Boeing successfully flies hydrogen-powered plane

There is plenty of immediate potential for the use of hydrogen in aviation, and not just in small planes, but also to cater for the electricity needs of larger planes, such as lights, entertainment, air-conditioning, etc.

Note that such small planes can be very light. This very plane has a plastic body and weighs 1,852 pound (840 kg), but nanotechnology (nanotubes) and high-tech composites such as carbon fiber could further reduce this weight. Carbon fiber is three times stronger than steel and four to five times lighter than steel and is already used in many parts of Boeing's new 787 jetliner, and also widely used in Formula 1 races. It's actually mandatory for Formula 1 cars to be made from carbon fiber to meet safety requirements.

Furthermore, an electric airplane makes far less noise than a piston-engine airplane, and also generates less heat. Less weight, heat and noise are qualities that are very welcome in military applications. Drones, or unmanned planes, can fly at high altitudes, making them less vulnerable to be shot down, while the lack of heat and noise makes them less detectable by noise- and heat-seeking missiles. Such drones can launch missiles that are then remotely guided to their targets with pin-point accuracy by means of satellite mapping and built-in video cameras.

But even for small airplanes as in the article, I see a huge market, for four reasons:

- TIME SAVINGS - The plane in the article flew at a speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour), which may at first glance seem slow compared with larger airplanes. However, such a small plane can quickly take off and land at small airstrips, reducing time spent at airports and driving to and from airports. Airplanes fly in a straight line, as opposed to cars and trains that have to follow the road or the rails, and that have to stop at traffic lights, intersections, railways stations, etc. For most long-distance travel, small planes can be the quickest means of travel.

- SAFETY - GPS-navigation and radar technology could make small planes safer. Using small planes could result in a spectacular drop in traffic accidents - after all, there is much more space in the three-dimensional air than on the congested two-dimensional ground.

- COST - Using small planes could make electric cars more attractive. Electric cars are already cheaper than gasoline cars in many respects, but many are discouraged from switching to electric cars, since they typically have a range of only, say, 100 miles. However, only a few percent of people drive more than 100 miles daily, so imagine that in the rare case that one did need to travel to another city, one could go to one of the numerous nearby landing strips and hire a small plane for a day.

- CLEAN - Last, but certainly not least, such air travel would be clean. As more wind turbines are added, more electricity will become available at night and early in the morning when there is little demand. Therefore, it makes sense to use this surplus electricity to produce hydrogen and to recharge batteries.

With a good power to weight ration almost any energy source can power an airplane. One wonders if the plane's total carbon footprint (counting creation of the materials from which it is made, fabrication, maintenance, and so forth) is better than internal combustion engine airplanes.

Sam,
Yea its a great idea...remember the Hindenburg? Hydrogen is extremely flamable so not the best thing for airplanes.

All the other facts about general aviation are absolutly correct. What also makes it attractive is many smaller airports, so they can land closer to where they actually need to go further reducing driving time. The problem GA is facing now is people wanting to shut down smaller airports. People buy/build houses close to airports and then they are surprised that there are airplanes taking-off and landing so they try and shut them down.

Larry: " With a good power to weight ration almost any energy source can power an airplane. One wonders if the plane's total carbon footprint (counting creation of the materials from which it is made, fabrication, maintenance, and so forth) is better than internal combustion engine airplanes."

Clean electricity can be obtained in several ways, e.g. from the surplus energy that wind turbines produce at night. This electricity can be used to charge the batteries and to produce the hydrogen that power such planes. This electricity can also be used to manufacture such planes, while using plastic made from agricultural waste of organic farming (e.g. corn, rice, wheat, etc). After the plane's useful lifetime, this bio-plastic can be safely disposed of just like other bio-waste. In short, this can be done by means of an oxygen-starved heating process resulting in carbon that can be put into the soil for increased fertility and retainment of water. I see no greenhouse gases, nor any toxics, in this way of manufacturing, using or disposing of planes, or in their maintenance, in fact, it's carbon negative.

Victor: "..remember the Hindenburg? Hydrogen is extremely flammable so not the best thing for airplanes."

Hydrogen is lighter than air and diffuses quickly, upward into the atmosphere. So, in the unlikely event of a hydrogen leak in a pressurized tank, the hydrogen will diffuse upward, away from the source of the leak. If the hydrogen is also ignited, it will burn, but the heat from hydrogen flames is also significantly cooler than heat from fossil fuel. This makes it safer than jet fuel, which sticks to the plane's surface and burns while falling down, underneath the plane. The rapid diffusion of hydrogen into the atmosphere also makes hydrogen tanks significantly less prone to explosion, compared to conventional fuselage.

While it's true that the Hindenburg's lift was achieved by hydrogen gas, it's a persistent myth that the hydrogen caused the loss of lives. People died because they either jumped from the burning Hindenburg, or because they were hit by burning canvas. The Hindenburg's canvas was treated with a varnish that today would be classified as jet fuel. The hydrogen would have disbursed upward very quickly, away from the crew and passengers.

Victor: "What also makes it attractive is many smaller airports, so they can land closer to where they actually need to go further reducing driving time. The problem GA is facing now is people wanting to shut down smaller airports. People buy/build houses close to airports and then they are surprised that there are airplanes taking-off and landing so they try and shut them down."

Precisely! Large airports typically exploit monopoly positions, they are congested, keep planes and passengers waiting, charge everyone a fortune for parking and shopping, and for the planes to land and board new passengers. All this leads to a lot of time and money that is wasted. Numerous small airstrips and numerous small airplanes make more sense.

As said, hydrogen is safer than conventional fuel, while electric motors also produce less heat. Computerized pilot systems with built-in maps, GPS-navigation and radar technology could make small planes quite safe. Small planes need shorter distances to land. The lack of noise of electric motors combined with the small size of such planes makes them far less of a burden on residential neighborhoods than jets. Last, but not least - to say it once more - such small planes release no emissions, which is important for the environment.

Great article, Sam, we have been waiting to see this plane fly for a long time.

Good to see proof that this is well possible. I'd like to see more details on projected cost of using such an aircraft, compared to the cost of driving a car, taking the train, coach and flying conventional aircraft. I'm excited about this, I think this is a great alternative, not just for its lack of emissions, but for its convenience and for the economic of it all.

Could such a plane land in my backyard? I've got enough land for an airstrip, but I don't know whether it's allowed. I know farmers use little planes for crop dusting and I see helicopters land on top of large buildings, but I don't know what bylaws there are for residential backyard landings. Good article and comments, Sam.

Another great article, Sam. Thanks for the continued updates!