Timeline for Are there any programs to build a hydrogen powered airplane?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2020 at 2:19 | comment | added | Camille Goudeseune | Another data point on the curve: the Saturn V's third stage used (liquid) hydrogen as a fuel, but by the time it ignited, the craft was no longer an aircraft. They'd hoped to use hydrogen for the second stage as well, but that would have been too tricky and expensive, even at that grand a scale. | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 1:28 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | To add even more numbers: Compressed gaseous hydrogen has a density of only 40 kg/m³ at 700 bar. Compressing it from 350 to 700 bar raises density only by 67% since with increasing pressure it will behave less and less like an ideal gas. | |
| Jan 24, 2020 at 1:25 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| S Jan 24, 2020 at 1:12 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling (filler added at the bottom for edit limit)
|
| Jan 23, 2020 at 23:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 24, 2020 at 1:12 | |||||
| Jan 22, 2020 at 6:19 | comment | added | jwenting | do keep in mind that compression and liquification are effectively one and the same, the insulation and cooling requirements are thus very similar, as are the requirements on the pressure vessel. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://aviation.stackexchange.com/ with https://aviation.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 13, 2015 at 0:25 | vote | accept | digitgopher | ||
| Aug 12, 2015 at 16:34 | vote | accept | digitgopher | ||
| Aug 12, 2015 at 16:34 | |||||
| Aug 12, 2015 at 10:27 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | To add numbers, density of kerosene is ~800 kg/m³ while liquid hydrogen only has ~70 kg/m³ (compressed to 700 bar approaches that value), so 11.5 times higher volume is needed. | |
| Aug 12, 2015 at 5:27 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 290 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2015 at 5:26 | comment | added | reirab | So, basically, it boils down to the fuel alone has a better energy/mass ratio, but the fuel + storage system for the fuel has a worse one (and/or requires more bulk which adds unacceptable amounts of form drag)? And this is all aside from added design complexity and the resulting increased chance of something going wrong, of course. | |
| Aug 12, 2015 at 5:21 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |