Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
phlsfo
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:18 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:44 pm

AEROFAN wrote:
phlsfo wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
So, this is Airbus equivalent of the Sonic Cruiser, a radical placeholder to make them look innovative until airlines are willing to plunk down money on the next generation of aircraft, all of which will look nothing like this.

Kahless would find such tactics dishonorable.


This is what drives innovation. They even say that this is basically a study as to what they can learn about flight from nature. It is not intended to be a production product. To say this is dishonorable is missing the point entirely. Do you really thing the A350, A380, and any other aircraft that Airbus made didn't have any elements that were pulled from "crazy" concepts? That is how the design process works.

I wish they would spend the time on hypersonic transport instead of this crap.


That is assuming this is the only thing they are working on, which is nonsense. R&D divisions work on many different projects. Who is to say they aren't working on hypersonic transport? How do you know a hypersonic project couldn't benefit from research in this projects? Again, this is how design and innovation works.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:25 pm

Airbus is the first to be aware of the limitations of batteries:
https://simpleflying.com/all-electric-airbus-a320/

"Bird of Prey" is very much a "concept aircraft". Concept cars are never built, but some of their technologies always end up in production cars.

I'm especially intrigued by the absence of the vertical tail. With winglets becoming bigger and bigger I thought that there would already be a parallel trend to make the vertical tail/rudder progressively smaller, and delegate at least some of the yaw stability and control to active winglets.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:45 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.

If this design had conventional winglets and a normal tail it would be quite realistic.

Big electric motors in the wings. 1 hour or 400nm range of battery capacity. A single gas turbine generator in the tail can act as a range extender.

The range extender does not need to be sized to provide all of the electricity for takeoff as the battery can help in the climb. The generator only has to be big enough provide enough electricity at cruise. This design will allow a smaller gas turbine and the batteries capacity will only need to be a fraction of the size of a non hybrid electric design.

As battery technology improves the electric only range of the design increases.

How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust. It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2747
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:19 pm

Amiga500 wrote:

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.


Amiga500 wrote:

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 torsional rigidity).

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?



Amiga500 wrote:
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...





flipdewaf wrote:

You dismiss the other scenarios but this one is fine, where I work we call this "ugly baby syndrome".


Fred


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!'


767333ER wrote:

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..."



FredrikHAD wrote:
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.

/Fredrik



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...
Last edited by DarkSnowyNight on Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:19 pm

aklrno wrote:
I get upset when someone touts an electric vehicle as cleaner, greener, more sustainable. It depends on where the electricity comes from, and in the US at least, its mostly fossil fuels.

My daily driver is a Tesla, but I have some gasoline cars too. I tell people I have three oil powered cars, and one coal powered car.


It depends entirely on where you live in the US. Even if you live in West Virginia, there'll be some other electricity sources including nuclear and natural gas. If you live in California, it's going to be predominantly natural gas and secondarily renewables. In Texas, it's gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear. New York is gas, nuclear, and renewables. The south is predominantly gas and nuclear. The Pacific Northwest is mostly hydroelectricity. Coal has been in major decline over the past decade or so thanks to the plunge in natural gas prices. Gas is now cheap as a fuel, while combined-cycle gas turbines are more efficient, and much cheaper and quicker to build than coal plants.

Also, an electric car powered by combined-cycle gas turbines burning natural gas (the dominant electricity source in the U.S. as a whole) is far more efficient (and therefore has far lower emissions) than a gasoline car. The natural gas itself also results in lower emissions compared with gasoline per btu; a compressed natural gas car emits less than a gasoline car.
 
flash330
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:24 pm

PW100 wrote:
flash330 wrote:
PW100 wrote:
I'd choose the modern, clean, efficient petrol car (euro 6d) vs any electrical-coal powered car.

Stand behind a petrol car while someone revving the engine, see how clean it is

After you, when you have removed your head from the coal plant chimney . . .

As long as you have a picnic in a oil refinery at the same time haha
 
aklrno
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:44 pm

My electric car is based in Northern Nevada. Our power is nearly all fossil fuel generated, I think about 2-1 natural gas to coal. There is a geothermal plant around 8 miles from my garage, but it is small. Wind and solar are negligible. Solar at my house is problematic so I haven't installed it yet. In any case I charge my car at night.

My point wasn't really to say my car is exclusively coal powered. I also understand that centralized generation is more efficient, although I'm not sure how much of that efficiency is lost in transmission. It's just that some people seem to think that electric vehicles are magically free of pollution. The real reason I bought the car is not to save the world. I just like really really really fast cars.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:50 pm

aklrno wrote:
I get upset when someone touts an electric vehicle as cleaner, greener, more sustainable. It depends on where the electricity comes from, and in the US at least, its mostly fossil fuels.


Not all "fossil fuels" are the same and running one plant 24/7 at 35-65% thermal efficiency is always going to beat many multiples of internal combustion motors (cars)running 20-30% PEAK efficiency sometimes, under certain circumstances - even with line losses, etc. It is better for jet engines but electric is a slam dunk for cars.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 pm

767333ER wrote:
How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust.

Electric motors are already lighter at the same horsepower level. Gas turbines can not spin faster to double their rated power for a few minutes, they can maybe gain a 5% boost. Electric motors can double their rated power easily in bursts for takeoff. Electric motors do not lose power with altitude so they can run at a low power setting and give them time to cool.

767333ER wrote:
It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

The design is a hybrid so the batteries only need a fraction of the capacity that the flight needs. As I said a 2030 launch is another 11 years. Battery capacity will have doubled by then. Hybrid designs also gain performance as battery tech is upgraded.

767333ER wrote:
Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.

The design is a hybrid so the motors will continue even when the battery is flat. The gas turbine in the tail will be providing electricity directly to the motors.

Check the Airbus E-Fan X. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X

I'm sure why we are talking about recharging a hybrid plane. Last time I checked a hybrid Toyota Prius did not need to be recharged.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3794
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:19 pm

767333ER wrote:

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.


Same as happens now when aircraft performance begins to degrade and engines performance isn't what it was when new, performance factors are added in to the flight planning and en-route calculations. it may be that when it gets to a certain level there needs to be a replacement of something but this is standard now, it will just be a different standard.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:46 pm

For a removable battery solution you could always do something like the Lockheed BWB Hybrid solution and have the batteries slide out of a Half height rear Cargo Ramp from the belly of the plane. The Batteries could be in long sections that slide out between structural supports - the batteries wouldn't need to be that wide - just long.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockh ... 1726883912
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:48 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
767333ER wrote:

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.


Same as happens now when aircraft performance begins to degrade and engines performance isn't what it was when new, performance factors are added in to the flight planning and en-route calculations. it may be that when it gets to a certain level there needs to be a replacement of something but this is standard now, it will just be a different standard.

Fred


If it runs low - just beam some energy to it from the ground from a Laser...How many Megawatts are some of the new Military lasers going to be?

Just joking.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1302
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:04 am

I think the idea of electric-power aircraft is great (once the power source is solar and wind, not fossil fuels). There would be no emissions at high altitudes, which is a big concern of many presently, differing I guess from ground-based emissions.

I am no pilot, scientist or engineer, but I do have to wonder about overall efficiency:
A battery is not going to get lighter in flight, whereas current aircraft burn off the fuel weight over the course of the flight, enabling achievement of higher and more efficient cruise altitudes. And, the aircraft will be just as heavy landing as it was taking off, meaning perhaps more robust (and I'll guess heavier) landing gear, and probably higher landing speeds. MGTOW = MGLW. How would this be mitigated?

As to the original concept for this thread, the bird-like aircraft looks great, and I believe the point is to promote more out-of-the-box thinking, which is frequently associated with younger entrants into the field not already saddled with a "this is how we've always done it" roadblock. I don't know that anything will actually be built just because it looks hot and sexy. Airlines would be happy enough just flying a plain box if if made money.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines (Retired). Flight Memory: 181 airports, 92 airlines, 78 a/c types, 403 routes, 58 countries (by air), 6 continents. 1,119,414 passenger miles.

Home airport : CEC
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:24 am

RJMAZ wrote:
767333ER wrote:
How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust.

Electric motors are already lighter at the same horsepower level. Gas turbines can not spin faster to double their rated power for a few minutes, they can maybe gain a 5% boost. Electric motors can double their rated power easily in bursts for takeoff. Electric motors do not lose power with altitude so they can run at a low power setting and give them time to cool.


I don't believe it is so easy. While you can overload an electric motor without damage fairly easily, the problems with the fan blade tips going supersonic at higher RPM would still remain (or the fan blades would have to have variable pitch). As far as thrust at altitude is concerned, the air's mass will be always lower at altitude, so the available thrust will be also lower, regardless of what's driving the fan.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:48 am

WildcatYXU wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
767333ER wrote:
How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust.

Electric motors are already lighter at the same horsepower level. Gas turbines can not spin faster to double their rated power for a few minutes, they can maybe gain a 5% boost. Electric motors can double their rated power easily in bursts for takeoff. Electric motors do not lose power with altitude so they can run at a low power setting and give them time to cool.


I don't believe it is so easy. While you can overload an electric motor without damage fairly easily, the problems with the fan blade tips going supersonic at higher RPM would still remain (or the fan blades would have to have variable pitch). As far as thrust at altitude is concerned, the air's mass will be always lower at altitude, so the available thrust will be also lower, regardless of what's driving the fan.

Why would the fan need to behave any different depending on the power source? A turbine/jet engine on a modern airliner does provide some thrust in itself, but as I understand it, most of the thrust comes from the fan. If the fan is the same, why would the power source make a difference? With electric motors, the fan design _might_ change to suit the new power source even better. Perhaps multiple fans will become the norm if it is deemed more efficient in all aspects (operational, eceonomical and so on). Will the reason for moving to twins disappear as the complex turbines are replaced with electric motors and we’ll start seeing quads and even higher number of engines under (or over?) the wings? What are the possibilities as opposed to the obstacles?

/Fredrik
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:10 am

sibibom wrote:
I can see all the "inspired by nature" stuff transferred from A380 to A350 as the flagship has been passed down :stirthepot:

Is this concept even feasible?


A380 inspired by nature. Shaped like a Hippopotamus with wings and a tail?
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:31 am

FredrikHAD wrote:
Perhaps multiple fans will become the norm if it is deemed more efficient in all aspects (operational, eceonomical and so on). Will the reason for moving to twins disappear as the complex turbines are replaced with electric motors and we’ll start seeing quads and even higher number of engines under (or over?) the wings? What are the possibilities as opposed to the obstacles?

Electric motors are more simple so i guess we could see multiple engines. I'm sure it will still be cheaper to have fewer motors though. But for redundancy we might see a quad electric engine aircraft with a single gas turbine in the tail.

Currently all of the lightweight electric motors are under 2000kw. There are no 20,000kw motors yet but I am sure one could be built.

I am sure once the E-Fan X flies next year we will all be talking about the advantages. I think hybrid overcomes most of the battery capacity issues. With the same hybrid design the batteries can be swapped out every 5 years for improved models. The range then increases with each upgrade and the gas turbine does not need to be changed.

I expect the biggest game changer will be the sub 100 seat electric market. We will see aircraft flying between general aviation airports close to city centres as noise to the nearby neighbours will no longer be an issue.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:28 am

FredrikHAD wrote:
WildcatYXU wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Electric motors are already lighter at the same horsepower level. Gas turbines can not spin faster to double their rated power for a few minutes, they can maybe gain a 5% boost. Electric motors can double their rated power easily in bursts for takeoff. Electric motors do not lose power with altitude so they can run at a low power setting and give them time to cool.


I don't believe it is so easy. While you can overload an electric motor without damage fairly easily, the problems with the fan blade tips going supersonic at higher RPM would still remain (or the fan blades would have to have variable pitch). As far as thrust at altitude is concerned, the air's mass will be always lower at altitude, so the available thrust will be also lower, regardless of what's driving the fan.

Why would the fan need to behave any different depending on the power source? A turbine/jet engine on a modern airliner does provide some thrust in itself, but as I understand it, most of the thrust comes from the fan. If the fan is the same, why would the power source make a difference? With electric motors, the fan design _might_ change to suit the new power source even better. Perhaps multiple fans will become the norm if it is deemed more efficient in all aspects (operational, eceonomical and so on). Will the reason for moving to twins disappear as the complex turbines are replaced with electric motors and we’ll start seeing quads and even higher number of engines under (or over?) the wings? What are the possibilities as opposed to the obstacles?

/Fredrik


Actually, that's exactly my point. The power source doesn't make any difference. I responded to the claim that it will be easy to get double "power" on take-off. Well, overloading the electric motor by 100% could be easy. Getting extra 100% of thrust much less so. Regardless of the number of engines installed on the wing. And there is still the power source's current limit.
BTW, despite the wide spread belief, the electric motor's efficiency isn't constant across the whole load range. Not even close. On large machines - and we are talking large machines there, efficiency drops with low loads to about 50%.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:49 am

flash330 wrote:
PW100 wrote:
flash330 wrote:
Stand behind a petrol car while someone revving the engine, see how clean it is

After you, when you have removed your head from the coal plant chimney . . .

As long as you have a picnic in a oil refinery at the same time haha

Actually, I have done such rather close . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
sibibom
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:52 am

aerorobnz wrote:
sibibom wrote:
I can see all the "inspired by nature" stuff transferred from A380 to A350 as the flagship has been passed down :stirthepot:

Is this concept even feasible?


A380 inspired by nature. Shaped like a Hippopotamus with wings and a tail?


There is one documentary which used to be shown on Discovery almost weekly a decade back.....many parts had "inspiration" from nature.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Electric motors are already lighter at the same horsepower level. Gas turbines can not spin faster to double their rated power for a few minutes, they can maybe gain a 5% boost. Electric motors can double their rated power easily in bursts for takeoff. Electric motors do not lose power with altitude so they can run at a low power setting and give them time to cool.

I’d be curious as to see some examples of this as I haven’t seen any to date. There’s two ways of looking at power, either it can double it’s rated power for a short time, or it’s rated power is half what it is designed to be capable of because it would burn out. If you look at it the second way, the gas turbine is better because it’s max continuous isn’t that far from max power.

The motor may not lose power with altitude, but much like conventional propulsion, it will lose cooling efficiency and will still lose thrust.

RJMAZ wrote:
The design is a hybrid so the batteries only need a fraction of the capacity that the flight needs. As I said a 2030 launch is another 11 years. Battery capacity will have doubled by then. Hybrid designs also gain performance as battery tech is upgraded.

2030 launch as in launch of program or first flight? I doubt the 737 max would survive to launch of a program at 2030 and first flight 2030 would be after years of development meaning they are not using 2030 technology but technology from some years before.

RJMAZ wrote:
The design is a hybrid so the motors will continue even when the battery is flat. The gas turbine in the tail will be providing electricity directly to the motors.

Check the Airbus E-Fan X. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X

I'm sure why we are talking about recharging a hybrid plane. Last time I checked a hybrid Toyota Prius did not need to be recharged.

So the motors will continue when the battery is flat so you are saying the battery runs out but then you are comparing it to a Prius which is a type of hybrid powertrain that doesn’t drain its battery and where it doesn’t need to be recharged. If the battery drains and the gas turbine directly powers the engines, the batteries need recharged. Your understanding here is simplistic given the fact that you are making the assumption that because something is called hybrid between gas and electric something else must work the same.

If the gas turbine can fully supply power to the engines, why have heavy, space consuming batteries in the first place?
flipdewaf wrote:
The energy density of jet fuel is still far better than a battery.

And tell me the last time someone plugged in a hybrid Chrysler Pacifica, or a hybrid Ford Fusion, wait that was today. Just because Toyota is so antiquated that they don’t have it doesn’t mean it’s not a thing.

767333ER wrote:

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.


Same as happens now when aircraft performance begins to degrade and engines performance isn't what it was when new, performance factors are added in to the flight planning and en-route calculations. it may be that when it gets to a certain level there needs to be a replacement of something but this is standard now, it will just be a different standard.

Fred

Well you see here’s the thing, yes the operating temperatures of an engine will deteriorate its performance over time, but when that happens to a degree that is considered significant the engine gets overhauled to restore its performance and/or it is debated and put on a smaller version of that plane. Much like taking an A321’s engine when it begins to wear out and derating it for an A320 or A319. Will this standard be better or worse on a motor?

The factors that are added to flight planning calculations are fuel burn factors, not thrust deterioration factors, thrust deterioration is not something that is expected in any noticeable amount.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:38 pm

sibibom wrote:
aerorobnz wrote:
sibibom wrote:
I can see all the "inspired by nature" stuff transferred from A380 to A350 as the flagship has been passed down :stirthepot:

Is this concept even feasible?


A380 inspired by nature. Shaped like a Hippopotamus with wings and a tail?


There is one documentary which used to be shown on Discovery almost weekly a decade back.....many parts had "inspiration" from nature.


Oh... that one. Having worked on GLARE development I can tell you point blank that the show's producers completely failed to understand that evolution and science finding similar solutions for similar engineering problems is *NOT* the result of engineers looking at nature and saying 'let's copy that!'. Nice topic - stupid and misleading way of presenting it.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
estorilm
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:45 pm

767333ER wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.

If this design had conventional winglets and a normal tail it would be quite realistic.

Big electric motors in the wings. 1 hour or 400nm range of battery capacity. A single gas turbine generator in the tail can act as a range extender.

The range extender does not need to be sized to provide all of the electricity for takeoff as the battery can help in the climb. The generator only has to be big enough provide enough electricity at cruise. This design will allow a smaller gas turbine and the batteries capacity will only need to be a fraction of the size of a non hybrid electric design.

As battery technology improves the electric only range of the design increases.

How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust. It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.

Well - personally, I'd think that the best way to do this would be minimal use of batteries (they'd have to be lighter lithium-hybrid types) and use some sort of ultra-efficient turbine-powered generator (think giant high-tech APU) to power the motors in cruise flight and re-charge the batteries (in case a go-around is required on approach, etc). Perhaps the opposite would be possible (turbine electric supply during takeoff and also landing [for redundancy]) but I still don't think any batteries would have the required power density for cruise, even on short hops.

Also for the four-prop concept, a single motor could be used in each wing, using lightweight driveshafts to each prop assembly. This could actually reduce drag as you'd have four small-diameter nacelles (maybe even the size of the hub/spinner) and then possibly a bump in the middle of each wing where the motor resides, with an air inlet for cooling. This would make counter-rotating props less of a logistical problem also (the motors could be interchangeable, for example, as the gearing alone determines rotation).

The turbine power supply would be a great way to stagger the development process as well - you can build the aircraft and test everything using turbine-only electrics for a few years while concurrently developing the battery packs, inverters, regulators, and power switching circuitry.

Wow, if I was an engineer this could be a lot of fun. Even if the thing never actually flies :lol:

edit: Nevermind, that seems to be what they're doing already - but I still like my split motor / driveshaft idea.

edit2: Nevermind, losing a motor (ie 100% thrust on one wing, on a 4-prop plane) = death, sooo.. carry on.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:21 pm

estorilm wrote:
767333ER wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.

If this design had conventional winglets and a normal tail it would be quite realistic.

Big electric motors in the wings. 1 hour or 400nm range of battery capacity. A single gas turbine generator in the tail can act as a range extender.

The range extender does not need to be sized to provide all of the electricity for takeoff as the battery can help in the climb. The generator only has to be big enough provide enough electricity at cruise. This design will allow a smaller gas turbine and the batteries capacity will only need to be a fraction of the size of a non hybrid electric design.

As battery technology improves the electric only range of the design increases.

How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust. It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.

Well - personally, I'd think that the best way to do this would be minimal use of batteries (they'd have to be lighter lithium-hybrid types) and use some sort of ultra-efficient turbine-powered generator (think giant high-tech APU) to power the motors in cruise flight and re-charge the batteries (in case a go-around is required on approach, etc). Perhaps the opposite would be possible (turbine electric supply during takeoff and also landing [for redundancy]) but I still don't think any batteries would have the required power density for cruise, even on short hops.

Also for the four-prop concept, a single motor could be used in each wing, using lightweight driveshafts to each prop assembly. This could actually reduce drag as you'd have four small-diameter nacelles (maybe even the size of the hub/spinner) and then possibly a bump in the middle of each wing where the motor resides, with an air inlet for cooling. This would make counter-rotating props less of a logistical problem also (the motors could be interchangeable, for example, as the gearing alone determines rotation).

The turbine power supply would be a great way to stagger the development process as well - you can build the aircraft and test everything using turbine-only electrics for a few years while concurrently developing the battery packs, inverters, regulators, and power switching circuitry.

Wow, if I was an engineer this could be a lot of fun. Even if the thing never actually flies :lol:

edit: Nevermind, that seems to be what they're doing already - but I still like my split motor / driveshaft idea.

edit2: Nevermind, losing a motor (ie 100% thrust on one wing, on a 4-prop plane) = death, sooo.. carry on.

Well doing it on a plane with propellers that’s the size of a Dash 8 would be doable and I agree minimal use of batteries is the best option until we don’t need gas anymore. I just don’t think we will see this technology used on an NMA aircraft in the next 10 years.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
caljn
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:39 pm

mham001 wrote:
aklrno wrote:
I get upset when someone touts an electric vehicle as cleaner, greener, more sustainable. It depends on where the electricity comes from, and in the US at least, its mostly fossil fuels.



Once the Koch brothers and their $$$ political influence die off the US can join the 21st century. China is poised to take over and T is concerned with saving coal. Backward much?
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:10 pm

aklrno wrote:
I get upset when someone touts an electric vehicle as cleaner, greener, more sustainable. It depends on where the electricity comes from, and in the US at least, its mostly fossil fuels.

My daily driver is a Tesla, but I have some gasoline cars too. I tell people I have three oil powered cars, and one coal powered car.


This is a very basic and uninformed point of view. Electrification of vehicles concentrates power generation which has several benefts:

1) No local pollution. Even the cleanest cars still contribute to negative health effects in urban areas, which is most of the world's population.

2) Emissions control. Concentrating emissions allowing for various technologies to be employed from scrubbers for NOX and particulates, to carbon capture.

3) Enables cleaner generation. It's much easier to upgrade a single power plant from coal to natural gas and cut emissions, than it is to upgrade thousands of car motors in a given city.


In the long run too:

4) No local contamination. Ever seen them tear down a gas station? Look up the kind of soil remediation required.

5) No transport of hazardous goods locally. Transporting gasoline and distributing it to service stations is a hazardous activity which routinely results in spills, fires, etc.

The more vehicles that are electrified. The fewer local hazmat sites and rolling bombs we'll have in our neighbourhood.

And this is all before we really talk about tackling climate change. I want to see most transport electrified and fossil fues left for high power-weight ratio requirements like aviation.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:31 pm

TObound wrote:

This is a very basic and uninformed point of view. Electrification of vehicles concentrates power generation which has several benefts:

1) No local pollution. Even the cleanest cars still contribute to negative health effects in urban areas, which is most of the world's population.

2) Emissions control. Concentrating emissions allowing for various technologies to be employed from scrubbers for NOX and particulates, to carbon capture.

3) Enables cleaner generation. It's much easier to upgrade a single power plant from coal to natural gas and cut emissions, than it is to upgrade thousands of car motors in a given city.


In the long run too:

4) No local contamination. Ever seen them tear down a gas station? Look up the kind of soil remediation required.

5) No transport of hazardous goods locally. Transporting gasoline and distributing it to service stations is a hazardous activity which routinely results in spills, fires, etc.

The more vehicles that are electrified. The fewer local hazmat sites and rolling bombs we'll have in our neighbourhood.

And this is all before we really talk about tackling climate change. I want to see most transport electrified and fossil fuel left for high power-weight ratio requirements like aviation.


It is all very nice, but we're in a situation where we insist on new technologies, but absolutely ignore the old but just as efficient ones. What am I talking about? Railway. Railway can run on electricity (almost) absolutely without problems. And how many kilometers of electrified railway do we have in Ontario (I assume the TO in your nickname means Toronto)? Zero. Everything is diesel. Even Via Rail is running its 4 carriage trains pulled by a massive diesel. Why??
Some governments talk about a HST in the Windsor - Cornwall corridor, some don't, but nobody does anything. I'd happily board a fast electric train with AC's code on it here in YXU (especially if they's handle my baggage too) and changed to an aircraft at YYZ, but that will remain a dream forever. Or at least in my lifetime.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:58 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
TObound wrote:

This is a very basic and uninformed point of view. Electrification of vehicles concentrates power generation which has several benefts:

1) No local pollution. Even the cleanest cars still contribute to negative health effects in urban areas, which is most of the world's population.

2) Emissions control. Concentrating emissions allowing for various technologies to be employed from scrubbers for NOX and particulates, to carbon capture.

3) Enables cleaner generation. It's much easier to upgrade a single power plant from coal to natural gas and cut emissions, than it is to upgrade thousands of car motors in a given city.


In the long run too:

4) No local contamination. Ever seen them tear down a gas station? Look up the kind of soil remediation required.

5) No transport of hazardous goods locally. Transporting gasoline and distributing it to service stations is a hazardous activity which routinely results in spills, fires, etc.

The more vehicles that are electrified. The fewer local hazmat sites and rolling bombs we'll have in our neighbourhood.

And this is all before we really talk about tackling climate change. I want to see most transport electrified and fossil fuel left for high power-weight ratio requirements like aviation.


It is all very nice, but we're in a situation where we insist on new technologies, but absolutely ignore the old but just as efficient ones. What am I talking about? Railway. Railway can run on electricity (almost) absolutely without problems. And how many kilometers of electrified railway do we have in Ontario (I assume the TO in your nickname means Toronto)? Zero. Everything is diesel. Even Via Rail is running its 4 carriage trains pulled by a massive diesel. Why??
Some governments talk about a HST in the Windsor - Cornwall corridor, some don't, but nobody does anything. I'd happily board a fast electric train with AC's code on it here in YXU (especially if they's handle my baggage too) and changed to an aircraft at YYZ, but that will remain a dream forever. Or at least in my lifetime.


This is a different discussion. And I wholeheartedly agree that rail in various forms (intercity, suburban, commuter, urban, streetcars) are all part of the solution. It should be noted that electrification is a process. You can electrify cars, airplanes, trains, or buses. Ultimately the goal should be to electrify everything on land. Trains are simply less of a concern, because they are already pretty efficient. Intercity passenger trains (like VIA or GO) use about 0.5 L/100 km per passenger. That's an order of magnitude lower fuel consumption than any car or airplane. Electrifying it would save more, but one would think you want to target the less efficient consumers first.

To that end, electrification offers its greatest returns not from cars or trains but buses:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... oil-demand

You seem to conflate electric with speed. This is a strange idea given that the slowest trains in Canada are all electrified: the subways and streetcars in our cities. While the fastest trains are diesel: all of VIA's intercity and GO and AMT suburban and commuter trains. I get where you are coming from. But I would caution against this idea that electric propulsion automatically equals fast. It doesn't. The biggest reason why intercity rail is slow in Canada is not propulsion but the ownership of rail corridors by freight companies and the lack of priority given to passenger rail.

To your point about integration, YYZ is already planning to integrate intercity rail and other transit better with a massive rail/transit hub which they've already contracted to design and in the past have said they'd finance themselves:

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/12/gt ... ansit-plan

Feeding that hub will be projects like VIA's Dedicated Tracks/HFR project (currently under a $70 million study and project definition with the infrastructure bank). Providing AC and Westjet don't succeed in their rumoured lobbying, to kill it, I do think we'll see some improvement in the East and eventual extension to London.

https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-in ... ted-tracks

Should be noted that the YYZ authorities are fully supportive of intercity rail. They don't want to waste slots on puddle jumpers to places like YXU or YGK.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:17 pm

TObound wrote:

Lastly, you seem to conflate electric with speed. This is a strange idea given that the slowest trains in Canada are all electrified: the subways and streetcars in our cities. While the fastest trains are diesel: all of VIA's intercity and GO and AMT suburban and commuter trains. I get where you are coming from. But I would caution against this idea that electric propulsion automatically equals fast. It doesn't. The biggest reason why intercity rail is slow in Canada is not propulsion but the ownership of rail corridors by freight companies and the lack of priority given to passenger rail.


The fastest rail systems in the world are without exception all electric. Yes, there is no problem in building fast diesel locomotives. I remember traveling from Strassbourg to Lyons aboard a diesel powered train doing 160 km/h. It was in 1995. But that doesn't even come close to ICE or TGV speeds. What would be the point doing it in 2019? And as far as the speed around here is concerned, the problem is not only the railway ownership. The rail system is obsolete and therefore slow.

TObound wrote:
To your point about integration, YYZ is already planning to integrate intercity rail and other transit better with a massive rail hub which they've already contracted to design and in the past have said they'd finance themselves:

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/12/gt ... ansit-plan

Feeding that hub will be projects like VIA's Dedicated Tracks/HFR project (currently under a $70 million study and project definition with the infrastructure bank). roviding AC and Westjet don't succeed in their rumoured lobbying, to kill it, I do think we'll see some improvement in the East and eventual extension to London.

https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects-in ... ted-tracks


IMHO this is where AC and WS are doing it wrong. Instead of lobbying against they should take part in the project and sell train rides as flights. Those DH8's won't last forever and there is basically no feasible replacement for them. At lest not in the foreseeable future.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
TObound
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:39 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
The fastest rail systems in the world are without exception all electric. Yes, there is no problem in building fast diesel locomotives. I remember traveling from Strassbourg to Lyons aboard a diesel powered train doing 160 km/h. It was in 1995. But that doesn't even come close to ICE or TGV speeds. What would be the point doing it in 2019? And as far as the speed around here is concerned, the problem is not only the railway ownership. The rail system is obsolete and therefore slow.


That's all great but how much more are you willing to pay in taxes to fund all that? This is the fundamental question. Canada has been talking about high speed rail for half a century and every time they study it, when the report comes back with the cost, government's balk at the idea. Elsewhere, such development has come at massive costs that their governments were willing to bear:

https://www.railway-technology.com/feat ... d-railway/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... orporation

Which is exactly why VIA dropped the HSR idea and is pursuing HFR/HPR instead. 60% of the speed (~180-200 kph planned) of European HSR for 25% of the cost (~CA$4 billion estimated). Governments in Canada aren't willing to spend more.This calculus won't change as long as the only transportation mode in Canada that is subsidized remains roads. Aviation is a massive moneymaker for the federal government, through the collection of ground rents at major airports. It's the most successful hidden tax in Canada, in that very few people know that this is a huge part of why airfares are so high in Canada. So there's no real incentive to build up a system that may require government subsidy as opposed to generating revenue.

WildcatYXU wrote:
IMHO this is where AC and WS are doing it wrong. Instead of lobbying against they should take part in the project and sell train rides as flights. Those DH8's won't last forever and there is basically no feasible replacement for them. At lest not in the foreseeable future.


They really don't care about that. They know you don't have a choice. And you'll drive to YYZ or spend 3 hrs on a bus to catch a long-haul flight. Or they may even consolidate those Q400 flights to 2-3 mainline 223 flights per day in the future, and have you wait around at YYZ for several hours. Again, they know you don't have a choice.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:52 pm

767333ER wrote:
If the gas turbine can fully supply power to the engines, why have heavy, space consuming batteries in the first place?

The gas turbine can only provide enough electricity for cruise, not for the takeoff and climb. The batteries provide the extra power required for the climb stage. Batteries allow for a quieter takeoff as the gas turbine can turn off until the aircraft is at 10,000ft.

Ideally it would work like this:
1) Electric wheel hub motors taxi the aircraft silently and reduce the takeoff roll significantly.
2) The aircraft climbs to 10,000ft fully electric and the battery is now at say 70% capacity.
3) The gas turbine then turns on and the aircraft climbs to 30,000ft. The battery is now at 50%. The gas turbine reduced the rate of battery power loss.
4) Aircraft cruises for 2 hours and the battery is still at 50%. The gas turbine power matchs the electric motor draw.
5) On descent the motors free spin without power going to them. The gas turbine keeps running and recharges the batteries. Battery capacity goes back up to 90%.
6) The electric motors regen brake the aircraft and recharge the battery. The electric fans can go in full reverse to allow extremely short runways.
7) The battery then can get topped up at the gate from the gas turbine or from mains power.

Then after a few decsdes battery capacity and recharging facilities at the airport will improve. The aircraft can then reduce the power of the gas turbine to provide say 50% of the electricity needed for cruise. The battery then slowly drains at cruise and the gas turbine effectively doubles the range. On short 1 hour flights it could do it fully electric.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:58 pm

caljn wrote:
Once the Koch brothers and their $$$ political influence die off the US can join the 21st century. China is poised to take over and T is concerned with saving coal. Backward much?


Trendy but ignorant A-net US bashing. The use of coal in the US is dropping dramatically, and has been for years, while it continues to rise in a dramatic fashion in China and most other 'developing' countries around the world. An interesting factoid, Germany uses more coal than the US for electricity production and of a much dirtier type. Who's backward?
 
caljn
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:05 pm

mham001 wrote:
caljn wrote:
Once the Koch brothers and their $$$ political influence die off the US can join the 21st century. China is poised to take over and T is concerned with saving coal. Backward much?


Trendy but ignorant A-net US bashing. The use of coal in the US is dropping dramatically, and has been for years, while it continues to rise in a dramatic fashion in China and most other 'developing' countries around the world. An interesting factoid, Germany uses more coal than the US for electricity production and of a much dirtier type. Who's backward?



I am a US citizen that will continue to "bash" it until we get back on track...hopefully January 2021. Thank you and have a great weekend.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4534
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:36 pm

Both Germany and China are expending a lot of resources for clean and cleaner power.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:24 pm

caljn wrote:
mham001 wrote:
caljn wrote:
Once the Koch brothers and their $$$ political influence die off the US can join the 21st century. China is poised to take over and T is concerned with saving coal. Backward much?


Trendy but ignorant A-net US bashing. The use of coal in the US is dropping dramatically, and has been for years, while it continues to rise in a dramatic fashion in China and most other 'developing' countries around the world. An interesting factoid, Germany uses more coal than the US for electricity production and of a much dirtier type. Who's backward?



I am a US citizen that will continue to "bash" it until we get back on track...hopefully January 2021. Thank you and have a great weekend.


Yet the stats belie this myth that we were ever really "offtrack". Nor that the US is not in the "21st century" when the country you are comparing is expanding its use of coal and will be for the next decade while simultaneously introducing more coal use in under-developed nations in Asia and Africa. Your bashing is misguided and uninformed - but quite trendy. Meanwhile, much of the research and new technology in alternatives is coming from the country you claim "backward".
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... 0-climate/

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Both Germany and China are expending a lot of resources for clean and cleaner power.


And they get a lot of favorable headlines that obscure the nasty facts behind their own production and lead people to false conclusions, as we see here.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:24 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
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?


I've been extremely fortunate to have toured around the block once or twice with fairly substantial stops in most disciplines of aerospace. Which has involved several years of stress, fatigue & damage tolerance analysis on wings (funnily enough I am now also working on power plants).


You know fine well that an inspection panel (which is the most relevant of the examples you listed) is not fit for much beyond poking a head in - sometimes not even that.

The pylon typically requires a halving of the rib spacing of the adjacent ribs and significantly thicker skin as well as further pad ups beyond that. Basically the torque box structure in region of the pylon (with pylon and the additional pickups that attach pylon to torque box removed) is likely to approach double the weight per unit span just to account for the presence of the pylon.

The undercarriage housing and surround is a massive weight increase (again, relative to the u/c not being there and considering the u/c load bearing members removed). Those large holes in an otherwise fairly ideal structural element don't come without significant impact on the efficiency of that structural element.

Even inspection panels require significant pad ups of skin thickness in their local areas as compared to the same structure without the inspection panel.

Now, obviously the pylon is a significant load input to the wing, that wouldn't be present with just holding batteries - but to essentially be able to remove the lower skin across the wing (which you would need to do in order to replace the batteries in the timely fashion), you are probably looking at something like at least a 20-30% increase in torque box structural weight - maybe much more given its now effectively an open section.

That closed channel torque box is now not a box section, but really a bastardised C-section - considering the lower skin acting as part of a primary structural element with it being removed and refastened on every flight is not going to happen.

