NASA Thinking Outside the Box in Airplane Design

[Sedalia Dave]

For the Aircraft techno-junkies

 

 

Electric planes won't happen until battery technology improves by leaps and bounds. That's spurred researchers at NASA to take a different tack, testing a new style of wing that integrates over a dozen small propellers to boost efficiency, reduce drag, and make electric propulsion feasible for light aircraft.

While battery technology has come a long way in the last decade, it's hit a plateau. Currently, electrically-powered aircraft using a traditional propeller are too big and too heavy, limiting cargo load and range.

So NASA started with a clean sheet design, optimizing 18 electric motors with slow-speed propellers spread across a 31-foot wing. The result is a 60-percent boost in wing efficiency and a significant reduction in drag, but the possibilities are far more profound.

 

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/these-integrated-propellers-could-be-the-future-of-elec-1692164791

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhL2-Lykl9s

[Aunt Jen]

I am not an engineer, but my husband was. If he were here, he would love me to ask, and he would explain.

 

But to me, looking at it it looks like a couple of things may affect the airfoil /airplane:

 

Having one prop where it's wind does not hit most of the plane is "cleaner," aerodynamically, but some potential benefits are lost

 

If a prop 's thrust is spread out over a wing (minimal example is a multi-engine prop plane), then there would be increased drag on the wing, as the wing would have, effectively, a higher relative wind, and drag increases as the square of the speed---- yet the wing could benefit from "induced lift" of the airflow over and under the wing.

 

It's a SUM game: all forces calculated, how they balance.

 

So, it seems to me, if the wing design is maximized for the proper speeds and flight conditions, then an increase in lift over drag could be achieved, so longer flight, or less power required.

 

Yu guys who do differential equations get to figure all that out.

 

I'll serve the coffee.

[Aunt Jen]

How did I do, Sedalia?

[Sedalia Dave]

How did I do, Sedalia?

Not bad. Sometimes though logic holds us back. and things that seem illogical on the surface turn out to actually be a better way of doing things. I am not smart enough to do the required calculations to prove or disprove their designs but I am sure they have engineers that smart on the payroll.

 

Becasue it is kinda relevant; I got to sit in on a brief of the results of the accident investigation the Space Shuttle Columbia. Navy Admiral was giving the brief. A lot of VERY smart engineers were betting their paychecks that there was no way that a peice of foam could puncture the wing structure. The Admiral stated that you could have heard a pin drop on a feather pillow because the room was that quiet when the foam punctured the mockup of the shuttle wing. Sometimes our intelligence gets in the way of progress.

 

You can read more about the accident investigation here and here

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

You're pretty close to right, Jen.

 

Actually, NASA isn't going outside the box, but simply rethinking an idea whose time has come.

 

My undergrad is in aero engineering (1983-87) and the theoretical aerodynamic benefits of many small propellers spread across a wing were well known. The problem, as noted in the movie, lay in the reciprocating and turbine engines available at the time. They required too much "support" in terms of fuel lines and control linkages. There wasn't enough space in the wings to put it all, plus wing support structure.

 

With jumps in power/motor technology, electric motors run much smoother and their hp/weight ratio is now comparable to what was available back then. Plus their control and power feed mechanisms are much lighter and smaller than fuel lines and linkages.

 

I'm curious to see where this will lead.

[Aunt Jen]

I'm curious, too.

 

My perspective? I'm not an engineer; I'm a pilot. ATP/CFI.... I fly.

 

Painless was a Csltech aerospace engineer, mostly with planes/jets. I respect his brains, but he whittled concepts down fir my pilot brain. He was commercially rated pilot, himself.

 

My touch is feeling the plane, like Luke Skywakksr might or Jennifer Livingston Seagull. That kind of feel-the-plane thing is what I'm best at.

[Sedalia Dave]

You're pretty close to right, Jen.

 

Actually, NASA isn't going outside the box, but simply rethinking an idea whose time has come.

 

My undergrad is in aero engineering (1983-87) and the theoretical aerodynamic benefits of many small propellers spread across a wing were well known. The problem, as noted in the movie, lay in the reciprocating and turbine engines available at the time. They required too much "support" in terms of fuel lines and control linkages. There wasn't enough space in the wings to put it all, plus wing support structure.

