Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
IADFCO wrote:https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-fuel-cell-engine-rolls-royce-easyjet-engine-c2e-spc-intl/index.html
The French aviation giant revealed at Airbus Summit 2022 on November 30 that it will mount the engine between the wings and the tail of a modified A380 superjumbo. Test flights are estimated for 2026, as part of the Airbus ZEROe initiative to launch a zero-emission aircraft by 2035.
"At scale, and if the technology targets were achieved, fuel cell engines may be able to power a 100-passenger aircraft with a range of approximately 1,000 nautical miles," [Mathias Andriamisaina, head of ZEROe demonstrators and tests at Airbus] said.
I think that this is a far better and forward-looking approach than anything battery-powered. Green hydrogen is not here yet, at least at the desired cost, but I have no doubt that it will be in the not so distant future.
TheSonntag wrote:"I think that this is a far better and forward-looking approach than anything battery-powered. Green hydrogen is not here yet, at least at the desired cost, but I have no doubt that it will be in the not so distant future."
Short answer: It depends. For anything above 100 seats, absolutely, and therefore it is also a great idea to develop it. For GA and small 11 seaters, battery is more efficient.
The real challenge will be to set up a hydrogen supply chain at every airport. This is going to be expensive.
IADFCO wrote:https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-fuel-cell-engine-rolls-royce-easyjet-engine-c2e-spc-intl/index.html
The French aviation giant revealed at Airbus Summit 2022 on November 30 that it will mount the engine between the wings and the tail of a modified A380 superjumbo. Test flights are estimated for 2026, as part of the Airbus ZEROe initiative to launch a zero-emission aircraft by 2035.
"At scale, and if the technology targets were achieved, fuel cell engines may be able to power a 100-passenger aircraft with a range of approximately 1,000 nautical miles," [Mathias Andriamisaina, head of ZEROe demonstrators and tests at Airbus] said.
I think that this is a far better and forward-looking approach than anything battery-powered. Green hydrogen is not here yet, at least at the desired cost, but I have no doubt that it will be in the not so distant future.
PvdE wrote:It is worth watching the Airbus Summit including the Q&A sessions.
[...]
planecane wrote:TheSonntag wrote:"I think that this is a far better and forward-looking approach than anything battery-powered. Green hydrogen is not here yet, at least at the desired cost, but I have no doubt that it will be in the not so distant future."
Short answer: It depends. For anything above 100 seats, absolutely, and therefore it is also a great idea to develop it. For GA and small 11 seaters, battery is more efficient.
The real challenge will be to set up a hydrogen supply chain at every airport. This is going to be expensive.
The supply chain is the LEAST of the issues in dealing with hydrogen fueled aircraft. Storing it on board in a safe and weight and volume efficient manner is, BY FAR, the bigger issue.
lostsound wrote:[...]Batteries that are lighter weight, denser, safer, and greener have a higher probability of being developed before we can cost-effectively separate hydrogen.[...]
lightsaber wrote:For the record, I am a huge fan of SAF.
Kilopond wrote:lostsound wrote:[...]Batteries that are lighter weight, denser, safer, and greener have a higher probability of being developed before we can cost-effectively separate hydrogen.[...]
Sorry to say so, but this is completely wrong. Those overly heavy batteries/accumulators have not much improved during the last 150 years as far as energy density is concerned. The same applies to their lousy durability.