GOLETA, California — LaunchPoint Electric Propulsion Solutions has received a U.S. patent for its “Lightweight, High-Efficiency, Energy-Dense, Hybrid Power System for Reliable Electric Flight.”
The patent is a milestone in LaunchPoint’s “mission to revolutionize electric flight and propel the aerospace industry into a new era of efficiency and reliability,” according to company officials.
“At its core, the patent describes an innovative system engineered to deliver power-dense, efficient, and reliable power for electric aircraft, supporting onboard applications as well as driving rotors and propellers for lift and thrust,” company officials explain.
“Electric propulsion holds immense promise for aircraft due to electric motors’ superior power-to-weight ratio compared to piston or turbine engines, enabling placement in aerodynamically favorable positions on aircraft,” officials continued. “However, the limitation of electric aircraft propulsion comes from the need for electric energy storage in the form of batteries, which are heavy and bulky. Typically, battery powered aircraft can only fly relatively short distances. For extended-duration flights, the battery electric propulsion concept proves unsuitable, and it has become universally known that the overall best solution is a hybrid-electric propulsion system.”
The patented LaunchPoint Hybrid Power System (HPS) combines an internal combustion engine with LaunchPoint’s dual Halbach array generator and a small battery pack to power a distributed electric drive system. It also includes energy and power management software tailored for various aircraft missions, company officials noted.
“In short, the LaunchPoint HPS elevates system-specific power while reducing energy storage mass,” company officials explained in a press release. “Moreover, the system excels in regulating variable voltage sources such as permanent magnet generators while functioning as a microgrid power manager, optimizing energy resources for reliable and fault-tolerant flight. Multiple systems can be used in parallel on the same DC Bus to achieve redundancy and availability goals.
For more information: LaunchPointEPS.com.
Quite a while ago I did a paper on hybrid aviation engines for my A&P class. It was short on math, but long on ideas.
The main idea was to use the ICE exhaust to drive a turbo which drove an electrical generator to charge a battery, The battery was used to augment the power the ICE was generating by using an electric motor/generator to assist the ICE crankshaft in delivering power to the propeller during takeoff and climb.
The power contributed by the electric motor would be subtracted from the power needed for takeoff and climb so the ICE could be downsized. Also, during descent, the propeller driving the crankshaft would turn the motor/generator into a generator and also charge the battery.
I also thought it might be possible to allow the electric motor to augment the ICE during cruise, to also increase fuel efficiency.
Of course, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Robert Heinlein in “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”. There is added weight and complexity. I don’t know if the smaller ICE engine would be enough to compensate for the complexity and weight penalty of the turbo, the motor/generator on the crankshaft, and the alternator being driven by the turbo.
Turbochargers are used in 2 ways on aircraft engines;
1. boost the intake manifold pressure to more than 29.9 inches, typically to 36 inches.
2. turbo-normalize, where the turbo maintains 29.9 inches in the intake manifold, providing ‘sea level’ HP.
There are a number of research studies with designs to recover the engine exhaust high temperatures and mass flow. But all are complex and estimate recovering about 10-20% of the ‘waste energy’.
BTW, ‘peaker’ electrical power plants use a jet engine to quickly supply power to the grid.
Some take the hot exhaust and flash water to steam and run a additional turbine, making this unit about 60% efficient.!!
Glad to hear some engineers replying. I asked several people what was the break even point for ic vs electric cars. About 2 years ago a known car magazine published an article describing that b.e. point is 150,000 miles.
Anyone have an idea what this b.e. point would be? Thanks and best wishes.
Private questions welcomed.
In an efficiency equation, basic math with a little conjecture seems to have a GA aircraft in maintenance at least twice as many hours as being in the air over decades of it’s life.
Doesn’t include wash, wax, upgrade planning or admiration times!…lol
More green energy BS.
While off topic a bit I am continuing to watch the development of hydrogen motors and our friends in Australia are spending a lot of energy on this and coming out regularly with innovations.
My major issue with battery aircraft is the weight factor and charging time.
“Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted.” True, but entropy is created, ie energy is lost to the atmosphere whenever electromechanical systems are used, even the most efficient create friction, conduct/convect/radiate heat to the surroundings, lost forever.
The most efficient propulsion for light aircraft – hands down – are Jet-A burning aircraft diesel engines. Look at the numbers for Diamond’s latest aircraft with their Austro engines based on outstanding Mercedes/Bosch technology. We should all be driving diesel cars, too, which 30 years ago already say 50 mpg. The only batter needed was to start the engine.
Actually VW went from gas to diesel and back to gas eons again for mpg and cost of production and operation.
You are forgetting that you can use green hydrogen or e-fuels or you can forget the whole thing and use green hydrogen or e-fuels to power a jet engine. A hybrid propeller engine is the horse and buggy of the aerospace industry and a poor choice to show that Li batteries are good for the environment.
and how is the hydrogen produced.? electrolysis of water ?
And, storing hydrogen requires heavy 6,000 psi tanks,!
It’s barely viable in a car, [ Honda ], vs an aircraft.
I admire how y’all think this stuff through. I’m just trying understand what you just said!
Basic laws of physics. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted. So, to get the same performance and range of ICE’s you will still have to “convert” the same amount of fuel to achieve that. Weather it be fuel to run the hybrid airborne generators, or the fuel to charge the batteries on the ground, the emissions are the same. “Sustainable” power sources only provide a small minority of the available power, so you are still burning fuel to get the same flight. Now, if you happen to have a nuclear reactor in your backyard, then that emission problem does diminish. Oh, wait! You still have to dispose of the nuclear waste.
“For typical aircraft, overall efficiency ranges between 20 and 40%”
https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/097.htm#:~:text=For%20typical%20aircraft%2C%20overall%20efficiency,engine%20used%20so%20widely%20today.
Assuming that is accurate, then 60% to 80% of the energy in a typical ICE engine in aircraft is wasted inefficiency. If electric drive is greater than 90% efficient, and there are minimal losses due to electric resistance as distances involved are short, then a highly efficient generator (about 90% or higher) charging a battery and which then powers an electric drive could result in massive efficiency gains. I also like the idea of the battery charge as the reserve, but not sure this design is headed that way. Also not sure about the distributed propulsion as I am not an engineer. Still, it seems by looking at the math there is the potential for huge gains in efficiency if they can make it work. I though some others were already pursuing this.
The reference you list is referring to jet engine efficiencies, not our GA piston engines.
The article shows a series hybrid, where the IC engine is driving the generator which then powers the motors. So, no matter how efficient [ or inefficient ], the IC engine is, there is an additional 10-20% efficiency loss, with a lot more parts that will reduce the overall reliability.
Adding a battery introduces more losses, since a Li-ion battery charge-discharge efficiency is 90% or less…
BTW, my piston Cessna at 120 mph is using about 6+ gph, or close to 20 mpg.
Try that in any car on the US roads [ try Nevada or Montana to avoid a massive speeding ticket !]
i am a retired engineer. i’ve been laughing quite a bit lately, sorry.
after you get past the … theoreticals … i need to see the gospel of the practical.
the auto insurance market has become woke, to the price of scrapping ev’s.
i want to know who the companies are that will write insurance policies for these marvelous patentable inventions, sorry.
sorry for this belly laugh, sorry. you think the bill for an annual is high now …
enjoy, gentlemen.
Hey, Jim:
It’s ‘whether,’ as you used it, not ‘weather.’
John Schmidt
Forest Lake (MN) High School.
I can’t see how this arrangement can be more efficient than a piston engine directly driving a controllable prop ?
The generator and motors in this arrangement are each about 90-95% efficient, so there is a 10-20% reduction in the power to the props.
Then there is the added weight of the controller and batteries.
I can’t see how the reduction in aero drag could compensate for all these losses.?
Also, how could this be a patented design ? Diesel-electric locomotives have been operating since the 1960s….a 4,000 hp diesel driving a generator which supplies power to 6 or more traction motors/ axles !!
Based upon a old tech rotax 582 gas guzzeling 50 to 1 fuel ratio 2 cycle dual carbureted engine.. Then add the monitoring/maintaining of each of these sub systems (mostly engine)… Holy..Moly!!!.. It statistically adds up to “Fly Only Sometimes”
An example from The Korean Conflict.. major UN withdrawal.. C47 full of casualties.. 1 engine would not start.. Quick thinking and coordination!!! A taxiing B25 was relocated in front of the non responsive engine and ,full bore, blew the now windmilling engine to life.. More engines/sub systems… more complexity more reasons not to take off..
Good morning,
For the number of Toyota Prius’s still on the road after so many years, I think this has more potential than a Rube Goldberg. Oxen are beasts of burden. Chickens lay eggs. Match the equipment for the task. Parasitic drag is critical in unpowered flight, but if the efficiency of each thrust unit (prop, motor, etc) exceeds the parasitic drag (and other factors included) of that unit, why is more blades/ motors (redundancy) a problem?
Parasitic drag is a key component of drag at all speeds, whether the aircraft is powered or not. Basically, the more bumps, fairings, struts, pods, nacelles, landing gear etc., the higher the drag. Propellers too create additional drag and losses, especially at their tips and roots. Read anything about the Arnold AR-5 or Hoerner’s Fluid Dynamic Drag for evidence. And then there is the additional weight of all the mechanical systems needed to drive all those props. The Rube Goldberg contraption proposed here reminds one of the Phillips Multiplane from 1907, with 200 individual wings. It was not a success…… My primary issue though with this hybrid concept is lack of evidence that it could ever be a viable commercial success. If it can be produced without government assistance and without resorting to the usual excuse of high cost due to it’s “saving the planet from the boiling oceans” then I might take it seriously. But I doubt it. Ever hear of Occam’s Razor? Comparison to the Prius seems questionable. What does a little bubble car optimized for a soccer mom driving around town have to do with an airplane? The Prius is a terrible performer when not driven near its optimal design point, something Toyota would rather not see published.
This is a Rube Goldberg at best, powered by good old fossil fuels, a gift from God. And ten motor / propeller units? Are you kidding? Ever hear of parasite drag? The late great Seymour Cray, on comparing Cray Supercomputers to PC clusters, once said “What would you prefer pulling your cart? Two sturdy, reliably oxen, or 1000 chickens?” The analogy to this contraption is clear.