NASA Axes X-57 Maxwell Before First Flight - AVweb

Really ? Using the wrong ball bearings in the motors ? Aircraft turbine engines all use ‘deep groove’ ball bearings to handle the thrust loads, so whoever developed the motors for this aircraft made a major mistake in the design.!!

As far as battery capacity, as was mentioned, at least a 10x improvement in energy density is needed for any reasonable flight time.
The current 100 kWhr Tesla battery weighs about 1,000 lb.
This would allow a Cessna 172 with 100 kW motor to fly for 1 hour, with no reserve and only a light weight pilot, assuming the motor and controller weight about 200 lb less than the Lycoming engine.

I agree that fuel cells are a more possible energy source for e-aircraft. However what ‘fuel’ with they use ? Propane, Nat gas ?
Don’t mention hydrogen, which is electrolyzed from water using electricity, which today is mainly generated from nat gas.

OH … kinda like the bearing problems that surfaced in the BD-5A/B pusher and – later – the Cirrus VK-30, et al. NASA and the motor vendors didn’t see this coming?? That ALONE disqualified NASA from ever doing this sort of work again.

IMHO, your comment wins and is most appropriate, Eric. Right now, the engine of choice for ME if I were building an airplane is the new Rotax 916iS. High auto technology at its finest.

As I said above, at NASA Armstrong, one group is trying to develop technology to save the planet with electric aviation while another is trying to develop technology to do the opposite so fat cats with a lot of money can get to London faster. Catch-22 personified. Then, along comes Lillium with their DEFT contraption. The people at the top of aviation have lost their collective minds.

Even if the battery technology progresses to where a 500 kWhr battery can replace the 300 lb. of fuel in a Cessna 172XP, to allow it to fly for 5 hours, there is still the RECHARGING problem.
If airports had Tesla Superchargers of 250 kW, it would take at least 2 hours to recharge the battery.
If the utility service was upgraded to 480 VAC, it would have to have 520 amps current capacity.
The Tesla supercharges are $200k+ and then the utility co. will want another $150k or more, IF the local grid can handle the very high added load.!
[ see the Ford dealer problems in Chicago, trying to get their mandated Fast DC chargers connected to the local grid! ]

Well “conventional” fuel fed fires and explosions don’t end up too well either. Anyone remember TWA flight 800?

There is a way to produce ample amounts of electricity for flight onboard. It is simple and inexpensive. It will be on our website soon.

NASA. Government. Was that some more of our money pushing toward something we’re not ready for yet? Leave that for the private sector.

This is a great list!

Some of these are fairly successful, in their space - thinking of Alisport Silent 2, LAK 17b FES, Lange Antares, Pipistrel Alpha Electro, Pipistrel Taurus, Schempp-Hirth Discus FES and Ventus FES and Arcus-E, Sunseeker Duo (it’s a one-off but it’s also an everyday-use aircraft) - all but one are sailplanes. A sailplane needs reliable starting - a key advantages of battery-driven powerplants - but doesn’t need that much energy. It’s also nice to avoid the noise of an ICE and the smell of fuel inside.

With today’s batteries, electric airplanes are very marginal, and electric rotorcraft make very little if any sense.

Big Oil suppressed the necessary advanced eTech, but it’s ancestor, the Turbo Encabulator can be viewed here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag

Big Oil suppressed the necessary advanced eTech, but a video of its ancestor, the Turbo Encabulator can be googled/seen on youtube…hurry before “they” take it down.

The unintended consequences of ‘net zero:’

msn.com/en-us/autos/other/time-to-slam-the-brakes-on-the-electric-vehicle-calamity/ar-AA1d6nvw?

Even the British are now realizing there was no cohesive plan … just kneejerk reactions!

Big oil also suppressed the turbine powered sedan which ran off of our most plentiful resource: coal. See:

cnet.com/roadshow/news/gm-coal-powered-turbine-chrysler-leno-ecojet/

“Battery technology will never be advanced enough for economically viable aircraft.”

The Earth is flat and the universe revolves around it.

Well AV, you’re right to observer that there are a lot of people who claim to know that electric propulsion aviation is a fairy tale that will never happen. They don’t know the future. No one does. But many people know grade 11 and the basics of energy density and some also the reality of certification requirements, or have an industry understanding of aviation operational reality, that make all of the white-board theory seem overly optimistic.

However, your assertion that the failure of X-57 was NOT an issue of the lack of practicality and was simply a “a technical issue in the design of a component from a supplier that would require redesign to resolve.” is not anything I can find in reviewing all of NASA’s X-57 docs.

Please point me to an actual document on NASA’s X-57 Technical Papers site that supports your claim that somehow a supplier or its component was at the root of the cancellation.

What I am seeing is that they are claiming to have 650 docs available but only showing a few dozen of high level 10-page glossy powerpoints owith no access to the underlying data. They are claiming to offer The Data on request. I do see they have been talking about the project in the past tense for months. I do see they never successfully cleared Mod II and nowhere near the Mod IV test flights that would yield data of actual use for others. I do see they eventually admit their power controller transistor heat issues, which they are using as the last-straw excuse to throw in the towel, were already identified and rectified by Joby years ago (again, according to NASA’s own analysis), so again, they did nothing “groundbreaking” whatsoever. They knew others had identified this roadblock, but they thought they were the smartest people and could re-invent the laws of thermodynamics. But that was only the official reason to cancel - they met very few of their own metrics to move to the next stage gate and are years behind schedule.

NASA’s words: “The value of X-57 lies in advancing the Nation’s ability to design, test, and
certify electric aircraft, which will enable entirely new markets.
The Mod II flight test program is a pathfinder for the experimental propulsion
system performance and reliability to reduce the risk in the X-57 configuration.”

But they did not get anywhere in Mod II. So by definition, the project yielded nothing of value. The Certification Pathfinder mission is a dead end. There is nothing they got working properly.
They identified all of the challenges and overcame a grand total of ZERO. Of course, if you look at the presser, somehow COVID was to blame.

Again, I actually believe e-flight is coming eventually. X-programs are experimental and $87m is not a lot of money compared to the gov’t budget pie. NASA is a always doing interesting research, and some slice has commercial applications. But their glossy PR claims that this project was going to show the roadmap to certification for other companies was always laughable - they know research, but have no clue on cert.

NOW I find out that Tecnam has suspended IT’s work on their ‘P-volt’ airplane:

“It is reported that the electric aircraft technology available today is not advanced enough to be utilized for safe flight. This was reported shortly after Tecnam’s announcement stating that its own electrification project, the P-volt, is being suspended, citing similarly that the battery technology available was not economically viable for operations.”

See: simpleflying.com/nasa-x-57-maxwell-project-end-no-flight/

It’s time for the eAviation fanatics to get off their high horse and find something else to get behind … and STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY !! THIS issue is a TRAVESTY!!

NASA Armstrong crashed the X-31 because it was a Friday and the airplane didn’t have ‘hot mike’ capability to allow the pilot to talk to the control room. They’ve now spent $87M to find out battery technology isn’t up to the task for aviation (which we all here knew and PB wrote about)… what’s next ? And the X-59 is duplicating work they already spent $$$ on with the SSBD airplane RIGHT THERE 20 years ago. What the … !

Whoever is running that ‘asylum’ needs to step down. As a taxpayer, I’m deeply offended. I used to work with these people … what the heck has happened there now??

Sadly, I have to explain that this is sarcasm…google or follow the link for Turbo Encabulator and have a chuckle…if anyone still has a sense of humor (or irony)