Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Boeing Readying Fuel-Cell Aircraft For Tests 23

Posted by timothy from the whoooosh dept.
Makarand writes "An experimental one-person aircraft built by Boeing and powered by fuel cells could be ready for trials in Dec 2003. Once in the air the aircraft will be propelled by two 25-kilowatt fuel cells and will still rely on batteries to accelerate before taking off. If the propulsion system fails for any reason the aircraft will be capable of gently gliding back to earth. Boeing also has plans to replace re-chargeable batteries used on larger airplanes by fuel cells to cut down on pollution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing Readying Fuel-Cell Aircraft For Tests More

Boeing Readying Fuel-Cell Aircraft For Tests

Comments Filter:

  • No fuel cell-powered airliners any time soon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Monday May 12, 2003 @08:57PM (#5941635)
    "Fuel cells are inherently cleaner and quieter than auxiliary power units, have fewer moving parts, and can generate more than twice as much electricity."

    This quote makes clear that they are most interested in replacing the APUs that move the hydraulics on the plane wings with something more efficient. They are also trying to demonstrate that fuel cell can power a modified glider, but this is about ultralight plane with anciliary propeller, i.e. extremely weak engine.

    Power cells will be always more difficult to operate and heavier than jet engines. No matter what the fuel (not hydrogen, to be sure), I would like to see a fuel cell that can slurp several galons per second of a fuel to provide the necessary lift for a Jumbo.

    • fuel cell-powered aircraft (Score:5, Informative)

      by js7a ( 579872 ) <james@COMMAbovik.org minus punct> on Monday May 12, 2003 @11:36PM (#5942358) Homepage Journal
      Power cells will be always more difficult to operate and heavier than jet engines. No matter what the fuel (not hydrogen, to be sure)

      On the contrary, the sustained altitude record [nasa.gov] is already held by a craft which has recently been fitted with a fuel-cell based energy storage system [nasa.gov] in preparation for this Summer's overhight 50,000 ft. flight [nasa.gov].

      If I were a betting man, my money would be on wind power [google.com] and fuel cell storage systems [protonenergy.com].

      • Re:fuel cell-powered aircraft (Score:5, Informative)

        by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @12:07AM (#5942502)
        The weight of the Helios plane is 1300 pounds while having larger wing-span than Jumbo.
        The cruising speed of Helios ranges **from 19 to 27 mph.** :)

        AND this ultralight is solar-energy powered. They only need an additional source of power - i.e. power storage - during the night. The reason they use fuel cell/electrolysis instead of conventional battery is that it can be lighter overall (than Lead or NiFe rechargable battery, for example).

        I was comparing weight and efficiency of a fuel-cell powered engine with a conventional jet engine, not with one that is powered by a car-battery.

        [Btw.: hybrid = internal combustion+electro car engine efficiency is close to 30-40% of theory right now on commercial models - far better than fuel cell experimantal designs]

        If I were a betting man, my money would be on wind power schemes and gullibility of laymen.
        • I'd hate to have to walk to an end terminal in an airport with these things trying to cover a typical day's air traffic:

          "Yes, sir. Your 3-seater will be taking off from gate, let's see, 88428 B."

          wait for it...

          "No sir, I'm sorry. The slidewalks are being repaired today."

        • "[Btw.: hybrid = internal combustion+electro car engine efficiency is close to 30-40% of theory right now on commercial models - far better than fuel cell experimantal designs]"

          I call bull. Fuel cell efficiency is up to 90% in theory, and well over 50% in practice. The reason you see some numbers that are lower is that they also factor in the efficiency of the electrolysis to create the hydrogen, which is currently at ~80% IIRC. A quick bit of googling seems to confirm my numbers over yours.
      • >If I were a betting man, my money would be on wind >power [google.com] and fuel cell storage systems >[protonenergy.com].

        So we'll use wind power to power an airplane?

        Ummmmm..... ;-)

        -Pete

  • Gently gliding back to earth? (Score:3, Funny)

    by crstophr ( 529410 ) on Monday May 12, 2003 @09:01PM (#5941655) Homepage
    Remember it's not the descent that kills you, it's the landing.
  • I'm dumbfounded.... But it's essentially a modified glider, so it could glide back to the ground if the propulsion fails.

