backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by danrien.. on Aug 29 at 2:28 PM


The Zephyr is very large, but ultralight and launchable by hand.  (Source: QinetiQ)

The Zephyr flies proud as the current unofficial world record holder for solar powered flight. The craft could provide a big boost to the UAV industry.  (Source: QinetiQ)
New design could be a boon to the reconnaissance, small plane industry

As the Olympics close, a dizzying couple weeks of record breaking have come to an end.  In total 43 world records were smashed.  In this spirit aerospace startup QinitiQ announced an important record of its own in the field of alternative energy.

In Phelpsian fashion, QinetiQ's Zephyr Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) obliterated the previous world record for continuous solar flight, though some technical disputes may hold off its place in the records books for a short time. 

According to QinetiQ, the Zephyr flew for 83 hours and 37 minutes, more than twice the longest flight time of Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk, holder of the current record.  The two craft are radically different.  The Global Hawk is almost the size of a fighter and requires a full runway to launch.  The Zephyr is much more petite and can be launched by hand.

The Zephyr features an ultra-lightweight carbon fiber skeleton, weighing less than 70 lb.  Its 18m wingspan is paper thin and plastered with amorphous silicon solar cells made by United Solar Ovonic in Michigan.  The cells pump power by day to the engines and to Sion Power lithium sulfur batteries to store power to continue flight at night.  The craft also features a specially designed charging mechanism, and highly refined autopilot software, according to QinetiQ.

Paul Davey, Development Director for the Zephyr UAV, stated of the flight, "At present long endurance is measured in terms of hours. Ultimately we are thinking in terms of months. The current development programme has the potential to extend Zephyr’s mission endurance to around three months, which could force a wholesale change to the way in which the industry thinks about UAV operations."

Unfortunately QinetiQ's celebrations may be put on hold.  The World Air Sports Federation--the governing body for air sports and aeronautical world records said QinetiQ's flight times failed to meet certain criteria it holds.  Thus the Northrup Grumman record may live to see another day.  This is not the first time that QinetiQ has had such difficulties -- last year it completed a highly publicized 54-hr. trek, which would have set the record, only to be disqualified for similar timing violations.

Nonetheless, with UAV military applications booming and UAVs being discussed as a possible means of massive climate data collection, QinetiQ seems poised to capitalize on its success.  And with designs like that of Northrup Grumman showing that full size solar aircraft are possible, it seems possible that a solar-powered composite ultra-small manned plane might even be viable in coming years. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

solar-powered global hawk?
By The Boston Dangler on 8/25/2008 3:51:29 PM , Rating: 3
"QinetiQ's Zephyr Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) obliterated the previous world record for continuous solar flight, though some technical disputes may hold off its place in the records books for a short time.

According to QinetiQ, the Zephyr flew for 83 hours and 37 minutes, more than twice the longest flight time of Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk, holder of the current record."

are you serious? the global hawk is the size and weight of a small passenger jet, and powered by jet fuel, not sunshine.

it is indeed a record for solar-powered flight, but the global hawk's record that was broked was for longest unmanned flight (30h 24m).

it's also worth noting, the global hawk sacrificed payload for endurance, while the zephyr has a payload of zero regardless of endurance.




By The Boston Dangler on 8/25/2008 3:53:41 PM , Rating: 5
*should be "broken", not "broked". possibly "borked".


By Captain Orgazmo on 8/26/2008 6:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, comparing this solar powered hand launched glider to the Global Hawk is silly. It will be years before a solar powered aircraft of any type will be able to compete (payload and speed wise) with a fueled aircraft.

NASA has been piddling with solar planes for years, and even managed to get one to fly up to nearly 97,000 ft altitude in 2001 (it later crashed into the ocean). The idea is to make a much cheaper alternative to certain types of space based satellites; basically a plane that can stay aloft indefinitely.


solar research platform
By inorbit on 8/25/2008 9:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
The key phrase here is research and development.This group is off to a good start, but I guess its never too soon to for the community to fret about funding wars.




Too early to claim success
By kahuna1 on 8/25/2008 9:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
My concerns regarding QinetiQ's design are two-fold. First, as was stated earlier, payload considerations are non-existent in the current design but this may be accepted as on-the-way in later production models once flight duration is no longer a problem. My second concern is, however, much more difficult to discount -- durability. Can this UAV handle rough weather or even an occasional gust and what sort of performance penalty will it suffer to address that concern?




Credit Due
By OneEng on 8/25/2008 3:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true that the components needed for such an endeavor are a factor in the creation of the device ....

