Slashdot Mirror


Boeing's Hybrid Electric Airliner of the Future

fergus07 writes "Borne out of the same NASA research program that gave birth to MIT's D 'double bubble,' Boeing's Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Volt concept is a twin-engine aircraft design notable for its trussed, elongated wings and electric battery gas turbine hybrid propulsion system — a system designed to reduce fuel burn by more than 70 percent and total energy use by 55 percent. The goal of the NASA supersonic research program is to find aircraft designs that will significantly reduce noise, nitrogen oxide emissions, fuel burn and air traffic congestion by the year 2035."

38 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Always 25 years by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the coolest technology is always now()+25 years away.

    1. Re:Always 25 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so currently, the coolest technology is 2035 years away? way to show off programming in communication.

    2. Re:Always 25 years by EdZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few month ago, I sat in a pub watching (live) an Astronaut operating on the internals of the Hubble Space Telescope. On my phone.
      We live in the goddamn future!

    3. Re:Always 25 years by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This story is somewhat of a dupe (too lazy to look up the original, though it was less than a year ago), and this point was brought up then too.

      When you're talking about advanced aircraft, the "25 years effect" is not the same as it is for overhyped things like fusion power; here, there's actually a reason. Aircraft take a loooooooong time to go from concept to flight: recall that Airbus starting thinking about the A380 in 1988, made it an official project in 1994, and it started commercial flight in 2007. And that's for a conservative design that was just building on existing principles. For a radical, untested design it would be considerably longer. Looking at it from that point of view, 2035 is actually a very reasonable target.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    4. Re:Always 25 years by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A few month ago, I sat in a pub watching (live) an Astronaut operating on the internals of the Hubble Space Telescope. On my phone.
      We live in te goddamn future!

      Your future is happening 40 years after I sat at my home watching (live) an Astronaut walking on the Moon.

      I would gladly exchange all the cellphones in the world for being able to walk on the moon.

    5. Re:Always 25 years by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the coolest technology is always now()+25 years away.

      No, the coolest technology is now being used by off-the-books military "black" ops and weapons programs. It's always +25 years away for the rest of us, though.

      I remember back in the 70's when people were being ridiculed for reporting sightings of large triangular craft which were very quiet and flew low over ranches out West.

      Of course, they were stealth aircraft, which were being used in all sorts of black bag missions overseas. Today, it's probably something like HAARP or some ugly microwave mind control bullshit, which can get you called a tin-foil hat wearing nut just by mentioning it. In 25 years, when urban law enforcement is using it, nobody will remember calling you crazy. There were crazy people in the '60's who believed our very own government was using psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting citizens to see if they could be made to do very bad things. Can you imagine anything crazier? I bet those people were wearing tin-foil hats too.

      I just hope Wikileaks stays in business, because I for one don't really care for my government doing sleazy black bag shenanigans without my knowledge, that always end up with some third world country hating us and sending terrorists twenty years later. Then, everybody will be saying "Gee, why do they hate us so much?" and nobody will hear the answer: "Because you used some sick heat ray on my village twenty years ago and my sister died a horrible death because of it."

      Terrorists don't just pop out of the sky one day, hating America because we're such a swell bunch.

      Now, what were we talking about?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Always 25 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would gladly exchange all the cellphones in the world for being able to walk on the moon.

      You know, I'm thinking that the ability for *anyone* to communicate instantly with *anyone else* in the world by voice or text (or for a few, video) with just a tiny box about the size and shape of a "communicator" from Star Trek from—get this—40 years ago, is probably better than sitting at home watching on TV a couple of other guys bounce around hitting golf balls on a cold, dead rock that offers us no immediate chance for advancement beyond the psychological thrill of saying "someone else other than me walked on the moon." Never even mind smart phones and the ability to watch video or read web pages from *anywhere*... even the ubiquitous manifestation of cellular telephony is a fucking MIRACLE of technology that has immediate, palpable consequences for all of humanity. It has made the world smaller; the moon walk just made it seem a bit smaller. I wouldn't exchange cell phones for watching some guy walk on the moon... they're really more important than the moon landing.

    7. Re:Always 25 years by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the majority of America wants there to be classified secrets of the government, it only takes one person leaking information to infringe on the rights of a nation.

