Flying cars, sustainability, climate, and all that…

From the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN and the department of “where the heck is that flying car promised 50 years ago?” department.

A Jetsons future? Assessing the role of flying cars in sustainable mobility

ANN ARBOR–In the 1960s animated sitcom The Jetsons, George Jetson commutes to work in his family-size flying car, which miraculously transforms into a briefcase at the end of the trip.


Artistic rendering of an electric vertical takeoff and landing taxi cruising through an urban center. CREDIT Dave Brenner/University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability

A new study of the environmental sustainability impacts of flying cars, formally known as electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, or VTOLs, finds that they wouldn’t be suitable for a Jetsons-style short commute.

However, VTOLs–which combine the convenience of vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter with the efficient aerodynamic flight of an airplane–could play a niche role in sustainable mobility for longer trips, according to the study, scheduled for publication April 9 in Nature Communications. Several companies around the world are developing VTOL prototypes.

Flying cars would be especially valuable in congested cities, or in places where there are geographical constraints, as part of a ride-share taxi service, according to study authors from the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems and from Ford Motor Co.

“To me, it was very surprising to see that VTOLs were competitive with regard to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in certain scenarios,” said Gregory Keoleian, senior author of the study and director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at U-M’s School for Environment and Sustainability.

“VTOLs with full occupancy could outperform ground-based cars for trips from San Francisco to San Jose or from Detroit to Cleveland, for example,” he said.

The U-M-Ford study, the first comprehensive sustainability assessment of VTOLs, looked at the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and time savings of VTOLs compared to ground-based passenger cars. Although VTOLs produce zero emissions during flight, their batteries require electricity generated at power plants.

The researchers found that for trips of 100 kilometers (62 miles), a fully loaded VTOL carrying a pilot and three passengers had lower greenhouse gas emissions than ground-based cars with an average vehicle occupancy of 1.54. Emissions tied to the VTOL were 52 percent lower than gasoline vehicles and 6 percent lower than battery-electric vehicles.

Akshat Kasliwal, first author of the study and a graduate student at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability, said the findings can help guide the sustainable deployment of an emerging mobility system prior to its commercialization.

“With these VTOLs, there is an opportunity to mutually align the sustainability and business cases,” Kasliwal said. “Not only is high passenger occupancy better for emissions, it also favors the economics of flying cars. Further, consumers could be incentivized to share trips, given the significant time savings from flying versus driving.”

In the coming decades, the global transportation sector faces the challenge of meeting the growing demand for convenient passenger mobility while reducing congestion, improving safety and mitigating climate change.

Electric vehicles and automated driving may contribute to some of those goals but are limited by congestion on existing roadways. VTOLs could potentially overcome some of those limitations by enabling piloted taxi services or other urban and regional aerial travel services.

Several aerospace corporations and startup companies–Airbus, Boeing, Joby Aviation and Lilium, for example–and agencies such as NASA have developed VTOL prototypes. One critical efficiency enabler for these aircraft is distributed electric propulsion, or DEP, which involves the use of several small, electrically driven propulsors.

The U-M and Ford researchers used publicly available information from these sources and others to create a physics-based model that computes energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for electric VTOLs.

“Our model represents general trends in the VTOL space and uses parameters from multiple studies and aircraft designs to specify weight, lift-to-drag ratio and battery-specific energy,” said Noah Furbush, study co-author and a master’s student at the U-M College of Engineering.

“In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the bounds of these parameters, alongside other factors such as grid carbon intensity and wind speed,” said Furbush, who is also a member of the U-M football team.

The study began while Kasliwal and Furbush were summer interns at Ford. The work continued when the students returned to Ann Arbor, with the help of a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance grant.

The researchers analyzed primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions during the five phases of VTOL flight: takeoff hover, climb, cruise, descent and landing hover. These aircraft use a lot of energy during takeoff and climb but are relatively efficient during cruise phase, traveling at 150 mph. As a result, VTOLs are most energy efficient on long trips, when the cruise phase dominates the total flight miles.

