"Green" Aviation Show

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79138
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10976

"Green" Aviation Show




by Christophe » 31/05/10, 09:52

Paris - Le Bourget, Air and Space Museum

IFP will participate in the Green Aviation Show to be held from June 18 to 20, 2010 at the Air and Space Museum, at Paris - Le Bourget Airport

IFP will have a stand and participate in the round table on Saturday 19 June at 10:30 am: "The energy and environmental challenge: biofuels and new engines"

The considerable development of air transport increased traffic by 100 between 1950 and 2000. This performance was obtained thanks to the entry into service in 1952 of a remarkable means of transport, the subsonic jet transport aircraft; half a century later, the concept of the product remains unchanged, even if technology has improved its efficiency. If nothing were to hinder it, the progression should continue at a sustained pace during the XNUMXst century; however, air transport is today facing a change in its operating conditions due to the consideration of the environment and the gradual decline in oil production.

This round table, chaired by Georges Ville (Air and Space Academy) and which brings together Philippe Novelli (ONERA / DEFA) and Xavier Montagne (IFP), will try to review the solutions proposed in terms of biofuels and new engines to allow air transport to continue its development while respecting these new constraints.

+ Info
www.aviation-verte.org


Source: IFP http://www.ifp.fr/actualites/evenements ... tion-verte
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 30/06/10, 21:18

Green aviation = eco-marketing?

Following recent press releases regarding aircraft powered by agro fuels, here is an "agro" update of the document " aircraft and CO2 ", See pages 23 to 26 http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/avions_et_co2.pdf (these are transport aircraft).

In contrast, our light aircraft have enormous potential for progress (identical to our cars) ... and even more by transforming "the bird" into a glider (thermal = solar flight).

Michel

PS: I am preparing a funny paper on the ravages of "eco-marketing".
Last edited by Michel Kieffer the 12 / 07 / 10, 07: 19, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 30/06/10, 22:41

: Idea: Even if electric aviation is still in its infancy, it has great potential ...
I recently met a specialist in dones and Multicopters who told me to use this architecture for a personal electric transporter ...
I promised myself to see him again ...
Having seen some of its flying machines spin, I was amazed at the performance and flying qualities of multicopters.
Many videos are available on the web ...
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 01/07/10, 09:41

Citro,

Preamble: the first action is to reduce the energy requirements (= useful energy Eu) of the means of transport. Potential for cars: -65%; light aircraft potential: -65; TGV potential: - 50%; Airliner potential: -20 / 25% (see doc http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/objectif_co2.pdf )

Once this optimization work has been done, let us ask ourselves the question of the choice of engine. Conversely, working on the motorization while Eu is disproportionate makes no sense. And this, all the more so since the efficiency of thermal engines at constant speed has remained constant for 80 years… despite the hyper sophistication of the most “modern” aircraft engines (eco marketing, when you hold us…). Note that the "green living room" does not address this fundamental notion (everything else is 2nd or 3rd order) which consists of understanding, quantifying and reducing the Eu.

The electric car takes its advantage when the engine load is low and variable (note that it was you who opened my eyes some time ago : Lol: ...). Under the same conditions, unlike the electric car, the thermal car sees its performance plummet: 17% for the complete car on mixed cycle and even less in city use.

On the other hand, the aircraft engine operates at high load and without variation in load. In this context, the efficiency of the heat engine increases to 30%!

If the other criteria for choosing a light aircraft are:
- autonomy
- heating in winter
- speed of energy replenishment…

..then the thermal plane wins hands down (see the document http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/avion_electrique.pdf ). However, the electric plane can enter the race for a motor-glider type use. Most of the energy is then of solar origin (thermals). But not in winter for lack of heating! Note that the last paramotor lounge in Basse Ham http://www.mondial-paramoteur.org/ gave pride of place to electric paramotors: takeoff + climb to the engine then thermal without the engine (In this case, heating does not matter).

It remains to estimate the interest of solar cells for a light electric aircraft. In fact, not much in overall balance, see page 32 of the document "electric plane". Do not compare with the single-seater "sunseeker" optimized to fly at 65 km / h and whose maximum laden mass is 230 kg which explains a very low Eu. A two-seater airplane calculated at the extreme loads imposed by the regulations cannot reach such a low Eu.

Last point, the airliners. See the developments from page 14 of the document http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/avions_et_co2.pdf .

In conclusion, long live the small light electric car in semi-urban use, yes for the electric paramotor to allow thermal flight with the engine off, blah blah for the light electric aircraft except for glider motorcycle use. As for the "green" airliner, we are entering the most detestable extremes of eco marketing ...

Michel
Last edited by Michel Kieffer the 01 / 07 / 10, 22: 40, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79138
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10976




by Christophe » 01/07/10, 10:04

Ah I was telling myself that this subject was going to interest people, it just took "1 month" : Cheesy:

I have mirrored the .pdf: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... Uk3qdQ.pdf

I hope you don't mind Michel?
0 x
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 01/07/10, 13:51

Michel Kieffer wrote:
Preamble: the first action is to reduce the energy requirements (= useful energy Eu) of the means of transport. Potential for cars: -65%; light aircraft potential: -65; TGV potential: - 50%; Airliner potential: -20 / 25% (see doc http://www.hkw-aero.fr/pdf/objectif_co2.pdf )

Once this optimization work has been done, let us ask ourselves the question of the choice of engine.
And this, all the more so since the efficiency of thermal engines at constant speed has remained constant for 80 years ... despite the hyper sophistication of the most "modern" aircraft engines (eco marketing, as far as you are concerned ...).

The electric car takes its advantage when the engine load is low and variable (note that it was you who opened my eyes some time ago : Lol: ...). Under the same conditions, unlike the electric car, the thermal car sees its performance plummet: 17% for the complete car on mixed cycle and even less in city use.

On the other hand, the aircraft engine operates at high load and without variation in load. In this context, the efficiency of the heat engine increases to 30%!

If the other criteria for choosing a light aircraft are:
- autonomy
- heating in winter
- speed of energy replenishment…

..then the thermal airplane wins hands down yes for the electric paramotor to allow thermal flight with the engine off, blah blah for the light electric airplane except for glider motorcycle use. As for the "green" airliner, we are entering the most detestable extremes of eco marketing ...

Michel


In my opinion your forecasts of "possible" gains are quite optimistic because what slows down are the economic constraints and the feasibility: for example for a transport plane, the ideal would be a flying wing, except this type of configuration is incompatible with current airports that are already struggling to receive an A380 or an AN 124 ...
As far as aircraft engines are concerned, you are wrong: you only have to compare a 100cv continental / lycomming engine and a Rotax 912S: consumption at equal load is significantly lower on the Rotax and this despite the mechanical losses due to the reducer ... and the Rotax has nothing very modern (Bing motorcycle carburetors = technology of the 60s ...). With a modern air-powered engine (BMW 1200 "take off" for example) we descend very clearly below ... Do not forget that the technology of classic aircraft engines dates from the 30s! Moreover, some are still produced identically from the time: the Czech Lom Praha engines (4 and 6 cylinders reversed, specific consumption and TBO ditto conti / lyco) ...
For the car, indeed, the electric hybrid is very valid for the reasons that you announce, for the plane and ulm by cons, indeed it makes no sense ... in the current state of the art of less ...
With a paramotor you can hardly do a thermal thermal because it is much more risky than with a paraglider because of the weight of the engine and the reduced maneuverability ... in addition, it is strongly recommended to have a parachute of rescue in thermal flight because of the risk of the canopy closing (almost every year fatal accidents in the Vosges, it is true often caused by flaps): a paraglider is only a cloth, much more dangerous in turbulence than even ultra light glider (like swift) which can "get out" much more quickly ...
0 x
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 01/07/10, 18:23

Christophe,

…better late than never : Cheesy: .

Michel

PS: no problem for the link.
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 01/07/10, 18:55

Michel Kieffer wrote:Michel

PS: no problem for the link.


If precisely, no way to open the link, the same on Christophe's mirror, he begins to open the pdf on a black page and stays there : Shock: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Michel Kieffer
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 716
Registration: 21/12/08, 18:25
Location: Strasbourg
x 7




by Michel Kieffer » 01/07/10, 22:39

See update on page 2
Last edited by Michel Kieffer the 02 / 07 / 10, 22: 44, 2 edited once.
0 x
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 02/07/10, 11:31

Michel Kieffer wrote::
- ROTAX 912: 0,24 kg / cv.h (source "MONDIAL DE AVIATION").
LYCOMING: 0,18 to 0,25 kg / cv.h (design in the 30s) (source: "MONDIAL DE AVIATION").
- SMA (diesel): 0,23 kg / hp.h (diesel design 1990 and still under development) (source "MONDIAL DE AVIATION").

As for the mass quality, the oldest are the best. Their mass qualities are between 0,6 and 1 kg / hp.
Current petrol engines are above 1 kg / hp.
As for the aero diesels, their deplorable mass qualities (of the order of 1,5 kg / cv or more) greatly degrade the balance sheet compared to petrol engines.


In conclusion, for the engine part, the green aviation show should honor the engines of the 30s!

Michel


There are the statements and the reality (there are hundreds of errors in the world, errors that have been repeated in "copy / paste" for years ... moreover the publishers of the world are well aware of it. .)
found in real life by an American magazine (which cannot therefore be accused of bias):
-continental 0-200 100hp at 75% 6.3 USgal / hour = 23.8L / h
-Rotax 912S 100hp at 75%: 4.9 USgal / hour = 18.5L / h
a difference of ~ 25% ...

-The SMA is not 0.23, but 0.144 kg / hp / h ...

As for the ultra modern BMW take off 1200cc 100cv which is announced at 0.310kg / cv / h worldwide (one of these countless particularly gross errors!), It actually comes to 0.198kg / cv / h ...
The lighter old engines ?, the very big maybe (and still not all!
But not the small ones, for light aircraft, like for example the very famous Salmson ADR9 of 65hp, which weighed 79kg, or more than a 912S of 100hp (and again I chose the best Salmson in the category ...). ..One of the lightest at the time, the Walter Mikron weighed 70kg dry, for 65hp at the time ... (the current version is pushed to 75hp).
As for the weight of modern engines, when they are supercharged they are good, and the Wankels of Mazda origin are even excellent and their consumption not so high as that at constant speed (the over-consumption is then much less obvious than on a car) ...
Note that supercharging is a big advantage on an aircraft because it allows power to be maintained at a higher altitude ... Consumption level, modern turbo gasoline engines are light and very economical at constant speed ("downsized" engines like on said today ...)
When diesel, SMA or Thielert are very bad examples, if you take a Wilksch (2-stroke diesel supercharged), we arrive under 1kg per hp with a specific consumption barely worse ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 167 guests