backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on Jun 8 at 10:47 AM
After the Phantom Eye landed, it was slightly damaged when the landing gear hit the lakebed and broke

Boeing sent its Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system (UAS) on its first autonomous flight last week.

Boeing's Phantom Eye is a hydrogen-powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is propeller-driven. The aircraft uses two 2.3 liter, four-cylinder engines capable of pushing 300 horsepower total and can loiter above a target for up to 10 days. Its main purpose is to gather information or conduct attack missions.

The Phantom Eye took off at 6:22 a.m. PST for a 28-minute flight. It reached an altitude of 4,080 feet and a speed of 62 knots. The flight took place June 1 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

"This day ushers in a new era of persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance (ISR) where an unmanned aircraft will remain on station for days at a time providing critical information and services," said Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Phantom Works. "This flight puts Boeing on a path to accomplish another aerospace first -- the capability of four days of unrefueled, autonomous flight."

After the Phantom Eye landed, it was slightly damaged when the landing gear hit the lakebed and broke. But overall, the flight was a success.

Previous to the June 1 flight, the Phantom Eye took part in a series of tests throughout April, such as navigation and control, pilot interface, and mission planning.

The Phantom Eye used for demonstration purposes has a 150-foot wingspan and can carry a 450-pound payload. It can fly up to 96 hours without needing to land, but Boeing is looking to make a new model in 2014 that can fly up to 240 hours without landing.

Source: Boeing


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hydrogen?
By Jedi2155 on 6/5/2012 2:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why would they choose hydrogen as fuel source over standard gas/diesel/avgas? Especially if its just using conventional internal combustion?




RE: Hydrogen?
By BladeVenom on 6/5/2012 2:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
Green research dollars.


RE: Hydrogen?
By lightfoot on 6/5/2012 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 5
Weight considerations may make compressed hydrogen a more viable solution than hydrocarbon fuels. The Carbon makes it easier to store the hydrogen, but adds nothing in terms of energy density.

Energy per unit weight is a critical consideration for both aircraft and spacecraft.


RE: Hydrogen?
By rs2 on 6/6/2012 1:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
Weight considerations aside, what is the intended use of this UAV? It does not appear to be particularly agile or stealthy or small (a 150 foot wingspan is certainly not tiny). Maybe it has sufficient power to muscle its way up to very high altitudes, though it doesn't really seem like it at first glance (particularly with that 4000 feet test flight altitude). A 4+ day loiter time is meaningless if detecting and shooting down the aircraft is a trivial prospect.

It seems like this UAV would be useful mostly for flying surveillance over regions that aren't expected to be able to mount any sort of coordinated anti-aircraft response whatsoever. Which implies that its intended use is primarily domestic spying/surveillance.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Samus on 6/6/2012 1:47:09 AM , Rating: 3
I find the choice of engine configuration more unusual than the choice of fuel. A prop configuration demands high RPM, not torque, which is why inline and V-configuration engines were terrible in world war-era planes. Since we looked to the auto industry at the time it was what we had to fight with, but was no competition for the Japanese which could fly nearly twice as far on the same amount of fuel.

Radial and rotary engines are probably better suited for this application as they produce a higher RPM in less displacement at the expense of torque, likely increasing fuel efficiency. But I'm not an engineer at Boeing, and I'm sure they know what they're doing...I just find it interesting why they're doing it this way.


RE: Hydrogen?
By AssBall on 6/6/2012 6:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking radial too, but then again they can get 20k RPM out of a Honda motorcycle, so i don't know either.


RE: Hydrogen?
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2012 10:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
You're thinking about this backwards. Airplane engines favor low-rpm operation, not high RPM operation.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Amiga500 on 6/6/2012 8:06:50 AM , Rating: 2
The need for rpm depends on your propeller pitch (and span).

Ideally (from an aerodynamic point of view), you'll turn a larger blade slower.


RE: Hydrogen?
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2012 10:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find the choice of engine configuration more unusual than the choice of fuel. A prop configuration demands high RPM, not torque, which is why inline and V-configuration engines were terrible in world war-era planes.


