Rolls-Royce's All-Electric Aircraft Completes 15-Minute Maiden Voyage (engadget.com) 55
Rolls-Royce's "Spirit of Innovation" all-electric airplane completed a 15 minute flight, marking "the beginning of an intensive flight-testing phase in which we will be collecting valuable performance data on the aircraft's electrical power and propulsion system," the company announced. Engadget reports: Rolls Royce said the one-seat airplane has "the most power-dense battery pack every assembled for an aircraft." The aircraft uses (PDF) a 6,000 cell battery pack with a three-motor powertrain that currently delivers 400kW (500-plus horsepower), and Rolls-Royce said the aircraft will eventually achieve speeds of over 300 MPH. The flight comes about a year after the originally scheduled takeoff and about six months after taxi trials. Rolls-Royce is also developing an air taxi with manufacturer Tecnam, with the aim of delivering an "all-electric passenger aircraft for the commuter market," according to the companies. It has previously teamed with Siemens and Airbus on another e-plane concept.
The project was half funded by the Aerospace Technology Institute and UK government, with the aim of eventually creating all-electric passenger planes. "This is not only about breaking a world record; the advanced battery and propulsion technology developed for this program has exciting applications for the Urban Air Mobility market and can help make 'jet zero' a reality," said Rolls-Royce CEO Warren East.
The project was half funded by the Aerospace Technology Institute and UK government, with the aim of eventually creating all-electric passenger planes. "This is not only about breaking a world record; the advanced battery and propulsion technology developed for this program has exciting applications for the Urban Air Mobility market and can help make 'jet zero' a reality," said Rolls-Royce CEO Warren East.
Fire risk (Score:2)
As we've seen with Tesla cars, these big, energy-dense batteries sometimes catch fire. And when they do, there is no way to put out the fire, fire fighters have to just let them burn themselves out.
If you're in a car that catches fire, you generally can pull over and walk away from it. In a plane, you are screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no way to put out the fire
When an airplane fuel tank catches fire, what happens? They just put it out and keep flying?
Batteries catch fire primarily when being charged, or when physically damaged.
Are you suggesting that after an airplane crashes, people who can't immediately disboard are screwed?!
Who'da thunk it?
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries catch fire primarily when being charged, or when physically damaged.
Or when discharging at a high rate such as during takeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
They should not be discharging at greater than 10C during takeoff.
They don't save much weight by undercharging the batteries, so they'd have to be in an airplane that can only fly a few miles.
Assuming it is at least a regional plane, it's load pattern does not include high rate of discharge.
Often a traditional airplane is at 95% engine power during takeoff and 50% during cruising. So even a tiny airplane that could only stay in the air for an hour would only need 2C peak discharge. There is no significant f
Re: (Score:3)
All true, however this all goes out the window if the battery degrades and develops an internal short, which is most likely to happen during charge or discharge, and it does not necessarily have to be rapid. There may be warning signs such as slow charge or too-quick charge due to increased internal resistance, or the battery may appear to be perfectly healthy until the moment some membrane breaks down. So far no technological measures exist that can perfectly predict or prevent this.
Re: (Score:3)
When an airplane fuel tank catches fire, they can dump the fuel. There's no risk of the fuel crushing someone or starting fires on the ground. Eject a burning battery, and you'd potentially cause a lot of damage on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
When an airplane fuel tank catches fire, they can dump the fuel.
lol
That'll stop it burning for sure! And who needs fuel, anyway?
Re: Fire risk (Score:1)
Many common aircraft types such as the 737, 757, and A320 have no fuel-dump capability. Their maximum landing weight is high enough that they are not required to have a fuel dump system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing jet fuel is non-flammable. /s
Seriously, how do you people keep missing this point?
Re: "Seriously, how do you people keep missing..." (Score:3)
They're not familiar with aircraft so they compare what they think they know.
Many things take down conventional aircraft. At least two F-16s were lost to ordinarily reliable locknuts backing off on the AC generator shutting down the engine. (Switching to an all-metal nut from the plastic insert version cured that.)
Electric aircraft propulsion will be far simpler than complex turbine systems (which are also "electronics intensive). No high speed turbine wheels/blades to let go then slice through vital syste
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that the risk of battery fire is greater than the risk of conventional fuel fires. It's that you can't just dump a burning battery like you can dump burning fuel. A lot of work has been done in recent decades to make planes less prone to fires, even in the event of a crash.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that you can't just dump a burning battery like you can dump burning fuel.
