EVTOL news and progress - do we need a new dedicated section?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting indeed .Thanks . My bad then, with this type of technology at least using large propellers low speed. The couples of prototypes I saw and heard until now were all multi engines with small props turning at a few 1000 Rpms. , producing high pitch noises. One thing we must not forget : these urban vehicles will be flying low to very low.
Anyway next year in June for the Paris Olympics, the first ones are planned to be used. we'll then see the public reactions.
Anyway next year in June for the Paris Olympics, the first ones are planned to be used. we'll then see the public reactions.
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 13th Dec 2023 at 16:54. Reason: added month
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say, Joby appears to be well ahead of Archer Midnight. (unfortunately my airline put its money on the later)
The FAA paper adds some detail reinforcing the need for standard routes and also making clear that an onboard pilot plays a role certainly at least in the ramp up. Given that this will restrict payload and the standard routes will limit the points that can be connected I am intrigued by the business case and the demand side of the equation. Maybe I am too sceptical but this smacks of accounts I have read about the early days of the railways, eventually a huge success, but only after quite a lot of trial and error and rather a long time.
And while most of the up and coming eVTOLs/VTOLs will have the design capability for autonomous or remote piloted ops, I doubt there will be any pilotless pax ops in any reasonable timeframe. Cargo ops sure as they are currently testing this now with large drones. I think it will take another generation of people before enough of the general public will accept getting to the back seat with HAL driving up front.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 846
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IATA Aviation Ecosystem Roadmap
New IATA document:
New Aviation Ecosystem Roadmap - IATA
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/c...em_roadmap.pdf
New Aviation Ecosystem Roadmap - IATA
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/c...em_roadmap.pdf
Just read an article which referenced an academic expert in risk management at a leading German university and who previously worked in the flight safety department of a national airline. His argument in summary is that AI requires an incredible number of calculations to achieve true autonomy which even the fastest super computers cannot carry out in any reasonable time. The time required is currently not measured in minutes but millions of years so there will need to be some big breakthroughs.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this thing is put into revenue service I will post nice things about Elon Musk on this site. You can hold me to it !
Compared to most of the electric schemes this one seems reasonable. What I could not figure out is how much if any batteries the plane carries. They say you do not need ground recharging so that implies all the power is coming from the on board ICE generator? Is fuel part of the payload ?
I agree this is a long way from anything that is useful and economic but it makes a lot more sense than lilium aviation which has managed to raise 1.3 billion! As for investors, aviation seems to make them totally ga-ga. As Warren Buffet said, "Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down."
I agree this is a long way from anything that is useful and economic but it makes a lot more sense than lilium aviation which has managed to raise 1.3 billion! As for investors, aviation seems to make them totally ga-ga. As Warren Buffet said, "Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down."
Thread Starter
A little bit of digging shows the electric motors to be MAGicALL 75kW units.
https://www.magicall.biz/downloads/m...-datasheet.pdf
Thus with 8 installed the demonstrator has 600 kW available for take-off and - I'm guessing - MTOW of less than 2 tonnes.
Air intakes behind the centre section hint at a combustion engine to provide generated electricity for cruise and, apparently, the first test flight was electric only.
No duration given so will have to wait and see what batteries are carried.
https://www.magicall.biz/downloads/m...-datasheet.pdf
Thus with 8 installed the demonstrator has 600 kW available for take-off and - I'm guessing - MTOW of less than 2 tonnes.
Air intakes behind the centre section hint at a combustion engine to provide generated electricity for cruise and, apparently, the first test flight was electric only.
No duration given so will have to wait and see what batteries are carried.
They are also pursuing Part 23 certification vs the current Part 21 exemption certification route as the eVTOLs are using which should make things much simpler and probably the reason for the influx of orders.
Its my understanding the 2 seat prototype uses a small conventional APU to provide normal flight electrical power. I believe the onboard batteries are enough to start APU, run things static, and provide enough power for an emergency landing. The 9 pax production version will have a Safran purpose-built "turbo-generator" with dual generators and most likely will burn SAF type fuel.
They are also pursuing Part 23 certification vs the current Part 21 exemption certification route as the eVTOLs are using which should make things much simpler and probably the reason for the influx of orders.
They are also pursuing Part 23 certification vs the current Part 21 exemption certification route as the eVTOLs are using which should make things much simpler and probably the reason for the influx of orders.
