Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Offers $1.5 Million For 200MPG Aircraft

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the cheaper-than-doing-it-yourself dept.

coondoggie writes to mention that NASA's Green Flight Challenge is offering up to $1.5 million for an aircraft that can hit 200 passenger miles per gallon while maintaining 100 mph on a 200 mile flight. "The Challenge is intended to bring about the development and convergence of new technologies and innovations that can improve the community acceptance, efficiency, door-to-door speed, utility, environmental-friendliness, affordability and safety of future air vehicles, CAFÉ stated. Such technologies and innovations include, but are not limited to, bio-fueled propulsion, breakthroughs in batteries, motors, fuel-cells and ultra-capacitors that enable electric-powered flight, advanced high lift technologies for very short takeoff and landing distances, ultra-quiet propellers, enhanced structural efficiency by advances in material science and nano-technology and safety features such as vehicle parachutes and air-bags."

17 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I get a CAR that will get half the miles per gallon at half the speed?

    I guess really I can, if I load three other people into the car, it's not too hard. Nevermind.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Wow by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes you can, and it's called a honda or a subaru or any small car that seats 4. These are passenger miles, not MPG. Hell, my piggish WRX gets 26 mpg on a long trip, so that's 104 passenger MPG if I have 3 people with me.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  2. $1.5M? Peanuts. by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA seems to have forgotten how much aircraft cost.

    1. Re:$1.5M? Peanuts. by Delwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're looking for amateurs and university projects not Boeing or Northrup to take this one up.

    2. Re:$1.5M? Peanuts. by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not? Schools and Universities generally did better at the Micromouse tournament than "professional" engineers. Generally, it was the same class of people you saw winning Eggmobile contests. Boeing didn't win the X-Prize, and I don't believe it was any of the super-giant aviation companies that did the work on the two round-the-world record flights.

      Hell, although big companies have contributed to Bloodhound (the 1000 MPH car being built in the UK), it is largely driven by super-genius inventors and engineers in a small team.

      For that matter, look at who is doing well in Formula 1. Braun. A small bunch of enthusiasts who told Honda where their management could go. Look at who is quitting. BMW. The super-giants aren't guaranteed to walk off with the big prizes just because they're big companies. It happens, sure, but it's not in itself a recipe for success.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  3. That's it? A measley 1.5 M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, the aircraft itself might be worth more than that off a production line once it's been invented.

    That's like offering someone $1000 for the process of turning lead into gold. I don't know that anyone would take such a low amount seriously.

  4. Re:It is called high speed train by JesseL · · Score: 4, Funny

    When your train flies.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  5. A-380 halfway there by GGardner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Airbus A-380 gets roughly 100 passenger-miles per gallon, cruising substantially faster and further. Surely with only enough fuel for a short 100 mile flight, no cargo, you could cram twice as many people in it, and easily get your 200 passenger-miles per gallon. Of course, chartering one, might cost more than the prize is worth...

    1. Re:A-380 halfway there by nizo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if there are limits on the sizes of the passengers? I mean seriously winning this prize with little people would be way easier than the same number of 6' tall obese people. Though telling NASA "the key is to only transport little people" might not make them too happy.

      --
      I Am My Own Worst Enemy
    2. Re:A-380 halfway there by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait I just realized, if you are allowed to use passengers as fuel using obese people might be better after all.

      --
      I Am My Own Worst Enemy
    3. Re:A-380 halfway there by sabre86 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sadly, an Airbus A-380 isn't going to fit in the size requirements. The plane has to fit into CAFE's hanger. Here's the floor plan.

      The requirements in the rules, Appendix B, are:

      Vehicle height: less than or equal to 13 feet
      Vehicle length: less than or equal to 23 feet from main landing gear to tip of tail
      Landing gear footprint must fit onto CAFE Scales (See CFTC floor plan, below)
      Gross weight: less than or equal to 6500 pounds on main landing gear and less than or equal to 2000 lb on nose or tail wheel
      Wingspan (as projected onto a level surface), if less than or equal to 44 feet, must be capable of being shortened to less than or equal to 44 feet by wing-folding or tip removal that can be easily accomplished in 20 minutes or less by no more than 4 adult persons of average size and strength. This is necessary to fit typical tie-downs, hangar rows and the width of the CAFE Flight Test Center's hangar. Any small additional projected span of winglets, tip tanks or other wing tip device, as vertically projected onto a level surface, will be included as wingspan.

      --sabre86

    4. Re:A-380 halfway there by rcw-home · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm going to guess, however, that if it actually IS done, that it will be some variation of a Rutan Long-EZ, since they are widely known/touted as "the plane" for high-efficiency experimental-class aircraft.

      Wikipedia says that a Long-EZ will do 1600 miles on 52 gallons of fuel. That's 61.5 passenger miles per gallon. It also typically cruises at 184mph - parasitic drag will be 3.39 times less at 100mph, but induced drag will be 3.39 times greater. I am unable to find a chart of both for a Long-EZ (here is a generic one), but 100mph probably isn't that far off from the minimum drag speed.

      I suspect it'll be some variation of a motorglider - probably one that seats at least two. They have much higher aspect ratio wings, much lower sink rates, and would probably have much lower drag at 100mph.

      The Voyager around-the-world aircraft (another Rutan creation) did only 41 passenger miles per gallon (averaged across the entire flight), but they were hauling 9000 lbs of fuel towards the start (53 passengers worth). I suspect it could win the challenge right now - but it'd make a lot more sense to build a different one than to unhook it from the Smithsonian ceiling.

    5. Re:A-380 halfway there by rcw-home · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, I just read about the hangar requirements (among other things, a max wingspan of 44 feet). This obviously disqualifies Voyager and many other motorgliders. Probably the winner (as scored by their 1/((1/mph) + (2/Passenger-MPGe)) formula) will look like a cross between the two types of planes.

  6. Re:It is called high speed train by EkriirkE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maglev?

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  7. "Passenger miles" the catch. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Moving four passengers the 200 miles at 100 MPH on four gallons of gas would pull it off. That would be a 'raw' MPG of 50 MPG. Or, in airplane parliance, that two hour trip would consume at an average rate of 2 gph (Gallons per Hour, the normal measurement used in the aviation industry.) A two-place airplane would need to consume half as much fuel to qualify.

    A Cessna 172, with four passengers, consumes somewhere between 7-10 gallons per hour. So this would be a serious improvement. There are some 'light sport' aircraft that draw near 4 GPH, but those are two-place.

    Either way, still way better than requiring a raw 200 miles per gallon.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  8. Re:Trains lack flexibility by nutshell42 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Lets propose we could actually build such a network, it would most likely be a hub and spoke arrangement.

    Yeah, thank god noone in the airline industry ever heard of the term "hub and spoke". Can you imagine, hours of layovers or racing from one end of a mega terminal to the other because you have to get a "connecting flight". Not to mention the endless possibilities for the airline to lose your luggage.

    Thankfully, all that remains firmly in the realm of fantasy.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  9. Whats the big deal by dpeltzm1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This; http://machinedesign.com/article/throw-out-the-textbooks-diesel-airplanes-are-here-0619 is a production airplane already getting 133 passenger miles per gallon per the contest conditions. its a 4 seater in current configuration but has a 950 lb load rating with full fuel. so if we assume 170 lbs per passenger 6 passengers would put you 70 lbs over max. lose 10 gallons of fuel and your back to overall weight. this would give you 200 passenger MPG of course two would have to ride in the luggage bay but you would still be within the planes limits. feel free to correct me if my math is off but if not and you decide to go do it and win, well 10 grand as a finders fee would be nice!!!