But for shorter trips–anything less than 35 kilometers (22 miles)–single-occupant internal-combustion-engine vehicles used less energy and produced fewer greenhouse gas emissions than single-occupant VTOLs. That’s an important consideration because the average ground-based vehicle commute is only about 17 kilometers (11 miles).

“As a result, the trips where VTOLs are more sustainable than gasoline cars only make up a small fraction of total annual vehicle-miles traveled on the ground,” said study co-author Jim Gawron, a graduate student at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and the Ross School of Business. “Consequently, VTOLs will be limited in their contribution and role in a sustainable mobility system.”

Not surprisingly, the VTOL completed the base-case trip of 100 kilometers much faster than ground-based vehicles. A point-to-point VTOL flight path, coupled with higher speeds, resulted in time savings of about 80 percent relative to ground-based vehicles.

“Electrification of aircraft, in general, is expected to fundamentally change the aerospace industry in the near future,” Furbush said.

The study’s authors note that many other questions need to be addressed to assess the viability of VTOLs, including cost, noise and societal and consumer acceptance.

###

Other authors of the Nature Communications paper are from Ford’s Research and Innovation Center in Dearborn: James McBride, Timothy Wallington, Robert De Kleine and Hyung Chul Kim.

The Nature Communications paper is titled “Role of flying cars in sustainable mobility.” DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09426-0. Once it is published, the paper will be available at http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09426-0.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

116 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 11, 2019 7:51 am

“The U-M and Ford researchers used publicly available information from these sources and others to create a physics-based model that computes energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for electric VTOLs.

Our model represents general trends in the VTOL space and uses parameters from multiple studies and aircraft designs to specify weight, lift-to-drag ratio and battery-specific energy,” said Noah Furbush, study co-author and a master’s student at the U-M College of Engineering.

“In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the bounds of these parameters, alongside other factors such as grid carbon intensity and wind speed,” said Furbush, who is also a member of the U-M football team.

Another self satisfaction fantasy with sufficient parameters to guarantee desired results and popsci fame and glory.

Reply to  ATheoK
April 11, 2019 8:07 am

Grid carbon intensity? Where do they come up w/that crap?

Patrick MJD
April 11, 2019 8:02 am

It’s much much safer to be on the ground when you run out of fuel or when the engine fails.

icisil
April 11, 2019 8:06 am

““Electrification of aircraft, in general, is expected to fundamentally change the aerospace industry in the near future,” Furbush said.”

Yeah, sure it will. Just like rubber bands will.

April 11, 2019 8:07 am

In the world of theory, everything is possible and nearly free. Reality has an unpleasant habit of correcting such wishful thinking.

icisil
April 11, 2019 8:10 am

Screw flying cars. I want one of these. Amphibious 4-wheeler would be the bomb on the Outer Banks.

Dave Fair
April 11, 2019 8:30 am

Did anyone notice that this and similar schemes are exact analogues of the current renewables scam? Trillions of dollars are now wasted on pie-in-the-sky ‘modeling’ real systems that should never have gotten beyond the grad student study phase.

PeterGB
April 11, 2019 8:31 am

Why did he leave it until the end of the article to write “Electrification of aircraft, in general, is expected to fundamentally change the aerospace industry in the near future” ?

If he had only put it at the beginning of the article I wouldn’t have wasted five minutes of my life reading the rest.

Todd Hamor
April 11, 2019 8:47 am

Like I am going to believe anything written by A**hat, er Akshat and Furbush?? Is this paper for real?

Wharfplank
April 11, 2019 9:06 am

For Pete’s sake we already have VTOLs … they’re called helicopters. So instead of 2 LAPD choppers and 3 networks up in the sky over LA there will be 50,000? All going in different directions?

April 11, 2019 9:07 am

You could imagine the damage a hacker or terrorist could do if they hacked into an autonomous aircraft!!

Self driving cars can be ‘herded’ into danger.

gmak
April 11, 2019 9:22 am

Sounds like this would be a wet dream for anyone who wanted to be a terrorist and mimic 9/11, no on a personal scale, no?

Kenji
April 11, 2019 10:00 am

So, flying automobiles are more efficient and generate less Co2 because of no traffic lights, and shorter distances from A to B. Which reminds me of something I’ve NEVER heard the CAGWists ever suggest … timing controls of stop lights. We could save billions of tons of wasted petrol burning if we simply added sensors and controls to traffic lights, allowing the most efficient timing and sequencing of stop lights based on traffic demand … not a simple rotation timing. Yes, I know we have done this to some limited extent … but we could go much further and much more sophisticated.

Virtually EVERY high rise building has an array of lighting and heating controls systems which have saved tons of Co2 and $$. Why aren’t we doing the same with traffic signals. We could dramatically reduce the start-stop inefficiency of motoring and help the air quality at the same time.

The reason the “greens” have never embraced this idea? Because they HATE the automobile. They HATE doing anything to help drivers. They HATE the FREEDOM of the automobile. They HATE your freedom.

Editor
April 11, 2019 10:08 am

I’m afraid that this just represents the same-old/same-old. We have the technology almost ready but…..fifty years later, we have it again.

I like having the “flying family car” as an ever elusive dream — and it has not failed me yet.

Berndt Koch
April 11, 2019 10:20 am

The birds! the birds! why won’t anyone think of the birds!

PeterGB
Reply to  Berndt Koch
April 11, 2019 11:55 am

What birds, Berndt? The windmills will have eliminated them all by then.

Berndt Koch
April 11, 2019 10:22 am

It would be cool to run one of these on 4th July when the fireworks go off.. you could replicate your Grandpa’s raid on Dresden!

John Endicott
April 11, 2019 11:01 am

Flying cars? just take your existing car and get a hover conversion at Goldie Wilson Hover Conversion Systems. They’ve been in business at least since 2015! Why you’re at it, get a Mr. Fusion installed, it easily supplies 1.21 gigawatts of energy. 😉

Sara
April 11, 2019 12:14 pm

Won’t be marketable until functional antigravity systems are available. Until then, you’ll just have to settle for remote-controlled drones, helicopters, and those wingsuit things.

April 11, 2019 3:03 pm

moller m400, after 40 years and 100 million $ of development, FINALLY hovered in 2003 and still none actually sold.
moller filed bankruptcy protection few years later.

April 11, 2019 3:22 pm

Hopeless. For people commenting on a science and engineering site – just hopeless.
The point of VTOL is vertical TAKEOFF and LANDING. Some of these projects don’t get that either but all the hand wringing about vertical flight efficiency forgets that it will be for a maximum of a couple of minutes per flight.
Use a conventional engine and prop for horizontal wingborne flight.
The design tradeoffs are good. Much smaller wing as it isn’t sized for takeoff and landing, just for cruise. Smaller, lighter, landing gear as it isn’t going to be thrown at the ground at high rates of descent and high horizontal velocity. Much lighter airframe. Batteries only need to be small as only used for a couple of minutes per flight.
Autopilot/autonomous is way easier in a airplane than a car. As is collision avoidance. 3 dimensions helps. Drones are already doing it.
Certification? Look up Part 21 Experimental. A homebuilt kit will do it with next to no issues. (C’mon EAA’ers)
The autonomous all electric vehicles won’t cut it but the R&D will give us the motors, controllers batteries and other systems for a nice VTOL two seat homebuilt kit. Airplanes are fast and fun but are limited by needing large pieces of land called airports. Helicopters are horribly complex and expensive and cruise L/D is so poor that range is limited.
Safety enhanced, as if bad weather is encountered, find a small space and land. Same for engine failure of cruise propulsion. Use batteries for last couple of hundred feet in VTOL mode.
Time for aviation 2.0 where airplanes are freed from large airports and th whole activity is dragged out of the 20th Century. Light aircraft haven’t advanced in over 80 years. See Messerschmitt 108 4 seat touring aircraft.

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 11, 2019 4:23 pm

Your concept of using the rotors for vertical takeoff and landing, and wings and normal propulsion for flight, was tried many, many decades ago by Fairey, with the Rotodyne. There were some serious technical problems, so no market success. Then there was the tilt-wing concept. Again, technical problems that meant no production. The there was the tilt-rotor – the NACA – Bell Helicopter XV-3, the NASA – Bell Helicopter XV-15, and the USAF / USMC / USN V-22 Osprey, in all its variants. Bell and Agusta talked about a commercial variant, but it still isn’t flying. If you think a helicopter is complicated, each of these other concepts are much more complicated. By the V-22, the tilt-rotor became practical, but I doubt we’ll see a commercial version anytime soon.

Simon McCauley
April 11, 2019 4:02 pm

It’s great to see so much skepticism on a skeptical site, but sometimes we need to be skeptical of our own skepticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Hm-rmLQcU

Foyle
April 11, 2019 5:55 pm

Multiple well financed firms (Joby, Airbus, Lillium) are flying evtol prototypes now, with around 80 different other organisations developing evtol craft and something like $2 Billion invested to date. Typically 2-300km range, 2-300km/hr, 2-5 passengers. Most aiming for initially piloted, but working to go autonomous as soon as regulators allow (it’s easier than autonomous cars). They are (in some cases) nearly as quiet as a cars when passing by and similar to a lawnmower when landing, and have redundant safety systems to ensure safe landings after any failure. For commuters autonomous systems will allow smaller more efficient, quieter and safer 1 person craft.

They weigh a little less than a car – 3-400kg per passenger, and if winged use less energy than a car to travel the same distance (particularly as can use direct routes) and at speeds high enough to make them relatively insensitive to wind. Takeoff and landing energy will quickly reduce as greater confidence is developed in the autopilots (really only 5-10 seconds of powered lift is needed). While short catapults and elevated landing pads are an option for even quieter safer and more efficient urban performance.

Batteries are still the big issue, but rapid increase in battery production worldwide and industry realisation that cars and trucks are going battery electric in next 2 decades (will be cheaper) means that there is enormous growth in battery research, and their will inevitably be huge leaps in performance. 260Wh/kg in Model 3 now, several low volume producers at 450-500Wh, and one just announced 1000Wh/kg that is supposedly being tested in the field now. So batteries are good enough now, and will get better making the planes even lighter and more efficient.

The huge benefit is that they let people live extra-urban in cheaper houses. Devaluing cities and saving vast amounts of money spent on building and maintaining high density urban infrastructure (motorways, railways, bridges etc). Everyone can live in villages and commute to high intensity industries or workplaces in 10’s of minutes. High speeds means only about 10% of traffic in sky at any time compared to cars and the sky is really really big. If cities are no longer necessary far future air traffic is never going to be a big problem.

rah
April 11, 2019 8:36 pm

I’m 63 years old and been hearing about our future with flying cars coming as the standard form of individual/family transportation for long as I can remember and it ain’t happened. I’m pretty sure that if I live to see 100, it still won’t have happened.

Craig from Oz
April 11, 2019 9:08 pm

We will get fusion first.

Let me tell you a short yet related story.

Two weeks ago while driving to work the sensors in my car decided there was air (or something) in the fuel lines and decided that to protect my diesel pump from damage the best course of action was to shut off the engine.

Driving at about 70kph and first thing I noticed was the steering suddenly got heavier.

Fortunately I had the momentum and space to pull over onto the shoulder safely, switch everything off, wonder what just happened and restart the car.

(then “We have re-set your sensors. Only $88 today. Cash or card?”)

So that was in my conventional ‘road’ car.

How, in my VTOL Flying Car… Well if I was lucky I would still (7 days later) be filling in incident reports. If I was unlucky you would all be now making comments about the article reporting how ANOTHER VTOL flying car suffered a fatal accident in Australia.

VTOL will not be allowed to operate in ‘Western Countries’ purely from a safety view in our lifetimes. Some tin pot backwater where life is cheap? Maybe. But over a Western urban area? Tell em their dreaming.

Steve
April 12, 2019 4:40 pm

Right … and what happens to all these lovely, sustainable electric VTOL taxis when the next “bomb cyclone” wanders in? Sheesh …

Steve S
April 12, 2019 8:05 pm

Reminds me of this from Tim Wilson. Also, flying is highly weather is dependent, especially with light aircraft at low altitude.
https://youtu.be/r1SCu9yiBlo