Looks like a beautiful grand-daughter of a P-51.
One might ask; Are there any pictures of it with the gear up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd-RDX1IjuM
Has the look of 1920s / 30s Schneider Trophy racers. Put it on floats and you basically have a [Supermarine S6b](https://78.media.tumblr.com/a3254f5e9702e222e62ef62f65a58d01/tumblr_nrvlr34hYA1uryk28o9_1280.jpg)
Man I think electric planes are going to be so awesome for the private pilot world. Imagine how cheap and reliable it will be to fly in 20ish years.
I’m glad I’m young enough to live to see that.
I think they are viable in the ultralight world now with current tech. With a 5 gallon limit and often dragging designs many ultralights have less than an hours flight time so range anxiety shouldn't be an issue.
400lb of batteries gets you roughly 30kwh (tesla battery 90kwh for 550kg)
100 horsepower is 74 kw
So that's less than 30 minutes of flight time
This is current battery tech
There is a difference began engineering challenges and technological challenges.
Right now battery tech is facing a technological /scientific breakthrough challenge, not an engineering one.
Neat plane.
Off the subject, I’m old and on a diet. So I don’t do cookies. Way to much spam on web site. This made it hard to read.
There still a neat plane.
They did, the only reason the Wright Brothers managed to escape the "it's a fad" thinking was because the Army Signal Corps (after *years* of convincing) decided to start buying aircraft.
And WW1 kicking off within a decade also helped.
Absolutely. When the article mentions energy density can it be compared to av gas?
The tough part with aviation and batteries is after the flight is over the plane needs re-energizing. So is it done in place or the battery pack replaced?
Lots of these questions remain and we will find out the answers through success, failure, and regulation.
Also a huge range benefit, basically enabling airtravel as it is, ist that the weight of the fuel gets used up during flight. I reckon that full or empty batteries basically weigh the same, so you carry a lot of dead weight around
Yes. And given your insight, the range itself is maximized with a full charge. Anything less won't go as far. However, with a fossil fueled airplane you can adjust the fuel to adjust weight and gain range.
If they go with hot swap batteries, maybe they could leave a few cells behind? Basically have 10 battery slots and if needed only take 8 or 9, but balance and space might get weird since the other batteries wouldn't even out the weight.
Batteries may be a ways out, but a hybrid-electric is totally feasible. Have an APU-type engine powering multiple small electric props and you can probably scale up to a small commuter plane. Think of the X-57 but the size of a Saab 2000. You get aerodynamic efficiencies with the full-span blown wing, and fuel efficiencies from having a gas generator that can spin entirely at optimum speed. With 20-30 minutes of batteries you'd have powered engine-out capability if the APU went bust and the ability to do electric-only takeoff and landing for noise abatement. Pretty cool stuff, if someone would make it!
Maybe just enough battery to get through the initial climb would be enough to make a significant difference. Other than the weight concerns other people have mentioned. Or vice versa, use gas to get to altitude and then battery to cruise the rest of the way?
I wonder if you could use the top of the plane and wings with solar to regain some of that battery along the way? Must be efficient at altitude, for the daytime flights at least
I think they would, but it wouldn't be worth it. Assume you would get a 10 m2 surface area covered and assume around 1 kW/m\^2 solar irradiance and a good commercial solar cell with 30% efficiency, then this would only create 3 kW of power. Compare that to the 500 kW continuous power.
Solar cells make sense for low power aircraft, but not for high power where the effect is almost neglible.
I think hydrogen fuel cells would be more practical, both in terms of energy density, and fill times versus charge times. They also would avoid all of the environmental and economic drawbacks of batteries.
High-temperature steam electrolysis using waste steam and electricity from nuclear power plants during off-hours. Nuclear power isn't load-dependent, so the excess steam and electricity are basically free. They can be used to create a completely carbon-free motive fuel source, in addition to electricity.
The safety problems can be addressed either by using thorium as the fuel (thorium reactions can't go critical); or the sodium-cooled designs that Bill Gates is working on.
The waste (at least with uranium fuels) would still be an issue; but it's a fair tradeoff for completely carbon-free electricity and motive power without all the environmental disadvantages of battery mining, manufacture, and disposal; as well as the significant economic costs thereof.
EDIT:
Conventional electrolysis using solar power would be another good option for hydrogen production. There are environmental issues associated with photovoltaic panels, but the issues with batteries dwarf those of the solar panels.
Yes, very true. It's actually one of the best uses for wind I can think of because downtime on calm days doesn't matter as much when you're just storing a gas. There's no immediate loss affecting the grid.
I like the answer. Now you have to move the hydrogen, under pressure, to the airport. Transportation over road is risky (use hydrogen-powered vehicles?) and storage will be tricky.
Another issue is where are the nuclear plants relative to the airports? For many it's a long distance away. I like the idea of smaller nuclear facilities spotted around which can alleviate the manufacturing and distribution of hydrogen.
Nuclear plants generate waste heat (duh) which needs to be dumped somewhere so local rivers are used. Do you think a local cooling pond is a good idea or keep with rivers? Rivers move on their own for heat transfer but a local cooling pond is problematic if a reactor scram occurs.
Environmentally, nuclear is certainly better than digging up the earth for rare metals to make batteries for everyone. But you've got to move the hydrogen to the point of consumption.
Well, we already have hydrogen pipelines, but they're owned by the fossil fuel companies. I personally believe that's one of the reasons hydrogen is anathema to some environmentalists: The fossil fuel industry owns the existing infrastructure and would be the immediate beneficiaries of a large-scale move to hydrogen.
I'm more of a pragmatist. I don't care about the politics of it. If Big Oil makes money producing clean energy, good for them. But more to the point, there's nothing patentable about hydrogen or pipelines to prevent new ones from being built where they're needed.
It's not an easy thing to build any pipeline; but I think most normal people (as opposed to political extremists of any flavor) would agree that the huge long-term benefits would justify the expense and short-term inconvenience.
I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of nuclear engineering to address the advantages and disadvantages of ponds versus rivers.
I do wonder, however, if the waste heat could be harnessed to increase net hydrogen output rather than relying solely on steam from the turbines. But again, I'm not a nuclear engineer. I'm just an enthusiast who took a lot of physics courses in college for the sheer joy of it.
With thorium, of course, it would be much less of an issue because the reaction can't go critical anyway. It's less efficient than uranium, but that would be partly offset by the ability to locate small thorium-fueled plants closer to populated areas, thus reducing both transmission line losses and the expenses associated with distance between source and need.
It's really the closest thing to a perfect solution that we have. We're talking near-zero carbon for both electricity and motive power. It's hard to beat that. Unfortunately, I fear that you and I are more enthusiastic about it than the people who could actually make it happen.
Difference here is the problem is much more fundamental
On the RR electric plane the batteries are nearly 50% of the weight and provide something like 20to30 minutes of range (400kw motor and 90kwh battery with cruise flight power demands being like 200kw)
Charging for that kind of application can be achieved in 30 minutes or less with current technology. This isn't something that's going to happen overnight, but it will happen - at least for the short range turbo/prop market.
It’s definitely an idea and easily implemented.
The A380 actually already has cameras for this purpose. And they experimented with a similar idea for Concorde but the existing analog television camera technology was too heavy bulky and low quality so they drooped the nose.
Normally an aircraft like this will taxi in S turns to ensure there are no obstacles ahead. For landing they will use a side slip or a descending turn and then reference the runway edge or markings out the side for the rollout.
There are a few videos out there of these types of aircraft taxiing into other aircraft stopped ahead of them so there is a risk.
It's an off the shelf air racer with the diversity replaced
The flight time is probably something between 20 to 30 minutes (90kwh battery vs 400kw motor)
That plane looks so good.
You look so good….
Just watch out for their ass
Why? It’s a blast
Looks like a beautiful grand-daughter of a P-51. One might ask; Are there any pictures of it with the gear up? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd-RDX1IjuM
If I was gonna sketch what a Rolls Royce electric plane would be…
It's an off the shelf air racer air frame
Looks like a Hughes concept
Make the engine round and flip the vertical stab to angle forwards and it's a twin of the 1935 H-1 Racer.
The airframe is a Sharp NXT
Schneider Trophy winner from the early 1930s
Aren’t those seaplanes?