Why not? If the batteries are distributed into two parts so that dropping the batteries from the fuselage leaves the remaining center of gravity centered around the 30% mean airfoil chord, the plane could still glide back to earth in a dead-stick landing.
BTW, you don't dump fuel from an aircraft because the fuel is on fire. You dump excess fuel in preparation to an emergency landing to reduce the weight. And they continue to pump the fuel around the aircraft to keep the CG balanced.
The fuel tanks on most
Re: "Seriously, how do you people keep missing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"No high speed turbine wheels/blades to let go then slice through vital systems"
The blades you're thinking of are on the bypass of a turbojet engine. You don't get rid of them by going to electric. You would get rid of the fuel burning jet core, which certainly reduces complexity and might make already super reliable engines even more reliable.
Not many jets are going to be replaced by electric anytime soon though. Electric planes are probably practical for shuttles and short commuter flights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing jet fuel is non-flammable. /s
Seriously, how do you people keep missing this point?
The same way that people who hated Tesla went batshit crazy when one caught fire - gasoline is also impossible to catch on fire, and until Tesla, there was never a car fire.
Re: (Score:2)
In a plane, when a fuel tank catches fire, the fuel can be dumped, putting out the fire. Not so easy with tons of batteries.
Re: Fire risk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, in a plane when a fuel tank catches fire, you're already screwed. If you were to dump the fuel you're left with vapors in the tank which have a much higher chance of explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
As we've seen with Tesla cars, these big, energy-dense batteries sometimes catch fire. And when they do, there is no way to put out the fire, fire fighters have to just let them burn themselves out.
If you're in a car that catches fire, you generally can pull over and walk away from it. In a plane, you are screwed.
Good heavens - now we have to worry about fires in airplanes? Thant is something that has never happened before!
Re: (Score:2)
Conventional aircraft fuels can catch fire. But you can dump burning liquid fuel, but ejecting a burning battery could be catastrophic on the ground. It's not that batteries are more likely to catch fire, it's more that conventional methods of mitigating the risk don't work with batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fire risk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't an aircraft, with batteries in an enclosed space, use a fire suppression gas to stop the burning? If a car crashes that is more difficult since it's not necessarily fully contained in the same way, so wouldn't be an appropriate comparison. I think that Rolls-Royce, which is very focused on safety (disclosure - I and family members have worked with or for RR) may be ahead of you thinking about this...
If it's Lithium, it's a bitch to extinguish. Powders like Metal-X are used. And if you use water, prepare for excitement! 8^)
I've made safety videos for battery use in model planes - which gives me a dilletante level knowledge. These Li/ion batteries are balls to the wall, pack as much energy into as small and light a space as possible, so are a worst case scenario.
The failure mode tends toward releasing a lot of smoke, maybe some sparks. Flames tend to be from plastic casings. Fires tend to start if t
Re: (Score:2)
If it's Lithium, it's a bitch to extinguish
Halons is what I was (and you seem to be) assuming could be used. Where that might fail is if the battery bay is open to the atmosphere. Given that batteries are heavy I would imagine they would be stored in the fuselage rather than the wings, but I haven't read TFA. If they are in the fuselage then an event that is likely to rip that open might be a sufficiently big event that a fire might be the least of your worries. Yes, there have been times when fuselages have been ripped open in pressurised areas, but would a battery component be pressurised?
Re: (Score:2)
Conventional aircraft fuels can catch fire. But you can dump burning liquid fuel, but ejecting a burning battery could be catastrophic on the ground. It's not that batteries are more likely to catch fire, it's more that conventional methods of mitigating the risk don't work with batteries.
Dumping burning fuel? Yikes! You can dump fuel for other reasons, but if your plane is on fire in the air, you are almost certainly screwed. And no time for dumping - almost like napalming the place where you dump.
If you are interested in plane accidents, there are a couple channels on Youtube that use the information from flights and simulates them with nice animations. The Flight channel is one: https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Allec Joshua Ibay https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Alec appears to be
Have they solved the weight problem (Score:2)
The article mentions the weight problem but it isn't clear if they have solved it. Batteries weigh a lot, and the weight doesn't change as they are expended. A regular aircraft weighs a lot less on landing than it does on takeoff due to fuel consumption. I'm wondering if they have been able to work this issue out
Re: (Score:2)
The battery weight problem is not solved for aviation and will not be any time in the foreseeable future. So range is severely limited compared to fossil fuel, however for short range flights electric is already feasible and in process of commercialization.
Re: (Score:2)
The article mentions the weight problem but it isn't clear if they have solved it. Batteries weigh a lot, and the weight doesn't change as they are expended. A regular aircraft weighs a lot less on landing than it does on takeoff due to fuel consumption. I'm wondering if they have been able to work this issue out
Passenger jets occasionally have to land fully fueled. If you have to land immediately, or if you aren't in an ares where you can dump fuel, you do what ya gotta do.
You don't want to do it - but you can.
There was a Swissair plane that had to return from an abortive transatlantic flight that didn't stop dumping over land as it was returning to new York. Hurt some people.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a Swissair plane that had to return from an abortive transatlantic flight that didn't stop dumping over land as it was returning to new York. Hurt some people.
Swissair 111 killed a lot of people. Also Nigeria 2120, Valujet 592, Asiana 991, SAA 295, and many others. Fires on planes are a very bad thing regardless of the aircraft design.
For people not averse to a TV series documenting air disasters I highly recommend Mayday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. In its 21st season now.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a Swissair plane that had to return from an abortive transatlantic flight that didn't stop dumping over land as it was returning to new York. Hurt some people.
Swissair 111 killed a lot of people. Also Nigeria 2120, Valujet 592, Asiana 991, SAA 295, and many others. Fires on planes are a very bad thing regardless of the aircraft design.
For people not averse to a TV series documenting air disasters I highly recommend Mayday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. In its 21st season now.
A horrible tragedy of the newly installed entertainment system without proper protection.
Also, check out Youtube's Flight channel and Alec Joshua Ibay channels too - nice professional simulations of actual accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Have they solved the weight problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or breathing a fine spray of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"hurt" as in emotionally hurt? how can getting drenched in a liquid physically hurt? [rule out any fires though]. It's like rain just a different kind of liquid than H2O.
Oh my, jet fuel is nasty stuff to get on skin. A recent example. https://www.foxnews.com/us/cal... [foxnews.com]
Jet fuel is not exactly benign in any event. https://www.steadyhealth.com/a... [steadyhealth.com] This was not in play in the above dumping, but you don't want to be around that stuff breathing the fumes for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
15 minutes? (Score:1)
Good job boys. Keep this up and DJI’s toy photography drones might have some real competition.
Next step ... (Score:3)
Dealing with the hour wait for a landing slot while circling OHare.
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't have to land at O'Hare, small planes can land other places
The 1930s racer resemblance is not accidental. (Score:2)
Besides aerodynamic efficiency it looks great.
It could work, really (Score:2)
most power-dense battery pack (Score:2)
Aircraft are different because.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While pure lithium reacts with water, lithium-ion batteries do not [youtube.com]. The recommended method for dealing with a lithium-ion battery fire is to keep a low-pressure stream of water on the pack to keep it cool to prevent nearby cells from combusting. So landing such a plane in water won't add any additional complications.
Re: Aircraft are different because.. (Score:2)
Re: Aircraft are different because.. (Score:2)
Re: Aircraft are different because.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine having a large amount of flammable liquid stored in such conditions? And then deliberately setting it on fire to produce thrust? Worse still they put so much of it in the aircraft that it can't even land with a full tank, so they have to jettison most of it before they can do an emergency landing.
Sounds insanely dangerous, wouldn't want to fly on something like that.
Sloppy (Score:2)
"Weight is a much bigger problem for airplanes that it is for cars, however. Ford's all-electric Lightning pickup weighs 1,800 pounds more than the gas-powered model, and offers a range that's slightly under half. However, if you added 1,800 pounds to to a Cessna 206 Turbo Stationair, you'd exceed its useful load by 500 pounds before you even loaded passengers (or the pilot) — so it wouldn't even get off the ground. "
Here [txtav.com] is a link to a description of the Cessna Turbo Stationai
Re: Sloppy (Score:2)
Electric aircraft (Score:2)
DEC 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/11/worlds-first-fully-electric-commercial-aircraft-takes-flight-in-canada
Standard questions answers (Score:2)
Since the same complaints come up every time an electric aircraft article is posted, I thought I'd just post the responses ahead of time.
Yes, this was a 15 minute flight. This does not mean the plane's maximum endurance in the air is 15 minutes. It was a first flight of a new plane design, it would be insane to try for maximum endurance. The correct way to handle a first flight is to complete a list of a limited number of maneuvers, then land. I've no idea what this particular aircraft's range is, but the d