plug and play electric setup (motor, folding prop, controllers, batteries with BMS, flight instruments and even a nice little throttle lever) see https://www.geigerengineering.de/en/avionics/products

 

The Australian design envelope for single seaters is VERY much better than the USA ... always has been and hopefully will remain so.  The gripes and bitching is around the regulatory structures in OZ vs USA ... they win because they have none and are actively allowed to kill themselves ... not so in OZ. 

I want AUF back for electric powered aircraft, no licence with restrictions.

This whole 95-10 and 19 rego mix is a bit of a mess......like the rest of Aviation.

i have been told AUF was dangerous as pilots fell out of the sky everywhere.

Airframes have come a long way in 40 years, yes some kind of training is required.

the US is happy with FAR Part 103 for them.......10 brands of plane you can fly without a licence 🙂.   yeah, yeah here comes CASA and some RAAus  stalwarts ready blow new technology out of the sky.  Don’t think outside the box in Australia......you go nowhere, except into the ground:-(

I bet many of the bureaucrats don’t even know bugger all about aircraft, nor do they care......they get paid every week regardless.

Rant off 🙂 

 

 

[octave]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Good examples.

Each form of vehicle down the ages has had to produce two things; performance which meets the requirement of the people who buy it, and a cost those people can afford.

Horse drawn vehicles met the requirement for thousands of years when were were a village society, and if necessary you could breed or eat the power unit.

Steam, heated by wood, coal or other combustable material succeeded in the 18th and 19th century, and in fact was responsible for the development of many regional cities and towns, but it had an incredible number of controls that constantly needed to be managed, was not suited to mass production, and while it could be scaled down to carry five people on pneumatic tyres, the operation, maintenance cost, and constant hunting for fuel and water on trips kept it out of road use.

The ICE vehicle exploded into use because it was cheap, you could switch it on, start the engine and go, it was faster than horses, and you could refuel and go in a few minutes, so effectively had unlimited range as long as there was infrastructure on the route.

Eelectric vehicles were tried early in the 1800s and faded out, then again early in the 1900s expanding rapidly into buses, trams and trucks where thousands of electric milk and bread vans delivered the milk every morning and charged up the rest of the day, then they faded out based on cost and range.

Then we saw minor variants.

LP gas was a few cents a litre so people started selling conversions and manufacturers started supplying LP models down line. The infrastructure never got close to petrol for refuelling, the government applied excise tax to cover road use at the same rate as for petrol, the price of gas went up, and it was killed off by the Australian Design Rule iteration for exhaust emissions.

At around that stage diesel was a lot cheaper than petrol, and the Japanese started selling small diesels for cars and 4WDs. One Isuzu car model could travel at 100 km/hr on 66 mpg, and the 4WDs fuel consumption was a fraction of car cost, sp the market expanded, and today is the biggest sector of the car market, but excise was applied to diesel, diesel price increased massively, and diesel quality dropped, and today we are in the middle of a shift across to petrol where there are total cost of life models already cheaper that diesel, and new compression ignition petrol engines in some models.

EVs in todays format are not new. I can remember motor magazines discussing regen braking in the 1960s, and I've been hanging on a promise from Isuzu that they had made a battery break-through in 1986, and after 30 or so years in Australia waiting for the break throughs, total EV market share is 0.5%

The last time we discussed Electric aircraft, we were basing them on an upscale of RC electric, which is reasonablly priced and reliable, but they don't have to deal with range which is based around a 10 minute session.

At that time I was thinking of a 20 or 30 minute training flight around the circuit.

You could still upscale that simpe technology.

If you want to think of cross-country flights, or 1 to 2 hour flights, then you have to move up to car type systems and technology.

I've been talking about Nissan Leaf, because it's about the smallest system on the market, with two different power models - 110 kW (147 hp) and 160kW (214 hp)

Nissan quote a road range of 315 to 385.

There's a big difference in range between cruising along at 80 km/hr (under the Air Resistance red zone) and passing cars at 100 km/hr) and the manufacturers have been quoting the lower, but for an aircraft we are going to require full power cruise where air resistance is a major factor.

That power is being distributed through four motors in a car, so the first issue is to find a motor which for a Rag and Tube would need to produce about 80 hp(60kW) from the one engine.

Instead of a four branch electrical circuit you would have one, but its cables would need to be heavier.

For a range calculation, you can drop rolling resistance, but you still have to factor in grade resistance, and you get a benefit on descent (but no regeneration factor which the car provides with its regen system.

If you're good at Performance and Operations calcs, you'll have a good idea of what power draw to factor in on takeoff and climb x time to cruise altitude, and what you can credit to the system for time on descent, and you can calculate various power draws for the cruise. With a head wind, no more power per minute is being used, you just have the time factor. If you've got the money you can buy as many batteries as you need for your chosen Max Range, but you are limited  by (ICE/equipment/fuel tank etc/fuel) taken out and the electrical system, which itself is heavy, and you're left with battery mass to take the AC to equivalent of Wet Mass. I may have skipped a few things there, but it's as easy as that. The Aircraft frame I was thinking of was the Skyfox with faric skins.

 

[spacesailor]

the English Steam car !, 

Was deliberately killed off by government.

They introduced the 'Weight Tax ',

Of course That yank didn,t pay a lot of tax for the water it carried.

I would love a ' Doble ' or ' Stanley Steamer '.

Just ask Jay Leno. 

spacesailor

[jackc]

That is a nice aircraft and no doubt costly.......people have choices.

Me? I am a low budget person, because I am old and EOL is not far away and I have always gotten fun from the more simpler things in life when it comes to man toys!

[octave]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

That is a nice aircraft and no doubt costly.......people have choices.

Me? I am a low budget person, because I am old and EOL is not far away and I have always gotten fun from the more simpler things in life when it comes to man toys!

I can certainly understand that.  It is always great to see simpler cheaper flying but also exciting to see clever innovation.

[turboplanner]

42 minutes ago, octave said:

 

Priced this up based on US dealer pricing - $207,329.00 Australian Dollars

[octave]

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Priced this up based on US dealer pricing - $207,329.00 Australian Dollars

I am  not saying it is cheap but that it is possible. I am not sure of the actual price but I will have a look. New technology is usually expensive at first and if adopted the price falls.  I am not sure how many of these aircraft have been sold.  The economics may make sense to a flying school.  Most of us here may not be able to afford this but that applies to many new technologies.  

[octave]

16 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Priced this up based on US dealer pricing - $207,329.00 Australian Dollars

69000 Euros

Edited April 21, 2021 by octave

[jackc]

37 minutes ago, octave said:

I can certainly understand that.  It is always great to see simpler cheaper flying but also exciting to see clever innovation.

i just think that machines like the Aerolite offer people a ‘foundation start’ in aviation.......electric offers new technology with advancement, more efficient motors, changes in batteries etc.   

Aviation regulators need to accommodate new technologies.  But they will do nothing unless pushed, people make submissions, lobby politicians etc.

RAAus is probably in the best place to start, but would they step up to the plate?

Politics and personal ideas may get in the way and simply slow any advances to a crawl?  You would hope they display some enthusiasm in furthering use of new technologies. 

Well, it’s up to people do do something, sitting on hands goes nowhere.......

We need things to move forward faster than a snail.......