Boeing’s Fuel Cell Powered Airplane

September 29, 2008 by
Filed under: Hydrogen Fuel Cell 

For more info see http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,15749.0.html Ok, ok, here’s more info: Boeing Research & Technology Europe (BR&TE) in Madrid, with assistance from industry partners in many countries, has flown a manned airplane powered by hydrogen fuel cells, a first in aviation history. A Dimona (a.k.a. Katana) motor-glider with a 16.3-meter wingspan was modified by BR&TE to include a Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell/lithium-ion battery hybrid system. Three test flights took place at the airfield in Ocaña over February and March. During the flights, the pilot climbed to an altitude of 3,300 feet ASL using a combination of battery power and power generated by hydrogen fuel cells, then flew straight and level at a cruising speed of 62 miles per hour on power solely generated by the fuel cells for approximately 20 minutes.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

25 Comments on Boeing’s Fuel Cell Powered Airplane

  1. roidroid on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    2. yeah HELIOS was the first fuelcell powered plane. It was solar powered, but it stored that energy (for nighttime flying) by using a reversible fuelcell.

    It could fly forever, just using solar energy.

    I was so sad when it crashed :(

  2. shoalz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    3. /watch?v=1UEOZGFzPas

  3. fastinated on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    4. I was a nuclear mechanic in the Navy. Basically heat is a rapid movement of molecules/atoms. When fission occurs U-235/237 will split and the molecules speed up (in the easiest terms) excess neutrons are slowed down then adsorbed by another U- atom and the process feeds itself.. A reactor only makes heat. You use the heat to produce steam to spin turbines attached to generators. Some deep space probes use depleted uranium (give off heat) then thermocouples turn heat to electricity

  4. sentrynox on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    5. Forget it! Reactors don’t works with fuel cells as those cells produce only electricity no combustions whatsoever! What you see here is an electric engine!

  5. HOW2useWATER4carFUEL on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    6. car on water is much more useful

  6. witoldtomczyk on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    7. that is what will be after 787 project…

  7. takasito on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    8. Great advanced technology!

  8. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    9. thank you…

    I also believe that there is also other research on a solar powered airplane I believe that NASA develped a project called HELIOS… where it was a proof of concept… now at the present state of technology it would be impacticle for large scale passenger transport or large cargo… but from what I see there still needs to be work done… maybe a hybrid battery SOLAR aircraft…

  9. apeppink on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    10. Both reactions release much more energy than does combustion (oxidation) where molecular binding energy is released as heat (mostly, also light and a little sound too). Fusion is hugely energetic, releasing orders of magnitude more energy per unit mass of fuel than combustion, or even fission, by Einstein’s equation – {E=m*c^2}.
    Google it in and you can read all about it.

  10. apeppink on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    11. No. From what I understand energy (heat, mostly) is released in fission when the atoms in heavier elements (which are so large they’re unstable and radioactive, U-238 etc.) are allowed to split in a controlled, moderated reaction, to make lighter ones, uranium transmuting ultimately to lead (old uranium), while in fusion energy is released when light elements (tritium etc.) are forced together under extreme heat and pressure, jammed together, to make heavier ones (H>He, He>Li, etc.).

  11. harmono on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    12. There are other forms of energy than burning coal, or gas. There is Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy where does it come from? Perpetual motion of particles?

  12. SgtBaxter1 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    13. Terry the answer is really quite simple. In order to do what you’re thinking the system would have to be more than 100% efficient.

    Think of it this way: any energy the motor is exerting to recharge the battery cannot be used for flight. Any energy the motor is using for flight cannot be used to charge the battery. Otherwise you’re creating more energy than the system is outputting, which simply is not possible.

  13. SgtBaxter1 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    14. Terry the answer is really quite simple. In order to do what you’re thinking the system would have to be more than 100% efficient.

    Think of it this way: any energy the motor is exerting to recharge the battery cannot be used for flight. Any energy the motor is using for flight cannot be used to charge the battery. Otherwise you’re creating more energy than the system is outputting, which simply is not possible.

  14. EssedariusMaiestas on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    15. I bet that thing weighs less than my ’99 late-model Jetta 1.8L.

  15. apeppink on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    16. Terry…perpetual motion’s impossible though the planet you’re riding on comes close. It’s been circling the sun now for a long time with only minimal losses.

  16. HuntrB07 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    17. finally something that runs on hydrogen

  17. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    18. gee with your thinking we would still be riding horses and hunting animals with a bow and arrow….

    gee can you explain the laws of physics that allow radio waves and Computer technology and LASER light or why dont you look up Nicoli TESLA!!… and discover some of his theories…. and thank you for being a bottomless PIT of optimism

  18. axual on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    19. What you believe and what physics permits are two different things. I suggest you do the math and determine what impact your suggestion has to drag and weight. It frankly doesn’t matter if you’re talking about 777 or a paper airplane. The phyiscs is the same.

  19. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    20. so according to your logic hot air baloons are impossible….or you could not employ helium such as a dirigible to displace air???

    look einstrin I’m not looking at this plane as a replacement for the F-15… or the Boeing 777 but i believe that there are possible comprimises

  20. dave0kiss on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    21. anyone thought of having a flat battery?

  21. axual on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    22. It’s called physics. For example, a Boeing 777 requires 1 ton of fuel just to get 5 tons of fuel off the ground (not considering the plane and passengers). But then 1 ton of additional fuel requires more fuel to get that off the ground, and so goes the delicate balance. Physics laws are unbeatable. Drag and weight of your additional props and other hardware requires more energy (not considering the energy required to push plane and passenger).

  22. catapaultpenguin on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    23. because you can’t break the laws of physics. energy is always conserved

  23. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    24. very funny ace… I suppose you never herd of a MULTI Engined Aircraft that loses one engine and the other engine is used to land the aircraft…..

  24. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    25. very funny ace… I suppose you never herd of a MULTI Engined Aircraft that loses one engine and the other engine is used to land the aircraft…..

  25. terry1919 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 12:19 am

    26. there is a way that you can do this to MINIMIZE the DRAG Coefficients….

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!