back to article How to build a plane that never needs to land

The British military is reportedly set to purchase two planes that can fly for months on end without needing to land. These large solar-powered “Zephyr” drones would likely be sent to carry out long-term surveillance missions and could constantly monitor an area with high-quality imagery. They could also be used to provide …

  1. TeeCee Gold badge
    Meh

    ...it’s possible to land and repair the craft if something goes wrong.

    Always assuming that the something that went wrong was something in the surveillance gear and not something in the aircraft itself....

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Much more useful when batteries improve

    Current payload is only 5kg, which isn't much if you want high resolution images 24/7 from multispectral sensors from 20km+. But with so much of the aircraft's mass in the batteries this could rapidly become a real game-changer as battery technology improves; about 25% less battery mass would double the payload, for example.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

      There's a lot riding on this assumption of battery improvement.

      I'll buy an e-car in a heartbeat once batteries are 'twice as good' as they are now.

      Autonomous aircraft is pretty far down the list of 'important things' that'll change if and when batteries improve. Just above, 'Hey, my flashlight works longer.'

      1. Charles Manning

        Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

        The e-car problem won't be solved by batteries alone.

        Something's gotta charge those batteries. Most western countries are at the limits of their generation capacity with the roll out of new power stations getting harder and harder. SImilarly, power grids and reticulation are creaky and cannot take more load.

        It's all Ok while e-cars are just a few overpriced Teslas etc, but a significant shift to e-cars (20% or more) is going to need massive upgrades to generation and power distribution.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

          Hooray! I had thought I might be the only one who had sat down and worked out that replacing the UK's car fleet with electric cars would require an approximate doubling of the UK's power generation and distribution infrastructure.

          I seem to recall hearing that the power generation is currently within a few percent of critical...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

            @Neil Barnes

            Not only would it need the doubling of the power available but it would require that power to be available 24/7/365 - something that renewable power is unable to do (wind generate with no wind and solar doesn't cut it at night)

            Another thing is that the power would have to be so cheap otherwise people could not afford to use it - again something renewable energy isn't.

            1. Martin Budden Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

              Hooray! I had thought I might be the only one who had sat down and worked out that replacing the UK's car fleet with electric cars would require an approximate doubling of the UK's power generation and distribution infrastructure.

              @Neil Barnes Not only would it need the doubling of the power available but it would require that power to be available 24/7/365 - something that renewable power is unable to do (wind generate with no wind and solar doesn't cut it at night) Another thing is that the power would have to be so cheap otherwise people could not afford to use it - again something renewable energy isn't.

              There is no need to double power station output or upgrade the distribution network. This is how it will work: solar panels on the house roof, Powerwall battery in the garage, charge your electric car overnight while you sleep. (On the rare occasions you need to drive more than 400km in one day you can use a fast-charge station at lunchtime). As for pricing: solar panels + Powerwall will pay for themselves in a decade at current prices so they are already financially viable, and pricing will improve further as the tech is refined.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

                "There is no need to double power station output or upgrade the distribution network."

                Simply put, I can't afford solar panels, a power wall *and* a car, electric or otherwise.

                I'd bet that probably more than half the population of the UK are in the same position. I believe that either we need to:-

                1. increase the power generating capacity of the country

                2. give away a massive number of free solar cells and powerwalls, (no idea how they'd be paid for, because *I* can't afford to subsidise any more solar panels and windmills via my electricity bill than I already am....)

                or

                3. perhaps simply accept that for the time being, electric cars are a niche product for the better off among us. (and at the same time, remove the subsidy paid for out of general taxation that makes them unrealistically cheap to buy.)

              2. Gotno iShit Wantno iShit

                Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

                You seem to be suggesting that in order to relieve the pressure on the grid we should go solar + powerwall? Here's a flaw or two in that plan

                1) 400km range is Tesla country, way beyond the means of most. A Leaf, which is more what real people can afford, will do 175km. In the summer with a tailwind and when new.

                2) A powerwall will be dead in far less than 3650 charge cycles if you use it's full capacity. If you only use 7KWh then yes one should just about last a decade.

                3) 7KWh is not remotely going to get your home off grid but that's not the point, you only need an alternative source equal to what you'll be putting in your car. A Leaf with 175km range has 30KWh batteries so you need three to four powerwalls and three to four rooftops full of solar cells assuming you don't use all the 175km range.

                http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost-there/

              3. JeffyPoooh
                Pint

                Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

                Martin Budden offered that "...solar panels + Powerwall will pay for themselves in a decade..."

