nautical_sea t1_j0qg0fg wrote

You sound quite bothered by this, and I apologize if that’s the case. Was never my intent. It was not serious at all on my end.

> you’ve argued that Airbus are doing it wrong, all in order to avoid saying “Wow, I didn’t know that, I was wrong”.

I did state prior to that:

> To be honest, I’m an airline pilot and this is the first I’ve heard of this. I will reserve judgment post-testing, this seems like perhaps more of a pet-project than any serious development.

I am definitely not an expert in aircraft manufacturing, or engineering; though I am an expert in airline operations. Just applying a hot take simply from my lens, from what I’ve been taught and experienced over decades in the industry.

The way they are describing things gives me clear signals about the limitations of such technology, though again, it’s simply from my perspective. I’m not bothered one way or the other if they actually do it, just curious if it makes sense to, based on what I know about our industry thus far, and some of the complex challenges that entails.

Have a good day.


nautical_sea t1_j0qdrvy wrote

It’s just a discussion. You don’t have to like or agree with my thoughts :) Just thought it was relevant and interesting given my expertise in the industry in general.


nautical_sea t1_j0qbuhe wrote

I see that, I’m just saying the scale seems so small, I’m not sure how it could be meaningful. Aircraft engines already create tremendous amounts of electricity through the onboard generators. It’s a by-product of something spinning consistently and incredibly fast.


nautical_sea t1_j0q9nwb wrote

Interesting. To be honest, I’m an airline pilot and this is the first I’ve heard of this. I will reserve judgment post-testing, this seems like perhaps more of a pet-project than any serious development.

Couple observations:

> All three ZEROe concepts are hybrid-hydrogen aircraft.

> The liquid hydrogen storage and distribution system is located behind the rear pressure bulkhead.

First, they are concept aircraft. I think we’re all familiar with what a concept car from even an established car manufacturer looks like. Lofty, futuristic, without any serious intent of entering production.

Secondly, it’s a hybrid, meaning the majority of propulsion will be from standard jet fuel, not the hydrogen. I know this because the rear pressure bulkhead is the furthest away from the engines as it could be, at the extreme edge of weight and balance limits. The datum is insane. Any substantial weight that far along will be almost impossible without significantly changing the aerodynamics and design of the aircraft. There’s a reason why the fuel and the engines are typically near the centre of the aircraft. Yes hydrogen is relatively light, but still, maybe more of a “green washing” project rather than a serious R&D attempt.


nautical_sea t1_j0n635x wrote

> More corporate green washing.

Absolutely agree.

> Call me back when planes are using hydrogen sourced from green energies like fusion.

Absolutely not lmao.

Have you heard of the Hindenburg?

We aren’t even allowed to use regular WD-40 to fix squeaky seat rails in the flight deck (flammable). What on earth makes you think they’d re-adopt a volatile gas that combusts with 1/10th the energy of gasoline? On top of that, jet fuel is much more stable than regular gasoline.

Ground based vehicles are one thing. You can pull over and stop. Get out. Almost immediately. Airplanes can have an engine on fire, and in thousands of those events, the fire either is extinguished or (in even rarer events of uncontrolled burn) may cause structural failure to the metal in the wing before it becomes a massive fireball. Hydrogen being stored in the wing right above the engine itself will almost certainly cause a higher risk of un-contained explosions.

There is room to grow, but modern jet engines are pretty bulletproof, and will burn a wide variety of combustable, relatively-stable liquid fuels.