I think you have that backwards. Prop aircraft don't require high RPM. Piston aviation engines usually turn at a much lower RPM than automotive engines. People that use automotive engine conversions on their homebuilt aircraft often have to use a speed-reducing gearbox so the prop doesn't turn at full crankshaft speed. This increases the weight of the aircraft.

A popular 4 cylinder aircraft engine like the O-320 produces 160 HP at 2700 RPM.

And rotary engines like the Wankel are very inefficient, so fuel efficiency would be horrible. For instance, a Mazda RX-8 gets slightly worse highway fuel economy than a larger, heavier Corvette Z06 with the 7 liter V8.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Strunf on 6/6/2012 7:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Energy per unit weight is a critical consideration for both aircraft and spacecraft."
So is volume and hydrocarbon fuels can store 7 times more energy per volume unit than compressed Hydrogen, while at the same time they are only 3x less efficient in terms of energy per weight.

Also compressed gas implies a complexer delivery system and add quite a bit in extra weight.


RE: Hydrogen?
By docawolff on 6/5/2012 2:46:09 PM , Rating: 3
It may also be that the operational altitude of the aircraft is high enough (note that first test flights never explore the highest, fastest, or most interesting portions of an aircraft's flight envelope) and the duration long enough that it is easier to use hydrogen than to keep a hydrocarbon fuel heated.

Hmmmm... I wonder if heating a hydrocarbon fuel to keep it liquid would make it more vulnerable to IR detection?

Just my two pennies.


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 3:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know of any hydrocarbon planes that can fly around for 4 days straight. There are a lot of numbers we don't know, unfortunately, to really tell us how potent this hydrogen system is compared to gas. My guess is it has a much slower top speed then if it used gas, kinda like an ion engine versus a chemical rocket; but no way to tell from a little test flight.


RE: Hydrogen?
By AppleMaggot on 6/5/2012 3:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know of any hydrocarbon planes that can fly around for 4 days straight.

Here's one you forgot about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 3:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
That is a very special exception, with some extreme engineering feats (and extremely fragile). Not your common or mass produced plane.


RE: Hydrogen?
By AppleMaggot on 6/5/2012 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a very special exception, with some extreme engineering feats (and extremely fragile). Not your common or mass produced plane.


While certainly true (and I wouldn't argue the point), you forgot about this one as well. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Flyer


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
That one only lasted 2.8 days; so is actually not an exception.


RE: Hydrogen?
By AppleMaggot on 6/5/2012 3:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That one only lasted 2.8 days; so is actually not an exception.

Ahh, you're right, my bad.


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 4:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
No worries! The whole February is missing 2 days bit threw me off for a second too when I first looked at the page. Then the international date line counts for the next "missing" day.

Besides, it shows what Voyager did is truly special, and it's nice having one exception correcting my statement.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Calin on 6/6/2012 3:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Not your common or mass produced plane"
Unlike this flying eye plane, which is common and mass produced?
I think a Predator drone with a fuel tank instead of the missile would have a long enough loiter time. Also, surveillance planes were limited to the endurance of the weak link between the chair and the windshield, so there was no need for higher endurance.
And if we're talking about common and mass-produced (within limits), there's the Russian Tu-95 (?) patrol bomber, with 28 or so hours of endurance


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
I did find some numbers to compare the speed to some extent (we still don't know optimal cruise speed for sure). This test flight was 62 knots. A 180 horsepower Cessna 172GR has a cruise speed of 140 knots, and a 160 horsepower version goes 122 knots.

It seems this Phantom likely sacrifices speed for longevity by using hydrogen. Which is also more useful for continuous surveillance.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Gondor on 6/5/2012 5:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Um, the article clearly states the engine provides 300 HP. That is 300 HP regardless of whether the engine runs of HC fuel, hydrogen or pink dinosaur poop - so if this airplane achieved its feat by maintaining cruise speed of 62 knots, it wasn't due to hydrogen but due to plane's construction.

Fuel might be able to get you closer to your target power requirement and may perform optimally at certain pwoer output but ultimately it's the plane (and its propellers) that determine how long it can stay up in the air. It's not the hydrogen/oxygen propulsion that makes the plane slow in comparison to your Cessna, it's the aircraft design ... and at the same time thatr's what keeps that thing in the air for so long, just like Rutan's thingy from decades ago.


RE: Hydrogen?
By HotFoot on 6/5/2012 5:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen stores much more energy per unit mass than gas/kerosene. However, it has much less for unit volume for any practical aircraft purpose - ie. no cryogenic storage and reasonable limits on pressurisation.

So, it's reasonable that hydrogen is more appropriate to vehicles with larger volumes - which means thick wings, fat fuselage, etc. These - esp. thick wings, are more appropriate for low-speed flight. I imagine this demonstrator is along the vein of "persistent surveillance" vehicles, so cruise/dash speed aren't so important.

It's interesting, though, that they went with IC engines instead of a fuel cell.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Jaybus on 6/6/2012 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
It is probably an efficiency issue. Since a higher mass of gas/kerosene would be required in order to provide the same amount of mechanical work, the aircraft would require greater lift, which equates to either higher airspeed or longer wings. Since a lower airspeed is desirable to reduce drag and so reduce the energy required to stay on target a given amount of time, and since long wings (more volume for fuel) are required in any case, hydrogen makes sense.

As for the fuel cell approach, I think that is likely a reliability issue. ICEs are simply more proven than fuel cells and probably considered less likely to fail.


RE: Hydrogen?
By geddarkstorm on 6/6/2012 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
The engine only gives 150 horsepower, but there are two. And horsepower doesn't tell you how fast a plane will fly, even if all other factors are the same. That's because torque and speed make up horsepower but have very different effects on a plane. High engine speed (high RPMs) is what gives a plane, well, speed.

Diesel engines are higher torque than gasoline engines. So, for the same horsepower a gasoline engine will have higher RPMs, and would make a plane faster than if it used diesel. Hence why diesel engines are rarer for aircraft (though used more on airships, which are lumbering and slow, with a lot of mass that needs to be moved). On the other hand, the slow speed but high torque of a diesel engine gives it higher specific fuel efficiency than gasoline. See how this works?

So, I was pondering on what performance these hydrogen engines would have. Since the UAV has such insane longevity in the air, we at least know the fuel efficiency of the engines should be enormous, but what is the actual speed? I compared the HP of these engines with known planes (which have far, far less fuel efficiency) and their speeds, just to try to get a sense of what the numbers actually mean. Though the test flight was 62 knots, it seems the top speed is meant to be something like 150 knots from what someone else said above. Even at 150 knots, that still makes the Phantom Eye far slower than other dual engine aircraft that use gasoline.

So what does that tell you about the hydrogen system? Very fuel efficient, but slow? Perfect for UAV surveillance; but would you necessarily want it in a consumer aircraft?

Also, if you look just above in this thread you see our talk about Rutan; the only known plan to go over four days. But it was also very specially constructed and one of a kind (and very weak, it could not even weather storms). This UAV is far more standard in design despite its "bomb" shape, and to be mass produced. Can't really compare it to Rutan.

Design has a critically important role as you point out, but the engines and fuel are -all part of the design-. Otherwise, why don't we design all our craft like Rutan to have 9 day longevity? Think about it a little more.


RE: Hydrogen?
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2012 10:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesel engines are higher torque than gasoline engines. So, for the same horsepower a gasoline engine will have higher RPMs, and would make a plane faster than if it used diesel. Hence why diesel engines are rarer for aircraft (though used more on airships, which are lumbering and slow, with a lot of mass that needs to be moved).


If a diesel and a gas engine had no mass and had the same HP, they'd both be able to propel the plane the same speed. It doesn't matter which one has higher RPM, since maintaining a certain speed would require a certain amount of work, and HP is a unit of work.

