Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Hmmm, considering that statistics show that while many folks survive the initial impact of a crash, and they are killed by the post crash fire, I suppose a ruptured hydrogen tank in an accident would at least minimize their suffering.
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
This is just an attempt by Airbuse to dull the increasingly optimistic prospects of Boeing's Sonic Cruiser. They figure that if they float this idea airlines will look away from the SC since it uses normal jet fuel and airlines are worried about the cost of fuel. However, the post mentions that Boeing is looking at fuel cells. Not sure if that's a part of the article or commentary from the person who posted the item. Those fuel cells are going to make a major impact in future Boeing products.
It just goes to show you that Airbuse is worried about the long-term success of their "blob" (A380).
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1558 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
Reggaebird, I don't believe it is a move because of the Sonic cruiser, we need to look into alternative resources, and one day in the future we will eventually run out, so it's better that they are studying this earlier.
Yup, I agree Aaer777, it's good that they are looking into alternative types of energy. It's better earlier rather than later, researching it now and becoming familiar of how to make hydrogen powered aircraft.
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
There are a lot of problems with the concept of Hydrogen powered planes, not least the explosive nature of the fuel. I remember reading that Lockheed (via the skunk works) looked into the possibility of a hydrogen powered aricraft way back in the 50's or 60's as a mach3 spyplane before they created the blackbird. They gave up on Hydrogen because the amount of Hydrogen required to power a plane over a reasonable range meant that the aircraft was basically a huge hydrogen tank and well over 250 feet long purely to carry a few cameras at high speed.
If you consider the added weight of passengers and a reasonable amount of cargo - I would imagine the plane to be enormous and far from cost effective to fly. But goodluck to airbus anyway - anything is better than the SC which is not what I call a quantum leap forward - afterall business jets fly regularly at mach 0.90+ wheres the advance there???
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
In response to RickB, I agree with your skepticism about hydrogen fuel, its' much greater volume compared to petroleum based fuel makes its' use in commercial airplanes too impractical. Lockheed also studied a hydrogen powered L-1011 airliner before capitulating to the same reality as with their spyplane; too much of the plane's volume was filled with fuel tanks. I find it hard to imagine Airbus can solve this problem, it's inherent in the physical properties of the fuel. However, I find your argument on the Sonic Cruiser to be off-base. The fact that many airlines have publically expressed interest in such an aircraft means there is a viable market providing the operating economics are favorable. Yes, the speed alone is not a quantum leap but that speed: 15 to 20 % above today's commercial jets WITH similar operating economics (which Boeing believes it can deliver) is what makes the SC a breakthrough. The greater speed per route can translate into greater frequencies and higher yields. The business jet analogy is invalid for most of us since most of us are not privileged corporate travelers. If Boeing can solve the technical ins and outs of the concept (and if anyone can, they can), the Sonic Cruiser is a surefire winner in the increasingly fragmented, point to point air travel scheme.