Electric and Hydrogen aeroplanes - feasibility and issues

MHI RJ Aviation Group (MHIRJ) and Maeve Aerospace B.V. have partnered to develop the Maeve M80, a hybrid-electric regional aircraft designed to revolutionize regional aviation with reduced environmental impact and enhanced economics. MHIRJ will provide engineering and advisory expertise to accelerate the M80's design, industrialization, and commercialization. Both organizations emphasize their shared commitment to innovation and sustainability, aiming to meet the future needs of regional flight. The M80 represents a transformative step for regional aviation, leveraging cutting-edge technology to reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

www.asdnews.com

MHI RJ Teams Up with Maeve on Groundbreaking Sustainability

MHI RJ Aviation Group (MHIRJ) and Maeve Aerospace B.V. have agreed to cooperate with respect to the development of Maeve's groundbreaking M80 aircraft. At the h
www.asdnews.com www.asdnews.com
 
Regarding Electra design, I am surprised by the location of the turbo generator inlet: one side only and behind, slightly below the wing root. I wonder if that will not compete with the airflow above the wing to suck it out of the extrados.
 
alberchico said:
Glad to see that this project finally got across the finish line.

www.avweb.com

China Certifies First Commercial Electric Plane

The RX4E will target underdeveloped countries with poor roads for short-haul flights.
www.avweb.com www.avweb.com

www.flyingmag.com

Volar Looks to Commercialize eSTOL Aircraft in UAE

The manufacturer’s potential partnership with an Abu Dhabi-based investor seeks to commercialize electric aircraft in the Emirates.
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com

Click to expand...
Calculating the performance of electric aeroplanes is quite straightforward so I’m surprised the above publications don’t include such, they just repeat the manufacturer’s claims.

So 4 people, 90 minutes endurance, 10k ft, and 156 kts, 300km sounds pretty reasonable, indeed impressive..

Now for grim reality;-

On its 100 KWHr no combination of these is possible;- 90 minutes might be possible with one pilot at an altitude of 30cm at 65 knots… if the wing is kept clean from bugs. If this is done with a 20 knot tail wind then it’ll go 300km.

If a reasonable assumption is made of altitude/speed profile for a four passenger touring aircraft with a single go around reserve, the maths gives about a 22 minute cruise…. Maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on fitting into airfield traffic, taxi distance and battery temperature. Also this is with a new battery, they only get worse with age.

For comparison most 4 seat touring aircraft will easily manage 3 hours.
 
Airbus kicks the can of hydrogen down the road……What a shocker


It looks like Airbus finally got around to doing half a page of maths and believing the answer.

Possibly this is market positioning for a new dinosaur burner which would be difficult to sell if all your customers think that a hydrogen miracle is just around the corner…..Still the hydrogen gravy train was lucrative while it lasted.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
Airbus kicks the hydrogen can down the road……What a shocker


It looks like Airbus finally got around to doing half a page of maths and believing the answer.

Possibly this is market positioning for a new dinosaur burner which would be difficult to sell if all your customers think that a hydrogen miracle is just around the corner…..Still the hydrogen gravy train was lucrative while it lasted.
Click to expand...
Unlikely. But as I keep harping, hydrogen just SUCKS as an aircraft fuel. It is far too bulky, something like 12x the volume compared to kerosene for the same weight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unlikely. But as I keep harping, hydrogen just SUCKS as an aircraft fuel. It is far too bulky, something like 12x the volume compared to kerosene for the same weight.
Click to expand...
but requires 1/3 mass for given energy requirement, so actually it needs 3~4 times of volume.

real problem is structural design, infrastructure of airport, production, delivery and managememt of hydrogen.
 
Airbus is pausing development of EVTOLs, it says the minimum range needs to be 80-100km to be commercially viable, but the battery technology just isn't there yet.
 
litzj said:
but requires 1/3 mass for given energy requirement, so actually it needs 3~4 times of volume.
Click to expand...
Plus volume of insulation for the tanks.

litzj said:
real problem is structural design, infrastructure of airport, production, delivery and managememt of hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Which, in the example of truly green hydrogen production, means enough electrical production to crack water at immense scale.

Oh, crap. That also means introducing megatonnes of pure oxygen into the atmosphere...

Let's see here... Earth's atmosphere is 5.1x10^18 kg, Earth burns about 35.4 billion barrels of oil annually, and supposedly, 6.66kg of hydrogen equals the energy in one barrel/42 gallons of crude oil. So, that means we're talking about the whole earth requiring enough electrolysis capacity to make 235.7x10^9kg of hydrogen. Times 18 due to molar weights to get to water mass, so that's 4,243,752,000,000kg of water. Four and a quarter BILLION TONNES of water, which means 4 billion tonnes of pure oxygen getting dumped into the atmosphere.

While I don't think that's enough to globally increase the oxygen percentage (Don't want to grind the numbers that far), it's enough to make living next to one of those electrolysis plants more than a little exciting due to high local oxygen content.
 
Meanwhile, synfuels became about as efficient as hydrigene and are a much better alternative, the problem is, they just don't fit into the ideology...

In any case, for a CO2 neutral mobility, a gigantic amount of CO2 free energy production will be needed, but this is not undoable. Synfuels might be produced by thermochamical processes out of the heat produced by high temperature nuclear power reactors and/or with intermitend surplus energy from nuclear/solar/wind power via electrolysis and hydrogen as step in between.
 