      You're going to have to convince me that a majority of Americans want our country to be hiding what's really going on in Afghanistan.

      See, it's easy to say "I want to protect national security, so there should be secrets" but then everything suddenly becomes an issue of national security.

      In 2003 when Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration asserted "national security" as a reason why the names of the people who had worked with the Administration to create an energy policy should not be released to the public, it was pretty clear we had left a reasonable level of secrecy in the dust just to protect the administration from the embarrassment of having everyone know they'd sold the country out to the oil interests. If "whether or not we are actually accomplishing anything in Afghanistan" becomes a state secret based on national security, there's a bigger problem than wikileaks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Always 25 years by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe our ability to walk on the moon depends on our ability to understand that if we keep fucking with the earth the earth will one day say fuck us all. after we are all gone, it can happily continue and look beautiful again in a few million years. but we're a pretty nasty virus and we'll respawn pretty quick. we'll be back on earth some day...

      We're not a virus. We're the most interesting thing that has yet happened on Earth, perhaps in our whole galaxy. Just because there are minor teething problems coming from our heritage, doesn't mean that we aren't trying and don't deserve to exist.

    9. Re:Always 25 years by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah there's no good reason fusion power is taking such a long time to develop, not like there's an immensely powerful magnet, extremely rare fuel and an immense neutron flux to try and contain..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  2. Supersonic?!? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I thought the British and the French proved that to be unprofitable?

    The other planes....I just imagined the airline packing those suckers and having more than one middle seat. And you know they'll be charging extra for the window or the isle seat.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Supersonic?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Concord was generating 25% of BOAC's profits.

    2. Re:Supersonic?!? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first car was unprofitable. The first version of the Internet was unprofitable. The first everything is generally unprofitable. Reduce fuel costs by about 50%, reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing, and you have a profitable supersonic airplane.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Supersonic?!? by MBCook · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't forget, the Concord was '70s technology. Even 90s technology could have done better.

      The thing wasn't cheap, but there was no other option on Earth. There simply wasn't (and isn't) a way to get between NY and London faster. You can't buy a supersonic jet, and the military won't let you borrow one.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:Supersonic?!? by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't buy a supersonic jet, and the military won't let you borrow one.

      Supersonic jets want to be free, so if you got you hands on one, it wouldn't be stealing. I think.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Obvious question by Ryvar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You say you want to save massive amounts of energy, and then you show me a design that is not a flying wing. Slashdot, you have some aerospace engineers lying around, so help me out: what gives?

    1. Re:Obvious question by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flying wings have many excellent characteristics but mass passenger transport isn't one of them.

      In order to accommodate large passenger loads the flying wing shape becomes abused which leaves behind many of the characteristics which make the flying wing attractive in the first place. Once you modify the flying wing shape to accommodate large passenger loads, you more or less have a shape which is portrayed in the designs presented. And once you accommodate construction/materials issues, it almost exactly looks like the designs presented.

      In other words, I'm not really seeing a problem. But, as you mention, hopefully some designers won't be silent.

    2. Re:Obvious question by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Passengers like pressurized cabins, tubes are easy to build and keep pressurized. Complex shapes are not easy to build if you want to keep them pressurized.

    3. Re:Obvious question by cynyr · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's not a huge pressure differential. Less than a few feet of water in reality.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    4. Re:Obvious question by dziban303 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another problem with a flying wing passenger aircraft is the fact that there won't be many, if any, window seats. Okay, minor problem? What about the forces that would act on people towards the wingtips when banking? A relatively minor turn that would barely be noticed in a tubular airframe would be magnified into a fifteen foot drop or rise towards the edges. Now imagine trying to land in turbulent, stormy weather, and being really far from the center axis of the aircraft. Whatever money would be saved by the efficient wing design would be eaten up by barf bags and steam cleanings of the cabin after every flight.

    5. Re:Obvious question by magarity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am no aerospace engineer, about as far from it as you can get, but I would think that wing = drag.
       
      Congrats on accidentally making the wrongest statement ever on /. On an airplane, wing = lift. And since the purpose of the airplane is to go up, lift = good. The part the people sit in, that uniform shaped tube body, equals drag. An airplane shaped like a big wing could thus lift the most and drag the least. (see: Northrop YB-49)
       
      A tube body can actually produce some lift if it's shaped correctly but it's very expensive to manufacture and tricky to design (see: Super Constellation).

