Electric and Hydrogen aeroplanes - feasibility and issues

, why is there not an interest in synthetic kerosine, using CO2 from the air or dairy farms and H2 from water and using windturbines and solar cells for production energy?

Extracting the CO2 from the air, and burning it during flight will result in a net zero emission.

The price at this moment is about 2 à 3 times the cost of regular kerosene

The practicality of extracting CO2 from air is being regularly grossly miss-represented by many self appointed, but clueless, technology strategist.

See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/zero-carbon-fuel-pn-calum.37508/#post-485727

There are two types of people in green issues;-

1 those that do the maths and physics
&
2 those that think any green solution can be obtained in the same manner as order pizza.

Unfortunately type 2 people are getting a lot of air time.
 
Interesting - somewhat aimed at the Cessna 208 Caravan market though it may wish to change the fuselage to offer more utility factors if that is the case.

vaeridion-e-flugzeug-electric-aircraft-2022-01-min.png

Vaeridion or very idiot ? (runs for cover)
 
It will cost an enormous amount of money and effort to clean up the planet. CO2 emission world wide is aboout 36 10>9 ton. About 3 % is aviation, so you need to capture 1.2 10>8 ton CO2. Occidental Oil (Oxy) in Texas is building a plant which will extract 10>6 ton CO2 from the atmosphere. If that is used to produce synth. keros. you will need around 100 plants of that magnitude world wide. That is feasable in the next 10 to 15 years. From what I see in all the information is that the bottleneck is supplying green energy (windturbines and solar systems), not CO2 capture. Additional cost for the pax ticket will be around +100 $. So I'm not sure why the human race should be divided in those who order pizza's and those who do not.
 
It will cost an enormous amount of money and effort to clean up the planet. CO2 emission world wide is aboout 36 10>9 ton. About 3 % is aviation, so you need to capture 1.2 10>8 ton CO2. Occidental Oil (Oxy) in Texas is building a plant which will extract 10>6 ton CO2 from the atmosphere. If that is used to produce synth. keros. you will need around 100 plants of that magnitude world wide. That is feasable in the next 10 to 15 years. From what I see in all the information is that the bottleneck is supplying green energy (windturbines and solar systems), not CO2 capture. Additional cost for the pax ticket will be around +100 $. So I'm not sure why the human race should be divided in those who order pizza's and those who do not.

Commercial air travel used 95 billion gallons of Jet A in 2019 (ref1) which given the chemistry (ref2;- 3.07:1) produces close to a giga ton of CO2. (0.86 giga tons)

Now consider Carbon Engineerings Ltd (regarded as the most efficient in the business ) as described by Howard Herzog;-

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9uRHKnQ3b5s


My take on Howard’s message is that to remove a giga ton of CO2/year needs an air intake 10m high by approx. 5000km long. Additionally the process is horribly inefficient such that just the air induction alone would need the entire present day European electrical generating capacity which of course would have to be in itself Carbon zero.

I’m sorry but I just can’t get 100 bucks a ticket increase against a new build 5000Km long structure, in addition to replicating the entire European generating capacity in zero carbon just for air travel, and that’s before the system has even produced a drop of synthetic kerosene.

Sorry for the rather grim maths but I’m sure you’ll be able to explain the error in Howard’s and my understanding.
(BTW 1 your figure for annual JET A is a factor of about 10 out but the wrong way
BTW 2 the only similar length man made structure, the Great Wall of China, was four times longer but took 2300years to build)

Ref 1 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/

Ref 2-
 
Last edited:

At least the Chinese are making steady progress with large unmanned aircraft. It has a conventional powerplant, but is still an intriguing project.
 
 
, why is there not an interest in synthetic kerosine, using CO2 from the air or dairy farms and H2 from water and using windturbines and solar cells for production energy?

Extracting the CO2 from the air, and burning it during flight will result in a net zero emission.

