Airbus acknowledges slow progress on hydrogen plane

I don't see how they can possibly carry enough H₂ for more than a regional flight. Definitely not for intercontinental flights. The fuel volumetric density is just too low.

it has a much lower energy density than kerosene, meaning aircraft powered by it instead of fossil fuels would actually weigh more.

It can be burned with oxygen to create water, powering a jet, but it has to be stored in liquid form, which means installing high-pressure tanks that keep the highly flammable substance at temperatures below minus 253 Celsius. All that adds weight, cutting into range, cargo and passenger capacity.

Ref: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-powered-airplanes-face-5-big-challenges/

If you want to fly and use hydrogen, get onto a blimp. Just be careful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgWHbpMVQ1U is an example when lots of things go wrong with hydrogen flight.

Go Airbus..

Boeing sucks..

LOL

I don't see how they can possibly carry enough H₂ for more than a regional flight. Definitely not for intercontinental flights. The fuel volumetric density is just too low.

The Soviets had a somewhat successful liquid hydrogen powered TU-155 prototype flying in the 1980s

TU-155 weighed ??kg, good old 747 weighed?? kg. Why was the 747 (albeit with the large carbon footprint) the passenger work horse in the 80's? It worked.

Germany tried to make hydrogen work as a power source for submarines in WWII and while they had limited success they couldn't make it work. It is great that Airbus is trying so hard, but it may still be beyond them at this point.

Yes, it's currently very in to fight useless fights against science. It's a really big mental problem in all fields, nowadays. Here in this case they think they can tweak physics and chemistry, the AI guys think they can bypass mathematical laws and rules, the many genders theory ones think they can install a new biology, and so on and on. Of course it is clear how that ends in every case, but try to tell them that. lol

TU-155 weighed ??kg, good old 747 weighed ??kg

There are many different models of B747, so there are huge differences in weight. The B747 was extremely efficient from a passenger-miles standpoint - more efficient than any other aircraft of the same era. There's a huge difference in carrying 150 passengers and 350 passengers.

For airlines, the passenger/gallon matters. Today, the A321-Neo is the leader. the B7M8 was close ... er ... until something happened to drastically impact trust.

There are lots of ways to store H2, but more efficient methods are still needed.