For a four hour flight, let's say. How many could power a large plane like this? Would you need a separate plane carrying the batteries to power the other plane? Could you connect the planes in series like a sort of flying centipede? If you connected them in a ring using rechargeable batteries could they fly infinitely?
How many AA batteries would it take to power an A380?
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2021
- Posts
- 1,726
mmmmmmmmkayyyyyyy
Soldato
The rechargeable option wouldn't work because battery charging is only around 70% efficient, meaning that 30% is lost, or otherwise it means it requires more than 100% of the electricity to charge the batteries back up to 100%.
Caporegime
That's a 4am kitchen sesh question
Soldato
If you had a long enough extension lead would the aircraft fly faster than the electricity travelling through the cable
Soldato
What are the batteries powering to give an A380 carrying x amount of batteries enough thrust to take off is probably a more relevant question.
As it stands no amount of batteries could power one. Maybe if you use a battery powered treadmill?
As it stands no amount of batteries could power one. Maybe if you use a battery powered treadmill?
In that case you'd presumably need other planes to fly in and recharge the ring as needed or to help swap in-flight batteries. There could be a permanent central rotating hub of planes.
Soldato
Perhaps A380's should use fly-by-wire technology like the C17
46,905,051 AA batteries (per hour).
Assume 12,000 kg/hr fuel burn for A380 (Source). Probably doesn't include take-off and definitely not battery weight.
Assume 44.65 MJ/kg energy density in BP Avgas 80 (Source)
Assume 14,850 J of energy in AA battery (Source)
Assume 30% loss of energy (from above post).
This is very quickly done, could be some errors.
Extra credit - this exceeds the maximum payload of an A380 by approx 8 times if batteries are 27g each, so would not be feasible.
I'm assuming the same engergy is required, but it may be that efficiency of the battery approach is actually better than my assumed 100% efficiency of the Avgas, which would offset this somewhat. Still a crazy idea unless you can get more energy-dense batteries and lighter weight construction (possibly feasible today in smaller planes). Not to mention that I don't know how you power a jet with electricity.
Assume 12,000 kg/hr fuel burn for A380 (Source). Probably doesn't include take-off and definitely not battery weight.
Assume 44.65 MJ/kg energy density in BP Avgas 80 (Source)
Assume 14,850 J of energy in AA battery (Source)
Assume 30% loss of energy (from above post).
This is very quickly done, could be some errors.
Extra credit - this exceeds the maximum payload of an A380 by approx 8 times if batteries are 27g each, so would not be feasible.
I'm assuming the same engergy is required, but it may be that efficiency of the battery approach is actually better than my assumed 100% efficiency of the Avgas, which would offset this somewhat. Still a crazy idea unless you can get more energy-dense batteries and lighter weight construction (possibly feasible today in smaller planes). Not to mention that I don't know how you power a jet with electricity.
Soldato
Quick maths, you're looking around about 70,000,000 AA batteries.
I'm no aircraft designer but it wouldn't work purely because of the power to weight ratio i.e. not enough power too much weight.
If they ever figure out how to distribute electricity via high powered lasers though, maybe you could have a scenario where a series of lasers track the plane and keep it powered.
If they ever figure out how to distribute electricity via high powered lasers though, maybe you could have a scenario where a series of lasers track the plane and keep it powered.
What if you split them up between eight planes?
Oh my, you may have solved it (and broken laws of physics!).
#NOTAC17
It that breaking any laws of physics though? Could you not distribute the weight over eight planes, connect them in series and then use them to fly the other plane?
Soldato
I think it's a C17 G - the G stands for Glass Cockpit
You could divide by eight and get 10 mins or so of potential flight time, but given my assumptions above even that may not work. But that wasn't your original question.
8 plans would need 8 times the power to propel. Your solution is just powering most of that with conventional fossil fuels to support a single plane, which, if I'm right, kind of defeats the object.
Either way, I could use some of what you're on.
But that single plane is still being powered by AA batteries so it saves on plane-batteries.
So something in the region of 187,620,204 batteries for a four-hour flight.
Associate
If you're on Twitter, give @RAF_Luton a follow. The guy's hilarious. He purposefully calls aircraft by an incorrect name and he triggers all sorts of morons who can't distinguish between fact and fiction.