Remix.run Logo
Hybrid-Electric Aicraft Engine Targeting 30% Fuel Efficiency(rtx.com)
48 points by r2sk5t 3 hours ago | 29 comments
Someone 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not “30% fuel efficiency”, but an improvement of 30%.

FTA: “The project aims to demonstrate up to 30% improved fuel efficiency for a typical 250-nautical-mile regional turboprop mission”

c0n5pir4cy an hour ago | parent [-]

I was so confused by the title - I thought jets were fairly efficient at ~40%-50% of theoretical maximum and turbofans can't be that far behind. It would maybe make sense for a single prop aircraft.

30% improvement makes much more sense.

avidiax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think there are startups making a similar sort of engine for general aviation. It's good to see that there is development of the same idea for commercial aviation.

This isn't like a hybrid car. It's a parallel hybrid, where the gas engine is just big enough for efficient cruise at altitude, and the electric motor/generator provides extra power for takeoff and ascent (or go-around power), and then charges slowly during cruise if needed.

This means that the battery is quite small and light, having only enough charge to take off and get to altitude.

I suspect that this system probably improves safety as well, if architected properly. If one or both of the gas engines fail, so long as they are not seized, that electric motor can still provide some power for diversion.

SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The fuel burn of take-off and climb substantially lightens the aircraft for cruise. Electric batteries have no such effect, you're carrying all that dead weight for the rest of the flight. This reduces the passenger or cargo capacity of the aircraft, which reduces potential revenue.

And what if you need two go-arounds?

repiret 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t conflate airplanes with rockets.

On an airplane, most of the energy in cruise is spent overcoming parasitic drag, not induced drag. It’s spent pushing the airmass out of the way as it moves forward, not creating lift to stay aloft.

For that reason, a change in weight does not significantly change cruise fuel usage.

Weight is still precious, but that’s because airplanes’ load are more often weight constrained than volume constrained, and capital and operating costs are such that you want to maximize the load.

arijun 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you're carrying all that dead weight for the rest of the flight

If you're recharging the batteries for extra go-arounds during landing, they are as dead weight as the fuel you would otherwise reserve for that purpose. And if you have 30% more efficient engines, meaning less fuel and smaller engines, it's possible you could come out ahead, weight-wise.

> what if you need two go-arounds

I assume that a go-around requires less sustained power output than a full climb from takeoff, so you will probably get more than one go-around anyway, and we don't know how much over-capacity they're designing for. In any case, any design will require tradeoffs in safety, and having more engine-out capabilities might improve safety enough to overcome the higher risk with go-arounds.

Not saying this project is will work out or that you're even wrong necessarily (this could be the equivalent of a concept car for Pratt & Whitney).

vablings 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Due to various penalties, wind resistance. gear down and aircraft configuration. A go-around consumes a huge amount of fuel, not as much as climbing to cruise but its alot

dmitrygr 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> I assume that a go-around requires less sustained power output than a full climb from takeoff,

No.

Source 1: PE = mgh

Source 2: am pilot

arijun 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You don't do a full climb after a go-around, so the heights are not equal, and the mass is less since you've expended fuel. You also retain some kinetic energy but I assume that is closer to a negligible effect.

Also, PE = mgh is probably an not a great formula for energy cost of takeoff/go-around, as there are probably large costs it ignores (gravity loss, less efficient engine use, maybe less efficient turbines?).

For your source 2 I have no rebuttal so will have to defer to you, but would ask for an explanation.

SoftTalker 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not a pilot, but on approach for landing you bleed off a lot of energy. For a go-around you need to reverse your descent and build up enough energy to fly away again. Take-off/Go-around tends to be the same throttle setting, AFAIK. Of course it also depends on how early you decide to throw away the approach and go around. Doing it at 1000 feet is different from bouncing it off the runway.

card_zero 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Time to invent regenerative air brakes, like fold-out windmills.

0cf8612b2e1e an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Energy density of liquid fuels cannot be beat by batteries, so this is not competitive if you are looking to maximize cargo. However, there are plenty of short haul flights: private jets, island hopping, regional routes where you need to move little mass.

xattt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. A hybrid passenger car can tolerate unpredictable power output that may come with an auxiliary power setup that may or may not be available when stronger dynamics are called for.

A plane doesn’t have this luxury and needs predictable output. The fossil fuel engine either needs a sacrificial “overboost” mode for emergencies (at the cost of wear/long-term longevity), or has to be sized for full power at the ultimate cost of efficiency.

Tade0 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On anything but very short flights most of the fuel is spent on cruising.

hobonation an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Valid.

Perhaps it's not all negative: the electric portion could give a pilot a bit more glide than the gas portion dies.

idontwantthis 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hybrid cars are mostly parallel hybrids. Only the Chevy Volt comes to mind as a serial hybrid.

kspacewalk2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>This isn't like a hybrid car. It's a parallel hybrid, where the gas engine is just big enough for efficient cruise at altitude, and the electric motor/generator provides extra power for takeoff and ascent (or go-around power), and then charges slowly during cruise if needed.

Isn't that exactly what hybrid cars (e.g. Prius) are? Extremely efficient gas engine for highway cruising, but insufficient for acceleration, which is aided by electric motors?

Tade0 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The Prius uses a planetary gear set to blend power of the engine with that of the two motor-generators.

Both the engine and motors are used at all speeds. Particularly during highway acceleration the entire assembly rotates in the same direction.

dgfl 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is a great related watch if you have some time to kill: https://youtu.be/KnUFH5GX_fI

arijun an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The Prius is in series, or something like it.

idontwantthis 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

No it’s not. The majority of power comes from the engine. It drives the electric motor mechanically, using it as a transmission. It is not just charging the battery.

arijun 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sorry, I meant in the low speed, high acceleration regime (maybe easily confounded with takeoff?). There the engine will turn one motor to generate electricity, which will then power the second motor, like a series hybrid.

krunck 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if during descent instead of cutting power alot to control speed it can instead use the energy to charge the batteries.

MeteorMarc 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nothing on recharging the battery in the landing phase, so room for improvement.

repiret a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

Not really much room. Unlike a car going down a hill, an airplane descending still wants thrust from the engines, just not as much as in cruise.

bell-cot 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Not an aerospace engineer - but that sounds like a lot of extra cost/complexity/weight, for pretty minimal benefit.

soperj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only AI stories show up now, so they had to call it an Ai craft I guess.

mschuster91 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

1300 HP electric engine power, now that's an achievement.

I do wonder if prop engines can act as "windmills" (similar to turbine engines, which often in accidents still have been found to provide a bit of hydraulic power), which means regenerative braking could be used instead of speedbrakes.

paunchy 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

I've seen references to this capability in reporting elsewhere. It's less useful in an aircraft than a car because you can gradually descend, reducing power proportionally as you're preparing to land. But I'm guessing this is part of where the claimed 30% improvement in efficiency comes from.