In reality planes don't often us diesel engines because they're heavier than gasoline engines.

quote:
Also, if you look just above in this thread you see our talk about Rutan; the only known plan to go over four days. But it was also very specially constructed and one of a kind (and very weak, it could not even weather storms). This UAV is far more standard in design despite its "bomb" shape, and to be mass produced. Can't really compare it to Rutan. Design has a critically important role as you point out, but the engines and fuel are -all part of the design-. Otherwise, why don't we design all our craft like Rutan to have 9 day longevity? Think about it a little more.


This aircraft's endurance is largely achieved by its size. It's a very large and voluminous aircraft. It has a 150 foot wingspan and it about the size of an airliner. It's an evolution of a previous test aircraft, the Boeing Condor, which ran on gasoline and had about the same endurance.

This isn't the model that will fly for 10 days. That will be an even larger aircraft.


RE: Hydrogen?
By jRaskell on 6/5/2012 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Likely for the flight ceiling, which is 65,000 feet. without super or turbo charging, hydrocarbon ICEs operate very poorly above around 20-30,000 feet.


RE: Hydrogen?
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2012 10:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
The same problem would apply to hydrogen fueled engines, since the problem is the amount of available air and not the fuel. That's why this thing also needs to be turbocharged.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Richard875yh5 on 6/5/2012 5:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Because hydrogen is lighter than air.


RE: Hydrogen?
By spread on 6/5/2012 10:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Which is why people who drive hydrogen powered cars have to weigh them down with lead. Over 12 people have died after removing the ballast from their vehicles and floating away into space never to be seen again.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Alexvrb on 6/6/2012 9:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but they all made good on their boasts of achieving out-of-this-world mileage!


RE: Hydrogen?
By spread on 6/5/2012 10:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would they choose hydrogen as fuel source over standard gas/diesel/avgas?


Hydrogen can be very efficiently and quickly converted into electricity using a very small fuel cell. It powers not only the main motor but the rest of the power hungry electronics.

Much more efficient than an engine (with a big alternator) or a large generator which would run an electric motor anyways.

Hydrogen is simpler, and has a higher energy density and the whole system would be lighter.


RE: Hydrogen?
By Jedi2155 on 6/5/2012 11:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't mention using a fuel cell to convert the hydrogen to electricity but are simply burning up the hydrogen in a piston engine. I could see the benefits of the fuel cell but using it in a piston engine boggled my mind.


RE: Hydrogen?
By hartleyb on 6/6/2012 1:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
A little suprised by all the responses to this article. Have you ever tried to see something white with a 19 ft wing span at 65000 ft...hard even with help from optics. The engine choice, fuel, and design all have to do with high altitude operations. As a note the UAV is designed to reduce fuel consumption by using upper air currents. It would only last a couple days or less at low altitude. The idea is to replace the current P3 manned aircraft with an unmanned aircraft that can be both a relay for communications as well as a imagery reconnaissance. The DOD's move from the prop powered P3 to the jet engine power P8 leaves some huge gaps in operational capability i.e. on station time. The P8 has a 65% less capability to stay on station then the current P3. UAV's will fill the gap.


Impressive
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 3
It is hydrogen powered and can loiter up to 10 days? That is pretty incredible. And it can carry a 450 lb load for 96 hours (five days) before needing to land. That is some serious fuel economy!

I wonder what its top speed is? Still, that says a lot about the power of this hydrogen engine system they have. For reference, the Cessna 170S single prop airplane uses a 180 horsepower engine.




RE: Impressive
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 1:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, sorry, Cessna 172S. The old Cessna 170 only had a 145 hp engine.


RE: Impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2012 2:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or is this thing WAY too vulnerable for combat theater operations? It's basically a blimp with wings. And at 4,000 feet, pretty much anything can shoot it down.

The technology is impressive, but I see far more benefits for the civilian sector than I do military.


RE: Impressive
By Sazabi19 on 6/5/2012 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but it is a good starting concept as well as a demonstrator. It has been proven, now it can be refined.


RE: Impressive
By WalksTheWalk on 6/5/2012 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like this is more demo tech than anything, but it is impressive. I'm sure there will be a military contract here somewhere to explore a version that can cruise at much higher altitudes and be combined with stealth attributes.

As you mentioned it has many places in civilian areas too such as mapping, etc.


RE: Impressive
By Jeffk464 on 6/5/2012 3:07:41 PM , Rating: 1
How well can Taliban shoot it down at that altitude with AK47's and rocket propelled grenades?


RE: Impressive
By jRaskell on 6/5/2012 3:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
This was just a test flight. The flight ceiling for this UAV is going to be 65,000 feet. I'm sure there will be a variety of test flights before they attempt any tests at that height.

It's top speed is also 150 knots.


RE: Impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2012 6:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Figures. You know I don't why we bother reading these articles when you have to go to another site or use Google to get the whole story. Nowhere here does it mention being a high-altitude aircraft, and at the end where stats are being listed, flight ceiling is left out.

65,000 feet for a prop driven aircraft is pretty damn impressive. The world record for level flight is currently 46,919 feet.


RE: Impressive
By ZorkZork on 6/5/2012 5:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends on who the enemy is. Besides according to Boeing it is a HALE (High Altitude, Long Endurance) UAV thus 4000 feet is definitely not the ceiling.


RE: Impressive
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/6/2012 9:36:01 AM , Rating: 1
And if it gets shot down? The taxpayer will just shell out $200 million more for a new one.

Or whatever the hell this thing costs. I assume $200 million is too high, but I am sure it costs at least 100 times more than the sum of its parts. I mean, really, a hydrogen tank, a $10000 fuselage, and old conservatively designed motors that should cost no more than a couple grand. The BOM for these machines should be about $100k. Multiply by 100 and you get $10 million. Multiply that by a pig factor of 20 and you get $200 million.


RE: Impressive
By Calin on 6/5/2012 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's hydrogen powered, cruises at 62 mph and has a 150feet wingspan. The next version will loiter up to 10 days, this version is good for only 96 hours (4 days).
And it has two engines for 300 horsepower


RE: Impressive
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
I had a feeling the article meant to say the proposed next (2014) version was the one with a 10 day loiter time, and the current one was 4 days. I just gave DT the benefit of the doubt and assumed the time between landings was simply that greatly reduced when you strapped 450 lbs to the thing.


RE: Impressive
By inighthawki on 6/5/2012 3:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
96 hours is four days, not five. :)


RE: Impressive
By geddarkstorm on 6/5/2012 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone's a critic ;)


Headline should read:
By Spookster on 6/5/2012 1:12:07 PM , Rating: 1
"Boeing Develops Hyrdogen Bomb"




RE: Headline should read:
By aromero78 on 6/5/2012 2:20:25 PM , Rating: 3
Keep that up and you'll soon be a full time blogger here at DailyTech!


RE: Headline should read:
By greylica on 6/5/2012 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
You make me ROFL here.


RE: Headline should read:
By Alexvrb on 6/6/2012 9:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Typos AND sensationalist headlines? When can you start?


So, how does this work?
By bug77 on 6/5/2012 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Do they train the pilot to go on for 96 hours in row or are they extra careful not to miss a single frame when the next pilot takes over?

(sorry, couldn't think of anything wittier)




RE: So, how does this work?
By leviathan05 on 6/5/2012 1:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because only one person is allowed to watch the video feed?


RE: So, how does this work?
By bobsmith1492 on 6/5/2012 3:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't "autonomous" mean "it flies itself?" ;-)


Is this actually autonomous?
By tayb on 6/5/2012 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Is this actually autonomous or it remote controlled? Seems like it is remote controlled but I doubt there is someone constantly steering this thing for 4+ days so does it autonomous in the air and controlled landing or what?




Cool.
By stm1185 on 6/5/2012 9:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
I must admit I am surprised about how many awesome flying death machines we are building with Noble Peace Prize winner Obama in office.

10 days above the target. Just circling with a bomb waiting to drop when they exit the building. Muhahaha.




glossing over...
By chromal on 6/5/2012 1:08:23 PM , Rating: 1
Headline should read: "Boeing prototype UAV crash lands in California!"




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki