As you start to look at the design, parasitic drag would go up for the
increased area of the tank, and induced drag would go down because the fuel
load is lighter.
Unfortunately, the tank would be physically larger, which would imply a greater
tank weight. The tank would also be running a much higher pressure than the
usual 8psi of an airliner hull, which means a heavier tank yet. We haven’t even
insulated the tank yet!
The likely endpoint would be a tank structure/fuel combo that weighs more, not
less, than the equivalent hydrocarbon tank/hydrocarbon fuel.
Any chemical advantages that hydrogen has as a fuel are usually outweighed by
the enormous disadvantages of low density.
The current state of the art for increasing the density of hydrogen fuels is to
bind the hydrogens to carbons.
On Apr 5, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Robert Steinke <robert.steinke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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/ ;<http://www.cesaronitech.com/>
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Michael Clive
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:42 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<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/ ;<http://www.cesaronitech.com/>
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>
