Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Tommy Cookers]

Very interesting wing tip motors with yaw vectoring control

this is a tailwheel plane
so its mechanical (ie when it's on the ground) directional stability is negative - it always tries to swerve off the runway
modern pilots can't deal with tailwheel aircraft - and even when pilots did they wrecked c 100000 planes
and we don't make 3 runway airfields these days
so this directional control independent of airspeed and wheel contact seems essential to avoid limiting the market
presumably there's an element of reverse thrust involved - to separate yaw moment from thrust

in a crosswind when the wheels aren't touching the ground it's flown like any other plane
but unlike any other tailwheel plane you don't need to touch down pointing exactly the way the runway points

they went tailwheel to site its main propeller to work on boundary layer
and tailwheel is structurally better
the operating economics depend on the untaxed position of fossil fuel for generation vs the taxed position of avgas

(fwiw bumped from page 38)
though in principle a design could allow flight aligned on runway axis and wings-level in a crosswind
ie net lateral thrust - possibly from tail surfaces (otherwise would need thrust vectoring at wingtips)

[Andres125sx]

conventional aircraft are allowed to touch down pointing off the runway (ie without correction for crosswind)
because they are mechanically directionally stable - ie the tyre forces (behind the cg) pull them straight
tailwheel aircraft are in this case unstable - and will 'ground-loop' (swerve off the runway like an F1 car spinning)

Alice will cope with crosswinds completely different to conventional aircrafts, with differential thrust instead of rudder wich they claim will be significantly smoother, but no idea how that will affect heading while landing

[Just_a_fan]

conventional aircraft are allowed to touch down pointing off the runway (ie without correction for crosswind)
because they are mechanically directionally stable - ie the tyre forces (behind the cg) pull them straight
tailwheel aircraft are in this case unstable - and will 'ground-loop' (swerve off the runway like an F1 car spinning)

Alice will cope with crosswinds completely different to conventional aircrafts, with differential thrust instead of rudder wich they claim will be significantly smoother, but no idea how that will affect heading while landing

Using differential thrust will just give a more powerful rudder effect really.

They could use steering undercarriage like used on the B52. Aircraft turned in to the crosswind, wheels pointed to line up with runway. Be trickier on a small tail dragger than on the BUFF, of course.

[J.A.W.]

Very interesting wing tip motors with yaw vectoring control

this is a tailwheel plane
so its mechanical (ie when it's on the ground) directional stability is negative - it always tries to swerve off the runway
modern pilots can't deal with tailwheel aircraft - and even when pilots did they wrecked c 100000 planes
and we don't make 3 runway airfields these days
so this directional control independent of airspeed and wheel contact seems essential to avoid limiting the market
presumably there's an element of reverse thrust involved - to separate yaw moment from thrust

in a crosswind when the wheels aren't touching the ground it's flown like any other plane
but unlike any other tailwheel plane you don't need to touch down pointing exactly the way the runway points

they went tailwheel to site its main propeller to work on boundary layer
and tailwheel is structurally better
the operating economics depend on the untaxed position of fossil fuel for generation vs the taxed position of avgas

(fwiw bumped from page 38)
though in principle a design could allow flight aligned on runway axis and wings-level in a crosswind
ie net lateral thrust - possibly from tail surfaces (otherwise would need thrust vectoring at wingtips)

Well then T-C, given the final comments in your post above, this may be of (validation) interest:

According to a news report from a couple of weeks ago in 'FutureFlight'; since the Alice prototype
burned to destruction ~18 months ago during ground-testing, due to a battery/wiring fault (perhaps
due to forced recharge to meet '70 minute turnaround' claims?), now it has reportedly been redesigned;

"...with two forward-facing propellers on the horizontal stabilizer of a T-shaped tail."

However; "...the company has not commented on reports that the design has changed..."

Claims include; "... the 1st flight... later this year."

[Just_a_fan]

this is a tailwheel plane
so its mechanical (ie when it's on the ground) directional stability is negative - it always tries to swerve off the runway
modern pilots can't deal with tailwheel aircraft - and even when pilots did they wrecked c 100000 planes
and we don't make 3 runway airfields these days
so this directional control independent of airspeed and wheel contact seems essential to avoid limiting the market
presumably there's an element of reverse thrust involved - to separate yaw moment from thrust

in a crosswind when the wheels aren't touching the ground it's flown like any other plane
but unlike any other tailwheel plane you don't need to touch down pointing exactly the way the runway points

they went tailwheel to site its main propeller to work on boundary layer
and tailwheel is structurally better
the operating economics depend on the untaxed position of fossil fuel for generation vs the taxed position of avgas

(fwiw bumped from page 38)
though in principle a design could allow flight aligned on runway axis and wings-level in a crosswind
ie net lateral thrust - possibly from tail surfaces (otherwise would need thrust vectoring at wingtips)

Well then T-C, given the final comments in your post above, this may be of (validation) interest:

According to a news report from a couple of weeks ago in 'FutureFlight'; since the Alice prototype
burned to destruction ~18 months ago during ground-testing, due to a battery/wiring fault (perhaps
due to forced recharge to meet '70 minute turnaround' claims?), now it has reportedly been redesigned;

"...with two forward-facing propellers on the horizontal stabilizer of a T-shaped tail."

However; "...the company has not commented on reports that the design has changed..."

Claims include; "... the 1st flight... later this year."

Two props on the T-tail? That'll make for interesting handling if one of them fails, especially during take off.

[Tommy Cookers]

(fwiw bumped from page 38)
though in principle a design could allow flight aligned on runway axis and wings-level in a crosswind
ie net lateral thrust - possibly from tail surfaces (otherwise would need thrust vectoring at wingtips)

Well then T-C, given the final comments in your post above, this may be of (validation) interest:
.... reportedly been redesigned; "...with two forward-facing propellers on the horizontal stabilizer of a T-shaped tail."

such 2 propellers could entrain a strong airblast to make the rudder give favourable lateral force
(plus an adverse yaw moment to be cancelled by a large yaw moment from differential propeller thrusts)

but better ? ....
side force might be produced directly as a side effect of propeller action (with an opposing yaw moment of course)
this could be better as side force would ideally be needed without high combined propeller thrust

[Andres125sx]

They could use steering undercarriage like used on the B52. Aircraft turned in to the crosswind, wheels pointed to line up with runway. Be trickier on a small tail dragger than on the BUFF, of course.

Didn´t know so I had to do a search, and found this great video

[Tommy Cookers]

prewar-conventional (tailwheel) & postwar-conventional (tricycle) planes in crosswind use ..... work their tyres hard ....
being steered slightly into relative wind to produce lateral mechanical force cancelling the crosswind force
this must increase mechanical drag aka rolling resistance

the B-52 (notionally) doesn't ...
being pointed further into relative wind engine thrust produces lateral force largely cancelling the crosswind force ...
this apparent ideal is disrupted by engine thrust being greater on takeoff than on landing


tailwheel EV plane with castering wheels and automatic stability/control of yaw and side force ? - an ideal system ?

and there's electromagnetic catapults - zero to 100 mph in 1 second

[djos]

I found this video rather interesting. It looks like electric planes may be the best solution for short range flights for the foreseeable future.

[Brake Horse Power]

CO2 = 7ppm up since the start of this thread. Somewhat 1,5%

Are electric vehicles viable yet?

[Zynerji]

https://businessnewsindex.com/2021/06/2 ... id-strain/

[Brake Horse Power]

There is some irony in this article

[Greg Locock]

Slight miscalculation by Euro EV industry doubles benefit of EVs (surprise!)

"Please kindly note that the real CO2 emissions (eq.2)
can exceed those of eq. 1 easily by more than factor 2, depending on the year and the
status of the energy system!
As a consequence we must inform you, that due to the typically unnoticed miscalculation
the CO2 saving potential of additional contributors of the sector electricity is much more
limited than expected by many politicians and communicated! This situation clearly is in
contrast to the recommendations of quick CO2 reduction of IPCC."

Full text with weaselling at https://iastec.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... Letter.pdf

[Andres125sx]

CO2 = 7ppm up since the start of this thread. Somewhat 1,5%

Are electric vehicles viable yet?

They were viable when this thread got started 3 years ago, and they are now. Before someone jumps in saying they´re not viable for them because they can´t do long trips, I´ll clarify people tend to confuse viability with "is this suitable for 100% of population?"

Nothing is suitable for 100% of population, nothing. For example pick ups are not viable for me, too big (can´t find parking slots that big easily), they are too expensive, insurance is too high, they consume too much fuel... Supercars are another good example, they´re far from viable for vast majority of people, but none is saying pick ups or supercars are not viable vehicles like people tend to do with EVs

[Andres125sx]

Slight miscalculation by Euro EV industry doubles benefit of EVs (surprise!)

"Please kindly note that the real CO2 emissions (eq.2)
can exceed those of eq. 1 easily by more than factor 2, depending on the year and the
status of the energy system!
As a consequence we must inform you, that due to the typically unnoticed miscalculation
the CO2 saving potential of additional contributors of the sector electricity is much more
limited than expected by many politicians and communicated! This situation clearly is in
contrast to the recommendations of quick CO2 reduction of IPCC."

Full text with weaselling at https://iastec.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... Letter.pdf

For some reason this didn´t surpise me

Anycase as I´ve stated repeteadly, IMHO the EV vs ICE debate is flawed from the beginning as it´s focused on CO2 emission when that´s only one of its advatages, and not the more relevant even if we take as correct those miscalculations.

First because CO2 emissions from vehicles are only a 16% of the total so even a 80% reduction in vehicles emissions will suppose only a 12% in CO2 emissions reduction, wich is extremelly far from the environment needs of a drastic CO2 emissions reduction.

Second because ICE emit a lot of toxic substances wich are harmful for humans and any living organism (CO2 is not toxic)

Third because EVs, if we only analyse the technical point of view, are several steps ahead of ICE because of simplicity, perfomance, maintenance, longevity...


But people keep focusing the debate around CO2 like if that was the only or main factor