Timeline for Could there ever be a fully solar powered airliner capable of transatlantic flights?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2019 at 13:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Sep 28, 2019 at 14:44 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://aviation.stackexchange.com/ with https://aviation.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 26, 2016 at 7:02 | comment | added | reirab | @jamesqf Indeed. I said nothing about shape, just payload, speed, and range. | |
| Nov 26, 2016 at 5:34 | comment | added | jamesqf | @bogl: I think what is meant by "similar to a 737" is that the plane would carry a similar number of passengers the same distance in about the same time. What it's shaped like is irrelevant, as long as you can fit people in it. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 8:58 | comment | added | GdD | I assumed nothing @Agent_L, I'm answering the question as I understood it, which is can you power a large passenger airplane with cargo off of solar energy. Sure, a plane with a giant wing, 1/4 of the passengers of a 737 with no cargo but toothbrushes could probably be built, but then it would take 48 hours to get from London to New York instead of 8 and that's not really what people would want. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 7:52 | comment | added | Agent_L | You assumed that solar airliner would have same payload/wing area ratio as 737 while all current solar planes have already demonstrated it's done otherwise. Rest of your post is just a consequence of this mistake. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 5:24 | comment | added | jamesqf | Forget about getting into the air for a moment. (Assume we have anti-gravity or some similar handwavium.) It should be pretty easy (if you're into aerodynamics, anyway) to calculate your airliner's max speed from the CdA and the power available from solar cells. My guess is that it's going to be something under 60 mph, not 600. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 2:37 | comment | added | Jon Story | @reirab, as I said I assume that would be the conclusion too, but I don't feel this answer explains that fully, even without exploring how much lighter/slower the aircraft would have to be, and potential weight savings from future solar and battery technology | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 22:07 | comment | added | reirab | @JonStory Staying in the air uses less power than T/O, but not 30 times less. Even with 100% efficiency at noon at the equator in the summer, it's still not ever going to be enough (well, assuming we exclude the "sun going red giant" thing mentioned in a comment on another answer... that might do it.) | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 17:40 | comment | added | jamesqf | Just a couple of nits. First, the best commercial PV cells today are about 22% efficient, not 10%: cleantechnica.com/2015/10/03/… Doesn't change the bottom line, though. And second, theoretical limits don't allow 90% efficiency. IIRC about 50% is the best that can be done. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 17:29 | comment | added | mb21 | would be interesting to see a calculation on how light the aircraft would have to be to enable a transatlantic flight with 100 people on board and with current solar panel and battery technology. If the weight would have to be negative, its safe to say it's impossible. However, if the weight would have to be only very low, it's merely improbable... | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 17:25 | comment | added | njzk2 | you can use the body of the plane to put panels too, change the shape of the plane to get more lifting surface and more panel surface, slow down the plane a bit to get less drag, and use top of the line solar cell, with 44% efficiency instead of a mere 10% | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 17:03 | comment | added | Jon Story | @ratchetfreak if you read my comment again, I'm saying that "getting the 737 into the air" could be assisted by batteries, charged by solar power on the ground. Once at cruise altitude, an airliner uses significantly less power. And, of course, there's nothing to say that a larger wing is out of the question, nor solar panels on a flattened body design. I'm not saying those things would necessarily be enough, just that this answer only addresses the present | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 16:59 | vote | accept | anonymous | ||
| Nov 24, 2016 at 16:38 | history | edited | GdD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more on batteries
|
| Nov 24, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | ratchet freak | @JonStory even 100% efficient solars will only have about 3% of the power needed to get B737 up into the air. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 16:26 | history | edited | user14897 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 151 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2016 at 15:34 | comment | added | Jon Story | I disagree with this answer purely because it discusses current technology and current power conversion "best case": when the question is asking for "Could there ever". The question therefore becomes a question of whether a more "best case" 80 kW (assuming a larger wing and 80% efficiency) is enough for an aircraft in cruise flight. Batteries (charged by land based solar panels) could supply the takeoff power, supplemented in the air by solar power for cruising. I suspect the answer is still no, but not quite for the reasons you give | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 14:19 | history | edited | GdD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added science section
|
| Nov 24, 2016 at 12:15 | history | answered | GdD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |