The purpose of the Trigear was to fill a market niche and benefit people who want that type of plane. It also made money for the company, which is a good thing also. Everybody wins. It was not designed to make tailwheels obsolete or degrade the owners of tailwheel airplanes.

There is no political statement in a Trigear airplane, and there are no government mandates pushing to remove tailwheel airplanes form our airspace or pay for other people to get Trigears, in contrast to cars such as Teslas.

TBH I don't have a problem with an electric airplane per se. The shortcomings of our geriatric design piston airplanes are obvious, and someday battery powered planes may be superior and replace our leaking recips, but that day is not today. Tomorrow is not looking good either.

My issue is more with the push to get my (our?) beloved cars off road and out of the future, pushing a political and para-religious agenda, and forcing us taxpayers to finance it.

I think it's interesting, but only interesting. Just like I think all-electric cars are interesting. In this community of basically 3 larger towns and a plethora of little ones, it seems as if all-electric is all-the-rage. Teslas, BMWs that look funny, Nissan Leafs (or Leaves), and a few odd conversions abound. I even saw an Audi e-tron at the Porsche-Audi dealer a couple of weeks ago, and it's gone now, so someone has the first electric Audi here.

But I have to agree with Doc--the time isn't now. These 200+ mile ranges that they claim don't take into account AC in the summer or heat in the winter, nor that there are few and far between charging stations. For myself, the idea that I couldn't realistically drive to Denver and back (130 miles round trip) without some angst just doesn't bode well for investing $80,000 in an electric car, no matter how well it works around town.

And back to the all-electric airplane. l can't imagine taking off with such a short range, especially in the PNW. Having to divert, even for a few minutes, due to circumventing some weather could turn almost any flight into a nightmare. OK, so the average hop between marinas is fairly short, and on floats there are a lot of places to land in that area, it's still pretty problematic.

Maybe a hybrid, sort of a Prius of the Skies, makes more sense. Tanker an hour of fuel, so that if the batteries run low, the engine can take over. I don't know. But as much as battery tech has improved over the years, it's still not enough, yet, IMHO.

But good luck to Harbor Air. If the Wrights had listened to all the naysayers only 116 years ago, it would still take us 3 days to get across the country by rail, and you and I wouldn't have the joy of flight that we all enjoy from time to time.

Cary

There is plenty of fuel available for the foreseeable future and this is unproven technology.

This may be true but why wait until there truly is a shortage of fuel to find an alternative? Being prepared used to be a virtue, at least that's what my old scout leader said...

Also, why would anyone want to neuter such an iconic aircraft as a Beaver?

How is adding 300HP to the old machine neutering it? By looking at the photos nothing they've done to the airframe couldn't be easily undone. I did noticed they skinned over the fuel bay on the right side of the fuselage, kinda funny.

Look at electric cars. Still primitive in development with poor range and high environmental impact and poor quality of production issues.

Have you been in a Tesla? Considerably more advanced than anything I've ever seen. Range is not a concern for poor slobs like me who are trapped in the city most of the time, we very rarely drive more than 50 miles a day.

This Harbor Air/Magnix project is still very much in the proof of concept stage and does nothing but good for aviation in my opinion. Operating antique floatplanes in metropolitan areas like Seattle and Vancouver has it's own set of challenges that don't apply to backcountry flying.

If I know anything about Greg McDougall he didn't think there was some big money to be made with this project. Harbor Air enjoys a near monopoly for moving folks back and forth between Vancouver and the seat of the provincal government in Victoria, this project is about protecting that cash cow.

I have been in a Tesla.

Compared to my S Class Benz it is indeed primitive. Poor quality construction and materials. Stark unwelcoming interior. Squeaks and rattles and very heavy. Good acceleration though. No class, pedigree, or personality. Actually vulgar, when you consider it has a 'fart mode'.

The neutering of the Beaver I am referring to is in terms of range and useful load, and sound.

With that said I appreciate there is only so much that can be done with these aircraft. The old radials, glorious as they are must be very expensive and hard to maintain and operate. Turbines use a lot of fuel and are very expensive, but they sure get the job done. The battery motor is expensive (an assumption of mine) and does not get the job done. Unless the job is a publicity stunt.

Again, I would LOVE better alternatives to our outdated motors and I know their limitations, but current battery technology is not viable, and given the limitations of the periodic table, may never be.

If/when Mercedes/Audi/BMW/Porsche bring out a viable competitive attractive car I would consider it, but a Tesla, no. The Porsche Taycan is too expensive for me to consider, but it outclasses the Tesla by a wide margin, except in range but the price is stupid.

Mountain Doctor wrote:If/when Mercedes/Audi/BMW/Porsche bring out a viable competitive attractive car I would consider it, but a Tesla, no.

*Looks up from driver's seat of 20 year old Toyota truck.

Just consider how lucky you are to have these problems. They're not even first world problems, they're...something beyond that.

Our fondness for radials is nostalgia based. To be honest, while i love the found and the feel, I'm always glad they're someone else's problem at the end of the day.

A high profile successful proof of concept isn't pushing anyone's cars off the road or turning your 540 into a boat anchor any time soon.
Electric RC aircraft were around a long time before drones hit the scene, and a huge foundation already existed once software stole the show.

It's a constant campaign to mature the technology and I'm glad it's underway.

Valid point.

Merry Christmas guys

There's little doubt that battery technology has improved greatly over the past few years. I suppose part of it has been triggered by the desire to miniaturize cell phones and then tablets, and add more usable time to both of those, as well as laptops. Lithium batteries (once controlled properly) have proven to be a real game changer in lots of ways.

A couple of years ago, I bought a PleasureWay Ascent van camper, with a 200 Ah lithium battery pack (2 100 Ah batteries in parallel). The size of the combined batteries is about the same as an 8D wet cell battery, and although they're heavy, they're nothing like the 8D's weight, which is enormous. 200 Ah lithiums have more actual capacity than a 285 Ah 8D wet cell, because the discharge rate of lithiums is fairly flat down to about 20% left, when it drops off precipitously, whereas a wet cell or AGM battery's discharge rate is relatively linear, and it's pretty much dead at 50% discharged. As important, lithiums will bounce back from being deeply discharged below 20%, whereas both wet cell and AGMs can be ruined if discharged below 50%.

I compare those because my old RV had an 8D in it. I got pretty accustomed to its usability, which essentially was a short weekend of two nights and about 1 1/2 days without starting the engine or generator, being pretty careful about electrical usage, shutting off lights, minimizing TV watching, etc. My Ascent is good for about 3 days and nights, and I don't have to be nearly as careful about usage--I can basically live like I do at home if the sun is out during the day (solar trickle charging helps some), and if not, then I need to recharge before that 3rd night.

But if my batteries die at their 80% usage level, it's no biggy. If an electric car's batteries go flat, it can pull over to the side of the road. If an airplane's batteries suddenly die, it's like running out of gas, and that may mean a tricky landing--not the recommended way to end a flight. So to be repetitive, I wish Harbor Air well, but I think they're really going to be in the proof of concept stage for awhile yet.

Cary

They have been trying since 2009 to electrify a training aircraft - still NO luck. Now really a Beaver is the trick now? The Canadian Owners and pilot association did a good article "debunking" the mass media hype. Harbor air pushed the "commercial" aspect for world wide recognition. Nothing commercial about it, they turned a Beaver into a limited exhibition category toy. The Beaver had 185lbs of payload room left after the pilot got in. What a joke. British Columbia is probably the most "tree hugger" of all Canada. I believe Harbor air is going to try to bank on this for a massive taxpayer funded green grant. They know this won't work, but if they can make a bit of showing - try for a few years, doesn't work then people forget. Then they walk off with the residual millions left over. I have seen this happen locally in my area of Alberta, 10's of millions grant for a methane capture/biofuel facility, facility failed and could not make any money, but it was shut down and bankrupted before a large portion of the grant was ever used. Residual grant money ultimately went to the proprietor.

A green push is good, but not when it is just used to scam taxpayer money. I hope I am wrong with harbour air, but needs to be watched. The comments people made were just absurd- One person said wouldn’t it be great if there was someway to have it charge the battery while it flies? Another said put solar panels on the wings. Lol Amazing how stupid people are getting these days.

As if Transport Canada will have a lithium bomb certified for commercial transport in two years.

The Beaver had 185lbs of payload room left after the pilot got in

If that is correct this is a total failure.

Mountain Doctor wrote:The Beaver had 185lbs of payload room left after the pilot got in

If that is correct this is a total failure.

And watch the video. The pilot was working pretty hard to get the thing airborne. Yes, they noted that he took off with a tailwind, but it wasn’t much, judging from the water surface. Even a loaded Beaver should do better than that.

But, their point it’s a start. Waiting for MUCH more energy dense batteries.

MTV

Mark, any link to the Canadian Owners and pilot association article?

How do they plan to use this commercially?

Waiting for MUCH more energy dense batteries

I think Israel is working on a usable battery, but it will always be out next year, and that never comes. If they materialize I'd imagine they would be too expensive, but maybe not. Also there are 'solid state' batteries under development, but always in the 'near' future...

I think it would be good if someday battery airplanes and cars would be a viable alternative. I'm a die hard petrol head but I don’t like the expense of caring for a very sophisticated advanced German twin turbo 32 valve V-8 in my current car, or the anemic leaking wheezing relics that power our piston planes. I'd like a world where DA does not affect the motor, and the annual on an engine would be a print out from some computer screen for $15 and 5 minutes. There WOULD be advantages but our current battery technology is too primitive to be useful.

https://copanational.org/en/2019/12/12/ ... t-20191212




Link to the article. A complete failure from the beginning to anyone with knowledge. Unicorns and rainbows to the general public. As Trump would say “fake news”, and I tend to agree.

We are still fighting to get basic items used for years in the experimental market into certified aircraft. I have my doubts they will ever have a battery of that magnitude ever certified. A salty coastal wet environment too, great place for unproven electrics.

Thanks for the link. Very interseting and informative article.

So, it appears that this flight was not really a significant event.

Mountain Doctor wrote:So, it appears that this flight was not really a significant event.

Tell that to the the guys who converted a 6-seat, 3000 lb float plane to electric and then flew it. Have you ever innovated or built anything?

Mark Y. wrote:https://copanational.org/en/2019/12/12/harbour-airs-e-beaver/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=COPA+eFlight-20191212

Link to the article. A complete failure from the beginning to anyone with knowledge. Unicorns and rainbows to the general public. As Trump would say “fake news”, and I tend to agree.
(...)

I don't understand where you get the "complete failure" conclusion. The article linked above may dispel some of the typical oversimplifications found in journalism, but it does not take away from the accomplishment at all.

Ive run all the numbers a couple times. Too much Ni needed to do the job.

I believe you can improve takeoff performance, improve turboprop hot section longevity, with min weight increase by using a Hybrid system. Replace the dumb Start Gen with an AC motor. Use the Battery to start the turboprop. Smart Gen, low amps at low GG. Reduces time on ramp, etc. Max power for take off, the AC motor /Gen stops being a gen becomes motor and helps the compressor to increase GG forcing more air into the burner can, cooling ITT. Now add more fuel to increase HP to return ITT to Company/Manufacture TO temp. This is actually 1 flow.

The math I dont understand and have not tested. Does a 25 HP increase from the AC motor to the Compressor allow me to add enough fuel to get a 75 hp gain at the prop for the same ITT? I still deal with -20s and temp limited. If your Tq limited it doesnt really matter.

Maybe the direct drive TPE- you could taxi under electric? Start the GG at the run up ramp. Take Off E boost. Have some power for inflight emergency to the prop. Shut down the GG after landing and taxi in under electric. Would be a large savings in fuel, noise, CO2 if thats your thing.

C11.8H23.0, Kerosene has a lot of power.

I have a 12KW photovoltaic system on my house and have built electric / Gas / Peddle recumbent bicycles and commuted with them 22 miles each way to work. When you work at that scale and your muscles are tired you quickly become in awe of petroleums power.

Edited

Zzz wrote:

Mountain Doctor wrote:So, it appears that this flight was not really a significant event.

Tell that to the the guys who converted a 6-seat, 3000 lb float plane to electric and then flew it. Have you ever innovated or built anything?

Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not an engineer.

I do not earn my living innovating or building but rather helping people and saving lives. I do this very well and have been doing it for 27 years. I think that counts for something.

As far as accomplishments they turned a six place airplane with immense cargo capacity and a range measured in hours into a one person aircraft with no cargo capacity and a range measured in minutes. This is short of impressive to me. Lithium iron batteries are not cutting edge technology, nor are electric motors so no new ground was broken. Electric airplanes have existed for years, such as the Pipistrel.

I hope the Star Trek reference was appreciated.