Joined
·
4,329 Posts
DIY Electric Airplane
4176
34
Seen on another Forum, thought I'd share
This is made from mostly R/C Model aircraft parts , including the motors & batteries.
Having been in the R/C Aircraft hobby for 25 years I've seen many large models capable of taking the weight and size of a person, but first time Ive seen one flown from inside the cockpit.
https://youtu.be/eNSN6qet1kE
This is made from mostly R/C Model aircraft parts , including the motors & batteries.
Having been in the R/C Aircraft hobby for 25 years I've seen many large models capable of taking the weight and size of a person, but first time Ive seen one flown from inside the cockpit.
https://youtu.be/eNSN6qet1kE
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Only by accident, in a dive
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Just for you, made it 25% sized...It would be really nice if this forum implemented the auto-sizing features which are normally provided in forums using the vBulletin software... especially when people post 4,000 pixel wide images.
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
The model name was 235 (i.e. Lycoming O-235 L2C was the original engine of choice). This one has a Lycoming O-290 (140hp) installed, which is effectively the same block but different crank, pistons, and cylinders.
The 320/360 was a teensy bit bigger in the cabin, taller gear, and more fuel in the wing and some small changes to the wing tips to make them a bit stronger / justify a higher Vne for the bigger engines - although there has never been a case where a 235 suffered damage or failure of the wings. Later versions of the 320/360 added larger main gear ("Outback gear"), and a larger tail (just called "the Big Tail") for better control during landing. The flutter issue you mentioned had to do with the larger tail - it was a theoretical study, but there has never been a reported case of flutter with either tail and no accidents where the tail separated from the airplane as you would expect if that had caused the accident.
The final evolution of this model was called the Legacy, and used a 6 cylinder IO-540 up to a turbo-normalized 310hp version which would drive you along about 320knots / 350mph at FL250, but you had to wear a mask as it was not pressurized. The 4 seat models were available as pressurized, but they were silly expensive. The cabins of Legacys are absolutely spacious by comparison to the 235 (which is about like an MG Midget with wings), and you won't find an example of the retractable gear version you would want to buy for under about $150k.
This is my third Lancair. I proposed to my wife in a 235, traded up to a 320. Engine failure forced a highway landing a few years back and because someone in an SUV didn't "clear final before taking the active" I ended up having to belly up in the ditch rather than on the pavement. It would have cost more to repair than the plane would have been worth in sale, so I took the settlement and we bought a foreclosure home at the very bottom of the market which was the best investment I ever made. The 235 is "unpopular" because it doesn't really allow people over about 6'2" to get in comfortably and is a bit tight in shoulder width. It is also the hardest to fly well, and can be daunting for lower time pilots. However, it is absolutely perfect for my wife and I - and the one lesson I have learned both myself and from my friends is that when buying an airplane the most important criteria driving your purchase should be the mission for which you intend to use it for - otherwise it becomes a pretty ramp weight.
The builder of this airplane spared no expense. He installed $25k worth of brand new avionics (Garmin 635, EFIS, AP, etc.), and it is immaculate in the build. He was an instructor, and after flying it only 2.5 hours he went flying with a student in a Cessna, the student did something stupid, and they both died. It was so new it hadn't completed Phase 1 (a requirement for new experimental builds to fly 40 hrs close to home before it is a "real airplane"), and so many people looked, considered, and passed. The friend of the estate kept dropping the price, and eventually I got a brand new airplane for $30k (it should be noted I drive an 18 year old car, and if I thought I wanted to buy a $150k Legacy I would have to choose between that and my wife...). It was a steal, although in fairness the declining pilot population is creating lots of these sorts of deals these days as the young ones no longer seem so interested in flying. So, once again I have a plane my wife and I can jump into, fly 800 miles from Atlanta as the crow files in about 4 hours (that includes most locations this side of the Mississippi, and an arc including Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee) without stopping for about $120 (or $60 each). Given that there are over 15,000 airports in the U.S., most places I might want to go I can get to (door to door) quicker in the plane than I could flying commercial, and without the hassle of TSA etc.
Life is good!
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Depends on the model. The racing version of the Legacy (pretty much wins a few trophies every year at the Reno air races) easily goes that fast. But yes, the 235 / 320 with a fixed pitch prop could not possibly go that fast except straight down, and would overspeed the prop and motor so badly doing it that both would be damaged severely. With a constant speed prop you could easily go that fast going straight down however, and I'm sure that some guys have done it. My attitude is that I got to go lots faster than that in the T-38 pictured above and also in the F-4E Phantoms I flew, so I have nothing to prove and everything to lose exceeding the limits of the airplane and am perfectly happy to cruise along at 200mph / 30mpg.
On the other hand, given that there have been no Lancair accidents involving failure of the flight surfaces, I'd have to say that the odds are very good that at least one 235 and one or more 320/360s have in fact reached or exceeded 400mph without failure. Given human nature, and the sort of person who buys planes which are built with no-compromises to speed (vs comfort, load, etc.), that would be a pretty safe bet.
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
You are thinking in terms of today's batteries. I am anticipating batteries approaching the energy density of gasoline sometime after I retire.
I've flown RVs. They are stable and dependable - like a pickup truck. I want a Maserati.
ThanksJust for you, made it 25% sized...
It's too bad everyone has to do this manually, and that most people won't do it.
Placement of batteries in the wings makes sense if you are starting from scratch. If you adapting an existing design you need to place much of the battery in the original engine location to get the balance right (assuming a traditional engine of substantial size)... as current electric versions of engine-driven aircraft typically do. You could add more battery capacity in the wings, but then you have too much weight.
The builder apparently likes video: he seems to have no other information posted about this project.
I did find a reddit discussion, but it mostly demonstrates that most people commenting don't know much.
I'm sure the builder explains some of his interesting design choices, but I don't have the patience to watch hours of him playing with his dog to hear them.
That makes sense. Thanks Scott.
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Nah. Just remove the lower wing skins, insert the batteries. Probably a good idea to re-fabricate the skin as removable for maintenance. Much easier with a fiberglass plane, I suspect. You can also put some batteries in the cowl, as the motor will be significantly smaller and lighter than the Lycosaurus being replaced.
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
I don't know that it saves structural weight, unless you make structural components out of the batteries themselves? However, it certainly helps balance as it keeps center of gravity focused at the wing. Long wings might have flex issues with batteries heavier than gasoline, so might require MORE structure not less.
Fat wings make for slower everything, not what I'm looking for...
I was only talking about balance, not ease of fabrication.
Yes, that's what I said. And once you have put hundreds of pounds of battery under the cowl, adding much more battery anywhere is cutting into your payload... although of course if your motor+battery in the original engine location matches the engine in mass, then the wings could hold battery mass comparable to the stock fuel load, before cutting into payload.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