The chances of the overworked ground team over-tightening a row of fasteners on a DarkSnowyNight to the point the fastener preload are far in excess of design is simply far too high for anyone to be comfortable with. The FHA would of course envisage a row of fasteners attaching the lower skin to the front spar fail and zip - then the lower skin rip off and your wing fold up - and the PSSA/SSA would conclude the PSE cannot be formed from members that are removed every flight.

Without wanting to put too fine a point on it - if you'd done anything of significance on stressing a wing, you'd already know all this and not be proposing an idea that will never be let off the ground.



Unless you can tell me of a mechanism that will allow timely replacement of batteries within each section of the torque box bounded by the ribs immediately inboard and outboard and the spars without removing <20% of the lower skin of that box section then this approach just won't work.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.


A very mild hybrid* I can see. APU can provide electrical power which can boost the engine thrust output - particularly in OEI scenarios.


Assuming NSA arrives in the 2030s, I don't see anything beyond mild. Far too risky.



The most advanced I can see is:

Gas turbines provide electrical power, batteries provide additional electrical power for boost.

Electric motors are linked to the fans - which are not necessarily co-located (and definitely not mechanically linked) with the gas turbines.
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:13 am

RJMAZ wrote:
767333ER wrote:
If the gas turbine can fully supply power to the engines, why have heavy, space consuming batteries in the first place?

The gas turbine can only provide enough electricity for cruise, not for the takeoff and climb. The batteries provide the extra power required for the climb stage. Batteries allow for a quieter takeoff as the gas turbine can turn off until the aircraft is at 10,000ft.

Ideally it would work like this:
1) Electric wheel hub motors taxi the aircraft silently and reduce the takeoff roll significantly.
2) The aircraft climbs to 10,000ft fully electric and the battery is now at say 70% capacity.
3) The gas turbine then turns on and the aircraft climbs to 30,000ft. The battery is now at 50%. The gas turbine reduced the rate of battery power loss.
4) Aircraft cruises for 2 hours and the battery is still at 50%. The gas turbine power matchs the electric motor draw.
5) On descent the motors free spin without power going to them. The gas turbine keeps running and recharges the batteries. Battery capacity goes back up to 90%.
6) The electric motors regen brake the aircraft and recharge the battery. The electric fans can go in full reverse to allow extremely short runways.
7) The battery then can get topped up at the gate from the gas turbine or from mains power.

Then after a few decsdes battery capacity and recharging facilities at the airport will improve. The aircraft can then reduce the power of the gas turbine to provide say 50% of the electricity needed for cruise. The battery then slowly drains at cruise and the gas turbine effectively doubles the range. On short 1 hour flights it could do it fully electric.

This is an interesting idea, much along the lines of my idea for an all electric ATR 72. I think it may be feasible to replace the gas turbine for a lot of fuel cells, producing electricity from a variety of fuels. I proposed using methanol (which can be locally produced in large quantities in an environmentally nice way), but some fuel cells can use a variety of fuels, even diesel. With a 70 % (electrical) efficiency in the fuel cell it seems like a way better alternative than a gas turbine (along with the generator). I think the turbine/gen combo can reach some 25 % fuel-to-electricity efficiency.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:03 pm

I applaud the optimism of some like RJMAZ.
I'm going to inject some reality in the thread but do not be discouraged by it.

I'm literally thinking about this stuff everyday and working on my patents. Eventually, I expect to defend my concepts here among other stages.
I talked to the electric Pipistrel guys and the Airbus guys at the innovation pavillion at PAS, but quickly figured out that they are hitting a wall and trying to push that hard wall. They know it as well, and are quick to admit the limitations.

I even slid some hints as to alternative concepts and they looked shocked because it is outside the comfort zone but within reach of concept. I hope that they will give it more than a thought.

Airbus has the E-fan but also the EcoPulse concepts underway.

So I can easily expose several issues.
1. Electric motors have a higher power to weight ratio than piston engines. BUT they are still unable to match the thrust to weight ratio of a turbine engine. This is also what the above concepts are about, ie starting work on electric motors that get lighter and lighter. It should be possible eventually but we're not there yet.

2. A single gas turbine running 4 electric motors has no redundancy. If the gas turbine quits, what will power the motors?

3. The concept of a gas turbine engine inside the fuselage sucking up RAM air at an angle, powering generators which in turn power electric motors, which drive a fan, is difficult to make as efficient as a high bypass ratio turbofan engine where the gas turbine drives the fan directly or through a gearbox.
Even if that is achieved, the space that it occupies in the fuselage would be at a weight premium and would indirectly increase its thrust to weight ratio.

These are mere examples of issues but I could write a book over all the issues in the idea s in this thread.
I have discussed the (m)ethanol economy concept in other threads, feel free to take a look through the search function.

Again, do not be discouraged by this and keep thinking about how the issues can be overcome. When you are there, test it against the existing state of the art, do not share it with anybody before taking a patent on it.

Once you start working on this seriously, you realise that the current aircraft can be made obsolete reasonably easily.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3673
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:43 pm

PW100 wrote:
flash330 wrote:
PW100 wrote:
I'd choose the modern, clean, efficient petrol car (euro 6d) vs any electrical-coal powered car.

Stand behind a petrol car while someone revving the engine, see how clean it is

After you, when you have removed your head from the coal plant chimney . . .


Really? Why aren’t your governments switching/hasn’t your governments already switched to renewable forms of electricity production? Solar, wind powered, biogas, hydro - there are no excuse except complacency and complicity in not.
come visit the south pacific
 
ManoaChris
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:00 pm

aklrno wrote:
My electric car is based in Northern Nevada. Our power is nearly all fossil fuel generated, I think about 2-1 natural gas to coal. There is a geothermal plant around 8 miles from my garage, but it is small. Wind and solar are negligible. Solar at my house is problematic so I haven't installed it yet. In any case I charge my car at night.

My point wasn't really to say my car is exclusively coal powered. I also understand that centralized generation is more efficient, although I'm not sure how much of that efficiency is lost in transmission. It's just that some people seem to think that electric vehicles are magically free of pollution. The real reason I bought the car is not to save the world. I just like really really really fast cars.


Obviously that much coal burning is unfortunate, but your electricity is still slightly cleaner than gasoline. It would need to be more like 50% coal to tilt carbon emissions higher.
 
Unflug
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:07 am

mham001 wrote:
An interesting factoid, Germany uses more coal than the US for electricity production and of a much dirtier type. Who's backward?


As usual it depends on how you pick your numbers - this seems to be the comparison you are referring to:

Coal (2018): Germany 35% (229 Billion kWh), US 27% (1.146 Billion kWh)

Other numbers to look at:

Fossil (coal and gas, 2018): Germany 49% (317 Billion kWh), US 64% (2.651 Billion kWh)
Renewable (2018): Germany 35% (228 Billion kWh), US 17% (713 Billion kWh)

I'd say not a single country is where it could and should be to preserve this world for our kids.

Sources:

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten ... seit-2007/
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
 
Unflug
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:10 am

Shrewfly wrote:
Interesting that they chose the Union flag as the tail design, given that they have previously been quite vocal over the relationship between the UK and EU.

Or maybe the artist was a Brit!


Scroll a little bit down, just before "read more":

The Bird of Prey concept was unveiled at the Royal International Air Tattoo event to underscore the UK’s aerospace industry leadership, and also highlights the 50th anniversary of Airbus as an aircraft manufacturer. The conceptual design initiative is backed by the GREAT Britain campaign, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Air League, the Institution of Engineering and the Technology and Aerospace Technology Institute.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:30 am

IADFCO wrote:
PS Did anybody notice the name of the Airbus engineer quoted in the article? His parents must have been car enthusiasts or James Bond's fans :D


Haha. Thought I was the only one who caught that. "The name's Aston. Martin Aston!" :lol:
 
Elementalism
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:41 am

767333ER wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.

If this design had conventional winglets and a normal tail it would be quite realistic.

Big electric motors in the wings. 1 hour or 400nm range of battery capacity. A single gas turbine generator in the tail can act as a range extender.

The range extender does not need to be sized to provide all of the electricity for takeoff as the battery can help in the climb. The generator only has to be big enough provide enough electricity at cruise. This design will allow a smaller gas turbine and the batteries capacity will only need to be a fraction of the size of a non hybrid electric design.

As battery technology improves the electric only range of the design increases.

How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust. It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.



Or when the battery burn\explode. Aviation fuel is relatively safe within the fuel tanks. It requires an oxidizer. Batteries bring their own oxidizer. Which is why right now the best policy for burning teslas is to let them burn themselves out over a few hours. Water wont stop the fire.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2683
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:07 am

aklrno wrote:
I get upset when someone touts an electric vehicle as cleaner, greener, more sustainable. It depends on where the electricity comes from, and in the US at least, its mostly fossil fuels.

My daily driver is a Tesla, but I have some gasoline cars too. I tell people I have three oil powered cars, and one coal powered car.



Also I don't see how battery power works for flying. The energy density is much lower than for fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuel powered planes, battery powered planes don't decrease in weight as a flight progresses. This increases the amount of energy needed to fly a given distance. It also increases landing weight requiring heavier landing gear. It cults down on cargo capacity both by volume and weight.

Nuclear electric power was tried experimentally on a B-36, but it has serious potential to release dangerous levels of radiation in case of a crash.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Aug 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Elementalism wrote:
767333ER wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I expect Boeings NSA to be hybrid electric.

If this design had conventional winglets and a normal tail it would be quite realistic.

Big electric motors in the wings. 1 hour or 400nm range of battery capacity. A single gas turbine generator in the tail can act as a range extender.

The range extender does not need to be sized to provide all of the electricity for takeoff as the battery can help in the climb. The generator only has to be big enough provide enough electricity at cruise. This design will allow a smaller gas turbine and the batteries capacity will only need to be a fraction of the size of a non hybrid electric design.

As battery technology improves the electric only range of the design increases.

How big, heavy, and power consuming do you think an electric motor needs to be today to make the horsepower needed to turn a fan that makes 20000-30000 lbs of thrust. It will be a while before transport aircraft are being flown by electric motors, the technology isn’t there yet.

Another unanswered question about battery planes is what happens when the battery gets low and motor performance begins to degrade.



Or when the battery burn\explode. Aviation fuel is relatively safe within the fuel tanks. It requires an oxidizer. Batteries bring their own oxidizer. Which is why right now the best policy for burning teslas is to let them burn themselves out over a few hours. Water wont stop the fire.

A couple of things come to mind in regards to battery safety. The first one is the recent news of a fully electric Hyundai Kona exploding in a garage in a Montreal house despite not being plugged in or on. The other is for anyone who has watched the Grand Tour and remembers Richard Hammond’s crash in the electric super car and how hard they said it was to extinguish that fire because of the thermal runaway. This has been a problem on the 787 with its smaller batteries, larger batteries or more batteries that would be needed to power a plane would bring even more of this risk.

It’s pretty obvious that planes will all go electric at some point in the future, I just thing expecting the Boeing NSA for example to be electric is overly optimistic. Aerospace is always one of the slowest forms of engineering when it comes to keeping with the times.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:46 pm

767333ER wrote:
Aerospace is always one of the slowest forms of engineering when it comes to keeping with the times.


Not sure if you can say always. Automation for instance is still more advanced in aviation than most other forms of transport. And then consider materials science, navigation systems, etc. Perhaps we can expect some of these technologies to flow from aerospace to other ordinary consumer industries.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airbus Reveals Hybrid-Electric 'Bird Of Prey' Airliner Concept

Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:26 pm

Erebus wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Aerospace is always one of the slowest forms of engineering when it comes to keeping with the times.


Not sure if you can say always. Automation for instance is still more advanced in aviation than most other forms of transport. And then consider materials science, navigation systems, etc. Perhaps we can expect some of these technologies to flow from aerospace to other ordinary consumer industries.

You make a very good point there I’ve been getting bad lately with using absolutes and I shouldn’t have said always. There are places where aviation is just so behind or was for its time in the past. We just are starting to get ADS-B over the past few years even though it could’ve been done long before that. Navigation systems are easy because it’s all based on a laser ring gyro, a GPS, and or archaic radios. General aviation still uses leased gas and companies like Tecnam were still selling planes with carbureted engines until just a few years ago. Autopilot is the example where you’d be 100% right. It is very complex and confusing and was more of a bleeding edge thing when it came out, but it’s still easier to implement than a self driving car. The

And then the 737 is still a thing...
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos