Rolls-Royce aims for the world's fastest all-electric plane under its ACCEL initiative

Humza

Posts: 1,026   +171
Staff member
Something to look forward to: Rolls-Royce announced the 'Accelerating the Electrification of Flight' (ACCEL) program earlier this year, for its contribution towards enabling zero-emission flights of the future, part of which is the recently unveiled ionBird aircraft designed to set a new top speed record for electric planes, currently held by the Siemens-powered 210 mph Extra 330LE.

Rolls-Royce wants to champion electrification for aerial transport and has partnered with aviation startup Electroflight and electric motor manufacturer YASA, to come up with the ionBird aircraft to test its electric propulsion system.

The electric plane, unveiled recently at Gloucestershire Airport, UK, is part of the company's ACCEL project for enabling worldwide travel with a low carbon footprint. The initiative is also backed by government funding and will see the ionBird going for the fastest speed record, in an attempt to beat 2017's benchmark.

Planned tests of the electric propulsion technology will be carried out with the ionBird's airframe. The plane uses a 6,000-cell battery pack, which the company says is "most power-dense battery pack ever assembled for an aircraft, providing enough energy to fuel 250 homes or fly 200 miles (London to Paris) on a single charge."

The propeller blades are spun by three axial electric motors, at a lower RPM than conventional planes, to make for a more stable and quieter flight. They'll be outputting a combined 500 hp when the ionBird goes for its record run, which Rolls-Royce says will be made possible with an energy efficiency of 90 percent and zero emissions.

Rolls-Royce is also working on other electrification projects, including 'E-Fan X' technology with Airbus for developing hybrid-electric commercial aircraft and a joint research program with Scandanivan airline Widerøe, for zero-emissions aviation through electrification of the latter's regional fleet of 30+ planes by 2030.

Permalink to story.

 
fly 200 miles (London to Paris) on a single charge
Direct-line distance from London to Paris (Hethrow to Charles De Gaulle) is 214 miles. And with all the air traffic, it is more like 240 miles, discounting unfavorable wind condition. So, it won't make it.

And you thought your Tesla juicing out gave a bad experience...
 
Last edited:
I really don't see a market for all electric aircraft with current battery tech, hydrogen is really they only way you can get the energy density. Running a fuel cell with compressed or liquid hydrogen would give you the range and weight advantages, and running jet engines on hydrogen is actually pretty easy, only major downside would be huge amounts of water vapor. If a new form of battery can come online and quadruple energy density over Lithium Ion then pure electric non hydrogen has a shot.
 
Rather than vying for the fastest record, which, is not an economical achievement for an electric plane, RR should be researching for viable passenger flights for longer distances, and better battery life, (preferably with solar power consolidation during daytime) for future flight scene.
 
Once you can achieve about 250 miles you can replace all INTRAstate air flights between the major cities. We use a lot of 10-20 passenger type planes like this on the West Coast of NA. Everywhere in Washington state can get to Seattle with that kind of plane.
 
Rather than vying for the fastest record, which, is not an economical achievement for an electric plane, RR should be researching for viable passenger flights for longer distances, and better battery life, (preferably with solar power consolidation during daytime) for future flight scene.
It's a worthy goal. They're bound to learn what is needed to achieve what you're talking about. It's about the same as "shooting for the stars, and landing on the moon".
 
I really don't see a market for all electric aircraft with current battery tech, hydrogen is really they only way you can get the energy density. Running a fuel cell with compressed or liquid hydrogen would give you the range and weight advantages, and running jet engines on hydrogen is actually pretty easy, only major downside would be huge amounts of water vapor. If a new form of battery can come online and quadruple energy density over Lithium Ion then pure electric non hydrogen has a shot.

Electricity in BC is going to be one third of hydrogen if you could get it, which you can’t and if they had infrastructure, which they don’t. Sure batteries are a bit heavy but for Harbours short one hour flight, they’re fine. Long haul, your comments make sense but up to 200 miles, batteries will do just fine.

Our marina pays $0.0567 Cdn per kWh

Tesla will be announcing new battery technology in Jan/Feb and you’ll probably see a sharp decrease in weight and price along with better reliability and faster charging tech. Batteries will be a major business for Tesla and possibly one of their most profitable once they nail a tech lead (they have it already) and massive production.
 
Well they certainly didn't have to do much work on the airframe design. It goes all the way back to the original "Goodyear" class racing planes.

Here's the most well known, "The Cosmic Wind":

58070.jpg


FWIW, it's first flight was in 1947.!

 
The Extra 300 generally uses a 300hp (at sea level) Lycoming for a cruise speed of 200mph (at about 75% power @7k-8k feet of altitude) with fixed gear. This version looks to have been made a retractable, and with 500hp available should be a bit faster (all other things equal, speed only goes up as the cube root of hp so power is not the best way to add speed). I'd guess it to be over a 250mph plane @7500', 300mph+ at higher altitude using full power if it has enough battery to get up there in the first place.

Going back to the cube power rule, it should be no trick at all to go 300 miles if they dial back power back to a more economical cruise speed of around 150mph.
 
Electricity in BC is going to be one third of hydrogen if you could get it, which you can’t and if they had infrastructure, which they don’t. Sure batteries are a bit heavy but for Harbours short one hour flight, they’re fine. Long haul, your comments make sense but up to 200 miles, batteries will do just fine.

Our marina pays $0.0567 Cdn per kWh

Tesla will be announcing new battery technology in Jan/Feb and you’ll probably see a sharp decrease in weight and price along with better reliability and faster charging tech. Batteries will be a major business for Tesla and possibly one of their most profitable once they nail a tech lead (they have it already) and massive production.

People always pull this "Musk said this or that" argument, but Musk can't bend physics either. Hydrogen's energy density is around 100 times that of current bleeding edge batteries. It took 150 years to achieve a 10x improvement in battery tech so don't hold your breath for that additional 100x. It might take a few millenia.

Not to mention the fact that lithium will run out and there's no practical recycling available at all. It costs 5x more to recycle it than just mining it. And the recycling process produces waste as well. Lithium recycling is not a thing, period. No one's doing it either. It's only a promise. So the millions of tons of dead batteries will end up being toxic waste. A matter Musk consistently dodges in interviews. Feeling green yet?

Musk is totally NOT the proper person to ask anyway, he's unable to give you unbiased opinion after the several BILLION dollars investment in their battery factories.

Fuel cell, on the other hand, only produces WATER as a byproduct. After recent improvements It only takes around as much platinum as a diesel car. Electrolysis efficiency is already viable and is improving by the day. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the whole friggin universe. Refueling takes just a few minutes, and it's suitable for public transport, railway, ferries and planes. RIGHT NOW. China has hundreds of busses going on hydrogen already. Germany runs fuel cell trains for public transport already. Not in a year, not in a decade, not in a century. Now. The only thing keeping prices higher than batteries is economies of scale.

At this point I'm really having a hard time understanding battery proponents.
 
Direct-line distance from London to Paris (Hethrow to Charles De Gaulle) is 214 miles. And with all the air traffic, it is more like 240 miles, discounting unfavorable wind condition. So, it won't make it.

And you thought your Tesla juicing out gave a bad experience...
Plus there is the little detail of margin for diversion.....
 
People always pull this "Musk said this or that" argument, but Musk can't bend physics either. Hydrogen's energy density is around 100 times that of current bleeding edge batteries. It took 150 years to achieve a 10x improvement in battery tech so don't hold your breath for that additional 100x. It might take a few millenia.

Not to mention the fact that lithium will run out and there's no practical recycling available at all. It costs 5x more to recycle it than just mining it. And the recycling process produces waste as well. Lithium recycling is not a thing, period. No one's doing it either. It's only a promise. So the millions of tons of dead batteries will end up being toxic waste. A matter Musk consistently dodges in interviews. Feeling green yet?

Musk is totally NOT the proper person to ask anyway, he's unable to give you unbiased opinion after the several BILLION dollars investment in their battery factories.

Fuel cell, on the other hand, only produces WATER as a byproduct. After recent improvements It only takes around as much platinum as a diesel car. Electrolysis efficiency is already viable and is improving by the day. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the whole friggin universe. Refueling takes just a few minutes, and it's suitable for public transport, railway, ferries and planes. RIGHT NOW. China has hundreds of busses going on hydrogen already. Germany runs fuel cell trains for public transport already. Not in a year, not in a decade, not in a century. Now. The only thing keeping prices higher than batteries is economies of scale.

At this point I'm really having a hard time understanding battery proponents.

I've been hearing that hydrogen cars are coming soon for over 60 years. Like cheap fusion power, it's always "just 30 years away." Don't hold your breath. Hydrogen is nothing but annoying as a source of energy - hard to store, voluminous, leaks away, can make a great explosion in a confined space, expensive to manufacture and deliver. We'll see Mr. Fusion at Costco before we see economical hydrogen fueled equipment.
 
Rather than vying for the fastest record, which, is not an economical achievement for an electric plane, RR should be researching for viable passenger flights for longer distances, and better battery life, (preferably with solar power consolidation during daytime) for future flight scene.
I hear you, but people are always in such a hurry to get from A to B. (Come in, Scotty.)
 
I really don't see a market for all electric aircraft with current battery tech, hydrogen is really they only way you can get the energy density. Running a fuel cell with compressed or liquid hydrogen would give you the range and weight advantages, and running jet engines on hydrogen is actually pretty easy, only major downside would be huge amounts of water vapor. If a new form of battery can come online and quadruple energy density over Lithium Ion then pure electric non hydrogen has a shot.
Speaking of 'new form of battery', today I saw an article on a new IBM battery: https://www.techspot.com/news/83312-ibm-claims-have-made-new-battery-design-environment.html
 
I've been hearing that hydrogen cars are coming soon for over 60 years. Like cheap fusion power, it's always "just 30 years away." Don't hold your breath.

Not sure what kind of 60 years old FCV you're talking about, we could argue that the first BEV saw the light of day back in 1867, but that's a completely pointless argument.

FCV are already cheaper than your average Tesla, and they'll only get cheaper. It's not "30 years away", it's now. The cheapest Mirai is $59k, the cheapest Model 3 that matches the range of the Mirai is $49k, the cheapest Model S is $80k, the cheapest X is a whopping $85k, so I'm not sure what kind of enormous savings you're implying here when going BEV. It's 20% at best, and have fun with your discharging, aging batteries and recharging times. Especially in a cold weather.

Hydrogen is nothing but annoying as a source of energy - hard to store,

Good thing that's none of your concern. Or do you also worry about petrol and supercharger station storage and grid challenges?

voluminous,

What the heck does that even mean? Are you actually implying batteries are tiny, or...?

leaks away,

In a faulty tank, yeah. A faulty battery also leaks away, so what.

can make a great explosion in a confined space,

Petrol, diesel, LPG, CNG and batteries are all flammable, but somehow it's only a concern when we're talking about Hydrogen.

expensive to manufacture and deliver.

I already addressed this above.

I'll tell you stuff that's actually annoying. A battery that

- is extremely heavy making it completely useless and impractical for industrial uses
- makes up around 30% of the total price of the car
- takes at least an hour to charge to 100%
- is advertised with 100% charged range but 80% charging time
- discharges in heat. or cold
- discharges on its own anyway
- loses capacity if your charge it too often, too rarely, too soon, or too late
- loses capacity if you drive too fast
- loses capacity on its own as time goes by anyway
- isn't advised to charge to 100%
- isn't advised to rapid charge since it ages faster with rapid charging (rapid charging vs durability, pick one and have fun!)
- cannot be recycled in practice
- is toxic
- uses an element that is expected to run out within a few decades tops

Am I missing something? The ONLY advantage BEVs have is the fact that you can charge them at home. Assuming electric companies greatly extend their grid's capacity, of course. Which costs a lot of money but home users like to think is free. "The cables are already there". Yeah, for a fraction of the amperage that the future car park is going to consume, so you'll need new cables anyway.

Not to mention the fact that home charging only became a big deal with all the problems that BEVs introduced, I.e. crowded, sometimes several hour lines at charging stations, the cell wearing problem with rapid charging solved by half day charges at home, and so on, so it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

With an ICE car no one wanted to refuel at home, coz it takes like zero effort to refuel at a station. Same goes for FCV. You plug it in, and in 5 minutes off you go with 100% capacity. There's no problem to be solved by home refueling.
 
Speaking of 'new form of battery', today I saw an article on a new IBM battery: https://www.techspot.com/news/83312-ibm-claims-have-made-new-battery-design-environment.html

That kind of breakthrough is announced every month or so. Literally, every month. But somehow they always fail to materialize.

We can place our bets on batteries improving by an order of 100, but let's just say it's highly unlikely.

We should definitely use electric drive, but with the most fitting energy source. That's currently FC. When batteries actually get good enough, we'll b free to replace the FC with an awesome new battery. But choosing this decade's tech on the potential of future centuries seems rather *****ic.
 
That kind of breakthrough is announced every month or so. Literally, every month. But somehow they always fail to materialize.

Then however did we ever move from lead acid to nickel cadmium to nickel metal hydride to lithium ion to LiFePo? Yes, only one tends to become the champion for every hundred or so that fail, so what? There are thousands in the lab chasing trillions in profits. Greed will succeed.

We can place our bets on batteries improving by an order of 100, but let's just say it's highly unlikely.

Define "highly unlikely?" Are we about to be blasted by a giant asteroid causing mass extinction, or invaded by little green men? Barring either of those, or something of similar magnitude, the 70 year trend of battery lifetime capability doubling for the same inflation adjusted value about every 6.5 years for the past 70 years will continue. It doesn't matter which of the contenders win, but we can predict with mathematical certainty that one will supplant what we have today.

We should definitely use electric drive, but with the most fitting energy source. That's currently FC.

Consumers say otherwise. Dollars are votes, and the votes are in. Fuel Cells suck.

When batteries actually get good enough, we'll b free to replace the FC with an awesome new battery. But choosing this decade's tech on the potential of future centuries seems rather *****ic.

Well, feel free to dream of a fuel cell world. Just get used to disappointment. The value isn't there, and nobody is going to build out a brand new distribution system with underground storage tanks at all of your local gas stations to make it work.
 
Back