Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

It's definitely being worked on. Google "hybrid electric aircraft" and you'll find some discussion of the efforts.

It's less advantageous than it is for a car. For one, the difference between maximum power and cruise power is far lower in a typical light airplane than it is in a typical car. A Prius might max out at 130hp but cruise at 25hp. A light airplane often cruises at around 75% of maximum power. Another problem is that the hybrid powertrain adds significant weight, which hurts efficiency much more in airplanes than it does in cars. I don't think these kill the advantages entirely, but it's probably why it's not as far along in airplanes as it is in cars.

View on HN

Right, the first thing to always remember when you're doing a hybrid is that you're stating up-front, "I want to have two engines in this machine -- that's a weight and space cost that I want to pay up-front." As mentioned by the article, with airplanes when you increase weight everything has to get bigger to accommodate it. That doesn't make it impossible, but does make it a bit tricky.

Another interesting question: the fuel cell design in the original post is probably not reversible, is it? It would be really cool if given 10-20 more years of work we then used variable-pitch propellers with reversible fuel cells allowing for a plane which, during descent, could regenerate most of the energy used to make its ascent. It might also make pilots less worried about limited range, because they'd know that in a pinch they could get some more energy to the battery.

Flight takes a lot of energy. Gliding let's you fly for longer at the cost of speed or altitude. You can also trade altitude for speed, but there is little waste in a normal descent.

> allowing for a plane which, during descent, could regenerate most of the energy used to make its ascent

The Pipistrel aircraft do almost exactly this. They claim about 10-15% energy recovery rate for thier regenerative systems. No need for variable pitch either; they simply windmill the main prop.

It's interesting that I read 'Google "hybrid electric aircraft"' without your quotes for a second and assumed Google was working on a hybrid electric aircraft, rather than you suggest people search for it with Google. Google is diversifying enough that just saying "google $term" without quotes (as you provided) can be ambiguous. Perhaps this is the long-term curse of google as a verb.

That's pretty funny, and I can totally see why you might read it that way. I guess technically now it would be an Alphabet hybrid electric aircraft? Not that I'm at all careful about saying Alphabet instead of Google.

Me neither, but I think this incident is illustrative as to why they changed it. "Google" has multiple meanings now (a site, a service, an action, and a company), and they probably want to distinguish their corporate element from those others.

I think one potential advantage is that turbofan bypass ratios are topping out due to the dimensions of the fans needed. A hybrid system would allow you have multiple fans per engine and also reroute power in case an engine failed.

I think turbofans also have issues with the difference between the rotational speed that is optimum for the turbine and that for the fans. Hybrid design would allow one to decouple the two.

A light airplane often cruises at around 75% of maximum power.

Good point . . . I was probably thinking of larger, heavier, faster aircraft where cruise power is significantly lower than max power. As an extreme, I seem to recall that the Concorde cruised at about 20% power.

Obviously I don't know anything about these sorts of things, but 20% power may have been all the engines were capable of producing with the much thinner air at cruising altitude.

I guess that depends on whether by power it's generally meant "the max power the engines are capable of under ideal circumstances" or "max capable under current circumstances". I think the latter is generally what is assumed when talking about operating (since it's hard to know the former). For example, in a car, you would probably assume that meant the gas pedal half depressed (and even that would be grossly wrong to the actual meaning of the latter interpretation, given gearing and the RPM power curve).

Jet engines actually perform better at higher altitudes, bypass and propeller notwithstanding.

No, they are more efficient at higher altitudes, mainly due to the colder intake air, but they have lower performance (as in maximum available thrust), due to the air density being lower and there being less available to burn the fuel.

Max vs. cruise is a huge difference for VTOL though, which you need to replace cars for daily commute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com