comparison of engine costs.

Posts from the Yahoo Groups mailing list.
jaimesadasalinas

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by jaimesadasalinas »

The highest density batteries I have found are the A123 systems

They are advertised at 3,000 watts per kg. I imagine their present cost is
probably very steep

Electrical engines are much lighter per Hp than internal combustion and have
all the wonderful additional features you mention
earthstaraircraft

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by earthstaraircraft »

In a message dated 1/17/2011 1:16:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jaime.g.sada@gmail.com writes:


They are advertised at 3,000 watts per kg. I imagine their present cost is
probably very steep

Electrical engines are much lighter per Hp than internal combustion and
have all the wonderful additional features you mention




The LiPo battery's from _www.hobbyking.com_ (http://www.hobbyking.com) Are
better power to weight than the LiFePo4, A123 battery's and a lot cheaper.
I saved over $2000 on my pack over the A123's. and 45# lighter than the
A123.
Happy Flying
Mark
jaimesadasalinas

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by jaimesadasalinas »

Then, the advertised 3,000 watts per Kg of their 26650 battery is way, way
wrong

LipPos are about 400 watts/kg
jaimesadasalinas

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by jaimesadasalinas »

Mark:

Thanks for pointing out

I just checked at retail advertisers and you are absolutely right, as their
batteries are only in the order of about 40 watt.hour/Kg. What a typo !

The Quinetiq Zephyr used Sion Power batteries, which are advertised as being
400 watt-hour/kg at their website but that they might get them up to the 600
level
blaswichk

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by blaswichk »

I'll be in line behind you, laughing at my fly-guy buddies that are laughing at me now. China is going to be our development resource, and they are going like hell now. Like and electric C-172 that Cessna wants, and electric helicopter that Sikorski is working on. People laughed at me when I played with solar cells for my transistor radio back in the early sixty's
Rahul

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by Rahul »

The A123 has some kind of a nano phosphate cathode (more surface area) that
gave it super power output and recharge times, like 95% recharge in 5
minutes with very good 1000 cycle recharge characteristics. interesting it's
so much heavier and less powerful when it's still a lipo like others..

the thought of an electric car and gull that can swap batteries and maybe
fuselage too like an edison2 very light car, so 2020ish - would love to see
a picture of Mark's electric car too :)

rahul
Rahul

Re: comparison of engine costs.

Post by Rahul »

> I saved over $2000 on my pack over the A123's. and 45# lighter than the
A123.

Hi Mark,

45# lighter makes me think, eGull09 was 25lbs batt/$1800, 25mins, 27hp. What
is the current eGull specification? other eGull pilots? total airtime by
now? any 28ft span eOdyssey in operation? there were a few comments on the
web that mentioned you might opensource the eGull knowhow, how does that
work out?

With your experience and news of components development, what are the
on-the-horizon things you're looking out for later this year/2012?

Thanks,
Rahul
Locked