Sunseeker II solar-powered plane begins its European tour

It's been years since Solar Flight's Sunseeker aircraft made its way around the States, and now the company's back with a new design (the aptly named Sunseeker II) and a trans-European jaunt. The solar powered aircraft weighs a mere 506 pounds fully loaded, and measures up to twenty-three feet long. Four lithium polymer batteries provide power to an 8 horsepower motor for takeoff and climbing, and once the plane hits a cruising altitude of around 3,000 feet the solar power kicks in -- with a maximum of 40 mph (or twice that with the batteries). Of course, the silent, photovoltaic revolution probably won't be reaching commercial air travel any time soon, with battery range and weight making the enterprise impossible for all but the smallest aircraft. That said, here's hoping that the work at companies like Solar Flight paves the way for bigger and better projects in the future. Video after the break.

[Via Wired]

[Turkish1450 @ Apr 6th 2009 4:06PM]

Check me on this but according to that pic, the wingspan has to be more than 17 ft. The wings are longer than the fuselage, which is supposedly 23 ft.

[mmaestro @ Apr 6th 2009 4:10PM]

I'm guessing that each wing is 17'? That looks like about the right proportions.

[jhodorek @ Apr 6th 2009 4:12PM]

try the read link

fuselage is 7 meters (about 21 feet)

wingspan is 17 meters (about 56 feet)

[jeesusfreek @ Apr 6th 2009 4:15PM]

ergh...make that 7 meters (around 23 feet)

calculations a bit off today

[jrgrade @ Apr 6th 2009 4:15PM]

You would be correct. It has a wingspan of 17m not feet so it would be 55.77 feet.

[stephen @ Apr 7th 2009 2:57AM]

ha ha my mac is way better then that thing

[ack154 @ Apr 6th 2009 4:15PM]

This type of solar power (on the wings and such) could make its way to commercial aircraft - just not to power the flight. Could definitely go to help power the lighting, fans, and conveniences though. Would be nice to see.

[NakedOldGuy @ Apr 6th 2009 4:18PM]

Those extras get powered by lower quality energy that is siphoned off from the jet engines. Just like an alternator sips juice from your car engine to charge the battery and power the radio. Adding solar panels to planes to power things like cabin lights or aeronautics would be inefficient and wasteful, since there is already an abundance of energy.

Now in a glider or single seat craft... that's a completely different story.

[Newone @ Apr 6th 2009 5:58PM]

Agree with NakedOldGuy .

If you could integrate the solar panels to the plane without increasing weight it might be a feasible plan, but as they can't be made into part of the load bearing structure it'll increase weight, and increased weight decreases fuel economy.

If you subtract the fuel from increased weight of the fuelsavings of electricity you'll see that solarpanels on planes aren't a good idea.

[kihaki @ Apr 6th 2009 6:03PM]

@NakedOldGuy: As in a car there is no "abundand free energy" that would be wasted if not used for lights and radio. The combustion engine has to work harder and thus use more fuel to power the generator as long as the generator has to produce electricity (to power the headlights for example). Thus solar panels on aircraft would be far from inefficient, they would be very very helpful for fuel consumption. Though solar panels would not be efficient if not used over a long timespan for their high price tag.

[myro255 @ Apr 6th 2009 6:15PM]

@ kihaki

lets just say for the sake of argument that a jet produces 100,000lbs of thrust. it only takes maybe 100-200lbs of thrust to spin the generator to make enough power for the entire aircraft, leaving 99,900 lbs to push the plane. i would consider that pretty efficient.

[Turkish1450 @ Apr 6th 2009 4:15PM]

dirty little... changed it... now i'm an idiot for the whole intertubes to see.

[Andir3.0 @ Apr 6th 2009 4:59PM]

We all have our 15 minutes of fame.

[jay jay @ Apr 6th 2009 4:20PM]

Is this plane capable of indefinite flight? can it power itself during the day while storing power in it's batteries to fly all night? if thats the case that would be awesome and could be used in things communications and surveillance.

