Crossing the Channel in an electric-powered plane

[ghi]

I just read this story in news,  the french are competing for first channel crossing with batteries powered plane; I want one of this!  I sould lose some weight first   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155943/Frenchman-person-cross-Channel-electric-powered-plane-just-HOURS-aeronautics-giant-Airbus-heralded-attempt.html





or this one; 130,000$ only 


http://www.sonexaircraft.com/
http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.html#pbid=NzU1MDFiOTZhNTZlYTZhMjg5NTU1MDkz&ec=gyN2tndTqLDpBrHq6jYJo-Km0NnKEkGB&docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonexaircraft.com%2F

[pembquist]

I would love to have an electric airplane with a one hour endurance. I don't know what the state of fuel cells is but they have been a long time coming so it looks like batteries are the near future for now. There is just so much energy in a lb of gas its hard to compete.

[Wmaker]

Not much sportsmanship in E-Fan's crossing. And I think it is so awesome that Mr.Duval crossed the Channel just hours before Airbus regardless of how he did it!

So great!

Very cool Slovenian light plane company called Pipistrel would have flown over the Channel on Tuesday but Airbus made sure that would not happen. Airbus obviously pressured Siemens to deny the usage of their electric engine over water which powered Pipistrel's Alpha Electro.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipistrel's official statement:

"Flying across the English Channel is probably the last challenge left to conquer in the field of flying with electric aircraft. Electric aircraft are at the moment approximately equally efficient as the petrol-engine aircraft were 106 years ago when Louis Bleriot first crossed the Channel by aircraft. So despite all the achievements of other electric aircraft such as Solar Impulse, the flight over the Channel is still a worthy achievement.

Pipistrel has been preparing for this feat since last October, especially when it came to obtaining authorizations to fly an electric aircraft in France and in England. The French authorities finally issued the permit last week, so our French distributor seized the opportunity and immediately prepared all the logistics to carry out the flight, which was meant to happen on the morning of 7. July at 10 am.

On Sunday 5. July in the afternoon we received by mail a letter signed by Dr. Frank Anton, head of e-Aircraft at Siemens, and by Mr. Tim Grage, Commercial Head of e-Aircraft, saying:
"Our Motor in its current version is neither designed, nor tested, nor approved by us for a flight above water - we explicitly prohibit you to use or let anyone else use our Motor for any flight above water."
The letter went on to say:
"In the event you do not inform us immediately about the location of the Motor and hand it back to us, we will take any further necessary legal steps to stop any planned flight."

We deeply regret the action of Siemens which prevented the flight - especially because on the other hand, it would be Siemens that would have enabled the flight, being that our aircraft used a Siemens electric motor. This is why we find this decision even more bizarre and incomprehensible. Siemens never forbade Pipistrel to fly over the water with their motor in any document or engine rental contract, so Pipistrel never broke any contract with Siemens. We are known as a company which respects the agreements and we will certainly continue to do so in the future.
As requested in the letter we immediately stopped the flights in France and put the aircraft back in the trailer. On the same day the head of the local Siemens factory in Haguenau came to verify if we really did so and can confirm it.
The aircraft was returned to the Pipistrel HQ facility today, Wednesday 8. July. In the next days the engine will be dismounted as requested and put on Siemens' disposal.

Pipistrel aircraft Alpha Electro has twice the range of the competitor E-fan and one third of its announced price. The biggest advantage is probably the availability: it is already possible to order and very shortly receive the Alpha Electro - but maybe not with a Siemens motor anymore.

On this occasion let me point out that it was Pipistrel that offered the first fully electric two-seat aircraft in the market, the first electric two-seat training aircraft and the first (and still the only) fully electric four seat aircraft in the world. These three aircraft belong in the elite group of less than 10 electric aircraft that are at the moment capable of flying over the Channel. Therefore we considered it logical and as our mission to perform this flight. Unfortunately it was once again the interest of the capital that prevailed, and we lost the competition on the account of fair play - we could of course still perform the flight in the next three days, but we respect Siemens and their demand not to fly over the water with their motor.

Pipistrel would like to congratulate in advance to our competitor Airbus and their pilot Mr. Francis Deborde for this new milestone in electric flight."

Ivo Boscarol,
Pipistrel general manager

Source: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/electric-crosschannel-flight-official-statement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pipistrel Alpha Electro:


Rather sh*tty move by Airbus and Siemens and is unfortunately quite telling of the world we live in.

[pembquist]

Well that's a little disgusting.

[DaveBB]

He should have flew across anyways.  Whats the worst that could have happened?

[mikeWe9a]

Not sure what you are blaming Airbus for - there is nothing in the article suggesting that Airbus had anything to do with Seimens' decision not to allow their engine to be used for a channel crossing.  And no, the Frenchman's crossing shouldn't count since he was launched from another airborne platform- after all, non-powered "aircraft" (including a hang glider) have already managed to make it across the channel after being launched from altitude.  Of course, the Gossamer Albatross made it across the channel powered by its pilot, and the Solar Challenger made it across the channel on electric power (solar cells rather than batteries), both over 30 years ago.

Mike

[pembquist]

Mike do you think the timing is a coincidence? Pipstrel is tiny Siemans is huge, Airbus is huge. Airbus is a huge "customer" for Siemans.  Siemans motors don't work overwater? Did the dog eat their homework?

[mikeWe9a]

Coincident to what?  The timing is due to the fact that Seimens found out that the company was going to try to fly across the Channel using their engine.  There is still nothing to suggest that Airbus had anything to do with it.  If you like conspiracy theories, however, then go right ahead.

Mike

[pembquist]

Mike, using the phrase "conspiracy theories" is unnecessarily insulting. I think we have different levels of cynicism about this. As Pipisrel's statement says there was never any prohibition on over water flying, which would mean for years, until the channel crossing flight was about to happen. The coincidence is that having Pipistrel cross the channel before Airbus after Airbus had put in the effort to publicize the channel flight would really piss off anybody in Airbus's shoes, that Airbus and Siemans have a real relationship while Pipistrel is just a 2bit customer, that Siemans stopped the Pipisrel's channel flight cold.

There is nothing illegal going on. From Airbus's perspective Pipistel is the one being cynical and manipulative by trying to piggyback on Airbus's hard work. If you turn it around I'd say it's no accident that Pipestrel mounted the effort for a channel flight when they did. It's not like it's a huge achievement technologically.

I think Pipistrel tried to pull a fast one and got slapped down. I say it's disgusting because I have a romantic idea of aviation that is in itself ridiculous.

By the way the new Wright Brothers book by David McCullough is pretty good reading.

[eagl]

Sounds like Siemens just chose an alliance with airbus over any sort of participation in any kind of non-airbus research and development.  No way in hell I'd ever recommend using any siemens equipment ever again in any aviation equipment after that crummy stab in the back.  Whether they were collaborating with airbus or not, its clear they have no business being in the aviation research and development industry and nobody should trust them or their equipment in aviation R&D.

I wonder if a letter to the editor at aviation week would shed some light into this.

[eagl]

Flying magazine picked up the story on the 9th too.

I sent an email to aviation week asking them to look into it.  It sure smells like either they can't be trusted due to collusion (airbus was also using a siemens motor and has a brand new manufacturing plant with airbus) or the don't belong in aviation R&D.  Who wants to put a siemens part into their aircraft only to have it reclaimed by the manufacturer or face legal action?  It sure sounds like anyone who isn't airbus shouldn't trust siemens not to stab them in the back if their project has any competition from airbus.

Hopefully AW&ST can look into it.  I suspect siemens will come out looking like a bunch of fools, but we all know they're going to try to paint the pipistrel team as a bunch of incompetents who sourced an inappropriate part and they only had "safety" in mind.  What part of "experimental" do they not understand?  That's why I don't think siemens belongs in R&D, since they're clearly unable to source parts to any projects that aren't already certified.  A simple release of liability letter would have sufficed in this case...  Aviation part producers live in that world of liability and ought to know how to do that, so this issue was obviously invented to prevent the flight and scuttle the program.  Too bad, makes both airbus and siemens look nasty.  Even the French govt couldn't delay the flight permit any longer, in spite of what couldn't be anything but pressure to deny it.

[PR3D4TOR]

Siemens could just be protecting itself. The motor had not been certified for over water use and had the Slovenians crashed they could have been open for litigation. There is no such category as "experimental" in Europe. All aircraft must be certified under one regulation or another.

Only goes to show, if you're trying to make/break a record keep quiet about it until you've made it, or someone will beat you to it or trip you up.

[eagl]

I'm sure they have some excuse they'll use.  Its nonsense since any experimental project could crash and you don't have suppliers forbidding their equipment from flying in experimental projects.  There are ways to release or transfer liability in cases like this, otherwise no new aircraft would ever be developed.

[PR3D4TOR]

In this case it would mean having the motor certified for over water operation under European regulation.

[PR3D4TOR]

They way I read it the motor was on loan from Siemens and Pipistrel was attempting to use Siemen's motor beyond what it was legally certified for. Had Pipistrel owned the motor things might have been different.