Move over electric cars, here come electric planes:
Luckily, electrification isn't always an all-or-nothing proposition, especially in a plane with several engines. A new partnership from Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Siemens appears to take advantage of this fact. Dubbed the E-Fan X, this will be a demonstration hybrid aircraft which—initially—will have one of four gas turbine engines replaced by a two megawatt electric motor. But as the system matures, is demonstrated to be safe and, presumably, as battery costs come down, provisions will be made toward replacing a second turbine with another 2MW motor.
...
A big part of the motivation for projects like this is, apparently, the European Commission's Flightpath 2050 Vision for Aviation, which includes a reduction of CO2 by 75%, reduction of NOx by 90% and noise reduction by 65%. The happy side effect, presumably, will be cleaner air, lower dependence on fossil fuels, and cheaper flights too.
If they put solar panels on top and wind turbines on the wings, they can recharge while they fly.
Related Stories
Electric planes might seem futuristic, but they aren't that far off, at least for short hops:
Two-seater Velis Electros are already quietly buzzing around Europe, electric sea planes are being tested in British Columbia, and larger planes are coming. Air Canada announced on Sept. 15, 2022, that it would buy 30 electric-hybrid regional aircraft from Sweden's Heart Aerospace, which expects to have its 30-seat plane in service by 2028. Analysts at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab note that the first hybrid electric 50- to 70-seat commuter plane could be ready not long after that. In the 2030s, they say, electric aviation could really take off.
[...] Aircraft are some of the most complex vehicles out there, but the biggest problem for electrifying them is the battery weight.
[...] Jet fuel can hold about 50 times more energy compared to batteries per unit mass. So, you can have 1 pound of jet fuel or 50 pounds of batteries. To close that gap, we need to either make lithium-ion batteries lighter or develop new batteries that hold more energy. New batteries are being developed, but they aren't yet ready for aircraft.
An electric alternative is hybrids.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:34PM (3 children)
LOL
you made my day
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:51PM (2 children)
Have you ever heard the thermology, "Hypercompression, hyperaware"? It's like your jack in the trade, and the most you'll be lacking today!
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:54PM (1 child)
Does anyone have a gibberish to English translator?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 04 2017, @12:19AM
Sure. but its gonna put a dick in your mashed-potatoes. Take into account all those planes that did so. Well, the Global Hawk [kinja-img.com] did too.
All those long-ranging planes like the U2 used a conventional wing, that is, one that sticks straight out and maximizes lift at a relatively low airspeed. The government will use them to oppress you, and civilian organizations will use them to bring Facebook to you. Which is the same thing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday December 03 2017, @11:53PM (7 children)
Only one use I can see for such a beast. Getting around noise regs near airports. Take off any direction at any time if the electric drive can produce enough thrust to take off since electric motors are quieter. Even a half hour of battery power would get up into the air and up high enough to crank up the dead dino power to power you to your destination while recharging the battery for landing.
But as for putting solar on the wings? Reread that part about a two megawatt motor. This is why all electric planes will never be seen in the skies. There isn't a battery that can do that even as a wet dream of some scam artist trying to get venture funded. People question whether Musk's plan to put a 200KWH battery in a future car is snake oil. Now imagine multi-megawatt hours worth of battery light enough to fly. Are you laughing yet? If you aren't you shouldn't be discussing this subject.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday December 04 2017, @01:01AM (1 child)
I don't see that thing ever producing enough thrust to get off the ground.
If they put props on it maybe, because in that case you have prop-induced airflow over the wing [google.com] to assist with lift.
Absent the high volume of gas flow due to combustion, I can't see how a ducted fan ever compresses enough atmosphere to squirt it out fast enough to get airborne. At best I see this as a cruise engine.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday December 04 2017, @07:06PM
Bypass air already provides more than half the thrust in a typical turbofan, and a (certified) twin must be able to take off with one engine out, therefore logically the thrust from bypass air alone would be enough to get one airborne.
This is actually much more likely to be useful in takeoff and landing than in cruise, batteries could provide cover for peak thrust requirements and allow down-sizing the conventional engines. If you can fly on electric alone, just 10 mins of battery power on takeoff would get you past flap-retraction and gear up, which might make a hell of a difference to noise profiles for a start. Electric also offers other advantages like near-zero spool-up time (handy for go-arounds) and potential to do interesting things like contra-rotating fans without requiring insane gearing. If you can get re-gen charging in there too, from windmilling the fans, then with todays continuous descent approaches you could turn off the generators at top of descent and charge the batteries from zero and land on electric (probably nearly fully charged as well) - again, awfully good for noise reduction.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)
Electric planes are already in the skies and have been for a while now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_aircraft [wikipedia.org]
Actually, there is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_polymer_battery [wikipedia.org]
I'm not laughing, I'm shaking my head at your weapons-grade stupidity. Next time take a few minutes to research a subject before posting. You clearly know a very small fraction of what you think you know. As far as who shouldn't be discussing this subject, it's clear that you shouldn't be, but that didn't stop you. Why should lack of basic knowledge of a subject prevent someone from joining in a discussion as an authority figure? It's not like you'll be quickly called out as a moron. Oh, wait...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 04 2017, @03:36AM
Look at that list. How many of those are manned craft in commercial passenger service? Lots of experimental and unmanned, nothing suitable to replace even the smallest real airplane.
And unless batteries get 10x better there won't be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 04 2017, @06:55AM (1 child)
You talk like flying is impossible without megawatts of power. Yet somehow birds manage it, and for long distances. The albatross is a particularly inspiring bird.
> This is why all electric planes will never be seen in the skies.
They are already in the skies. A solar plane successfully flew around the world in 2015.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Monday December 04 2017, @01:21PM
The interesting parts of flying are not so much the flying itself, but the landing and take-off.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:30PM
Apples and oranges, pal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @12:18AM (2 children)
The last of USA's piston-driven strategic bombers had 6 pusher props.
It also had 1 thing on each wing that looked like an outrigger.
Those were jet engines. [google.com]
If that isn't crazy enough for you, they tried to make one of these beasts nuclear-powered. [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 04 2017, @12:25AM
The peacemaker was an abomination, which is why it isn't used anymore.
The B-52 is.
But that the B52 is still a matter of doctrine speaks volumes about what the United States Government believes what will be needed in the near future. Hell, the Russkies are still poking our airspace with TU-95's. Maybe how much money we can throw at a weapons platform matters less than what those mature but primitive platforms can actually do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @12:46AM
2 megawatts is about 2600 horsepower. Or, in the same ballpark as the engine used in the B-29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone [wikipedia.org] The B-36 IC engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-4360_Wasp_Major [wikipedia.org] is a good bit higher power.
The 2 MW motor will be smaller than the big radials, but the batteries or fuel cell will be significantly larger with any current tech. Or were you planning to fly this plane on a big U-line with power from the ground...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:18AM (3 children)
Why not just use the gas engines to make electricity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @03:53AM (2 children)
Diesel-electric train engines do that, they are heavy and somewhat inefficient. But the electric drive is very controllable, makes it possible to control the train speed accurately.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics (always loss in energy transfers) makes it a bad idea for aircraft. Better results to put the prop directly on the gas engine (using your example).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @10:27AM
You don't even need to invoke the second law of thermodynamics to see that it is a bad idea. The following is already sufficient:
You certainly don't want to put unnecessary weight on your airplane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:57PM
For more power, they use a turbine engine ... so a jet engine ... oh, the irony...
But not to be so ironic, the turbine can generate power for electric, and it simply becomes like an additional by-pass making the original turbine even more efficient. This thing is NOT running on batteries for the flight - it is running mostly on the generated power from the combustion turbines. The batteries are just for emergency power or when turbines are used for takeoff and the like.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday December 04 2017, @04:24AM