Originally Posted by
Washeduprotorgypsy
Seeing as this thread is a slapstick offshoot of the Leicester aw169 thread. And using 10-15 % Q as TR power consumption on an aw169 , AEO xmsn rating of 1500 hp. The electric motor off the Cessna 172 will substitute nicely for a electric driven tr on the aw169 , though coming up short by 70 hp if you take 15% Q to be closer to what the mechanically driven version can muster.
So you add the weight of a an Lyco 0-320(+10%) ..~300 lbs on to the tail end, ~350 lbs for the generator, ~600 lbs nose ballast , 400 lbs structural reinforcement. Voila....a perfect locomotive. A little sluggish in pitch when the electronic motor control gets buggy and the need for speed in the necessary autorotation occurs. There is no reason this can't work.
You would expect an electric motor employed in human carriage at altitude to be quite reliable , say close to what the failure rates on an elevator motor might be. Speak to your millwright or elevator buddies as to what a cutting edge gearless motor in the 150 hp department might weigh......~2000 lbs. Making it aviation grade, you build the frame out of aluminium and use titanium bolts.~1700 lbs. I don't want wreck it for Star Wars fans around Christmas time but this I is fantastic ground bound technology.
Not sure where you are plucking your numbers from. 1 hp / lb electric motors have been available for over a decade. 3 hp / lb electric motors have been flying for a couple of years. Changes your numbers somewhat, particularly when you consider you are taking out two gearboxes a driveshaft and its supports.
Washeduprotorgypsy - finally, the voice of reason
Cognitive bias at its best.
"A steamship can never cross the Atlantic for it would consume more coal than it can carry."