Electric Aircraft On the Horizon

French aeronautics firm Airbus is working on the next generation in aviation; the electric-powered aircraft. Airbus is better known for its really, really large aircraft, but is starting small in this new venture electric aircraft known as the E-FAN.

Maybe a hybrid aircraft where 1% is electric-powered but certainly not a fully electric-powered aircraft. The batteries required to do that would cause the plane to go over max weight capacity by around 100,000%.

shade91 said:

Maybe a hybrid aircraft where 1% is electric-powered but certainly not a fully electric-powered aircraft. The batteries required to do that would cause the plane to go over max weight capacity by around 100,000%.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing -- I watched the video and it looks like they have a working prototype. (single seater)

I agree though, unless battery tech goes another lightyear or two into the future I don't see this being too great of a thing right now outside of hobby type stuff.

Personally I'd love all electric cars, we have a huge infrastructure problem to solve first though, not to mention the battery tech itself. Until I can go 400 - 500 miles on a charge, and get a full recharge or swap in 5 minutes, I (and lots of others) won't really care.

Just imagine the hundreds of billions we've wasted on countries that hate us, we could be rocking a state of the art power distribution grid as well as a kick ass high speed high capacity network (as well as a far lower unemployment rate).... but nope we had to try and bring peace to a part of the world that's been fighting over nothing for the past few centuries.

Top speed is 136mph, capacity of charge is 30 minutes and taxiing and take off will eat 5 to 10 minutes so that leaves you with 15 to 29 minutes flight time after factoring in landing approach and taxiing on the landing field. It's going to be nothing more than a curiosity for monied pilots.

There's not going to be a huge need for 30 to 40 knot flights unless it's for some rich dude to fly from his estate to the private strip his fortune 500 company runs. As has been pointed out, until there's a quantum leap in battery tech or a hybrid variant available, it will remain nothing but a large scale toy.

Ugh, 15 to 20 minutes

batteries would be a brain dead idea, but 100 feet of capacitors 5 feet wide is whole hell of a lot of juice. Most planes are basically electric systems with jet fuel being used to spin the props creating juice at the same time. Jets are different but if the plane was designed to be fly by wire and used a converted wankle engine, you could have a plane that could fly through higher crosswinds due to higher torque. Most DC 10 are basically pistons. you just need to match the compression ratio of hydrocarbons without doing something covered by a patent owned by the gas companies.

If you really want to get crazy, put a small pebble bed reactor, electromagnetic pistons, and you could probably fly around the world a couple times with out refueling. My guess if you would run out of food and water first.

collegeboy69us said:

I was thinking the same thing -- I watched the video and it looks like they have a working prototype. (single seater)

I agree though, unless battery tech goes another lightyear or two into the future I don't see this being too great of a thing right now outside of hobby type stuff.

Personally I'd love all electric cars, we have a huge infrastructure problem to solve first though, not to mention the battery tech itself. Until I can go 400 - 500 miles on a charge, and get a full recharge or swap in 5 minutes, I (and lots of others) won't really care.

Just imagine the hundreds of billions we've wasted on countries that hate us, we could be rocking a state of the art power distribution grid as well as a kick ass high speed high capacity network (as well as a far lower unemployment rate).... but nope we had to try and bring peace to a part of the world that's been fighting over nothing for the past few centuries.

Click to expand...

It's basically a glider with two fans. Gliders are extremely efficient as is, so I assume they'd start with those.

But yeah, I can see a hybrid. Standard jet for take-off / landing and getting to cruise altitude. Then the primary power comes from electric which is powered by the electricity off the turbines.

Kinda like a hybrid car. City driving is done with electric, highway is done with gas.

Conventional jet engines are capable of generating far more electrical energy than today's planes could ever use. A better option would be have a single engine recessed into the body (to cut down on drag) to act like a generator with multiple electric turbines running off that power. It would require a drastically different body design than today's flying tubes, but I think that would be a good next step.

Personally I would prefer they explore more high velocity options ... being able to go from Dallas to Tokyo or Hong Kong in a few hours would be a paradigm shift in travel

Grahamkracka said:

Conventional jet engines are capable of generating far more electrical energy than today's planes could ever use. A better option would be have a single engine recessed into the body (to cut down on drag) to act like a generator with multiple electric turbines running off that power. It would require a drastically different body design than today's flying tubes, but I think that would be a good next step.

Click to expand...

Though when I say jet engine, I am generally referring to gas turbines..of which jet engine is a type of. It would be better to use a conventional power generating type of turbine in a recessed design like that.

Ok so this brings up some important things that need to be stated.

At present, all Electric vehicles air or land are honestly just nothing more than a proof of concept, air more so.Frankly anyone who buys something like this and doesn't fully understand that is a Fool. That isn't to say buying it isn't worthwhile if you want to support it, but that is it. This notion that you are somehow "saving the planet" is infantile at best, delusional at worst. The reason boils down to the same thing that comes up in every single all EV discussion; Batteries. The fact is Batteries are just far too heavy and have far too little capacity. At Present the only "viable and Marketable" EV technology is going to be that which combines present day efficiency of a modern IC engine with electric, be it a hybrid type system where the Ic both charges and adds additional power, or where the Ic engine is strictly part of the charging system. This will remain true until batteries take a huge leap forward.

Now before anyone gets on here herp derping about the Tesla and Leaf, those only prove what I am saying. Their range is flatly too short, the areas you can use them in limited and recharging is time consuming for mass consumer consumption. That doesn't mean they don't work, just that for the "average" user they are far too restrictive. As such they have a very limited "niche" appeal and that will remain true of All EV's until Battery technology changes.

So while it is good to see stuff like this being hammered out in concepts and proving that we can do it once technology catches up. We seriously need a breakthrough in battery technology to even make the idea of electric vehicles (aircraft included) a viable one. Of course when that happens, then we get to have the lovely discussion on our power grid. That should be entertaining because the idiot hippies pushing the all EV agenda don't even realize that Wind/solar and hydro power aren't going to cut it everywhere and they are going to be forced to allow more nuclear. That should be entertaining to watch their heads explode when they all realize they backed themselves into that corner.

Grahamkracka said:

Though when I say jet engine, I am generally referring to gas turbines..of which jet engine is a type of. It would be better to use a conventional power generating type of turbine in a recessed design like that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, a gas turbine connected to an electric generator would work. Most naval vessels and even the M1A1 Abrams are powered this way. Modern locomotive engines use a combination of a diesel-powered electric generator to power them.

Something like this should be able to work up to 40,000 ft in altitude given that most jet turbine engines operate at, near or above altitude already. A gas turbine would be a variation of it and should still be able to be oxygen-fed at high altitudes. Combine that with a modified turbine engine powered by an AC electric motor and it may actually work. Fuel economy could be significantly improved too.

drakken said:

batteries would be a brain dead idea, but 100 feet of capacitors 5 feet wide is whole hell of a lot of juice. Most planes are basically electric systems with jet fuel being used to spin the props creating juice at the same time. Jets are different but if the plane was designed to be fly by wire and used a converted wankle engine, you could have a plane that could fly through higher crosswinds due to higher torque. Most DC 10 are basically pistons. you just need to match the compression ratio of hydrocarbons without doing something covered by a patent owned by the gas companies.

If you really want to get crazy, put a small pebble bed reactor, electromagnetic pistons, and you could probably fly around the world a couple times with out refueling. My guess if you would run out of food and water first.

Click to expand...

Capacitors can *deliver* a whole lot of power, but the total amount of *energy* is far less than a similar volume or weight of batteries. The problem at this point is the same one that electric cars have: the energy density (i.e. amount of potential energy stored per unit volume) of batteries is still an order of magnitude less than that of good ol' fossil fuels.

Or, put another way, this aircraft was built super light (bicycle landing gear!) and had sizeable batteries (don't short 'em out!), and could still only get 30 minutes of flight time. Compare that to commercial jets, which go 15+ hours without refueling (I've been on some of those flights...) and are built much more robustly.

I love the concept of electric planes. But until we get something along the lines of high-power fuel cells, the idea of an electric plane is still impractical.

The US Air Force actually tested a bomber carrying a nuclear reactor a few decades ago. The plane wasn't *powered* by the reactor--they were just testing radiation exposure on the plane and crew for such a concept--but it's technically possible, especially with the developments in lighter, smaller reactors since then.

Why can't they just sell some aftermarket wings for a Tesla?

shade91 said:

Maybe a hybrid aircraft where 1% is electric-powered but certainly not a fully electric-powered aircraft. The batteries required to do that would cause the plane to go over max weight capacity by around 100,000%.

Click to expand...

There are already plenty of electric aircraft, and there are weight savings in that large brushless motors are far lighter than the entirety of the ICE system. The primary issue right now is actually not so much weight but cost. The cost of sufficient batteries just doesn't make economic sense at the moment.

Considering the pace of battery technology though (it wasn't that long ago that we had craptastic nicad batteries as the latest and greatest tech), I could see quite a few aircraft in 20 years going electric.

The first will surely be powered gliders, as they have to carry ballast one way or another in the wing, so it might as well be a tube of batteries with a flip out motor to get itself to altitude.

After that you'll see more single and dual seater hobby aircraft.

The tremendous advantage is that with the right large props, you can drastically reduce noise pollution and for a vehicle used only occasionally the ease of maintenance is wonderful. Stick it on a trickle charger and boom you're done. No oil changes, worries about old gasoline, radiator purging, yada yada. They also tend to be more reliable since they are such simple systems, and there is far less vibration by design which helps the chassis longevity.

The link doesn't work in the OP.

A range of 60 miles at 132 mph. Not even close to reasonable for a private plane. Current aircraft carry more range in the fuel reserves, let alone the normal range.

Heck, my long cross country flight when I got my license was longer than that. The 1970's Cessna 172 I learned in had a range of 700 miles (at 140mph) with a 45 minute fuel reserve.

I used to fly from LWM to ACK and back a couple times a month on about a quarter of a tank. This plane couldn't get me there on a full charge safely. I could fly Boston to DC in an almost 50 year old 172 in 4 hours on a single tank and still have1/3 a tank plus reserve when I landed.

Electric plane? No thanks. Unless I can run a plane with all systems running (Radio, Instrumentation, heater) for a few hundred miles (reasonably useful range for a private aircraft) PLUS a 45 minute reserve, Hell no.

If I recall correctly from back when I was considering EV-ifying my bug...

You need about 2000lbs worth of batteries to move a 1600lbs vehicle 200 miles at 75MPH. I could see it working a lot better with an airplane, especially one that is built from the ground up for it. A twin-engined aircraft weighs about 3600lbs, with a takeoff weight somewhere around 4600lbs. Given a 120 gallon tank, 1000lbs of that is fuel. Replacing the fuel with batteries and the engines with motors, you're looking at a small, but usable range. Fill the cargo with another half ton of batteries, and you could probably hit 150 miles or so for a single person. Granted, you're now at max load... If nothing else, it's a fun thought exercise!

Dekoth-E- said:

Now before anyone gets on here herp derping about the Tesla and Leaf, those only prove what I am saying. Their range is flatly too short, the areas you can use them in limited and recharging is time consuming for mass consumer consumption. That doesn't mean they don't work, just that for the "average" user they are far too restrictive. As such they have a very limited "niche" appeal and that will remain true of All EV's until Battery technology changes.

Click to expand...

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

First, if you think the Leaf is being marketed as anything other than a daily driver or commuter car for 60+% of the drivers on the planet, you're not paying attention. No one believes everyone can just start driving a Leaf and toss their ICE vehicle in the nearest junk yard except the insane fringes-of-reality neo-hippies.

What it can do, right now, is easily take MOST people to and from work, to the grocery and/or out to dinner for trips that would be well within its range, for a fraction of the price of a gas-powered vehicle. It's not a total vehicle replacement, no, and nor is it expected to be except for those niche inner-city users and people willing to make travel sacrifices in the name of frugality.

That said, I am personally directly in the crosshairs of Nissan's target demographic because I can easily use the ~75 mile daily range (with A/C blasting) for 95% of my travels. That isn't counting being able to charge up while at work, so I'd have another 75ish ready to go when I leave from my meager 16-mile commute. Am I prepared to get rid of my gas-powered vehicle? Hell no! Can a Leaf save me more money in gas than I would use to pay for a lease and a quick charger in my garage? Hell yes!

As for the batteries themselves, battery tech IS improving. It's improving on a daily basis and if you think there has to be some magic bullet breakthrough before its viable, you're off your rocker.

And no one other than the ignorant or the same neo-hippie whackjobs thinks nuclear is some evil death-dealing means of power generation. Your assumption that anyone that believes in the viability of a purely battery-powered car also thinks nuclear power is the next apocalypse is pathetic, short-sighted and more than insulting.

TeeJayHoward said:

If I recall correctly from back when I was considering EV-ifying my bug...

You need about 2000lbs worth of batteries to move a 1600lbs vehicle 200 miles at 75MPH.

Click to expand...

What kind of batteries, that's what makes all the difference.

Lead acid, nicad, nimh, li-ion, li-po, li-po nanotech... lipos have pretty awesome energy density but they are:
1) Crazy spensive
2) Very dangerous in a crash (yoga FLAME!)

Ducman69 said:

What kind of batteries, that's what makes all the difference.

Lead acid, nicad, nimh, li-ion, li-po, li-po nanotech... lipos have pretty awesome energy density but they are:
1) Crazy spensive
2) Very dangerous in a crash (yoga FLAME!)

Click to expand...

They were LiPO4, IIRC. And yeah - Turning my bug into an electric cruiser would have cost about the same as buying a new car. 'Course, what's $20K in batteries when you're spending $1M+ on an aircraft, anyway?

Lithium Iron maybe? I think I heard someone on RC Groups talking about those, supposed to be safer but not as light and high current as lipos.

The amount of people that expect new and emerging technologies to work ideally and be instantly usable to the general public always astounds me. Just because it's not perfected now doesn't mean it won't eventually be useful. If anything, this plane is proof of concept...nothing else.

Ducman69 said:

Lithium Iron maybe? I think I heard someone on RC Groups talking about those, supposed to be safer but not as light and high current as lipos.

Click to expand...

Lithium ion does indeed give higher energy density per unit volume (it's about twice that of LiPos), but LiPos are a bit lighter for the same energy. LiPos can also source a lot more current. In this application, weight and current requirements trump space.

If it's not a Boeing, I'm not going.

Ducman69 said:

What kind of batteries, that's what makes all the difference.

Lead acid, nicad, nimh, li-ion, li-po, li-po nanotech... lipos have pretty awesome energy density but they are:
1) Crazy spensive
2) Very dangerous in a crash (yoga FLAME!)

Click to expand...

QFSF2R

(Quoted for Street Fighter II reference)

All this talk of batteries... what about actually have a reactor on the aircraft that makes the power? Molten sodium reactor or something? I know the Air Force toyed with the idea back in the 50s not sure where that went though, but I've seen designs for reactors that are quite small compared to 70 year old tech.

sfsuphysics said:

All this talk of batteries... what about actually have a reactor on the aircraft that makes the power? Molten sodium reactor or something? I know the Air Force toyed with the idea back in the 50s not sure where that went though, but I've seen designs for reactors that are quite small compared to 70 year old tech.

Click to expand...

Nuclear power like submarines, in planes. Then again, the FAA would be worried about these kinds of planes in case of crashes which can blow up like an atom bomb.

sfsuphysics said:

All this talk of batteries... what about actually have a reactor on the aircraft that makes the power? Molten sodium reactor or something? I know the Air Force toyed with the idea back in the 50s not sure where that went though, but I've seen designs for reactors that are quite small compared to 70 year old tech.

Click to expand...

It usually becomes a question of efficiency... if you have something that can produce rotational energy anyway mechanically, why convert it to electricity and then back to mechanical? You lose efficiency each time you convert.

They tried this with the original Porsche designed Tiger tank for example, it had a gasoline engine that acted as a generator for electric motors in the hubs, but it proved far more efficient and reliable to just use the engine to drive the tank directly.

foxtrotniner said:

Nuclear power like submarines, in planes. Then again, the FAA would be worried about these kinds of planes in case of crashes which can blow up like an atom bomb.

Click to expand...

Nuclear reactors, especially newer designs, don't explode like nuclear bombs. The danger is that they could rupture and spread radioactive nastiness everywhere. Radiation poisoning, rather than explosive damage.