More efficient at one third the weight.
Unfortunately, this technology only manages 5 kilowatts per kilo of motor at peaks for a few seconds. in continuous operation, only around 1.7 kilowatts per kilo of motor are possible. a good eppg motor has been producing 3.5 kilowatts peak for the take-off phase and short climbs and around 2.5 kilowatts per kilo of motor in continuous operation without extra liquid cooling for around 15 years. As in the link, many companies terminated the technology as unusable a few years ago. however, it is used in some large generator systems. small startups often try to get money from investors … the game has been going on for many years …
there have been various projects with flux motore in light aviation in the past. but so far it has eg. the emrax 188 was also not enforced. although it was advertised as a mega invention at the time.
I would also like to point out that we don’t have a much more performance to gain from new motors. Our current electric motors used in E-ppg are often running at over 90% peak efficiency, the bigger ones have more power than we could ever need, and they range between 5 and 10 pounds. This means that we can only get at best an extra 5% efficiency over our best motors, get the same power that we currently have, and save at most maybe 2 - 3 pounds from the more powerful motors.
well spoken! thats the reality.
- more power than we could ever need? Given headwinds or mountain flying, is there ever too much power available to us?
- 5% more efficiency? Does that mean lower temps and longer life, or less battery drain for a given power requirement?
- 2-3 pounds less weight? Could that translate into a greater allotment of weight for batteries, longer flight duration, or ability to use the extra power when needed?
- What’s the $$$ differential for the supposedly-marginal performance gain? If it’s commensurate with the performance gain, it might be worthwhile.
Sometimes incremental systemic improvements pay off.
Correct. Even the sp140 is boarder line on producing so much power that the wing simply falls/stalls behind you during a full throttle climb which can
wow! have you a link oder real fakts about this?
Sorry, that was supposed to be draft as I wasn’t finished, but somehow got published.
Pilots who have flown both the airconception tornado 280 and SP140 are reporting near identical climb rates with the same wings and pilot weights. With the tornado 280, it has occasionally(but rarely) been a problem that climb angle is so high that the wing will fall behind the pilot and stall out. I think I also heard about it once with a moster factory R. The wing stalling behind is pretty rare as it requires a lighter pilot and typically a larger wing with trims down, but it has happened without the pilot ever touching the brakes.
I saw a video of this phenomenon a while back, I’ll see if I can find it again.
My point was that we really don’t need more power than what we have.
yes of course you are right. if the wing, for example. is old or not a “real” DGAC motor wing, or the pilot uses a wing that is too large for his total mass, it can be dangerous. especially if the geometry of the frame is not well matched and the motor presses on the wing with the torque. I see it as impossible that you can currently have too much power footstart with an electric drive. because if you would have so much power you need extremely large batteries which then lead to a very high takeoff weight where the high power is not a problem. Maybe there will actually be a few special EPPGs for foot launch for a short time that provide 70 kilograms of thrust. I don’t see any problem here.
Power-on stalls can be just as problematic for fixed-wing aircraft, but that’s not an implication that the aircraft has more power than it can use. It indicates a pilot’s misuse of the power he has. The question about available power must be answered in the context of situations that demand power. Too little power when it might be needed also gets folks killed. But I know too little about potential PPG situations, particularly their ability to address flight in windy, gusty conditions such as can be encountered in mountain flying where orographic lift can be closely juxtaposed with downdrafts or rotor winds. I see lots of videos showing flight up and down along a sea shore, but none showing PPG in a more utilitarian usage such as forest-fire spotting or fall-foliage color chasing or the inspection of land-locked fields of produce, or just plain fun over mountains. Don’t PPG folks pursue variety in their flying, and find themselves in varieties of wind conditions?