The price at this moment is about 2 à 3 times the cost of regular kerosene

The practicality of extracting CO2 from air is being regularly grossly miss-represented by many self appointed, but clueless, technology strategist.

See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/zero-carbon-fuel-pn-calum.37508/#post-485727

There are two types of people in green issues;-

1 those that do the maths and physics
&
2 those that think any green solution can be obtained in the same manner as order pizza.

Unfortunately type 2 people are getting a lot of air time.
this is to pessimistic, as can be seen on my table:


from electricity and air to Methanol, Methan, DME the effeciency is around 50 %. Using water instead of air as source for CO2 will be very likely more efficient (there is a link here about a project of producing jet fuel on nuclear aircraft carrier).

lease see also:

we should go on with that in the old thread an not continue here...
 
Interesting analysis of ZeroAvia's modded Malibu Mirage crash report:


An accident that could have been adverted so easily is not a good point in their process.
 
"....The company also said it has established a “safety management system based on a ‘just’ aviation culture, including occurrence reporting, investigation, and corrective actions functions.”..."

What?!?! They didn't have a SMS in place? How can that be?
 
It's mandatory for EASA/FAA but not before. Other Startups have scared many with the same way of doing things. But honestly, can a regulation mandates beyond what's reguated? No.

Those startups forgo with a reporting tool simply for financial reasons: a bad report leaked and it's their shares that nose over. It's purely cynical... Including from employee that accept working under such conditions. Probably that the solution will come only from insurers once they feel the need to have that stopped.
 
Hmm, isn't it mandatory for a flight test organization of an EASA approved design organization to have an SMS?
 
What is a Flight Test Organistion? I know of an aircraft manufacturer, applying for a TC, a modifaction organisation applying for a STC, an operator applying for an AOC, and they all must be approved organisations, but what is a Flight Test Organisation? Are they approved to modify and operate a TC aircraft?
 
@Archibald It is gaseous hydrogen, not liquid hydrogen and the tanks also serve as wing sparse. Despite the fact, that gaseous hydrogen has much lower density of the liquid hydrogen that you mentioned, it is enough for 500 nm, not bad in my view and much more than any battery powered plane can achieve.
 
Last edited:

"the firm is looking at a 20% improvement in energy density in its battery cells within the end of the decade"

"It could enable longer range in existing electric vehicles, lighter and more efficient vehicles with the same range, or even expanding electrification to new segments like planes."

So the people who are actually experts in this field are predicting only modest gains of 20% in battery density by 2030. That's not enough if you want to build an electric aircraft with a viable payload and range. So that means that all these unrealistic claims we've been hearing from startups regarding how battery tech is going to drastically improve are a load of rubbish. It's going to be very interesting to see what the real world figures are when Eviation finally gets around to flight testing their Alice airliner. If they even publish them at all. Honestly if the range with a full payload turns out to be horrendous they will probaly keep it under wraps to avoid spooking investors and customers. So Embraer was right to claim that a 9 seat electric commuter plane wouldn't be ready to enter service until at least 2035.
 
Last edited:
One interesting question, would that trick work on a large airliner ? Some more hydrogen in the wings can only help.

Surly not in conventional airliners with their relative thin wings and high energy demand, but it might work in a slow speed flying wing. This is not a solution for flying long distances nonstop at high speed.
 
One interesting question, would that trick work on a large airliner ? Some more hydrogen in the wings can only help.

Surly not in conventional airliners with their relative thin wings and high energy demand, but it might work in a slow speed flying wing. This is not a solution for flying long distances nonstop at high speed.

The big issue right now for hydrogen is that the tanks would most likely have to be located inside the fuselage, which would cut deeply into your payload, possibly making the aircraft unprofitable. There's just a lot of R&D that still has to be done before this becomes a reality.

 
IMOHO, Airbus is trying here to outflank military sensors, unveiling, somewhat, their 6th Gen tailless design*...

*frangible could be more appropriate.
 
again, this is true for liquid hydrogn, but not for gaseous hydrogen. For passenger airliners we know today, gaseous hydrogen is no option, but it has many advantages over liquid hydrogen. For using gaseous hydrogen in an ariliner (it will only be usable for sort range), a new design will be nesseray. Flying wings offer a lot of internal volume und can fly very efficiently at low speed. Using the high pressure tanks as structural part of the airframe is a logic approach and totally different to an isolated cryogenic tank.
 
What is a Flight Test Organistion? I know of an aircraft manufacturer, applying for a TC, a modifaction organisation applying for a STC, an operator applying for an AOC, and they all must be approved organisations, but what is a Flight Test Organisation? Are they approved to modify and operate a TC aircraft?

In the U.K. we have a B CAT permit to fly. With this a CAA approved design organisation can undertake its own authority to certify a test flight . In essence, it’s deregulated in that it trusts the design organisation to preform and approve a risk analysis for each flight. An example is shown below;- each design organisation was issued with number prefixed by a G and then a sequential number for the airframe. So in this case it’s G- 39 -1 whereby Folland’s DO approval number was 39 and it was the number one airframe.

Maybe with the Hydrogen religion there’s a great deal of political pressure being applied to what constitutes a design organisation.
 

Attachments

  • B87983C6-E2FE-424E-85F7-4AB4EB7745EE.jpeg
    B87983C6-E2FE-424E-85F7-4AB4EB7745EE.jpeg
    595.7 KB · Views: 16
There’s really no chance of getting LH2 into wings and large high pressure H2 is hopeless due to the weight of the cylinders even if doubled up as spars.

The volume of LH2 required to do anything useful, ie comparable to today’s aircraft, is vast. Hence the mass of the tank and it’s aero drag completely cripples the performance. The whole hydrogen push for commercial aviation is just wrong on so many levels.
 
 
Is definately not feasable for large distances, but even 500 nm for a SEP covers up most flights in a Europeen country. It could also become an option for short distance flights, something like Elice is intending to do with their battery electic plane (which will very likely fail to do so).
 




Wow. They are abandoning their 19 seater project and going for a much larger 30 seat aircraft. Projected entry into service is 2028. They likely realized the smaller 19 seat design would have too little range to be practical so they're scaling up. But in my opinion battery density is simply not there yet for a 30 seat aircraft. Some quotes from the Flight article:

"Heart has also revealed two new shareholders, with Air Canada and Saab taking minority stakes in the business."

"Range with 30 passengers on board in all-electric mode is a claimed 108nm (200km), or 215nm using reserve power from two turbogenerators. In addition, range of up to 430nm is possible if only 25 passengers are carried."

This is an excellent 2 part analysis of their previous 19 seat project that is worth a read.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/01/the-t ... -aircraft/

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/08/the-t ... ft-part-2/
 
Last edited:
OMG that’s one ugly looking aeroplane. Oh Lordy, crash landing on a high power density battery…. Good luck chaps with the certification.

Interesting it’s now hybrid with just a hundred mile electric range and anything on top requires the burning of unspecified chemicals? So believable range but why burn more chemicals transporting a battery, than there’s energy in the battery?
 
From the link above:

Heart-ES-30-Hero-Image-1024x724.jpg



I am pretty sure now that they have no idea what they are doing.

200km range and E-efficient propulsion but they still allocate huge sums of money for winglets and a high performance cruising wing?
Saggy Karman but still they go for a thin airfoil...

Here is what best suits their requirements:

C-47.jpg
 
Last edited:
a thin airfoil
... hat ? as in, thin airfoil hat ? the truth is out there...

Oh Lordy, crash landing

I just realized that crash landing a pack of lithium batteries is as... flammable as crash landing a liquid hydrogen tank. Both taking so much volume, they have no other place to go than the aircraft belly.

Talk about chosing between smallpox and black death plague.

Ammonia, on the other hand... but you don't want to start me on that one.
 
Last edited:
Regarding batteries risk of fire and outgasing during a crash landing, I have put a description of the effects of battery outgasing in airplane on passengers and pilots.
The most horrible IMO comes for the paralysis of muscles that let you cognitive just the time to die and the fact that arsenic isn't detected (might have changed since MH-370).

You can read here, in the context of an airliner accident, what kind of dangers batteries expose passengers:

I went on Wiki and dug out this concerning the effect of Hydrofluoric acids



Because of the ability of hydrofluoric acid to penetrate tissue, poisoning can occur readily through exposure of skin or eyes, or when inhaled or swallowed. Symptoms of exposure to hydrofluoric acid may not be immediately evident. HF interferes with nerve function, meaning that burns may not initially be painful. Accidental exposures can go unnoticed, delaying treatment and increasing the extent and seriousness of the injury.[8]
Once absorbed into blood through the skin, it reacts with blood calcium and may cause cardiac arrest. Burns with areas larger than 160 cm2 (25 square inches) have the potential to cause serious systemic toxicity from interference with blood and tissue calcium levels.
Not forcely related but I noticed that also:



Hydrofluorocarbons in automatic fire suppression systems can release hydrogen fluoride at high temperatures, and this has led to deaths from acute respiratory failure in military personnel when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the fire suppression system in their vehicle

 
Last edited:
As noted already, development of the ES-19 has been discontinued in favour of the larger ES-30:

From the article:
Heart Aerospace’s ES-30 will be more than twice as heavy as the previously proposed ES-19, with a wingspan that also grows by nearly one-third, according to the manufacturer’s preliminary data.

Unveiled on 15 September at a hangar day event at the company’s Save airport headquarters near Gothenburg, Sweden, the 30-seat ES-30 is a hybrid-electric regional aircraft that replaces the 19-passenger ES-19, development of which has now been discontinued.

No longer constrained by the 8,618kg (19,000lb) weight limit of Europe’s CS-23 regulations, the CS-25-compliant ES-30 has gained significant mass over its predecessor.

Maximum take-off weight is now in the 20-21t range, of which 5t is batteries, says head of marketing Claudio Camelier. However, he cautions that the aircraft’s weight and dimensions could still change as it progresses through the design process.

“Once we took the action to move into CS-25 that limit ceased to apply; it has allowed us to look at many other aspects of the airplane to make it more applicable to airlines,” he says.

Wingspan has also increased to 30.77m (101ft), from 23m on the ES-19, while the ES-30’s fuselage is 22.7m long, a 5.2m rise over the smaller aircraft.

Much of that additional fuselage length is required to accommodate a larger baggage compartment and a pair of 800kW-class turbogenerators, which allow range to be extended to 216nm (400km), or 431nm with 25 passengers aboard.

Additional room for passengers has been created by an expanded fuselage, growing from 1.46m-wide on the ES-19 to 2.21m on the ES-30, allowing a switch to a 2+1 seat configuration against 1+1 previously.

Although billed as a 30-seater, Heart is also offering the ES-30 in a high-density 34-passenger configuration, featuring seating with a pitch of 29in in the forward cabin and 30in at the rear.

Other changes include the addition of a wing-fuselage brace and a large fairing below the fuselage that houses the battery packs, rather than in the nacelles of the ES-19.

Camelier says the fuselage-wing brace was required due to the length of the “very high-aspect ratio” wing, which as a trade-off for its improved efficiency “imposes challenges on the structural design”.

Heart has engaged several well-known suppliers such as Aernnova and Garmin on the programme, but has yet to settle on suppliers for crucial components such as the battery pack or 700kW-class electric motors.

Although Heart had been working on its own electric motor it is unclear if these will be used on the final design; indeed, representatives from Magnix – including chief technical officer Riona Armesmith – and Evolito were present at the hangar day.

[snip]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom