First Ever Plane with No Moving Parts Takes Flight

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Skeptics are calling it a glorified glider, but an MIT team has managed to build an airplane that uses “ionic wind” to fly, utilizing “a propulsion system that is entirely electrically powered, almost silent, and with a thrust-to-power ratio comparable to that achieved by conventional systems such as jet engines.” This breakthrough technology could lead to carbon-neutral flight and innovations such as silent, unmanned drones and high-altitude, solar-powered craft that could fly “for years on end.”

In the prototype plane, wires at the leading edge of the wing have 600 watts of electrical power pumped through them at 40,000 volts. This is enough to induce “electron cascades”, ultimately charging air molecules near the wire. Those charged molecules then flow along the electrical field towards a second wire at the back of the wing, bumping into neutral air molecules on the way, and imparting energy to them. Those neutral air molecules then stream out of the back of the plane, providing thrust.
 
For those that don't want to enable flash on the website here is the direct link to the video:


It's not impressive at all so far. The structure is incredibly flimsy to keep the weight down and still can't fly very far (indoors). With the flat vertical panels on each side of the wings shown in some tests but not in others, I would be amazed if it could handle any kind of crosswinds without crashing immediately.
 
As someone who flys model plans of that size if I didn't read the geadline I would say that's just a shitty glider. Where was the supposed thrust? Control surfaces?

Maybe I should read the article?
 
Well a glider is also an airplane...but yeah with a structure that flimsy it will never be practical.

Still an interesting experiment though. Perhaps it can be adapted to ultra small drones?

DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
For those that don't want to enable flash on the website here is the direct link to the video:


It's not impressive at all so far. The structure is incredibly flimsy to keep the weight down and still can't fly very far (indoors). With the flat vertical panels on each side of the wings shown in some tests but not in others, I would be amazed if it could handle any kind of crosswinds without crashing immediately.
Click to expand...


I think you mean turbulence or maybe just gusty winds in general? Crosswind refers to the direction of the wind relative to the intended direction of flight or to the wind relative to the landing runway.
 
I've designed ion sources; I don't see this being very effective.

What happens in wet air? :)

I'd bet the engine stops as soon as the insulators wet.
 
7Obu.gif
 
And it is launched off of some type of sled.... so it is just a sucky glider. I didn't see anything in that lame video that showed any propulsion by the so called propulsion system.
 
DrBorg said:
I've designed ion sources; I don't see this being very effective.

What happens in wet air? :)

I'd bet the engine stops as soon as the insulators wet.
Click to expand...

yeah this is big issue or ice...
 
Elios said:
yeah this is big issue or ice...
Click to expand...

Or wind. Truly, if it cannot get more range under "power" than an unpowered glider with the same launch.. pretty much a fail. I guess the kids got to use some grant money though. That's something.
 
cyclone3d said:
And it is launched off of some type of sled.... so it is just a sucky glider. I didn't see anything in that lame video that showed any propulsion by the so called propulsion system.
Click to expand...

Christ people, RTFA. It isn't a glider. Right now its range is limited only by the test space, without power it makes it a small faction of the test room, with power, it is limited by the size of the test room...
 
Joust said:
Or wind. Truly, if it cannot get more range under "power" than an unpowered glider with the same launch.. pretty much a fail. I guess the kids got to use some grant money though. That's something.
Click to expand...

except it gets more range than an unpowered glider...
 
DrBorg said:
I've designed ion sources; I don't see this being very effective.

What happens in wet air? :)

I'd bet the engine stops as soon as the insulators wet.
Click to expand...
How many volts do you need, and how much surface area, to precipitate dust/clean a 20x20 room... With a turnover rate of once a day. Would that produce a dangerous level of ozone?
 
Anyone remember the "lifters" people used to make out of balsa wood and tooth picks and used a CRT as the power supply? This is the same tech. Going to take a monumental amount of efficiency improvements and density before you see it used with any sort of practicality in atmospheric usage. It is viable now for vacuum use, if you provide a particle to be charged and ejected, and the mass being moved if small enough, or you are not concerned with absurdly low Thrust to Weight ratios.
 
aaronspink said:
except it gets more range than an unpowered glider...
Click to expand...

