E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
Pipistrel-USA's Taurus G4 electric airplane flies high during the NASA-backed CAFE Green Flight Challenge. The team behind the plane won $1.35 million in the competition.
NASA says it has awarded the largest prize in aviation history, $1.35 million, to Team Pipistrel-USA.com for pushing the envelope on electric-powered flying.
To win the CAFE Green Flight Challenge, the Pennsylvania-based team's Taurus G4 electric airplane flew a 200-mile course from Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa, Calif., in less than two hours. That's one of the requirements for the prize. Another is that the plane had to use less than the equivalent of a gallon of gas per person. The Pipistrel Taurus G4 exceeded that efficiency standard, flying the course on just a little more than a half-gallon of fuel equivalent per passenger.
What's even more amazing is that the runner-up did nearly as well. That earned a $120,000 second-place purse for California-based Team e-Genius and its electric-powered plane.
"Two years ago, the thought of flying 200 miles at 100 mph in an electric aircraft was pure science fiction," Jack W. Langelaan, team leader of Team Pipistrel-USA.com, said in today's award announcement. "Now we are all looking forward to the future of electric aviation."
Eric Raymond, e-Genius' team leader, was diplomatic in his remarks. "I'm proud that Pipistrel won," he said. "They've been a leader in getting these things into production, and the team really deserves it and worked hard to win this prize."
NASA
The e-Genius electric plane takes flight during the CAFE Green Flight Challenge.
NASA's acting chief technologist, Joe Parrish, said the winner proved that "ultra-efficient aviation is within our grasp."
The challenge was one of several that NASA has backed over the past six years to encourage the development of technologies that could improve the way spaceflight and aeronautics is done. (Remember that the first "A" in NASA stands for aeronautics.) In a way, this particular prize goes full circle: NASA's Centennial Challenges were inspired by the $10 million Ansari X Prize for private spaceflight, which in turn was inspired by the $25,000 Orteig Prize for nonstop trans-Atlantic aviation.
Charles Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize in 1927, and his grandson, Erik Lindbergh, was on hand at the Green Flight Challenge to pass along a prize of his own: the Lindbergh Prize for Quietest Aircraft. Team eGenius won that $10,000 award, which was donated by Jean Schulz, the widow of "Peanuts" cartoonist Charles M. Schulz.
NASA provides the purse for the CAFE Green Flight Challenge, with sponsorship support from Google and management by the CAFE Foundation (CAFE stands for Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency). Fourteen teams registered for the competition and collectively spent more than $4 million over the past two-plus years in pursuit of the purse. Most of the teams relied on electric engines, but the entries also included some planes powered by gasoline or biofuels.
Three planes made it to last week's finals: the Pipistrel and eGenius planes as well as a gasoline-powered plane fielded by the Florida-based Phoenix Air team. Among the factors that gave the Pipistrel Taurus G4 a boost were its dual-fuselage design, which allowed for a 75-foot wingspan with ultra-light construction, a super-efficient powertrain for its 6.5-foot-wide propeller and 450 pounds of lithium-polymer batteries. (EAA News delves into the details, and NASA has a Flickr photo gallery chronicling the competition.)
Team Pipistrel-USA.com discusses the design of the prize-winning Taurus G4 electric aircraft.
NASA hopes that the Green Flight Challenge will lead to even more ambitious aerial feats of fuel efficiency. Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier quotes Pipistrel's Langelaan as saying that his company is willing to contribute $100,000 toward a new prize for the first electric aircraft to break the speed of sound. How long would that take? Langelaan estimates five years.
Do you agree, or is that too much of a blue-sky prediction? Are electric aircraft blazing a trail for the future of aviation, or is this just a million-dollar sideshow? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More bright ideas on the tech frontier:
- NASA offers $5 milllion for new technological feats
- DARPA looks for ideas to clean up space debris
- Out-of-this-world ideas win NASA funding
- SpaceX sells its first ticket for a moon launch
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Cool design. Wonder where the aircraft will end up?
Gee I don't know Frank1234 maybe the earth is flat and maybe we should go back to using stone tools. This is exactly what government should be doing. If we had to depend on the private sector to find answers to all of mankinds advancments we would have never reached the moon, went to the deepest part of the ocean or discovered the cure for polio. Shall I go on?
BigAl, Frank agrees that this is how government should invest. By rewarding achievement. Government should not be funding full enterprises with the hope something good may come of it. We shouldn't reward "hopes and dreams", only achievement. Much more was developed privately like transportation, industrialization, the telephone, electricity, and on and on. The innovations developed by government were for military purposes. Not that that's bad, but everyone wants to cut the military funding instead of the bloated bureaucracy.
