Aerospace electric motor custom
Calculate early feasibility, see the evidence boundaries, and prepare an RFQ for magnet-free or EESM aerospace electric motor prototypes.
The tool screens motor-level feasibility. The report explains the evidence needed before aircraft-level decisions.
Screen active mass, topology fit, and the first engineering risks before sending an RFQ.
Screening range: 5-1,500 kW continuous shaft power.
High-speed rotor review starts above 20,000 RPM.
Insulation and cooling derating become material above 30,000 ft.
Enter specifications and calculate to generate an estimate.
Outputs include active mass range, topology, assumptions, risk flags, and the next RFQ action.
Decision Summary
The configurator converts power, speed, and altitude into an early active-mass range, topology direction, and boundary flags so sourcing teams know what evidence to request next.
Method: conservative kW/kg screening range plus explicit exclusions for inverter, coolant, mounts, and aircraft integration margin.
Continuous power, altitude, duty cycle, cooling medium, voltage limit, and overspeed case shape the motor more than a catalogue name does.
Evidence layer: ARPA-E ASCEND targets ≥12 kW/kg for integrated systems, requiring tightly defined cooling and integration assumptions.
EESM and wound-field concepts remove rare-earth permanent magnets from the rotor, but they introduce excitation, rotor thermal management, and validation overhead.
Evidence layer: DOE and IEA rare-earth supply-chain reports support the sourcing risk, while motor-specific feasibility remains program-dependent.
Prototype data can support an aircraft program, but DO-160G environmental testing, FAA/EASA compliance, and system safety work remain aircraft-level responsibilities unless contracted and documented.
Evidence layer: EASA SC-E-19 (Special Condition for Electric/Hybrid Propulsion System) emphasizes certification pathways and operational integration beyond component selection.
The configurator gives a controlled first answer. The report then explains why that answer is uncertain, what evidence changes the result, and which next inputs shorten supplier review time.
Tool output
Active mass range, topology, boundary flags, assumptions, and a prefilled inquiry path.
Report output
Evidence sources, comparison dimensions, risks, scenarios, and RFQ checklist.
Evidence Layer
The figures and caveats on this page are screening guidance. When public evidence is broad or program-specific, the table states how the source is used instead of converting it into a guaranteed supplier claim.
| Evidence Area | Traceable Source | Date / Context | How It Is Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| High-specific-power electric machines | ARPA-E ASCEND Program Targets | ARPA-E documentation, updated 2026 | Sets the benchmark target of ≥12 kW/kg for integrated electric powertrains (>20 kW/kg motor-only), emphasizing that cooling and active mass assumptions must be highly optimized. |
| Aircraft propulsion motor research targets | NASA TechPort project 113260 | NASA TechPort, reviewed 2026-07-20 | Shows that published electric-aircraft motor targets are tied to defined research scope, not universal catalogue guarantees. |
| Electric propulsion certification framework | EASA Special Condition SC-E-19 | EASA SC-E-19 framework, reviewed 2026-07-20 | Grounds the page caveat that component prototype support is different from aircraft-level certification approval, detailing specific Means of Compliance (MoC). |
| Environmental testing conditions | RTCA DO-160G (Sections 4 & 8) | RTCA standard, reviewed 2026-07-20 | Specifies altitude, temperature, and vibration profiles required for aerospace motors, dictating insulation and structural design requirements. |
| Rare-earth magnet supply exposure | U.S. DOE Neodymium Magnets Supply Chain Report | DOE PDF, December 2024 | Supports the supply-chain rationale for considering rare-earth-free aerospace electric motor architectures. |
Comparison
| Dimension | EESM / Magnet-Free | PM Motor | Procurement Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early power-density discussion | Use active-mass range with exclusions and cooling assumptions (e.g. 10-15 kW/kg active motor mass depending on cooling). | Can be lighter at rotor level (15-20+ kW/kg), but magnet temperature limits and supply assumptions must be checked. | Ask every supplier to separate active motor mass from system mass (inverter, housing, cooling). |
| High-speed behavior | Field can be controlled, but excitation hardware and rotor losses need validation. | Permanent magnets keep field present, so overspeed, back-EMF, and fault strategy need review (e.g., EASA SC-E-19 containment requirements). | Request speed map, overspeed case, and inverter fault assumptions. |
| Altitude and insulation | Rotor and stator insulation must be validated against pressure, temperature, and PD risk (per DO-160G Sec 4). | Same aircraft insulation concerns apply, plus permanent magnet thermal degradation at altitude. | Define maximum altitude, voltage, pressure cycle, and environmental test target early. |
| Supply-chain exposure | Avoids neodymium/dysprosium magnets but may add copper, excitation, and process complexity. | Benefits from mature PM motor suppliers but remains exposed to magnet material volatility. | Compare total program risk, not just bill-of-material cost. |
Trigger: Treating the configurator as certified performance data.
Mitigation: Use the output only to prepare RFQ inputs and request supplier evidence, acknowledging this is not a substitute for DO-160G / DO-178C validation.
Trigger: Late discovery of cooling, inverter, or high-altitude insulation requirements.
Mitigation: Lock duty cycle, coolant, voltage, altitude, and test target before tooling. Target ARPA-E / NASA level specific power (e.g. 12 kW/kg) only if system architecture supports it.
Trigger: Choosing EESM only for rare-earth avoidance while ignoring rotor complexity.
Mitigation: Run EESM, synchronous reluctance, induction, and PM concepts through the same evidence table evaluating weight vs. complexity.
Trigger: Assuming a component supplier can approve the aircraft-level compliance case.
Mitigation: Separate prototype data package, qualification evidence, and EASA SC-E-19 / FAA approval responsibility.
Scenarios
Premise: 50-120 kW continuous, high altitude, weight-sensitive airframe.
Outcome: Start with configurator mass range, then request cooling and insulation review before lamination tooling.
Premise: High transient power, repeated thermal cycling, strict containment assumptions.
Outcome: Compare EESM and PM options with the same overspeed, inverter fault, and active/system mass boundary.
Premise: Lower packaging pressure than lift motor but longer continuous duty and reliability expectations.
Outcome: Prioritize thermal margin, winding insulation, bearing life, and documentation traceability over headline kW/kg.
Related Engineering Paths
Use these pages to connect the custom aerospace electric motor screen with architecture, component manufacturing, validation, and supplier-contact decisions.
FAQ
It estimates active motor mass range, topology direction, confidence, boundary flags, assumptions, and the next RFQ action from power, speed, and altitude inputs.
No. The estimate excludes inverter, cooling system, harness, propulsor, mounts, and aircraft integration margin. It is an RFQ screen.
The tool stops and shows a recoverable error instead of returning a misleading estimate.
It is worth screening when rare-earth supply exposure, field control, or magnet thermal limits are important enough to justify excitation and rotor thermal work.
No. PM motors can retain an active-mass advantage in tightly packaged systems. The useful comparison is active mass plus cooling, inverter, safety, sourcing, and validation risk.
Altitude changes cooling and electrical-insulation assumptions. High-altitude operation should trigger pressure, PD, and environmental test discussions before design freeze.
Send duty cycle, power, speed, altitude, voltage, cooling medium, envelope drawing, interface loads, prototype quantity, and the intended evidence package.
We can support prototype evidence and documentation packages. Aircraft-level FAA/EASA certification approval must be scoped with the program certification owner.
Early concept and first-article timing is program-specific. A practical RFQ should separate electromagnetic design, tooling, prototype build, bench test, and documentation review.
Send target speed, power, duty cycle, cooling assumptions, and operating envelope. We will review feasibility and identify the first evidence gaps.
Inquiry Email
Include target torque/speed, quantity, and delivery location.