                Your electricity tariff must be extremely high for your claim to be true. Or other rate-payers or governments are subsidizing you.

                The 7-kwh PowerWall, reportedly the only one designed for daily cycles, only holds a trivial $1 worth of electricity (assumed rate $0.15/kwh), so the VERY MOST VALUE it can 'pay back' over ten years is $3.6k (at most; assuming ideal conditions). But the retail price is MORE than that. So it'll NEVER pay back its total installed cost within its roughly ten-year life span. It's greenwash and net negative for everyone except Musk, who finds a market for his vast collection of sub-par 18650 cells (rejected from the Tesla car battery packs). It's bordering on green-fraud, which is one more reason why I view Musk's true green values with some suspicion.

                Even solar panels! Even when on sale, they'd pretty much have to be placed into orbit, with 100% duty cycle solar flux, no clouds, no night, to make back their cost in less than a decade. A watt-year is about $1.36 (assumed rate $0.15/kwh). A 45-watt panel is at least $100, not even installed yet. It makes barely $10 worth of power per year in the real world (night, angles, clouds, snow). Same money invested in passive solar gain for heating has much better environmental credentials.

                Do you actually have such a solar panel plus PowerWall system? Most fans of solar power don't actually have a system, because they're not actually as daft as their dreams.

                1. tojb
                  Go

                  Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

                  Pretty much all new houses where I live are built to the vaguely nordic "passivhaus" standard of energy use, i.e. near-zero for heating and water (zero may be impossible to achieve if north-facing in a valley bottom). Solar panels are a financially attractive add-on for those who can make the investment, thanks to generous subsidies (paid through other suckers' electricity bills, which are ludicrous).

                  The clever bit about the passivhaus stuff is controlled ventilation, with heat exchangers at the inflow and outflow. That and a very airtight building with very thick walls and windows pretty much solves your heating problem. Power diverted to the fans is minimal compared to what you save.

        2. Youngone Silver badge

          Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

          Where I live* electricity consumption is falling, 80% of the generation is from renewable sources, and the Government is providing incentives for companies to provide charging stations for electric cars.

          The limiting factor is the price of the actual cars.

          *Not the UK.

          1. Tom 7

            Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

            Sod batteries:

            http://cellaenergy.com/our-materials/ seem to have 3 times the energy density of gasoline. The weight reduction using this technology should reduce fuel consumption considerably.

            Not sure if that takes into account the 2.5% increase in efficiency of fuel cells over internal combustion.

            Other possibilities of electric Self drive is their potential ability to block together - seriously reducing air resistance and hence fuel consumption.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

            Youngone "Where I live..., 80% of the generation is from renewable sources..."

            Me too. It's called Canada. 65+% hydro to start. Well over 80% carbon 'free', but that includes nukes.

            I haven't yet found the figures, but I suspect that Canada's hydro power provides 65% of our *consumption*, but the hydro *generation* may exceed 100% - because we export over a billion dollars of HydroQuebec electricity to the USA. ...Not yet sure about that...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

        Most people don't find their failure of imagination to be brag worthy. Autonomous mesh networked drones capable of indefinite flight will change things. For the better or worse will depend on how paranoid are the people with the keys.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Much more useful when batteries improve

      Current payload is only 5kg, which isn't much

      Assuming that they are telling the whole truth, and that they don't improve it. Qinetiq and Airbus will know down to the last gramme what the minimum useful payload is, and they'll be fully aware that if the craft can't do anything useful then there won't be repeat orders.

  3. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    2000 hour inspection cycle

    There's typically some hardware that would need inspection and/or test and sign-off every 2000 hours. That's 12 weeks. Some aircraft need inspection every 600 hours, less than a month.

    Some of this can eventually be engineered out, but the authorities won't allow anyone to 'Fly To Failure'. Obviously... Any failures at 'X' weeks might result in the authorities granting one-half 'X' weeks for operational purposes. Often it's a 2:1 ratio of expected life to certified life.

    The big news here might be the eventual engineering of hardware with extremely long certified life. Owners of light aircraft would appreciate a prop with an unlimited, no inspection, life. The reductions in cost would be enormous. But unemployment for certified aircraft mechanics.

