Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Willie.Mookie@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:30:46 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 20, 3:33 am, "Al G" <agerha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47690374.95F1EF7F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
My two projects in Indonesia when they're producing synfuel from
hydrogen, will have an over-capacity of about 5% - or 300 tonnes per
day. The value of each 200,000 b/d facility assuming oil prices
remain at their current levels, will be around $100 billion. I own
40% of each facility - So, I will have the wherewithal, if all goes
well, to do something with that hydrogen. Creating a hydrogen fueled
airline is one possibility.
How about you produce some 'solar hydrogen' first ?
Graham
Exactly.
I liked the part about how he is going to expand the fuselage width &
length, and it will still weigh the same, and the performance (speed/range)
will remain the same.
Al G- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are being disingenuous.
I said the length and width of a fuselage can easily be increased to
provide the volume needed for fuel AND cargo. I even gave examples of
where this has been done to existing aircraft. Boeing used this
approach to create the 747 LCF because its a lot cheaper than building
a plane from scratch. They cited the low cost of doing this relative
to building a custom built aircraft. In my hometown of Columbus Ohio,
Snow Aviation routinely stretches and enlarges aircraft.
I also said quite plainly, that 2/3 of the weight savings created by
switching to hydrogen from jet fuel should be allocated to increased
structure to carry the increased payload. In this case payloads can
be more than doubled on long range aircraft.
I also mentioned that some of this huge savings might also be used to
carry around EXTRA HYDROGEN FUEL to increase speed or range or both of
the aircraft. haha.. Graham wrongly said that would be dangerous and
of minor consequence. I pointed out why he was wrong on that one and
gave pointers to the sonic cruiser from Boeing.
So, despite the increase in drag due to greater cross section and
length of a fuselage range and speed can increase along with payload,
depending on where you want to take your savings. There is nothing
that says you must take it this way or that. That's the benefit of
having a fuel that delivers 3.2x more energy per unit weight than jet
fuel.
I even gave references to a Stanford online resource that explained
how induced drag and parasitic drag are related, and that reduced
induced drag due to lighter weight could be offset against higher
parastic drag due to larger fuselage. .
It seems to me you both are talking between yourselves in a way
designed only to say dismissive things, while ignoring the meat of
what I'm saying. .
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- References:
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: jgraber
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Willie . Mookie
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- From: Al G
- Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Prev by Date: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Next by Date: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Previous by thread: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Next by thread: Re: Hydrogen Powered Supersonic Concorde Replacement
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading