[HN Gopher] The Celera 500L passenger plane gets hydrogen powert... ___________________________________________________________________ The Celera 500L passenger plane gets hydrogen powertrain Author : clouddrover Score : 79 points Date : 2022-06-16 11:15 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (newatlas.com) (TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com) | phkahler wrote: | They're doing something that's a red flag IMHO by talking about a | fuel cell version. If you've got a great idea - and 80 precent | less fuel consumption should qualify - then bring it to market. | Every additional "revolutionary" concept you add increases the | risk of a new product never materializing. Next up, an all new | material and manufacturing process... 3D printed crypto | nanotube/metal composite! | cjbgkagh wrote: | I assume they're just taking free money from a third party to | subsidize their main development. If the fuel cell partnership | works then great otherwise no big deal. | [deleted] | kayodelycaon wrote: | Most efficient small-scale prototype of a passenger plane... | title is way overselling the article. | | Edit: All of the photos are of the smaller prototype... and I | missed the text saying they had a full-scale one. Oops. | [deleted] | notJim wrote: | In the article, it says the it's a full-scale prototype. Still | agree the title is overstating it, especially since they | explicitly say the design cannot be used for an airliner. | flybrand wrote: | The claims made by Celera have always been aggressive - and I | hope they're real. Why add more claims? Why not just deliver on | what they currently offer? | | This seems like a red flag and possibly indicates shenanigans. | mometsi wrote: | They've optimized for cabin volume and all their claims are | weirdly crafted to take advantage of that design choice. | | For passengers who expect a flight with 4 first class-type | seats, their competition isn't a minivan with wings like the | beechcraft bonanza, it's a learjet with half the seats removed. | kashkhan wrote: | Whenever a company pivots to another tech without publicly | proving the original tech, i get the heeby jeebies. | | If laminar flow tech worked as they claimed, you wouldn't need | hydrogen to be a market success. | ufo wrote: | What is the deal with its windows? | ZetaZero wrote: | Looks like the bare minimum windows needed to fly it. Windows | create drag. The overall design reduces drag by "59 percent". | ChadNauseam wrote: | Why do they create drag? Is it difficult to make them flush | with the exterior of the plane? | chipsa wrote: | Windows themselves don't create drag, it's the interruption | of the surface that creates drag. If they do a very good job | of getting the windows put in, it shouldn't be an issue. The | bigger reason is: it's a prototype, so it's easier not to cut | the windows out and fill them with glass. | Hextinium wrote: | Would be interesting to make "virtual windows" where you take | a camera on the hull and just stream its feed to like the in- | flight entertainment system or a wall mounted monitor. | mlindner wrote: | How about no? A camera doesn't give you the same view as a | window does. You can't move around to get different angles. | Not to mention the pixel resolution of in-flight | entertainment is nowhere near what you get with your eyes. | Looking out the window at the sights is one of the few | great things about flying. | tppiotrowski wrote: | I would love this in cars one day. Getting into an | unbearable hot car on a summer day would be a thing of the | past. | elihu wrote: | It's kind of a weird idea to get used to, but I think | windowless cars could be pretty cool. Maybe the driver | puts on a VR helmet and can see everything. (Obviously | the technology would have to be extremely reliable.) | | It solves a bunch of problems: it gets rid of all the | trade-offs between structural integrity and visibility. | It reduces costs and makes manufacturing easier. The | driver could be anywhere, even in the back seat if that | makes sense for some reason. | | This seems like it would be extra useful for military | vehicles. I wonder if you were to redesign something like | the A-10 or F-16 from scratch and you could put the pilot | anywhere you want because visibility isn't an issue, | would you come up with the same design or would the | cockpit end up somewhere strange, like in the back of the | plane? | mlindner wrote: | That can be handled with pre-cooling your car. | bityard wrote: | ...a car without windows would get hotter than one | without because windows are at least somewhat reflective | (depending on the angle of the sun) and because they can | be left cracked open to let the heat escape. | happyopossum wrote: | The first half of your supposition is dead wrong, but the | second half is correct. Opaque materials will always | transmit less solar energy than transparent materials. | The most effective insulated multi-pane windows available | for homes today are still less efficient than a wall. | bityard wrote: | Yes, light travels through glass and not through metal | and paint. | | But if the outside of the car gets hot, the inside will | too. | ericbarrett wrote: | Some passenger jets have had this for a while, giving you | various views from the seatback screen. Not sure which | airlines or jets but I've definitely heard of it. | metadat wrote: | Airbus A380 has this in first class. | _moof wrote: | I was on an Emirates flight that had this. | glowingly wrote: | A similar camera was present on the old DC-10. AFAIK, it | was removed after an pretty big crash in Chicago. Nothing | to do with forthrightness, iirc (outside of the usual | flying coffin perception of the DC-10). | | EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Fli | ght_191 | | Looks like it was a cockpit camera, not an external | camera. | tensor wrote: | I absolutely loved the few times I was in a plane that | had a forward and downward facing camera that you could | watch on the screen. So great to just watch it for hours. | Windows are nice but in most transatlantic flights they | are all closed the majority of the trip so that people | can sleep. | V__ wrote: | The final version will have passenger windows, this is just a | prototype. | walrus01 wrote: | for comparison between battery and energy density: | | typical lipo as used in a short flight endurance hobby quadcopter | (5-7" prop size) is 155Wh/kg | | the best lithium ion cylindrical cells are around 255Wh/kg right | now. quite a bit more limited in instantaneous amperage draw per | cell than high C rate lipo. | | hydrogen fuel cell tank+PEM+piping+DC apparatus for large | octocopters comes in somewhere around 1500Wh/kg | | There's a south korean company that recently hovered a large | octocopter with hydrogen power source for 10.5 hours. Same system | with lithium ion battery power would be approximately a 1 hour | endurance. | | note that 1500Wh/kg is considerably less than the energy density | of jet-a or diesel or ordinary 87/89 octane petrol, BUT, you have | to account for 50% of it being lost to waste heat in an internal | combustion engine, and the weight of the engine and drivetrain. | or weight of jet turbine+generator vs hydrogen tank + fuel cell | PEM apparatus. | BenoitP wrote: | I don't believe regular planes to ever run on hydrogen and be | commercially viable. Hydrogen is not very dense, even in liquid | form (to be compared with the volume already taken by kerosene on | a plane). And requires very strong -and thick- container walls. | | However with dwindling fuel supplies, I'm pretty positive we'll | see the return of glorious, massive blimps. Powered by a fraction | of the hydrogen it uses to float in the air, savvy meteorology, | and thin solar panels. | kurthr wrote: | Not really, it's more likely to be stored at low temperature to | avoid embrittlement. Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of | approximately 120 MJ/kg, almost three times more than diesel or | gasoline. Even with the cryogenic storage and reheating | equipment it has comparable power to weight ignoring electrical | motor efficiency advantages. Comparable flight hours do take up | 2-3x more volume than diesel (including pumps and fuel cells), | but at larger sizes (e.g. 737 and larger) most commercial | flight distances are limited by weight rather than volume. | | A lot of things come down to scale. Small drones can run | reasonable distances on LiPo, which scales very badly to larger | vehicles. | kristopolous wrote: | Right. The strongest evidence is commercial planes will be | exclusively hydrogen powered. Airbus is working on one right | now https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/zero- | emission/hydrogen/... (I think 2035 is way too long - it | needs to be done 10 years ago) | | What more there will be hydrogen fuel plants onsite at the | airports | | Additionally you'll see hydrogen in similar large systems | such as rail and earth moving equipment. | | Honestly the only question I have in the large vehicle | systems is cargo ships. There's plenty of space and benefit | to large solar wings expanding the vessel surface area that | can fold up when necessary | | If you see the efficiency gains and cost reduction in | commercial grade PV continue, it's going to be unit cost | economically superior fairly soon. | | Alternatively there could be some mystery device that can get | a net energy gain by processing sea water to hydrogen fuel. | This doesn't look physically impossible but I haven't heard | of any serious efforts to do so yet and personally I'd need a | lot of convincing to be assured it wouldn't just be doing a | new flavor of ocean polluting | rbanffy wrote: | > Liquid Hydrogen has an energy density of approximately 120 | MJ/kg | | 8 MJ/liter for liquid hydrogen vs. 32 MJ/liter for gasoline | | Size matters | nix23 wrote: | >I'm pretty positive we'll see the return of glorious, massive | blimps | | Na thanks i take the train ;) But for good's i could image | that. | clouddrover wrote: | Air Nostrum has ordered some airships: | | https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airlander-10-air-nost... | tormeh wrote: | Can't the low density be taken advantage of, producing aircraft | with blimp-ish characteristics? Not sure how practical that | is... | | And given how big % of fuel is needed for ascending to cruise | height, I'd imagine you could have a decent % of the fuel in | take-off tanks with thin walls, since those tanks only need to | contain the fuel for less than 10 minutes anyway. | | I could imagine future planes using hydrogen for take-off and | batteries for cruising. | tragictrash wrote: | No. | nomel wrote: | > producing aircraft with blimp-ish characteristics | | Drag nearly directly proportional to the cross section of the | craft. Something blimp like would be necessarily slow, to | stay efficient. | simne wrote: | For plane engineering aware person, all ok. | | - Commercial planes begin at about 50-60 seats, less are non- | viable on median market (90%), but could be unavoidable or very | competitive in some niches, like tractor-planes for swamps. | | Normal commercial size - 100 seats. | | For air-dynamics, 3 times capacity enlarge (from 6 to 18) | typically possible, but more changes too much. | | And 3 times capacity in avia measured non linear, but with famous | square-cube rule, which mean, change size will increase mass as | square, but capacity as cube, so to got 3x capacity, need 1.443 | increase of size (1.442^3=3.0046853). This is possible in most | cases. | mkeespiet wrote: | Search for "Bernard van Dijk" on LinkedIn. He is a professor on | an Aviation University. He has a very solid story about why | hydrogen will never work in airplanes. I'm addition, a well | explained video about it: https://youtu.be/nrCE9duCej0 | walrus01 wrote: | I wouldn't say never, but based on the tankage requirements and | tank structural needs for high pressures, it'll be limited to | short range regional craft only. | | There is still a lot of market in the size of things like the | Q400 flown by Alaska Air. Like a Seattle to Montana flight. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | An interesting video - but I am unconvinced this is "hydrogen | can't work" - just the current approach won't work. | | The point seems to be (watch the video) that the fuel is | currently stored in wings of aircraft, which in layman's terms | means the wings bend up carrying the weight of the fuselage, | but the weight of the fuel is in the wings meaning fuel weight | does not contribute to wing bend | | Current hydrogen fuel power trains put the hydrogen into the | fuselage in big tanks. This means the fuel weight now does | count to wing bending and so fundamentally you can either take | off without passengers or you can have your wings snap. | | The answer seems to be put the hydrogen fuel in the wings. I | could not find the argument against that. I suspect there is a | lot more in the weeds in the industry | nickff wrote: | > _" The answer seems to be put the hydrogen fuel in the | wings. I could not find the argument against that. I suspect | there is a lot more in the weeds in the industry "_ | | This is impractical with current technology. The insulation | for liquid hydrogen in wings would be impractically thick and | heavy. The structure for pressure vessels for gas in wings | would also be impractical. | doctor_eval wrote: | Err... not all the fuel goes in the wings, and not all planes | put their fuel in the wings. | | This argument makes no sense to me. | nickff wrote: | I believe that all modern commercial aircraft, and many | smaller ones store substantial proportions of their fuel in | the wings. | mmaurizi wrote: | Seems like you need a flying wing design so you can have | gigantic wings to put your giant tanks (and also passengers) | in. Maybe this | https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/futuristic-flying-v- | air... ? | dragonwriter wrote: | The reason hydrogen in the wings doesn't work is because | wings are thin and hydrogen tanks need thick walls. Also a | lot more volume (hydrogen is not super mass inefficient as a | fuel, but is super volume inefficient.) | somat wrote: | A bold claim, perhaps they have done it but I have my doubts that | such a large efficiency gain is left in aeronautical engineering. | | And also because any time I see "% reduction" that is a bit of a | red flag. Whats the math on this one? | | (existing 6 passenger plane drag[cessna citation?] - (existing 6 | passanger plane drag * 0.59) = celera 500 drag)? | | the wikipedia article goes into a bit of detail on some of their | more dubious claims. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Celera_500L | | Also note how the prototype has no windows.... | kayodelycaon wrote: | Very amusing wikipedia article. The only things that aren't | speculative are when they started, how much funding they | raised, and how many flights their prototype has had. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | > A bold claim, perhaps they have done it but I have my doubts | that such a large efficiency gain is left in aeronautical | engineering. | | It is a laminar flow design. It's been known for a long time | that you can push drag down a lot below the state of the art in | commerical aviation that way, and it's been used in a lot of | gliders, but it doesn't come for free. | | Most importantly: The shape of the aircraft is almost entirely | determined by physics, not your wishes, which typically makes | it quite inconvenient to build and use. Maintaining the high | performance depends on keeping the skin of the aircraft very | clean and smooth -- even collecting a few too many bugs can | cause a lot of problems. | sandworm101 wrote: | Gliders have a wing cord of maybe a foot or two. The body of | this thing is like 30 feet long. Maintaining laminar flow | across such a surface is mostly impossible. Bugs and | scratches are bad, but at that size tiny paint defects would | be an issue. | | "This is your pilot speaking. It looks like we have some bird | dirt stuck to us. We therefore must cut our journey short." | the__alchemist wrote: | Wouldn't a flying wing design be more efficient? I'm suspicious | this comes down to engineering a big-enough pressure vessel into | the wing design. | mateo1 wrote: | Also good luck landing this thing with strong crosswinds. Or | god forbid rupture the pressure vessel with a hard landing... | It's an interesting concept but looks very impractical. | darksaints wrote: | Possibly. Though functionally this isn't much different from a | flying wing, as the fuselage is a lifting body. It's basically | like a large capacity powered glider. | kayodelycaon wrote: | No. Flying wings do not allow for efficient internal layout of | passenger seats, cargo areas, and engines. You're better off | designing something with minimal wing drag and a body that | provides additional lift. | thinkling wrote: | Prototype can hold 6 passengers. The design can scale up to 19, | but "the low-drag laminar flow model relies on a width-to-length | ratio that'd be impractical in a bigger bird" so it won't work | for airline use. | [deleted] | rbanffy wrote: | > "the low-drag laminar flow model relies on a width-to-length | ratio that'd be impractical in a bigger bird" so it won't work | for airline use. | | We can always reimagine airports as well. | jonplackett wrote: | Was wondering about this - im just not that impressed about | anyone making personal jets more efficient. Those things | shouldn't be in the sky in the first place. | nawgz wrote: | Fully agreed. Personal aviation is ludicrously inefficient | and still often remains outside of meaningful regulation in | key ways like using leaded fuels. Poisoning the globe and | locales for one person's convenience should always be | questioned as a sign of inequality too far gone | S201 wrote: | Let's not be so dramatic as to say that the general | aviation fleet is single handedly responsible for poisoning | the world with lead. | | When leaded car gas was still in use it resulted in 4-5 | million tons of lead emissions per year.[1] | | The use of leaded aviation fuel contributes 500 tons per | year according to the EPA[2]. Compared to 5,000,000 tons | for cars historically. | | Of course, any lead is not good and we should be shooting | for zero. Which is the goal of the unleaded G100UL aviation | fuel. But let's not try to say that personal aviation is | evil when it's contributing a fraction of a percent of lead | contamination. Frankly, we have bigger pollution problems | to worry about than a very small amount of lead emissions | from an ever shrinking fleet of piston powered aircraft. | | Mind you that general aviation is more than rich people | flying around in their planes. It's medical flights, it's | training future airline pilots, it's aerial surveying, and | many more critical tasks for society. | | 1. https://grist.org/regulation/leaded-gasoline-lead- | poisoning-... | | 2. http://www.reidhillview.com/EPA_GA_Lead_2002.pdf | simne wrote: | I'm agree with you about lead is bad, but only oldest | designs of aircraft engines depend on lead (they use it | as lubricant for valves, as it deposits on surfaces when | gas evaporate). | | Because of this, leaded gas still produced in commercial | volumes. | | Modern aircraft engines could work on unleaded gas, and | especially Celera use aircraft diesel engine, working on | basically aviation kerosene (with tiny addition of | lubricants for diesel equipment). | | BTW diesel add about 30% of Celera range. | nawgz wrote: | https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/08/06/new-study- | finds-l... | | I in no way imply aviation is the greatest poison emitted | by humanity; it is one of the most selfish emissions by | any standard. It is not that leased fuels support | meaningful industry as suggested, nor is it as if there | are not alternatives. Instead, the FAA and pilots of | piston driven planes have simply decided lead poisoning | is a justifiable price to pay for people living near an | airport in exchange for individuals getting to fly their | quarter million+ $ aircraft. | | Everything you suggest it is useful for could be | performed with the already proven and no longer new | unleaded alternative. Defending this practice is asinine. | sokoloff wrote: | Jets [and turboprops] don't use leaded fuel. Many of the | small, piston-engined airplanes do, but because current FAA | regulation forces them to, not because of a lack of | regulation. | S201 wrote: | It hasn't been a regulation issue from the FAA that | piston engines must use leaded fuel for some reason but | rather there hasn't been a viable unleaded aviation fuel | that worked with all piston engines. | | This is about to change though with G100UL finally being | approved. https://gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php. | nawgz wrote: | I would, as I did, call regulations forcing stupidity as | a lack of meaningful regulation; but I take your point. | It is even a problem of negative regulation. | | Small jets do indeed use jet fuel but have a terrible | efficiency proposition when ran at even 50% capacity, | which is not the standard use case. | DakotaR wrote: | And some engines are rated to run automotive gas, but | it's just not available at smaller airports. | sokoloff wrote: | Most of those are only rated to run on E0 (ethanol-free) | gasoline, which is also hard to find outside the airport | fence in most places. | grogenaut wrote: | I was actually surprised when I looked how many places | carry e0. There were several near me in Seattle. | https://www.pure-gas.org/ | amscanne wrote: | I imagine that at capacity, they can just as efficient as | larger jets (if not more efficient). There may be a sweet | spot in terms of efficiency that can be achieved that is | smaller than what we've got now. We've already seen jumbo | jets fall out of favor, and e.g. this can be seen in the | sales of the A380 and 787 (launched around the same big, | with A380 going big, and 787 going efficient and mid-sized | with about 10x the sales). I imagine that planes would get | smaller still, but the reason they don't is that even with | high oil prices, human costs still tend to dominate the | cost of a flight (two pilots, cabin crew). It's not so hard | to imagine that with more automation it will become viable | to have much smaller, more frequent routes that are both | more economically and environmentally efficient. | nawgz wrote: | Jetliners have an industry average 51mpg per passenger. | Private learjets pull, at capacity, 28mpg per passenger. | I'll let you decide which one of these flies around more | often at lower percentages of capacity. | nickff wrote: | Learjet was a brand name (used to be an independent | company founded by Bill Lear), which is no longer active | (after having been acquired and subsequently | discontinued). The more generic terms are 'general | aviation' and 'business aviation'; most small jets are | 'business jets'. | nawgz wrote: | I am citing specific statistics for a specific and | popular private jet, as these things are not well | analyzed for not surprising reasons. Feel free to prove | the point with statistics, semantics are definitely an | aside to the point at hand | nickff wrote: | You're comparing obsolete small jets to a much newer | fleet of commercial passenger aircraft. While business | jets do tend to be older, your choice is rather extreme, | and introduces a huge bias. This website has some | interesting examples of more modern aircraft in a few | categories: https://www.flyingmag.com/the-most-fuel- | efficient-aircraft-i... | nawgz wrote: | A bunch of 4mpg 7-8 seaters align perfectly with my | criticism of private jets. Actually, I don't really | understand what leads you to think there is any pressure | in this space for fuel efficient development. In the | space of jetliners, the airlines optimize for cost, of | which fuel is a primary driver. | | While it is cool local planes pull 25mpg, they spew lead | on their local communities. | | I don't think humanity can put the cat of air travel back | in the bag, and if I understand correctly the SUV market | is actually driving as much CO2 emissions as the entirety | of aviation; I still don't see why individuals should be | privileged to do such damage of poison and inefficiency | for their pleasure. It is pleasing to others to imagine a | long lived humanity on a globe hosting life as we know | it, after all. | simne wrote: | For plane engineering aware person, all ok. | | - Commercial planes begin at about 50-60 seats, less are non- | viable. | | Normal commercial size - 100 seats. | | For air-dynamics, 3 times capacity enlarge (from 6 to 18) | typically possible, but more changes too much. | | And 3 times capacity in avia measured non linear, but with | famous square-cube rule, which mean, change size will increase | mass as square, but capacity as cube, so to got 3x capacity, | need 1.443 increase of size (1.442^3=3.0046853). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-17 23:00 UTC)