Solar Impulse
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently winds are delaying the landing.
Great picture of it over the bridge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36122618
Edited to add: She's landed now.
Great picture of it over the bridge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36122618
Edited to add: She's landed now.
Last edited by ExXB; 24th Apr 2016 at 09:04.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wing area
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.pprune.org/members/270458-scuffers"
Scuffers[/URL]]Look, all well and good, but unless you plan on changing the laws of physics, simply not going to happen.
big as the A380 wing topside is, it's never going to be big enough for anything like a megawatt of power from solar.
Now, at best, solar is ~1,000W/M2, so if you had a mythical 100% efficient solar cell array the size of the A380 wings (some 845 M2) then assuming your A380 is directly beneath the sun, on the equator, you only have some 0.85Mw to start with, and as soon as said plane (it may well be slightly better at 40,000 ft, but not by a massive factor).
So where are you going to get "several megawatts of power" from?
this is not about a technology needing development so much as the physics simply don't stack up.
then consider that the Trent 900 is rated at some 80,000Lbf, which roughly equates to ~95Mw (40,000ft @ Mach 0.85) and the A380 has 4 of them.
big as the A380 wing topside is, it's never going to be big enough for anything like a megawatt of power from solar.
Now, at best, solar is ~1,000W/M2, so if you had a mythical 100% efficient solar cell array the size of the A380 wings (some 845 M2) then assuming your A380 is directly beneath the sun, on the equator, you only have some 0.85Mw to start with, and as soon as said plane (it may well be slightly better at 40,000 ft, but not by a massive factor).
So where are you going to get "several megawatts of power" from?
this is not about a technology needing development so much as the physics simply don't stack up.
then consider that the Trent 900 is rated at some 80,000Lbf, which roughly equates to ~95Mw (40,000ft @ Mach 0.85) and the A380 has 4 of them.
I wasn't thinking about getting an A380 to fly on solar. That's obviously impossible. What I'm imagining is more like a giant flying wing that carries much less, has the same wing span as the A380 but a much deeper wing, e.g. 80m wide, 40m long, carrying maybe 20 metric tons of stuff (maybe less - I'm just guessing things). That gives 3200 m2, yielding 3.2 MW.
This kind of plane would be much slower than a conventional plane, with extremely low wing loading.
What I don't know is, will passengers accept travel times in excess of 24 hours? In conventional planes, space for seats is expensive. In that hypothetical plane, space will not be a problem, weight will be. (And of course, flying through the night... ;-))
Crew block time will be a problem, I'm not quite sure how to overcome that. Fully automatic will be out, since I imagine the plane will need minders, unless you want it to look like a subway car in a poor city after a while. The cost structure will change for sure.
However, the main question remains - can a plane like that be made to fly? I really don't know if that is feasible. Probably not alone.
Last edited by RealUlli; 25th Apr 2016 at 07:05. Reason: Fixed style/grammar
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an example for area, RAF Coltishall has just been converted to a solar farm, just under 50MW at peak generation (i.e half an engine).
http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1..._630/image.jpg
http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1..._630/image.jpg
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then consider that the Trent 900 is rated at some 80,000Lbf, which roughly equates to ~95Mw (40,000ft @ Mach 0.85)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite.
read this:
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Convert Thrust to Horsepower
and I picked 80,000Lbs as it's broadly the mid-spec for the Trent 900
As an aside the Rolls-Royce MT30 genset is rated at 40Mw and is based on the Trent 800 core, if you then take into account different duty cycle ratings and inefficiencies of the Aero engine vs. genset, it actually stacks up about right.
read this:
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Convert Thrust to Horsepower
and I picked 80,000Lbs as it's broadly the mid-spec for the Trent 900
As an aside the Rolls-Royce MT30 genset is rated at 40Mw and is based on the Trent 800 core, if you then take into account different duty cycle ratings and inefficiencies of the Aero engine vs. genset, it actually stacks up about right.
Not quite.
read this:
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Convert Thrust to Horsepower
and I picked 80,000Lbs as it's broadly the mid-spec for the Trent 900
read this:
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Convert Thrust to Horsepower
and I picked 80,000Lbs as it's broadly the mid-spec for the Trent 900
It calculates, based on NASA data, that a 747-200 in the cruise generates around 16 MW per engine.
The Trent 900 develops roughly one-and-a-half times as much thrust as the JT9D, so around 24 MW per engine.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who said anything about at cruise power?
Yes, at cruise, the Trent is probably at ~24Mw, however, what would it be if you push the throttles forward all the way?
(Or are you suggesting that the engines never have to be run at anything above cruise power?)
Yes, at cruise, the Trent is probably at ~24Mw, however, what would it be if you push the throttles forward all the way?
(Or are you suggesting that the engines never have to be run at anything above cruise power?)
If you really believe that you can get 80,000 lbf out of a Trent in the cruise at 40,000 ft, I would get on the phone to Derby and Toulouse straight away and let them in on the secret.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really?
Trent is more efficient at 40,000ft than at ground level, they are very much optimised for running at cruise altitude.
So, A380 at 40,000ft loses an engine, does it fall out the sky or do the other three make up the loss in thrust? (How about if it loses 2 engines?)
What do you think it's max thrust would be at 40,000ft?
Trent is more efficient at 40,000ft than at ground level, they are very much optimised for running at cruise altitude.
So, A380 at 40,000ft loses an engine, does it fall out the sky or do the other three make up the loss in thrust? (How about if it loses 2 engines?)
What do you think it's max thrust would be at 40,000ft?
So, A380 at 40,000ft loses an engine, does it fall out the sky or do the other three make up the loss in thrust? (How about if it loses 2 engines?)
A loss of two engines on an A380 or 747 (roughly analogous to losing one engine on a twin) would necessitate the remaining engines producing double their normal cruise thrust if the same airspeed and altitude were to be maintained.
But, as you will have seen from the article you quoted, normal cruise thrust is about a quarter of T/O thrust, so even doubling that will only equate to around 50% of the latter.
What do you think it's max thrust would be at 40,000ft?
But think about it - if an engine was capable of producing SL take-off thrust at 40,000 feet then it would mean that a 747/A380 could maintain height and speed on one engine, which it clearly can't..
Neat approach. 
Dividing that per-aircraft value by 4 gives a per-engine figure of around 16 MW in the cruise.
Interestingly, that's almost identical to NASA's value for the 747/JT9D - maybe they did their sums with a Shuttle on top.
Dividing that per-aircraft value by 4 gives a per-engine figure of around 16 MW in the cruise.
Interestingly, that's almost identical to NASA's value for the 747/JT9D - maybe they did their sums with a Shuttle on top.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two hours into next sector
Solar Impulse - 10th Leg from San Francisco to Phoenix
Goodbye Silicon Valley!
André Borschberg took off on May 2nd 12:03UTC from San Francisco to Phoenix, Arizona. Si2 spent a week in California after Bertrand Piccard's 3-day flight that marked the completion of the Pacific Crossing. It was a great opportunity to meet with the public and Silicon Valley's tech companies, to spread the #futureisclean message. The flight is expected to take 16 hours and 23 minutes, crossing 720 miles over the Mojave Desert and will arrive in Phoenix Goodyear Airport at around 4:23AM UTC.
Solar Impulse - 10th Leg from San Francisco to Phoenix
Goodbye Silicon Valley!
André Borschberg took off on May 2nd 12:03UTC from San Francisco to Phoenix, Arizona. Si2 spent a week in California after Bertrand Piccard's 3-day flight that marked the completion of the Pacific Crossing. It was a great opportunity to meet with the public and Silicon Valley's tech companies, to spread the #futureisclean message. The flight is expected to take 16 hours and 23 minutes, crossing 720 miles over the Mojave Desert and will arrive in Phoenix Goodyear Airport at around 4:23AM UTC.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about getting this solar power on a blimp? Like a hybrid car, the buoyancy of the gas cancels out weight for passengers/cargo/equipment and the solar cells power props for momentum?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the UAE contributed a lot of money. That's what they had to do for the 'prestige' of being the origin/destination.