From July of last year:
publiusr said:
hydrogen aircraft
techxplore.com

Hydrogen flight looks ready for take-off with new advances

The possibility of hydrogen-powered flight means greater opportunities for fossil-free travel, and the technological advances to make this happen are moving fast. New studies from Chalmers University of Technology, in Sweden, show that almost all air travel within a 750-mile radius (1,200 km)...
techxplore.com techxplore.com

The study, led by doctoral student Christian Svensson in Tomas Grönstedt's research group, also showcased a new fuel tank that could hold enough fuel, was insulated enough to hold the super-cold liquid hydrogen and at the same time was lighter than today's fossil-based fuel tank systems.

More
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

Ampaire is a recent startup currently undertaking the big task of developing a retrofitted electric aircraft with the aim to be FAA certified by the end of 2020. The aircraft will be able to carry 7-9 passengers, and have a range of up to 100 miles. The company is hoping to develop a battery-swapping system, and is hoping to test fly next year.

techcrunch.com

The electric aircraft is taking off | TechCrunch

In 2008, the electric motor vehicle experienced a rebirth triggered by a rise in oil prices. Now in 2018, it is the time for another rebirth -- in electrical aviation.
techcrunch.com techcrunch.com
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    475.4 KB · Views: 15
hesham said:
Hi,

Ampaire is a recent startup currently undertaking the big task of developing a retrofitted electric aircraft with the aim to be FAA certified by the end of 2020. The aircraft will be able to carry 7-9 passengers, and have a range of up to 100 miles. The company is hoping to develop a battery-swapping system, and is hoping to test fly next year.

techcrunch.com

The electric aircraft is taking off | TechCrunch

In 2008, the electric motor vehicle experienced a rebirth triggered by a rise in oil prices. Now in 2018, it is the time for another rebirth -- in electrical aviation.
techcrunch.com techcrunch.com
Click to expand...
Battery swapping is gonna SUCK. They did not do the paperwork on how easy that is to do in planes.

First, the battery is probably 1200lbs (same weight as a Tesla battery, though it would probably have to be smaller). This means you need to use a forklift to handle the batteries. Hope the person working the lift doesn't mess up and drop the tines onto the aircraft. If the battery is going into an existing airframe, you're probably looking at splitting the thing into 3 pieces as a retrofit, and then running traction cables between the batteries.

Second, you're swapping in a fully charged 450+volt battery pack. Which must be done by a licensed aircraft mechanic by law. You'd better design an absolutely moron-proof battery connection that cannot spark, because no aircraft mechanic likes going anywhere near 450V power supplies. The guys at Boeing managed to blow one up about once a year in Everett, and if they were lucky they didn't kill both people working the cart.
 
You could split the batteries in many smaller ones, like Volocopter does it for swapping batteries. Still the concept is not viable when every airport has to be prepared for handling a large number of batteries.

I believe, there is no real concept behind this announcement, the graphic is very basic and nothing has been toy thought through. I can't see were they want to store the batteries, the fuselage is very small with windows everywhere except in there very rear. The fragile wings are surly not an option for swapping batteries...

Could be, that they use multiple small batteries in the wings and drop them during the flight one by one when they are empty, to decease the landing weight... ;)
 
Nicknick said:
You could split the batteries in many smaller ones, like Volocopter does it for swapping batteries. Still the concept is not viable when every airport has to be prepared for handling a large number of batteries.
Click to expand...
Multiple smaller batteries just increases the time required to change them all. And probably increases the risk of sparks/shocks the more batteries you're handling. At probably $500/hr A&P mechanic rate for the shop.

No, if you're battery swapping, you want that to go as quickly as possible! 10 minutes for a small plane, which is just barely enough to do the paperwork. Maybe a half hour so the pilot can offload the used coffee out of his system, get fresh weather briefing, and refill the coffee container(s).


Nicknick said:
I believe, there is no real concept behind this announcement, the graphic is very basic and nothing has been toy thought through. I can't see were they want to store the batteries, the fuselage is very small with windows everywhere except in there very rear. The fragile wings are surly not an option for swapping batteries...
Click to expand...
Especially with the idea that they'd have a conversion approved by the FAA in 2 years!
 
I wanted to say something about the current climate, over there, but it would be shot down. Basically the life expectancy of the FAA from here on.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Second, you're swapping in a fully charged 450+volt battery pack. Which must be done by a licensed aircraft mechanic by law. You'd better design an absolutely moron-proof battery connection that cannot spark, because no aircraft mechanic likes going anywhere near 450V power supplies. The guys at Boeing managed to blow one up about once a year in Everett, and if they were lucky they didn't kill both people working the cart.
Click to expand...
Swapping 440V 3phase jumper(mainly for AC,a pair of each ~250kw) between locomotives and coachs within 15mins(remove-loco change-connect) were common on passanger trains.
similar concept seems acceptable for such small plane?
 
a5mg4n said:
Swapping 440V 3phase jumper(mainly for AC,a pair of each ~250kw) between locomotives and coachs within 15mins(remove-loco change-connect) were common on passanger trains.
similar concept seems acceptable for such small plane?
Click to expand...
Easier to do on trains because of how big everything is.

Whereas on a plane you're packed into tight spaces and better hope your hand doesn't complete the circuit...
 
In the Volocopter, the batteries are put into a deep shaft so that no arc can escape to the outside when loosening. Looks quite save in my view, but of course, the manually handling afterwards can still be quite dangerously.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom