posted by
martyb
on Friday September 30 2016, @03:21AM
from the dummy-passengers-were-Androids dept.
from the dummy-passengers-were-Androids dept.
Aircraft engineers in Germany have successfully tested the world's first four-seater plane that uses emission-free hybrid fuel cells to fly.
The 10-minute test flight Thursday at Stuttgart Airport in southwestern Germany involved two pilots and two dummy passengers.
The twin-cabin plane, known as HY4, was developed by aircraft maker Pipistrel, fuel cell specialist Hydrogenics, the University of Ulm and the German Aerospace Center DLR.
It uses hydrogen to generate electricity in-flight, giving it a cruising speed of 165 kilometers per hour (102.5 mph) and a range of up to 1,500 kilometers (932 miles), while relying on batteries for take-off and landing.
Jet emissions do produce a measurable effect on our climate.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
World's First 4-Seater Fuel-Cell Plane Takes off in Germany
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @03:36AM
They are dummies indeed, for boarding a German aircraft carrying hydrogen.
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Friday September 30 2016, @04:31AM
Sure, but does it land... anywhere.
(Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Friday September 30 2016, @09:30AM
Sure, but does it land... anywhere.
I think that's a given. If it didn't that would be an amazing achievement.
(Score: 2) by esperto123 on Friday September 30 2016, @12:36PM
As Top Gear taught us, it will go to Poland always
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday September 30 2016, @04:39AM
I liked the article at the end of the submission, specifically detailing the study on contrails following September 11th, 2001.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:45AM
But, what do jet contrails (from flying transonic at 30,000 ft+) have to do with a general aviation aircraft that cruises at 100mph, low altitude and isn't pressurized or all-weather? That last tag line has almost nothing to do with the main story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @04:48AM
From the people who brought you Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, it's Six Degrees of Nine Eleven.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday September 30 2016, @04:51AM
Fuel cell technology is relatively new and is only just now being implemented in small planes. Obviously the technology must be proven before anyone is going to make the momumental investment to build even one plane jet-class plane powered by fuel cells.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday September 30 2016, @09:29AM
But, what do jet contrails (from flying transonic at 30,000 ft+) have to do with a general aviation aircraft that cruises at 100mph, low altitude and isn't pressurized or all-weather? That last tag line has almost nothing to do with the main story.
Fuel cells have passed stage 1 and 2 and are somewhere in the stage 3.5 region. Reaching stage 7, and allowing planes to run on something other than oil, would be a good thing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by FunkyLich on Friday September 30 2016, @12:27PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy/ [wikipedia.org]
So now hydrogen is the world saving fuel of the world. It is emission free when it burns. But doesn't it also need some quite high amount of energy to be obtained because, you know, it binds very strongly to anything else that it has a chance to? And high energy also has high costs, last I checked.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday September 30 2016, @04:42PM
Hydrogen is a PITA, I can't see it gaining mass acceptance for anything other than niche applications. I wonder if a diesel hybrid wouldn't have been a better engineering choice or even environmental choice than a hydrogen hybrid, even if superficially the hydrogen one will superficially look greener.
Ultimately, as the batteries in electric cars creep towards parity with gasoline in terms of energy density, why not just have electric aircraft? How far are we from parity with aviation fuel? Does the fact that the mass of the battery doesn't decrease throughout the flight, as the mass of fuel does as it is burnt, make a significant difference to the viability of electric planes?
Also hydrogen is not technically "emission-free" - Leaving aside the potential emissions of whatever power plant is splitting the hydrogen in the first place, hydrogen engines and fuel cells emits water as they run. Since these water emissions are harmless (as far as I know - please tell me if I'm wrong), that's only really a pedantic technicality.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 30 2016, @06:17PM
Hydrogen is a PITA, I can't see it gaining mass acceptance for anything other than niche applications.
Yep, niche applications like needing the lowest weight to power density ratio possible.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday October 01 2016, @12:08PM
Add beryllium for the win (N.B., highly toxic).
In fact, the Be/H2/O2 tripropellant can deliver the highest specific impulse of any chemical propellant.
-- http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19860018652.pdf [nasa.gov]
(Score: 2) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:01AM
The article talks about fuel cells, which in my book is a different beast than (pure) hydrogen energy. Fuel cells do usually run on hydrocarbon fuel (such as methanol) and only convert to hydrogen in the very last step of electricity generation. They do not share the problems of hydrogen storage with pure hydrogen energy and are a plug-in replacement for motorized applications in principle. Airline jets have a different mode of operation by combining burning with propulsion, but for example cars can directly deploy fuel cells (methanol -> hydrogen -> electric motor).