Video: Cars aren't the only vehicles being electrified, check out the new 787
Over the past several years and this year in particular, automakers have been making a major push into electrifying cars. That includes developing parallel and series hybrid drive trains but it also refers to converting accessories from mechanical, belt-driven systems to electrically-driven equivalents.
Drivers aren't the only ones now trying to find a way to save on their fuel bills with rising oil prices, airlines have been hit particularly hard. When Boeing decided to design a new mid-sized wide-body jet, their biggest priority was reducing operating expenses for airlines. Thus the new Boeing 787 that is being rolled out for the first time this weekend is switching many of its internal systems from being pneumatically driven by excess air pressure from the engines to electricity.
Each of the two engines will drive a 0.5MW generator to provide power to the plane which is also significantly lighter than similar-sized aircraft thanks to an all-composite fuselage and wings. The 787 is expected to be up to twenty percent more fuel efficient than comparable aircraft. Boeing has been releasing a series of videos discussing the technical aspects of the new plane and the latest talks about electrifying the power systems and you can check it out after the jump.
[Source: Boeing]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Paul Berg 11:39AM (7/08/2007)
Why not make the whole roof of the airplane a big solar panel made of the latest thin solar cell plastic materials...then that would probably help the planes effisiensy further...
Reply
Murc 12:42PM (7/08/2007)
Paul - thats a dumb idea, th point was to make the plane cheaper for th airlines...not more expensive...which is aexactly what your describing would do.
props to Boeing on one (if not thee) of the best looking commercial airliners out there to date. it has big engines so its more efficient, LED lighting, ans the windows are 30% larger......what not to love about this fine plane.?
Reply
Tim 3:00PM (7/08/2007)
Electric traction motors on the rear wheels to replace main engine thrust during taxiing would save fuel.
Reply
Chris M 9:10PM (7/08/2007)
This is one area where a fuel cell, such as a SOFC running on jet fuel, could make a lot of sense. A SOFC running on jet fuel is more efficient at providing electricity than a turbogenerator running on jet fuel. Can they make Solid Oxide Fuel Cells light enough and cheap enough for commercial aircraft use?
Putting solar panels on a commercial aircraft is not a bad idea, as most flights are during daylight hours and mostly about the clouds, but there is a lot of potential problems to be solved. The panels would have to be reliable, strong enough to withstand aerodynamic forces at high speeds, yet light enough to not unduly burden the plane. That takes a lot of engineering. And of course, it must be cheap enough to make it economically practical.
There are already efforts underway to replace heavy lead acid emergency power batteries in aircraft with lighter NiMH or LiIon batteries.
Reply
Nathan 11:49PM (7/08/2007)
It's possible, more likely on the top of the fuselage than on the wings - there are simply too many control surfaces on the wing surface for solar panels to be viable there. As long as it wasn't a structural component it would technically work, but I think it would be too expensive to be worth the small amount of electricity they would generate.
Reply
Paul Berg 7:07AM (7/09/2007)
Murc, please don´t use words like dumb to us trying to contibute with some creative ideas. And note, that i was not talking about solar PANELS, i was talkng about thin solarcell plastic materials that would in my mind be covering a big part of the rooftop (back?) of the plane. The weight would not be a big differense. Look at the latest plugin prius where they have built in solar panels on the roof.
Reply
Phil L. 9:07AM (7/09/2007)
The weight issue is probably larger than we realize. I recall some years ago that American went to a livery that included large sections of unpainted aluminum. Their rationale included the fuel savings from the weight of the paint! I don't recall the numbers, but I remember being surprised at just how much a jet's paint job weighs - and how much fuel it took to pull that (non-revenue-generating) weight through the air.
I doubt solar cells will make sense on an aircraft until their weight and cost is on the order of that of the paint - and they can tolerate similar environmental conditions that paint can (heat/cold/vibration/impact). Mind you, the idea of spray-on solar cell material would certainly generate interest!
Reply
Tim 10:27AM (7/09/2007)
Here's you light weight solar: http://www.nanosolar.com/economic.htm It's "printed" on aluminum foil.
Reply
Phil L. 1:47PM (7/09/2007)
Tim -
Yes, something like that.
Does anyone know if technology like this is really in commercial use today? I haven't seen it elsewhere. Based on Nanosolar's data sheet page (empty), it appears they're still at the "test customer" stage...
Reply
Tim Russell 3:10PM (7/09/2007)
The other Tim, traction motors that are only used during taxi would add too much weight and you'd still need to spool up an engine to power them. A better idea would be tugs at the airport that can do more than push the planes back. I bet a lot of fuel could be saved if they towed planes to the end of the runway and towed incoming planes to the gate. Then again you'd still need to have an engine running for AC and power for the cabin so it would depend on fuel use one way vs another. The big cost would be the tugs, many of the ones that do the pushbacks from the gate arn't built to tow a plane any more than a few hundred feet. I saw on some TV show that tugs do exist that can do the jov the big question would be the $$$ to get them. To save some money an airport wouldn't need enough for a max peak time, smaller planes could still taxi as normal, but they could snag as many planes as they could. I wish I could remember the name of the tug but I do remember it picked up the front gear.
Reply
Phil L. 5:07PM (7/09/2007)
Tim R. -
I remember the "front gear pick up" aircraft mover, as well. I seem to recall "Car & Driver" did an article on it.
One of the big drivers for that piece of equipment is aircraft that aren't staying at a gate overnight: They're required to have a pilot, etc. to taxi out and back, a big expense on top of fuel, etc. The aircraft mover doesn't have such problems.
Extending the concept to regular taxiing is an interesting idea.
Reply