Thorndawg - If we weren't in two wars right now our military funding wouldn't have to be nearly as large as it is now. We can easily trim it back down to reasonable levels WITHOUT cutting troops pay and benefits and still maintaining enough training exercises to keep them ready to fight when it's absolutely necessary. Really, I think we should just confiscate all the money that lobbyists throw at politicians, outlaw lobbyists all together, and then maybe we can cut some of the waste we get from the bureaucracy.
I think it's amazing these teams could design a new type of airplane on a budget of just a few million, while most commercial aircraft budgets run in the billions.
Yeah. Don't ask Boeing to do it. They'd have to outsource everything and later find out that the pieces don't fit together.
Well, it's not exactly an airliner....
That's like being surprised that developing a new wheel barrow costs so much less than a 18 wheeler. These electric aircraft are basic demonstration models while an airliner is an actual, functioning, working piece of major technology that is also highly regulated.
Largest Prize 1.35 mil? I thought the Ansari-X was 10 mil.
That was for space. This was for aviation.
You forgot to mention that the real winner is a Slovenian-based company PIPISTREL d.o.o.-Ajdovscina/Slovenia.
PIPISTREL d.o.o. was "forced" to take part as a Team Pipistrel-Penn State University only because PIPISTREL d.o.o. company or any other team from around the world must have a partner in USA.
I think that must be said.
Best regards,
Tom from Slovenia
When a Slovenian agency that is funded by the taxes of Slovenian
citizens holds a competition that awards a cash prize, then perhaps
their rules for entering that competition will not be so stringent as to
require a foreign company (read: for profit) to team with a tax funded
public institution for higher education.
Though it is highly unlikely that anyone alive to read this will live long enough to see such a thing happen in their lifetime.
I think that must be said.
Best regards,
Nathan from USA
These aren't practical aircraft. They are basically powered gliders. Show horses, not work horses. Fair weather toys. Is it likely that could change? Unless battery technology gets a lot better than we have any right to expect, not a chance.
But I suppose that's not the point. These aren't intended to be practical aircraft. Their job was to win a carefully contrived prize. One of them succeeded.
Frank,
I agree with you on this, not all discoverys and inventions should be backed with government funds, but sometimes it's the only way to get things moving forward. I believe any scentific discovery no matter what it's origins is a good thing and should be applauded and never restricted by politcal retoric or religous dogma.
Think about private recreational flying that combines highllift sailplane capabilities with electric take off and landing and recharging while in sailplane mode.
100 MPH "gliders"
and an ox cart isn't a semi...you've got to start somewhere
...and what happened at Kitty Hawk? Was that "work horse"?
Wright, you beat me to it. The original aircraft design wasn't 100% commercial flight ready... if you want a laugh, look up the classic bob newhart skit "Wright Bros. Airways". Otherwise, just appreciate that this just may be marking a critical turning point in the transportation.
think of it as FIRST STEP sputnik couldn't go to the moon either, but no one would have gone there if it were not for it.
The Wright brothers combined a heavy inefficient engine with a fairly efficient wing design to achieve flight. Rather quickly the engines were developed to be more efficient, more powerful, and lighter. The aircraft were made more streamlined. In other words, there was plenty of room for improvement from the early Wright flyer to a modern aircraft.
Now honestly, do you see any possible way battery technology is going to give us the power to weight and range suitable for a practical commercial aircraft? We'd need a factor of 200 improvement, and that isn't electrochemically possible. That room for improvement available to the Wright flyer just isn't here.
Also, can you honestly point to any possible way that airfoils and airframes could be improved in aerodynamic efficiency sufficiently to make electric powered flight commercially practical? Once you are at 100%, there is no further improvement possible, and we are already close to 100% with current designs. Again, that room for improvement the Wright flyer had isn't here for the electric airplane.
Now I did note it is a toy. So it could fill a niche for a powered sailplane. Recreational flying. But commercial flying, no.
It is now proven scientific fact that we, and every flower and grass growing every spring - even infants - are made of star dust. We are as old as the universe, each and every one of us.
It is not unthinkable that in the future we will not only fly on solar energy, but will find a way to "levitate" without the need for any fuel at all.
It is only recently that Humans left the cave - the whole universe is still evolving, and we have just tapped the surface of it's wonders.
Nothing is "new" in the universe, it was all created "in the beginning." Our inventors like Benjamin Franklin, the Wright Brothers, and our present day theoretical physicists and our scientists are still staring in wide-eyed wonder at the incomprehensible beauty of the first layer of our universal "onion."
God is the Author, and his language is Truth - in other words, Math. "In the end" the universe will be reduced to it's Genesis, a single atom - a plus and minus electrical charge.
We and the Universe come from "nothing" and will return to "nothing." We are all miracles - all as old as the Universe. Flying on electricity is a piece of cake. Wait till you see what awaits our great-grandchildren - we will seem like medievals to them.
Good thoughts Harold. I would love to see what things will be like even 100 yrs from now. Looking back at the last 100 yrs or so.
When you started your post with "It is now proven scientific fact that we,...." I knew immediately that you didn't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you actually took a science class you would know that there is no such thing as a "proven scientific fact".
While he may be off about the 'proven' scientific fact, he is correct in that any atoms heavier than hydrogen comes from star dust (dead/dying stars).
We deal with proven scientific facts all the time. They are the foundation of theory.
It's not a fact until it's proven.
The speed of light in a vacuum, for example, is a proven scientific fact - proven over and over again.
Methinks Harold wears Birkenstocks with socks. Or perhaps Earth Shoes. :)
I'm with Harold. The hunter and gatherers were living a life of equality without war for many thousands of years before modern man came to be. In our "awakening" it appears to be a zero sum game, we have a better understanding of things, but we also have war and inequality. We have advanced on the technological front, but regressed as a species in respect to social issues. We are still scratching our eyes and trying to "see" through these bright morning rays of sunshine. If you can dream it, you can achieve it, the first part is easy, the second part requires a country full of believers. If I asked "Can we have world peace and equality?" most people here would scoff, yet it has already been done by mankind for a great many years. So scoff again at the question posed in this forum, and you will shine a light on your own ignorance.
Major airlines should have been demanding "electric fans" to provide thrust for their aircraft at least 40 years ago with small Auxiliary Power Unit[s] as the electrical source. You can make a jet engine very small. There are RC jet engines the size of your palm. Could these RC jet engines provide an electrical charge for an electrical vehicle? I would be experimenting with RC jet engines to provide electrical power on demand or constantly.
Then, there is the other future where we employ new technologies given to us by our ET friends after we show them that we can be Trusted. Thus far, that is not the case.
Break the speed of sound? Are there even any regular prop jobs that have done that?
Steve
No prop plane can do that and never will be able to, but I think we can all agree an electric airplane traveling at the speed of sound is a very cool idea and is worth researching.
There are some new fiber propellers that excede the speed of sound in their tip rotation. I don't think that breaking the sound barrier with a prop driven airplane is technically impossible, only that there will be some design challenges.
Some WWII planes were rumored to have reached the sound barrier, but those claims have been pretty much debunked. P-38's have gone pretty fast in a dive, but became uncontrollable. None have been able to go that fast mainly because their airframes were not clean enough and could not handle the "mach tuck" phenomenon that occurs at around mach 0.68.
I wonder if they could accomplish this with a shielded prop and controlled air feed. Probably not, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer just a dumb stick and throttle type.
BigAl--do you actually believe that people in government have ever done any research at all (in any field)? How could you possibly have arrived at such a wierd idea?
Everything was done by private sector companies with the exception of the test pilots being US military.
There is such a thing as scientists that work for the government, and if the government is footing the bill for an outside team to research something, it is still the government doing the research.
And government most certainly has a role in basic research. Most companies won't do basic research unless it can be assured to be monetized because it requires a ton of cash and huge research teams. Besides, some discoveries can't make money for a very long time. Generations or centuries.
The government is involved in R&D but the bulk of it is really done privately, and often without government subsidies and backing. This is one of those things the company risks their capital on to develop a new product or improve an existing one, it's normal business. It is also FAR more efficient than government funded R&D. Like anything else the government is rarely (if ever) more efficient than private industry.
another plus is in lives saved in crashes, as many are lost in the fire that follows the standard petrol crashes.
Good point steve, that definitely would be a huge plus. Also, people that live around airports would likely be a lot happier as I'd imagine these new electric engines would be much quieter than what we have today.
Nothing will be accomplished until we can overcome Genesis 11: 1-9.
We do not need the ignorance of a flying wind turbine, give the money to the electric hummingbird, it at least knows the folly of propellers.
and who will win the prize for the artificial engine sound that will prevent an increase in bird-plane crashes?
lol, i don't think engine noise is the deciding factor keeping birds away from planes...
We should make all electric vehicles sound like the Jetsons' flying cars.
If they make it a goose sound it could lead to some interesting and humorous mating situations.
Well done and supported appropriately. A monitary prize is a desireable and apt incentive when the winner of such a "prize" has fronted time and materials.
Good golly what will all the greedy, over bloated oil companies do when we will not need ANY of their SO OVER PRICED airline fuel.
I bet Congress will take pity on those billionaires and give them the difference in our tax dollars to make sure CONGRESS still gets it's fair share of kickbacks.
Well, if they're smart, the oil companies will sign leasing rights for the lithium mines in South America. We're just moving from crude oil addiction to lithium addiction.
Most of the "oil" companies are actually "energy" companies so they will be in the front of new energy sources as well and will have the money to actually develop and deploy them. So they will just wind up changing out their profits from one source to another.
I think it's a bit premature to destroy a whole industry that is flying, with one that can't even walk yet ....
What is really needed is the development of a power supply (a'la Iron Man--Tony Stark)
I heard the Israelis are developing a power supply source that would essentially eliminate grids, batteries and fuel distribution networks. When ready it will come in sizes for homes, auto's and commercial applications.
Now thats worth talking about!!
Stan Meyer had invented a water powered dune buggy in the 1980's but died of "food poisoning" the day before getting the patten for it. It kinda worked out for gas barons didn't it?
Not really an engineering feat at all. Just swapping the weight of fuel for the weight of batteries
Now, how long does it take to recharge that 450 pounds of batteries so they can turn around and fly back home? THAT is one of the biggest limitations on electric cars and obviously for planes.
If it takes 8-12 hours to recharge the vehicle isn't viable. If you can do it in an hour or less a lot more possibilities open up. I don't expect electric cars to be popular until you can make them go 300 plus miles on a charge and recharge in under 5 minutes off an ordinary outlet. As long as you are limited to less than 300 miles and it takes hours to recharge they simply do not meet the need in this country.
JJMurray: I agree for the most part. However, the Chevy Volt has taken a major step toward that goal. Most people commute less than 40 miles per day. The Volt can go 40 miles on a charge. So for most of our driving needs, we theoretically never have to use gas. And when you want to travel 300 miles to Grandma's for Thanksgiving the Volt's onboard gasoline generator allows for that. But for 98% of your driving you'll be burning no gas at all. That's pretty cool. Now if I could afford one, that would be great, but alas, I'm not about to take out a $40,000 loan to acquire one. Maybe I'll buy a used one in a few years. LOL>
Scrimminy - There is more to life than commuting is my point. Consider how many other stops and side trips you make during the course of a day, or during the week. 40 miles on battery goes really fast, and in reality that 40 miles is a maximum and also reduces significantly in cold weather. Not to mention a LOT of people commute more than 40 miles (one way) in a day and that number has been steadily growing for more than a decade.
As you mentioned the cost is also prohibitive for what you are getting. In reality you will never make up the difference in saved gas if you had simply bought a gas powered car of about the same size (i.e. compact) for far less. There is also the cost of replacing the batteries, estimated around $5K every 5-6 years.
No, the Volt really isn't anything more than a minor step at best toward the goal of eliminating the internal combustion automobile in the US.
I'm sorry that I can't recall the name of the system, but it's been proposed that an electric car's batteries be mounted in a standard carriage that can easily be swapped (slid out) at a "gas" station. Rather like trading propane tanks for the BBQ, just pull out the old batteries, slid in a new set, and within two minutes the electric car is ready to roll.
Michael - Sounds reasonable on the surface but I would hate to be the station owner that has to have literally hundreds of these batteries on hand and be constantly charging them throughout the day and night. Imagine not only the cost to have a start up inventory, but to keep charging those batteries every day AND to replace them all over the next 5 years or so. I wonder if the cost of swapping the battery wouldn't wind up being more than the cost of filling the tank.
Actually it is impossible to exceed mach 1 in a prop plane. When the sound barrier is broken the airflow gets disrupted and thrust is lost. However an elecric ducted fan (there is no such thing as an electric turbine) could break the sound barrier. It is just a matter of correct shape of the aircraft and exhaust nozzle.
It probably won't be in our lifetimes that we have electic airliners. This is a step in the right direction. The is absolutely the kind of investement in the future the government needs to encourage and throw money at.
You gotta admire the totalitarian state! China is, already, leading the world in electrical production, storage, and transportation. I suspect this is because the Chinese rulers aren't owned by their oil companies. And would NEVER apologize to an oil company that has an oil spill. They tend to execute the managers, of the offending company.
I wonder if anyone has thought of how they will dispose of all the batteries as they go bad in 5 years ... my guess is ... no. A whole new toxic waste issue to deal with ... much like the new light bulbs we are now forced to pay $5 a piece for. They are toxic, and come with disposal warnings and methods ...
Li cells are not toxic. They contain cobalt, copper, nickel and iron. MW
Electric vehicles are in the early stages of design and refine. Every invention borne of man has gone through many stages before reaching the final, intended goal. Having intelligent minds capable of designing this aircraft and then working to improve upon it is, in my opinion, a good first step toward weaning us off of our oil addiction.
I would have thought that they would use also solar panels as high up there the sunlight is endless?
It's about time we stopped using high-priced Jet fuel to go from A to B. Next off will be jerking my gas engine off the ultralight and replacing it with electric power.
This is all awesome stuff, but I have to wonder who thinks this technology is ready to do what fossil fuels now do. It's like the Wrght Brothers expecting to do what Lindbergh did ... The new technology should be allowed to develope and destroy other industires, jobs, a the economy, by attrition, not just because someone doesn't like it.