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.
Time to remember the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program (1946) and reconsider Thorium powered flight?
Toto:
How many rural runways could handle the weight of a nuclear powered aircraft? Could the cost be recouped from pissant fares for what is basically an airborne taxi ride?
Given cheap electricity and short hops, it’s possible inexpensive-to-build-and-maintain electric-motored “glorified gliders” could be economically feasible and safer than traveling public roadways.
Here’s your practical Green power source for aircraft: pedal power!
http://vintagesodamachines.com/PedalCar/Airplane_Corsair.jpg
Has also been tried, many times, but with rather limited success:
If you really want to improve aircraft fuel efficiency then the Unducted Fan (UDF) “Propfan” engine is the way to go. There was a fair amount of development work done whe oil prices were high back in the eighties, but it was discontinued when fuel prices dropped back. An UDF engine can have at least 30% better fuel efficiency than a turbofan. It has drawbacks of course, it is noisy, there is more vibration on board and last but not least, it seems quite impossible to convince the public that aircraft with “propellers” aren’t old and dangerous.
The simple way to reduce emissions is to ban air travel.
Why is this never suggested? Environmentalists are among the heaviest users of airlines and the biggest polluters.
In Sweden this is a favorite demand of the greenies, everybody is to travel by railway (except possibly politicians and environmentalists). However in country the size of the USA it is probably too obviously impractical even for greenies. For one thing a railway to Hawaii will probably be rather expensive.
Jerry Brown just might propose it …
Carrying the weight of a battery for a long flight makes even less sense if you have to also lug along the weight of fuel plus an FF engine in case the battery runs out.
However, I could see electric powered hover craft being used for local emergency medical flights. It would shave off the time needed to start up a turbine or IC engine and eliminate the need to travel to a nearby airport for refueling, (assuming battery packs can be charged and swapped out on the roof of a hospital).
Something like …
One huge problem with this idea: Conventionally-fueled aircraft burn off their fuel as they travel, thus reducing the gross weight of the aircraft and becoming more efficient over the course of the flight as weight decreases. Commercial aircraft also tend to have landing gear that is stressed only for takeoff at max gross weight (with full fuel), but not for landing at that weight (thus why aircraft that make emergency returns to the departure airport usually burn off fuel first, or dump it if they have that capability installed).
A battery-powered aircraft would have to carry the full weight of its “fuel”, the batteries, all the time. And that’s not to mention hybrid configurations, as in this article, that would have to carry batteries, an alternate APU, and jet fuel for the APU. The fact that the gross weight would therefore never change, at least in a pure electric aircraft, means that the aircraft is always having to generate extra lift to carry the extra weight, which is very inefficient. It also means that the landing gear has to be designed to withstand landing at max gross weight without collapsing, which requires the gear to be stronger and thus heavier, further decreasing efficiency.
That’s all another way of saying, “This is a really stupid idea.”
“A battery-powered aircraft would have to carry the full weight of its “fuel””
Not necessarily, you could have it running on small batteries that only run a short time then throw the expended ones out the window as you go. Don’t laugh, birds poop in flight. 🙂
http://autovolts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SNL-mercedes-AA-class-duracel-battery-ad-julia-louis-dreyfus-3-1.jpg
Good thinking. Might even be able to build recycling centers along air routes, and hire people to drive around with metal detectors collecting the spent batteries for recycling. Just imagine all the new green jobs!
“Recycling ponds.” See above.
I expand on your comment below.
This can’t improve efficiency like a hybrid can – by recovering energy lost thru braking,
so the question becomes: where is the efficiency/cost gain? Perhaps electric motors, which last forever and require no maintenance, is where the efficiency comes from. But they state that the range extender power generator is a jet engine. More knowledge required – there must be some reason for doing this. I’m guessing it’s in the use of electric motors to drive the fans.
The inmates are in charge of the institution.
Do the math: Gulfstream G450 11 passengers total Horsepower = 42,615.38 @500kn
Where is the 6,620 pound electric motor that can produce that horsepower rating? For the 5,000 mile range there is 29,500 pounds of fuel, for 1,000 miles make that 5,900 pounds.
And just how much do the batteries weigh?
And this thing will need fuel to power a real engine to keep the batteries charged?
A lot of extra weight.
Someone upthread mentioned hybrid cars being useful for intercity driving because of all the stopping and starting.
Is that what you want for a plane?
If some want to invest their own money (no taxpayer cash) to develop this plane, fine. Have at it.
I hope you make a million. Just don’t use the taxpayers’ billion to do so.
Take two aspirin and call me when they get 130K BTU batteries in the volume and weight of a gallon of fuel.
Liquid hydrogen is best choice. That is why military using it for drones. Much longer fly time.
Liquid hydrogen has very low energy content per volume unit. A long-range hydrogen powered aircraft would have to be extremely large, several times bigger than a 747 or A380.
Issue of takeoff and landing weight is critical. Beauty of combustion engine is that fuel mass is consumed without residue, aircraft gets lighter as it goes, aircraft becomes more efficient with every shed pound, and landing weight is much less than takeoff weight. Batteries do not get lighter as they discharge. Electric aircraft design is thus limited by landing weight unless batteries are going to be jettisoned. Making a hybrid propulsion system just consumes more of the weight budget with duplicative and unnecessarily complex machinery.
The right place for electric is for distributed propulsion for VTOL. I think it is possible to build a small two seat VTOL aircraft that uses a piston engine for forward flight and a electric motors driven by alternator on the engine for VTOL with backup batteries if the piston fails.
Making it as an Experimental homebuilt avoids a bunch of regulatory issues.
I would say “between +12 and -12.”
Is it 100 miles, downhill, with a tailwind or somewhere there are zero air currents, no air temp changes, and completely flat terrain? Does it change to 10 miles under…um…normal weather conditions?
AND, after 100 miles, when the gas fueled engine kicks in, does that engine do double duty and fly the plane WHILE charging the batteries, or does the plane just “glide” until the batteries are full again?
Are Boeing and JetBlue headquartered in legalized marijuana states? Just curious…
Have drop batteries with wings, on the aircraft wings and once cruising altitude is reached, or take-off is complete, drop the batteries and let them glide back to the charging point.