Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?Would “wind turbine generators” in the bypass stream save fuel for jetliners?What are the advantages of the B747-8 airfoil over B737's airfoil?Have other designs for individual gasper ventilation been tried?Why hasn't there ever been a large 4-engine commercial airplane with 2 engines on the wings and 2 engines at the tail?Feasibility of using secondary props to generate power on an electric model aircraftCould there ever be a fully solar powered airliner capable of transatlantic flights?Would “wind turbine generators” in the bypass stream save fuel for jetliners?Has there ever been a seaplane with inflatable airbags rather than traditional pontoons?Would it have been feasible to install 'conformal fuel tanks' on the Mercure?What is the feasibility of solar powered drones?Why did narrowbody jetliners take so long to switch over to high-bypass engines?
Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
How do I write bicross product symbols in latex?
Is it possible to run Internet Explorer on OS X El Capitan?
90's TV series where a boy goes to another dimension through portal near power lines
Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?
Brothers & sisters
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
Infinite Abelian subgroup of infinite non Abelian group example
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?
Does a druid starting with a bow start with no arrows?
In a spin, are both wings stalled?
Will google still index a page if I use a $_SESSION variable?
Assassin's bullet with mercury
Stopping power of mountain vs road bike
Memorizing the Keyboard
Is "remove commented out code" correct English?
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Modeling an IP Address
How to take photos in burst mode, without vibration?
I Accidentally Deleted a Stock Terminal Theme
Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?
Would “wind turbine generators” in the bypass stream save fuel for jetliners?What are the advantages of the B747-8 airfoil over B737's airfoil?Have other designs for individual gasper ventilation been tried?Why hasn't there ever been a large 4-engine commercial airplane with 2 engines on the wings and 2 engines at the tail?Feasibility of using secondary props to generate power on an electric model aircraftCould there ever be a fully solar powered airliner capable of transatlantic flights?Would “wind turbine generators” in the bypass stream save fuel for jetliners?Has there ever been a seaplane with inflatable airbags rather than traditional pontoons?Would it have been feasible to install 'conformal fuel tanks' on the Mercure?What is the feasibility of solar powered drones?Why did narrowbody jetliners take so long to switch over to high-bypass engines?
$begingroup$
Has there ever been a trial/project/design, in which solar panels were incorporated in the design of a commerical airliner (e.g. on the wings), with the aim to reduce fuel consumption by lowering the generator workload?
If no, why not?
aircraft-design electrical-system solar-power
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Has there ever been a trial/project/design, in which solar panels were incorporated in the design of a commerical airliner (e.g. on the wings), with the aim to reduce fuel consumption by lowering the generator workload?
If no, why not?
aircraft-design electrical-system solar-power
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
17
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Has there ever been a trial/project/design, in which solar panels were incorporated in the design of a commerical airliner (e.g. on the wings), with the aim to reduce fuel consumption by lowering the generator workload?
If no, why not?
aircraft-design electrical-system solar-power
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Has there ever been a trial/project/design, in which solar panels were incorporated in the design of a commerical airliner (e.g. on the wings), with the aim to reduce fuel consumption by lowering the generator workload?
If no, why not?
aircraft-design electrical-system solar-power
aircraft-design electrical-system solar-power
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
edited 12 hours ago
Steve V.
14.9k568135
14.9k568135
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
asked 22 hours ago
avsolavsol
3112
3112
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
avsol is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
17
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
17
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
17
17
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If no, why not?
While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.
Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.
If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.
Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.
Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.
12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.
Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.
In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
No, there are several reasons:
- Fragility v Efficiency v Weight: the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure. Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency. They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology. Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity
- Weight: In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring
- Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so. If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it
- Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light. That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it
- Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun. If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them
So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not purely on topic but there is a solar airplane. Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet. Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.
Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).
In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays. This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
avsol is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61998%2fhas-there-ever-been-an-airliner-design-involving-reducing-generator-load-by-inst%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If no, why not?
While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.
Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.
If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.
Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.
Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.
12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.
Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.
In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
If no, why not?
While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.
Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.
If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.
Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.
Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.
12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.
Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.
In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
If no, why not?
While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.
Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.
If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.
Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.
Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.
12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.
Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.
In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
$endgroup$
If no, why not?
While I can't say categorically that it's not happened, I'm pretty sure.
Solar radiance is approx. 1kW/m^2. A 737 has approximately 100m^2 wing area. Solar cells are approximately 20% effective.
If you covered the entire wings in solar panels, that would work out to 20kW of electrical power at best. At night, it would be close to zero extra power.
Jet fuel contains ~43MJ/kg of energy. 20kW is 20kJ/s. For a 2 hour flight, the total energy produced would be 144MJ, or comparable to energy in 3-4 kilograms of jet fuel.
Turbines is not 100% efficient, so let's say that with all losses in engine, 25% of the power in the fuel is available as electricity. That means you'd need 12kg of fuel to provide the same amount of electricity as the solar panels.
12kg of fuel. That's probably far less than the solar cells will weigh, probably by a factor of at least ten. In addition, the you don't have to carry around already burnt fuel, unlike solar cells, which you will have to carry around.
Edit: I found another answer on this site, that claims extra fuel use is on the order of 0.125kg/kWh. I don't know if that's correct or not, nor do I really care. It doesn't change the conclusion, it only makes jet fuel even more favorable.
In short the amount of power provided by solar cells is tiny compared to the energy contained in jet fuel. And that doesn't even touch on the mechanical requirements of a wing...
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
edited 20 hours ago
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
answered 20 hours ago
vidarlovidarlo
852614
852614
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, although a not completely unconceivable setup would be to have thin-film cells on the wings instead of paint. Solar cells can be made very light. The more fundamental problem is that there's just not really much area available, especially with reasonably high aspect ratio wings – and lower aspect ratio would mean higher drag, which would again defeat the point.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black solar cell paint could also heat up the underlying wing structure. If aluminum, that's not good as heated fuel expands. If composites, that's not that good as heat is bad - that's why composite structure are painted white to help keep them cooler.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
12 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The problem with generating "only" 20kW by solar panels is not only that it is a tiny proportion of the total, but it's more electrical power than you actually need most of the time. For example the battery backup system on a 737-800, designed to provide 30 minutes emergency power if all other power generators fail, is rated at less than 2kW. Adding yet another system to convert the tiny amount of "excess" solar energy into mechanical thrust would make the concept even less practical.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sure, there's lot's of small reasons why it's difficult. But those could probably be solved if it was economically viable. But it's not. It's technically difficult, and there damn close to zero reason for it.
$endgroup$
– vidarlo
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero I imagine that this power would be used mainly for non-critical systems, like passenger entertainment, WiFi, and power outlets.
$endgroup$
– Barmar
10 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
No, there are several reasons:
- Fragility v Efficiency v Weight: the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure. Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency. They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology. Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity
- Weight: In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring
- Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so. If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it
- Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light. That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it
- Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun. If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them
So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, there are several reasons:
- Fragility v Efficiency v Weight: the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure. Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency. They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology. Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity
- Weight: In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring
- Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so. If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it
- Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light. That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it
- Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun. If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them
So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, there are several reasons:
- Fragility v Efficiency v Weight: the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure. Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency. They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology. Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity
- Weight: In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring
- Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so. If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it
- Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light. That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it
- Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun. If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them
So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
$endgroup$
No, there are several reasons:
- Fragility v Efficiency v Weight: the most efficient solar panels are rigid and heavy, which is bad for a wing structure. Flexible and light panels do exist, but they are half the efficiency. They also have limitations to how much flexing they really can take, the constant flexing of a wing, vibrations, cycles between hot and extreme cold at altitude all make it a punishing environment for that kind of technology. Covering the fuselage would mean less flexing, but then you'd only have a few panels positioned right at any one time to create electricity
- Weight: In addition to the weight of the panels themselves you have all the other technology to make them work, like regulators, power conditioners, power storage, delivery wiring
- Complexity: This is yet another system to maintain, and it would be complicated to do so. If a panel breaks you'd have to take apart the wing to get at it
- Cost: you'd need solar panels that are efficient, flexible, durable and light. That all adds up to expensive panels, far more than is worth it
- Limited window of use: Obviously solar panels are no good at night, but they are also only generate electricity when they are oriented at least partly towards the sun. If you're going to cover the wing then the sun must be a good 30-40° up before you'll get appreciable power from them
So it's a lot of weight and cost for a technology that isn't going to generate power for much of the time the airplane is in use.
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
answered 15 hours ago
GdDGdD
32.4k386134
32.4k386134
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
This answer is not really correct. (1) the actual answer is that solar cells provide what can only be described as "no" power, within rounding error. (2) the difficulties mentioned (cost, engineering difficulty etc) would, indeed, be instantly overcome if solar energy was 10,000x more powerful than it is (indeed everything on an aircraft is very expensive, difficult to make).
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't follow you @Fattie. Solar cells do provide power, it's why they're being installed on homes all over the place....
$endgroup$
– GdD
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
They provide a minuscul amount of power, in terms of the question asked though. Consider vid's answer. At the absolute theoretical max it would provide the equivalent of "a few KG" of jet fuel. (!) That's why I said it is zero within rounding error.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
There's more than one aspect to this @Fattie, and there was no point in repeating vidarlo's answer.
$endgroup$
– GdD
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not purely on topic but there is a solar airplane. Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet. Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.
Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not purely on topic but there is a solar airplane. Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet. Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.
Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not purely on topic but there is a solar airplane. Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet. Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.
Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Not purely on topic but there is a solar airplane. Solar supported airliner isn't out of the realm of possibilities, just solar tech isn't there yet. Also it would have to be economically feasible to even be considered.
Here's an article from 2016 about a solar airplane that traveled the globe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/solar-impulse-plane-makes-history-completing-round-the-world-trip
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
answered 10 hours ago
MertymanMertyman
191
191
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mertyman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review
$endgroup$
– FreeMan
9 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Solar Impulse 2 is basically covered in solar panels of probably at least 20% efficiency. This gives it enough power to fly with just a single pilot, at about 60 mph during the day, or 30 mph on batteries at night. Even with 100% efficient panels, that's still nowhere near the power to carry a cabin full of people at much higher speeds. Modern high-speed air travel uses a ridiculous amount of energy; that's why it creates so much greenhouse gas emissions. It would be nice if solar flight were viable for airliners, but it doesn't look like it ever will be.
$endgroup$
– Peter Cordes
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).
In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays. This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).
In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays. This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).
In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays. This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I once worked for a company that made electronics for commercial aircraft (flight deck printers, Ethernet switches, digital chart recorders).
In addition to what others have mentioned on this thread, you also have to account for the fact that if a product is manufactured for aircraft in the US, it must comply AS9100 and FAR, and whatever standard the EU is using nowadays. This includes rigorous testing to ensure that, not only is the device safe, but also that the device will not interfere with any of the critical systems of the aircraft.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
answered 8 hours ago
Jerry SweetonJerry Sweeton
112
112
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jerry Sweeton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
avsol is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
avsol is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
avsol is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
avsol is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61998%2fhas-there-ever-been-an-airliner-design-involving-reducing-generator-load-by-inst%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
I'm not aware of any. And I can see several important reasons why not: solar panels are heavy, they're fragile, they require a lot of maintenance, they require a lot of wiring.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
21 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@jwenting the actual solar panels aren't heavy at all. Most of the weight comes from structural reinforcements, which you don't need if you implement it into an existing structure such as the fuselage or wings. Nevertheless I don't think it would be worth it.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
15 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Solar energy is just a religion. The amount of energy gatherable per unit area is ... totally trivial. Indeed, the example of aircraft points out how utterly useless solar energy is. Solar cells are a fantastically ingenious invention for, say, calculators.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
15 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
As you include trail options, there have been at least two planes which have been powered completely by photovoltaic panels, Solar Impulse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse it isn't commercial, isn't in anything like mass production, and is very slow, but they did do a round-the-world trip in the second one.
$endgroup$
– Puffafish
13 hours ago
17
$begingroup$
@Fattie Solar energy is perfectly workable on the ground, where getting 200W per square meter is fine.
$endgroup$
– pjc50
12 hours ago