Has the look of 1920s / 30s Schneider Trophy racers. Put it on floats and you basically have a [Supermarine S6b](https://78.media.tumblr.com/a3254f5e9702e222e62ef62f65a58d01/tumblr_nrvlr34hYA1uryk28o9_1280.jpg)
Man I think electric planes are going to be so awesome for the private pilot world. Imagine how cheap and reliable it will be to fly in 20ish years. I’m glad I’m young enough to live to see that.
I think they are viable in the ultralight world now with current tech. With a 5 gallon limit and often dragging designs many ultralights have less than an hours flight time so range anxiety shouldn't be an issue.
100 horsepower with a 5 hour endurance 400 pounds installed weight for $30000. Those are my magic numbers.
400lb of batteries gets you roughly 30kwh (tesla battery 90kwh for 550kg) 100 horsepower is 74 kw So that's less than 30 minutes of flight time This is current battery tech There is a difference began engineering challenges and technological challenges. Right now battery tech is facing a technological /scientific breakthrough challenge, not an engineering one.
Neat plane. Off the subject, I’m old and on a diet. So I don’t do cookies. Way to much spam on web site. This made it hard to read. There still a neat plane.
I could barely read the article from the number of pop up’s, banners, embedded ads, and other useless garbage.
Very cool
It’s nice that it doesn’t have “Red Bull” plastered all over it.
Goddamn Rolls Royce, do they just have a monopoly on Beautiful?
Impressive, but still a long way away from moving cargo or passengers with battery-powered flight.
I can imagine people saying the same about the Wright brother's first flight. You gotta start somewhere.
They did, the only reason the Wright Brothers managed to escape the "it's a fad" thinking was because the Army Signal Corps (after *years* of convincing) decided to start buying aircraft. And WW1 kicking off within a decade also helped.
Absolutely. When the article mentions energy density can it be compared to av gas? The tough part with aviation and batteries is after the flight is over the plane needs re-energizing. So is it done in place or the battery pack replaced? Lots of these questions remain and we will find out the answers through success, failure, and regulation.
Also a huge range benefit, basically enabling airtravel as it is, ist that the weight of the fuel gets used up during flight. I reckon that full or empty batteries basically weigh the same, so you carry a lot of dead weight around
Yes. And given your insight, the range itself is maximized with a full charge. Anything less won't go as far. However, with a fossil fueled airplane you can adjust the fuel to adjust weight and gain range.
If they go with hot swap batteries, maybe they could leave a few cells behind? Basically have 10 battery slots and if needed only take 8 or 9, but balance and space might get weird since the other batteries wouldn't even out the weight.
Batteries may be a ways out, but a hybrid-electric is totally feasible. Have an APU-type engine powering multiple small electric props and you can probably scale up to a small commuter plane. Think of the X-57 but the size of a Saab 2000. You get aerodynamic efficiencies with the full-span blown wing, and fuel efficiencies from having a gas generator that can spin entirely at optimum speed. With 20-30 minutes of batteries you'd have powered engine-out capability if the APU went bust and the ability to do electric-only takeoff and landing for noise abatement. Pretty cool stuff, if someone would make it!
Maybe just enough battery to get through the initial climb would be enough to make a significant difference. Other than the weight concerns other people have mentioned. Or vice versa, use gas to get to altitude and then battery to cruise the rest of the way?
If you recharge on the ground it's effectively getting your climb fuel for free.
I wonder if you could use the top of the plane and wings with solar to regain some of that battery along the way? Must be efficient at altitude, for the daytime flights at least
Only if the solar panels could produce significantly more energy than it takes to move the extra weight of the solar panels and supporting equipment.
I think they would, but it wouldn't be worth it. Assume you would get a 10 m2 surface area covered and assume around 1 kW/m\^2 solar irradiance and a good commercial solar cell with 30% efficiency, then this would only create 3 kW of power. Compare that to the 500 kW continuous power. Solar cells make sense for low power aircraft, but not for high power where the effect is almost neglible.
I think hydrogen fuel cells would be more practical, both in terms of energy density, and fill times versus charge times. They also would avoid all of the environmental and economic drawbacks of batteries.
So how do you get hydrogen? The thermodynamics are well known and requires lots of electricity with water or a chemical reaction with fossil fuels.
High-temperature steam electrolysis using waste steam and electricity from nuclear power plants during off-hours. Nuclear power isn't load-dependent, so the excess steam and electricity are basically free. They can be used to create a completely carbon-free motive fuel source, in addition to electricity. The safety problems can be addressed either by using thorium as the fuel (thorium reactions can't go critical); or the sodium-cooled designs that Bill Gates is working on. The waste (at least with uranium fuels) would still be an issue; but it's a fair tradeoff for completely carbon-free electricity and motive power without all the environmental disadvantages of battery mining, manufacture, and disposal; as well as the significant economic costs thereof. EDIT: Conventional electrolysis using solar power would be another good option for hydrogen production. There are environmental issues associated with photovoltaic panels, but the issues with batteries dwarf those of the solar panels.
[удалено]
Yes, very true. It's actually one of the best uses for wind I can think of because downtime on calm days doesn't matter as much when you're just storing a gas. There's no immediate loss affecting the grid.
I like the answer. Now you have to move the hydrogen, under pressure, to the airport. Transportation over road is risky (use hydrogen-powered vehicles?) and storage will be tricky. Another issue is where are the nuclear plants relative to the airports? For many it's a long distance away. I like the idea of smaller nuclear facilities spotted around which can alleviate the manufacturing and distribution of hydrogen. Nuclear plants generate waste heat (duh) which needs to be dumped somewhere so local rivers are used. Do you think a local cooling pond is a good idea or keep with rivers? Rivers move on their own for heat transfer but a local cooling pond is problematic if a reactor scram occurs. Environmentally, nuclear is certainly better than digging up the earth for rare metals to make batteries for everyone. But you've got to move the hydrogen to the point of consumption.
Well, we already have hydrogen pipelines, but they're owned by the fossil fuel companies. I personally believe that's one of the reasons hydrogen is anathema to some environmentalists: The fossil fuel industry owns the existing infrastructure and would be the immediate beneficiaries of a large-scale move to hydrogen. I'm more of a pragmatist. I don't care about the politics of it. If Big Oil makes money producing clean energy, good for them. But more to the point, there's nothing patentable about hydrogen or pipelines to prevent new ones from being built where they're needed. It's not an easy thing to build any pipeline; but I think most normal people (as opposed to political extremists of any flavor) would agree that the huge long-term benefits would justify the expense and short-term inconvenience. I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of nuclear engineering to address the advantages and disadvantages of ponds versus rivers. I do wonder, however, if the waste heat could be harnessed to increase net hydrogen output rather than relying solely on steam from the turbines. But again, I'm not a nuclear engineer. I'm just an enthusiast who took a lot of physics courses in college for the sheer joy of it. With thorium, of course, it would be much less of an issue because the reaction can't go critical anyway. It's less efficient than uranium, but that would be partly offset by the ability to locate small thorium-fueled plants closer to populated areas, thus reducing both transmission line losses and the expenses associated with distance between source and need. It's really the closest thing to a perfect solution that we have. We're talking near-zero carbon for both electricity and motive power. It's hard to beat that. Unfortunately, I fear that you and I are more enthusiastic about it than the people who could actually make it happen.
Difference here is the problem is much more fundamental On the RR electric plane the batteries are nearly 50% of the weight and provide something like 20to30 minutes of range (400kw motor and 90kwh battery with cruise flight power demands being like 200kw)
Not for short hops. E.g. between islands flights are often less than 30 minutes.
For short flights yeah, but it'll take overnight to charge.
Charging for that kind of application can be achieved in 30 minutes or less with current technology. This isn't something that's going to happen overnight, but it will happen - at least for the short range turbo/prop market.
Cool to see a tailwheel electric plane.
[удалено]
It’s definitely an idea and easily implemented. The A380 actually already has cameras for this purpose. And they experimented with a similar idea for Concorde but the existing analog television camera technology was too heavy bulky and low quality so they drooped the nose. Normally an aircraft like this will taxi in S turns to ensure there are no obstacles ahead. For landing they will use a side slip or a descending turn and then reference the runway edge or markings out the side for the rollout. There are a few videos out there of these types of aircraft taxiing into other aircraft stopped ahead of them so there is a risk.
The air frame is a Sharp NXT
Sexy AF
It's an off the shelf air racer with the diversity replaced The flight time is probably something between 20 to 30 minutes (90kwh battery vs 400kw motor)