AerolitE 103, Aerolite 103 electric powered, part 103 legal, ultralight, Dennis Carley, UFLYIT.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- AerolitE 103, electric powered part 103 legal ultralight aircraft, from Dennis Carley of UFLYIT.
#aerolite103
/ lightsportandultraligh... - Help support the Light Sport & Ultralight Flyer by becoming a Patron, contributions start at as little as $1.00 per month!
Visit - / lightsportandultraligh... to sign up.
You can also purchase a yearly or life time subscription at www.ultralightflyer.com
Thank You for your support!
Charged with Excitement …Battery Electric Aerolite 103 Is Flying Now!
For years I’ve said that of all aircraft to succeed with battery electric flight, the first truly usable, enjoyable aircraft would be a Part 103 ultralight. I’ll list several reasons below but the aircraft you see in these images is already flying with electric propulsion and you can get on the list now.
U-Fly-It boss Dennis Carley said they are working on a name. For now, I’ll call the new entry the Electric Aerolite 103 and this machine is ready for market. A few customers already offered payments to get in line and one man wrote a check for an Electric Aerolite even while he keeps flying his gasoline-powered Aerolite. How’s that for a vendor’s dream?
Are you ready for electric? It’s ready for you!
You hear that phrase about Aerolite fairly often. A very knowledgeable veteran of the light aircraft business, Scott Severen, spoke of visiting U-Fly-It, producer of the Aerolite. After discovering the production process, Scott came away very impressed with the “efficiency” he witnessed.
The electric installation on Aerolite maintains U-Fly-It’s trademark clean and tidy appearance. The arrangement looks well-conceived and executed and with a few minor refinements in hardware to contain the battery packs, the Electric Aerolite is done and will enter production.
As most readers know, I am working my way through a list of 58 Part 103 producers to determine the size of the Part 103 industry and its pilot community. I have responses from about a third of those builders and I am determined to chase down every last one to find out how many are produced each year. Today, no one knows this information …NO one knows, not FAA, not member organizations, and guessing about the figures is a matter of speculation and conjecture.
However, I hope to eventually correct this information shortfall and I believe many will be surprised. I am sticking to my prediction that in unit volume, Part 103 deliveries may pass registrations of Special Light-Sport Aircraft. Wouldn’t that be amazing? Whether you know it or not, I am certain Part 103 aircraft sales are more robust than most think and I believe this has been developing for a few years.
Why Do Ultralights Lead in Electric?
I recall a project to make a Cessna 172 fly with electric propulsion. Did you ever hear how that went? No, you didn’t …probably because it didn’t work well. Electric power isn’t the problem. A Skyhawk is not that efficient an airframe and its base weight and payload demand a large collection of weighty batteries.
Here’s the business side of Electric Aerolite. A rather tiny-looking motor is mounted slightly above the wing (where heating has proved to be no problem) with the battery packs occupying space formerly used for gasoline. You see three battery packs in position while the fourth has been removed to show visitors.
Big, heavy battery packs are one of the holdbacks in electric propulsion. Although seeing steady improvement - especially with electric cars being pushed by governments in most economies - batteries remain far behind gasoline in energy density.
Ultralights cope with this weight problem simply by requiring fewer battery packs. A light aircraft doesn’t consume electrical energy as fast to get aloft; climbing is where so much juice is used. In contrast, cruising uses far less energy. You knew that, of course, but in the realm of electric propulsion, this difference becomes critical.
Somewhat offsetting that juice drain is the high torque of electric motors; torque is essential to getting airplanes to altitude.
Making 30 horsepower, electric motors show their super efficiency and delivers comparable performance to gas-powered engines while requiring almost no maintenance.
Another major factor in electric Part 103 ultralights leading the charge is usage patterns. Aerolite says that how you fly is very important relative to battery capacity. Repeated takeoffs and landing (with climbs to pattern altitude) will drain batteries faster than cruising over the countryside.
Part 103 ultralights are often flown in mornings or evenings for 30 minutes and that’s all the pilot needs to acquire a big grin.
So, lighter weight and shorter flight times - both common features on Part 103 aircraft - makes battery power viable now.
www.ultralightflyer.com
www.bydanjohnson.com
www.fly103.com - Спорт
Aerolite 103 names...
Electrolite 103 (it's got electrolytes!)
The little Zapper
Electron Rider
I have got to be honest, if he switched out those Q30 cells for a later generation of 21700 cell, we could get that aerolite a 20% better flight time for the exact same weight.
What Cells do these Q30 & 21700 Cells use? It's my understanding most Battery Packs are made up of 18650 Cells. He's hedgy in the video on his 1hr of Flight Time on (4) Battery packs. I would respect him more if he was Honest in his Numbers Like Max hp used, and like with my say 205 lbs with (4) packs I get 58 minutes of Flight. Say actually 58 minutes plus 20% = 1hr 9min. He doesn't mention any Reserve in the Video! Just as it could be Tested with a Lighter 150 lb Pilot. He could Test it with different add-on Weights in 10 lb Increments up to his 600 lb MTOW. Since the Avg US Pilot Weight falls between 180 lbs and 235 lbs. If the Plane is at 254 lbs + 235 lbs = 489 lbs. I doubt the Plane is 254 lbs since he is using a BRS to Gain a 24 lb Weight Exemption. 254 lbs + 24lbs = 278 lbs + 235 lbs = 513 lbs = 232.6929 kg / 10 kg = 23.26929 kw needed to Fly Well = 31.20463 hp. At 278 lbs + 180 lbs = 458 lbs = 207.7453 kg / 10 kg = 20.77453 kw needed to Fly Well = 27.8591 hp.
Good on aerolite. What a wonderful little craft. Ultalights and their mission are a perfect fit for electric. Quiet and no more mucking with carburetor issues. One of these may be in my future soon.
I don’t think that price is unreasonable... will they offer conversion kit for older aerolites?
The community ... Interested in the new fangled electric motor
Me.... Entirely engrossed in how the side launched parachute deploys!
When new-generation solid-state batteries hit the market, we're looking at 3-4x power for 2/3 the weight.....
And that's the START, it's only going to increase from there. There's someone trying to bring a modified Li battery that has a 40%(ish) increase in energy density this year, but a true next gen battery is going to be here in 2-3 years
" No one flies these things like that."
I do. My Kolb can fly 2.5 hrs.
This is an impressive bit of technology and truly interesting. Many experts suggest that electric power is the way of the future for many forms of transportation. I'd guess it takes a lot less maintenance than a two stroke, vibration is decreased substantially and noise is diminished to just the propeller.
The motor maybe yes. But the energy source is the culprit. Not enough energy density. Hybrid propulsion (if not too heavy or complex) is more likely.
OUTSTANDING!!!
Fantastic low RPMs ! With only 2000 RPMs maximum this will give the plane and any aircraft the most efficiency for power used to thrust obtained. Great job and I will be watching this one .....
Great job!
Is this motor reversible if stopping distance becomes a safety issue ? Suddenly I need to stop short or even move the plane on the ground in reverse - would be a great selling feature ?
They fly so slow no need.
Finally an electric Part 103 aircraft!
yeah me too... this ultra lite is way too expensive for the lack of flying time and that dorky engine in rain or dense cloud a head wind - you're done! not me in this POS!
The “Aero E Lite”
At aspiring effect to the fence on the outside of the communicator it would help promote cooling effect
Hi Dan Well I have to say first Congrats on Aerolite for getting a hour flight. I'm a Electrician and I have been flying RC electronic aircrafts for years and I knew that the battery would be what would hold up electronic airplanes. But we have found recently that LION batteries are getting longer run time over Lipos but they don't have the same amperage draw and can stop a motor in its track. Thanks for the video and information.
This is the airplane I'm going with, I'm going to be ordering it by the end of the summer. I'm going to go with the combustion engine for now, and I'm going to wait for the second or third generation electric, but I'm definitely going to go with an electric motor ultimately.
I don't blame you Wendell. Im running most of my house on LifePo4 and 7000 Watts solar. I still opted for a Gas Golf cart over Electric. Those batteries are capable of over 5000 cycles.
I really like it. the problem of not being able to charge at another airfield is something that will need to be solved just like cars. but this is a good step foward.
And the last step for battery powered aircraft.
Your not going to have enough endurance to make it to another airfield.
Very cool...however I'll stay with gas powered.
Great
Still part 103 with batteries and motor?
Way to go Aerolite 👍.
With the current improvements in battery technology, the cost is going to be going down over the next 5 years. The major advantage of battery over a 2 stroke engine is battery is it's far more reliable. You could cut all power mid flight, glide down, and know that you can easily start up at any time.
Electric w/ a Parachute, Its Absolutely the Future!✈🌎🌍🌏
I’ve watched several videos yet not a single mention of the weight of the aircraft when fitted with electric propulsion. I’m guessing it’s well over 254lbs with just 2 battery packs. Weight of a 2-pack complete system is 101lbs.
Interesting progress. Batteries cannot yet have the energy density of liquid fuels, so endurance/ power are cruelly restricted. Batteries weigh the same, full or empty. You have to bring them back and land at your take-off weight. However, you can carry them anywhere, because using power does not alter the c of g.
What makes them interesting for ultralights, is that flights are rarely longer than an hour, so the battery life is OK. UL’s may be flown infrequently, if you read NTSB reports very often fuel system failures play a role after a long period of inactivity, and assumedly you don’t have that kind of issue with electric motors. The reduction of noise for me personally is a huge plus…. the sound of a 532 for the pilot at full throttle is something, unbelievable…
Could u build a soft solar panel into the aircraft for partial recharging of batteries in flight?
Seriously tho this dude should talk to Peter Sripol, he's basically already made an electronic Aerolite
Does it make does the electric motor increase the payload
Still along way to go to even get close to combustion engine
I would prefer the foldable wings to be developed and implemented first before an electric motor.
The Kolb Firefly is a better candidate (and plane), and has folding wings.
Can you put floats on it? : )
Congratulation to this amazing and nice ultralight flyer
Do you have consider to sell it in europe
Bests regards
There's a huge market for electric planes in Europe, as noise is a real issue in densely populated areas.
Need to have a quick release for the battery pack in case it shorts out in flight.
I am leaving towards building a kit.
Can one buy the electrical setup, motor batteries and the rest without the rest of the craft?
Can the motor take mois (water) in case it rains?
Shouldn't be flying in the rain. VFR flight only in ultralight.
How about Aero-Elite 103 as a name for this beautiful lady …
I'm still going to purchase a ultra light looking at 103's I don't want electric due to the fact I like to do cross-country flights not enough time on battery's to last. I still prefer gasoline engines longer flights. Now if they could take that electric motor and figure away to generate constant electric to the motor while flying for long distance that would be something to consider. But I'd rather enjoy a long flight than A short flight. That's my opinion.
I have an old (original 2 axis) MX. Can you help me convert it to your electric motor? Thanks! N.E.OH Bob
I'd call it the "Electryl Lite "....or, Bee Sting...or..Litenin' Bug, or The Zapper or...FlowLite., or...BriteLite, or NikoLyte, after Nikolav Tesla, or ButtaFlyte...
Some of the newer drycell technology batteries could greatly reduce weight and charge times.
I also wonder why no manufacturers in the electric powered ultralight industry is considering toping the wing and tail feathers with DuPont solar film or some similar product. The constant charging from the sun could greatly increase range and endurance times, while at the same time opens the possibility of using a smaller battery bank.
There is a very good reason no-one has done that yet. Back of the envelope calculations: Best case of 200W per square meter solar power, wing area 11.5 sq. meters, is 2.3kW if we squeeze solar onto all of the wing. Judging by a one hour cruise on 4x 2.6kWh batteries the plane needs approx 10.4kW to cruise. This seems very low (approx 14hp) but I think is correct ballpark as motor is max continuous 15kW. So if we ignore the extra power needed to carry the extra weight of solar and onboard charger, in peak mid day sun you will gain an extra 10-12min i an hour. And the efficiency of the cells drops off hugely as soon as the sun is not right overhead.
Also this plane needs to keep light for US part 103, so if anyone ever does try they will probably be from anywhere else in the world with a higher weight category.
If you're not too overweight, carry a small generator inverter with you.
If we can exchange a propane bottle at a grocery store, we could exchange a battery packs at small airports that specialize in SPA and 103 aircraft. It could even grow to a state by state or even a nation wide exchange program where batt-pack are checked out for failed cells, balancing and over all performance and load testing before plugged into a charging dock that maintains them at a storage and charging facility. Sounds like another spin off market to me,,,lol.
I think with some solar panels on top of wing would be a good upgrade.
$2500 for 15 minutes of flight. That's $10000 for 4 batteries and after 5000 hours the batteries will drastically decline in performance. Pretty expensive indeed.
What's the TBO of your average 2 stroke engine cost and hours wise. Take a 912 thats around 2000 TBO and can cost over $10000.
I don't know if I'd hop in this airplane if those are lithium polymer batteries. I'm not saying it's likely for them to catch fire, but I'd be wary.
brushless outrunner
Whoever made that rudder sale,,,,,,,, man, that looks bad
intrested when it stays up for 4 hrs, not one.
If you need a 4 hour minimum flight time, then you probably aren't interested in any powered Part 103 aircraft. Then again, if you knew anything at all about aviation, you probably would've known that too.
They look like car batteries? Why isn't he using lithium batteries that are smaller and lighter
Those are lithium batteries
of course electric motors are efficient but battery capacity isn't there to be a "cost effective" alternative to current gas engines...
Dennis says 5 hrs to charge 3 packs! 5 hrs = 300 minutes / 3 = 100 minutes per Pack = 1hr 40min per Pack.
4 Packs give About (1) Hr he says of Flight. So About 15 minutes per Pack. So makes Max: 45 min with 3 Packs, and Max 30 minutes for (2) Packs!
Says 6-8hrs to charge 4 Battery Packs on (1) 110v Charger. Doesn't mention 220v.
Each Battery Pack with Charger is $2,500. So (4) Packs = $10,000.
Minimum (2) Packs needed to Fly 30 Minutes Max.
Controller $
Wiring $
Motor Mount $
Motor Turned Max 2000rpm.
Max HP used doesn't say ?????
Climb Max 40mph with him. At 40 miles per hour, you are traveling at 58.8 feet per second. 58.8 ft x 60 sec (1 Min) = 3,528 ft.
Batteries they say good for 500 Cycles. Per Kitplane magazine the Avg Ultralight is flown 50hrs a Year. So 500 Cycles / 50hrs = 10 Years!
At 75hrs a Year. 500 Cycles / 75hrs = 6.6 Years!
At 100hrs a Year. 500 Cycles / 100hrs = 5 Years! Then you're looking at another $10,000 for New Battery Packs.
Try to Sell that Plane needing $10,000 in New Batteries! Maybe in 20 Years when Battery Technology is Better, Electric might be a Good Idea. Till they can match 2hrs of Flight you can get on Gas, it's not for me.
With the Hirth F33 (28hp@6500rpm) with a 1000 hr TBO you get around 1.22 gal/hr Fuel consumption @ 75% Power. 28hp @75% = 21hp! 2.0 gph at Cruise, so 2 hrs of Flight with a Small Reserve on 5 Gallons. The F33 (28hp) was around $4,500 from www.recpower.com/F-33%202%20cycle%2028hp.htm. 1000 hrs x $4 a Gallon = $4000. 1000 hrs at 50hrs a Year = 20 Years of Flying. You could Buy, Rebuild a Rotax 277UL 28hp with a Gear Drive for under $800.
Excellent interview !!!! Go Electric, Go Vegan....
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE QUITE REACHED THERE POTENTIALS ON THE ELECTRIC MOTORS. I STILL THINK THEY HAVE GOT A QUIET A WAYS TO GO, THAT IS WHAT I THINK WHICH DON'T MEAN MUCH. JUST LIKE THE CAR MOTORS NOT QUITE THERE
THEY GOT THE LOW END OR TOQUE WORK OUT BUT I THINK THE LONG TERM OR LASTING ISN'T THERE YET. I THINK I WOULD STICK WITH THE GAS PLUS YOU CAN HEAR IT LOL.I KNOW THESE GUYS THAT HAVE A BUSINESS HAS GOT TO TRY THEM THEY HAVE GOT TO STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME, THEY NEED TO BE COMMENDED FOR IT. UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE, BUT I HAD THE MONEY IT WOULD BE THE AEROLITE 103 THEY HAVE GOT THE LOOKS AND THE RIGHT COMBINATION. THAT YOU GUYS FOR MAKING ALL OF THE TESTING AVAILABLE FOR THE ONES WHO HAS THEM AND THE ONES LIKE MYSELF WHO CAN DREAM OF HAVING ONE . THANK YOU GUYS.