Would you fly on an electric plane? And what technology is needed to make this unholy powertrain work? The challenges will lead to extraordinary designs...
This is the electric aviation thread!
In this thread we'll cover:
-Different electric & hybrid aircraft power systems.
-The challenge of full electric: Closing the energy gulf.
-Enabling tech: Batteries, motors, aerodynamics.
-Will it work?
Expect incredible concepts & links to specialist aerodynamics threads!
Cycle 1: Turbo-electric power.
A gas turbine engine with generator, DC buses & convertor drives electric motors, no battery storage: This could eat 10% efficiency, but buys the ability for integrated airframe concepts such as boundary layer ingestion & distributed propulsion.
Hybrid-electric.
Like a car engine, an aircraft engine is most efficient at it's design cruise condition. By using rechargeable batteries & electric motors, hybrid cycles try to smooth out engine demand so it spends more time at it's most efficient point.
Cycle 2: Series hybrid.
A turbo electric layout plus a battery bank, the propulsor is electrically driven. Heavier even than the turbo electric cycle, it does however allow the engine to stay at optimal running condition, a net benefit for short haul & regional aircraft.
Cycle 3: Parallel hybrid.
A transmission box allows either engine or electric motor to power the prop. More complex but lighter than series hybrid with fewer conversion losses, but leads to the engine running off-design more often. Considered less efficient than series hybrid.
The trouble with hybrids is that, just as a hybrid car is best at town & city driving, a hybrid plane is best at short haul & general aviation: Long haul aircraft spend too long at their design condition for hybrid power systems to be of much use.
What about pure electric?
Cycle 4: Battery electric.
Conceptually the simplest setup, it's simultaneously the most "green", as a zero emissions aircraft, and the most difficult, which we'll get into.
Pictured: The RR 'Spirit Of Innovation' demonstrator. At 345mph, the fastest electric plane.
If we do it, it won't be for convenience: The specific energy of kerosene is 48 times higher than lithium ion batteries: An unbridgeable gulf?
Electric motors are 90%+ efficient while the thermodynamic efficiency of gas turbines are ~55%, making the ratio 'only' 1:29
Enablers 1: Batteries.
Li-ion batteries, the gold standard, max at ~250Wh/kg.
Li-sulphur, on the Airbus Zephyr have shown 500Wh/kg but so far only 1350 cycles.
Solid state: Fast-charging and 500-1000Wh/kg. Under development.
Li-Air: Potentially 1700Wh/kg, but a long way off.
Enablers 2: Motors.
Conventional motors have a specific power of 1-5kW/kg, less than gas turbines.
-In 2021 H3X & Wright Electric tested 250kW & 2MW motors with 13 & 10kW/kg.
The EU sponsored ASuMED project is developing high temperature superconductor motors for 20kW/kg.
Batteries of 800Wh/kg are probably a minimum for electric aviation: If we assume that 1000 is achievable then that brings the usable specific energy ratio with kerosene down to 1:7.
This means that aerodynamics must do some heavy lifting to get it down to low single figures...
Enablers 3: Distributed propulsion.
Electric powertrains allow this: Extremely high bypass low pressure ratio propulsors with blown wing effects maximizing efficiency.
The hybrid electric EcoPulse aircraft shown is halfway through flight testing proving this concept.
A thread on distributed propulsion is linked below, featuring the ONERA Dragon concept: A medium range airliner showing a 7%-12% efficiency benefit from distributed propulsion alone. Hybrid power storage could increase this further.
This wake energy management technique reduces flow field energy loss and can improve the efficiency of propulsors by embedding them in the aircraft boundary layer. A structurally robust well-sited prop is needed.
Definitely the biggest ask of airframers & airports, and not strictly necessary, it remains a potentially optimal platform from an efficiency standpoint, and works well with distributed propulsion & BLI.
The NASA N3-X concept uses all three aero enablers in a long range turbo-electric flying wing with cryocoolers enabling superconducting motors and higher turbine inlet temperature.
60% more fuel efficient than current state of the art, it's an idealised design but instructive.
Another rich opportunity for hybrid power is helicopter aviation, where it would be worth 10% in efficiency all on it's own without other improvements. Airbus recently tested this as part of an emergency back up power system for the FlightLab helicopter.
Novel hybrid electric/ turbo-electric power architectures, with a gas turbine engine at the core, have huge potential from short to long range, and we should move that way, but the aerospace industry might not leap without a push.
What about pure electric aircraft..?
Frankly, pure electric is a lost cause everywhere except short range and city transport niches: The specific energy gulf is just too large.
But it's still important: Electric aviation's huge energy challenge forces it to deal with unconventional design, and this is it's value.
The city eVTOL niche is tiny, almost a joke, but it's the only electric aviation sector plausible right now, making it a technology incubator.
Inconsistent regulation could kill it dead, and it's important we don't do that: Technology grows from seeds, which we should water.
So let's hear it for the challenge of electric aviation, because it might, just maybe, be a catalyst that will move us beyond the tube, wing & twin configuration.
So the future might actually look like the future.
Papers used are shown, I hope you enjoyed this!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's the greatest story never told: It's the story of how a frugal county in the North of England invented the modern world.
Put on a flat cap and call up the whippet, because this is a thread about my home county, and the inventions that came out of Yorkshire!
Steel!
Benjamin Huntsman invented high homogeneity crucible steel in Sheffield in the 1740s, firing with coke to fully melt the steel and homogenise the carbon content.
This became used… everywhere, and supercharged the ongoing industrial revolution.
Steam trains.
Steam locomotion had been in development for some decades by 1812, but arguably the world's first commercially successful steam locomotive was Matthew Murray's Salamanca. To him, we owe speed.
A liquid rocket boost stage needs to pump fuel and cryogenic oxidiser to the combustion chamber at a rate that beggars belief: The 33 engines on the boost stage of SpaceX's monstrous ‘Superheavy’ booster each chew through about 700 kg of propellant every second. Put all those engines together and the flow rate of liquid fuel & oxygen would be sufficient to empty an Olympic swimming pool in under 2 minutes, if you could find an Olympic swimming pool for cryogenic propellant.
Can you think of any conventional lightweight pump that can do this? Me neither. You need something special…
The turbopump comprises a typically-axial turbine powered by hot, pressurised gas flow that powers centrifugal compressor pumps that pump the colossal quantities of propellant required and pressurize it to, potentially, hundreds of standard atmospheres.
It's a handy, lightweight way to provide pumping power, but it does require that you have a source of hot, high-pressure gas to work with.
Now, where would you find that in a rocket engine?
Indeed. In order to burn fuel, we must pump it. In order to pump it, we may have to burn some of it.
Um…
The Gas Generator Cycle.
A small quantity of the pressurised fuel & oxidiser flows are tapped, brought to a small combustor, vaporised, ignited then expanded through a turbine that powers the fuel and oxygen compressor cycles.
Inevitably the gas generator can't run with a completely nominal fuel:oxy mix, as it would get so hot that it would melt the turbine blades, so typically a gas generator will trade off some efficiency and run fuel rich to power the turbopumps.
-Why not oxy rich? Because fuel has a higher specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) and so you need less mass flow through the gas generator if it's fuel rich than oxy rich, meaning more useful propellant goes to the main combustor & nozzle that moves the rocket.
So the upside of a gas generator cycle is relative simplicity and robustness, which is why it's used on the most reliable rocket motors around, the SpaceX Merlin. The downside is that you trade away efficiency by throwing away some of your propellant, meaning that the tyranny of the Tsiolkowsky rocket equation will kick you where the sun don't shine.
Staged combustion attempts to address this, by taking either a fuel rich or oxy rich preburner, operating at a much higher flow volume than a standard gas generator, and routing the hot gases that leave the turbine straight to the combustion chamber so that they're not lost. This not only increases the average propellant exhaust velocity (since none of it is lost) and therefore efficiency, but also allows a lower average temperature in the preburner and turbine, since there's a higher volume throughput instead.
On the flipside you must deal with hugely increased engineering complexity, an increased potential for feedback control problems between the different parts of the engine, and also a much higher pressure preburner, since it will still need to deliver high working pressures to the combustion chamber after the losses of the turbine and injectors.
The Soviets got there first, and some of their genius manifested in the Russian RD180 oxy-rich staged combustion engine, which was bought by the Americans and used in Atlas rockets for many years. Its unique oxy-rich staged combustion cycle was efficient but not without drawbacks, as high temperature gaseous oxygen is brutal to exposed metal surfaces, demanding an enamel coating on many parts of the engine.
Last month Rolls-Royce won the UK's small modular reactor competition to develop and build SMRs in the UK. It could be a new dawn for nuclear power.
But who else was in the competition, what was special about each design, and which is your favourite?
An SMR thread…
What's an SMR?
A small modular reactor is a way of beating the brutally high capital costs of building nuclear power: By simplifying assembly (modularity) and minimising subsystem size so almost all of it is factory built you harvest industrial learner effects and low costs.
Boiling water vs pressurised water reactors.
All designs in this list are either PWRs or BWRs, the most common reactor styles today. I've a thread on the basics if you need it, but otherwise on with the show!
In April on a mountain in Chile the Vera Rubin observatory gathered first light, and this telescope will be world-changing! -Not because it can see the furthest… but because it can see the fastest!
The Vera Rubin telescope thread! The value of speed, and unique technology…
Who was Vera Rubin?
She first hypothesized the existence of dark matter, by observing that the rotation speed of the edge of the galaxy did not drop off with radius from the centre as much as it should. The search for dark matter, and other things, will drive this telescope…
Does it see a long way?
Yes, but it’s not optimized for that: The battle of the big mirrors is won by the Extremely Large Telescope which, yes, is meant to see a long way. Vera Rubin is not that big, but that doesn’t matter because it has a different and maybe better mission.
Rotating detonation engines: Riding the shockwave!
A technology that could revolutionise aviation, powering engines with endlessly rotating supersonic shockwaves. It could bring us hypersonic flight, super high efficiency and more.
The detonation engine thread…
Almost all jet engines use deflagration based combustion, not detonation, but while fuel efficiency has been improving for decades, we're well into the phase of decreasing returns and need some game-changing technologies.
One is the rotating detonation engine (RDE).
To understand the appeal of RDEs, you need to know that there are two forms of combustion cycle: Constant pressure, where volume expands with temperature, and constant volume, where pressure goes up instead.
Most jet engines use constant pressure. RDEs use constant volume.
As a new graduate I once had to sit down and draft an engine test program for a subsystem of a new model of Rolls-Royce aero engine. It was illuminating.
So here's a thread on some of the weirder things that this can involve: The jet engine testing thread!
Fan Blade Off!
Easily the most impressive test: A jet engine needs to be able to contain a loose fan blade. In the FBO test, either a full engine or a fan & casing rig in low vacuum is run to full speed, then a blade is pyrotechnically released.
Frozen.
The Manitoba GLACIER site in Northern Canada is home to Rolls-Royce's extreme temperature engine test beds. Not only must these machines be able to start in temperatures where oil turns to syrup, but in-flight ice management is crucial to safe flying.