    6. Re:Obvious question by Pla123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You realize that "just a few feet of water" is more like 22 feet (7.5m) of water.
      At 35000 feet (10.5 km) cruising altitude for non-super sonic airplanes, air density is 25% of see level air density. 1 atmosphere is about the pressure of 10m of water column.
      Everest is "just" 8848 m, and yet very few can breathe easily without several days acclimatization.
      See altitude sickness. Even oxygen masks may not be enough at very low pressures.

    7. Re:Obvious question by dziban303 · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I don't refute your point, Pla123, I feel I should point out that passenger aircraft are not pressurized to sea level pressure. I believe--and no, it isn't fact, but I bet it's pretty close--that airliners are pressurized to ~7000 feet above sea level. What is that, like, 800mb? Anyway, there it is.

    8. Re:Obvious question by ogmundur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually lift also causes drag, so called induced drag; Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_drag

    9. Re:Obvious question by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A relatively minor turn that would barely be noticed in a tubular airframe would be magnified into a fifteen foot drop or rise towards the edges.

      Why do you think it'd feel like a 15 foot drop or rise? I doubt it would, if the turn were done smoothly. From what I'm reading, roll control (the control of rotation of the axis along the direction of travel) is not a serious issue with flying wings. That seems to indicate to me that the issue of storms and such (most which wouldn't generate a significant rolling motion in the vehicle) is a bit exaggerated.

  4. So, just plastics and lube then? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had 'jet fuel' as on my list of things that wouldn't ever likely get replaced with electric storage, and now this reduces the list a bit. Can we just start putting up some modern nuclear reactors and get out of the Middle East then? We've got plenty of sources here for real oil needs.

    No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. but 10,000 or so Americans have died so far as a result of making war in the Middle East.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:So, just plastics and lube then? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plastics and lube can be made from plant materials, or hell with enough power you can make all the hydrocarbons you want from water and air.

    2. Re:So, just plastics and lube then? by Delwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look at diesel-electric trains for the model, not hybrid cars.

    3. Re:So, just plastics and lube then? by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Informative

      These things are still going to be carrying oil of some description rather than charged up batteries for most of their energy requirements. The additional weight of batteries is not going to make sense for an aircraft.

    4. Re:So, just plastics and lube then? by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see where hybrids help here.

      I can see where they could use stored electricity to shut engines off when landing to reduce noise, charge at the gate, and take off without engines as well.

      That alone wouldn't affect efficiency necessarily, but would probably allow the use of louder engine types that might be able to reduce efficiency, and it would reduce the opposition to airports allowing them to be placed in better locations.

      --
      The television will not be revolutionized.
    5. Re:So, just plastics and lube then? by pittance · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure trains are a good model either; Diesel-electric trains are effective because the torque you need for starting & driving a train doesn't easily come from a diesel motor without lots of gearing and clutches that are complex, inefficient and potentially unreliable.

      Electric motors can give you all the torque you want from a standing start and so they make it easier to use diesels, avoiding the need to electrify your rail network (partly the reason Britain went with Diesel-electric trains in the '50s - they didn't have the capital to electrify).

      With aircraft it's less clear where the advantage is going to come from since the kerosene motor + generator combination (and its associated losses) in an aircraft isn't solving a clear problem like lack of torque in a train and power requirements with lots of peaks and troughs as in a car.

      However, a big advantage (from an environmental point of view) could be the ability to take electrical power for flight - once you have this you can gradually feed in alternative or low carbon energy into your mix. This type of aircraft could be a first step in that direction.

  5. Re:Props by Marillion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Jet engines are already de-facto propeller engines. If you call it a "Fan" it doesn't sound as scary as "Propeller." In a high bypass turbofan engine such as those found in most modern aircraft, most of the thrust is produced by the fan part of the turbofan. For example, the CF-34 jet engine has a bypass ratio of 80% or better. This means 80% of the thrust is produced by spinning a fan. Newer designs like the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 get 84% thrust from the bypass fan. Basically, anything that can create radial motion can be use to turn that fan. Electric, steam, compressed air, .... {insert physics here}.

    --
    This is a boring sig
  6. Re:Forget Electric Hybrids by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

    LH2 tanks require more insulation (meaning more weight). The planes can only carry so much fuel by volume. The maximum fuel capacity for a 737-NG is 26,000 liters. The density of Jet A at 15C is about 800g/L. The density of liquid hydrogen is 71g/L at 20K. At these densities, you get masses of about 21,000kg of Jet A and 1900kg of LH2. The specific energy of Jet A is about 43MJ/kg, and 143MJ/kg for LH2. At those levels, you get total stored energy of about 1.1 million MJ for Jet A, and only 270,000 MJ for LH2.

    The numbers just don't work, and these don't consider the complicating factors from dealing with cryogenic fuels.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. Re:Props by icegreentea · · Score: 3, Informative

    The bypass ratio refers to the mass of air moved around the core to the mass moved through the core, not the ratio of thrust. For any given mass of air being put through the core, it will produce more thrust than the same ratio outside the core because it gets hotter/faster.

  8. Re:Forget Electric Hybrids by icegreentea · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They tried building a hydrogen powered spy plane back in the 70s or something. LH2 is kind of a nightmare to deal with compared to jet fuel. For one thing, its a cryogenic. The US Air Force decided that playing with LH2 was a) too dangerous and b) too much of a logistics headache. And even with LH2, your energy density is still significantly lower than jet fuel. They had a nightmare trying to get the range required on that spy plane. Wiki-link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan. If you're interested, try finding Ben Rich's Shunkworks. He spends a chapter talking about trying to build this thing (and all the wonderful fun they had playing with LH2... they apparently went ahead and did all the usual Liquid Nitrogen fun stuff... except with LH2).

  9. Re:Props by jbengt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jet engines are, by definition, not fans. They produce thrust by the acceleration of a jet of combustion products exiting the rear of the engine through a nozzle. Rockets are jet engines; but the term jet engine usually implies air-breathing and rockets are assumed to carry their own oxidizer. Propellers/fans produce thrust pushing air back by rotation of the fan blades/fan wheels/propellers .
    Fans can be propellers or otherwise. When talking about aircraft it's usually meant that a prop is un-ducted but a fan is ducted.
    Pure jet engines are efficient at high speeds, but very inefficient at low speeds like at takeoff where fans can be a big help. That's one of the main reasons fans are included in the "jet engines" found on most commercial aircraft. (Unducted) Props don't work very well at the high cruising speeds of most airliners because the velocity of the propeller tip gets added (vector-wise) to the airspeed of the plane, which result in velocities near or above the speed of sound. The ducting can be designed to slow down the air and somewhat mitigate that issue.
    Commercial airliners usually use combination fan/jet engines.

  10. Re:"supersonic" by h00manist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    obscure?

    Definitely obscure. "Ecological" cars and airplanes? Carbon-powered? Obscure motivations? Trains are 100% electric, infinitely safer, more spacious, smaller footprint than roads, etc. On short routes, they can be faster than flying, after factoring taxis and airport waits. And, there are bar-cars. -- http://gizmodo.com/5434582/the-fastest-train-in-the-world

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  11. Linked article is lacking details by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    The press release is devoid of details, but a google search turns up that they're decoupling the jet engine (which generates the power) from the bypass fan (which generates most of the thrust).

    For those not up to speed on jet engine technology, modern turbofans are essentially ducted propellers. The engine itself occupies a small section in the center. It burns fuel and throws the air it consumes out the back at a higher speed. This generates about 20% of the total thrust. The rest of the energy goes into spinning the bypass fan blades. Just like a propeller, they grab large chunks of air which never goes through the combustion chamber, and push it out the back at higher speed to generate about 80% of the thrust.

    In current engine designs, the blades of the two are locked together (although some of the compressor blades inside the engine may rotate at a different speed). For the bypass fan blades to be spinning, the engine must also be on and spinning. The idea behind this hybrid is to decouple them so they can operate independently of each other. The bypass fan would be spun using an electric motor. I don't know the numbers involved, but theoretically that would mean you could always run the jet engine at its most efficient RPM to generate electricity, and even turn it off if there's little thrust required and the batteries have enough juice to run the bypass fan (e.g. descent).