T1B

Harbour Air in Vancouver BC flew a short flight today in a DH2-Beaver powered by batteries. This is a pretty cool first flight. They expect commercial operation in 2021. This works for Harbour Air because of the extremely short duration of most of their flights. The range of these planes is going to be 30 minutes or so which will limit the distance of these flights to less than 70 miles.

There are advantages and disadvantages to using battery power for their power. The advantages are easier maintenance of the power plant, reduced fuel costs, lower overhaul costs and less hassle from the environmentalist. The disadvantages are an exponential reduction in range, payload restrictions, longer time between dispatch to charge batteries, costs of retraining A&P employees, FAA certification issues and keeping salt water and batteries apart at all times when operating from floating docks and platforms, which is all Harbour Air’s operations.

However, if they can pull this off they will have a nice little niche which can serve them and their customers well. Other operators of extremely short flights will be watching as well.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 72566.html

Is there any military utility to this?

I mean I am sure there is, but it is years off. As with most green energy things the batteries are the weak link.

The biggest drawback is the lack of payload and range due to the size and weight of the batteries. Plus air to air refueling isn’t currently possible. Some sort of rapid charge would need to be developed such that batteries could be fully charged in a short period of time. Also you can’t increase the payload by limiting the fuel. In a traditional aircraft you can trade fuel weight for payload weight. But with batteries they don’t lose weight as they discharge in any meaningful way.

Further, right now this only works with helicopters or propeller aircraft.

But I am sure there are plenty of people working on this for military uses.

Good point. At this point, this is still probably way more expensive per flight hour than a equivalent UAV because this aircraft is manned, right?

Yes and yes. Plus this does not have nearly the loitering time of current UAVs.

But then you don’t know jack fucking SHIT about physics, or so of course you would think that you shit slinging retard.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:08 am Is there any military utility to this?

Yes, with drones.

I could see it being used by special forces as well for getting small numbers into a place quietly.

Except it isn’t quiet. The propellers still make a ton of noise as they move thru the air.

Think about a heavy helicopter approaching you. You heat the thump of the rotors long before you hear any engine noise.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:26 am I've said this before, but if you take a look at batteries now as compared to 50 years ago, there has basically been not jack fucking SHIT as far as improvement goes. You'd figure in comparison to the technological advancements in other somewhat similar fields that we'd have batteries the size of a quarter that could power a car for a 1,000 mile range by now.

No.

If you really look at it there’s been huge progress. And more to come.

Yes, helos are noisy. I was thinking more fixed wing. Also, helos are terribly inefficient, so given electric's range issues, rotary wing would be pretty much ruled out.

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:56 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:26 am I've said this before, but if you take a look at batteries now as compared to 50 years ago, there has basically been not jack fucking SHIT as far as improvement goes. You'd figure in comparison to the technological advancements in other somewhat similar fields that we'd have batteries the size of a quarter that could power a car for a 1,000 mile range by now.

No.

If you really look at it there’s been huge progress. And more to come.

There has been considerable progress, but they still can't get anywhere near the power/weight numbers of fossil fuels.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:32 am I mean I am sure there is, but it is years off. As with most green energy things the batteries are the weak link.

The biggest drawback is the lack of payload and range due to the size and weight of the batteries. Plus air to air refueling isn’t currently possible. Some sort of rapid charge would need to be developed such that batteries could be fully charged in a short period of time. Also you can’t increase the payload by limiting the fuel. In a traditional aircraft you can trade fuel weight for payload weight. But with batteries they don’t lose weight as they discharge in any meaningful way.

Further, right now this only works with helicopters or propeller aircraft.

But I am sure there are plenty of people working on this for military uses.

For military application they would probably have to go to interchangeable batteries. Use one up, return to base and swap it quickly for a fully charged replacement. That was actually the original plan for the Model S. Not sure what happened there.

I have always thought that quick change packs for auto applications would be a thing, but likely isn't for a few reasons.

It adds weight and cost to an already heavy expensive system.

The pack would be heavy. Swaps would be difficult.

Running large amounts of current through plugs is a recipe for meltdown. A fixed system can have soldered connections or at least bolted connections with plenty of dope on them.

And no, not that type of dope, you dopes. The kind that is used to improve electrical connections, by inhibiting corrosion.

The magic bullet will be in the form of economical, high energy density, very quick recharge batteries. Not being prone to catastrophic failure turning them into incendiary grenades would be kinda nice, too.

We are not there. Not even close. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

As for long distance air travel, I seriously doubt anything will ever touch the jet engine. It's combination of simplicity, reliability, power to weight, low maintenance requirements can't be touched, by anything. Batteries will never come close, unless someone figures out how to change the laws of physics/chemistry.

And the fact that air travel will always rely on oil, is the primary reason why we should look for alternatives to power everything else, not AGW silliness.

20 years ago, that was the thinking, but those evil oilmen figured out new ways to get oil, making the "we're gonna run out in 30 years" argument a shitty one.

We will still eventually run low on oil, but it will not likely be in our lifetimes. And when you need a bogeyman, it has to be a bogeyman that will wipe his dick on humankind's curtains in the near future as the CO2 bogeyman will.....allegedly.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:33 pm
As for long distance air travel, I seriously doubt anything will ever touch the jet engine. It's combination of simplicity, reliability, power to weight, low maintenance requirements can't be touched, by anything. Batteries will never come close, unless someone figures out how to change the laws of physics/chemistry.

Revisiting zeppelins for the past.

MIT ZeroN (anti-grav) for the future.

Don't have to change the laws, just understand them. And when we don't understand them, manipulate them anyway until we do.

These are actually both things that I think are perfectly viable. We should be using maglev trains, for the Northeast corridor, anyway. And I read an article not long ago about the idea of using zeppelins for cargo. Sounded like a pretty good idea.

But neither of these can provide quick travel between distant points, especially over water.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:53 pm
No. How much longer does an AA battery last now as opposed to in 1971? Apply that to all batteries that were around back then.

Lithium Ion.
The comparison to alkaline charged batteries isn't even close.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:53 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:56 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:26 am I've said this before, but if you take a look at batteries now as compared to 50 years ago, there has basically been not jack fucking SHIT as far as improvement goes. You'd figure in comparison to the technological advancements in other somewhat similar fields that we'd have batteries the size of a quarter that could power a car for a 1,000 mile range by now.

No.

If you really look at it there’s been huge progress. And more to come.

No. How much longer does an AA battery last now as opposed to in 1971? Apply that to all batteries that were around back then.

There are a lot of batteries now that weren’t around “back then.”

Your comparison is like saying that since the dial phone hasn’t progressed since 1970 then telephones haven’t advanced at all.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:57 pm

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:53 pm
No. How much longer does an AA battery last now as opposed to in 1971? Apply that to all batteries that were around back then.

Lithium Ion.
The comparison to alkaline charged batteries isn't even close.

Go easy on him. He's from Georgia and they don't have those yet.

He really is a fat dumb melting fuck.

Are we including hydrogen fuel cells in the battery category?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:36 pm Are we including hydrogen fuel cells in the battery category?

I would hope so.

Sin,
Francis Thomas Bacon

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:36 pm Are we including hydrogen fuel cells in the battery category?

No, but they’re probably more suited for longer electric powered flights due to the higher energy density of hydrogen over any current battery technology.

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:52 pm
I would hope so.

Sin,
Francis Thomas Bacon

Is he from Macon?

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:48 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:36 pm Are we including hydrogen fuel cells in the battery category?

No, but they’re probably more suited for longer electric powered flights due to the higher energy density of hydrogen over any current battery technology.

What size fuckin battery is needed to power four big hungry ass rolls royce jet engines?

I'ma be lettin' Dins off the leash in 5...4...3...2...1...

Air speed record 1976- 2,193 mph
Air speed record today- 2,193 mph

You really are a fat stupid fuck.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:03 am
https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/new ... er-the-air

Do you think this guy gets a cheque directly from the Saudis, or maybe they set up a cut-out company to skirt American trade and lobby laws?

:?

