{"id":11014,"date":"2016-07-26T14:21:43","date_gmt":"2016-07-26T21:21:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.foundation\/blog\/?p=11014"},"modified":"2016-07-26T14:21:43","modified_gmt":"2016-07-26T21:21:43","slug":"want-to-see-a-big-tesla-fly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cafe.foundation\/blog\/want-to-see-a-big-tesla-fly\/","title":{"rendered":"Want to See a Big Tesla Fly?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Teslarati<\/em>, the forum for Tesla fans, includes a fascinating concept for an electric\/jet airliner, as proposed by Peter Egan, a web-site member from Artarmon, New South Wales, Australia<\/a>.\u00a0 His proposal could be applied to smaller jet airliners in anything up to the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 class.<\/p>\n

He uses a Bombardier CJR1000 100-passenger regional jet for his example, and shows a large motor pod-elevator replacement on each side of the fin, with counter-rotating propellers on either side of the rudder.\u00a0 (Whether this arrangement would be aerodynamically or structurally sound remains open to investigation.)\u00a0 His concept drawing includes the existing General Electric-CF34-8C5A1 turbofans for comparison, but they would be removed.<\/p>\n

\"CRJ1000

CRJ1000 modified for electric\u00a0flight, 2,500 kilometer (1,550 mile) range with reduced fuel use. \u00a0Note horizontal tail is replaced with elevator\/motor mount system. \u00a0Conventional jet engines would be removed in this version and are shown here for size comparison<\/p><\/div>\n

The GE engines put out 13,630 pounds (60.6 kiloNewtons) of thrust at takeoff.\u00a0 Peter substitutes a pair of twin- motor\/counter-rotating propeller units, each with: two permanent magnet electric motors, rated at 1,200 kW (1,608 hp.) continuous power, with 1,400 kW (1,876 hp.) each available for takeoff.\u00a0 That totals 5,600kW (7,506 hp.) for take-off, from motors weighing 280 kilograms (616 pounds ) each and totaling 1,120 kilograms (2,464 pounds).<\/p>\n

A single Pratt & Whitney PW127TS \u2013 1,864 kilowatts (2,498 hp.) continuous with 2,386 kW (3,198 hp) take-off power would power two 1,000 kilowatt (1,340 hp.) (up to 1,200 kW, or 2,608 hp. for takeoff power) generators to provide energy to the batteries.\u00a0 Batteries in turn consist of forty 21.15 kilowatt-hour modules for a total of 846 kW.h \u2013 5.75% above the airplane\u2019s nominal capacity of 800 kWh.\u00a0 They would give a battery-only range of 100 kilometers (62 miles) with a 10 kilometer reserve (6.2 miles) if the APU fails, enough in most circumstances to find a safe landing.\u00a0 Peter adds to that the altitude glide reserve plus battery reserve.\u00a0 This all adds up to about 12 minutes flight time without the APU operational.<\/p>\n

To support the aircraft, a Tesla tug would tow the airplane to the end of the runway before takeoff and a 1,000 kW charger would bring batteries up to full charge while the airplane is parked.\u00a0 Wheel motors will taxi the aircraft and help it accelerate to takeoff speed.<\/p>\n

\"CRJ1000

CRJ1000 in more conventional form<\/p><\/div>\n

Peter calculates a \u201c25 percent improvement in fuel economy expected compared to 86 seat Bombardier Q400 turboprop.\u201d\u00a0 The same motor\/APU concept could be applied to other aircraft in this size and weight range, according to Mr. Egan. \u00a0You can see more details on this interesting proposal here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Certainly, with growing concern over environmental and health issues regarding fossil-fuel powered jet liners, improvements in fuel economy and a concomitant reduction in emissions will be welcome.\u00a0 Peter Egan\u2019s concept is a launch point for many possible iterations and variations.<\/p>\n