An all-electric version of the world’s largest aircraft, Airlander 10, could be a step closer as a result of a UK project.
Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), the developer of the Airlander 10 aircraft, in partnership with Collins Aerospace and Nottingham University, has been awarded a grant of £1.1m from the UK Aerospace Research and Technology Programme, to develop electric propulsion technologies.
The project, E-HAV1, will develop a prototype 500kW electric propulsion system, with the ultimate aim of replacing Airlander 10’s fuel-burning forward engines, in a first step towards an all-electric version of the aircraft.
Airlander 10 is a hybrid aircraft that relies on a combination of buoyant lift from helium like an airship, aerodynamic lift like an aeroplane and vectored thrust like a helicopter.
In this way it already consumes significantly less fuel than conventional aircraft, but the addition of electric forward propulsors will improve this even further, according to Nick Allman, executive director at HAV.
“The aircraft is already a low-carbon aerospace product, but we have our sights set more ambitiously in that we’re trying to be zero-carbon,” said Allman. “There are inherent features of our aircraft that we believe position us to be at the forefront of moving in that direction,” he said.
The amount of power needed by the aircraft is substantially lower than it would be on a traditional fixed wing aircraft, for example, meaning the electric propulsion systems needed are intrinsically smaller, he said.
“We also have quite a modular design, we have four engines that are independently attached to the vehicle, so its relatively straightforward for us to model in simulation a change from our current diesel cycle engines to electric,” said Allman.
As part of the three-year project, the team will carry out extensive ground-testing of the full-size prototype propulsion system, once it is built.
“We will be using test rigs that we have used to test the propulsion systems on the Airlander 10,” said Allman. “That will allow us to understand areas like its efficiency, noise levels, and how the new motor interacts with the propeller.”
A hybrid-electric and, ultimately, an all-electric version of Airlander 10 would represent a major achievement for the aerospace industry, said Marc Holme, motor drive systems engineering director at Collins Aerospace.
“Electric propulsion has the potential to revolutionise aircraft by providing significant reductions in carbon emissions, noise, fuel consumption, and operation and maintenance costs,” Holme said.
The UK Aerospace Research and Technology Programme is run by a partnership between the Aerospace Technology Institute, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Innovate UK.
I look forward to seeing it flying.
You also want to develop in flight battery replacement technology.
You need to divide the battery pack into modules for safety (not put all your eggs in one basket).
Fly over a “refuelling station”, then without landing, connect a tether an winch up/down some replacement batteries.
That’s an appeallingly low-tech solution.
I suspect that you Brits best hurry along with this, because AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) will outlaw traditional jetliners if she gets her “Green New Deal” (ever). Outside of a row-boat, your craft might well become the only legal passage across the pond. By the way, are you taking immigration applications?
There is no mention of outlawing jetliners in the Green New Deal resolution, which can be found here
Flexible PV panels on the skin of Airlander 10 might give it the range of the combustion engines or unlimited time in the sky. How to change crew might be a bigger problem.
Good luck to the Airlander team
Why waste money and cargo capacity using a winch. Its a pointless added weight. Just hover 1 meter off the ground and load as normal.
Peter, very simple, build a rear docking platform between the two electric motors at the rear center section- make a raisable section of the tail (Vee) and acts as a wind shroud.
Using a VTOL taxi type aircraft, capable of say 8 crew per fight, to fly up the needed replacement crew. They would disembark via a bespoke airlock entrance after the rear shroud is raised and a passageway to the fight and crew deck, same for the departing crew. Same VTOL would be for the departing crew and bring up replacement supplies in a separate VTOL all prepackaged in a bespoke-module and exchange for the old used module – could be a drop/winched module from the same rear portal and moved via its own passage to where needed or make the rear docking area the storage and place for access [the crew have a passageway access anyway. [Airlines use food storage modules now along with galley equipment built in], ensure to make space for two as they may need spare parts etc.
Same could be also done with any replacement batteries in modular sets as Ian stated, “not all in one basket”
One thing to consider when going for electric propulsion is that it can offer the benefits of the contra rotating propeller format which provides yaw-free forward and reverse thrust – drastically reducing the loading on the thruster support structure fixed to the flexible hull material . Electric propulsion is largely unaffected by altitude and insensitive to orientation – it works equally well upside down or vertically. One other thing to consider is that with independently powered contra rotating coaxial props it is possible (by running the propellers at slightly different speeds) to reduce propeller noise – an effect similar to that used in noise cancelling headphones.
A mammoth in the sky. May the passion and the butterflies overtake you.
Ladies and GM on-board Atlanta, due to heavy winds blowing at 150km per day, your aircraft instead of going to Paris in now cruising over the Atlantic. Do not worry, as the world is round, we will definitely reach our destination.
Help.
I need more information to understand the benefits of electric generated power.
–How fast will this plane go? Energy used per hour per mile . . .
–How are the batteries made? Any toxic waste produced in manufacturing . . . –Where will they be made? Every country has different environmental protection laws.
–How are the batteries recharged? Is the electric recharge station fueled by toxic energy sources . . .
–How are spent batteries disposed? Batteries are toxic all by themselves . . .
Please help me understand or show me simply how these problems have been addressed. I always thought batteries and recharging (plugging into an outlet) use toxic materials.
Has solar power or wind power sources been explorered?
Help wanted
L. McNeil
“Fly over a “refuelling station”, then without landing, connect a tether an winch up/down some replacement batteries.”
Too complicated! Just connect a charging tether and boost the on-board batteries.
Anyway, I too want to see this machine really “up and running”, because — provided it has a decent load capacity – it will be way better than helicopters for disaster relief and many other uses:
>Easier loading
>No downwash
>No worries about rotor blades clipping environs
>Able to “land” on water
>Longer endurance on station
>…
With electric propulsion then it might also open up the possibility of using hydrogen fuel cells alongside battery power. There is no shortage of space in which to store hydrogen in an airship, though they would probably want to store it in liquid form rather than Hindenberg-style gaseous form.
How great to see the manner in which fellow Engineers offer their thinking about a novel situation.
I take great comfort from knowing that there are folk, clearly innovative and well educated, who can offer mankind support to ascend! The broad church, which is our profession, is surely the key to so much of the future: all we need to do now is convince the jumped-up clerks presently in control of this and watch them gracefully step aside. Some hopes!
Nick Stills, Brilliant idea, just like the Old Fairey Gannet Navel bombers. If fully shrouded and with Bypass feed vents just after the second set of blades. the sound cancelling would be increased, I believe the Gannet had variable pitch on the Co-Ax props independent of each other. This would allow all sorts of thrust variations when used by the Bypass feature using variable venting on the thrust outlet.
Go for Hydrogen fuel cells in liquid format- much safer. Look also at my comment [April 25th] of a rear deck for allowing a VTOL aircraft to resupply crew and stores/fuel. Robotic insertion would be doable with auto dis-connectors as used on Space vehicles and launch towers and Flight refueling systems.
The added benefit of fuel cells is that the water produced could be used for drinking and hygiene, and the waste heat could be used to heat the helium for more lift.
The electricity produced could be augmented by thin film solar cells on the hull.
Interesting.
I followed up and found that it has a payload of 10 tonnes and a ceiling of approx 6km.
And the surface area (for insolation) is about 4000 sqm (so at 1kw/sq m) and an (solar cell) efficiency of 25% it could generate 1MW of electricity from the sun.
However no indication was given about the possible battery technology (weight) which I would have thought would be required from an initial scoping study.
It is mentioned that 40% of lift is generated from hull shape – so, I guess, the rest is buoyancy ??- though, if totally unladen, it might be neutrally buoyant.
It seems, also, that it has a large enough area so that it could be powered (or recharged) by beam power – using, perhaps, 1MW of microwaves and suitable antenna woven into the understructure?
It seems a good incremental innovation – though not as novel as the Phoenix airship mentioned elsewhere in the The Engineer
Use Hydrogen instead of Helium and also use it to power the engines.
The ship starts off with excess H2 and therefore naturally wants to climb.
As it flies it consumes H2 and becomes heavier and so wants to fly in a huge arc from start to finish.
This aircraft is, apparently “transitioning to production” after a total of about 6 hrs test and development flying. It is considered that no furthr aircraft need be built for developmental flying. No civil FAR’s are in place, or developed for sch a craft. It is proposed that civil variants will be “in service” within the next two to three years. A developmental and production budget has not been announced. No production facility has been built, no orders received.
Give me strength!!