banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 01:40 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 256 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 18:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasp ... Nzg0MjQwS0

They'll figure out the batteries sooner or later, but as a trainer airplane, this should dramatically drop the price to learn how to fly.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 21:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
Wow
That cricket looks like its only single seat?

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 21:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Two seater coming next. Once that happens fuel|Avgas is no longer a necessity. I'm sure they'll create other fees, but reducing the cost of entry is a necessity.

We'll move them to a TBM slowly ;)

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 21:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
For accumulating time toward a commercial that would be huge.


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 23:00 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8012
Post Likes: +5717
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
I'm not so sure they're going to drop the price of training that much. Purchase price will likely be near $100AMU or more, so the hourly rate will still have to be relatively high.

Right now they're projecting an endurance of 2 hours, and it's not like you'd be able to land somewhere and top off the battery quick, you'll have to plug it in for a while. No significant XC flight, and it's tough building hours an hour or so at a time.

It also looks light and squirrely as hell, which means that the transition to the next type will probably be a little harder, and probably come sooner in the training curriculum.

Maybe you get 20 hours in one of these, including solo. Then you'll need to transition to another type to do your XC work. How many hours will a new pilot need in a 152, 172, or any other common trainer before they're ready to solo and be cut loose?

I'm skeptical, at best, and I really want to see this kind of technology progress quickly.


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2015, 23:18 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
They'll figure out the batteries sooner or later, but as a trainer airplane, this should dramatically drop the price to learn how to fly.

The numbers don't add up.

The technology demonstrator is equipped with a Geiger Engineering motor that generates 32 kW of power. Power is stored in several battery packs and the airplane is capable of flying for two hours without the supplement of solar energy. AEAC engineers estimate that the two-seat Sun Flyer will be able to fly for three to four hour in bright sunshine.

32 KW motor, 2 hours on battery. Assuming 50% throttle on average, 16 KW over 2 hours, that takes a 32 KWH pack. The 24 KWH pack in a Nissan Leaf is 660 pounds. I doubt they can make a 32 KWH pack for that weight since the cells make up most of it and there's nothing you can do to make them lighter. They talk about making it an LSA. You can't do that if you got 700 pounds just in the battery pack since the MGTOW is 1,320 lbs.

The 3-4 hours on solar augmentation doesn't make sense, either. That would require roughly a 6 KW solar array and there isn't enough wing area to do that even with the best cells (~14% efficient, about 140 watts per m^2 under ideal conditions). The wing would need to be 3 times bigger to get 6 KW of cells on it.

It also seem wholly unsuited to training which requires lots of high power takeoffs and landings, and being ready for the next student in sequence.

So either they have a tremendous breakthrough or lots of wishful thinking.

It would still be a neat aircraft if it flew only 1 hour and it recharged itself by sunlight while parked over about a week of sunny days. But that would be my top expectation of what they can achieve with regards to batteries and solar cells.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 01:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
They'll figure out the batteries sooner or later, but as a trainer airplane, this should dramatically drop the price to learn how to fly.

The numbers don't add up.

The technology demonstrator is equipped with a Geiger Engineering motor that generates 32 kW of power. Power is stored in several battery packs and the airplane is capable of flying for two hours without the supplement of solar energy. AEAC engineers estimate that the two-seat Sun Flyer will be able to fly for three to four hour in bright sunshine.

32 KW motor, 2 hours on battery. Assuming 50% throttle on average, 16 KW over 2 hours, that takes a 32 KWH pack. The 24 KWH pack in a Nissan Leaf is 660 pounds. I doubt they can make a 32 KWH pack for that weight since the cells make up most of it and there's nothing you can do to make them lighter. They talk about making it an LSA. You can't do that if you got 700 pounds just in the battery pack since the MGTOW is 1,320 lbs.

The 3-4 hours on solar augmentation doesn't make sense, either. That would require roughly a 6 KW solar array and there isn't enough wing area to do that even with the best cells (~14% efficient, about 140 watts per m^2 under ideal conditions). The wing would need to be 3 times bigger to get 6 KW of cells on it.

It also seem wholly unsuited to training which requires lots of high power takeoffs and landings, and being ready for the next student in sequence.

So either they have a tremendous breakthrough or lots of wishful thinking.

It would still be a neat aircraft if it flew only 1 hour and it recharged itself by sunlight while parked over about a week of sunny days. But that would be my top expectation of what they can achieve with regards to batteries and solar cells.

Mike C.


Mike, which is more efficient, a combustion engine or an electric motor?
Which has more moving parts?
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 01:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
This article is 8 months old.
http://www.wired.com/2014/07/chip-yates ... e-records/

And that was a high power motor and could almost make it two hours in a conservative cruise.
Next, in the SR20, you have 56 gallons of gas and an engine that weighs about 420lbs including accessories. That gives you 336+420lbs to replace with a low weight electric motor and batteries. This is very doable for a part 23 trainer.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 01:51 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Mike, which is more efficient, a combustion engine or an electric motor?

For an aircraft, the combustion motor is far more efficient because the entire propulsion system weighs a lot less.

If you disagree, then show me the design of an electric aircraft that has the same payload, range, and speed as a Cessna 172.

In other words, the electric aircraft is so inefficient that you can't even build one that works as well as the most mundane combustion aircraft.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 01:54 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/18/12
Posts: 10397
Post Likes: +8066
Company: Revolutionary Realty
Location: Coeurdalene, ID (KCOE)
Aircraft: 1954 Bonanza E35
Quote:
Mike, which is more efficient, a combustion engine or an electric motor?

A: Gasoline.
The issue is with the numbers, Mike; they don't add up.

Everything Mike C said is exactly right:
Quote:
32 KW motor, 2 hours on battery. Assuming 50% throttle on average, 16 KW over 2 hours, that takes a 32 KWH pack. The 24 KWH pack in a Nissan Leaf is 660 pounds. I doubt they can make a 32 KWH pack for that weight since the cells make up most of it and there's nothing you can do to make them lighter.

Precisely. And more than that, you can't run any battery to zero, anyways, (20% is minimum on any battery I know of) so the battery MUST be bigger in order to gain more KWH. Bigger=heavier.

Quote:
They talk about making it an LSA. You can't do that if you got 700 pounds just in the battery pack since the MGTOW is 1,320 lbs.

Fact.

Quote:
The 3-4 hours on solar augmentation doesn't make sense, either. That would require roughly a 6 KW solar array and there isn't enough wing area to do that even with the best cells (~14% efficient, about 140 watts per m^2 under ideal conditions). The wing would need to be 3 times bigger to get 6 KW of cells on it.

A 7.2 KW array on my roof uses 800 SF of space, you'd have to cover that plane with panels to get it to produce, from solar, anywhere near enough power to maintain flight for any real length of time.

I don't believe this works, at all. I do think if it did; there would have been enormous marketing around it, and there's not. :shrug:

_________________
It's all a big conspiracy.....


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 02:10 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Next, in the SR20, you have 56 gallons of gas and an engine that weighs about 420lbs including accessories. That gives you 336+420lbs to replace with a low weight electric motor and batteries. This is very doable for a part 23 trainer.

The SR20 engine is 200 HP and it needs about 120 HP just to fly level without losing altitude. That's 90 KW at the shaft, about 100 KW from the battery. You can't get that from 750 lbs of electric stuff and make it work long enough to be useful, not without some MAJOR breakthrough in technology.

The Long-ESA in the article has a propulsion system that produces 260 HP in 15 minutes. The SR20 with that system would barely be able to hold altitude for 30 minutes. Include a takeoff and climb, and you are down to under 20 minutes duration.

You could do at most two takeoffs, then back to the charger for a few hours. Not a trainer.

Student would get a lot of dead stick practice, though.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 02:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/13
Posts: 128
Post Likes: +38
Aircraft: Bonanza V35A
Mike I think the information you're using to prove your point is a little dated.

The numbers don't add up.

Actually I think they do and I'm assuming a lot of people smarter than me and you when it comes to planes who're building it and the college of aeronautics that just ordered 20 of them, think they do as well.

32 KW motor, 2 hours on battery. Assuming 50% throttle on average, 16 KW over 2 hours, that takes a 32 KWH pack. The 24 KWH pack in a Nissan Leaf is 660 pounds. I doubt they can make a 32 KWH pack for that weight since the cells make up most of it and there's nothing you can do to make them lighter. They talk about making it an LSA. You can't do that if you got 700 pounds just in the battery pack since the MGTOW is 1,320 lbs.

The battery in the Leaf isn't as energy dense for it's weight as it could be, because it doesn't have to be, so it's a bad comparison. Plus battery energy density is improving at about 8% / year currently. The Leaf was released in 2010 and designed before that so it's batteries are already > 30% less energy dense than the best technology today.

The 3-4 hours on solar augmentation doesn't make sense, either. That would require roughly a 6 KW solar array and there isn't enough wing area to do that even with the best cells (~14% efficient, about 140 watts per m^2 under ideal conditions). The wing would need to be 3 times bigger to get 6 KW of cells on it.

Again you're using really bad numbers for this. Here's what solar energy conversion rates look like today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell ... (rev141208).jpg

Back in the 70's and 80's 13% was definitely top of the line stuff but we've moved way beyond that. Solar does add more weight to the design though but it also adds a nice built in charging method so the tank is always being filled up when it's sitting on the line during the day.

It also seem wholly unsuited to training which requires lots of high power takeoffs and landings, and being ready for the next student in sequence.

You do high powered landings? I definitely do high power T/O but the beauty of running patterns is that you're throttled back significantly after you pass the numbers.

Currently Tesla can charge an 85KWh battery to 80% in 40 minutes. At that rate you could charge this battery in about 20 minutes. Not quite as fast as a fill-up from the truck, but not not bad, especially if the charger is solar based as well.

So either they have a tremendous breakthrough or lots of wishful thinking.

It would still be a neat aircraft if it flew only 1 hour and it recharged itself by sunlight while parked over about a week of sunny days. But that would be my top expectation of what they can achieve with regards to batteries and solar cells.


On this we'll definitely have to agree to disagree. Even if it could only do 1 hour of pattern work if the direct cost is $0 that would be pretty amazing. Yes, you have indirect cost for maintenance and the value of the plane but you have those with all other trainers and they burn 8-12 gallons at $5 a gallon (if you're lucky).


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 02:45 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/18/12
Posts: 10397
Post Likes: +8066
Company: Revolutionary Realty
Location: Coeurdalene, ID (KCOE)
Aircraft: 1954 Bonanza E35
Quote:
Actually I think they do and I'm assuming a lot of people smarter than me and you when it comes to planes who're building it and the college of aeronautics that just ordered 20 of them, think they do as well.

There is a LOT of political decisions that get made when it comes to ordering anything like this. The idea that it "just makes good sense" when the technology itself is not proven is folly, to me.

Quote:
The battery in the Leaf isn't as energy dense for it's weight as it could be, because it doesn't have to be, so it's a bad comparison.

Can't disagree more. The biggest issue with electric automotive batteries is lifespan & cycles, the only way you get good ones are by using batteries that are dense, and HEAVY. As soon as they come out with lightweight batteries, the discussion changes; but they haven't yet.

Quote:
Plus battery energy density is improving at about 8% / year currently.

So they say...

Quote:
The Leaf was released in 2010 and designed before that so it's batteries are already > 30% less energy dense than the best technology today.

I don't buy that, Sorry.

Quote:
Again you're using really bad numbers for this. Here's what solar energy conversion rates look like today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell ... (rev141208).jpg

Those are wildly inaccurate numbers, I don't believe them any more than I believe that we're making batteries at "8% more efficient per year", although I wish it was true.

Quote:
back in the 70's and 80's 13% was definitely top of the line stuff but we've moved way beyond that. Solar does add more weight to the design though but it also adds a nice built in charging method so the tank is always being filled up when it's sitting on the line during the day.

Nice idea, but the panels themselves can't make enough power to ensure those batteries are charged enough to make the plane useable on a consistent basis.

You do high powered landings? I definitely do high power T/O but the beauty of running patterns is that you're throttled back significantly after you pass the numbers.

Quote:
Currently Tesla can charge an 85KWh battery to 80% in 40 minutes. At that rate you could charge this battery in about 20 minutes. Not quite as fast as a fill-up from the truck, but not not bad, especially if the charger is solar based as well.

You will never fill the batteries on this plane at anywhere near the flow rate coming into a Tesla battery from the grid, no comparison whatsoever. Plan on more of a 6-8 hour rate, on a sunny day.

Quote:
On this we'll definitely have to agree to disagree. Even if it could only do 1 hour of pattern work if the direct cost is $0 that would be pretty amazing.

And fully non-viable in any economic sense.

Quote:
Yes, you have indirect cost for maintenance and the value of the plane but you have those with all other trainers and they burn 8-12 gallons at $5 a gallon (if you're lucky).

Sir, 32KW is equals to just over 43 HP in any engine.; and that's full throttle.

The Cessna 152 has 110 HP & is a decidedly doggy performer, so the 43 HP engine will make takeoff distances pretty exciting in this bird. Will it get off the ground? Sure, with enough runway. Can it fly for 3-4 hours in direct sunlight? Maybe, but BARELY fly is what it's going to do.
This is experimental, at best, dangerous as a trainer at worst.
I love the idea of an electric plane, but I don't; believe for a second that the battery technology is there yet.
I flew an ultralight for years with a 37 HP Rotax engine in it, I couldn't imagine trying to fly a 2 seat anything with 40 HP.

_________________
It's all a big conspiracy.....


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 03:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/13
Posts: 128
Post Likes: +38
Aircraft: Bonanza V35A
Chris,

It's be really helpful if you could backup some of the statements you just made with some examples or facts.

Statements I made, like the 8% per year increase in battery density is something Elon Musk regularly states. He knows a little bit more about batteries than both of us I'd suspect.

On the energy density of the Leaf the best lithium based batteries I could find had 250 Wh/kg ratings and the regular ones were around 100-150. Nissan in the Leaf is using ones that are 140Wh/kg [Link]http://sfbayleafs.org/ev-resources/leaf-info/[/Link]. So the Leaf battery that Mike so helpfully used as a comparison is about 56% as energy dense as a higher end LiPo battery that could be used in this plane. If you do the math it comes out to about 282lbs for Mike's proposed 32KWh battery or about 47 gallons of avgas.

As far as not believing the solar efficiency numbers, is that just a personal opinion, or is there some basis in fact? Some of those cells are definitely lab produced panels and not production ones. But even good production panels are 18-20% efficient and more specialized panels can easily be had in the 30-40%+ range. That's a huge jump over Mike's stated 13% efficiency.

As far as battery charging downtime, I don't see why you couldn't engineer it to have fast charge times like a Tesla. There's nothing magical about the technology they're using. If it was me designing these planes I'd make the batteries removable and have a rack for charging them in a hangar, out of the sun, and hot swap them in a couple minutes. But that would definitely make the design more complicated.

Username Protected wrote:
Quote:
Actually I think they do and I'm assuming a lot of people smarter than me and you when it comes to planes who're building it and the college of aeronautics that just ordered 20 of them, think they do as well.

There is a LOT of political decisions that get made when it comes to ordering anything like this. The idea that it "just makes good sense" when the technology itself is not proven is folly, to me.

Quote:
The battery in the Leaf isn't as energy dense for it's weight as it could be, because it doesn't have to be, so it's a bad comparison.

Can't disagree more. The biggest issue with electric automotive batteries is lifespan & cycles, the only way you get good ones are by using batteries that are dense, and HEAVY. As soon as they come out with lightweight batteries, the discussion changes; but they haven't yet.

Quote:
Plus battery energy density is improving at about 8% / year currently.

So they say...

Quote:
The Leaf was released in 2010 and designed before that so it's batteries are already > 30% less energy dense than the best technology today.

I don't buy that, Sorry.

Quote:
Again you're using really bad numbers for this. Here's what solar energy conversion rates look like today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell ... (rev141208).jpg

Those are wildly inaccurate numbers, I don't believe them any more than I believe that we're making batteries at "8% more efficient per year", although I wish it was true.

Quote:
back in the 70's and 80's 13% was definitely top of the line stuff but we've moved way beyond that. Solar does add more weight to the design though but it also adds a nice built in charging method so the tank is always being filled up when it's sitting on the line during the day.

Nice idea, but the panels themselves can't make enough power to ensure those batteries are charged enough to make the plane useable on a consistent basis.

You do high powered landings? I definitely do high power T/O but the beauty of running patterns is that you're throttled back significantly after you pass the numbers.

Quote:
Currently Tesla can charge an 85KWh battery to 80% in 40 minutes. At that rate you could charge this battery in about 20 minutes. Not quite as fast as a fill-up from the truck, but not not bad, especially if the charger is solar based as well.

You will never fill the batteries on this plane at anywhere near the flow rate coming into a Tesla battery from the grid, no comparison whatsoever. Plan on more of a 6-8 hour rate, on a sunny day.

Quote:
On this we'll definitely have to agree to disagree. Even if it could only do 1 hour of pattern work if the direct cost is $0 that would be pretty amazing.

And fully non-viable in any economic sense.

Quote:
Yes, you have indirect cost for maintenance and the value of the plane but you have those with all other trainers and they burn 8-12 gallons at $5 a gallon (if you're lucky).

Sir, 32KW is equals to just over 43 HP in any engine.; and that's full throttle.

The Cessna 152 has 110 HP & is a decidedly doggy performer, so the 43 HP engine will make takeoff distances pretty exciting in this bird. Will it get off the ground? Sure, with enough runway. Can it fly for 3-4 hours in direct sunlight? Maybe, but BARELY fly is what it's going to do.
This is experimental, at best, dangerous as a trainer at worst.
I love the idea of an electric plane, but I don't; believe for a second that the battery technology is there yet.
I flew an ultralight for years with a 37 HP Rotax engine in it, I couldn't imagine trying to fly a 2 seat anything with 40 HP.


Top

 Post subject: Re: It's coming and it will definitely help GA
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2015, 07:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
The use for this plane won't be a private trainer. It is a time builder, especially if you are looking to meet a 1000 hr special ATP requirement. As for batteries, you build this thing like a glider and simply try to stay aloft at minimum power. Put a couple battery swap stations at 2-3 fields and you have a way to get XC time too.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 256 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.