Its actually a STOL, short-take-off-landing, as there is no vertical TO component. Whether an “e” should go in front is up for discussion as are other terms like “rotor”, “prop”, etc. due to regulatory considerations. My guess in the end if it has an ICE onboard vs batteries or fuel cell to make electrical power it won't have the sought after "e" in front of the aircraft type. But who knows.
This is not EVTOL but is EV-flight. A very interesting read, with what looks to be much more sensible achievable engineering, and a pathway to staged development and economic operation within the existing eco-system
Dutch start-up Elysian breaks cover and pushes potential of all-electric 90-seater : Dutch start-up Elysian Aircraft claims newly published research supports its ambitious plan to develop an all-electric 90-seater for service entry in 2033, arguing that the potential for battery-powered aircraft has previously been significantly underestimated. Established last year, Elysian says the work carried out by its team – co-chief executive and chief technology officer Rob Wolleswinkel and director of design and engineering Reynard de Vries – alongside staff from the Delft University of Technology, signals a “paradigm shift in the potential for electric flight”.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...156431.article
Battery-electric aviation is commonly believed to be limited to small aircraft and is therefore expected have a negligible impact on the decarbonization of the aviation sector. In this paper we argue that, with the correct choice of design parameters and top-level aircraft requirements, the addressable market is actually substantial. To demonstrate this, the Class-II sizing of a battery-electric 90-seater is performed, and the environmental impact is assessed in terms of well-to-wake CO2-equivalent emissions per passenger-kilometer. The resulting 76-ton aircraft achieves a battery-powered useful range of 800 km for a pack-level energy density of 360
Wh/kg. For this range, it has an energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer and an environmental impact well below that of kerosene, eSAF, or hydrogen-based aircraft alternatives and comparable to land-based modes of transport. These results indicate that, to successfully reduce the climate impact of the aviation sector, battery-electric aircraft should not be designed as a niche product operating from small airfields but as commercial transport aircraft competing with fuel-based regional and narrowbody aircraft.
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfil..._90_seater.pdf
Dutch start-up Elysian breaks cover and pushes potential of all-electric 90-seater : Dutch start-up Elysian Aircraft claims newly published research supports its ambitious plan to develop an all-electric 90-seater for service entry in 2033, arguing that the potential for battery-powered aircraft has previously been significantly underestimated. Established last year, Elysian says the work carried out by its team – co-chief executive and chief technology officer Rob Wolleswinkel and director of design and engineering Reynard de Vries – alongside staff from the Delft University of Technology, signals a “paradigm shift in the potential for electric flight”.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...156431.article
Battery-electric aviation is commonly believed to be limited to small aircraft and is therefore expected have a negligible impact on the decarbonization of the aviation sector. In this paper we argue that, with the correct choice of design parameters and top-level aircraft requirements, the addressable market is actually substantial. To demonstrate this, the Class-II sizing of a battery-electric 90-seater is performed, and the environmental impact is assessed in terms of well-to-wake CO2-equivalent emissions per passenger-kilometer. The resulting 76-ton aircraft achieves a battery-powered useful range of 800 km for a pack-level energy density of 360
Wh/kg. For this range, it has an energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer and an environmental impact well below that of kerosene, eSAF, or hydrogen-based aircraft alternatives and comparable to land-based modes of transport. These results indicate that, to successfully reduce the climate impact of the aviation sector, battery-electric aircraft should not be designed as a niche product operating from small airfields but as commercial transport aircraft competing with fuel-based regional and narrowbody aircraft.
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfil..._90_seater.pdf
This is not EVTOL but is EV-flight. A very interesting read, with what looks to be much more sensible achievable engineering, and a pathway to staged development and economic operation within the existing eco-system
Dutch start-up Elysian breaks cover and pushes potential of all-electric 90-seater : Dutch start-up Elysian Aircraft claims newly published research supports its ambitious plan to develop an all-electric 90-seater for service entry in 2033, arguing that the potential for battery-powered aircraft has previously been significantly underestimated. Established last year, Elysian says the work carried out by its team – co-chief executive and chief technology officer Rob Wolleswinkel and director of design and engineering Reynard de Vries – alongside staff from the Delft University of Technology, signals a “paradigm shift in the potential for electric flight”.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...156431.article
Battery-electric aviation is commonly believed to be limited to small aircraft and is therefore expected have a negligible impact on the decarbonization of the aviation sector. In this paper we argue that, with the correct choice of design parameters and top-level aircraft requirements, the addressable market is actually substantial. To demonstrate this, the Class-II sizing of a battery-electric 90-seater is performed, and the environmental impact is assessed in terms of well-to-wake CO2-equivalent emissions per passenger-kilometer. The resulting 76-ton aircraft achieves a battery-powered useful range of 800 km for a pack-level energy density of 360
Wh/kg. For this range, it has an energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer and an environmental impact well below that of kerosene, eSAF, or hydrogen-based aircraft alternatives and comparable to land-based modes of transport. These results indicate that, to successfully reduce the climate impact of the aviation sector, battery-electric aircraft should not be designed as a niche product operating from small airfields but as commercial transport aircraft competing with fuel-based regional and narrowbody aircraft.
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfil..._90_seater.pdf
Dutch start-up Elysian breaks cover and pushes potential of all-electric 90-seater : Dutch start-up Elysian Aircraft claims newly published research supports its ambitious plan to develop an all-electric 90-seater for service entry in 2033, arguing that the potential for battery-powered aircraft has previously been significantly underestimated. Established last year, Elysian says the work carried out by its team – co-chief executive and chief technology officer Rob Wolleswinkel and director of design and engineering Reynard de Vries – alongside staff from the Delft University of Technology, signals a “paradigm shift in the potential for electric flight”.
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...156431.article
Battery-electric aviation is commonly believed to be limited to small aircraft and is therefore expected have a negligible impact on the decarbonization of the aviation sector. In this paper we argue that, with the correct choice of design parameters and top-level aircraft requirements, the addressable market is actually substantial. To demonstrate this, the Class-II sizing of a battery-electric 90-seater is performed, and the environmental impact is assessed in terms of well-to-wake CO2-equivalent emissions per passenger-kilometer. The resulting 76-ton aircraft achieves a battery-powered useful range of 800 km for a pack-level energy density of 360
Wh/kg. For this range, it has an energy consumption of 167 Wh per passenger-kilometer and an environmental impact well below that of kerosene, eSAF, or hydrogen-based aircraft alternatives and comparable to land-based modes of transport. These results indicate that, to successfully reduce the climate impact of the aviation sector, battery-electric aircraft should not be designed as a niche product operating from small airfields but as commercial transport aircraft competing with fuel-based regional and narrowbody aircraft.
https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfil..._90_seater.pdf
I admit I did not expect to see such a study show such an opportunity existed in this timeframe, but the logic appears sound when I read it.
If indeed there are flaws in the calculations I am very interested to know more.
Can you point out what parts of the TUDelft paper are weak ?
I admit I did not expect to see such a study show such an opportunity existed in this timeframe, but the logic appears sound when I read it.
If indeed there are flaws in the calculations I am very interested to know more.
I admit I did not expect to see such a study show such an opportunity existed in this timeframe, but the logic appears sound when I read it.
If indeed there are flaws in the calculations I am very interested to know more.
A quick calculation using the numbers in the article as to range, passengers, and battery energy density, suggests a battery to fly 800 km would mass about 33,500 kg. This does not include any reserve; with a 200 km reserve the mass is about 42,000 kg. One aspect of battery power is the landing aircraft weighs the same as the takeoff craft (with a tiny loss due to quantum effects that I will ignore). The kwh/passenger/km and energy density numbers also seem to be optimistic.
To be fair with a 76 tonne aircraft they themselves come up with a 35 tonne battery, so your 42-tonne calc (including reserve) seems to be in wild agreement.
As to the reserve fraction that is where they go with a gasturbine genset and liquid fuel so as to minimise emergency ordinarily unused weight. That is exactly the strategy I use when designing similar energy systems so I am not surprised by it. So that leaves 7 tonnes (your figure 42 - 35 = 7) of not-required reserve battery & liquid fuel. If you look at Fig 3 that looks to be about a 5% mass fraction, or 3.8 tonnes for emgy turbine + fuel, so a useful saving on your 7 tonne estimate. It seems your numbers are directionally in agreement with their numbers.
Are there any numbers that are identifiably plain wrong ?