Page 2 of 2
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:16 pm
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
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:38 pm
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
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:59 pm
by jaimesadasalinas
Then, the advertised 3,000 watts per Kg of their 26650 battery is way, way
wrong
LipPos are about 400 watts/kg
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:09 pm
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
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:39 pm
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
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:09 am
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
Re: comparison of engine costs.
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:22 am
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