← Back to Squawk list
  • 33

Collins and P&W Unveil Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Systems

Submitted
Collins Aerospace has completed the preliminary design for a new 1-MW electric motor that will serve as a key component of the new Regional Hybrid-Electric Flight Demonstrator under development by its Raytheon group sister company Pratt & Whitney (P&W). The aircraft engine maker plans to start ground testing with the Collins motor later this year in preparation for the start of flight testing in 2024 in Montreal. (www.ainonline.com) More...

Sam Negrete
TrendsetterNews junkiePromoterAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 8
The gainsayers here sound like those who told the Wright brothers that their contraption would never fly.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 4
Yes, "gainsayers" is an impressive word, but "naysayers" is much more impressive in this instance
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 1
Both apply.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 3
The negative comments here remind me of the time in 2004 that a VP at the major international aerospace company I worked told me not to pursue opportunities with drone manufacturers because drones would never amount to anything.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
HORNETDRIVR
Mike Taylor 1
And not to put too fine of a point on it but if you insist on pushing EVs then by all means, use ONLY wind and solar to power them. If not, you are just trying to obfuscate the real source of your energy, which is primarily fossil fuels. I won't even dip into the dilemmas raised by having to resort to exotic materials sourced from not-necessarily reliable, or "clean" regimes to build your systems. Now, if you are willing to discuss nuclear then we have hope for making progress.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 2
The idea is to transition the generation of electricity to renewable sources, not just solar and wind but hydro and nuclear as well. Where I live, in Upstate NY, more than 90% of our electricity comes from carbon free sources. But even if they use electricity generated by fossil fuels, EVs reduce emissions. Remember that perfect is the enemy of good.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
yntzrm
Michael Yentzer -5
Just like the Power Generation industries non-carbon based or very low carbon base fuel and power systems is a huge mistake of other then niche us. The Countries that final relies that the Drive for so-call zero carbon fuel and power systems is an economic desaster and embrace the Nuclear, NGas, and Clean Coal technology fuels will drive their economic to the top of the world economy. Until their is a battery that can be recharged in under 30 minutes and give the Aircraft a safe and reliable output of 4 hours their is only the very short haul market that maybe All Electric Aircraft can fit in successfully. Investing possibly Billions into all Electric Airtransport is a good feeling project at best, just as Wind turbines and Solar panels are for the National Grid. All electric airtransport is a bad business model and left up to research orgs like NASA to do the projects and publish the results. If anything, mini nuclear power system, maybe the All Electric Airtransport solution as demostrated by numberous Space probes and Mars Rovers.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
JJLatFlightAware
James Leon 3
An electric motor doesn't always mean that it's driven by a battery. But business justification for this technology is in the hands of the businesses developing this technology. If they reduce the energy costs of an airliner and reduce emissions, then it's up to the airline to decide if it's worth the expense. By the way, a mini nuclear power system on board a space probe is feasible because there are no humans nearby to be irradiated.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 6
There are two types of nuclear power used in space: radioisotope thermal generators and nuclear reactors. The former are the only ones in use today. They produce very limited amounts of power using Plutonium 238 which is in very short supply. So those can be ruled out. The U.S. and USSR both flew small nuclear reactors, primarily to power synthetic aperture radar satellites. Some years ago NASA Lewis Research Center was doing design work on a newer version of those. While they technically could power an aircraft, the safety issues would likely be insurmountable. That leaves batteries and fuel cells as the only viable options. I doubt that batteries will ever become usable in airliners but fuel cells show some promise. All in all, it would make more sense to replace short-haul aircraft, i.e. under 1000 km, entirely with high-speed rail between airports and accept the emissions associated with long-haul air.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 2
To go off on a tangent re radioisotope thermal generators: these were aboard the Apollo lunar modules, intended stay on the moon to power scientific instruments left there by the astronauts. The Apollo 13 lunar module re-entered earth’s atmosphere and burned up in April 1970. As its RTG was encased in a container designed to survive re-entry intact, it lies on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. No radiation leaks or increase in background radioactivity in the area have been detected.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 1
You are correct. The only accident that resulted in radiation leakage was the impact of the Soviet Kosmos 954 near Great Slave Lake in the Canadian Northwest Territory on 24 January 1978.

Here is an interesting link: https://rps.nasa.gov/power-and-thermal-systems/legacy-power-systems/
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
The aria that satellite landed in made it quite difficult to locate debris due to the vastness of aria it landed in, the poor quality of maps of that aria back then, the fact that it was winter and snow quickly covered debris and the high background radiation in the aria due large Uranium and Radium deposits in that aria affected the sensitivity of the equipment back in 78. As it was the hottest piece was .0093 Sievert per hour which is high but only dangerous if you are in very close proximity for several hours. There are still many pieces to be discovered and only about 1% of the fuel has been recovered to date.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 1
Note that those were lower power devices, generally less than 100 W.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco 3
Solar and Wind are just feel good?

Your blather clearly indicates your short bus intellect. The great thing about the Internet it creates a searchable immutable memorialized accounting of one's being an invalid.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
strickerje
strickerje 1
Not to mention a battery with comparable weight (relative to its energy storage) to jet fuel. Look how much more electric cars weigh than comparable ICE ones. In aviation, that kind of weight gain won't fly... If you'll pardon the pun. ;)
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 5
The energy to weight ratio of batteries continues to improve. And you are mistaken about electric cars being much heavier than those with internal combustion engines. A Telsa Model 3, for example, weighs about 10% more than a comparable Chevy Malibu.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckwain
Chuck Wain 1
Actually a quick search of the internet suggests that a Malibu is 3386 lbs (max) versus 4250 lbs (max) for the Tesla. That is over 25% heavier. Battery technology is improving, but more like at a glacial pace. Physics is hard.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 2
Those are maximum weights, not curb weights. The Telsa has a greater load capacity. Also, that is the weight of the Tesla Model 3 with the most motors and largest battery, not the base model which.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckwain
Chuck Wain 0
Sorry you don't get to cherry pick the numbers. Max weights on each seems like a far comparison. The Tesla with a greater load capacity just makes the comparison worse for Tesla. I won't even bring up real world range numbers or recharge time for the Tesla. It is a niche vehicle.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 1
Fair enough. Bad comparison. I am not a particular fan of Tesla in general, but I really do not believe that the weight of batteries is a major issue for EVs. Pure EVs are not well suited to long range driving, however, they are just fine for the vast majority of driving that Americans do. For long-distance driving, hybrids are a better choice.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckwain
Chuck Wain 1
I always get a good chuckle from the EV "Fanboys" on these forums. I was an engineer for Boeing right out of college. One of the first lessons you learned was that you had to design for the worst case situation, not the average one. If the aircraft falls out of the air due to a worst case scenario it does not matter how well it performs in the average case. The weight of the batteries does affect Tesla's performance, why do you think that there are special EV grade tires?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 2
Boeing does not have a very good recent track record of designing for the worst-case situation, cf B737MAX8.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
GeorgeHall
George Hall -1
Very well said, Michael. Much like the Tesla car, the price of these jets will double. Not economically feasible. I wouldn't want to get near one of these aircrafts. Very dangerous.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 3
Prices of electric cars are coming down as the demand for them increases. U.S. sales of EVs more than doubled in the past year. Also, batteries are not the only energy storage technology for electric vehicles. Fuel cells using hydrogen or methane (natural gas) could be used as well. They were used successfully on the Space Shuttle for decades.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor 1
Maybe coming down but from an astronomical price to just a ridiculous price.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 0
Given an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters, one of those monkeys would eventually produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor -1
Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to Jet A1/JP-8 or AVGAS as the case may be. No charging stations in the clouds.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer -5
ROFL.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -3
How many homes will go dark if this green crap continues? Why is Thorium energy never mentioned in the major news media? Ask anyone who as gone x country in an electric pickup "HOW WAS YOUR TRIP".
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 4
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. Whether you choose to believe it or not, climate change is real. In 1989, a NASA scientist I knew told me that what worried him was that some models suggested that by the time we had unequivocal evidence of anthropogenic global warming it was already too late to avoid a climate catastrophe. There is good reason to believe that we have, indeed, past that point of no return. But we owe it to future generations to take the matter seriously. The U.S. is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas per capita in the entire world except for a few small oil-producing countries. Calling efforts to reduce those emission "green crap" is exactly the sort of ignorance we must overcome.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I've been hearing about global warming since the 80s and yet not one of the predictions they have made has come true. I won't deny that humans are having an effect on the planet but to peddle fear is not the answer on how to deal with it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 0
Have you read Isaac's Newton's Laws 0f Thermodynamics? It's written for scholars so you might not understand some of the big words you may encounter.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
We really should avoid using insults on this site. I no longer go on facebook because every one is so rude and I would not like to see this site end up the same way.
As for Thermodynamics I believe everyone should have a basic understanding of it. With the access to information today our society should be getting smarter but too many people only use the internet for cat videos and politics and neither of those are going to increase your level of knowledge.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ljcotnoir
Leo Cotnoir 1
I have a degree in physics. Perhaps that is why I do not have the need to make disparaging comments or to cite technologies from Popular Mechanics.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
flinr
richard flint -8
Woke.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
KineticRider
Randy Marco 2
Typed by and with the intellect of a Parrot.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 1
My Parrot is really pissed.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 0
Do we have to resort to insults? If you disagree with someone why not show them the errs of their ways? Maybe they will listen if presented with a solid argument or maybe they won't, but insulting someone will only ensure that they tune you out completely. Besides that kind of behavior is only adding to the division in society today and we really should be looking for ways to bring each other together instead of driving them apart.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck -1
Woke is the state of confusion you experience when your brain first leaves realm of dreams and enters reality. At that moment you don't yet know what is or isn't real so it really is not a term that people should be embracing for their ideology.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss