Technology

See the All-Electric Airliner of the Future

Say hello to EADS’s VoltAir– a zero-emission airliner that looks to be the future of air travel providing all-electric service within 25 years. Along with its “Concord-of -the-future” brother EADS’ ZEHST concept, VoltAir was one of the displays that generated a lot of buzz at the Paris Airshow 2011. While the ZEHST hopes to make London to Tokyo 2.5 hour flights by year 2050, VoltAir has presented itself as a the more attainable and closer future of commercial aircraft.

See the All Electric Airliner of the Future

From EADS:

“VoltAir’s electric energy storage system (essentially two next-generation batteries) will power highly efficient superconducting electric motors that drive two co-axial, counter-rotating shrouded propellers mounted at the rear of the fuselage.

A radical approach to airframe design results in excellent aerodynamics and low weight, thereby requiring a minimum amount of energy for propulsion. Combined with the promising developments expected in electric propulsion technologies, the VoltAir concept could pave the way towards ultra-quiet and emission-free flight.”

Combined with the promising developments expected in electric propulsion technologies, is the key. Don’t get too excited.VoltAir’s idea is rock solid with the only problem being the technology to make electric motors is still not completely developed.

From Fast Company:

“There’s just one flaw: The tech to make the electric motors doesn’t quite exist yet. It’s not far off, though, and EADS–the designers of the plane–think it‘s possible they’ll be available relatively soon (definitely sooner than the far distant first-flight of Zehst, for sure).”

Check it:

Comments (59)

1 2
  • Dabldo
    Posted on June 30, 2011 at 10:54pm

    Piva
    “Umm, we can‘t make an electric car that goes more than 100 miles and they think we’ll be able to make an electric airplane?”
    Exactly! This WILL happen. Just not today……or tomorrow. It is extremely hard to beat liquid fuels for shear energy density. Most likely source will be liquid (what liquid is the main question) fuel powered fuel cells. They will have extremely high conversion efficiency coupled with high energy density. Better than todays hybrids. Care to bet against me?

    Report Post »  
  • XinTX
    Posted on June 30, 2011 at 12:56pm

    Let’s see here, “ultra-quiet” but uses counter-rotating props? Uh, no. Ever hear a plane with that kind of mixmaster on it? Loud as all get out. The Badger is so noisy that some of the escort pilots wear ear plugs.

    And all these ‘superconductors’ have yet to be put to commercial use. Then there‘s the ’next generation’ batteries (in other words, they don’t exist). This plane is pure vaporware. If it were possible, don‘t you think the airlines wouldn’t LOVE to cut their fuel costs?

    Report Post » XinTX  
  • BillyPenn
    Posted on June 30, 2011 at 8:11am

    It will be manufactured by GM ,subsidized with taxpayer money. Will there be charging stations en route ? Wondering what will happen if it’s struck by lightening ?

    Report Post »  
  • Got Ammo
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 8:45pm

    I love fantasy movies. will it go under water too?

    Report Post »  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 5:47pm

    Bah! You can’t get more zero-emission than no internal means of propulsion.

    http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
  • Thomas Payne
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 4:34pm

    Props? Really? That thing will only have a top speed of 200 kts. and cruise at around 160 or so. Be ready for loooooooong flights.

    Report Post » Thomas Payne  
    • wolfmanradio
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 6:30pm

      The TU-95 is a propeller-driven aircraft, and it tops out at about 520 knots. How can you say that a way more aerodynamic airframe than the TU-95 will only go 200 knots? Let’s not shoot this idea down, before its day has come. There are many low emission ways of producing power. By 2050, there may well be hardly any coal-fire plants left. The Earth can handle it. It’s all about geothermal, nuclear, hydro, and solar. I would like to see more of a lifting-body design, however. That would be far more efficient and roomy.

      Report Post » wolfmanradio  
  • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 4:22pm

    “Combined with the promising developments expected…” sounds exactly like the the budgetting logic of the Democrats. “Well, we’ll assume a magic debt fairy will come along and give the United States Federal government enough gold to sneak QE3 past the Republicans and wipe out all our debt, ergo…”

    Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
  • andredegas
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 4:20pm

    That’s some really long extension cord there buddy

    Report Post » andredegas  
  • Pastor Ray
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 2:03pm

    SO…COOL!!!
    BUT one question…
    Will the TSA still have to feel me, my babies and grandbabies up to get on board?

    Report Post » Pastor Ray  
  • candcantiques
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:19pm

    What do you mean the batteries didnt take the recharge?!!!!

    Report Post »  
  • candcantiques
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 1:15pm

    Yea I sure do want to be on that plane the first time it fly’s. Wait what do you mean the batteries are dead!@!!!!!!

    Report Post »  
  • Ben
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 12:21pm

    They could use 400 Hz electric motors which are smaller lighter and produce more torque than 60 Hz motors which is why a lot of industrial equipment runs on 400 Hz power. I also think that using today’s current tech it would only be good for a 2-4 passenger puddle jumper.

    Report Post » Ben  
  • Dustoff
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 11:12am

    EADS is part of Air Bust.
    That’s all you need to know. Taxpayer funded folly!

    Report Post » Dustoff  
    • Rinson Drei
      Posted on July 11, 2011 at 10:40pm

      Sadly, Airbus is outselling Boeing something like 50 to 1 right now. But Boeing is also taxpayer-funded, just in a more roundabout fashion.

      Report Post » Rinson Drei  
  • poorrichard09
    Posted on June 29, 2011 at 9:01am

    As a back-up for the batteries it could carry one helluva long extension cord.

    Report Post »  
  • elphi43
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 9:03pm

    Nice cartoon, now make it real. Thought so!

    Report Post » elphi43  
  • 4blackhorses
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:43pm

    “Next generation” puts the whole thing in sci-fi comic book category.

    Report Post »  
  • Patriot Z
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:13pm

    they can just put a bicycle in it attached to the propeller .,,.save time

    Report Post » Patriot Z  
  • SUPPLY_SIDE
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:50pm

    “There’s just one flaw: The tech to make the electric motors doesn’t quite exist yet.”
    Either is the tech for anti-gravity. Why not design a plane based on that today…

    Report Post » SUPPLY_SIDE  
    • V-Forge
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:50pm

      great idea. Lets instead get funding for that transporter or wormhole generator. Those are possible through physics aren’t they? I’m sure with the right funding we can zap people around the globe in a matter of weeks. Please send your research grant to…………

      Report Post » V-Forge  
    • Patriot Z
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:12pm

      can we throw funding in for lightsabers too while we are at it? that be spiffy…ppphssshhhhhhtttttt……..zzzzeeerrrrrrmmmmm…zzzeeerrrrrrrmmmm…. psssshhht

      Report Post » Patriot Z  
    • crypticmitch86
      Posted on July 7, 2011 at 2:22pm

      I fully support lightaber subsidies.

      Report Post »  
    • Inbred Jed
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 12:45pm

      Hey, I have a warehouse full of fluxx capacitors I can sell them. I wonder if they are interested.

      Report Post » Inbred Jed  
  • frankthekulak
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:43pm

    London to Tokyo in 2-1/2 hours? What a load of crap. Do they realise how much energy that would require? Now I’d believe a solar powered dirigible with a tops speed of 15 knots…

    Report Post » frankthekulak  
  • Cherynn
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:15pm

    Good luck getting it off the ground. So far, every electric motor I have ever seen large enough to produce the horsepower required will contain TONS,,,,,,,TONS of copper wire to build. Does everyone in the plane have to sit in the cockpit to counter balance the plane? I have seen aluminum wire used in motor construction but never on anything with any significant hp. Somebody is smoking alot of dope here and it has to be some good sh** !

    Report Post » Cherynn  
  • harumph
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:51pm

    They could built the new electric plants to fuel them next to their money tree forests.

    Report Post » harumph  
  • Midwest Blonde
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:44pm

    Electric cars – not in my garage.

    I see the problem the liberals apparently don’t.

