Yeah, you design the frame around the concept of removing a large chunk of its internals - then design around that pesky thing called physics afterwards.
Ay Guey... Must... Resist... Urge... To... Pedant...
Nope, I'm gonna fail this one. Hard.
Ok, so your first line is worth this for a response.
There. Glad that's covered.
So then you are suggesting big holes in the torque box to take batteries in and out. I'm sure the FAA and EASA would love that... as well as every stresser on the program and the aerodynamicists given the surface tolerances will be shot to hell.
I suggested they would need to be stored in the fuselage as replacing them in a structurally acceptable wing in a timely fashion is simply not viable.
Ok, so I've no idea what your background is (it's all good; don't really care anyway), but mine involves literally Making Task Cards, REAs, EAs, etc, for... literally this sort of thing
. Although in fairness, I am more of a Power Plant guy these days. But whatever. I've done my share of Wing Mods and Field Repairs.
So you want to talk about Torque Boxes?
Let's start with what they actually are. A TB is what we'll come up with when some part of a design compromise (the aerodynamic loads and needs of a wing in this case) eliminate the possibility of a Torque Tube
being used. In practical terms, a tube is the best way to handle torsional loads, but a sufficiently reinforced box will do almost as good for most uses. Better even (obviously), when we're talking about a wing.
While it would be great to have the primary benefit of a tube (that being the fact that all points along the tube surface represent the greatest ratio of Diameter to Perimeter and thus Polar Moment of Inertia to Cross Sectional Area), again, aerodynamic needs and loads forestall this. So, the Box it is.
By its nature, that structure is already
compromised. But, as a side benefit of having a tapered wing, the difference is minimal to the point of irrelevance. Provided the Box stays Closed, right?
Apparently in your universe, the only answer is to have some type of permanently sealed wing Torque Box structure, at any point that happens to be between the spars. That's what it seems you're implying. But unless you only need your hypothetical airliner to last for one flight, ever, this will precipitate a huge fucking problem. In and of itself. I'm not sure how familiar you are with wing design you are (again, no wrong answers there), but that is not practical on any level.
At the most seldom, you have several (over a dozen in most cases) Wing Tank Insp Panels. And the dozens of other inspection panels. Many of which are designed to be opened quite regularly for servicing needs. The engine pylon itself has several permanently open
gaps in the TB. Ditto for the fuel system. And your MLG trunion pins. And your Pneumatics. We can add electrical too. If you really want to get technical and internal, just what do you think lightening holes are (that one's kind of a trick as those can add
Looking elsewhere on an aircraft, you have the entire fuselage section. One giant Torque Tube (yes, we know that's not its primary mission, but it's still essential). With, again, several
openings, some very damned large in fact. Most of which are utilized at every turn. And
that one handles pressure differential loads as well.
Again, I can't believe I've waded this far into it, but the easiest solution to the Charge Time issue (which is quite valid indeed), is to simply have removable batteries. Whether these are stored internally (accessed through Panels), or the simply 'snap-in' and become
part of the wing TB structure would be up to people who are actually invested in such a project.
But what I do know for certain is that it's a far better to have this weight wing-mounted than to attempt to cram in into/under a fuselage that already has other missions to accomplish. I'll grant that you probably could
come up with some fuselage mounted battery design. But not one that is remotely economically defensible. Or at all airport friendly. So why would you?
A viable solution is more likely to take the form of a pumpable "liquid" - i.e. composed of nanoscale batteries. Similar buckeyball approaches have been proposed for storing H2 before and haven't hit prime time yet.
This approach would of course means existing philosophies are largely unchanged, pumpable "fuel" into a "wet" wing which is then transported via internal fuel systems to the engines for use. Dunno what a lightening strike would do for the overall system, but one step at a time.
Of course, either approach will still require airports to have access to Gigawatts of power to recharge said nanoscale batteries (or conventional scale batteries).
The primary obsatcale to this is that the year isn't 2207.
As a guy who's written out his share of SciFi, I have to say that I do
like your thinking there. But again, I know the difference between things that have feasibility issues and things that are just right out.
Your suggestion would be viable provided the R&D was already done (to include adaptation for industrial works of this scale). That is
a possibility. But you'd have to get past Brick Walls like that Minimum Electrolyte Layer issue. And certainly not at a cost that Swappable Batteries can deliver. And even then, they'd have to be at a point where there returns are significantly better than what a wing sized Cell can deliver. Is that even close? Nothing I've read suggests that's around the corner.
But again, I do like
the concept, for what it's worth...
You dismiss the other scenarios but this one is fine, where I work we call this "ugly baby syndrome".
Heh, yep. We have that one too. 'Your practical, industry standard approach is Lame
! Behold the power of my Rube Goldbergian masterpiece. At only thrice the price!'
Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.
"Well folks, looks like we have some Good News. We'll be arriving just a little ahead of schedule today. The, erm, other
news is that we're going to need to be a little flexible on the destination..."
Sure, I have previously shown that using components from the car industry in mass production right now you can convert an ATR 72 to all electric with faster (and possibly higher altitude) cruise, longer range and lower operational cost. Where do the batteries go? Who mentioned batteries? Why are people obsessed with batteries when it comes to something being ”electric”? The trick with the ATR example is to use methanol for fuel and run it through fuel cells producing electricity. You would use the normal wing tanks for the fuel (possibly replaced using materials better suited for methanol). Methanol can be produced in large volumes today, so increasing production shouldn’t be a concern.
I don't know why I didn't see this before. But yes, this is also a quite valid approach WRT boning this particular fish. I still can't see how that would happen without literal Tons of battery cells involved (if only to act as pseudo capacitors). But the idea makes enough sense for certain...
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."