A stealth scenario…

And …thread closed. Topspeed will take a month off these forums.

Once again, nonsense without numbers, actually I am getting used to it;

Lets put thermodynamic equations, forward:

Required Battery capacity = (Power required by engine + power required by auxillaries)

Power required by engine * engine net efficiency = Work done by engine = Work done by air and rolling resistance.

For a car going at 100 km/h (27,78m/s) constant speed;

Drag Force = 1/2 * air density * frontal area * drag coefficient * car speed^2

-A super mini like Fiat 500 have 1,63m width and 1,49m height giving 2,43 m2 frontal area.
-Lowest Cd ever made to a production car is 0,189.

So net drag force = 217,1 Newtons.

Rolling resistance of 800 kg having a tiny 14 inch wheel + 165/65/14 tires = 0,57m (total diameter) = 800*9,8184*0,01/0,57 = 137,8 Newtons

So for a car moving at 100 km/h, “work done by air and rolling resistance” = (217,1+137,8)*27,78 = 9589 Watts. For partial load, Brushless DC motors are the most efficient, around 85% at best.

So “Power required by the engine” = 11599 Watts.

Power required by auxillaries are simple;

I am only taking minimalist configuration that will move the car, and allow people to breath:
-Electric brake hydrolic pump consumes 1600 watts, lets take 800 to be more optimistic as a “800 kg” car could do with smaller pump.
-Ventilation fan consumes around 1000 watts.
-Electric Steering around 1200 watts max, but highway usage would generate less consumption, lets lets take 300 as average.

Note that I am excluding:
-air conditioning or ventilation (which would take around 2500-6000 watts (depending on interior volume of the car)
-ECU and other electrical components which would take consume as much as 200-300 watts.
-Radio speakers = 200+ watts to few kWs depending on configuration.
-Headlights = 200 watts, tail lights = 60 watts and other lights.
-Interior lightning = 20 to 100 watts depending on configuration.
-Multimedia computer + LCD screen = 50-100 watts depending on configuration.

So your net power consumption = 11599 + 2100 watts = 13698 watts. Traveling at 100 km/h you need 13698 * 10 hours to reach 1000 km range. That means 136987 watt hours of energy provided by battery.

Best of the best Lithium batteries offer around 90% discharge efficiency, so you need around 152,3 kWh battery capacity for your car.

Best commercial Lithium-ion batteries offer ~160 watts per kg, including the casing, voltage regulators for each 14,4 Volt battery pack, appropirate to be used in a vehicle.

So in short; you need 951 kg lithium-ion battery in your 800 kg car, to make it reach 1000 km range. And that is ONLY constant speed. Accelerate from stand still, waste energy while accelerating decelerating, at this range will go down.

But dont worry, there will be a new lithium polimer battery pack, that will be offered commercially in a few months. It claims 200 watts/kg, totaling 761 kg of battery weight. So if you can design your platform, chassis, suspension and engine components to be under 39 kg, you can have your 800 kg vehicle.

Of course, those are all under assumptions about your 800kg car will have the frontal area of Fiat 500, yet seat 6 people, and have equivalent aerodynamic of the most aerodynamic production car ever designed.

And going through these numbers DO notice a few things:

-Weight has little to do with range, as long as your propulsion is as efficient on full loads as it is in partial loads. It only affects rolling resistance, but as larger cars generally have larger tire diameter than a super-mini, rolling resistance increase is not also so severe. That is why most electric cars in real life are actually very heavy, Tesla Model S (actually seating only 5 properly) weigh 1963 kg with 60kWh battery pack, and 2239kg with 90 kWh battery pack. Also this makes volumetric efficiency of battery pack (watts per liter) much important weight efficiency, as does its cost. Tesla’s battery pack offer around 100-110 Watt/kg weight efficency, is slightly smaller per watt, and at at an acceptable price tag so a mere mortal can buy and drive the car.

-Max power of engine is totally irrelevant, only partial load efficiency matter. So companies offer more powerful engines on their models, at addional price, with negligable (or nonexistant) reduction in range.

-Auxillaries affect range drasdically; turning on the 3kW air conditioning will automatically shave 20% from maximum theoratical range. Such different usage of auxillaries are the reason why EPA range is 15-20% shorter than NEDC range, and the reason why you see several comments about no user being able to reach even EPA numbers in real world conditions.

To be blunt. Dont mistake me -or anyone else “raping” your drawings- as ignorant, or fools that doesn’t understand your “concepts”. Regarding your concept, I understand it perfectly, and I present the reasons why it won’t work. Its up to you to accept them, use some math and some engineering methods to prove me I am wrong.

To be very blunt: Your “concepts” are not that difficult to understand, nor they are miraculous in any way. 95% Majority of your “concepts” are a) so useless that they weren’t even considered b) considered, researced but failed because numerically unsound, c) tested built, and failed because of unforseen consequences d) tested worked, but better solutions devised later, so they are obsolete. Remaining 5% MAY have some use, but without some math to back it up, none of your ideas have any chance of working.

And claims that you did helps in nothing but eliminating your credibility.

Are you drunk again ?

I already have…for the Hippiäinen…minimum AC. Some I will leave as it goes to be solved. I am working on a highly efficient VAWT at the moment…which uses my own designed air foil…and all other systems excluding the generator. It is a working wind turbine. I will fund my aeroplane division projects with the income from that system designed for Africa.

No I am not drunk, and why do you suggest that I would be “drunk again”? As far as I understand your “Hippiäinen” (which does not really translate) has not flown. And I have reason to believe that it will not, ever. Your aeroplane divison? Division of what? And I still have not received any understandable explanation of your “design” of the unlimited racer. If it had ever flown, what would have been the point of it? Why did you “design” it in the first place? There is no money in that part of aviation. With your exceptional skills you should concentrate on something that could actually make some money.

And as for he airfoil you have designed, all by yourself, maybe you could elaborate on that a little bit for the benefit of those who might understand the matter. Or maybe your NDA prevents that, too…?

But we were actually discussing airplanes here, stealth fighters and unlimited racers. How about we get back to that subject, would be much more interesting. Or maybe topspeed could design an ultrasonic business jet with a cruise speed of M 6.2 at 81000 feet and a range of 10000 nm, with VTOL capabilities, and 50% of thrust provided by solar energy? Maybe he can design one by next Saturday?

Are you drunk again ?

I have been working on Hippiäinen for 2 years and 4 months…check my blog.

Decision to make a wooden indigenous aeroplane started in 2007 as I became unemployed and Nokia people were let out ( who consisted 50% of my clients ).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242130[/ATTACH]

I am finally testing its aerodynamics ( of the foil in 1/3 scale ). Like all real aeroplane designers do. Cl_max is without flaps or slats. I also have several aeroplane builders and pilots working for it here..not on daily bases, but when needed.

2009 it was still a pusher with retracts.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242131[/ATTACH]

Fine, that was a flight of imagination, so it all adds up. Just let us know when you have become an airplane designer, having actually designed something. All the systems etc.

I already have…for the Hippiäinen…minimum AC. Some I will leave as it goes to be solved. I am working on a highly efficient VAWT at the moment…which uses my own designed air foil…and all other systems excluding the generator. It is a working wind turbine. I will fund my aeroplane division projects with the income from that system designed for Africa.

Enjoy like I did 40 years ago; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufyPtHpVnug

Go see the movie ” The Flight of the Phoenix “. I made my decision of becoming an aeroplane designer based on that movie.

Fine, that was a flight of imagination, so it all adds up. Just let us know when you have become an airplane designer, having actually designed something. All the systems etc.

But we were actually discussing airplanes here, stealth fighters and unlimited racers. How about we get back to that subject, would be much more interesting. Or maybe topspeed could design an ultrasonic business jet with a cruise speed of M 6.2 at 81000 feet and a range of 10000 nm, with VTOL capabilities, and 50% of thrust provided by solar energy? Maybe he can design one by next Saturday?

That you had an R/C model once again proves everything. You asked earlier whether I think you should be posting on modelers forum instead. Yes, I think you should. Except that you probably already are banned at least from the Finnish one…

Going back to Tsunami and the racer “designed” by you, I am fully aware of speed limitations of propeller driven airplanes. The big main difference between Tsunami and your “design” is that someone actually designed Tsunami – and built it. And no, I do not believe that anybody from Norway, or elsewhere, would “offer you a couple of Mossie engines”… Dream on.

Don’t you just enjoy repeating from how many sites I have been banned.

Go see the movie ” The Flight of the Phoenix “. I made my decision of becoming an aeroplane designer based on that movie.

That is correct…history is a good source for information.

True. I believe the B2 Spirit was built with the aid of historic research.

Sounds like a Japanese Kei car, a little lightweight box on wheels with a low power engine for pottering around town. But even then, it’d be hard to squeeze six people into 800 kg while meeting crash protection standards. Kei cars are no longer 500-600 kg, but more like 700-900 nowadays, & have a four passenger limit.

Very interesting detail about japanese cars swerve.

The prototype Me 262’s were also tail draggers. They were difficult to get in the air because of the tail section being masked by the mainplanes…

That is correct…history is a good source for information.

This AC does not have that problem.

Here is your quote:

So lets review my math from school, shall we? Lotus Exige 913kg – 800 kg (your imaginary car when equipped with enough batteries for 100km range) = -113kg.

You are claiming to have designed a car that seats 6, has gull wing doors and a hatchback, and weighs 113kg less than a Lotus two seater sports car.

There is a 2-seater VW that is just 300 kg empty.

Sounds like a Japanese Kei car, a little lightweight box on wheels with a low power engine for pottering around town. But even then, it’d be hard to squeeze six people into 800 kg while meeting crash protection standards. Kei cars are no longer 500-600 kg, but more like 700-900 nowadays, & have a four passenger limit.

I never lie, but I am sorry to have told you about it…because I am under the NDA still about it for few years time.

It is my invention but still. I think we will build the model anyway…as we have a customer for the prototype.

How is 1200 kg under 900 kilos…do you have math in schools ?

Here is another finnish car; http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2015/05/06/toroidion-1mw-electric-finnish-supercar.cnnmoney/

This was developed kilometer away from our start up; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsWyoqgYblI

Here is your quote:

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

So lets review my math from school, shall we? Lotus Exige 913kg – 800 kg (your imaginary car when equipped with enough batteries for 100km range) = -113kg.

You are claiming to have designed a car that seats 6, has gull wing doors and a hatchback, and weighs 113kg less than a Lotus two seater sports car.

The prototype Me 262’s were also tail draggers. They were difficult to get in the air because of the tail section being masked by the mainplanes…

No it is not tricky….I had an R/C model like that.

That you had an R/C model once again proves everything. You asked earlier whether I think you should be posting on modelers forum instead. Yes, I think you should. Except that you probably already are banned at least from the Finnish one…

Going back to Tsunami and the racer “designed” by you, I am fully aware of speed limitations of propeller driven airplanes. The big main difference between Tsunami and your “design” is that someone actually designed Tsunami – and built it. And no, I do not believe that anybody from Norway, or elsewhere, would “offer you a couple of Mossie engines”… Dream on.

Lotus Exige, 914kg:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242127[/ATTACH]

So you have a car that weighs 113kg-less-and seats 6? With gull wing doors and a hatchback?

Tip for the future, when you want to lie, make up a plausible lie.

I never lie, but I am sorry to have told you about it…because I am under the NDA still about it for few years time.

It is my invention but still. I think we will build the model anyway…as we have a customer for the prototype.

How is 1200 kg under 900 kilos…do you have math in schools ?

Here is another finnish car; http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2015/05/06/toroidion-1mw-electric-finnish-supercar.cnnmoney/

This was developed kilometer away from our start up; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsWyoqgYblI

Such a layout would not allow the aircraft to rotate for takeoff. It is desired to be able to rotate an aircraft to increase the angle of attack.

If the rear wheels came up first (like normal taildraggers) you would be teetering on the single main gear forward which would be very unstable. Would also be very tricky to land.

No it is not tricky….I had an R/C model like that.

As you gain speed the tail comes up and the ailerons become effective, but your planes weight is still on the wheel…think about it…it means enermous weight saving.

You can rotate as much as you want…ever seen a Mustang take off ? Is it not able to rotate ?

Landing gear has still been a mystery to you. I give a hint….it has two tail wheels ( in the fins ) and one main. It is a T A I L D A G G E R man !

Such a layout would not allow the aircraft to rotate for takeoff. It is desired to be able to rotate an aircraft to increase the angle of attack.

If the rear wheels came up first (like normal taildraggers) you would be teetering on the single main gear forward which would be very unstable. Would also be very tricky to land.

Six people is like 7 ( seven ) in Tesla…two on the jump seat at the back…and less luggage in this mode.

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

Tesla is 2 metric tons in weight ( 2000 kg ).

Regular car here is around 1500 kg ( VW Golf etc ).

Lotus Exige, 914kg:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242127[/ATTACH]

So you have a car that weighs 113kg-less-and seats 6? With gull wing doors and a hatchback?

Tip for the future, when you want to lie, make up a plausible lie.

Now six people fit?

Six people is like 7 ( seven ) in Tesla…two on the jump seat at the back…and less luggage in this mode.

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

Tesla is 2 metric tons in weight ( 2000 kg ).

Regular car here is around 1500 kg ( VW Golf etc ).