What about 4 fuckin thirsty gigantic Pratt & Whitney jet engines? Any idea the sheer size battery needed in such an application?
Any engineers on this God-forsaken board? Or just a bunch of wannabe attorneys?
Except for the one real bona-fide attorney 88.

EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:19 am What about 4 fuckin thirsty gigantic Pratt & Whitney jet engines?

You are thirsty for jizz.

Unfortunately for us, that wasn't the case with your mother.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:56 am Oh - don't worry. They'll have battery-powered engines the size of walnuts that will be far more powerful here in just a few days!!!!!!!!!

Dilithium Crystals.

EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:19 am What about 4 fuckin thirsty gigantic Pratt & Whitney jet engines? Any idea the sheer size battery needed in such an application?

Wait what?

How are batteries going to power a high bypass turbofan engine. I guess the batteries could spin the fans and compressor stages, but what is going to burn causing the massive expansion of the compressed air?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:12 am

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:56 am Oh - don't worry. They'll have battery-powered engines the size of walnuts that will be far more powerful here in just a few days!!!!!!!!!

Dilithium Crystals.

But how long till then?
How long Scotty? How long?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:11 am

EAP wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:19 am What about 4 fuckin thirsty gigantic Pratt & Whitney jet engines?

You are thirsty for jizz.

Unfortunately for us, that wasn't the case with your mother.

That's mean. That's just mean.

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:08 am Air speed record 1976- 2,193 mph
Air speed record today- 2,193 mph

Why no improvement?

There's different categories for craft, Columbia clocked somewhere under 20,000 for a controlled descent

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:48 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:36 pm Are we including hydrogen fuel cells in the battery category?

No, but they’re probably more suited for longer electric powered flights due to the higher energy density of hydrogen over any current battery technology.

How to reduce the energy potential of natural gas by 80%:

Fill a hydrogen fuel cell.

Sure you can bust water open to get hydrogen (which isn't done to fill fuel cells), and get some ridiculously small return for the energy that was put in.

When the Hydrogen Fairy starts filling fuel cells you leave under your pillow, let me know. Otherwise... *YAWN*. Sure, Spray is a moron with his absurd "batteries haven't improved," but had he said it about hydrogen fuel cells, which have been around over 100 years, he'd be spot-on... they haven't really improved an iota... because physics and stuff.

Dr_Phibes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:11 am There's different categories for craft, Columbia clocked somewhere under 20,000 for a controlled descent

He is a fat dumb dumb. He thinks planes and gliders and rockets are all the same thing.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:04 pm

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:19 am

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:48 pm

No, but they’re probably more suited for longer electric powered flights due to the higher energy density of hydrogen over any current battery technology.

How to reduce the energy potential of natural gas by 80%:

Fill a hydrogen fuel cell.

Sure you can bust water open to get hydrogen (which isn't done to fill fuel cells), and get some ridiculously small return for the energy that was put in.

When the Hydrogen Fairy starts filling fuel cells you leave under your pillow, let me know. Otherwise... *YAWN*. Sure, Spray is a moron with his absurd "batteries haven't improved," but had he said it about hydrogen fuel cells, which have been around over 100 years, he'd be spot-on... they haven't really improved an iota... because physics and stuff.

Nope. You’re dumbassing as well. Afuckinggain, I said “in comparison with other technologies”. Had batteries improved as much as everything else, we should theoretically have batteries that should weigh about 5 lbs. that would enable a Tesla to have a range of about a thousand miles. A single AAA battery should last a solar year in the midget faggot’s dildo getting 5 hours per day usage.

Unless the battery fags come up with something fuckulously mind-bending, batteries will never EVER a power option for commercial aviation for one reason. Weight. Plain and simple.

Which brings me back to my original question.
What fuckin size battery is needed to power 4 gigantic thirsty motherfuckin Pratt and whitney jet engines?

Which brings me back to my original follow up question. How would batteries even work with a high bypass turbofan engine?

The answer is not batteries.
- What do you want to do?
- fly
- what do you really want to do?
- move from point a to point b
- is there a more efficient way to do so?