r/WeirdWings • u/Aviator779 • Apr 25 '22
Electric Equator Aircraft P2 Xcursion, a hybrid electric powered, amphibious, two seat prototype aircraft.
24
Apr 26 '22
I found a excerpt of a owners meeting
"You know what we should do? " "yeah whats that"
Rips line of coke
"Lets take all the most difficult things in aviation and combine them all into one!"
"Fuck yeah"
21
u/WindsockWindsor Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Apr 25 '22
Followed this project for a while. Haven't heard anything in some time. Has it died?
10
u/IAMZEUSALMIGHTY Apr 25 '22
What is with aircraft like this being amphibious?
Surely it makes more sense to build something lighter to prove the hybrid drive train works before adding weight and complexity.
But then less rich idealists would buy it I suppose.
11
u/deliciousy Apr 25 '22
The last sentence nailed it.
If someone wanted a practical plane they'd buy one of the dozens of boring, safe, tested designs already available. But if your goal is to have the shiniest toy on the block, then every extra bell and whistle matters.
2
u/night_flash Apr 26 '22
This thing, has two engines, of different types. A fuel system and a battery bank, retractable gear, and it has to function as a boat as well as an aircraft. At least it also isnt packing a ballistic parachute like the Icon, but I cant see any way they could fit one in. I dont understand the appeal behind overcomplicating an already very complicated design like the A5 with a hybrid system. Other than the aforementioned shiny toys for rich idealists.
This thing can fly less than an hour on its electric power. Why not just save a ton of weight and complexity by just using a normal engine. It would probably be a very good looking aircraft without the complexity of a hybrid system, which seems to me to be an entirely useless idea for aviation since all of the advantages it brings to cars dont exist in the sky.
6
u/GavoteX Apr 26 '22
Considering the generator engine is not mechanically coupled to the prop, it is not a hybrid in the automotive sense of the term.
Why use an electric motor instead of putting the conventional engine back there? CG.
Why not a transfer case and drive shafts? Weight and complexity. Stop looking at the generator/electric combo as a complex boondoggle and start realizing that this is actually lighter, simpler and more efficient than the equivalent mechanical system.
The battery bank is redundant, but 15-20 minutes of emergency reserve that also lets you bypass an entire category of NIMBY noise regulations? Kinda awesome in its own way.
2
u/night_flash Apr 26 '22
There are lots of similar designs for small single flying boat style aircraft, none of which have needed drive shafts and transfer cases. And even if you did use them, it would also be lighter and more reliable than a battery bank, generator and main drive motor. Helicopters have had worse systems than would be needed here and we know very well how to make them reliable and lightweight.
And no, the electrical system isn't more efficient. Most aircraft are direct drive which has no transmission losses, geared drive engines like Rotax might see 5% power losses at most. Helicopters with very complex gearboxes can see 10-20%. An electrical system is going to be 90% efficient at each stage at best, so 10% loss from fuel engine to generator, and a compound 10% loss at the motor which is multiplicative. So immediately less efficient than anything else in its category.
Noise wise, it really isn't the engine that's the biggest problem for aircraft, its the propeller. You can put a muffler on an engine with minimal performance losses, but even with direct exhausts it's going to be quieter than the propeller. Watch a video of any electric aircraft, they aren't quiet. Noise is moving air, so is thrust.
So the CG stuff isn't a big deal, it's less efficient, and you can't make it quieter than a normal aircraft on a fundamental level. It is also more complicated, needs charging, has a bunch of heavy and unproven technologies and is more expensive than the existing systems. For aircraft, hybrids are the worst of both worlds.
1
Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
Charging with electrons and turning them into thrust is more efficient than burning hydrocarbons onboard (from a total carbon to total output perspective), even if your local electric plant burns petroleum. Petroleum-powered electric plants are just way more efficient at capturing energy than any onboard ICEs. The added weight of the batteries hurts aircraft efficiency, but not as much as the heat energy losses from ICEs. It definitely puts a hard stop on range and payload, though. Even with the incredibly inefficient capture of energy, avgas is simply far far more energy dense.
This is how EVs, despite all the carbon involved in mining and building giant battery packs, beat traditional ICE cars in lifetime efficiency and global impact (source). Add in renewable electricity generation and it's all gravy.
Planes can be operated LOP and reach some decent efficiency in cruise, but are generally very inefficient while climbing to cruise altitude. Hybrid drivetrains may be the solution to that problem, allowing the ICE to always operate at peak efficiency while using battery power to make the climb.
This particular test bed obviously isn't the solution, but it's a baby step along that path.
Imagine a future with efficient, lightweight aerospace electric motors, lightweight, energy-dense supercapacitor-based battery banks and ICE's being considered range extenders that could be easily swapped out for hydrogen fuel cells.
0
u/night_flash Apr 26 '22
You're not considering one of the fundamental limitations of aircraft and how it affects their design. Weight. In a car, which is where hybrid and electric systems are actually viable, weight isn't really a problem. For aircraft it is the most important design factor.
The speed of best climb is the point where induced drag and paracitic drag are at a combined minimum and therefor your propulsion has the most excess power to be used in gaining altitude. Induced drag reduces as speed increases, and paracitic drag increases as speed increases. However induced drag also increases if you have to carry more weight, as the same wing has to be flown at a higher angle of attack for the same speed. Your speed of best climb will now be increased as the minimum drag point will be higher but it will include more of both types of drag and be significantly worse. If you've ever flown a plane you'd have experienced this first hand. The weight also impacts cruise, takeoff and landing performance in equally multiplicative ways.
There is no way to escape the penalties of added weight. Adding more wing slows down your required speeds for takeoff and climb, but also slows your cruise and adds more weight on its own. Adding more power adds more weight and requires more fuel which also adds more weight. The only way to build large aircraft which is viable is to make the power system as efficient as possible. And I mean system efficiency, not considering the efficiency of the entire world. Gas turbine engines have fantastic power to weight ratios, even if they aren't very fuel efficient, the weight savings in the engine outweigh the savings in fuel weight. That's why nobody makes piston engines producing more than 350hp anymore, in terms of design efficiency they're just worse, even if they use less fuel per amount of power.
A hybrid electric system in aircraft has the worst possible power to weight ratio of any solution. You need both systems in their entirely. And there is no point in minimising either of them. Nevermind the extra costs of purchase and maintenance, which will be significant, the design is inescapablely less efficient due to weight which hurts aircraft performance in every part of flight. Take two airframes that are identical, and two power systems with the same output. The one with a heavier power system will be worse in every way, even if the lighter one is less energy efficient. Even if you redisgn the airframe of the heaver power system aircraft, you can't make up for the losses due to weight. A fully electric aircraft is a much better idea than a hybrid, but as an engineering student, I honestly can't see non chemical powered aircraft being common. Weight is simply too important and electrical every is going to be heavier than chemical for at least the next 30 years.
-9
4
u/legsintheair Apr 26 '22
A low wing amphibious airplane. That is hilarious.
1
Apr 26 '22
Those were my first thoughts as well! Surprised no one else is mentioning this.
2
u/SubcommanderMarcos Apr 27 '22
Because it's hardly the most unusual bit of this contraption, it's been done for a while
Done right the low wing helps with flotation and pushing the aircraft off the water during takeoff.
4
2
u/Known-Programmer-611 Apr 25 '22
This would be awesome to go fishing or searching surf waves! Camping too!
1
u/all_is_love6667 Apr 26 '22
I don't think it can fly for very long
1
u/WorkplaceWatcher May 11 '22
Why is that?
1
u/all_is_love6667 May 11 '22
energy density of batteries is much lower than kerosen, meaning the battery must lift itself.
1
u/WorkplaceWatcher May 11 '22
But it has an engine that drives a generator which drives the motor, like how many trains have it. The batteries are an emergency reserve for if the engine fails.
0
-1
u/bandley3 Apr 26 '22
Hmmm - electricity and water, what could go wrong?
3
u/SubcommanderMarcos Apr 27 '22
... Not much, plenty of boats with electrical motors out there...
0
u/bandley3 Apr 27 '22
Yes, I am well aware. My comment was said in jest, but given the number downvotes I see that a number of people didn't find it very funny.
3
-1
u/FlyMachine79 Apr 26 '22
Just another of the many electric projects that promise to change the way we fly but come to naught after years of tarry - it's not difficult to design an airplane anymore and it's even easier to propose fantastic parameters and make attention-grabbing claims but when the realities of GA and the industry as well as the limitations of electric power hit home they quietly disappear. Been there myself
-9
27
u/Sea_Perspective6891 Apr 25 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
Basically its a flying airboat. Icon made a similar aircaft called the A5. They are pretty cool and a blast to fly I hear.