Siemens' 110 lb world-record electric aircraft motor produce 348 hp at 2,500 RPM

http://www.gizmag.com/siemens-world-record-electric-motor-aircraft/37048/
Siemens' world-record electric aircraft motor punches above its weight
COLIN JEFFREY APRIL 20, 2015 7 PICTURES
Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric
aircraft engine with a claimed ...
Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft
engine with a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram (Photo:
Siemens)
Image Gallery (7 images)
Researchers at Siemens have created a new prototype electric motor specifically
designed for aircraft that weighs in at just 50 kg (110 lb) and is claimed to
produce about 260 kW (348 hp) at just 2,500 RPM. With a quoted power five times
greater than any comparable powerplant, the new motor promises enough grunt to
get aircraft with take-off weights of up to 1,800 kg (2 ton) off the ground.

The motor was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research
Program LuFo as a ... Siemens hopes to see further evolutionary increases to
the power output of their new electric motor ... Researchers also utilized a
range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction
.... Weighing in at just 50 kilograms (110 lb), a new prototype electric motor
specifically designed for ...
Researchers say they produced such a light but powerful motor by analyzing all
of the components of previous electric aircraft motors and incorporating
optimized improvements to these in their new prototype. Added to this, the
researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the
motor prior to construction, before then applying the findings to produce the
lightest and strongest set of components possible.

As a result, the new aircraft electric drive system achieves a claimed
weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram. This ratio is an exceptional
figure – especially if compared to similarly powerful industrial electric
motors used in heavy machinery that produce less than 1 kW per kilogram, or
even to more efficient electric motors for vehicles that generate around 2 kW
per kilogram. The four electric motors in the Solar Impulse 2, by comparison,
produce just 7.5 kW (10 hp) each.

The new Siemens electric motor is also direct drive and does not require a
transmission, spinning a propeller up to speeds of around 2,500 RPM.


"This innovation will make it possible to build series hybrid-electric aircraft
with four or more seats," said Frank Anton, Head of eAircraft at Siemens
Corporate Technology, the company's central research unit. "We're convinced
that the use of hybrid-electric drives in regional airliners with 50 to 100
passengers is a real medium-term possibility."

Siemens has been involved in a range of electric motor driven vehicles,
including a collaboration with Volvo on a fast-charging motor vehicle and with
shipping company Norland for an electrically-driven passenger ferry.

This electric motor innovation, however, may be just the ticket for the
company's joint venture with the Diamond aircraft company, who they supply with
electric fan motors for their DA36 E-Star 2 motor glider. The last one
generated just 60 kW.

The motor, which was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research
Program LuFo as a project of Grob Aircraft and Siemens, is planned to start
in-flight-testing before the end of 2015. Siemens also hopes to see further
evolutionary increases to the power output in the not-too-distant future.

Source: Siemens

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:38:18 PM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.gizmag.com/siemens-world-record-electric-motor-aircraft/37048/
Siemens' world-record electric aircraft motor punches above its weight
COLIN JEFFREY APRIL 20, 2015 7 PICTURES
Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric
aircraft engine with a claimed ...
Researchers working at Siemens say that they have produced an electric aircraft
engine with a claimed weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram (Photo:
Siemens)
Image Gallery (7 images)
Researchers at Siemens have created a new prototype electric motor specifically
designed for aircraft that weighs in at just 50 kg (110 lb) and is claimed to
produce about 260 kW (348 hp) at just 2,500 RPM. With a quoted power five times
greater than any comparable powerplant, the new motor promises enough grunt to
get aircraft with take-off weights of up to 1,800 kg (2 ton) off the ground.

The motor was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research
Program LuFo as a ... Siemens hopes to see further evolutionary increases to
the power output of their new electric motor ... Researchers also utilized a
range of computer simulation methods to model the motor prior to construction
... Weighing in at just 50 kilograms (110 lb), a new prototype electric motor
specifically designed for ...
Researchers say they produced such a light but powerful motor by analyzing all
of the components of previous electric aircraft motors and incorporating
optimized improvements to these in their new prototype. Added to this, the
researchers also utilized a range of computer simulation methods to model the
motor prior to construction, before then applying the findings to produce the
lightest and strongest set of components possible.

As a result, the new aircraft electric drive system achieves a claimed
weight-to-performance ratio of 5 kW per kilogram. This ratio is an exceptional
figure - especially if compared to similarly powerful industrial electric
motors used in heavy machinery that produce less than 1 kW per kilogram, or
even to more efficient electric motors for vehicles that generate around 2 kW
per kilogram. The four electric motors in the Solar Impulse 2, by comparison,
produce just 7.5 kW (10 hp) each.

The new Siemens electric motor is also direct drive and does not require a
transmission, spinning a propeller up to speeds of around 2,500 RPM.


"This innovation will make it possible to build series hybrid-electric aircraft
with four or more seats," said Frank Anton, Head of eAircraft at Siemens
Corporate Technology, the company's central research unit. "We're convinced
that the use of hybrid-electric drives in regional airliners with 50 to 100
passengers is a real medium-term possibility."

Siemens has been involved in a range of electric motor driven vehicles,
including a collaboration with Volvo on a fast-charging motor vehicle and with
shipping company Norland for an electrically-driven passenger ferry.

This electric motor innovation, however, may be just the ticket for the
company's joint venture with the Diamond aircraft company, who they supply with
electric fan motors for their DA36 E-Star 2 motor glider. The last one
generated just 60 kW.

The motor, which was developed with the support of the German Aviation Research
Program LuFo as a project of Grob Aircraft and Siemens, is planned to start
in-flight-testing before the end of 2015. Siemens also hopes to see further
evolutionary increases to the power output in the not-too-distant future.

Source: Siemens

Electric Airplanes:

More torque

More BHP

Altitude unaffected

Quieter

No plugs

No carburetor

Sustainable

Lighter weight

No messy fluids

As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA
and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out
whopping power from a container the size of a coffee
thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure
standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up
for weeks at a time.

Thanks for the post. I had it in my electric plane
database. Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPUOI6Urg8

---

On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote:
As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a
battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than
the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you
would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the
generator, motor, battery, and controller.


In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA
and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out
whopping power from a container the size of a coffee
thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure
standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up
for weeks at a time.

Sorry, that is just complete nonsense! Forgetting for a moment the
problems with carrying highly radioactive materials in an aircraft, and
forgetting that those materials are so rare and expensive that even few
spacecraft use them these days, RTGs are very inefficient devices. Most
produce, at most, a few hundred watts of electrical power, a tiny
fraction of what a full-sized aircraft would need.

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote:
As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a
battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than
the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you
would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the
generator, motor, battery, and controller.


In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA
and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out
whopping power from a container the size of a coffee
thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure
standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up
for weeks at a time.

Sorry, that is just complete nonsense! Forgetting for a moment the
problems with carrying highly radioactive materials in an aircraft,

Yes, I said "in a perfect world" (not the current one). While
it's legal to obtain a permit to work with radioactive material,
few can do it, and the FAA wouldn't even consider such. But
then, who says you have to do it in a modern country.

and
forgetting that those materials are so rare and expensive

They can be obtained for a few planes, but no, you couldn't
mass produce this system. I think you may be surprised at
how easy it is to obtain an isotope on the world market.

that even few
spacecraft use them these days,

They are still used in every deep space mission.

RTGs are very inefficient devices.

They are highly efficient. It's just a thermocouple system.

Most
produce, at most, a few hundred watts of electrical power, a tiny
fraction of what a full-sized aircraft would need.

Well yes. I wasn't suggesting attaching the motor itself to
the RTG. I'm saying- if you have a battery bank that may last
say 2 hours stand alone, then having the storage system
permanently connected to this battery charger, depending on
your draw, would be a tremendous extender. It's like having
your battery bank plugged into a wall socket at all times
to an electrical source much stronger than a trickle charger.
Your watt/amp gauge would tell you when to conserve.

And yes, 400 watts would be about max. Really the question is,
"how much electricity can I replace with the charger, as
opposed to what the motor is pulling out of the battery bank".
If you are soaring, you're using no power but it's still
charging.

---

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:02:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote:
As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a
battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than
the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you
would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the
generator, motor, battery, and controller.


In an ideal world, there would be a RTG such as NASA
and Russian lighthouses have used for decades. The
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators can put out
whopping power from a container the size of a coffee
thermos. Fairly benign from a gamma ray exposure
standpoint, you could keep an electric airplane up
for weeks at a time.

Sorry, that is just complete nonsense! Forgetting for a moment the
problems with carrying highly radioactive materials in an aircraft,

Yes, I said "in a perfect world" (not the current one). While
it's legal to obtain a permit to work with radioactive material,
few can do it, and the FAA wouldn't even consider such. But
then, who says you have to do it in a modern country.

and
forgetting that those materials are so rare and expensive

They can be obtained for a few planes, but no, you couldn't
mass produce this system. I think you may be surprised at
how easy it is to obtain an isotope on the world market.

that even few
spacecraft use them these days,

They are still used in every deep space mission.

RTGs are very inefficient devices.

They are highly efficient. It's just a thermocouple system.

Most
produce, at most, a few hundred watts of electrical power, a tiny
fraction of what a full-sized aircraft would need.

Well yes. I wasn't suggesting attaching the motor itself to
the RTG. I'm saying- if you have a battery bank that may last
say 2 hours stand alone, then having the storage system
permanently connected to this battery charger, depending on
your draw, would be a tremendous extender. It's like having
your battery bank plugged into a wall socket at all times
to an electrical source much stronger than a trickle charger.
Your watt/amp gauge would tell you when to conserve.

And yes, 400 watts would be about max. Really the question is,
"how much electricity can I replace with the charger, as
opposed to what the motor is pulling out of the battery bank".
If you are soaring, you're using no power but it's still
charging.

---

I believe an automobile, due to weight and tire friction, requires more power
than a plane. This is just a guess.

"According to the company, their technology would allow you to charge the battery of a Nissan Leaf in 12 minutes instead of four hours. Because that battery has a capacity of 24 kWh, a back-of-the-envelope extrapolation would give us a charging time of 42 minutes for the 85 kWh battery of a top of the line Tesla Model S."

http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fa...battery/32121/

---

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote:
As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a
battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than
the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you
would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the
generator, motor, battery, and controller.

Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional
designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed-
Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which
would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG,
is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major
electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons
total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This
cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical
system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control
surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by
wire software.

This may sound a little exotic, but other people have
verified the plausibility and science behind it. A
home-build isn't out of the question. With generator,
super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries,
the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat.

---

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:51:57 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 11/14/2015 5:14 PM, wrote:
As researchers continue to work on creating better
batteries, the logical solution all along was always
the Auxiliary Power Unit for charging.

Well yes that will work (assuming an electric drive train with a
battery) , ...as long as that APU produces significantly MORE power than
the average that you will need at the prop hub. The reason why you
would need MORE power is to make up for the losses inherent in the
generator, motor, battery, and controller.

Also, I forgot to mention that I'm a professional
designer and illustrator, formerly with Lockheed-
Martin. Within this electric airplane concept which
would sustain these very long ranges with an RTG,
is a series of conforming "mini-tanks" which encapsulate major
electrical components. Holding no more than 5 gallons
total, you top them off with liquid nitrogen. This
cryogenic sealed system effectively turns your electrical
system into a zero-resistance super conductor. Control
surfaces are best facilitated with servos and fly by
wire software.

This may sound a little exotic, but other people have
verified the plausibility and science behind it. A
home-build isn't out of the question. With generator,
super conduction, and fast charge NON-lithium batteries,
the range may really be how long you can sit in a seat.

---

Here's some other guys design of the same idea, but EDFs
(electric ducted fans)are less efficient than propellers.

....superconducting machines have already achieved power densities comparable to turbine engines. To fully enable electric flight however, power densities need to improve even further, which is only possible with all-superconducting machines. We developed design concepts for revolutionary aircraft using superconducting machines for propulsion and showed that with further development in superconducting and cryocooling technologies, all within reach, superconductivity- enabled flight could be a reality...

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Scienc...p?NewsNum=2712

---

Just for clarification here, while it would be nice to
have an RTG (especially since it takes 100 years to run
out of charge) obviously for the ordinary man and pilot
this would be difficult. Also, adherence to rules is of
course, foremost. It is however a do-able concept that
doesn't violate the law of energy conservation.

That being said, simply replace that component with a
hydrogen fuel cell. A little different, but people are
doing it and it works for an APU charger. Combined
with quick charge batteries, you'll be fine.

Lastly I want to give an illustration. If you take a
dc light bulb, a 9 volt battery, and say... 50 feet or
more of wire and make the connection, you will either
see no light, or a faint orange glow. Then if you take
that same coil of wire and drop it into a bucket of
liquid nitrogen with the 2 ends hanging out, then connect
the bulb and battery, it will burn as bright white as
the battery touching the bulb itself. This is due to
zero resistance and super conductivity.

Now, being realistic think of an airplane today with
a long wiring harness of several wires. It will be
zip tied to the frame and run through grommets at
points to prevent sheathing penetration. What if we
take that harness and run it through an insulated
metal tubing, with leak-proof ends. Imagine an insertion
point wherein you can inject liquid nitrogen. You
have now just done the same thing as in the above
illustration.

This is just one example of my design that could be
installed in your cryogenic system to achieve super
conductivity. Should the liquid nitrogen warm over an
extended period... it will harmlessly vaporize, and
you'll recharge it as needed.

---

The concept wherein an "antennae" actually receives the directed
energy while in flight, and recharges your battery bank.


"It remains to be seen exactly what the specifications and consumer reception for Ossia and uBeam's technology will be. Nonetheless, the need for wireless power is real across a variety of applications. From simple consumer cell phones to electric vehicles, wireless power would fill a real need. If power could be transmitted long distances wirelessly, it would completely change "range anxiety" which has held back the EV market."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...ss-Energy.html

---

wrote:
The concept wherein an "antennae" actually receives the directed
energy while in flight, and recharges your battery bank.


"It remains to be seen exactly what the specifications and consumer reception for Ossia and uBeam's technology will be. Nonetheless, the need for wireless power is real across a variety of applications. From simple consumer cell phones to electric vehicles, wireless power would fill a real need. If power could be transmitted long distances wirelessly, it would completely change "range anxiety" which has held back the EV market."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...ss-Energy.html

---

Unfortunately the laws of physics says this is highly inefficient.

The efficiency is of minor importance when doing things like charge a
cell phone with takes milliwatts, but becomes totally impractical at
the megawatt level it would take to power even a small vehicle.


--
Jim Pennino