Rotax parts price increases

[AGLyme]

That’s a great story.  
In today’s WSJ... there is an article about a new lithium mine in N Carolina.  On one hand it’s a positive about everything electric, on the other hand it’s kinda old/new technology. 
these scientists need to miss more flights

[Madhatter]

What I didn't tell you, the researcher decided to smoke something while driving. That is also well documented. I however don't endorse that process  in aviation.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

We'll if all continues as I foresee, I'll still be posting here in 10 years, and probably bragging about my upgraded fossil fuel injected CT Super Sport!  I'll joyfully fly that out to Goodspeed, fill it up with $12 / gallon unleaded, and we'll enjoy some fresh seafood and drink laughing about how we saw it all coming.

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, AGLyme said:

Moore’s law prevails.  Can’t think of a single treasure hunt that will bring a greater financial  return than achieving a lithium x 5 battery/energy source.  I’ll be an old man riding around in the mall in one of those buggies with a flag... but it’s coming.

Moore's Law only applies to semiconductors, not all technology.  And even for semiconductors it's breaking down at this point as we reach speed of light and quantum tunneling issues.

[Skunkworks85]

4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Part of the problem with batteries is that to be practical you are asking for chemistry that provides at least similar energy density to gasoline
 

Not necessarily, If you improve the efficiency of how the energy is used, the energy density does not need to be equal to gasoline.

Electric motors are 80%-90% efficient, Compare that to a spark ignition IC of about 25% and compression ignition IC of 35% 

Tesla's claimed new 4860 batteries increase the energy density of LION 5 fold from the current 2170.

[Ken]

I have used these folks for some basic parts for many years. Their rubber parts put Rotax  rubber to shame. I have an ELSA though.

 

http://jbmindustries.com/ROTAX.htm

Ken

[Roger Lee]

25 minutes ago, Ken said:

I have used these folks for some basic parts for many years. Their rubber parts put Rotax  rubber to shame. I have an ELSA though.

 

http://jbmindustries.com/ROTAX.htm

Ken

I've seen others use some of their products. I would stay away. The carb sockets I saw were so flimsy I took one finger and pushed the carbs right out of their sockets. The starters had leaks for years. I did hear they may have fixed that. You may get a lot less than you pay for. Plus it could leave you legally liable if something happens and you hit something or hurt someone.

[FlyingMonkey]

8 hours ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Not necessarily, If you improve the efficiency of how the energy is used, the energy density does not need to be equal to gasoline.

Electric motors are 80%-90% efficient, Compare that to a spark ignition IC of about 25% and compression ignition IC of 35% 

Tesla's claimed new 4860 batteries increase the energy density of LION 5 fold from the current 2170.

Electric motors are more efficient, but the fact that electric airplanes have such abysmal endurance compared to IC despite this huge advantage only underscores how behind batteries are on energy density.  Even replacing the 125lb Rotax engine with a much lighter electric motor still only gives a Pipestrel electric an hour of flight time at similar gross weight. 

[ODowneyEng]

A couple of decades ago, having seen an experimental Natural Gas powered Fuel Cell at a Con Edison Electric Plant, I thought it was the Holy Grail. Unfortunately it corroded badly and had to be dug out in pieces. Well it did allow the use of high density fuel. We just need that magic wand to get electrons to flow from petrol or diesel. The heat bypass can be a secondary power source. I believe it still has great promise. Momentarily cell too heavy to hang on that CT

[Warmi]

Well, once we have a light sport plane with some kind of electric motor capable of sustained , say 2.5  hour flight, I am in.

I could not care less about environmental aspects of using such engines since , as pointed out earlier in this thread, these are mostly illusory but there are other tangible benefits like improved reliability, safety ( no fuel onboard ) and overall comfort ... well, as I said 2.5 hours , that’s all I need

[Skunkworks85]

8 hours ago, Warmi said:

Well, once we have a light sport plane with some kind of electric motor capable of sustained , say 2.5  hour flight, I am in.

I could not care less about environmental aspects of using such engines since , as pointed out earlier in this thread, these are mostly illusory but there are other tangible benefits like improved reliability, safety ( no fuel onboard ) and overall comfort ... well, as I said 2.5 hours , that’s all I need

Pipistrel is at what 1 hour? And uses 18650 cells, If the claimed 5 fold energy density increase happens with tesla's 4860 cells, I would think that meet your requirements (conservatively) 

[Jim Meade]

https://airkmotors.com/?lang=en#moteurs

[FlyingMonkey]

10 hours ago, Odowneyeng said:

A couple of decades ago, having seen an experimental Natural Gas powered Fuel Cell at a Con Edison Electric Plant, I thought it was the Holy Grail. Unfortunately it corroded badly and had to be dug out in pieces. Well it did allow the use of high density fuel. We just need that magic wand to get electrons to flow from petrol or diesel. The heat bypass can be a secondary power source. I believe it still has great promise. Momentarily cell too heavy to hang on that CT

I agree fuel cells are amazing, whether nat gas or hydrogen.  They are just super complex and expensive.  I can't imagine individual recreational operators like up could afford the cost and maintenance.  But like all these new technologies, maybe we'll get a breakthrough.

[FlyingMonkey]

9 hours ago, Warmi said:

Well, once we have a light sport plane with some kind of electric motor capable of sustained , say 2.5  hour flight, I am in.

I could not care less about environmental aspects of using such engines since , as pointed out earlier in this thread, these are mostly illusory but there are other tangible benefits like improved reliability, safety ( no fuel onboard ) and overall comfort ... well, as I said 2.5 hours , that’s all I need

I sound like I'm anti-electric, but I'm really not.  There are just a few huge hurdles in my mind that must be overcome to make them ready for prime time:

1) Endurance.  As you said, 2.5hr seems like a reasonable minimum.  I have flown many 4+ hour legs in my CT, and for big fun trips I think 2hr plus reserves is a good useful minimum.

2) Charge time.  I think this has to get down to less than one hour to be practical.  Right now I can turn around my airplane if needed in ten minutes at an unfamiliar airport if I'm in a hurry.  If I have to wait 4 hours before flying again after a 2hr leg, this turns into a "one leg a day" airplane, maybe two legs in Summer if you start early.  That cuts the daily range of the airplane to about 200nm in Winter and 400nm in Summer.  I have flown single legs of ~450nm before, so this would cramp my style quite a bit.  If it were down to under an hour, it would still be inconvenient, but not the non-starter that 4 hours is.

3) Battery life.  Right now we have a Rotax rubber change every five years that costs $2.5k - $3k if you pay somebody to do it.  We cry about that a lot.  How much would we cry if there was a mandatory $15k - $25k battery replacement every 5-6 years?  IMO it prices most owners right out of aviation.  We need batteries that have 20 year lifetimes, much like our IC engines do.  I think a bare minimum here would be 12-15 years to allow most of us to keep flying.  And you know those new-fangled exotic long life batteries will probably cost more than a new 912iS.  So you end up with the equivalent of the 12 year life limit on the 912 engines, but strictly enforced by both the manufacturers and physics.

If the above three issues get solved, I'd be in for electric.  Until those three are solved, I'll remain skeptical of the practicality.

I read an article a while back about a flight school running Pipestrel electric airplanes as trainers.  They would fly a single 45-60min lesson, then charge the airplane for four hours.  How can a flight school make any money that way?  I do appreciate early adopters stepping up to try new things, but I don't understand how you could accept those limitations as a business case.

[FlyingMonkey]

35 minutes ago, Jim Meade said:

https://airkmotors.com/?lang=en#moteurs

Chinese Rotax clone engines?  Not saying it's a hard no, but I'd want to see a lot of flight hours on these before I'd buy one.

[Madhatter]

Tesla can now charge 80% in 15 minutes. 

Mass production and competition always lowers rhe price. When I was in engineering school I had to share a calculator for my aerodynamics final because a simple calculator was $400. They wouldn't let us use a slide rule because most had bought calculators at the time. I had spent all my money building an airplane in my room.

Electric is coming and fast.

[FlyingMonkey]

I still don't see how electric fixes anything environmentally, you still have to generate the electricity by burning something.  Or accepting a LOT more nuclear plants.

It seems to me like people who eat meat but hate hunters; they just don't want to see the meat being made.

[Roger Lee]

How did you guys go from expensive Rotax parts to electric airplanes?

[Skunkworks85]

7 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I still don't see how electric fixes anything environmentally, you still have to generate the electricity by burning something.  Or accepting a LOT more nuclear plants.

It seems to me like people who eat meat but hate hunters; they just don't want to see the meat being made.

Solar? Wind?

[Warmi]

1 hour ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Solar? Wind?

...and unicorns.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Solar? Wind?

Literally impossible.  I saw a presentation by a famous energy analyst who did the math, and said that even if there were 50% efficient solar panels (best now is 20%), you'd need an area of solar panels the size of California to produce 50% of the energy needs of the USA.  If the sun were shining 350 days a year.  Wind is similar.  They are niche, boutique technologies. 

Like I said, I'm not against these technologies.  We just have to be realistic about what they can do unless/until a real, huge breakthrough occurs.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

How did you guys go from expensive Rotax parts to electric airplanes?

We are skilled in the art of the thread drift. 

 

[Jim Meade]

I'd buy a Chinese Rotax in a heartbeat.

[FlyingMonkey]

10 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

I'd buy a Chinese Rotax in a heartbeat.

Wouldn't you want some more reliability data first?

[Skunkworks85]

14 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Literally impossible. 

Starting with some conservative assumptions from a 2013 National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) report, we know that it takes, on average, 3.4 acres of solar panels to generate a gigawatt hour of electricity over a year. Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatt hours of electricity per year, we’d need about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year.

Or about this much:

 

Additionally, the solar arrays in NREL’s 2013 survey had efficiency levels of 13-14%. Modern solar panels average 16-17% efficient with widely available models easily exceeding 20%. Revising the estimates using higher efficiency and including rooftop coverage, only 10,000 square miles is required.

Or about this much:

 

 

NREL Report:: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf