Hybrid Plane Design

I think it has potential and could add a small margin of additional safety. The say it will allow for an extra 20 kilometers which is about 12 miles. That could often be the difference between a safe landing versus a crash. As with many additional features, I guess it all depends on the cost and the added weight whether or not someone would add it on, regardless of any benefit it might provide.
 
Subsea said:
Besides a lithium ion battery fire, I'm not seeing too many problems with the theory.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a big one.

Another is weight. It's hard to fit three adults in a 172 now. It's telling that the marketing videos don't tell you how heavy the system is, including ALL its parts.
 
For right now I think weight is the big issue, but with battery energy density improving I like that there are some people making this a reality. Sure maybe it doesn't work great now, but the chicken has to come before the egg, or was it the other way around.
 
Like the idea of electri hybrids,however the chance of overheating batteries still make me a little nervous.
 
frfly172 said:
Like the idea of electri hybrids,however the chance of overheating batteries still make me a little nervous.
Click to expand...

I think they've figured out that issue in the auto world so hopefully that knowledge would be used in aviation as well. I'm not sure if altitude affects the batteries though. I have a leaf that I use to commute to work and it hasn't caught on fire yet!
 
Somedudeintn said:
I think they've figured out that issue in the auto world so hopefully that knowledge would be used in aviation as well. I'm not sure if altitude affects the batteries though. I have a leaf that I use to commute to work and it hasn't caught on fire yet!
Click to expand...

The difference is, if the Leaf catches on fire, you can just pull over and get out . . . also, it takes a lot less battery power to move a Leaf around than to propel an aircraft forward above stall speed.
 
This is a small engine and small battery that is intended to stretch the glide. They advertise that you'll get 20km on an airplane up to 750kg. Converting to US measurements that means an airplane that is 1653 lbs will get 12 miles of extra glide distance. The distance goes down as the weight goes up so that by the time you're at a 2440 lb C172, you get 7km or about 4.3 miles.

I cannot find anything about the weight of the system but I presume it's in the 50lb range max.

The hidden gem of this system, which might make it worthwhile on it's own would be use on take off. This would make the impossible turn easily possible and would add extra hp for the overloaded mushed takeoffs that we see every summer. I think these two are worth more than the 4.3 miles of extra gliding distance.

Right now only certified in Spain and they're working on European certification. Nothing about a STC in the US yet.
 
Last edited:
I really can't see a downside to it as an emergency backup, but I find it hard to grasp how it would save fuel. Unless they're talking about using a smaller liquid-fueled engine optimized for cruise, and the electric motor for takeoff and climb-out, in which case it sounds like it could be viable.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I really can't see a downside to it as an emergency backup, but I find it hard to grasp how it would save fuel. Unless they're talking about using a smaller liquid-fueled engine optimized for cruise, and the electric motor for takeoff and climb-out, in which case it sounds like it could be viable.

Rich
Click to expand...

?? maybe reduced throttle, same RPMs at cruise?
 
jimbilly said:
?? maybe reduced throttle, same RPMs at cruise?
Click to expand...

Electric motors run better at low RPM, just the opposite of gasoline engines.

There will be a sweet spot for running both, and it will produce less than the sum of the two running separately. Possibly enough less to cancel any gains.

You will need a MUCH heavier battery to run the engine continuously in cruise, than for short bursts at takeoff and engine failure. If you try to charge the battery with the engine, you would do better to just turn the prop with it.
 
Hybrid cars work because the battery system can recover power in braking and idling. Planes don't do those things, so I really don't see the utility. My guess is the aircraft will glide that much farther without the added weight. That, and aircraft engine failures are as rare as hens teeth. Looks to me like a solution in search of a problem.
 
I don't get the save fuel thing unless it regenerates energy during a glide - but that's only during short time during a descent, not exactly a high fuel time frame. Otherwise Newton says it will never save you fuel because any energy that goes into the battery except through gliding had to come out of the fuel tank first.
 
Save fuel: Use less throttle, add electric motor.
Get more power: At full throttle the electric engine engages and provides more horsepower on demand.
I have a Honda CR-Z, and that's essentially how it works. Replace the existing aircraft battery with a Lithium Ion or Lithium Fe battery (both very safe option).
All very doable.
 
It would be cool if this system could be added to say, a Lycoming IO-360 and also remove the conventional starter motor, starter battery, and alternator from the airplane.

The extra 40hp electric boost for takeoff and climb would be nice to have on tap. Especially at high altitude airports. :D
 
Shepherd said:
Save fuel: Use less throttle, add electric motor.
Get more power: At full throttle the electric engine engages and provides more horsepower on demand.
I have a Honda CR-Z, and that's essentially how it works. Replace the existing aircraft battery with a Lithium Ion or Lithium Fe battery (both very safe option).
All very doable.
Click to expand...

That's the only way I can think of that it would work.

The downside would be that if the liquid-fueled engine is actually downsized for the best fuel burn at cruise, and the electric motor fails, you could wind up with insufficient power when you need it to climb. That would be a major problem on takeoff if you needed to clear an obstruction.

Still, it's something I'm glad someone is working on. Other than in the LSA niche, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of engineering innovation going in GA these days.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
That's the only way I can think of that it would work.

The downside would be that if the liquid-fueled engine is actually downsized for the best fuel burn at cruise, and the electric motor fails, you could wind up with insufficient power when you need it to climb. That would be a major problem on takeoff if you needed to clear an obstruction.

Still, it's something I'm glad someone is working on. Other than in the LSA niche, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of engineering innovation going in GA these days.

Rich
Click to expand...
From a technology standpoint, aircraft engines suck. Blame the government and the aircraft companies.
My motorcycles and my cars all have seriously advanced aftermarket EFI and ignition mapping. I can set them for automatic and they adjust themselves or I can manually dial them in while riding\driving. From crazy fuel economy to fire breathing, neck snapping performance and everything in between. Most hybrid cars and trucks have mode switches that let you select between "Economy, Normal and Sport" settings. Aircraft, ptuuuui! Not much farther advanced than the Wright brothers.
 
Shepherd said:
Save fuel: Use less throttle, add electric motor.
Get more power: At full throttle the electric engine engages and provides more horsepower on demand.
I have a Honda CR-Z, and that's essentially how it works. Replace the existing aircraft battery with a Lithium Ion or Lithium Fe battery (both very safe option).
All very doable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but where did the electricity come from in the first place? You produced it by using gas to run your engine. Inefficiencies of conversion means you'll never get all the power back. Newton's something-th law of energy conversion, all energy has a source.
 
bflynn said:
Yes, but where did the electricity come from in the first place? You produced it by using gas to run your engine. Inefficiencies of conversion means you'll never get all the power back. Newton's something-th law of energy conversion, all energy has a source.
Click to expand...

As a physicist, I can tell you NOTHING is efficient, except entropy. The point is you can get enough of something to make the difference between laughing about it over a beer or being carried away in a bier.
All of life, including aviation, is optimizing a bad system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top