New Gas/Electric Hybrid Engine System

[MCA]

Fellow RVers,

I thought you?d be interested in learning about a new effort that Vertical Power is involved with called the Green Flight Project. Working with Bye Energy Inc and several other advanced technology companies, we are developing an electric/gas hybrid propulsion system for general aviation aircraft.

The first phase of development is an all-electric aircraft using an LSA platform. Later development will include an APU, thin-film solar cells, and some other interesting technology. The Vertical Power technology will be used to manage and optimize the electrical usage of the aircraft and respond intelligently to electrical system demands.

You can find more information here (scroll down a bit): http://www.verticalpower.com/news.html

 

[hydroguy2]

good luck Marc

 

[FresnoR]

So I'll be ready to install the FWF kit on my RV-7 in two years, think it'll be ready by then? ha ha...

Seriously though, I wish you guys the best of luck. I always thought there was way too much real estate on the top of the wings to not have solar panels on them. Finally a reason to not have a hangar...

 

[Bob Kuykendall]

Are you preparing something for CAFE 2011?

 

[Pilottonny]

Are you serious?

Welcome to the ?Zoche / Innodyn / Delta Hawk? crowd and the likes

Do you have that much money? if so, why not just spend it and enjoy it?

Please let us know when you quit, but good luck to you anyway.

Regards, Tonny.

 

[Low Pass]

Fellow RVers,

I thought you?d be interested in learning about a new effort that Vertical Power is involved with called the Green Flight Project. Working with Bye Energy Inc and several other advanced technology companies, we are developing an electric/gas hybrid propulsion system for general aviation aircraft.....

Since airplanes don't stop for traffic lights, how could a hybrid internal combustion (gas?)/electric offer any advantage in an aircraft application? Hybrids generally only offer advantage with automobiles in city driving conditions.

 

[FresnoR]

Good point

I would think you could use the internal combustion engine for take off and electric for cruise.

 

[RVbySDI]

Since airplanes don't stop for traffic lights, how could a hybrid internal combustion (gas?)/electric offer any advantage in an aircraft application? Hybrids generally only offer advantage with automobiles in city driving conditions.

Here is my .02 on the question. Keep in mind I am not an engineer, just some bozo out here who thinks he can build a flying machine.

Reason number one, since electric motors do not need a specific amount of air to create HP, when said motor gets up to altitudes that would normally restrict the HP output of an Internal Combustion (IC) engine it would still continue to produce its designated HP.

Reason number two, since the HP produced by the electric motor is coming from stored energy in the form of some battery setup, it does not rely on the chemical fuel we store in fuel tanks. So, while that motor is pulling us along and keeping us aloft the IC engine is not using up that chemical fuel. Thus, that stored chemical fuel can go a lot further to producing energy at times when it is more efficient (i.e. take-off).

Reason number three, since it may be possible to cruise on battery power with a lot less energy expended during the cruise phase of flight the "fuel mileage" can be increased resulting in extended range for the aircraft.

Reason number next, less noise produced when the electric motor is operating and the IC is not.

Reason number next, less pollutants in the air.

Reason number next, well, hopefully you can see that there are a lot of ideas that are out there "OUTSIDE THE BOX" of current "IF HORSE & BUGGY'S STILL WORK WHY USE A HORSELESS CARRIAGE?" thinking.

 

[flyboykelly]

What about during the descent stage. A windmilling propeller could act like the braking action of a hybrid car.

 

[Bob Axsom]

Good for you folks Marc

Fellow RVers,

I thought you?d be interested in learning about a new effort that Vertical Power is involved with called the Green Flight Project. Working with Bye Energy Inc and several other advanced technology companies, we are developing an electric/gas hybrid propulsion system for general aviation aircraft.

The first phase of development is an all-electric aircraft using an LSA platform. Later development will include an APU, thin-film solar cells, and some other interesting technology. The Vertical Power technology will be used to manage and optimize the electrical usage of the aircraft and respond intelligently to electrical system demands.

You can find more information here (scroll down a bit): http://www.verticalpower.com/news.html

NO ONE knows what you folks can do. Thank God there are a few individuals left who are willing to try to advance technology. Even if you fall short in your quest you will provide a base for further progress. GO RACER!

Bob Axsom

 

[kentb]

One thing that I find interesting about the hybrid is...

There is more choices for moving the weight around. The electric motor is smaller and lighter, but the power storage (engine-generator/batteries) could be more to the center of the plane.
Also I could see a scale B17 with four motors (electric) and one power generator.

Cool to think about.

Kent

 

[aturner]

An output of 12 watts per sq. ft. from solar cells x 200 sq ft. of wing area / 750 watts per HP is about 3 HP.

The low energy density of solar radiation imposes very real constraints. I admire the effort though.

 

[aerhed]

e-flight is a retrofit. I think this can work. Series hybrid. Incorporate LiPo in the spars, seats, etc. I don't know why you can't make a 4 hour cruiser for just several gallons of fuel. A light KR2 gets 40mpg. The regen part is fluff, but thin cells could have you fully charged for departure. Like someone trickling gas INTO your tanks while you're tied down.

 

[Danny7]

Reason number one, since electric motors do not need a specific amount of air to create HP, when said motor gets up to altitudes that would normally restrict the HP output of an Internal Combustion (IC) engine it would still continue to produce its designated HP.

Reason number two, since the HP produced by the electric motor is coming from stored energy in the form of some battery setup, it does not rely on the chemical fuel we store in fuel tanks. So, while that motor is pulling us along and keeping us aloft the IC engine is not using up that chemical fuel. Thus, that stored chemical fuel can go a lot further to producing energy at times when it is more efficient (i.e. take-off).

Reason number three, since it may be possible to cruise on battery power with a lot less energy expended during the cruise phase of flight the "fuel mileage" can be increased resulting in extended range for the aircraft.

Reason number next, less noise produced when the electric motor is operating and the IC is not.

Reason number next, less pollutants in the air.

Reason number next, well, hopefully you can see that there are a lot of ideas that are out there "OUTSIDE THE BOX" of current "IF HORSE & BUGGY'S STILL WORK WHY USE A HORSELESS CARRIAGE?" thinking.

some of your reasons seem to be exclusive to each other- like using the elec. motor while in cruise and the IC engine for take off and higher horsepower. But then you say the elec is quieter, but usually the noise sensitive areas are directly around take off (airports), not during cruise!

less pollutants in the air is just a trade off, you might have that electricity coming from a coal fired power plant (and i admit it might have better scrubbers than a small engine in an airplane, but the airplane engine doesn't produce fly ash either!) if the electricity comes from hydro power you have some dude somewhere complaining about the fish getting killed from the dams

its all a trade off to me, except when you try to have both systems in one vehicle, then you have to carry the weight of both, while in an airplane i don't know how you'd get to use both at the same time.

 

[Danny7]

e-flight is a retrofit. I think this can work. Series hybrid. Incorporate LiPo in the spars, seats, etc. I don't know why you can't make a 4 hour cruiser for just several gallons of fuel. A light KR2 gets 40mpg. The regen part is fluff, but thin cells could have you fully charged for departure. Like someone trickling gas INTO your tanks while you're tied down.

just make REALLY REALLY SURE you don't overcharge any of those LiPo batteries, ever seen a little one get on fire?!?!

 

[FlyingArcher]

True believer

I'm currently owning my second hybrid Lexus and I really think I'll never come back to traditional engines for my day to day car (keeping the good old English 3-liter for the week-end fun).
After more than 4 years of use, I still have to find a negative aspect of this gasoline/electric combo.
I can't wait to get the same benefits in an aircraft FWF package.

Way to go Marc

 

[aerhed]

Lithium polymers don't tend to light off like standard Lithium ion batts. Just like people who say "hybrids don't work", you haven't done your homework. Series hybrid is ICE driving electric motor & charging batteries. ICE can install anywhere and always operate at it's peak efficiency point. Outrageous take-off power can be had. That's how a 50 mpg Prius knocks the socks off any non-hybrid getting 30 mpg or better. Scoffing about where the power comes from is a denial side-step that smacks of, dare I say it, politics. Admit it, wouldn't it be nice to fly without needing headsets. Y'know like in a nice quiet Prius.

 

[Danny7]

Lithium polymers don't tend to light off like standard Lithium ion batts. Just like people who say "hybrids don't work", you haven't done your homework. Series hybrid is ICE driving electric motor & charging batteries. ICE can install anywhere and always operate at it's peak efficiency point. Outrageous take-off power can be had. That's how a 50 mpg Prius knocks the socks off any non-hybrid getting 30 mpg or better. Scoffing about where the power comes from is a denial side-step that smacks of, dare I say it, politics. Admit it, wouldn't it be nice to fly without needing headsets. Y'know like in a nice quiet Prius.

I guess that was in reference to me, since i stated something about fires. there are all these videos on the internet (youtube) stating they are liPo/ lithium polymer.
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sult_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQqwQwAA#
is the name terminology for all those videos wrong?

 

[Russ McCutcheon]

I?ve been flying model aircraft including helis for many years including LiPo powered helis for several years; you can see video of me flying a number of helis including LiPo powered helis like the Ion-X and Trex on Youtube. LiPo is dangerous and will burn, I have seen the fires during charging and during flight, theirs no way I would CURRENTLY get in an airplane that has enough LiPo cells onboard to power it!

 

[N941WR]

The less pollutants thing is what gets me about hybrids. You still have to make those batteries and then recycle them. There is a big debate going on as to weather the full life cycle pollution of a hybrid is higher or lower than that of a traditional vehicle. The research I have done on the net comes up 50/50, for and against. I tend to go by cost and since hybrids cost more, the economics still favor traditional power plants, even when you take into account the improved fuel mileage.

The other problem with electrical components is that air acts as an insulator, the higher you go, the less air there is, and the more likelihood of having the motor short out. This application will have to take that into account.

BTW, this is why turbocharged airplanes have pressurized ignition harnesses.

 

[plehrke]

There is a big debate going on as to weather the full life cycle pollution of a hybrid is higher or lower than that of a traditional vehicle. The research I have done on the net comes up 50/50, for and against. I tend to go by cost and since hybrids cost more, the economics still favor traditional power plants, even when you take into account the improved fuel mileage.

Everytime you change the form of energy (mechanical to electrical to mechanical) or transmit it from one location to another, there are loses. Generating power at the point of application is always the most efficient. There are probably some thermodynamic laws that support this hypothesis. Not sure why no one seems to remember them. Maybe no one is actually passing their thermo classes any more. (I got a B)
I love watching people trying to be innovative though and there is a lot of money to be made here in the next 20 years.

 

[aerhed]

"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I?ve been flying model aircraft including helis for many years including LiPo powered helis for several years; you can see video of me flying a number of helis including LiPo powered helis like the Ion-X and Trex on Youtube. LiPo is dangerous and will burn, I have seen the fires during charging and during flight, theirs no way I would CURRENTLY get in an airplane that has enough LiPo cells onboard to power it!
__________________
Ahh. Can't fault that reasoning. Could they be lying about some of the large format LIPo's I've been reading about. ABAT LiPo's power buses for the Chinese OLympics?

 

[aerhed]

Battery pollution?

Got 3 Priuses in the family 2001, 2002, 2007. Have never had to change a hybrid battery. Both the lead and NiMh batteries used are about the size of one large truck battery. Where is this big debate? Isn't the battery offset by the smaller size engine, etc? All 3 vehicles have performed flawlessly for years. Airplanes break sitting in the hangar. If you deny new technology why aren't you flying a LeRhone? If the point of power use is always the most efficient place to produce power why was the driveshaft invented?

 

[RV7Guy]

Prius Owners

For all of you Prius owners out there, I've got a question. If you can afford a Prius, can't you afford the fuel to go just 10 mph more while you're clogging up the carpool lane going less than the speed limit Just havn' some fun.

Good luck with the Marc.

 

[SvingenB]

If the point of power use is always the most efficient place to produce power why was the driveshaft invented?

That was practical considerations, difficult to fit an engine and transmission inside a wheel. There are not that many airplanes with driveshafts though

I don't know about hybrid airplanes. Seems to me it is wrong technology for the wrong purpose. There is no problems cruising at best efficiency point, and extra power is obtained much simpler with a turbo. All electric seems much more interesting.

 

[RVbySDI]

. . .There is no problems cruising at best efficiency point, and extra power is obtained much simpler with a turbo. . .

Maybe I am misreading your intent with this statement but I don't think an internal combustion engine can come even close to "best efficiency" at cruise. At best, it may be converting 30% of the energy put into it to propulsion. How can we ever think that 30% is "best efficiency"?

All electric seems much more interesting.

I agree with you on this.

 

[aerhed]

This is kinda fun! Anyway I agree with the difficulties of making a hybrid airplane more efficient than standard. In reality you would have to have a pretty good effciency gain from the ICE to make up for the combined hybrid weight. When you say a driveshaft is for practical considerations, well that is some of the same reasoning behind series hybrid. It allows engine placement for convenience and noise. It also frees up your nose profile for drag reduction. I also agree that pure electric is more atttractive than hybrid, but until batteries improve more I think a series ICE would be the ticket. Think of it as a large backup battery or portable battery charger. Printed Motors limited makes wheel motors by the way, and has built several 640HP Minis. They've even built a snortin' F150 with wheel motors. Talk about a rock crawler! How about wheel motors for takeoff assist? Somebody stop me please!

 

[SvingenB]

Maybe I am misreading your intent with this statement but I don't think an internal combustion engine can come even close to "best efficiency" at cruise. At best, it may be converting 30% of the energy put into it to propulsion. How can we ever think that 30% is "best efficiency"?

The main purpose of hybrid drive (ICE and electric + battery), is to let the ICE run close to best efficiency point as often as possible. During acceleration and start/stop, low output and (very) high output, the efficiency is very low ,maybe only 5-10%, much lower than at best efficiency at 30% or similar. This is the typical situations for a car. A hybrid will charge the batteries when the engine is running near peak efficiency, and use that energy during less than optimal conditions. The efficiency can be expressed in BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) for instance here:

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/images/Performance20BSFC.jpg

I don't see that an airplane will have any use for a hybrid engine because it would be much easier to simply run the engine at best efficiency, or not at all.

 

[aerhed]

Takeoff

Honestly, takeoff is the only time I really see an advantage for a hybrid. An efficient ICE might make 30%, while I doubt if our Lycs will beat 20%. I don't think the 10% gain can offset the weight penalty. Unless you make additional gains through drag reduction (cooling/engine placement). Now if you ran on Hydrogen and carried a big bottle of Hydrogen around, you could use the lightness of the Hydrogen for lift offsetting the weight of your fuel. Hey, I think I've solved it! Of course, as you used Hydrogen your airplane would get heavier, but you gotta come down and take a leak sometime.

 

[airguy]

Of course, as you used Hydrogen your airplane would get heavier, but you gotta come down and take a leak sometime.

Actually - no. The hydrogen would be stored in a compressed form in a pressure bottle (fixed volume), so as you used hydrogen you would have less total mass on board (some hydrogen gone) but the same volume of air displaced - so you would become lighter, not heavier, as you cruise - same as today.

 

[aerhed]

I can't believe you fell for that!

 

[airguy]

I can't believe you fell for that!

Just pointing out the flaws in your pipe dream...

 

[topgun260]

Hydrogen Generators

What about hydrogen generators, generating hydrogen by the electrolysis of water and running the hydrogen into the intake? There are several available commercially as well as tons of build your own web sites. Do these really work? I have a friend that built one and put it on his truck and he swears that it works. I've read others that swear that it's a scam. If they do work what would be the obstacles of installing one on an aircraft engine? Anyone ever tried one on a car or truck?

 

[RVbySDI]

What about hydrogen generators, generating hydrogen by the electrolysis of water and running the hydrogen into the intake? There are several available commercially as well as tons of build your own web sites. Do these really work? I have a friend that built one and put it on his truck and he swears that it works. I've read others that swear that it's a scam. If they do work what would be the obstacles of installing one on an aircraft engine? Anyone ever tried one on a car or truck?

The problem with separating hydrogen from oxygen in water using electrolysis is the large amount of electricity it takes to accomplish this. Much more than could feasibly be produced in a moving vehicle with limited energy storage capacity available.

Oh, yes, lest I forget. Don't forget the extremely volatile nature of both hydrogen and oxygen gases in their natural states. Both are extremely flamable and difficult to store without pressurization and/or heavy storage containers.

All of this creates practical problems to overcome if one desires to develop a moving vehicle that can generate its own hydrogen and then store it for use for propulsion.

p.s. My error in overlooking your comment about piping the hydrogen directly into the intake. That could take care of the storage problem. However, storage is still a minor issue in this setup. The true problem will be where does the electricity come from to make the electrolysis work?

 

[jtrusso]

Write up in AVWeb

There was a quick write up about this in AVweb this week:


Bye Energy's Hybrid Powerplant Aspirations

Bye Energy's George Bye (formerly of ATG) tells AVweb that some of Thursday's general media news coverage regarding his company's future electric hybrid aircraft propulsion plans may have been misleading. Thursday Bye Energy announced "The Green Flight Project" and Bye displayed a mockup of what he described as a 90-pound, 168-hp electric propulsion unit and said his company was working to produce a proof of concept model. Completion of that design, according to local reports, would take about eight months and a roughly $1 million investment. Friday, Bye told AVweb that the potential products he described the prior day may be different from the proof of concept model he hopes to produce by year-end. In the long term, Bye hopes to organize technological partners that could one day produce an aircraft that collects solar energy from photovoltaic wing panels to supplement the future aircraft's battery/fossil fuel hybrid powerplant. But by year-end, he expects to have a product with specifications dictated by its development. That said, Bye believes hybrid technology could one day significantly lower operating costs while reducing emissions, noise and maintenance requirements. And that thinking has not been unique to Bye Energy.

Aside from Bye, German manufacturer Flight Design (which produces the popular CT-series of Light Sport Aircraft) announced at 2009's AirVenture Oshkosh its plans to develop from a standard Rotax 914 engine an electric-augmented powerplant. That design would use the electric motor for bursts of power to supplement power at takeoff to the tune of an extra 40 hp, according to the company. Flying in cruise, the combustion engine would work to recharge the motor's batteries with "negligible" resistance translated to the crankshaft, said the company. Flight Design has made little news with its hybrid since last summer.

 

[topgun260]

Hydrogen Generator

The problem with separating hydrogen from oxygen in water using electrolysis is the large amount of electricity it takes to accomplish this. Much more than could feasibly be produced in a moving vehicle with limited energy storage capacity available.

Oh, yes, lest I forget. Don't forget the extremely volatile nature of both hydrogen and oxygen gases in their natural states. Both are extremely flamable and difficult to store without pressurization and/or heavy storage containers.

All of this creates practical problems to overcome if one desires to develop a moving vehicle that can generate its own hydrogen and then store it for use for propulsion.

p.s. My error in overlooking your comment about piping the hydrogen directly into the intake. That could take care of the storage problem. However, storage is still a minor issue in this setup. The true problem will be where does the electricity come from to make the electrolysis work?

The systems I have seen generate the hydrogen in some type of canister or jar and pipe the hydrogen directly into the intake system. The power comes from the cars 12 volt battery and the system is only generating when the car is running. Older carbureted vehicles are easier to use them on they say because they don't have a mass airflow sensor. An output of 2 liters per minute is claimed for some of the smaller units much more for the larger units.

It may all be a scam. I was just curious if anyone on here has tried it.

 

[nucleus]

TANSTAAFL!

What about hydrogen generators, generating hydrogen by the electrolysis of water and running the hydrogen into the intake? There are several available commercially as well as tons of build your own web sites. Do these really work? I have a friend that built one and put it on his truck and he swears that it works. I've read others that swear that it's a scam. If they do work what would be the obstacles of installing one on an aircraft engine? Anyone ever tried one on a car or truck?

Basic physical chemistry: It takes the same amount of energy to break those molecular bonds (electrolysis) that you get when you stick them back together (burn the hydrogen). Actually more due to inherent losses.

TANSTAAFL!


Hans

 

[RVbySDI]

Basic physical chemistry: It takes the same amount of energy to break those molecular bonds (electrolysis) that you get when you stick them back together (burn the hydrogen). Actually more due to inherent losses.

This brings back my 8th grade science classes where we were taught:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

[Low Pass]

This brings back my 8th grade science classes where we were taught:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Thermo 1 - there's no free lunch.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Basic physical chemistry: It takes the same amount of energy to break those molecular bonds (electrolysis) that you get when you stick them back together (burn the hydrogen). Actually more due to inherent losses.

Rule #2: Entropy always wins. No energy storage system will ever be 100% efficient.

TODR