Forgive my "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" status, but for drag,
you've got parasitic drag, which will go up because of increased surface
area, and induced drag, which will go down because of less weight. If H2
were the same $/kJ as kero would it be any worse for drag?
On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 7:25 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Far more expensive fuel-per-unit-energy, *and* higher cruise drag from
the much larger cross-section of the LH2 tanks? Yeah, I think we both know
how that analysis would turn out.
The GTF is a prime example of how the efficiency gains in conventional
airliners are incremental at this point. I think the real gains are to be
had (on longer routes at least) by going around all that atmosphere rather
than pushing through it. Now *that* would be an interesting trade study,
and project to work on.
Henry
On 4/5/2020 7:17 PM, Michael Clive wrote:
The important question is: Would it be cheaper to operate an A380 sized
vehicle for a 737 number of passengers, running hydrogen, than a 737
running JET-A?
I am sure that there are position papers, PDFs, analyses all over the
place, and since that I have not heard of a significant investment in
developing these technologies, I am sure the trade doesn't work out. But if
it did, I would love to work on that program.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 7:03 PM Henry Vanderbilt <
hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, you could do it at the current A380 size. You'd just have to convert
most of the fuselage to LH2 storage. You'd give up most of the current
payload, of course. And (not having done the math) possibly also a good
bit of the current range. But the dimensions *could* be kept the same...
Henry
On 4/4/2020 7:45 PM, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
That would be a very large airplane dwarfing it’s existing geometery.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Michael Clive
*Sent:* Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:42 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: P&W GTF
You know Craig, I do find myself smiling and nodding, thinking of how
cool it would be to fly on a A380 with liquid hydrogen powered turbines. I
am actually looking forward to that day!
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:51 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, Seventy Years of optimization, a thing of beauty. Built to
Cruise...
But, more to come, When they go green and start feeding these beasts with
Liquid Hydrogen. Cryogenically Intercoolered Stator Blades allowing for
much higher compression, 9000 psi Hydrogen "Rocket" Fuel Injectors and
Afterburners capable of flying from Takeoff to Mach 10 in under 10 minutes.
On it's way to Orbit, built for One purpose and One Purpose Only. To
Accelerate!!!
Of course, we'll see many subsonic versions along the way.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:25 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So cool, so expensive. Almost anything turbo seems to fit that
description sadly. The link may wrap.
https://pwgtf.com/?utm_campaign=gtfnocomparison&utm_source=aviationweek&utm_medium=enews&utm_term=awthisweek_april3-10&utm_content=300x250
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
