THAT would require the bureaucracy we know as the FAA and – above it – DOT – to be both competant and proactive at supporting aviation at the upper management levels, Eric. Heck … we can’t get half of 'em to even go to work; they’re still hiding in their basements so don’t get your hopes up. Don’t believe me … look at MOSAIC and drone rules …
That may even be the one I was thinking of.
And yes, there are many downsides and practical reasons why a nuclear-powered aircraft never came about.
No one has mentioned what happens when that hydrogen powered Caravan crashes and the H2 container ruptures in the presence of fire. Remember the Hindenburg, folks? I guess that’s of little concern when applying for their STC? No wonder a new C172 costs $.5M anymore … IF you can get one. Someone I know bought one but had to FIRST allow it to be used by a flight school for a period of time.
This whole electric airplane thing is getting a bit onerous to me. VolksCars for local urban mobility where weight and refueling time and environmental issues aren’t an issue … maybe. Airplanes, where defeating gravity is an additional major energy need … no damned way in MY lifetime. You’re insulting me, Cessna.
WAIT !!! Isn’t this the same company that sold hundreds of Chinese made FlyCatcher LSA’s to unsuspecting victims and wound up smashing the few they had left over to sell? That’s where THIS idea belongs.
Everyone knew a heavier-than-air vehicle could never be built. And everyone knew a 250kt+ helicopter wasn’t possible. Yet many attempts were still made (and failed) at constructing such things, until eventually a solution was found.
Just because there doesn’t currently exist a solution that is cheaper and more efficient than a gasoline-powered ICE aviation powerplant, doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. But there will be many failures along the way.
If the industry wants to consider hydrogen, perhaps a return to the Hindenburg-style airships is in order? (sarcasm)
Capable of transAtlantic flights, 79 mph top speed–twice as many crew as passengers–ON THE OTHER HAND, there IS that FAMOUS FILM OF ITS FINAL FLIGHT.
No, Thank You–I’ll stick with wings–carbon-based liquid fuels–and internal combustion engines–nothing in the industry has had a better safety and economic record for nearly 100 years…BUT DREAMERS CAN KEEP ON DREAMING!
Re.: Icing on those thanks…
Studies I’ve been involved in show that the icing build up on the blunt leading surface of the underwing tank will be pretty benign. The build up will increase the slenderness ratio, improving drag, albeit with some increase in weight. Its the skinny little wings and tail items that have the most trouble with ice build up, drag, and destruction of airflow.
On “Green” hydrogen:
downtoearth.org.in/news/renewable-energy/betting-on-green-hydrogen-to-fulfil-energy-needs-risky-finds-study-84841
With respect, my comments on icing are based on actual experience flying the airplane for 6 years, in some of the nastiest icing conditions the plane could handle. Caravans are well known for having plenty of unprotected surfaces that can accumulate all kinds of nasty looking shapes. The drag produced by them can easily overwhelm the available power of the engine to maintain flight. The forward surface of the cargo pod is a perfect example, even though there is some protection on it.
True about warm weather but how did that work with American Eagle’s ATR planes. No US passenger airline flies them any more.
Hydrogen is a “better” solution over batteries. However, is the technology mature to be used in aircraft? With such fast scheduled for R/D… remains to be seen…
Agree.
Like I was saying I don’t think its a worthwhile endeavor but if one wanted an electric aircraft only HFC is a viable power source.
The younger generations are entertained by science fiction/horror/fantasy platforms like sci/fi programs, Game of Thrones, Avatar movies, all based upon nonsensical impossibilities. My regular alternative entertainment is reading the similarly fantastic and nonsensical articles in AvWeb, like this one, while being further entertained by those who try to explain and justify the contained inanity.
So why argue over practicality and science when the real issue is bureaucratic intransigence? Let’s turn lemons into lemonade. Instead of everyone concentrating on why none of the planes will ever physically work, why not point out how the current crop of piston engines is proof the FAA won’t ever let these things fly? It was how many years from when the Starship was certified to death until composites were commercially viable?
That’s how you scare off investors and maybe get some change at the same time.
And then we will watch the FAA stall it for 50 years before they let it loose in the skies.
It will be nice to see the FAA doing something so useful.
Compressed H2 will continually lose pressure so I’m not so sure that volumetrically it has that high of energy density. Liquid H2 completely negates the “green aspect” so you might as well just use a real liquid fuel.
If memory serves, they used a B-36 to carry the reactor in the bomb bay but it didn’t power the aircraft.
William, I was also privileged to be able to go to a good school. I have an undergraduate in physics and 3 graduate degrees in engineering included a doctorate in mechanical engineering all from MIT. I also cross registered and took a few classes from Harvard Business School but I was not that impressed with Harvard. I have been involved in the start-up of 3 companies. The last was to make high tech ag equipment which use a number of electric drives to gain smoothness and efficiency. That company which takes in raw steel and puts out self-propelled machines that are transported as an oversize load now has about 250 employees. I have also been a faculty member in major university teach practical design and while I am mostly retired, I am still an advisor for students building an electric race car fo the FormulaSAE Electric student competition. For about 2 1/2 years but ending last year, I was a consultant on a joint NASA/DARPA project to design a high performance axial flux electric motor. The project was mostly an exercise in designing and using multi-disciplinary software for design but as I had some background in motors, I was the one to come up with practical concepts. The object was to design a 10 KW motor that weighed less than a Kg (~6 hp/lb). I never asked what the motor was supposed to be used for but I would guess that it was aerial drones.
Anyway, I believe that we will have short-haul and commuter battery electric aircraft based both on engineering science and economics. The battery electric aircraft are projected to have a seat mile cost about 1/4 that of other propulsion techniques. That is hard to ignore. I had seen a NASA chart that concluded that you needed to have about 600 Whr/kg to be able to build a 737 sized aircraft for short-haul. We are going to get that and more. See https://lyten.com/products/batteries/ for some information on lithium sulfur batteries. Also see https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E81j2loXEAYzjo5?format=jpg&name=large for some information on uses for hydrogen and note that the authors seem to think that battery electric is more promising for short-haul flight along with light aviation.
That’s a damning criticism, coming from an “alternative energy” publication! Interesting link–Thanks!
My concern is not the viability of these “alternative energy” and “wishful thinking” breathless announcements. My concern is for AvWeb.
AvWeb has been a consistent REPORTER of aviation news–as well as outstanding COMMENT that puts things into perspective. Lately, it seems to be caught up in the morass of “breathless announcements” of “impending breakthroughs and certification” of unproven technologies–whose certification and production are “imminent.” It reminds me of the old “Mechanics Illustrated”–they always had articles on something “just around the corner.”
One thing about it–it certainly has changed the number of comments on articles! AvWeb–suggest you split these “emerging technologies” announcements into a separate section–and return to reporting “news you can use”. By separating the “real news” from the “fanciful” press releases–you don’t damage your credibility.