The A321neo is selling like hotcake. When the market returns it will be the flagship product again.
Airbus is in no rush to bring up the future hydrogen generation. The whole neo strategy is about beefing up existing technology at low costs with high performance gains and profits.And this works.

Hydrogen is something like a label politicians need to justify support. Later on it will be the way to go but today it is NOT.

VV wrote:

Baldr wrote:

...
Now, maybe it would suit Boeing better if liquid hydrogen powered aircraft only would arrive in the 2050s, but what will they do if Airbus develops a ZERO CO2 emission aircraft arriving in 2035?
...

Yeah, why not.

Airbus should spend the money on that.

Well, Airbus will spend part of the money required for developing the actual aircraft (i.e. 2027-2034), while Safran, MTU (etc.) will be responsible for the engines. However, the development of the fundamental technologies required will largely be funded by France, Germany, Spain and the EU.

Interestingly, France will invest 1.5 billion euros during 2020, 2021, and 2022 in R&D through CORAC (Conseil pour la Recherche Aéronautique Civile), supporting fuel reduction technology, electrification systems, and tests with neutral carbon fuels like hydrogen -- and that's just the start!

Noshow wrote:

The A321neo is selling like hotcake. When the market returns it will be the flagship product again.
Airbus is in no rush to bring up the future hydrogen generation. The whole neo strategy is about beefing up existing technology at low costs with high performance gains and profits.And this works.

Hydrogen is something like a label politicians need to justify support. Later on it will be the way to go but today it is NOT.

Airbus has been working on hydrogen fueled airliners for quite a long time. So, saying that this is just something politicians fancy supporting, is clearly wrong.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf

I don't see what the US/Boeing can do if the French government is providing funding for research projects. If the French direct the funding through universities and/or military then the US literally have nothing to complain about.

Baldr wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The A321neo is selling like hotcake. When the market returns it will be the flagship product again.
Airbus is in no rush to bring up the future hydrogen generation. The whole neo strategy is about beefing up existing technology at low costs with high performance gains and profits.And this works.

Hydrogen is something like a label politicians need to justify support. Later on it will be the way to go but today it is NOT.

Airbus has been working on hydrogen fueled airliners for quite a long time. So, saying that this is just something politicians fancy supporting, is clearly wrong.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf

Thanks for the read. It seems the challenges aren't too bad...except for the fact this is 20 years old !

Baldr wrote:

...
Well, Airbus will spend part of the money required for developing the actual aircraft (i.e. 2027-2034), while Safran, MTU (etc.) will be responsible for the engines. However, the development of the fundamental technologies required will largely be funded by France, Germany, Spain and the EU.

Interestingly, France will invest 1.5 billion euros during 2020, 2021, and 2022 in R&D through CORAC (Conseil pour la Recherche Aéronautique Civile), supporting fuel reduction technology, electrification systems, and tests with neutral carbon fuels like hydrogen -- and that's just the start!

That's fine.

Europe can spend a lot of money on those stuff if they want to.
It allows to employ hundreds or even thousands of European engineers.

The money is not lost. It is some money well spent, but there is no guarantee there will be any practical/industrial outcome.

Aesma wrote:

Baldr wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The A321neo is selling like hotcake. When the market returns it will be the flagship product again.
Airbus is in no rush to bring up the future hydrogen generation. The whole neo strategy is about beefing up existing technology at low costs with high performance gains and profits.And this works.

Hydrogen is something like a label politicians need to justify support. Later on it will be the way to go but today it is NOT.

Airbus has been working on hydrogen fueled airliners for quite a long time. So, saying that this is just something politicians fancy supporting, is clearly wrong.

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf

Thanks for the read. It seems the challenges aren't too bad...except for the fact this is 20 years old !

Well, 20 years ago they were looking at conventional engines burning liquid hydrogen.

Now, there are plenty of other more advanced concepts being studied, such as the Polaris (links below) which combines the efficiency of a superconducting electric propulsion system with an improved gas turbine cycle in a turboelectric propulsion chain, while using cryogenic liquid hydrogen not only as fuel, but also to cool between compressor stages and simultaneously enable superconductivity at the electric motors and generators.

https://www.dglr.de/publikationen/2018/480344.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2929/dd17179534adb4b9404bf1d217f107bc6a72.pdf

VV wrote:

Baldr wrote:

...
Well, Airbus will spend part of the money required for developing the actual aircraft (i.e. 2027-2034), while Safran, MTU (etc.) will be responsible for the engines. However, the development of the fundamental technologies required will largely be funded by France, Germany, Spain and the EU.

Interestingly, France will invest 1.5 billion euros during 2020, 2021, and 2022 in R&D through CORAC (Conseil pour la Recherche Aéronautique Civile), supporting fuel reduction technology, electrification systems, and tests with neutral carbon fuels like hydrogen -- and that's just the start!

That's fine.

Europe can spend a lot of money on those stuff if they want to.
It allows to employ hundreds or even thousands of European engineers.

The money is not lost. It is some money well spent, but there is no guarantee there will be any practical/industrial outcome.

With clear set goals, there's a very high likelihood that Airbus/Europe will be able to develop a ZERO CO2 emission single-aisle aircraft before 2035.

In May 1961 President John F. Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the Moon, and returning him safely to the Earth, before the end of the decade. There was no guarantee, at the time, that the U.S. would in fact be able to achieving the goal in that time frame, but with that amount of funding the U.S. Government appropriated for the program, the U.S. were almost certainly guaranteed to benefit from an "industrial outcome", as you put it.

What the Moon landings demonstrated is that once you set a goal under strict time constraints and are willing to go the extra mile in securing the required funding -- and then some (i.e. then NASA administrator told the U.S. Congress that project Apollo would cost some 50 percent more than the initial cost estimates) -- the project will end up cheaper than one without clearly defined goals. The longer it takes to secure sufficient funding, the longer it takes projects to be completed, the more expensive they become. Anyone who has built an addition on their house understands that -- delay, delay, delay.

The EU is playing this recovery much smarter than the US. In the US, it's about corporate welfare to maintain the status quo. In the EU, it appears to be targeted at R&D and climate change.

Great news for Airbus. If they can deliver the first carbon neutral AC. That's a huge milestone and leaves no doubt that Airbus is the market leader, not the follower.

AFAIK both Airbus and Boeing had reduced their commercial aircraft R&D departments over the last years by headcount. Sometimes it seems like quite a bit of knowledge got lost over this. That was some very expensive mistake in my opinion.
The hydrogen hype is at least good to bring back engineering departments to more normal sizes. So it's not only about tweaking production rates and catching up with delays but finally hiring new bright minds for some new long term research strategy.

Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury in a German interview https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article2 ... plant.html:

WELT: The aid package includes support for the development of an emission-free aircraft by 2035. Is this a hybrid aircraft with an electric drive?

Faury: There are different technology paths. Nothing has been decided yet. We are investigating more electrical power on board, different fuels that are CO2-free and hydrogen. Most of these developments are already in use in other industries. We have about five years to bring these technologies to maturity for air traffic. We have to invest more money in demonstrators and smaller projects. We want to be able to make a decision by 2025. Our goal is an emission-free aircraft in 2035.

WELT: Will this be the successor to the best-selling A320 model?

Faury: Yes and no. Some decisions have not yet been made. The A320 family now covers a wide range of applications and areas of application. We would not take the risk of replacing everything at once. It could start with smaller, shorter range models.

I'm excited to see some of these demonstrators fly.