There are only clips of the flights. It makes it look like a completely rigged experiment. And until I see a video that shows complete flights with the same exact conditions except for powered/un-powered then I call shens.
 
its not a glider folks. gliders do just that - glide, they have no thrust. this has thrust. not a glider.

Nimisys said:
Anyone remember the "lifters" people used to make out of balsa wood and tooth picks and used a CRT as the power supply? This is the same tech. Going to take a monumental amount of efficiency improvements and density before you see it used with any sort of practicality in atmospheric usage. It is viable now for vacuum use, if you provide a particle to be charged and ejected, and the mass being moved if small enough, or you are not concerned with absurdly low Thrust to Weight ratios.
Click to expand...
yup- and the version you speak of was shown on mythbusters long ago... i think they also showed that it would not work in a vacuum in that same episode though if memory serves.
 
aaronspink said:
Christ people, RTFA. It isn't a glider. Right now its range is limited only by the test space, without power it makes it a small faction of the test room, with power, it is limited by the size of the test room...
Click to expand...

harbingerofdoom said:
its not a glider folks. gliders do just that - glide, they have no thrust. this has thrust. not a glider.


yup- and the version you speak of was shown on mythbusters long ago... i think they also showed that it would not work in a vacuum in that same episode though if memory serves.
Click to expand...

Some gliders ARE powered. For what its worth essentially all aircraft are "gliders". Though when I say some are powered I am not referring to what you think of as a traditional aircraft. I am talking about actual gliders who have engines to extend their range.

Again I see this as more useful for smaller items rather than large scale. If it sounds too good to be probably is.
 
harbingerofdoom said:
yup- and the version you speak of was shown on mythbusters long ago... i think they also showed that it would not work in a vacuum in that same episode though if memory serves.
Click to expand...
It's not being in vacuum, it's the lack of a reaction mass that is an issue... In a pure vacuum, there are too few ions to be charged and expelled. Provide an external source, and it works just fine, albeit at very low Thrust levels.
 
kju1 said:
Some gliders ARE powered. For what its worth essentially all aircraft are "gliders". Though when I say some are powered I am not referring to what you think of as a traditional aircraft. I am talking about actual gliders who have engines to extend their range.

Again I see this as more useful for smaller items rather than large scale. If it sounds too good to be probably is.
Click to expand...

if it has an engine strapped to it.... its not a glider.

....even if you take an actual glider and literally strap an engine of some sort to it.... it has ceased to be a glider as soon as you add any sort of thrust.
 
Nimisys said:
It's not being in vacuum, it's the lack of a reaction mass that is an issue... In a pure vacuum, there are too few ions to be charged and expelled. Provide an external source, and it works just fine, albeit at very low Thrust levels.
Click to expand...


.........soooooooooooooooooooooooo............. doesnt work in a vacuum. got it.
 
harbingerofdoom said:
if it has an engine strapped to it.... its not a glider.

....even if you take an actual glider and literally strap an engine of some sort to it.... it has ceased to be a glider as soon as you add any sort of thrust.
Click to expand...

You failed to understand the point and the aerodynamics involved in my post.


Even the FAA definition allows for a motor to be strapped to it and still be legally qualified as a glider. But again you entirely missed the point: ALL aircraft are gliders in some respects. Failure to understand that is a failure to understand basic aerodynamics.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider
as a heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the
dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and
whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

Self-launching gliders are equipped with engines; with the
engine shut down, they display the same flight characteristics
as nonpowered gliders.

The engine allows themto be launched under their own power. Once aloft, pilots
of self-launching gliders can shut down the engine and fly
with the power off.
Click to expand...
 
aaronspink said:
Christ people, RTFA. It isn't a glider. Right now its range is limited only by the test space, without power it makes it a small faction of the test room, with power, it is limited by the size of the test room...
Click to expand...
Yet they couldn't make it go halfway trough the room on camera. What they say is irrelevant.
Having no moving parts, so what? that is not a relevant goal. They say it has the same thrust to power ratio as a regular engine, so what's the point? Apart from being extremely fragile, and quite probably impossible to scale up to carry a person let alone 300.
 
M76 said:
Yet they couldn't make it go halfway trough the room on camera. What they say is irrelevant.
Having no moving parts, so what? that is not a relevant goal. They say it has the same thrust to power ratio as a regular engine, so what's the point? Apart from being extremely fragile, and quite probably impossible to scale up to carry a person let alone 300.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause we certainly wouldn't want to research towards a fully solid state high altitude plane with unlimited endurance, that's got no applications.....
 
aaronspink said:
Yeah cause we certainly wouldn't want to research towards a fully solid state high altitude plane with unlimited endurance, that's got no applications.....
Click to expand...
Solid state engine. You still need moving parts for controls.

And since satellites took over the role of spy planes there is not much point to high altitude high endurance planes. How would it have unlimited endurance? It still uses electricity to generate thrust. If it has 'comparable' thrust-to-power ratio as a regular jet engine, then it isn't more efficient than a regular engine period. And regular engines use much more power than can be generated by the solar cells they would be able to fit on the surface area of a plane.

Just because it's solid state propulsion, doesn't mean it uses no power, or less power.
 
Having been into RC stuff before....am I the only one who watched the video and thought that the glider would have gone further WITHOUT the "propulsion" system? Looking at the launch system, even as a shitty pilot, I think I could have made at least twice the distance they were making under power.

Also, what do they mean by "thrust-to-power ratio"? Because they don't give any data.

They make lots of stupid statements like "proving that heavier-than-air flight is possible without jets or propellers." Uhhhhh.....This has long ago been possible......

They show how short the flight is without the system on.....But never show how far it would go without the massive system strapped to the glider, they should have removed the system, or had another glider without it to do a back to back, but I am willing to bet the normal glider would have gone further. I would also like to have seen another unit with a normal electric motor and prop using the same battery size on the glider and see how it did. Oh wait, you can buy those now for a few hundred bucks and they can fly for hours, the battery pack is equal to a 2,700mAh 11.1V battery pack and off of that power, they made it 200ft....Wow. A normal glider with normal electric motor and that battery size could go miles.
 
Come on, folks... This is budding tech (or at least a somewhat novel use of the tech). Why are you expecting a complete product from researchers? This really isn't that different from the new batteries, memory, or storage devices we read about all the time. No, not all of the work, and most of them only happen under some crazy specific lab conditions at first.

As a former aerospace engineer, I *do* think this could be useful, for multiple reasons.

1.) Lower vibrations from mechanical parts might lead to more durability, or a more stable arial platform for cameras.
2.) This kind of thrust often works best in low atmosphere conditions, where fewer particles can be accelerated to higher velocities. So, no huge thrust:weight ratio, but low fuel requirements. Combine that with the lower atmospheric resistance, and the efficiencies can add up.
3.) This kind of tech could be applied to many surfaces - think of the balloons that google and others have proposed or even tested for internet access.

Obviously, all of this depends on a lot of things, like improvements in efficiencies for solar cells, batteries, and the propulsion tech itself. Or maybe it will just wind up being used in 20 years for some completely novel application.

In short... CHILL OUT.
 
So something of this size takes 600W? What kind of power is a full-sized aircraft going to need?

I don't see how it can be "carbon neutral" with that sort of energy requirement.
 
M76 said:
Solid state engine. You still need moving parts for controls.

And since satellites took over the role of spy planes there is not much point to high altitude high endurance planes. How would it have unlimited endurance? It still uses electricity to generate thrust. If it has 'comparable' thrust-to-power ratio as a regular jet engine, then it isn't more efficient than a regular engine period. And regular engines use much more power than can be generated by the solar cells they would be able to fit on the surface area of a plane.

Just because it's solid state propulsion, doesn't mean it uses no power, or less power.
Click to expand...

Don't need moving parts for controls, can be handled via differential thrusts.

Sats have their own sets of issues and there is significant interest in high altitude alternatives to sats. And solid state plus solar power leads to unlimited endurance. We already have working solar powered long endurance vehicles, but they are limited by the maint requirements for the moving parts.

And I never said solid state doesn't use power, don't know where you are pulling that bs from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top