[Josh @ Apr 6th 2009 5:47PM]

Well it appears to be a glider with lots of solar panels. If so then i fail to see any point in keeping the motor running once you're up to 3000ft. You'd be better to thermal up from there and then glide (most trainers like the K21 have a minimum safe flying speed of 50-60kts anyway) the rest of the way, thermalling as necessary and every now and again kicking in the motor. 40mph is basically stall speed on most aircraft anyway!

You could fly almost indefinitely, i wouldn't want to glide at night, but if that motor could get you up to 15-20,000ft in the day time and you had a nice really really gentle glide down, you might be able to last until daylight.

It's a really awesome concept and personally i'd love to get one instead of a turbo/prop glider (i.e. a self launching plane) =D

[broxx @ Apr 7th 2009 10:21AM]

The problem is a lot of the thermals go away at night ...

[semaj @ Apr 6th 2009 4:29PM]

My problem is the cruising speed . . . 40 mph?? Thanks, I'll drive!

[Vinnie @ Apr 6th 2009 4:38PM]

40 mph with no twists or turns, just dead straight!

[TexRob @ Apr 6th 2009 4:41PM]

LOL, that was what I was coming to post. Seriously. 40mph is scary, what happens if you have a 40 mph headwind? I understand that wind over the wings is wind over the wings, but you'd just be sitting there...going nowhere.

Doesn't sound like it provides sustained flight either. So basically it's a sailplane that can take off on it's own...

[Edib0y @ Apr 6th 2009 5:11PM]

@TextRob that would be cool. "Hon, waht you are doing un there?" "Nothing ,Just hanging in the air, chillin."

[Josh @ Apr 6th 2009 5:49PM]

I suspect it's additional. As i posted above, if that is what it looks like - ie a glider - then it probably cruises at around 60kts anyway, the motor would be able to give it a bit of a boost if necessary. That said, a decent performance glider could cruise happily at 90kts so it's pretty redundant for actual flying. Very useful having a rechargeable motor though, especially if you're somewhere where avgas or fuel isn't readily available to power a self launcher.

[jkswiss @ Apr 6th 2009 11:54PM]

I would think this is more for leisure than to get to your destination, kinda like paragliding. I pretty much zig zag near the landing strip when I fly.

[Felipe @ Apr 6th 2009 4:39PM]

Solar Hero: World Tour

[endoplasmic @ Apr 6th 2009 4:50PM]

Hmmm, this video showed more plumbers crack than footage of the craft flying. That catchy 10 sec. bg loop defiantly kept my interest through out the video.

[chispito @ Apr 6th 2009 5:18PM]

More to the point: who wants to watch a video of a plane sitting in a hangar? It's a plane, I want to see it fly.

[Juan @ Apr 6th 2009 5:21PM]

sunseeker 1 was more of a glider. A lot like a RC plane. Fun part is that plane can not be weather proof ,because of the weight . He said if it rain the plane would catch on fire.

[myro255 @ Apr 6th 2009 6:13PM]

@ kihaki

lets just say for the sake of argument that a jet produces 100,000lbs of thrust. it only takes maybe 100-200lbs of thrust to spin the generator to make enough power for the entire aircraft, leaving 99,900 lbs to push the plane. i would consider that pretty efficient.

[myro255 @ Apr 6th 2009 6:14PM]

ah poo.... lol

[myro255 @ Apr 6th 2009 6:16PM]

no offense engadget, but this has the be the worst comment system i've ever used :P

[Elliot @ Apr 6th 2009 7:45PM]

Who is Engadget? Does anyone actually know the names of the people who program this system?

[Eric Hoffstetter @ Apr 7th 2009 1:05AM]

I'm glad videos with meaningful dialog don't make it onto the internet. I much prefer crappy music.

[peter @ Apr 7th 2009 3:09AM]

umm guys what happens when the sun sets and you're like in the middle of
the ocean

[Jmoney according to george @ Apr 7th 2009 4:16PM]

It looks like there is a crack in the video at :26.