Follow this blog:
RSS

Boeing’s hybrid plane could burn 70 percent less fuel

By | December 30, 2012, 1:52 PM PST

When asked by NASA to predict the future of airplane design, a team of Boeing engineers dreamt up a hybrid plane that plugs in much like the Prius or Chevy Volt.

Called the SUGAR (Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research) Volt, the concept Boeing aircraft will combine electric power with traditional fuel, vastly cutting down on inflight emissions.

Gizmodo reports:

Every time it’s at the gate, the Volt will draw electricity from the airport’s power grid, charging an array of batteries stored in the belly of the plane. Dual-turbine engines would be powered by traditional jet fuel for takeoff, but once the Volt reaches cruising altitude, the system will switch over to electrical power for the rest of the flight.

By making the switch to electric power once the plane has reached cruising altitude, the engineers believe that entire swaths of the flight could be made completely emission-free. In total, the SUGAR Volt will require only 30 percent of the fuel of a traditional aircraft.

Making the plane even more energy efficient are its wings, which stretch almost twice as long as today’s typical aircrafts. The extended wingspan will allow for greater lift, translating to shorter take offs and landings, and will fold up upon landing for easy parking at the airport gate.

Due to battery technology that Boeing researchers feel simply isn’t up to par for such an endeavor, the SUGAR Volt won’t take flight until at least 2030.


Video, Images: Boeing

[via Gizmodo, Inhabitat]

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Sarah Korones

About Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2012 to 2013.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Contributing Editor

Sarah Korones is a freelance writer based in New York. She has written for Psychology Today and Boston's Weekly Dig. She holds a degree from Tufts University.

Follow her on Twitter.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
20
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Physics & battery tech
To quote engineer Montgomery Scott: 'Man, ye canna change the laws of physics!'. The issue has always been the storage of energy. Having the wing length to weight ratio of a modern glider is good, but kerosene has a very high energy density, much better than any conceivable battery tech, so as the supply of kerosene falls off it is difficult to conceive of an equally dense, combustible, liquid fuel for aircraft that doesn't require many times its calorific value to produce (and that includes liquid hydrogen!).
Posted by mjxguerra
31st Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
The punchline is always at the end.
"Due to battery technology that Boeing researchers feel simply isnt up to par for such an endeavor, the SUGAR Volt wont take flight until at least 2030.

But this concept has problems beyond just limited battery capability.

One of the biggest differences between aircraft and automobiles design is how critical weight is. More weight means dramatically less performance and capability. The problem with batteries in aviation are their extreme weight. And unlike with liquid fuels which are burned off, increasing efficiency over time, battery weight is with the aircraft from takeoff to landing.

Another problem with this concept is the need for dual systems. This also ads weight, complexity, and cost (construction and operational).

Also not mentioned is that at best this aircraft will only be a replacement for short-range "regional" aircraft. Its straight wings and external strut structure implies maximum speeds in the 300 MPH range. The upside (which they do mention) is that it will be well suited for short field operation, replacing conventional regional jets and turboprops.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st Dec
0 Votes
+ -
What ever happened to H2 / O2 powered aircraft?
Where the EXHAUST is only water vapor! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft Wait a minute, that would mean they wouldn't use petroleum, and we can't have that.
Posted by darinselby
31st Dec
0 Votes
+ -
That probably wouldn't bother the petroleum industry so much...
...since it would take a nearly equal amount of fossil fuels to process the H2 and O2.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Why must you always destroy the fantasies of the greenies?
n/t
Posted by adornoe
31st Dec
0 Votes
+ -
H2 is a difficult fuel
Hydrogen is a difficult fuel to deal with and while it is lighter than other types of fuels it's volume is much greater. While H2 is useful as rocket fuel it probably isn't very practical for most other vehicles.
Posted by riverat1
31st Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps someday, hydrogen will be used to create lighter than
air aircraft...

Hmmm...

Why hasn't somebody already thought of that?
Posted by adornoe
31st Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
They did
It was called the Hindenburg.
Posted by mheartwood
1st Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
It was just a rhetotical question. But good for you.
I'll bet the majority of people in the U.S. haven't even heard of it, and probably 90% of the world.
Posted by adornoe
1st Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
H2 Hindenburg
Bless the american education system
Posted by nhandaloussi
2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Wing Design
"The extended wingspan will allow for greater lift, translating to shorter take offs and landings, and will fold up upon landing for easy parking at the airport gate."

The extended wings will not allow for greater lift, that's what better materials and structure do. The increased wingspan and angled winglet like tips will reduce drag due to wingtip vortices. This will enable shorter takeoff distances due to increased acceleration during takeoff. The aircraft will produce as much lift as the weight it contains which varies from flight to flight. It will have a higher lift per amount of drag given it's shape. It will have a higher lift and drag given a scaled up wing.

Longer folded wings may have added issues during terminal entry and exit.
Posted by aeriform
31st Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Lift is a function of wing area, not materials or structure.
Better materials & structure allow you to build a lighter, therefore more efficient airframe. But materials alone do not effect lift, beyond the weight factor. That is determined by airfoil shape and size relative to speed and weight.

The high-aspect wing allows higher lift at lower airspeeds, but grows increasingly inefficient as speeds and drag increase.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe a better idea?
Give the craft glider like wings. Allow it to ascend to , say 45000 or 50000 feet. Change rules regarding flight paths to allow for slow descent in the direction of the destination with the turbines off, allowing gravity to do most of the horizontal work. Every now and then activate the turbines to repeat the process. At the destination, run the turbines to allow for a safe landing. Only using the turbines part time can save a large amount of fuel as well as cut back on high altitude emissions. Perhaps existing aircraft could be fitted to do this. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but a similar process is at work when I "hypermile" with my car. I can always beat the EPA estimates on my auto fuel economy with intelligent driving.
Posted by Arctic Char
1st Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Not likely
Flight at those altitudes would require a heavier structure and systems to maintain a habitable cabin altitude for passengers. "Gliding" at such altitudes would not prove practical for scheduled airline operations, as you'd frequently find yourself operating against the jet stream, resulting in ground speeds of less than 100 MPH.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
2nd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
emission-Free?
The article says "the engineers believe that entire swaths of the flight could be made completely emission-free."

This is like the "emission free" cars. How are they generating the electricity to recharge those batteries, with happy thoughts perhaps?
Posted by Chris Powers
2nd Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
It's all political correctness.
The anti-carbon folk have been targeting aviation for decades now. This is just part of the act that they feel they must go through in order to act like they care. They know better.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Varies with your local power
From Iceland it would be emission free, from Canada it would be 65% emission free on average. You guys are either failing or ignoring the big picture when it comes to EV's
Posted by shaunehunter
8th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Aim for electric assist only, not complete conversion.
I believe that an electric-assist for aircraft to augment takeoff and evasive manoeuvres power requirements is the best strategy. This would mean smaller engines, less fuel requirements and a short-term considerable power reserve that is primary-system-independent.

Why go for an electric plane, or any vehicle? Just have a normal plane with an electric assist. The size of the engines on an aircraft are nearly all for takeoff and climbing. The actual cruising power requirements are a fraction of the rated engine output. Just like with cars, or other powered vehicles. In fact most vehicles could be designed the same way. Aim for small cruising engines only and provide electric assist for other purposes. Trains could also use this approach, even motorcycles and bicycles.

Obviously an all-electric vehicle is impractical for long distances, so design engine components so that the power output is rated for cruising speeds and have an electrical assist system to augment the main system. It has the added advantage of providing a secondary backup system also that uses a separate technology. I bet you can still achieve easily a 75% to 85% energy savings by averaging the fuel consumption across the trip. You cannot argue against basic physics.
Posted by Kieron Seymour-Howell
2nd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Again, your enemy is weight.
Aviation is very intolerant of superfluous weight. What you are suggesting is a very heavy, complex, expensive and mostly redundant system that is used only a very little during any given flight for what is purely speculative environmental benefit.

This approach is tolerable in automobiles because the added weight does not significantly affect the utility of a car. The same cannot be said of aviation.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
3rd Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Petrol is no longer an option
It is poison, we need to move on.You guys are either failing or ignoring the big picture when it comes to EVs. We generate green energy then store it in batteries for use. That's zero emission.

Transitioning millions of vehicles is a much bigger job than building generating stations and they are also bigger polluters.. Economies of scale will bring the prices of building these Evs and power stations down. We need to start with EVs.
Posted by shaunehunter
Updated - 8th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!