Come on.

You really think it is that easy to make something fly for 80+ hours? You make it sound like someone went to RadioShack, purchased a couple of LiPo batteries, dropped by HomeDepot for some solar panels and lumber, and out came a plane that could fly for 80 hours.

Most modern engineering is recombinant. Most doctoral work is pure research. To belittle either is nonsensical.

Would you say that Intel's new i7 processor deserves no acclaim because all it really does is cleverly use the transistor? ..... that after all was created many many years ago.




Similar to What?
By Sahrin on 8/25/2008 8:45:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
which would have set the record, only to be disqualified for similar timing violations.


Maybe I missed this bit; but similar to what?

This technology is certainly very cool; once it gets to the 160+ hour range, we can begin to talk about taking down all these damn cellular towers and replacing them with UAV's.

My only fear is that funding for these relatively low-flying, low-speed aircraft will be diverted from the high-flying high-speed and extremely expensive developmental craft.

Both areas of research (extremes and miniaturization) are vital; we can't afford to neglect one.




One problem
By FITCamaro on 8/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: One problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/25/2008 9:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cells pump power by day to the engines and to Sion Power lithium sulfur batteries to store power to continue flight at night.


It already has batteries onboard. I don't know how much they weigh but I'm guessing the weight of a camera compared to the batteries or the 70 lb frame is going to be relatively trivial. Similarly, the power draw from a camera/wireless transmitter is likely trivial compared to an engine's draw.

The main thing holding this aircraft back is cost, but with the healthy funding flowing around the UAV industry currently, even this may be little problem.


RE: One problem
By marvdmartian on 8/25/2008 9:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
Your points are valid, to anyone existing in the "real world".

However, if this is to be used as a government surveillance aircraft, you just know that they'll want to add 500 pounds of equipment (and redundant systems) onto the aircraft, which makes the OP's point more relevant, doesn't it? ;)


RE: One problem
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 9:55:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The main thing holding this aircraft back is cost"

A UAV able to stay on-station semi-permanently would be worth its weight in gold. This tech isn't being held back by cost; it's simply not yet viable. Once you add any weight to the craft for anything besides solar cells and required structural components, it becomes far too heavy to maintain flight.


RE: One problem
By isorfir on 8/25/2008 10:00:54 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A UAV able to stay on-station semi-permanently would worth its weight in gold


I thought this was "ultra-lightweight"


RE: One problem
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 10:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
Worth its weight in rhodium then.


RE: One problem
By PitViper007 on 8/26/2008 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 3
I dunno, I'd take 70lbs of gold...


RE: One problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/25/2008 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
QinitiQ claims it is capable of carrying a variety of light payloads.

Source:
http://uk.sitestat.com/qinetiq/internet/s?dfe.defe...[http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/defence_soluti...]


RE: One problem
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2008 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting. Of course, that brochure claims it can stay aloft for "months at a time", when according to this article, their record is 83 hours.

Still, they've definitely made progress and I'm sure we'll see such UAVs in the near future, regardless of cost. At a guess, the limiting factor now probably isn't solar cell efficiency in any case, but battery enegrgy density/kg.


RE: One problem
By danrien on 8/29/2008 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know how much they weigh but I'm guessing the weight of a camera compared to the batteries or the 70 lb frame is going to be relatively trivial


I'm guessing that rebukes your argument of weight. For a light camera, weight would be trivial. So, for surveillance, this is a perfect solution: sustained flight, doesn't have to necessarily worry about clouds (for a while), etc., where as a satellite hates cloud cover and needs to wait to get into position over the Earth. This bad boy, take him out and throw him up in the air, and he's ready to take some pictures.

For any sort of munitions payload, yes, the added weight would be too much to sustain flight for very long, not even taking into account the (rather small) amount of lift the solar wings are able to generate, which would most likely ground the plane for large payloads immediately.


RE: One problem
By s12033722 on 8/25/2008 12:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
As a designer of digital cameras, a typical daylight-only camera would weigh about 1 lb and have a power draw of 7-10 watts. Low-light capable cameras would typically bump that to 2 lbs and 20-30 watts depending on framerate.

The optics package might add some significant weight to that, though....


RE: One problem
By FITCamaro on 8/25/2008 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 1
You also have to add weight for equipment that allows the Air Force or Army to retask the UAV. To control the UAV via satellite. Full motion video of what the UAV is currently seeing. A storage system for the video (at least a month's worth if they achieve what they want).