Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EVTOL news and progress - do we need a new dedicated section?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EVTOL news and progress - do we need a new dedicated section?

Old 13th Dec 2023, 13:34
  #61 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
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.

Last edited by ATC Watcher; 13th Dec 2023 at 16:54. Reason: added month
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2023, 15:06
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ETOPS
Nope - watch and listen to these flyover tests..

https://youtu.be/itP8-3j2UZI?si=r918y5_HH9hk4nDx
My brothers Baron is parked at Marina, CA, I wonder if that's his in the video. I have seen Joby test fly out there many times and it is truly a different sound. Until they flew manned last month, there would be a chase Cirrus 22 or R-44, and that's all you would hear. Now that it's doing manned flights, you can hear it, but it doesn't really draw attention. I have seen Archer as well out of Salinas in their smaller prototype. Seemed a little louder.
I will say, Joby appears to be well ahead of Archer Midnight. (unfortunately my airline put its money on the later)
jetpig32 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2023, 15:10
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
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.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2023, 19:18
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 751
Received 24 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
The noise aspect has been shelved and kept out of the debate, as many (wrongly) believe those electric aircraft will be silent. .
I don't think the noise issue has been shelved per se as there have been dozens of studies and research papers done over the past 10 years specially to address the UAM noise patterns with a number of them published in various aerospace journals. They have even developed computer models to assist in mitigating those noise issues. Noise has been a top 3 problem for UAM going back to the 70s with most of the current noise studies getting their basis from the NASA Heli-Star noise study in the 90s. From what I've seen and read, if they can't provide an acceptable noise signature within the targeted urban environments it will go the same way helicopters went when they were used for UAM. However, it seems public perception of noise from a helicopter vs an eVTOL follows 2 different paths.

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.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2023, 00:21
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 834
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
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2023, 19:08
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
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.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2023, 07:54
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,355
Received 84 Likes on 32 Posts
there will need to be some big breakthroughs.
Yes - it's called Dojo...



ETOPS is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2024, 15:06
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
electra stol

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/electra-estol-preorders/

Impressive order book if tru
widgeon is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2024, 15:21
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Have Lockheed licensed them the name?
Our Electras with 4 Allison 501 engines could be pretty short field when light.
dixi188 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2024, 17:00
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,192
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by widgeon
I find it amazing that all these companies can fund raise that kind of money on the strength of a YouTube CGI video. Don't investors do any research anymore ? So what if they did a short flight in what is basically a homebuilt bug smasher complete with lots of bumpy rivet heads ? That is a very, very ,very, long way from a viable 9 seat airplane that can go 200 miles with reserves in all weather.

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 !
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2024, 17:31
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 507
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
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."
20driver is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2024, 11:47
  #72 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,355
Received 84 Likes on 32 Posts
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.
ETOPS is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2024, 13:39
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 751
Received 24 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by 20driver
They say you do not need ground recharging so that implies all the power is coming from the on board ICE generator?
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.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2024, 14:50
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 582
Received 181 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by wrench1
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.
Then my understanding is this thing is not an EVTOL, it's a VTOL with electric motors for engines and a combustion engine(s) for power. This is not an electrical vehicle.
Winemaker is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2024, 17:36
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 751
Received 24 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Winemaker
Then my understanding is this thing is not an EVTOL, it's a VTOL with electric motors for engines and a combustion engine(s) for power. This is not an electrical vehicle.
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.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 09:57
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 202
Received 24 Likes on 11 Posts
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
petit plateau is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 15:55
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,192
Received 133 Likes on 60 Posts
Originally Posted by petit plateau
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
Did someone redo basic physics while I was asleep? Those performance numbers are nonsense.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 17:35
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 202
Received 24 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
Did someone redo basic physics while I was asleep? Those performance numbers are nonsense.
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.
petit plateau is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 19:47
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 582
Received 181 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by petit plateau
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.
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.
Winemaker is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 20:47
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 202
Received 24 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Winemaker
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.
Thanks.

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 ?
petit plateau is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.