VoltAero Says Its Parallel Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Can Turn Air Transport Green - FutureFlight

Visit AIN's new resource FutureFlight.aero for all the news on developing aviation technology.
French start-up VoltAero has made hundreds of flights with its hybrid-electric Cassio 1 technology demonstrator, and now it’s ready to start building prototypes for the first of a family of new aircraft. The company sees its family of aircraft being used for regional airline services and also private flights to carry between 4 and 10 passengers on trips of up to 800 miles.
#aviation, #flying, #airplane

[@cookienator234]

I think the creators are missing the mark. Huge benefit I see is to separate power systems that creates redundancy for emergency engine failure. The power density of gas/combustion engine with the reliability of an electric motor.

[@Austin-cx2xe]

reliability of an electric motor? Sure that costs 5x as much but 10x less power and more weight.

[@JoeyBlogs007]

In that case it would be better to have two electric motors on independent power circuits and retain the gas turbine for the generator. Don't forget it will also have batteries to help it get to a safe landing place if the generator fails. Thus you have more efficient operation and increased redundancy overall that way.

[@dplu999]

That is what their parallel hybrid propulsion system does.

[@morthomer5804]

Increased take off and landing weights will severely limits the load capacity

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

Hybrid-Electric makes sense for cars because cars accelerate and brake routinely. Energy can be captured through regenerative braking and then used to bring the car back up to speed. Planes don't do this, they run their engines at max continuous power for the vast majority of the flight, and there's no energy to be captured. Even during descent the engines are still applying power, and upon landing higher performance planes (i.e. turboprops) apply power with the propellors in a reverse-pitch state to create reverse thrust, but again, that requires power and provides no opportunity to charge batteries. Aerospace engineers have go to great lengths for many, many years to reduce weight, and in a small general aviation aircraft even a few pounds is a significant amount of weight. Generators and electric motors rely on lots of copper for their coils, which makes them heavy. Batteries are heavy. Hauling all that weight up into the sky decreases net efficiency and make this less environmentally friendly.

[@xpeterson]

This is all true, and not disagreeing, but doubling the horse power of an engine to improve take off performance requires much more weight from a piston engine than an equivalent electric motor with 5 min of battery. That and decent profiles can be adjusted to stay in high altitude efficient cruise for longer, and then idle or regenerative decent. Otherwise I think you make good points

[@joeljong931]

As mentioned previously, there is recharging braking tech, many companies are exploring regenerative descent and also propellers that change shape to not move when it's extra electric motors are not needed in cruising mode.

[@Freshbott2]

@@joeljong931that would mean an aggressive descent close to the destination. That energy is cheap and wouldn't offer much benefit to the next flight vs just having less battery and charging it up. If you've got enough battery to get to the point of regenerative descent and a bit further for safety, you don't really need the regenerative descent. Unless planning not to have enough battery. Any flight less than the maximum distance doesn't need it. It weighs nothing to charge it up. There's no point Ina hybrid. Either go electric or refine the existing technology.

[@cotasa]

Not completely true, yes, hybrid love breaking and acceleration of the city; BUT there's many hybrid that are reaching crazy mpg ON A HIGHWAY!, This is because the engine is just an ultra efficient generators that runs at its optimal rpm ALL the time, so a plane can use this tech perfectly; plus changing from gas to hydrogen would be quite easy after

[@ahmeeeeeeeeeeeed]

They already said that this produces way less emissions. One thing you are missing in your analysis is that electric motors are small and light compared to an engine. So you can have an engine charge a battery that powers 3 electric motors for 3 separate fans for an efficient flight thus improving the overall efficiency of the plane since you are now working with 3 fans instead of 1

[@terrallputnam7979]

Fractional Ownership is what we call Flying Clubs today. Maybe five to fifteen people buy into the airplane and they reserve time in the plane via computer and fly it as needed.

[@brianb-p6586]

The model of fractional ownership is like current business aircraft operations, rather than flying clubs, but the effect might be similar. What he missed is that the fractional owners pay for the their share to buy the aircraft, but they also pay per hour operated... and they pay a lot.

[@sharonbraselton4302]

yes

[@Pwj579]

Electric small aircraft do not make sense until batteries get much lighter

[@sharonbraselton4302]

wringé

[@bitc0inlightningrules423]

At least a factor 15 before breaking even.

[@jobe8764]

Elon Musk said in an interview that electric flight will happen via the use of more magnesium and making the battery and the frame one in the same. Magnesium mining has to scale up to make that happen.

[@bitc0inlightningrules423]

@@jobe8764 the energy density is just not good enough (not yet).

[@JoeyBlogs007]

They actually make good sense and they exist.

[@aidanwelly]

Ramah lingkungan, saya suka🥰🥰👍👍

[@joshua8314]

In the U.S. this would be a coal powered aircraft. Very "green" indeed.

[@tomus788]

USA is not the only county in the world

[@davidcarter4247]

It is all about energy. How much energy is needed to lift x mass to x height and propel it at x velocity for x time? Compared to the Cessna 337 aircraft from which the Cassio 1 the first figure in that equation is 3x because it weighs around three times as much as a Cessna 337. I am sure that means three times the energy will be expended. Some of that is in fossil fuel either providing direct propulsion or recharging the batteries in flight. Some of that energy will come from the grid. Does more come from fossil fuels than a standard 337?

[@FrankKig]

Great idea

[@The_real_Dr_mysterious]

Why don't you just do a hydrogen electric conversion were you use a HHO generator run the engine off of hydrogen

[@floydblue1783]

Sorry, but the energy contained in wing tanks of fuel, will provide more power for longer, than possible with batteries. Plus, as fuel is burned, the load is lighter, making efficiency better over the flight. But the battery weighs the same charged and discharged, so there is no gain, just useless weight 🤨

[@engchoontan8483]

Nice design. Can just slap wings and wheels to a micro-reactor torpedo to get the same look.

[@engchoontan8483]

Some types of reactors can go critical-mass. No passengers types

[@edcew8236]

And where does the electricity come from?

[@sjcst35]

Shhhhhhh you’re asking to many questions:)

[@lucasguerra2049]

Nuclear Diamond Battery

[@antr7493]

the paris climate accords. Right? 😁

[@nickwulf]

IT COMES FROM THE HOLES

[@vitordelima]

The only two possible sources are a battery recharge before flight or the engine itself, but in this case there seems to be no spare energy to be easily reused from the engine for electricity generation like in hybrid cars. If takeoffs, landings and the first 200 miles of every trip (and this seems too much for current battery technology) are purely electric, it seems to be mostly from the first option.

[@skullandbones1832]

💚

[@anthonycollazos4111]

So it’s a worse aircraft than traditional airliners. Greener but takes longer to get to a destination

[@rafaelwilks]

Incorrect. They'll make it up to the same speed 😎

[@aminkhandrishak6045]

🌳🇵🇰⚔️🇹🇷🔰🇯🇴⚔️🇨🇳🌳

[@dudul69003]

Massacrer un Skymaster.......pffff...

[@tinolino58]

Commercial flight? Deicing and other aerodynamic blunder is necessary. Canard? Every Canard design has a built in efficiency disadvantage. Pusher propeller? Efficiency disadvantage die to dirty air. Lets say it strait: that team has not much clue about aviation and all it compromises! They are driven by their own marketing bla bla.

[@jbird6609]

you are just making guesses, i disagree with you.

[@solexxx8588]

Dumb idea. The ICE motor and generator and gas tank could just be replaced with more batteries.

[@sharonbraselton4302]

wribge

[@DiabolicMagicSquare]

Right .. then why do cars just have 300 miles of range? They can just pack them with batteries..