someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,333
|
Post by someone on Nov 7, 2019 13:44:34 GMT 1
It is just that the E-FANX is not about an all battery powered frame. It is about testing electrical components and testing hybrid solutions. The main power still coming from fuel, but being more efficient. Correct, and thus calling it an electric plane is wrong. Hybrid is a better description |
|
mtrunz
delivered!
Digital Aviation/Meteo Analyst
Posts: 1,956 
|
Post by mtrunz on Nov 7, 2019 14:43:15 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Nov 7, 2019 15:51:21 GMT 1
It is just that the E-FANX is not about an all battery powered frame. It is about testing electrical components and testing hybrid solutions. The main power still coming from fuel, but being more efficient. Correct, and thus calling it an electric plane is wrong. Hybrid is a better description Hybrid is the word here. I understand that batteries only provide a small part of the energy requirement but the bulk of it comes from a fuel powered electric generator. I'd say that this system has a potential for better energy efficiency than traditional turbofan propulsive systems, and less weight and maintenance in electric motors. And unlike a fully battery dependent aircraft, the burning off of fuel would shed weight over the course of the trip requiring less and less energy. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 7, 2019 17:56:26 GMT 1
It is very easy to always claim not believing in new technology, before checking what is actually tested. I don't know whom this remark is directed at, but my post was the latest when you posted, so I'll answer. I said it was a research project, which you pretty much confirmed. I also said we are very far from electric airliners, which is common sense. So, unless you were answering some other post, what's you point ? |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 8, 2019 9:59:27 GMT 1
It is very easy to always claim not believing in new technology, before checking what is actually tested. I don't know whom this remark is directed at, but my post was the latest when you posted, so I'll answer. I said it was a research project, which you pretty much confirmed. I also said we are very far from electric airliners, which is common sense. So, unless you were answering some other post, what's you point ? My point is, that Airbus puts the money down to run a demonstrator for electrical technologies in flight, shows that they take those technologies a bit more serious than you and airboche. I sat once long ago as an engineering student through a boring lecture with the theme how crazy it was to believe, that in our lifetime it would be possible to produce even 2% of the German electrical need with windmills. Just absolutely impossible. Yes I do not see a possibility how a conventional battery will drive a long haul airplane today, but are you so sure that for example a fuel cell will not work? Or we get completely new ideas how to convert electrical energy to something and back again? Anyway the test frame is a short haul airliner. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 8, 2019 10:33:47 GMT 1
I have the right to be sceptical because I take it serious.
You can do research and come to the conclusion that someting doesn't work or is not just good enough in the foreseeable future. That's life and no indication that you don't accept progress or similar. It's important to look at things (including new technologies) from a neutral distance.
Electric battery power is just totally overhyped today and get's funded by politicians that think it's what their voters want. BTW: It's locally emission free only and a lot of the energy is wasted producing it elsewhere, transporting and transforming it.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 8, 2019 11:23:37 GMT 1
I have the right to be sceptical because I take it serious. You can do research and come to the conclusion that someting doesn't work or is not just good enough in the foreseeable future. That's life and no indication that you don't accept progress or similar. It's important to look at things (including new technologies) from a neutral distance. Electric battery power is just totally overhyped today and get's funded by politicians that think it's what their voters want. BTW: It's locally emission free only and a lot of the energy is wasted producing it elsewhere, transporting and transforming it. Just the word overhyped shows me what your stance to new technologies are. And local emission free is a big consideration, as there are huge local pollution problems, also around airports. I do not see who is overhyping something. I just see that in many countries, technologies that are ready today are rather underhyped, because of special interests of for example the oil industry. The biggest current reservoir of energy is, reducing the need for it. I live in a country were we have endless spare capacity of electricity, produced by hydropower and geothermal. Wind energy, we have enough of it, is hardly scratched. A lot of talk about new concepts, but few things put into practical use, because it is so comfortable to continue doing things the same way as before. What I see here is a very negative attitude before any results of research have been produced. And the possibility of new energy forms and the possibility of conserving energy are usually seriously underhyped. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 8, 2019 11:26:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 8, 2019 11:42:38 GMT 1
It's a very special case to have natural energy available for free. This is exactly not the case the rest of the world has to deal with. No wonder you come to a different conclusion from your local perspective. I try to have a broader view.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 8, 2019 12:06:50 GMT 1
It's a very special case to have natural energy available for free. This is exactly not the case the rest of the world has to deal with. No wonder you come to a different conclusion from your local perspective. I try to have a broader view. The case for natural energy is constantly underhyped (to stay with your expression) if you look seriously a vast amount of natural energy could be realized in many countries. The biggest energy spending is actually not in transport, but heating and cooling of buildings. We still allow new designs that waste vast amounts of energy on both. There are possibilities in design, in energy storage, heat pumps and I can go on and on. Geothermal energy is perhaps one of the least appreciated sources, there are vast possibilities in low heat areas, you do not need to sit above a volcano. But let us look at aviation and possibilities there without the need for any technology above what is available today. Airports, all ground equipment electrical. Reduced taxiing time, what sense is it to have airplanes standing in rows waiting. Having bots pulling the frames on the way to the runway to conserve energy and on short haul frames you could have electrical drive in the MLG or FLG. Continuous descent to landing instead stepped approach. Better use of airspace to reduce flight time. Avoiding the need of circling near airports. An endless list of possibilities where things can get more efficient. Many of them, including their solution, known for decades and simply nothing done about it. And than somebody starts talking about overhyped, at a time we need to do something. |
|
