Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Electric fighter aeroplane ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361

    Cool Electric fighter aeroplane ?

    Is it possible...or are there already several ?

    UAV/drones some of those are electric right ?
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,957
    no

    unless you invent a new way of propulsion (by magnetic field or something along that way)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    Energy density is the biggest issue. You just can't store enough energy unless you somehow did nuclear.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    One thing to look for on the next generation of high performance airplanes is use of electric power from engine low spool generators to replace the traditional high spool and bleed air consuming utility systems which severely impact engine performance and fuel consumption.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    I don't see how this can make any difference since it would be the same amount of watts being removed from the engine.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,608
    Hi All,
    God I hope no green party members view this forum else it'll trigger them to have all passenger and other aircraft banned by 2040 as 'GOVE'
    announcing recently. There is only one big problem to going all electric whether it be 'Aircraft or Cars' I mean the green party are just not thinking
    logically at all. If you want everything green with electricity then you need a massive amount of that electricity
    (WHICH IS FINE IN A PERFECT WORLD) just to be able to meet demand, At the moment we just do not have the means of creating the amounts
    of electricity ALLEGEDLY just by green measures themselves.

    It appears the green party are not happy either with the government banning all petrol and diesel cars they want it but it isn't enough as some
    nice young women explained on Aunty, The greens keep widening the goal posts every time they achieve success.
    Allegedly we do not have any other means apart from Nuclear/Coal/Oil and Gas power stations that will produce the amounts of electricity so
    where is all this extra electricity going to come from ? Never mind the infrastructure to support everything as you can imagine it will cost trillions where
    is the money coming from for that ?

    Domestic cars are one thing but 'Aircraft' another I think being realistic it will be impossible until we are allowed to use free energy power stations
    and that will never happen. The money men from the fossil fuel companies will not make any money they will never let it happen and what
    about the residual effects on the world of doing what the green party want ? Increased unemployment when all the outsourced work to smaller
    component companies thousands of jobs gone especially when all fossil fuel power stations have gone.

    I suppose at the end of the day it's a double edged sword! while most would accept electric whatever world wide you have to ask at what cost
    to everyday life ? Where is the money for it all coming from ? Do the costs out-way any benefits like I said in a perfect world great idea but until
    we have the means of making power for free it's a just out of reach reality.

    At his time I can only see it being implemented in small doses until that above day comes, I really do think that the human race is capable of so
    many things and solving the electric power supply at a nominal cost is one of them. However there are those humans who would quite willingly
    stand in the way of that progress for their own agenda instead of the benefit of mankind such as electric transport in this case 'AIRCRAFT'.

    Geoff.
    Last edited by 1batfastard; 27th July 2017 at 20:21.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    112
    But you have to remember that Mr Topspeed already has designed an electric airliner which carries 600 passengers at M3.5 and has a range of 20000 NM. Otherwise he would not have started this thread....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    No Finny !

    I quite agree with the aforecommented persons with the low energy density of the electric propulsion. OTOH there is a way to drop down the wingloading and thus reach quite high speeds at high using solar energy with battery power...very high that is ( and I don't mean "high" induced by drugs ).

    Such aerodynes are merely observation platforms of some kind or perhaps just airborne drones or satellite substituting links.....and so forth...in near future...perhaps even passenger airliners of some sort.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    so, there are any number of hybrid aircraft designs doing the rounds at the moment. these are regional passenger aircraft which would generate electricity for propulsion in level flight from solar and air turbines.

    the problem with a fighter, is that until someone goes all Greenglow on the subject, they need lots of energy all the time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    Did you just say "solar energy" in the same breath as "high speed"?

    Do you do any research before opening the brain drain and letting the ideas out?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Yes Spudman...I have done the research and that is why I am confident to pronounce such a bald statement.

    This was 50+ km/h faster than P-51D; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152

    It flew only at 15 km altitude.

    Helios from NASA flew 7 x faster at 30 km than in sea level.

    Furthermore the Solar Impulse II is able to fly 2 x faster than Solar Impulse I....with ridiculously low power carrying 600 kg batteries for night flying.
    Last edited by topspeed; 28th July 2017 at 14:57.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    Um.. Why are you linking WW2 fighters in a discussion about a solar & battery powered fighter????

    Solar Impulse flew 50mph with 270m^2 of solar panels while weighing 5000 lbs.

    A fighter would have a significantly smaller wing & weigh significantly more while powering a significantly less efficient power plant not to mention that a fighter has to fly at night, in bad weather, etc. Hell, just turning drops the solar collection values significantly.

    You are seriously high if you think that a fighter sized aircraft can be powered from solar & batteries.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Top speed of the SI II is 140 km/h...but as it cruises just 1/4 of the max engine power it goes 50 mph. It cannot even even utilize the whole solar power it gets from the panels as its engines are rated so low....let alone add any from the batteries in addition to the solar current.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    SI2 can only go max speed 87mph while being 25% batter pushing 80hp worth of motors.

    For comparison's sake a GE F414-400 engine produces 65 times that HP.

    It cannot be done.

    The only way that an electric fighter can ever be done is nuclear and even then it would require a massive miniaturization of the power plant, especially if it's a manned platform.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Spudman WP...you are missing the point...no aircraft with GE F414-400 can cruise at 30 km where Helios flew....with ancient solar panels etc.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Kurt Tank high altitude interceptor is just an example what high flying does to the speed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTUha-wVsq0
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    If it's a large/slow/high flyer then it not a "fighter", it's a surveillance drone.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Then we can comfortably agree that Sopwith Triplane was a drone ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIdtRZK3YO4
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    Is the Sopwith relevant today, no....

    So why bring it up?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    This is a troll thread.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,957
    SpudmanWP, you waste your breath (or keyboard to be more exact).. just take a look at other topspeeds threads and you'll get the meaning...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    112
    Exactly, TooCool, topspeed is famous in his native Finland for getting kicked out of every aviation forum for his nonsensical "designs". He seems to have some sort of engineering degree, but has no clue about aviation. When confronted with this, his defense is that his father worked for the Air Force (non-flying, non-technical) and he had fighter pilots living as next door neighbors. That obviously gives him 1st hand knowledge of aircraft design....

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    That's what I get for posting at work...
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    SpudmanWP !

    Sopwith Triplane like C-130 gunship are fighting aircraft. An aerodyne capable to fly high if able to fly 100-120 km/h at sealevel will fly 700-800 km/h at 30-35 km. That may have some strategic use. No aeroplane missile can hit it...and it can target anyone it wishes....while using no fossil fuel.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,467
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    I hope someone gets this. As I am pretty fed up trying to make a solar powered aeroplane...as the company who made the Solar Impulse solar cells won't even answer me.

    It is very small circle that is dedicated to solar flight....and the newest solar panels of film thin kind can deliver 30% efficiency ( NASA ) thus tripling the Helios output...if in similar flyer. Helios cruised above 230 km/h at 30 km.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    112
    I wonder why they don't reply to you. Maybe they follow this forum?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Topspeed, here is the one I was thinking of:

    http://faradair.com/fwp/

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BEHAthreeviewWeb.png 
Views:	31 
Size:	358.7 KB 
ID:	255018

    Uses a little bit of everything, and actually looks like it might fly - although, its not a fighter.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 29th July 2017 at 08:51.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Sopwith Triplane like C-130 gunship are fighting aircraft.
    Sopwith Triplane -was- a fighting aircraft, ~100 years ago. That is like saying that the USS Constellation is a "fighting ship."

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Constellation.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	572.6 KB 
ID:	255020

    The AC-130 may be in service today, but is a specialized ground attack platform only and has nothing to do with a discussion of fighters. (or electric power, or anything else in this thread)

    An aerodyne capable to fly high if able to fly 100-120 km/h at sealevel will fly 700-800 km/h at 30-35 km.
    Um, no. The Sopwith Triplane could fly significantly faster than 100-120km/h at sealevel and of course couldn't come anywhere close to flying at 30-35km. Do you have any idea how few aircraft can come close to that altitude?

    Even the U-2, a highly specialized high altitude aircraft, which can incidentally fly well above 100-120km/h at sea level, can't come close to 30-35 km altitude.
    (nor could the far more modern Proteus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus )

    That may have some strategic use. No aeroplane missile can hit it...and it can target anyone it wishes....while using no fossil fuel.
    I have no idea where you got this impression. Like everything else you have posted in this thread it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

    The AIM-54 Phoenix missile could reach as high as 30km altitude... reaching such an altitude would be trivial with modern technology if there was a good reason to do so.

    As for what your imaginary armed Helios could "target," with what? It has no radar, effectively zero load carrying capacity, and is effectively stationary in a discussion of any other aircraft.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Marmalaya. !

    I don't fully get it. One thing I don't like in aeroplane designing are the Burt Rutan copycats who think that that if they create 10x more absurd aeroplane that Burt was able to do...that it would be totally cool. Burt is exploring aviation just because he is able to do it well...many fail in the same foot steps.

    Hopsalot !

    Ok I get your point...maybe something else is more suitable for electric aeroplanes than warfare.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES