Elon Musk has said that he has a design for a vertical take off and landing super sonic electric jet. I was under the impression that jet engines work by burning fuel, expanding volume and thus creating force. How can this be done electrically?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
-
8$\begingroup$ The fuel-burning, gas-expanding stuff is only needed to drive a turbine. If you restrict the jet to a compressor which accelerates air flowing through a duct, an electric engine will do nicely. But to build an electric, man-carrying supersonic VTOL craft is clearly in the realm of science fiction. Today's technology cannot achieve this in any meaningful way. $\endgroup$– Peter KämpfCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 9:29
-
2$\begingroup$ Also a jet engine is a heat engine, so it can run on anything that heats and expands the volume of the air flowing through it. Electric heaters would work just fine. The problem is that jet fuel has better energy density and adds mass and volume, so batteries really can't compete in efficiency. I suspect Peter might be right and Musk actually was thinking about ducted fans with electric engines. That might make sense for short hops between grid powered pads. Did he really talk about it also being supersonic? $\endgroup$– Ville NiemiCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 9:50
-
$\begingroup$ The cynic in me is picturing the Starscream Model S - Amazing performance, but you have to stop at the 25 service stations between here and there, and don't let it strike anything lest it catch fire. $\endgroup$– CGCampbellCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 12:19
-
2$\begingroup$ @Peter Kämpf: But how is that a jet, and not an electrically-driven ducted propeller (AKA ducted fan: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan )? $\endgroup$– jamesqfCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 18:01
-
$\begingroup$ @jamesqf: Strictly speaking, it isn't. But Jon Story's answer explains it better than I ever could. Of all the far-out ideas coming from Mr. Musk, this one is probably the most misleading one - if what has been reported about it is correct. $\endgroup$– Peter KämpfCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 23:09
|
Show 1 more comment
5 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
Jet noun
- a rapid stream of liquid or gas forced out of a small opening
A Jet Engine is an Engine which uses a Jet for propulsion. Typically, a "rapid stream of gas", in which the gas is air. Really, we could count pretty much any aircraft engine as a jet, but it depends on how "rapid" you require the air to be before it's a jet.
In a typical jet engine as we define it now, the jet is created by burning fuel and air... but there's no requirement for that to be the case. An electric jet would simply use an electric motor to create a rapid stream of air.
Would it really be a "jet" engine? That depends how fast the air is - but most people see "jet" as being a fast, powerful, reliable type of aircraft, so it's as much about marketing as anything else. An Electric Prop or Electric Plane doesn't sound as cool as Electric Jet... (Although I'd argue that ElectroJet/ElectroProp/ElectroPlane are awesome names and Elon Musk has let himself down by not using one of those names)
-
6$\begingroup$ If we forget the vauge words "rapid" and "small" we are left with "a stream of liquid or gas forced out of an opening". This seems to draw a line between propellers than spin in open air and ducted fans which force air out of an opening. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 17:46
-
1$\begingroup$ A valid point, so yeah an electric ducted fan would probably count as a jet by that measure $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 17:47
-
$\begingroup$ I would rather ask, would it really be supersonic ? I thin that the first implentation of electric/hzbrid propulsion to commercial aviation I would rather be an electric regional TurboProp $\endgroup$– GHBCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 19:52
-
$\begingroup$ And for supersonic application I would rather rule out the Prop alternative, it would defenetly be a ducted Fan... $\endgroup$– GHBCommented Mar 23, 2016 at 19:55
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
As far as I understand, the use of the word jet here has no relation to the engine type, except to exclude non-faired propellers.
It is being used as a synonym for aircraft, while keeping the appeal of modern jetliners as opposed to propeller planes, which are often considered "outdated" by the general public. This same public cannot usually tell a piston engine apart from a turboprop or even a propfan, so it is understandable.
My personal understanding or Mr. Musk's remarks is that he wants to develop a "more electric" or "all-electric" aircraft capable of both VTOL and supercruise at very high altitudes, more likely the later.
An all-electric aircraft uses batteries to store its energy, which is fed into electric propellers, fans, flapping wings or any other devices that convert it into thrust. On the other hand, the more electric approach usually keeps a fuel tank, a combustion engine of some sort and an alternator to transform the chemical energy in the fuel into electrical energy for an electric propulsion method. This is because the energy density in any type of aviation fuel is orders of magnitude higher than that of even the best modern batteries, so it's more efficient to carry fuel than batteries.
PERSONAL OPINION AHEAD
Mr. Musk is a businessman, not an engineer (he hires pretty good ones to do the engineering work, since he can afford it). So when he gives interviews, consider he's doing business, not arguing the details of his ideas.
Furthermore, while I think there is no aviation enthusiast who wouldn't love to see an operational, all-electric, supersonic, VTOL-capable airliner, the chances of it happening in the next couple of decades without some major breakthrough in fuel cell or battery technology are close to nill. Until such a thing happens, energy density will continue to keep such designs firmly in the realm of interviews and 3D renders
answered Aug 4, 2017 at 10:46
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
There are instances of interviews where Musk describes in detail what the intention is.
The aircraft's main advantage would be in his opinion, would be the ability to conduct high altitude flight in envelopes where engines requiring atmospheric oxygen to combust could not operate, thus able to move faster with less resistance.
He also talks about gimballing engines for control surfaces, and using it to have VTOL capacity.
The biggest issue right now is power density for it to even exist, but from a design stand point, I'm not sure that it would be wisest to leave your control surfaces to JUST the engines. The biggest benefits to having tails, canards etc, is that in the event of engine failure, you don't turn into a brick.
And also in higher altitudes, around (At least higher than 20km) 40-60 km, I imagine you might need RCS like control systems as backup.
But getting to the 'jet' part, I believe that it's precisely what you think of it as, a 'turbofan' with the core powered by a motor and gimballed.
-
2$\begingroup$
But getting to the 'jet' part, well, that would be the question, all the rest is accessory information.I believewell, that does not make for a nice answer, though, do you happen to have additional sources? $\endgroup$– FedericoCommented Jun 2, 2016 at 16:07 -
$\begingroup$ If there is not enough oxygen to burn fuel, will there be enough gas to propel? $\endgroup$– KoyovisCommented Aug 7, 2017 at 4:16
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Perhaps he means an electrostatic fluid accelerator. Mr Musk or his engineers are the appropriate parties to clarify what he has in mind. It could be a turbofan without a turbine (= just a fan).
I know he has proven the naysayers wrong about electrically propelled cars, but in the matter of electrically driven, supersonic VTOL aircraft, I remain a naysayer. I would be very excited to see a more detailed and viable design.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
Near as I know, this was a hypothetical proposal for an aircraft making use of gimballed electric motors, allowing it to redirect the thrust for VTOL flight operations. As for the supersonic part, that's going to be a tall order for Musk. So far there has only been one marginally successful supersonic VTOL aircraft put into production and that's the F-35B. It was nearly stillborn due to weight and complexity issues, can only hover with less than 40% total internal fuel, and whether the complicated lift fan system can operate in the demands of real combat remains to be seen. I can imagine the technical design challenges for doing all this and still making an ALL ELECTRIC aircraft as well makes me think Musks eyes are far bigger than his stomach.
UPDATE - Another idea which occurred to me about designing a supersonic VTOL vehicle like this would be a hybrid propulsion system using a gimballed electric drive ducted fan/cold diffuser for powered lift flight and acceleration combined with a chemical ramjet for high speed flight. It would be more advantageous than an all electric system and might be possible in the near future. It would require quite a powerful electric drive system to propel the craft up to the 400 - 500 KIAS required for the ramjet engines to become effective.
ANOTHER OPINION
After having worked in the aerospace world as a design engineer for 12 years, I'm going to give you all a little wisdom about the business.
There are a whole lot of fancy pieces of concept art and CGI in social media but little actual flight hardware which ever sees the light of day.
Airplanes are EXTREMELY complex vehicles in their current state to design and manufacturer, requiring billions of dollars and thousands of man years to bring into fruition. Increase the complexity of that design, even in trivial ways, and you drive the costs through the roof and imperil the enterprise to be stillborn, ensnared in its own complexity.
Musk, as stated above is an entrepreneur and software whiz, not an engineer. His PayPal system was brilliant but I can't say the same for SpaceX or his current Hyperloop boondoggle where design work seems to be pushed off to student design teams without even the slightest efforts made the real issued of designing a safe, evacuated tunnel for this thing to operate in and all with a laughably unrealistic price tag.
Anytime someone proposes such a design, ask yourself this one question: If it was that simple, why aren't Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop Grumman/Bombardier/Sukhoi/Chengu/Textron/Embraeer/Mitsubishi designing similar vehicles for lesss as they have the economies of scale on their side for these types of projects? This usually ferrets out the reasons why such a design won't work very quickly.
answered Aug 6, 2017 at 8:06
-
$\begingroup$ BMW did not start making electric cars until Musk productionised them. The established industry can be a tad complacent. But having said that, I'm with you in not believing that this can be done, or is even useful. $\endgroup$– KoyovisCommented Aug 6, 2017 at 8:15
-
1$\begingroup$ Irrelevant. We're talking about aircraft here and not cars and THERE IS A GRAND CANYON SIZED GULF BETWEEN THE DIFFICULTY OF DESIGNING A MODERN ELECTRIC CAR AND THIS KIND OF AN AIRCRAFT. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 6, 2017 at 9:02
-
1$\begingroup$ @Carlo Felicione how about the difficulty of designing rockets and docking with the ISS, then landing them, all at half the cost of one ULA launch? I agree that the technology simply isn't here yet, but "industry isn't doing it" is a horrible reason to believe this. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 6, 2017 at 17:21
-
$\begingroup$ Maybe there's your answer as to why the the industry isn't doing it. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 6, 2017 at 17:22
-
$\begingroup$ @A.W.Grossbard: That is easy: You poach the best engineers from ULA, a monopoly which has grown fat and lazy on public money and let them work freely, with no lawyers and beancounters telling them what to do. ULA has paid for the training of your workforce and the infinitesimally better working conditions will let you pick whoever you want. Morale is much improved and the usual blowhards have been filtered out. For me it is surprising that they still need half the money and not less. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 23:01