From the “ultimate range anxiety” department.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A Seattle-area startup, backed by the venture capital arms of Boeing Co (BA.N) and JetBlue Airways Corp (JBLU.O) announced plans on Thursday to bring a small hybrid-electric commuter aircraft to market by 2022.
The small airliner is the first of several planes planned by Zunum Aero, which said it would seat up to 12 passengers and be powered by two electric motors, dramatically reducing the travel time and cost of trips under 1,000 miles (1,600 km).
Zunum’s plans and timetable underscore a rush to develop small electric aircraft based on rapidly evolving battery technology and artificial intelligence systems that avoid obstacles on a road or in the sky.
In a separate but related development, Boeing said on Thursday it plans to acquire a company that specializes in electric and autonomous flight to help its own efforts to develop such aircraft.
Several companies, including Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] and European planemaker Airbus (AIR.PA), are working on electric-powered self-flying cars.
Zunum does not expect to be the first to certify an electric-powered aircraft with regulators. Rather, it is aiming to fill a market gap for regional travel by airlines, where private jets and commercial jetliners are too costly for many to use.
…
Electric-vehicle batteries, such as those made by Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) and Panasonic Corp (6752.T), would power Zunum’s motors, although Zunum has no commitment with either company. A supplemental jet-fuel engine and electrical generator would be used to give the plane a range of 700 miles and ensure it stays aloft after the batteries are exhausted, Knapp said
…
Current battery technology can only power the plane for about 100 miles so a gas-powered engine would be used to generate electricity to power the motors for additional range.
Full story here.
Once again, fossil fuel power is used for reliable power. Dr. Roy Spencer quipped on his Facebook page:
I’ll bet they won’t even be able take off on battery power alone… and why would you use a gas powered engine to charge the batteries in-flight? I’ll bet the efficiency of that is way below a jet engine burning the fuel directly.
Looks like this is more for publicity show than anything else, we’ll see if it actually works or if the fleet will end up in the hangar most of the time like the much ballyhooed LAPD electric police cars that sit mostly idle.
Interestingly, and suggesting low confidence in the project, neither Boeing nor Jet Blue has anything about this electric plane on their press release sections of their websites here and here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I bet some watermelons actually believe there would be feasible to just attach windturbines to charge the batteries in flight…..
the belgums had an electric plane in development in the 90s, but they had to abandon it due to problems with the extension cables.
That just made me picture a “U-Controll” model plane… “Highly efficient within a certain radius…”
In trying to work the math out for this in the form of a drone, I’ve found it akin to designing a perpetual motion machine. It appears to be one of those engineering fantasy’s I like to put myself to sleep with. Which is destroyed by the math..
Ditch the whole flying and go directly to teleportation – ‘theorethically possible’ according to some…
I vote Kaku be the first test speciman for the process.
Methinks Werner Heisenberg might disagree.
That’s what the Heisenberg compensator is for.
As soon as I saw the photo, I thought, “That’s Kuku!”
The same irrational thinking is rampant in the auto industry, however, there are signs of some fact based plain speak. See:http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/detroit-auto-show/2018/01/15/fiat-chrysler-ceo-says-electric-cars-are-bad-bet/109467370/
There might actually be a market for this type of aircraft as a toy for the super-rich. There are undoubtedly quite a few celebrities who would love to be able to claim that the fly an electric plane, even though 95% of the time it is just an expensive low-performance turbine aircraft
A series hybrid approach like locomotives might make some sense. Two electric motors for redundancy powering the plane while the electric motors are powered by a smaller than normal ICE engine with a small battery to supplement for extra needs for take-off. The Battery could also be used as a power source in case of ICE engine failure for an emergency landing. You’d have a bit more redundancy than a single engine plane and perhaps more efficient cost per mile. My volt works as a series hybrid when not on battery and gets similar mileage to traditional hybrids in that mode (about 42 mpg). Yet I have the torque of a much bigger engine when I want as the volt battery when ’empty’ is actually at 30 percent.
I believe the 50mpg Chevy Malibu uses the same type of Volt drive train but with a much smaller battery for torque peaks and normally is in this series hybrid mode with a small ICE motor.
I wonder what the weight difference is between the Malibu hybrid battery and the volt battery is vs the weight difference between the small ICE Malibu engine and the V6 ICE engine it outperforms. That could give some guidance on if the weight of a smaller engine with a peak load battery approach is a net zero sum or a weight increase. And in the pictured design you have 2 turbofan like electric motors that would weigh way less than 2 traditional piston engines.
I guess from my perspective, I’d need to see more actual figures to see if this series hybrid approach might work. Clearly the weight of the 2 systems would be the make or break.
The inventor of the internet would also make a fine test pilot for this plane.
I am confused. The plane has two jet engines. Jets burn fuel. Where does the battery come in?
No, it has two fans turned by electric motors which are in turn driven by a battery and jet-turbine driven generator. What you see as “jet engines” are actually just fans powered instead by electric motors.
I would
think pilotless fighter planes would be a better goal.
They are called drones.
Drones are used for reconaissance and ground strikes, not as fighters. Fighter aircraft are probably the most difficult of all aircraft to automate. Remote piloting might be possible, though vulnerable to ECM, but writing a computer program with situational awareness to handle the tactics a a multiple aircraft engagement in three dimensions in real time isn’t going to happen soon.
They will still call it a drone, eventually.
There is actually a lot of interest in this area and AF Research Lab is pursuing a number of autonomous system concepts. One concept is use of autonomous “wingmen” to support manned fighters. This mitigates the need to automate all the tactical decision making since the manned flight lead is providing overall direction.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/05/17/air-force-looking-at-autonomous-systems-to-aid-war-fighters/
AF already flies a lot of “drones” but they prefer to call them Remotely Piloted Aircraft or Unmanned Air Systems.
Cheers
Tty:
We already have autonomous drone fighter aircraft. They’re called “guided missiles”.
“I’ll bet the efficiency..below …” directly powering with the jet engine. You would win that bet but you wouldn’t need all th3 weight and mechanical that goes with an aero engine.
Think (but try not to think while airborne) Prius! If I were the pilot I would want the generator running from takeoff. No doubt they would make use of the “waste thrust” left over from the generator turbine.
An airplane with FANTASTICALLY heavy fuel tanks? The beauty of a liquid fueled aircraft is that it gets progressively lighter and more efficient as you go . . . . If only this money and effort were to be spent on “the Children”. God, the stupidity here is unfathomable.
Turbine engine failures are as common as common sense from Progressive Democrats and Bath Salts – Intoxicated Street People.
Indeed. Take the PT6, it now can go 2000 hrs to HSI and 6,000 hrs to Overhaul, for it to be certified for that the TBF has to be a lot more than 6,000 hrs.
They are not thinking of using those batteries that spontaneously combust when used in cars are they?
Umm, yes, I should think that Li-ion batteries will be used. Remember, it is only rarely that thermal runaways happen. Just as long as you don’t try to charge the batteries in subzero temperatures. Which by the way means that they will have to be kept warm when flying at altitude, Fortunately you can divert some of the compressed air from the turbine for heating both batteries and passengers. So you had better always keeping it running at altitude.
The electric engines have quite small losses, so does not produce much waste heat.
For airline crashes, we want far more than just rare. We want insignificant design issues. Li-Ion is a significant design issue.
I seem to recall NASA decided to go green on the foam that covered the tanks on the shuttle, that’s when much much more ‘foam shedding’ happened during launch. One of those foam piece hit a wing, and you probably can still find pieces of Columbia in Texas if you look hard.
That one, still makes me angry as they had a right to use the foam they were using and they knew the new Green Friendly foam was worse. I still want the NASA head who approved that found, shamed, maybe even charged. Because people died from Ideology where it wasn’t to be.
Same with the Challenger, launching after too much cold was a political decision to get Christy MacAuliffe in space. The minute Morton Thiokol said no, it should have been over. The top person that heard that should have also been fired or charged.
“Fortunately you can divert some of the compressed air from the turbine for heating both batteries and passengers”
On a conventional jet/turbofan engine that is called “bleed air”, and is taken from the compressor stage. For this proposed aircraft to be capable of purely electric flight it will have “ducted fan” propulsion (as commonly used on large model aircraft now). These are high power inverter controlled electric motors driving a fan just like that found on the front of any conventional engine, so there won’t be any bleed air!
“The electric engines have quite small losses, so does not produce much waste heat”
Maybe, and it could be used, but the motors and/or inverters would (probably) need liquid cooling to cope with full power climbing. So this could be a source of cabin and battery pack heating – until it’s time for descent, when the motors will be shut down until the final stages of approach. What keeps everything warm then – more precious battery power? The whole concept is preposterous…
I think air cooling would work. Liquid cooling in aircraft is a first class nuisance. It is heavy, complicated, vulnerable, requires draggy radiators and is prone to catastrophic failure through coolant loss.
Dave,
The bleed air would be taken from the jet turbine that is powering the generator. Of course that greatly reduces its power generation capability (less air into the combustion thus limiting maximum fuel dump). APUs have been used in this way for years though.
“requires draggy radiators”
If properly designed, the radiators can create thrust.
The Meredith effect is a phenomenon whereby the aerodynamic drag produced by a cooling radiator may be offset by careful design of the cooling duct such that useful thrust is produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect
hangar.
Yes, a hangar will probably be needed in winter. While you can quite safely discharge a Li-ion battery even when it is very cold you will lose a lot of capacity.
yup. heated and insulated hangar that loses all its heat when you move a plane in or out.
Not necessarily. Could plug it in with an electric heater maintaining temperature in the battery compartment.
“….would seat up to 12 passengers and be powered by two electric motors, dramatically reducing the travel time and cost of trips under 1,000 miles (1,600 km).”
Really? On what planet?
I’d like to know what mathematical gymnastics they had to do to come up with that claim.
ooh… make the batteries quick change items: open a panel, slide out the dead batteries, slide in the charged batteries just before flight. Could be made faster than refueling.
(not advocating this by the way, short of a very compact nuclear reactor powering electric motors, I can see no path forward that will make this practical)
Sliding massive batteries in and out while simultaneously carrying out conventional fuelling might have its exciting moments.
Bruce:
Their plan involves using many small airports currently mostly idle as feeders into major airports for the long distance hops. Replaces driving from Dubuque, IA to Moliine, IL and similar legs. I’m not sure how much total time they’re going to save, particilarly when the TSA gets involved at all those small airports …
Sure. And we all know that there are lots and lots of unused slots at those major airports for these small feederliners. Particularly at rush hours.
Though they may be counting on getting preferential treatment for being (bogus) fossil-free.
Some uber-rich Billionaire Liberal would still buy it just for the virtue signalling factor. Which BTW is the same reason LAPD went oand bought all those BMW EVs they don’t use.
Maybe, one day, with ‘solar skin’ and a ground based energy delivery system (microwave?) plus a little generator plus assisted ‘launch…Let’s not sell engineering short.
in the summer of 1957 I worked as a logger in Jarvis inlet, British Columbia, famous for its clear cut being one of the few mighty works of man readily visible from outer space! In an argument in camp I made the most wonderful prediction, unfortunately unrecorded. This was pre sputnik and during the time of work on long range missiles. I said that this work on missiles will lead to space travel and the first trip would be to land on the moon and return. The mess hall burst into laughter and I was the butt of many goodhearted jokes in the ensuing weeks in the camp, 8n the bush and at the poker table. They nailed me down on when: easily in all your lifetimes – even I was surprised it was 12 years later.
Since, as an engineer, I’ve been more bold than average in my faith in the field. You can guess what my prediction is on practical electric flight. There is a world of energy in a handful of dirt.
Putting a heavy weight, low energy battery on a plane must be great for reducing emissions ;)))
Btw. to provide an A380 with intercontinental range it would require a battery of about 8.000tons. I doubt one could get that airborne..
The real climate damages are from construction workers getting killed putting up or maintaining windmills, at least in MN, IO and SD while building: ice gets inside the tower and as a worker is climbing up the inside it falls and kills them.
And now, when these will start crashing….
and all the birds, bats, killed and burnt.
So the battery can take it 100 miles, and you need fossil fuel to take you another 600. You at best save 17% of fuel, but how much less efficient is your fossil fuel portion of the trip due to the weight of the battery? You might be in a net loss position.
My experience with hybrid vehicles was the overall improvement in efficiency, instead of dispersing kinetic energy to heat in the brakes it was recycled via the battery. The range of the vehicle for a tank of fuel increased (had a smaller tank therefore lower weight). So when climbing in a plane you’d be using both fuel and electricity but when descending you’d be recharging the battery. The key would be to balance the weight of the electric system with the reduction in the mass of fuel, it will be interesting to see if they can achieve it. You know that like with the hybrid car, once it’s done once everyone will be doing it. All the car companies were looking into hybrids but it was far in the future, then to everyone’s surprise Toyota produced the Prius!
I recall talking with Prof. ‘Med’ Thring about combustion efficiency in the mid-70s and he said “Yes Phil. you can improve the efficiency a little bit but you can make bigger improvements overall if you incorporate regenerative braking”. Of course then everything was mechanically controlled and carburetted and the concept of the modern computerized engine was just a dream (my data acquisition computer was a PDP8 with 4k memory!) About 30 years later it became a reality, both improved combustion efficiency and regen braking.
Phil:
Most of the improvement in hybrids comes because the IC engine uses the Atkinson cycle instead of the Otto cycle — basically the expansion ratio is higher than the compression ratio, pulling more heat and energy out of the fuel combustion. Lower power density than the Otto cycle but higher thermodynamic efficiency. The electric motor makes up for the lack of torque from the IC engine for burst demand. I have a Toyota Avalon hybrid and love it. I get 650+ miles to a full tank at 39 MPG and give up nothing for it other than some trunk space.
I’m not sure that you will gain much on the descent. Conventional aircraft use flight idle power during the descent and so regain a fair proportion of their energy of position as range in what is really a powered glide. This aircraft supposedly will stop the turbine engine during descent and windmill the fans to recharge the battery. However power for avionics, cabine pressurization and heating and hydraulics will still be needed so the net may not be that big. Windmilling engines will also mean more drag and therefore a shorter and steeper descent than a conventional aircraft (which might not sit well with ground control). Once you get close to the airport, start maneuvring and go into a high-lift configuration, turbine engine restart and full power is of course needed. A failed re-start would be a serious emergency.
Me, I would rather feather the fans to minimize drag, run the turbine at flight idle for auxiliary power and to recharge batteries and do a conventional descent. Safer and probably not much less efficient.
But the regeneration phase really doesn’t accomplish anything except save on the recharge time when you land. In terms of fossil fuel use it saves you nothing.
This hybrid BizJet is sorta like Moonbeam’s High Speed Choo-Choo from Fresno to Bakersfield. It may kinda work, but who would need it? or want to deal with the many logistical problems of using it?
And then there is this:-
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2017/28-11-2017-airbus-rr-and-siemens-team-up-for-electric-future.aspx
I rather doubt this will end up in Jay Leno’s garage.
https://youtu.be/Vr3dX2EClDg
Very nice music. Reminds me of a funeral march.
Curious George: “Very.nice music.”
I’ve never been to a funeral march so can’t relate. Was there some point besides your musical preferences?
This is not a passenger plane. It is a glorified glider. Do you have data on glider safety?
“Do you have data on glider safety?”
Do you? Safety wasn’t the point in posting the video. The video shows these airplanes traveling a considerable distance to a specific destination, landing safely, taking off under their own power, and returning to their start point. That isn’t something an unpowered glider can do.
Many glider accidents (and, yes, it can be dangerous, especially since glider pilots don’t necessarily have much training) occur when towing the glider to get it airborne.
Given a suitable landing area, any winged aircraft can land without power. When landing, the space shuttle–a “passenger plane”–was also a “glorified glider.”
This thread is about a mass-production of electric planes. We can probably agree that gliders are not the way to go.
Some thermal power was involved too no doubt.
These look like powered gliders, so I suppose the flights could have been planned to take advantage of thermals in the Alps.
Electric does not necessarily mean battery-powered. Fuel cells are not yet quite there, but they hold a great promise – much better fuel efficiency compared to internal combustion engines. A fuel cell breathes air, while a battery has to carry an equivalent of oxygen inside, making it much heavier.
Fuel cells technically only work with hydrogen. Methane ones strip the hydrogen from the carbon before processing the fuel. I don’t believe they work effectively with complex.liquid fuels – like jet fuel. Jet fuel isn’t like gasoline either where there is basically one octane molecule in the mix. Jet fuel is a collection of multisized carbon chains that in agregate exibit certain characteristics – so I imagine it would be hard to tune some catelist to strip the hydrogen.
My dream is a fuel cell powered by C2H5OH.
Sadly, there are significant engineering problems before we have reliable fuel cells. But once solved, that will change the game.
What happened to propane fuel cells? Are they currently too inefficient?
How do federal subsidies for fuel cell research compare with federal subsidies for climate catastrophe warnings?
Answering my own question, propane fuel cells are being used in UAVs by the U.S. military:
“The high energy density of propane results in a significant tactical advantage for the D350 relative to rechargeable batteries. Example: 11 BB-2590 batteries weighing 25 pounds will produce 2.2kWh of energy, while a D350 and 13 pounds of propane, also weighing 25 pounds, will produce 13kWh of energy!”
https://www.ultra-fuelcells.com/Products