 

With jumps in power/motor technology, electric motors run much smoother and their hp/weight ratio is now comparable to what was available back then. Plus their control and power feed mechanisms are much lighter and smaller than fuel lines and linkages.

 

I'm curious to see where this will lead.

Thanks for the insight.

I read a few of the comments and one stood out as plausible. Using a combination of batteries and a single engine the powers a generator vice a propeller; a significantly more fuel efficient aircraft design may be just around the corner

[Sparky Nelson]

I read a few of the comments and one stood out as plausible. Using a combination of batteries and a single engine the powers a generator vice a propeller; a significantly more fuel efficient aircraft design may be just around the corner

 

That's kind of how diesel electric locomotives work. The diesel engine drives a generator which powers motors on individual wheels. That allows smart electronics to sense which wheels are giving the best traction and divert more power to them, increasing efficiency. Plus the diesel engine is driving a much more consistent load in the generator, so it doesn't need a fancy transmission and can be tuned for best efficiency as well.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Not bad. Sometimes though logic holds us back. and things that seem illogical on the surface turn out to actually be a better way of doing things.

 

100%

 

GG ~

[Utah Bob #35998]

Meh.

The nation that controls magnmetism will control the universe.

Diet Smith

-Dick Tracy 1962-

[twelve mile REB]

Of course Smith was right. Once we can manipulate natural electrical fields of which magnetism is one, the world and mankind will never be the same.

[Trailrider #896]

Not bad. Sometimes though logic holds us back. and things that seem illogical on the surface turn out to actually be a better way of doing things. I am not smart enough to do the required calculations to prove or disprove their designs but I am sure they have engineers that smart on the payroll.

 

Becasue it is kinda relevant; I got to sit in on a brief of the results of the accident investigation the Space Shuttle Columbia. Navy Admiral was giving the brief. A lot of VERY smart engineers were betting their paychecks that there was no way that a peice of foam could puncture the wing structure. The Admiral stated that you could have heard a pin drop on a feather pillow because the room was that quiet when the foam punctured the mockup of the shuttle wing. Sometimes our intelligence gets in the way of progress.

 

You can read more about the accident investigation here and here

Sorry, Dave! It wasn't the engineers that failed on Columbia (nor on Challenger, either). It was the management types that in the case of Columbia browbeat the engineers who wanted to have USAF's ground-based cameras look at Columbia's wing into withdrawing their request for the photos! The same with Malloy's telling Morton-Thiokol's engineer to "think like a manager, not like an engineer!" Those managers got to retire with their "golden parachutes"; the 14 astronauts got their names engraved on a wall! It isn't our intelligence that gets in the way of progress. It's arrogance and failure to listen to the engineers, as well as management types cutting the "bottom line" by laying off experienced engineers so the bean counters can pay bright young college grads...who have no experience, and can't learn from those laid off because the latter aren't there anymore! Then the managers wondered why things fell out of the sky in flaming pieces, or crashing on the surface of Mars because nobody had enough experience to ask JPL what they were working to, metric or English units of measure! O, gee, am I bitter? Why would think that?

[Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795]

Why don't you tell'em how you feel, Trailrider?Bean counters will be the death of us all

[Trailrider #896]

Why don't you tell'em how you feel, Trailrider?Bean counters will be the death of us all

Ya know... Maybe managers, like parachute riggers, ought to be made to ride on hardware they manage!

[Sedalia Dave]

Sorry, Dave! It wasn't the engineers that failed on Columbia (nor on Challenger, either). It was the management types that in the case of Columbia browbeat the engineers who wanted to have USAF's ground-based cameras look at Columbia's wing into withdrawing their request for the photos! The same with Malloy's telling Morton-Thiokol's engineer to "think like a manager, not like an engineer!" Those managers got to retire with their "golden parachutes"; the 14 astronauts got their names engraved on a wall! It isn't our intelligence that gets in the way of progress. It's arrogance and failure to listen to the engineers, as well as management types cutting the "bottom line" by laying off experienced engineers so the bean counters can pay bright young college grads...who have no experience, and can't learn from those laid off because the latter aren't there anymore! Then the managers wondered why things fell out of the sky in flaming pieces, or crashing on the surface of Mars because nobody had enough experience to ask JPL what they were working to, metric or English units of measure! O, gee, am I bitter? Why would think that?

You are correct and I agree. Management was the issue not engineering. The dufus that decided that you could go to school, read a few books and suddenly be able to manage a company has doomed the rest of us to a life of misery.

[Aunt Jen]

Meh.

The nation that controls magnmetism will control the universe.

Diet Smith

-Dick Tracy 1962-

No. the nation that controls Doritos will control the world.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Trailrider #896, on 23 Mar 2015 - 7:13 PM, said:

Sorry, Dave! It wasn't the engineers that failed on Columbia (nor on Challenger, either). It was the management types that in the case of Columbia browbeat the engineers who wanted to have USAF's ground-based cameras look at Columbia's wing into withdrawing their request for the photos! The same with Malloy's telling Morton-Thiokol's engineer to "think like a manager, not like an engineer!" Those managers got to retire with their "golden parachutes"; the 14 astronauts got their names engraved on a wall! It isn't our intelligence that gets in the way of progress. It's arrogance and failure to listen to the engineers, as well as management types cutting the "bottom line" by laying off experienced engineers so the bean counters can pay bright young college grads...who have no experience, and can't learn from those laid off because the latter aren't there anymore! Then the managers wondered why things fell out of the sky in flaming pieces, or crashing on the surface of Mars because nobody had enough experience to ask JPL what they were working to, metric or English units of measure! O, gee, am I bitter? Why would think that?

 

You are correct and I agree. Management was the issue not engineering. The dufus that decided that you could go to school, read a few books and suddenly be able to manage a company has doomed the rest of us to a life of misery.

Y'all is getting dangerously close to a peeve of mine that tends to get me pretty torqued if I think to hard on it. And don't worry, I am in complete agreement with your thread.

When I started in public energy utilities (gas and electric), the CEOs and their top tier of leadership were all engineers who'd come up through the ranks and understood the ins and outs of providing energy to the public. The accountants and lawyers all advised them, but the blame line fell to the engineers and good decisions came from them.

Then de-regulation set in and within five years, the senior engineers were parachuted, accountants and lawyers became CEOs, engineers were relegated to advisory status, and stockholders became king. You think Challenger and Columbia were bad, wait 'till you see what happens to our energy infrastructure in the next twenty years.

[Sedalia Dave]

 

Trailrider #896, on 23 Mar 2015 - 7:13 PM, said:

 

You are correct and I agree. Management was the issue not engineering. The dufus that decided that you could go to school, read a few books and suddenly be able to manage a company has doomed the rest of us to a life of misery.

Y'all is getting dangerously close to a peeve of mine that tends to get me pretty torqued if I think to hard on it. And don't worry, I am in complete agreement with your thread.

When I started in public energy utilities (gas and electric), the CEOs and their top tier of leadership were all engineers who'd come up through the ranks and understood the ins and outs of providing energy to the public. The accountants and lawyers all advised them, but the blame line fell to the engineers and good decisions came from them.

Then de-regulation set in and within five years, the senior engineers were parachuted, accountants and lawyers became CEOs, engineers were relegated to advisory status, and stockholders became king. You think Challenger and Columbia were bad, wait 'till you see what happens to our energy infrastructure in the next twenty years.

 

Makes me very fearful for my grandchildren when I contemplate the word they will grow old in.

[Trailrider #896]

As far as our energy infrastructure is concerned, since I wound up in an off-base house that had no backup to the electrically-run gas-forced-air heating system at -52 deg.F., I've never owned a house that didn't have a wood-burning fireplace! At that temp, the car wouldn't start, even with tank heater plugged in. Finally got that started next morning at -37 deg! Fortunately, the power stayed on. When the Great New York Blackout happened in November of 1965, I was out West. Remember thinking how much we take for granted our electricity and other energy sources.