What will recreational flying be like in a few decades?
I don't think all the technologies are as far away as that. Wholly autonomous flight is, but the nuts and bolts of control systems and battery/motor power combinations are already there for the taking. Look up the 'vc200' for example. You still have to tell it where to go - I fear that won't last forever - but who would want things otherwise?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABDG
They are now working on artificial intelligence so maybe in the future the aircraft will think for itself
But its not the sort of flying which would appeal to me
Pace
They are now working on artificial intelligence so maybe in the future the aircraft will think for itself
But its not the sort of flying which would appeal to me
Pace
As a VFR wood-and-fabric tailwheel pilot, I wonder if my kind of flying will be any different away from major airports.
Nobody uses horses for haulage or transport now - but horse riding as a leisure activity continues.
Nobody uses sail propulsion for commercial sea transport - but leisure sailing has increased over the last 50 years.
It'll be whether you can afford it, just as at present. As regards effect on climate of burning fuel, the example will be set by our leaders. See the R&N thread about the supersonic business plane. No plan for it to use electric engines.
Nobody uses horses for haulage or transport now - but horse riding as a leisure activity continues.
Nobody uses sail propulsion for commercial sea transport - but leisure sailing has increased over the last 50 years.
It'll be whether you can afford it, just as at present. As regards effect on climate of burning fuel, the example will be set by our leaders. See the R&N thread about the supersonic business plane. No plan for it to use electric engines.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maoraigh;
Sounds like only you and I will be up there having fun. In 20 years I'll be way beyond retirement, EFIS, EICAM, airways, and days sitting in the grew lounges at out of the way airports will be in my past. Flying will be when I want rather than when the company says, in my wood and fabric toy, with no electrics, no roof, draughts everywhere and rain down my neck. But on a freezing winter morning, or dawn or dusk in summer, heaven.
SND
Sounds like only you and I will be up there having fun. In 20 years I'll be way beyond retirement, EFIS, EICAM, airways, and days sitting in the grew lounges at out of the way airports will be in my past. Flying will be when I want rather than when the company says, in my wood and fabric toy, with no electrics, no roof, draughts everywhere and rain down my neck. But on a freezing winter morning, or dawn or dusk in summer, heaven.
SND
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will never be all electric. Look at it practically, you go touring fly one leg of 400nm then what ? Sit there waiting while you recharge your battery?
As for all the automation, yes it will be there in your Cirrus derivative and available if wanted in your 6 seat RV52 which will cruise at 250kts, be stressed to +\- 16g and still handle like a dream! Of course aircraft like the dH82a and Chippie will still be around, a few flown by setups like Shuttleworth with the origional engines but the majority having replaced these with electric due to the price of fuel and oil.
Although... If cars switch largely to electric power, aviation fuel may become cheaper. The fixed costs of batteries then become much more significant, so whilst electric aircraft will gain ground quickly in schools, it will take a longer for them to take over for the sort of aircraft that only get flown a few times a month.
On the other hand, electric aircraft could slash training costs. If it cost 2000 to get a PPL, there would be a lot more people learning to fly.
On the other hand, electric aircraft could slash training costs. If it cost 2000 to get a PPL, there would be a lot more people learning to fly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think of the Tiger Moth I flew a few times a few years back, and the old Cub I flew more recently. Then I think of my recently deceased 1970 Massey Ferguson garden tractor. It ran like a top, but coughed out chocking exhaust, as normal operation. When it's engine had a mechanical failure, I inquired about repairs - not possible, the parts were long ago discontinued. I suppose that the manufacturer could no longer sustain horribly polluting engines.
How long will it be before engine manufacturers either will not, or will not be permitted to support the very old engine technology? We're already seeing major airframe manufacturers quietly stepping back from supporting their legacy airframes, can the engines be far behind?
How long will it be before engine manufacturers either will not, or will not be permitted to support the very old engine technology? We're already seeing major airframe manufacturers quietly stepping back from supporting their legacy airframes, can the engines be far behind?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric aircraft are already in development, I know one of the guys involved and he was saying that battery technology is advancing today in the same way computers were 20 years ago, charging is already becoming much faster and I can see that you will fly your 4-500+ mile leg then by the time you have emptied your bladder and had a coffee the battery is fully charged for the next leg.
Today, if I could monopolizs 4 charging bays it would take a little less than 2 hours for my car to recharge the electricity need to produce the thrust of 384 l of avgas (a full load including tips for the Bonanza). Not as quick as a loo break, but also, not impractically slow (a 2 hr charging break every 1000 nms). That is with currently widely deployed charging and battery technology.
