On opening day of last month’s Paris Air Show, Daher, Airbus, and Safran announced “a collaborative partnership for the design and development of the wing-mounted EcoPulse distributed hybrid propulsion demonstrator.”
The trio of aerospace goliaths have stated the maiden flight is scheduled for 2022.
Just look at the photo (below). It is a TBM with six additional propellers. It looks a bit like NASA’s X-57.
Safran will provide the distributed hybrid propulsion system; Airbus is responsible for the aerodynamic optimisation of the distributed propulsion system, the installation of high energy density batteries, and the use of those batteries to power the aircraft; and Daher will tackle “component and systems installation, flight testing, overall analysis and regulatory construction.”
The press announcement on the Airbus website includes popular buzzwords like “CO2 emissions” and “noise pollution,” both of which the collaboration seeks to reduce.
At first glance I thought the announcement would be only about making a hybrid aircraft. Interestingly though, the concept, if successful, will deliver more.
“The electric thrusters will be integrated into the EcoPulse wing and will provide propulsion thrust, at the same time as delivering aerodynamic gains (reducing wing surface area and wingtip marginal vortices, and therefore drag).”
Reduced drag? Really? By adding more propulsion? Wow.
“The installation of a distributed propulsion system on a TBM aircraft is an exciting opportunity to boost its efficiency, diversify its missions, reduce its environmental footprint, and cut its operating costs.”
What I find interesting in the above sentence is “environmental footprint” is third in this list of four benefits the team hopes to create.
Back when I was learning to fly a multi-engine airplane, my instructor taught me to think like a pessimist.
“You have to assume one of those two engines will quit, and you have to be ready when it does.”
That was a complete shift in my natural state of being. I’m an optimist, with a healthy dose of realist thrown in for good measure.
I realize the process of conducting experiments is to test a theory without bias toward the outcome, but when I see announcements like these, I can’t help but get a little excited. Whether this “distributed hybrid propulsion system” comes to fruition or not isn’t the point for me. The fact that lots of smart people are working to evolve the present state of technology is exciting and should be supported.
FASTA in Tampa Bay Florida is working on a inflight electrical recharging system example eProbe-and-edrogue inflight charging system.
Join the development team – share your ideas here FASTA 813-784-4669 C/T or [email protected]
The problem with a battery is that the “fuel” (e.g. Lithium) is only a couple percent of the weight of the battery. That is, the other 98% is the electrode material, casing, etc.
So with that breakdown, it’s easy to see why the energy density of a battery is so low.
The delivery system for the energy transfer (oxidization – generically speaking) of the battery’s fuel must be improved or perhaps modified such that this other 98% provides a parallel and necessary vehicular function; perhaps becoming part of the core infrastructure/chassis/fuselage/whatever of the vehicle. But then this starts (thru a longer thought chain I don’t feel like going into here) entering the world of other types of fuel cells. And there are more effective fuels than lithium in this space.
I have no problem with Companies spending THEIR money to envision, design, build, test, refine, run the Regulatory gauntlet and then contemplate possible production of anything … be it widgets or airplanes. I have no problem with artist’s renderings of what they THINK the thing will look like along with cautious statements about the design objectives. But when a Company comes up with an idea, does an artist’s rendering only, releases that information to the blogosphere and then starts claiming it’s a done deal and they’re gonna save the planet with it … I have a problem with it. A BIG problem. That’s why I verbalized it with last weeks claim that a pure electric 750hp Caravan was going to “enables flexible, clean air travel and package-delivery options at a fraction of the cost” before it ever was manufactured, flew or proven it’s design goals. And even when those objectives are met, a real live airplane pops out which could be used, external forces often determine its subsequent fate. Further, well heeled investor seed money often skews reality. Just because you can build it doesn’t mean “they” will come or it will be successful. Don’t believe me? Look what Paul Allen’s Estate is trying to currently sell for $$$.
Frankly, we’re mixing apples and oranges with all this electric airplane talk and putting the cart before the horse. IF batteries of a sufficient capacity and low size and weight were available, IF the infrastructure to charge them were abundantly available, IF the testing and production had proven itself, IF the cost to acquire and operate them was competitive and IF public acceptance of same provided the fertile environment for electron powered flight to prosper, I’d have no problem with it. To an even greater extent than Tesla’s four wheeled endeavors, electric powered flight is a long way from that point. Just the Regulatory hurdles to allow commercialization of same will take years. And what about pilot requirements and testing?
I hear the “gears” of people reading this and getting ready to tell me that you have to start somewhere. I agree. Just don’t tell me that you’re either gonna save the planet or make a paradigm shift in the mechanics of powered flight with just an artist’s rendering, some spare electrons and a few words by a starry eye’d CEO.
Back to the airplane at hand … has no one noticed that on the rear R fuselage of that airplane there appears to be another exhaust pipe? Surely they’re not planning on using the PT6 to run an electric generator? So they’re gonna have an airplane with a turbine and prop up front, some sort of (hopefully) APU or diesel engine with a generator in the back powering six electric motors and folding props through a plethora of electronics … to do what? Unless that airplane will go faster, further, cost a LOT less to acquire and operate, carry a larger load or offer some other measureable benefit … it ain’t gonna be anything but a test bed that ultimately lives in a museum.
No one is talking about EMI hardening of the electronics in one of those things, either. Just imagine a lightning bolt hitting that airplane and the shortened lower drag wings then helping it to arrive at the scene of the crash sooner. THAT is reality.
We here all want and lust for a C172 equivalent that is affordable … just as Miami Mike says. IF it could be … that’d be wonderful. The owner/drivers of Teslas sitting on the supercharging station in Oshkosh convinced me that the smoothness of those vehicles is something to behold. It’d be great to experience the same in a small GA airplane that was useful to me. I just don’t see it happening any time in MY lifetime et sub. And then scaling it up to electric B747’s simultaneously … fuhgetaboutit.
When Dick Van Grunsven invents an eRV-xx … THEN I’ll believe it. 🙂 Skepticism, Ben … you bet!
Larry, take a deep breath. If you read the Airbus press release you would have seen that this project is for a technology demonstrator. To quote, “The purpose of this three-way collaboration is to validate technologies designed to reduce CO2 emissions, noise pollution, and create new uses for air transportation”. Nowhere does it say this product is a done deal and going to save the world.
Skepticism can be healthy, but it’s not the main ingredient in Yankee ingenuity. No one ever succeeded in inventing something new by starting with the attitude “That’ll never work”.
Phil, the 750HP Caravan article last week sent me over the edge; I went into my ex-military “I don’t take any prisoners mode.” A polyanna I ain’t. I think I have electric airplane PTSD, too? SO many crazy ideas and artist’s renderings and NO useful airplanes to show for it all.
Please, ya’ll — I’m begging — go to this website and look at the chart done by the U.S. Energy Administration. Read the short explanation below the chart, take a look where batteries fall and you’ll see why we’re all “barking” up the wrong tree with electric airplanes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2016/10/27/why-t-boone-pickens-is-betting-on-natural-gas-vehicles/#6fac8145535c
Look where batteries fall on the energy chart compared to gasoline.
Thank you Larry, I just did not want to write all that. As far as electric, hybrid makes sense, battery alone not so much. Batteries only allow for a limited time of use which is great around the patch. I was always a believer in parachutes for airplanes but there is a limit. Imagine a parachute for an A380… That would be the MOTHER OF ALL PARACHUTES (MOAP or MAP?) 😉
Mike … I agree on hybrid vs. pure battery power. The problem THEN is complexity and reliability not to mention weight. Everything is always a tradeoff with airplanes. Everyone is SO enamored with electric power as some sort of panacea that they fail to notice the obvious … it just isn’t practical at this time for airplanes … especially large airplanes or pure electric airplanes. People refer to battery technology as advancing … no it’s not. It has reached it’s pinnacle with current chemical technology. Unless and until unobtanium or element 115 can be used as an ingredient in a battery, all we’re doing is refining what already exists and it ain’t good enough. Hybrid ideas are as good as it’ll get and might work as an interim move for smaller airplanes in a local area for training purposes. But when you consider how efficient a Rotax 912iS engine is vs it’s 912ULS engine, why would you want to chase electric power? I could get into a 912iS RV-12 and fly from Florida to Oshkosh in a day. Try that with your eRV-12 … ain’t gonna happen.
The Prius auto has gone through several major design changes (series) and is proof that hybrid power could and does work in a car. But cars don’t have to fight gravity … they only have to fight friction of various types. That’s why some of them get such good equivalent fuel mileage. Just yesterday — again — I saw Tesla’s backed into the supercharging station in Oshkosh … waiting to charge up so they could continue on their way … out of their way to get some electrons. How efficient is THAT?
With respect to large aircraft chutes, there was such an idea floated around back in the 80’s and 90’s when I was involved in military flight test in California. Just look at the size and complexity (not to mention up front and recurring cost) of the CAPS system. Now scale it up — as you say — fuhgetaboutit. That’s why — 30+ years later — no one is even talking about it for large airplanes.
I again call upon everyone to go to the link I provided elsewhere here and study that chart carefully. Batteries are the absolute WORST way to store energy … at this time. When we finally capture a UFO, maybe then we’ll figure it all out?
You’re assuming they’ve gone about as fur as they can go with batteries. But battery technology has been improving and it’s likely to continue with higher and higher energy densities. Even with current technology, electric planes with a 1,000 km (620 mile) range on a single charge could be used for half of all commercial aircraft flights today. In Israel they are developing just such an aircraft. The cost to fly that aircraft will be much lower than a similar fossil-fuel powered aircraft. Will the technology ever get to the point that batteries have the same energy density as gasoline? I don’t know, but I do know it doesn’t make sense to say it’s impossible. Someone who looked at the original Wright brothers airplane would have confidently told you that airplanes would never carry hundreds of people across oceans.
The human race doesn’t make progress by adopting the attitude that it can’t be done.
Its obvious healthy skepticism to a marketing blurb is not appreciated.
Did no one see the turbine in front. At least the X-57 has all electric engines and no turbine with a propeller. Why add more complexity of added electric engines to an aircraft that works fine without them?
As a pilot, an engineer, and a believer in Edsel Murphy, I will always maintain a healthy skepticism because it has keep me alive this long. Thank you and good night
Ev’rythin’s up to date in Kansas City
They’ve gone about as fur as they c’n go!
They went and built a skyscraper seven stories high,
About as high as a buildin’ orta grow.
Ev’rythin’s like a dream in Kansas City,
It’s better than a magic lantern show!
Y’ c’n turn the radiator on
Whenever you want some heat.
With ev’ry kind o’ comfort
Ev’ry house is all complete.
You c’n walk to privies in the rain
And never wet your feet!
They’ve gone about as fur as they c’n go,
Cold fusion was a dead end, therefore we shouldn’t try anything new, ever again.
Daher, Safran and Airbus wouldn’t be spending money on this unless they thought there might be something worthwhile here. What general aviation REALLY needs is somebody to create the Tesla of aviation. Equivalent performance to a 172, similar range and recharge time, price within reason.
No more 100LL problems, no more engine noise, no more vibration, no more TBO worries, no more oil leaks, no more carbon monoxide danger, no more carb heat or mixture controls to be misused, where do I sign on?
But never mind, since everything that can be invented has already been invented, I’m submitting my resignation from the US Patent Office. Besides, everyone knows the worldwide market for computers is no more than five, maybe, and it is ridiculous to think that anyone could ever need more than 640K of RAM.
Sounds like more cold fusion power. Caveat emptor.
Cold Fusion is even perhaps a “kind” analogy to the foreseeable hope for large electric transports.
Just go review the Breget range equation, and note the change in mass fraction component, where battery weight does not deplete as fuel and energy is expended.
There is clearly a niche place in aeronautics for increasing electrics (e.g., the B787 with its “more electric” systems, …more applications to servos, …and for some tiny drones). There are even perhaps likely an applications “crossover points”, for some small vehicles of limited mass and range, that will evolve with time, and with battery energy density advances.
But don’t hold your breath for AOC’s saving the planet with any electrics revolution in major air transport, for large aircraft of B737 or A320 scale or larger ….Unless there is also a revolution in physics. The physics of the problem just doesn’t lie. Energy density, flux, and restoration limits are essentially just like the limits set by the speed of light, or the limits of biology, that foil the currently faux dream of “beam me up Scotty”. And that doesn’t even count the daunting challenge of the engineering needed in between. Remember the nuclear powered NB-36H???
EXACTLY! At Edwards AFB, we tested electric flight control systems to save hydraulic system weight. That idea worked. In limited applications, switching to electric motors — these days with smart electronics — is a good move. But not as the primary method of propulsion in an airplane. It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatever !!
As you say, K.E. = 0.5 mass times Velocity squared. If the mass is going down because you’re consuming fuel, the energy is higher. If the mass isn’t going down because the batteries weigh the same on takeoff and landing, all you have left is the decay of energy in the battery. Like I said in a previous article, the people with these ideas obviously haven’t taken Physics 101.
Imagine THIS scenario. A Saturn V takes off from Cape Canaveral and when it reaches altitude … doesn’t lose any weight. That’d be absolutely nutty. Well … that’s what people are proposing with ALL electric airplanes. A pure electric airplane weighs the same whether or not at full charge. A hybrid system is better but still inefficient. If the FAA would only get out of the way, piston GA engines could be made as efficient as the Rotax 912iS … THAT would make a difference.