Airbus' ZEROe Program: The Race to Hydrogen-Powered Flight by 2035

None of this actually makes a lot of sense. In the article, they are talking about using hydrogen in fuel cells, and are experimenting with using them to replace the APU, which is essentially a generator of electrical power for the aircraft, primarily when on the ground. That's a long, long way from moving a plane across the Atlantic with passengers on board. Any aircraft that carried enough fuel cells of sufficient power density to run - what ? four big electric motors with propellers on ? - and get across the Atlantic, would have no capacity left to carry passengers or freight. I'm all for designing cleaner and more efficient conventional engines, and fuel cells are fine for appropriate uses, but I don't think that they are going to be any kind of replacement for conventional turbo fan engines anytime soon

Quote from article -

"The heart of ZEROe lies in hydrogen, a clean-burning fuel that emits only water vapor when used in fuel cells"

What are they going to name the first plane using it, Hindenburg? Oh, the humanity...

First flight with liquid hydrogen fuel. Successful flight but collapsed S. S. S. R. REPUBLIC SOVIETICS.

Tu-156
TUPOLEV Tu-156
TYPE: Technology demonstrator.

PROGRAMME: Flight trials of Tu-155, a Tu-154B modified with the starboard Kuznetsov NK-88 turbofan operating on liquid hydrogen fuel, began on 15 April 1988; aircraft then modified to use liquefied natural gas (LNG), first flight in this form taking place 18 January 1989. Was world's first aircraft to fly using cryogenic fuels, most of which contained in 17.5 m3 (618 cu ft) tank in rear of passenger cabin.
On 23 April 1994, Russian government allocated funding for conversion of three Tu-154s to Tu-156 standard, delivery of 12 NK-89 turbofans and six cryogenic fuel systems; an installation to supply LNG will be established at Samara. Order reduced to one Tu-156; delivery originally scheduled for 1998, but had not taken place by mid-2003; federal funding of Rb7.5 million and Rb17 million was planned for allocation in 2001 and 2002 respectively to cover construction of a ground test rig for the cryogenic fuel system; total cost of development programme estimated at Rb200 million to 2005, to be funded by Rosaviakosmos (70 per cent), with balance shared equally between Tupolev and Kuznetsov. According to March 2003 report, half the required funds had been allocated to the Tu-156 programme by that time, but the completion date had been further extended.

CURRENT VERSIONS: Tu-156S: Initial kerosene/LNG-powered conversion of Tu-154B, carrying 13,000 kg (28,660 lb) of LNG at rear of cabin and 3,800 kg (8,378 lb) in two underfloor tanks, plus 10,200 kg (22,487 lb) of kerosene in wing tanks; payload 14,000 kg (30,865 lb) or 130 passengers; range 1,403 n miles (2,600 km; 1,615 miles).
Tu-156M: Developed version converted from Tu-154M, carrying 135 passengers; fuel load and performance as Tu-156S.
Tu-156M2: Proposal only; converted from Tu-154M2; 20,000 kg (44,092 lb) of LNG only, carried in two tanks above centre-fuselage allowing passenger load increase to 160; two NK-94 engines; range 2,159 n miles (4,000 km; 2,485 miles).

POWER PLANT: Experimental power plant is 103.0 kN (23,150 lb st) Samara NK-89; tanks for cryogenic fuel mounted in rear of cabin and in forward baggage hold of Tu-156S/M. Aircraft will operate on mixed LNG/kerosene, as Tu-155, kerosene being used for flights out of non-LNG aerodromes and for emergencies, when in-flight switch from LNG can be made in 5 seconds. Tu-156M2 would have only two NK-94 engines, wholly LNG powered.

Going to need a working fusion reactor or the flux capacitor first.

We have come a long way since Operation Ivy Mike. We will eventually solve these riddles of physics for the environment. ✈️

Now the huge problem is getting it on line pirce wise and available in the right places. Its a better option than take food producing farm land and using it to produce fuel for them which is really stupid.

There is no such thing as zero emmissions. The hydrogen must be produced, transported, and storaged. And they will add chemtrails into it anyways.

Aviation omissions of the few things where just leaving as is - continuing to drive engine and plane efficiency- seems the best option until better engine types get designed far I. The future. Decarbonise land and sea transport is much easier to do.

Fannying around with Hydrogen or electric seems like a fruitless science and reality v’s decarbonisation.


Unless it comes economic and environmentally cheaply via eco-fuels from waste and drying oil… growing fuel will just compete with food in a warming planet with huge water and land challenges.

Optimally, it'll be nuclear or LNG at a minimum. Hydrogen is definitely a pipedream!

The only way a company or industry is going to come up with viable (tech and financial) solutions is going through iterations of inefficient or non viable attempts first. Then perhaps you can leverage what works, add new technologies and start getting better and better. People seem to think that if it’s not perfect - it’s a waist of time and money.