The current problem, is that a plane with 4 x the battery weight as my car currently has would never get off the ground. However, at the rate battery capacity is improving, 10 years from now, I am pretty sure there will be production, fun, electric aircraft. They won't be self flying. But they will have envelop protection, automatic unusual attitude recovery (both already available in GA), probably auto land (based on some very impressive LPV performance) and logically, in a post ADSB world, collision avoidance and terrain avoidance systems.
The only bit that is a technology stretch is the battery capacity. Of course fuel cells might make up the gap (and might even use hydrocarbon liquids as their energy source).
The first thing I thought of when I moved to the electric car was, 'this would be fantastic as an airplane', as I silently accelerated behind the 400 horses up through my normal Vr speed.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: south wales
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I'd be happy with a 912 powered CT2K....
I do think the future is electric but that's quite a way off. I have a Nissan Leaf as a daily driver & the simplicity of the drivetrain means almost perfect reliability, and it's costing me about 2p a mile to run.
I'd have no qualms with flying an electric aircraft! The biggest worry would be bearing failure or a thermal runaway in a cell (assuming LiPo chemistry hasn't been beaten for energy density). I know at least one manufacturer is looking at a simple swapping system, coupled with a cleverly shaped prop that can windmill on descent & put some energy back in - this is an area where EV beats ICE hands down. An engine can't put fossil fuel back into the fuel tanks!
Maybe the future lies in super efficient small displacement fuel injected powerplants pulling composite airframes around, kind of like what we have now, until battery tech has reached energy densities / kg close to that of fossil fuels.
I do think the future is electric but that's quite a way off. I have a Nissan Leaf as a daily driver & the simplicity of the drivetrain means almost perfect reliability, and it's costing me about 2p a mile to run.
I'd have no qualms with flying an electric aircraft! The biggest worry would be bearing failure or a thermal runaway in a cell (assuming LiPo chemistry hasn't been beaten for energy density). I know at least one manufacturer is looking at a simple swapping system, coupled with a cleverly shaped prop that can windmill on descent & put some energy back in - this is an area where EV beats ICE hands down. An engine can't put fossil fuel back into the fuel tanks!
Maybe the future lies in super efficient small displacement fuel injected powerplants pulling composite airframes around, kind of like what we have now, until battery tech has reached energy densities / kg close to that of fossil fuels.
I don't think light aviation will change in the next fifty years any more than it has in the last 80 years. There will always be incremental change, but in the absence of totalitarian government it won't stop people operating what they want. I think you'll find what they want in 30 years won't be all that different from what they want now.
Friends are finishing up a Cub restoration at the moment, and I bet when I'm on my last legs and hanging around the airport, they'll be somebody finishing up a Cub restoration and flying a biplane, as well as experimenting. New stuff will occur as extensions of current efforts (electric etc) and as unforeseen technologies develop, but I think the endless 'the world is ending and must change radically' drum beat is a little ridiculous.
Neither of my airframes has been 'supported' by a manufacturer for decades, and I doubt that will change either! I'd also guess that classic cars and the like will be even more popular than they've already become, as new stuff becomes progressively less amenable to owner maintenance. It wouldn't surprise me if we see some of that rub off on aviation, as people feel an increasing distance from their modern possessions and a greater emotional need to connect their hands and minds with something, anything...
Friends are finishing up a Cub restoration at the moment, and I bet when I'm on my last legs and hanging around the airport, they'll be somebody finishing up a Cub restoration and flying a biplane, as well as experimenting. New stuff will occur as extensions of current efforts (electric etc) and as unforeseen technologies develop, but I think the endless 'the world is ending and must change radically' drum beat is a little ridiculous.
Neither of my airframes has been 'supported' by a manufacturer for decades, and I doubt that will change either! I'd also guess that classic cars and the like will be even more popular than they've already become, as new stuff becomes progressively less amenable to owner maintenance. It wouldn't surprise me if we see some of that rub off on aviation, as people feel an increasing distance from their modern possessions and a greater emotional need to connect their hands and minds with something, anything...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you are very slow at the loo, it will be a longer wait than that.
Today, if I could monopolizs 4 charging bays it would take a little less than 2 hours for my car to recharge the electricity need to produce the thrust of 384 l of avgas (a full load including tips for the Bonanza). Not as quick as a loo break, but also, not impractically slow (a 2 hr charging break every 1000 nms). That is with currently widely deployed charging and battery technology.
The current problem, is that a plane with 4 x the battery weight as my car currently has would never get off the ground.
The only bit that is a technology stretch is the battery capacity
Today, if I could monopolizs 4 charging bays it would take a little less than 2 hours for my car to recharge the electricity need to produce the thrust of 384 l of avgas (a full load including tips for the Bonanza). Not as quick as a loo break, but also, not impractically slow (a 2 hr charging break every 1000 nms). That is with currently widely deployed charging and battery technology.
The current problem, is that a plane with 4 x the battery weight as my car currently has would never get off the ground.
The only bit that is a technology stretch is the battery capacity
Future batteries, coming soon: charge in seconds, last months and power over the air - Pocket-lint
Look into the future and this could easily be the case with a more powerful battery that could power an aircraft, maybe not charging in 30 seconds, but certainly in the 15 minutes or so it takes for a loo and coffee break!
Batteries are getting lighter, more powerful and developing VERY fast
Moderator
Thread Starter
I've had a client request my participation in an electric C-150 project. Everyone is eager, including the regulator, but this will require a major shift in certification thinking, or a shift away from requiring it be certified. The present certification regulations are a long way from being able to certify an electric airplane. Not that it should not happen, it was just not in the thinking when the design requirements for certification were developed.
In any case, the cost to either certify new powerplants, or change the design regulations to adopt new concepts will be costly and time consuming. That effort might be better spent easing an entire portion of the GA fleet out of having to comply with the "old" design requirements....
In any case, the cost to either certify new powerplants, or change the design regulations to adopt new concepts will be costly and time consuming. That effort might be better spent easing an entire portion of the GA fleet out of having to comply with the "old" design requirements....
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think propulsion will be electric. 100% power at 10,000ft with no need for expensive turbo's - what's not to like?
They have been testing graphene based batteries which on a weight for weight basis hold 10 times the charge current batteries and could be charged in less than 30 minutes.
if they can make it viable under commercial conditions (battery lifetime etc) having something with a 700 mile range and 30 minute turn around is perfectly reasonable.
I don't see why ga planes can have more complex wings allowing for higher wingloading. why cant we have a plane with a clean 1g stalling speed of 90kts, add some leading edge slats, or droops or complex flaps or something so that a family of 4 cruising at 250mph / 10,000ft with a 160hp electric motor is expected rather than fantasy land
They have been testing graphene based batteries which on a weight for weight basis hold 10 times the charge current batteries and could be charged in less than 30 minutes.
if they can make it viable under commercial conditions (battery lifetime etc) having something with a 700 mile range and 30 minute turn around is perfectly reasonable.
I don't see why ga planes can have more complex wings allowing for higher wingloading. why cant we have a plane with a clean 1g stalling speed of 90kts, add some leading edge slats, or droops or complex flaps or something so that a family of 4 cruising at 250mph / 10,000ft with a 160hp electric motor is expected rather than fantasy land
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If battery technology can continue evolving, I think we'll see a number of electric sport planes for the weekend pilots in 20 years. I don't see electric replacing fossil fuels for long distance transport though. First of all, it would require a large investment in charging apparatus at all airports, and I imagine every different make will have a slightly different charging plug and amperage requirements. You can't expect Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/Diamond/etc to all agree to one standard now, can you? 100LL will go away, (I hope) not because I think my 172 has a measurable effect on the environment, but because the lead fouls my plugs anyway. I'd love to put a good un-leaded auto fuel in it, but the Govt feels compelled to bastardize it with corn alcohol, which also causes my horribly inefficient lawn equipment to suffer.
How about a zero-turn 48" cut electric riding mower for $2000?
How about a zero-turn 48" cut electric riding mower for $2000?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose moving to aircraft with propulsion power packs would shift the owners emphasis from engine TBO, timing and compression issues to making sure the leccy bill is paid.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine every different make will have a slightly different charging plug and amperage requirements. You can't expect Cessna/Piper/Cirrus/Diamond/etc to all agree to one standard now
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charging plugs only need to be a pull out lead with a standard 13 amp plug on the end, just like yr average mobile fone.
Guessing that today's tech will be used is a waste of time.
When my house was being built I very much doubt that the first owner imagined that the grass would be cut with a length of plastic string. Or that he would one day sit in a tin tube for an hour at a height of 30 thousand feet and get out in hot sunshine hundreds of miles away.
What would an American settler in 17canteen have made of a chainsaw?
What would General Custer have done with a Minigun?
We don't know what might even replace the "battery". What if a daylight powered paint coating of some type could also charge the airframe shaped battery? Fly 24/7.
As for the question: technology will handle the idiot proofing, the "pilot" will speak destination or if he has a brain, point to the chart. A set of controls will be fitted but tech will not allow life threatening sits.
You will still be able to fly a Cub, the Continental will be modified to run on hydrogen/oxygen from the fag packet sized splitter and a tank full of swamp water.
How long this will take is down to Government regulators and Business interest.
Flippant mode off.
Guessing that today's tech will be used is a waste of time.
When my house was being built I very much doubt that the first owner imagined that the grass would be cut with a length of plastic string. Or that he would one day sit in a tin tube for an hour at a height of 30 thousand feet and get out in hot sunshine hundreds of miles away.
What would an American settler in 17canteen have made of a chainsaw?
What would General Custer have done with a Minigun?
We don't know what might even replace the "battery". What if a daylight powered paint coating of some type could also charge the airframe shaped battery? Fly 24/7.
As for the question: technology will handle the idiot proofing, the "pilot" will speak destination or if he has a brain, point to the chart. A set of controls will be fitted but tech will not allow life threatening sits.
You will still be able to fly a Cub, the Continental will be modified to run on hydrogen/oxygen from the fag packet sized splitter and a tank full of swamp water.
How long this will take is down to Government regulators and Business interest.
Flippant mode off.
You will still be able to fly a Cub, the Continental will be modified to run on hydrogen/oxygen from the fag packet sized splitter and a tank full of swamp water.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Natural gas is still current technology. A few decades down the development road it may be considered as grubby as coal. I firmly believe there is far more undiscovered technology out there. I'm no expert but just looking at the rate of tech advances since say WW 2. Who at that time would have envisaged a mobile phone or this mini iPad type of communication?
Someone once said that if aircraft development had advanced as computers have, we would be crossing the Atlantic in five minutes.
Who knows what's round the corner.
The biggest problem is "currently certified". The regulators will screw everything up to the best of their ability.
Someone once said that if aircraft development had advanced as computers have, we would be crossing the Atlantic in five minutes.
Who knows what's round the corner.
The biggest problem is "currently certified". The regulators will screw everything up to the best of their ability.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with trying to peer into the future is not being able to accurately forecast "quantum leaps" in technology, that are often simple breakthroughs into major increases in performance. These will definitely appear with electric technology.
Super-capacitors are going to be playing a big part in the electric drive systems of the future. The major part of transportation movement that currently hampers electric power is the need for rapid acceleration to get up to cruise speed.
In an aircraft, it's the sizeable power output required to get up to cruise level that sets the power level needed - and IC engines can produce that maximum power for as long as needed, or as long as you have fuel.
If super-capacitor development continues along the lines of current development trends, they will be able to provide the continued electric power surge needed to climb and reach cruise speed.
Once cruise level and cruise speed is reached, power requirements are considerably less than that needed initially, and this is where electric power has a major efficiency advantage over IC engines.
Your IC engine is generally burning, say, 10 gallons an hour regardless of whether it's producing full power or 2/3rds power. It might drop back to 8 gallons an hour with power carefully trimmed back - but there's still a lot wasted energy at that lower power setting.
An electric power source will only draw down the power needed to sustain flight and selected airspeed, and this would be much less than the average energy consumption of an IC engine on cruise setting.
Australia's CSIRO has been at the forefront of developing super-capacitors - but at present, only in the smaller sizes and in the small electronics field. The CSIRO experimented with super-capacitors in electric cars in the early 2000's - but only with the aim of improving lead-acid battery performance. The CSIRO did not proceed along the development path for super-capacitor use in transport equipment, they saw more current demand in the electronic and wireless fields.
As a result, the development of supercapacitors for transport use has stalled within the CSIRO. All it takes is someone such as Tesla to start pouring sizeable amounts of money, research, and effort into super-capacitor use in the transport field, and we will start to see some quantum leaps in electric power performance.
Super-capacitors are going to be playing a big part in the electric drive systems of the future. The major part of transportation movement that currently hampers electric power is the need for rapid acceleration to get up to cruise speed.
In an aircraft, it's the sizeable power output required to get up to cruise level that sets the power level needed - and IC engines can produce that maximum power for as long as needed, or as long as you have fuel.
If super-capacitor development continues along the lines of current development trends, they will be able to provide the continued electric power surge needed to climb and reach cruise speed.
Once cruise level and cruise speed is reached, power requirements are considerably less than that needed initially, and this is where electric power has a major efficiency advantage over IC engines.
Your IC engine is generally burning, say, 10 gallons an hour regardless of whether it's producing full power or 2/3rds power. It might drop back to 8 gallons an hour with power carefully trimmed back - but there's still a lot wasted energy at that lower power setting.
An electric power source will only draw down the power needed to sustain flight and selected airspeed, and this would be much less than the average energy consumption of an IC engine on cruise setting.
Australia's CSIRO has been at the forefront of developing super-capacitors - but at present, only in the smaller sizes and in the small electronics field. The CSIRO experimented with super-capacitors in electric cars in the early 2000's - but only with the aim of improving lead-acid battery performance. The CSIRO did not proceed along the development path for super-capacitor use in transport equipment, they saw more current demand in the electronic and wireless fields.
As a result, the development of supercapacitors for transport use has stalled within the CSIRO. All it takes is someone such as Tesla to start pouring sizeable amounts of money, research, and effort into super-capacitor use in the transport field, and we will start to see some quantum leaps in electric power performance.
Last edited by onetrack; 24th Nov 2015 at 00:14.