    If I have an electric car, I have to plug it in to charge it. The power plant in my area is [presently] coal fired. So if I do away with my gas guzzler, and replace it with an electric car’ how much carbon emissions are reduced by using POWER for my electric car?

    And now airplanes? Yeah right. Real carbon saving. I call BS on the entire green movement.

    Reduce polution – get a non-motorized PUSH mower for cutting your grass.

    Report Post » Midwest Blonde  
    • sdtvmark
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 1:23pm

      Well first of all… Electric cars are over 90% efficient! So, when you spend 50 bucks in your gas tank only about $15 is really pushing the car around. The rest is taxes, smog, waste heat… Your gas car is less than 30% efficient. Then about the efficiency of the generation station or power plant… Well that is way more efficient making energy in bulk than you burning fuel in your little car! So, just because ‘your used to wasting your money’ on transportation, adding to global warming, causing the need for oil wars and keeping us in recession just because you want to hand dollars to an oil cartel… Then don‘t be bashing a better idea of increased efficiency in transportation just because you don’t get it!

      Report Post »  
    • sdtvmark
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 1:35pm

      The post by “Midwest Blond” below is so off base… She is just trained to wast her transportation money on driving around a car that is less than 30% efficient. Then handing money over to an oil cartel to promote oil wars and keep us all in recession. As she stomps on the gas wasting 3 out of every 4 dollars she spends on gas with waste heat, smog, global warming in her inefficient little car. Not realizing that making electricity in bulk at a utility power plant is way more efficient than making her own power plant in her little car, or driving in an electric car that is over 90% efficient. Then bashing technology she has now clue about.. A blond moment perhaps?

      Report Post »  
  • Piva
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:39pm

    Umm, we can‘t make an electric car that goes more than 100 miles and they think we’ll be able to make an electric airplane?

    Sounds like someone is using fancy pictures and promises to get more of our money from thought impaired politicians…

    Lol, well said Wraith, didn’t read you post till after I typed this ;) .

    Report Post »  
  • wraith67
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:23pm

    I read something somewhere back about it would require something like a 600 amp charging station to quick charge (two or three hours) some of these new electric vehicles – and the power requirements for some sort of service station along the highway would be insane to charge more than one vehicle. As to the nifty plane – we can’t get a car to go over 100 miles with batteries yet, I don‘t expect that there’s any batteries are going to push aircraft weighing 10′s of thousands of pounds very far any time soon. If we wanted to be serious about something workable and “green” we’d put about a dozen nuclear plants on the coast and start producing hydrogen for internal combustion engines. More efficient, more powerful, no harmful emission.

    Report Post » wraith67  
    • sdtvmark
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 2:02pm

      Actually it takes about 14 amps at a standard 110 volt plug for about 6 hours to charge an electric car (like at home with no special charge point). Depending on the car and how much charge you happen to need to charge at the time… Or, half that time, 3 hours at 220 volt, at the same current of 14 amps (When you have an EV charge plug at home).

      Direct DC charging, say at a gas station at a high current as you mention, but only at 150 amps (The allowable connection standard) would take about 10 minutes, or while your having a cup of tea perhaps. If you could somehow charge at 600 amps, as you mention, at the battery pack voltage (350V DC), it would take just about 2.6 minutes, or about the time of a phone call home. So your off a wee bit there!

      So that 50 miles you drive every day… That would cost about a buck in an 95% efficient electric car, not the $20 you spending now on gas, in a 30% efficient gas car.

      Report Post »  
    • Speak2Truth
      Posted on July 1, 2011 at 3:19pm

      George W Bush addressed this issue by initiating the transformation of our mainstream fuel infrastructure to Hydrogen. It fuels quickly at the pump, is proven technology and H-vehicles have good range. We have fueling stations and vehicles running around including mass transit and passenger cars (Jay Leno drives one). This is why Democrats trotted out Al Gore’s movie and seized control of the tax flow to push our dollars into environmentally devastating Corn Ethanol – they can’t carbon-tax the Hydrogen fuel.

      Bush addressed the issue of electricity to produce the Hydrogen by expanding Geothermal permits and pushing geothermal energy. It’s abundant, long-term, 24 hour a day energy to produce electricity to make Hydrogen.

      We had the “Clean Energy” future in our grasp and the Democrat leadership murdered it.

      Speaking of airplanes…

      Boeing Successfully Flies Hydrogen Fuel Cell-Powered Airplane
      http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q2/080403a_nr.html

      It’s not theoretical – it already works.

      Report Post » Speak2Truth  
  • notreally
    Posted on June 28, 2011 at 12:10pm

    It’s not “zero emissions.” The propulsion system needs to be charged before flight by using some sort of electicity generating energy, most likely carbon based.

    It’s irritating when liberals lie in pursuit of their twisted utopia. But our unionized government teachers inculcate our kids to believe in crap like…”zero emissions.”

    Report Post »  
    • jnobfan
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 1:47pm

      Its BS.
      Somebody fishing for or trying to justify a research grant. The batteries and motors do not exist. A much better start would be electric “Airboat Ferries” across the Hudson and I don’t hear anybody talking about that.

      Report Post »  
    • Elena2010
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:18pm

      It’s still cool looking!

      Report Post » Elena2010  
    • scjeff
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 2:54pm

      We could go back to the atomic airplanes of the 50′s: one reactor and as many electric motors as you want.

      Report Post » scjeff  
    • V-Forge
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:44pm

      Very True. It’s a fantasy a1 the moment. They might as well have unveiled an airliner to mars. It’s time to stop giving money to morons and come up with real solutions. innovation can happen when we are on firm fiscal ground but until we get there it’s time to use what we have to fix things. I think it is a great idea if it worked but it will not.

      Report Post » V-Forge  
    • Sound The Trumpet In Zion
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:46pm

      @notreally
      You are 100% on the mark there. The only thing that this will do is knock out 80% or more of the flying public because their fees will be way too high to be able to buy a ticket to fly on it. What this is all about is for them to make more money off of us in the name of “Green Living”.

      Report Post » Sound The Trumpet In Zion  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 3:59pm

      This glider has to stop and recharge every 100 miles. Gee, going from NY to LA would take 30 stops and about a week . progress, ain’t it grand

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 4:58pm

      I’ll believe this when we have clean coal, honest politicians, free gas and peaceful muslims.

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 6:13pm

      This ALL-ELECTRIC AIRLINER is SO COOL! Like when an EMP hits, it just drops like a rock! EPIC!!

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 9:07pm

      Er,

      Popular Science magazine article?

      Why not just have atomic aircraft?

      Since the tech admittedly doesn’t even exist, we may as well be discussing wormhole teleportation or “remote viewing” ala art bell.

      I call “FLUFF PIECE”

      (But WAY COOL to think about)

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • tobywil2
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 8:41am

      Just the words “Zero emission” imply that carbon dioxide is detrimental to the environment. When one uses that phrase, you be forewarned that the person is trying to destroy your standard of living. http://commonsense21c.com/

      Report Post » tobywil2  
    • Lawlcat001
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 8:42am

      You guys seriously need to chill out with your Eco-Hating xD Yes, we all realize that Al Gore is a bonehead, but hey – The Guy Invented The Internet ;D

      Report Post »  
    • Enuff Zenuff
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 3:04pm

      .
      What… is it solar powered? perhaps wind powered?

      Zero emissions; my ass is more ‘zero emissions’ that these gov’t-funded electric vehicles.

      Private enterprise will bring us the best solutions.

      Report Post » Enuff Zenuff  
    • kNOwKINGsmen
      Posted on June 29, 2011 at 5:50pm

      With that power plant and boat props, not happening——–can NEVER HAPPEN!— you need torque in those engines. Not happening unless you fill it with gas.NOT HAPPENEN!

      Report Post » kNOwKINGsmen  
    • yosemitefan
      Posted on June 30, 2011 at 5:19pm

      If you want to fantasize about futuristic power sources – I say warp drive or nothing…

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love