    1. IanDs

      Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

      Why are you assuming that the same reliability/certification/inspection regulations should apply to a lightweight unmanned drone as a passenger aircraft? If it fails it doesn't kill 200 people...

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        Even having a day's downtime a week would allow one spare plane to provide cover for or six operational planes, allowing continuous uptime (weather and acts of dog, allowing). Having routine maintenance every month wouldn't be too onerous. Components, such as motor and prop assemblies can be swapped out / swapped in quickly.

        I'm assuming the small size of it makes inspection of the airframe easier and quicker.

        1. Down not across

          Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

          Even having a day's downtime a week would allow one spare plane to provide cover for or six operational planes, allowing continuous uptime (weather and acts of dog, allowing).

          I wouldn't be expecting dogs to be a particular issue at 20km.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        A failure can kill people on the ground, so the main use for now would be restricted to war zones.

      3. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        @IanDs "Why are you assuming ...?"

        No such assumption was made.

        The point is that it'll be a major 'Certification' effort to authorize huge numbers, in the inspection cycle duration.

      4. Pat Att

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        " If it fails it doesn't kill 200 people..." Unless it hits a 767 on the way down.....

      5. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        I think some of you might have missed the headline, "How to build a plane that never needs to land"

        My '...inspection cycle' post was aimed at that. Obviously I thought, but sorry I didn't make that target explicit.

        "Never" is a vast over-estimate.

    2. a_yank_lurker

      Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

      The materials used for the various structural members will be the main driver for inspections. The biggest issue for an airframe is a fatigue type failure of a major structural member. The fatigue characteristics of the materials, which I do not know, will dictate how often the airframe must checked, 2000 hrs might about right. I doubt the materials used on the airframe are that different from composites and metals currently being used. So I would expect similar fatigue life for major structural components. The other "mechanical" issue is the power plant reliability, again how many hours can one safely run it without inspection. Here, I have no idea.

      The main concern is not the airframe failure in this case but what it might hit and damage on the ground.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        The main concern is not the airframe failure in this case but what it might hit and damage on the ground.

        A concern for whom? Your and my governments have been busy deliberately raining tonnes of stuff down on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, so I wouldn't have thought that the accidental and vastly remote chance of a 55kg kite landing on anything in such poor and sparsely populated areas will be taxing too many consciences.

        Even over the US and UK, you're still talking about substantially less than the laden mass of a hot air balloon basket, all held up by hot air, flimsy material and rope.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

          @Ledswinger - you're talking under half the mass of me and my paraglider, which are safety protected by an emergency parachute weighing around a kilo. Half the mass requires, I think, a quarter as much parachute material, so a quarter the weight - not a lot to give up for testing locations, at least.

      2. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

        @a_y.._l...

        You've touched on the issue of fatigue life. Aircraft (primary structure) might have a certified life of something like 25,000 or 30,000 hours. Continuous duty, that's (only) three or four years.

        I expect that we agree that healthy pessimism is required to avoid major disappointment.

        1. Adam 1

          Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

          My understanding about much of the fatigue was that it related to the expansion and contraction of the materials as the relative air pressures change (inside vs outside). Planes that do a lot of short hops have more stresses than one doing long distance for the same km.

    3. HamsterNet

      Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

      Its not a Civilian Aircraft.

      The Military can fly to failure if they like. Have you seen the switchblade drone?

      Also lithium batteries at ~2000 charged hold ~80% (chemistry dependent) of their new power. Each charge discharge cycle effectively holds very slightly less than the previous one.

    4. khjohansen

      Re: 2000 hour inspection cycle

      That inspection cycle can probably be stretched a bit when you don't *land* or *pressure-cycle* the thing

      every few hours...

  4. Mikel

    5kg is a lot of payload

    Just looking at what's being done in mobile phones (sans battery), you can fit a lot of functionality into 5 kilos.

    1. Queasy Rider

      Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

      Agreed, but phones use sensors over distances measured in millimeters to meters. A drone flying above the weather will usually require sensors many orders of magnitude more powerful and usually heavier, even if the computing power of a smart phone is all that is needed, think camera lenses for example.

      1. Mikel

        Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

        I wasn't just looking at processing power. Cameras are down to milligrams now, and an array of them can do wonders. Laser communications also don't require as much hardware as they once did. Radios likewise. Now IR and UV sensors haven't kept pace but they have enjoyed some benefits of progress.

        1. Richard 12 Silver badge

          Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

          Lenses are still heavy - and are unlikely to get much lighter due to the physics of optics.

          A camera sensor with a tiny lens is useless at that distance. Even assuming fixed focus it needs a really wide aperture to be any use - and a telephoto lens adds a lot more glass.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens

            ...I expect they've already thought of it if weight is a big factor. Lenses don't need to be glass either...

            1. Queasy Rider

              Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

              Fresnel lenses are absolutely no good for imaging operations.

              1. Queasy Rider

                Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

                Correction, that should read, high altitude imaging operations.

          2. Mikel

            Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

            Let's cite an example. This is based on 2011 mobile camera technology and only 8 gigapixels. No doubt 4-8x should be possible today. Maybe more.

            1. Dave 126 Silver badge

              Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

              Mikel is correct, a surveillance/coms payload of a given weight can do far more today than a few years ago.

            2. Queasy Rider

              Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

              I checked out your example. Nowhere is a weight of the system specified, however the two vehicles that were used to test lift the system were named, the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in 2010 with a lift capacity of 9,000 pounds, and the MQ-9 Reaper in 2014 with a lifting capacity of 3,800 pounds. I suspect you are mostly right but I can't find any facts to back up your weight assertions. Sorry.

          3. Tom 7

            Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

            Why use a lens? A simple lightweight mirror would do the job!

            This technology stuff is amazing if you dont deliberately find faults that are easy to solve but look mountainous to many.

        2. Queasy Rider

          Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

          Tech is not my field so I will take your statements with a slight grain of of salt, but I concede that modern cameras are amazing. I recently purchased a Mobius camera for my motorcycle helmet. It is one third the size of a GoPro, no bigger than a matchbox, one third the price of a cheap GoPro, only $80; and the resolution exceeded all my expectations. A clip recorded at 80 mph on the interstate, when played back on a 22 inch monitor will resolve every stone on the road beneath the bike with no blur at all when you freeze the playback. Really. Now, if they could just do something about wind noise it would be perfect, but in the meantime it is a superb dashcam for my bike, mounted up high. I have the wide angle lens unit.

          P.S. If you want to see what this camera is capable of, check out rcgroups.com

    2. DocJames
      Joke

      Re: 5kg is a lot of payload

      Just looking at what's being done in mobile phones (sans battery), you can fit a lot of functionality into 5 kilos.

      If your phone still weighs 5kg you've got some serious catching up to do.

  5. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    What about the (few) moving parts? I suppose they will influence routine maintenance cycles too.

  6. zebm

    What about the boys in blue?

    What are the economics of replacing the local police helicopter? The Met supposedly costs £850ph - http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2014/july_2014/2014070000470.pdf - which a crude calculation gives £7.5 million a year. So it's looking like the same order of magnitude for payback over a few years.

    Obviously this would be a quieter solution - I fondly remember the Strangeways riots stopping the local flyboys buzzing the house at 3am.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: What about the boys in blue?

      You're not comparing like with like when comparing a running cost with purchase cost. These things are going to cost money in staff and maintenance too, hopefully notas much but those props and motors will need some looking after - and at QuinetiQ rates.

      Not quite sure what use this will be to Police if it only operates on clear, cloudless days. Actually that's not unlike the current Police helicopter service.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A fine European Smorgasbord.

    Qinetiq, sold off by the MoD, Designs the Zephyr, gives the design to EADS Airbus (or possibly licences it), the MoD buy it from EADS Airbus. The logical non-cynical assumption would be that Qinetiq was research only without the required manufacturing facilities, but from their website:

    We make unmanned aviation work for both government and commercial customers – applying quality surveillance and intelligence technologies to provide safe and cost-effective operations.

    We’re Europe’s largest commercial operator of unmanned aircraft, with a reputation for executing services in difficult environments.

    and one has to wonder how much of the £11.5 million for 2 aircraft has now gone on Qinetiq advising the UK government which is also on their website:

    Procurement Advisory Services (PAS) provides essential, independent, expert services across the entire acquisition life cycle.

    So they independently advised the MoD to buy their design from someone else to remain impartial.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A fine European Smorgasbord.

      You couldn't be more wrong.

      The team that developed this couldn't get money out of MoD to do the research, and only succeeded in being able to prove it practical via a route involving a marketing stunt. They continued to find bits and pieces of money, but in the end the clueless suits sold it off to Airbus, rather than exploit it for QQ and the UK.

      It's actually the typical story of insufficient foresight and money - not double dealing.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Much of their usefulness is no doubt based on how easy they are to lock onto and shoot down( or take photos and complain to embassy) from the surface. Invariably very useful when engaging in foreign adventures where the largest threat is an RPG. Not so useful for a real war. Could see them being very handy back home for emergency situations where say the mobile network goes down during a disaster though.

  9. itzman

    About as useful as a chocolate teapot

    If the opposition have a tiger moth and a shotgun

    "Too lightly armed to defend itself and too slow to run away".

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: About as useful as a chocolate teapot

      20km is twice the height of a commercial air liner's flight level. It's almost 3 times the height of Everest. A conventional aircraft won't reach that altitude -certainly not a WWI one.

      1. Snapper
        Unhappy

        Re: About as useful as a chocolate teapot

        >cough< PEDANT ALERT!

        The Tiger Moth was not a WW1 plane.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    After the solar-powered “Zephyr”

    Comes the solar-powered “Viagra".

    It can stay up much longer.

  11. Mark 85
    Headmaster

    The headline is wrong...

    Every aircraft will land... at least once and maybe not in pristine condition. The old cliché applies: What goes up, has to come down*.

    *Disclaimer: This applies only to aircraft and LEO type objects.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The headline is wrong...

      If you want to be a pedant the headline actually reads "How to build a plane that never *needs* to land", not "How to build a plance that will never land"

      (Also the cliché is "What goes up, must come down")

  12. mhenriday
    Unhappy

    Progress is wonderful !

    Now we can be surveilled 24/7 ever more cheaply (which is nice, becasue we are taxed to pay for the surveillance) ! O brave new world. That has such aeroplanes in't !...

    Henri

  13. Pat 11

    why wings rather than balloons for lift

    Can anyone explain why these things need to be planes rather than blimps? Or maybe some kind of hybrid? If you don't need energy for lift, surely you don't need much energy at all?

    1. Aqua Marina

      Re: why wings rather than balloons for lift

      I always thought it was because balloons tend to be porous to any of the gasses that are used to provide lift, so once it's finished rising up, it's always slowly coming back down.

    2. DropBear
      Facepalm

      Re: why wings rather than balloons for lift

      - If you just want to go up, balloons are great; if you actually want to hold a certain altitude, decidedly less so. It's not really possible to just stay neutrally buoyant passively, and fiddling with the buoyancy invariably gets messy. Major altitude changes are even worse - if you let out gas, you're not getting it back...

      - Balloons tend to have the equivalent aerodynamic drag of a flying olympic swimming pool, so even with some propulsion moving them is unwieldy, moving them fast is out of the question, and basically pretty much any wind gets to sweep them away when they just want to stay put.

      - Solar wings might be a large-ish target but they're nothing compared to the target surface of any balloon; not good if the point is to avoid detection and/or a rocket on its way up.

      - Whether you use hydrogen (ay carramba del los santos kaboom...!) or helium, those tiny atoms tend to just slip through any material and go bye-bye sooner rather than later - now you're either carrying heavy tanks with reserves or you're definitely not staying up "never land" style..

      - Plus a million other reasons I can't think of right now but I'm sure exist... ;)

    3. David 164

      Re: why wings rather than balloons for lift

      They don't need to be planes.

      The MOD will be testing out the Airlander 10 for surveillance purposes this year.

      http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/news-and-media/selex-es-and-hav-to-team-up-for-mod-airship-testing

      They are already working on turning it into a electric aircraft, I'm guessing they will pursue smaller versions for surveillance operations as it offers better chance of a profit before going for larger versions.

  14. kmac499

    How Much ???

    £!0.5 million for a couple of glorified Keil Kraft Kits!!!!. Methinks they are trying to get back all the development costs on the first sale. But hey it's an ex-defence company selling to a Gov't defence procurer so pretty much par for the course.

    I suspect civilian applications will be far more useful. A small dispersed global fleet of these things in the air all the time, that can be dispatched over disaster zones to image the damage and provide limited phone coverage.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like