    That does not make me feel safe, this [duluthsuperior.com] makes me feel safe. Almost every piston aircraft glides to the ground on such an event - some better than others. Most folks spend tons of time practicing for engine events. Seriously... I'm way to many years into restoring a '58 Stitts and have put more love into that o200 continental engine with the express purpose of NEVER having to land because of engine failures.

    Yup, this one is for the marketing department. They might fly it to Oshkosh once, and then trailer it back for a roadshow/museem. Not something I would commute between Minneapolis and Chicago with... or leave the pattern... even it was environmentally friendly.

  • Feasible? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Quote:"A US company, Lynntech, has already built fuel cells for uncrewed, long duration surveillance aircraft. But Lynntech's Craig Andrews says it is not feasible to propel anything larger than a light aircraft using current fuel cell technology."

    Why are aircraft manufacturers worrying about this? Arn't they in the middle of a...you know, money crunch? The different types of jets that have come along are incredibly fuel efficient--changing aircraft to fuel cells seems more like a ploy to shut up the envir

  • Silent powered flight!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oren ( 78897 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @02:59AM (#5942963)
    OK, this is limited to one or two-seater ultralights and powered paragliders. So what? Bring it on! The most annoying aspect of these, for me, is the horrible incessent noise you must suffer all through the flight. You don't even get the limited noise-reduction of an enclosed cockpit.

    I've looked into the possibility of using a fuel cell to power an electrical powerglider, and the main problem was price. Fuel cells are still horribly expensive compared to glorified lawnmower engines :-)

    Perhaps if Boeing started making these in large quantities for auxilery power systems for airplanes, we'll get a chance to buy them at a more reasonable cost (maybe used ones).
    • Most of the noise from a propeller aircraft comes from the props.

      A fuel cell would make it quieter, but not quiet

  • Fuel Cells for AIRCRAFT? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AB3A ( 192265 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @12:12PM (#5946312) Homepage Journal
    I like fuel cells. I think they have a lot of future to them. However, installing them in to weight critical applications doesn't make sense.

    Modern piston, turbo-jet, and turbo-fan engines aren't efficient compared to a fuel cell. What they have to offer is high power to weight ratio. Remember, for every weight unit of fuel they burn, they suck in as much as fifteen times that weight in air. What they're really burning is not the Jet-A or Avgas, it's air. That's a hell of a lot of weight they don't have to carry.

    Now, fast forward to fuel cells. Yes, their efficiency can be quite high --but they have to carry all their propellant, not just 1/15 of it. Unless someone figures out how to engineer some kind of fuel cell which uses air as a reactant, I just don't see how such a thing will be practical.

    • Fuel Cells burn Hydrogen, combining it with Oxygen to create water.

      Jet Engines burn JP-8, combining it with Oxygen to create a TON of waste gasses.

      Rethink everything you just said.

    • I didn't see any mention in the article regarding the replacement of jet / turbofan engines with fuel cells. Certainly not in the near term; keep in mind that jet technology has been under development for over 60 years. Fuel cells may eventually replace currently conventional petroleum powered engines, but the article referred more to replacing battery systems and APU (alt power units) with fuel cell technology. The new technology is simpler to operate (important for reliability's sake), and often lighte
    • You're mixing things up here. A high-bypass turbofan (jet engine) on a passenger jet is what the name implies - a fan hooked to a turbine. The core of the thing is a jet engine that pulls in air and burns it with jet fuel, but the majority of the thrust is caused by that core engine turning the big fan in front. Most of the air doesn't get burnt, it just gets sucked through by the fan and out the back to create thrust. You could replace the core with an electric engine (or turn a propeller) - the questi
  • Does this mean that my next car could be a Boeing?

    Don't laugh... if these cells can power an aircraft surely they could power a commuter car that holds four.

    Does this aircraft have internet access? Sorry I couldn't resist...even thought its futile! :-0 Oh know I did it again... oh shit here comes the boss! BYE!

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close