Geoff_H

I learnt on a C150, flew aircraft from C150 / 6 seater retractable through to Mooney and most recently a C152. What a lot of BS that you can only fly light or heavy. I am sure that I could fly a single seat 500lb craft. Backed off from buying a Teeney Two after a report of flying them as being a " religious experience".

When I was consulting to the mines a good friend was doing velocity surveys for wind power. He said wind cost 4 times gas turbines. Never quite sure what he was about but he did say it was an expensive installation (interest on investment?,) And you still need to have a gas or diesel power plant. The overwhelming amount of energy is in trucks and loaders....a solar panel on the roof of the trucks, or maybe a wind turbine? One panel in a sunlit day produces enough energy to drive a Tesla 4km. 5MW motor on a dump vehicle may be just too much LoL

Sorry left a zero out, should be 30,000,000 litres of diesel. Getting old and forgetful lol

One of the biggest carbon emitters are mines! One particular iron ore mine, a confidentially agreement prevents me from disclosing much) burns 3,000,000 litres of oil per month. Hydrogen powered machinery would prevent this diesel/explosives from emitting. There must be many mines also with high emssions. Most electricity is from burning natural gas from the pipelines in gas turbines (hence my involvement).

I have worked in WA and met a few people that have worked with Twiggy. He is a great guy and is truly interested in the community. His grandfather Lord Forest was a great guy also, he did a lot to develop WA. He doesn't have an office he sits in a big room with all other employees. He does huge effort promoting the aboriginal.peoples lifestyle.

It looks like Twiggy is backing hydrogen. Liddell power station has been making hydrogen by electrolysis since the 1971. Just a much larger scale.

I worked on designing a 185MW gas turbine in Florida. Highest aircraft jet/ turbine is 70 MW. I must admit that our blade technology was from Pratt and Whitney under licence. We had many more stages and ran at 3600rpm with a single shaft. Big external burners. Well the principles are the same. Worked on an A380 Rolls Royce in the outback, gt part fantastic, the way rolls Royce converted it was an absolute shambles. Every install in the world had big problems. Aircraft GT's use the same principles, but the ones over approx 70MW are very different. Below 70MW much similar.

I am not sure that I agree with whoever wrote that. Porsche guaranteed the cost the same as Lycoming and 10 year fixed price overhauling. I remember their advertising before they were introduced. Mooney sell because they are fast. Slowing down a Mooney is its death nell. Mooney were going broke in the 70's by stripping down their aircraft to compete with Cessna Piper. They were losing money. A Mooney owner bought the company designed the J model with the instruction that any engineer that made a design that lost 1 mph was fired. Cost increment did not matter.

Liquid fuel would be delivered to the engine (gas turbine jet) and demand and evaporation done in a similar way to spacecraft engines that use hydrogen/oxygen fuel.

"plus a containment vessel which needs to be spherical/cylindrical so it the wings are no longer a good fit." not at all if the tank pressure is atmospheric and the hydrogen is at saturation temperature! But the smaller the surface area the less insulation needed.

The one car engine that was rebuilt as an aircraft engine was the Porsche. One control " how much power do you want". Mooney fitted them to new aircraft as an option. However as it needed two alternators for electronic reliability and a gearbox it was heavier than a Lycoming of same HP. The Porsche model was slower than the Lycoming model. Who buys a slower Mooney... not many people. So upon its failure to sell any great numbers Porsche refitted most aircraft with Lycoming engines. I had an unconfirmed report that only 5 Mooney Porsche still exist. I had the pleasure of flying one over the top of Melbourne. Sheer delight. Very quiet. A great product failed by marketing problems. I feel that we are in for a similar situation with having to go "green".

For a continuing flight the aircraft could use the boiloff in the APU. Defuel between longer flights. I don't see a need for a second tank. Fuel tanks would be in similar places to existing tanks. But with very good thermal insulation. I have worked on control systems design of two hydrogen plants, one using methane conversion the other electrolysis, never on liquid hydrogen but have worked on control systems for liquid oxygen/nitrogen plants. I expect that there would be difficulties but one has to be open to brain storming to advance technology.

The boil off would be fed into an aircraft engine at the appropriate compressor stage! Low pressure container very doable.

Got any real figures for your statements? My calculations do not support your statements particularly in respect of evaporation wastage. One damn lot lighter than batteries.

Should have added that transmission from H2 generation to you via methane gas pipeline systems.

Cryogenic for aircraft. Gas turbines can burn it with reduced put. Sydney to London would require several stops at least. Tank vented, some loss to atmosphere but lightweight tank ( done in space craft but with very high thermal resistance covering of tank....after all lead is used in passenger aircraft for sound absorption). H2 Gas can be transmitted from generation plant close to nuclear power station ( well only if we have sense enough to realise that it is probably the only way that we can have power at night or after a long period without the sun like we have now.)

I still think that hydrogen cryogenically stored in a lightweight tank. I am not sure what the tank would need to be made from, but some lightweight epoxy type maybe possible.

Actually the Otto combustion engine is theoretically more efficient than the diesel engine. It is just that the compression ratio of the diesel is far higher than the Otto combustion engine. However the recent dual cycle engines best the diesel for power and efficiency. BMW are looking at dumping the diesel for the dual cycle. Mercedes are getting over 400hp out of a 2 litre engine. Imagine a light 1 litre 2 cylinder engine giving 200hp....weight savings and efficiency.

Use the existing pipelines that feed methane to your house!

One News organisation, that I know of, use data from Facebook etc plus comments from this type of website to work out what is attractive to readers. Even to the extent of what media device followers what eg aggressive, sensational etc. I stay away from the mainstream media. All about getting your money.

In the early 70's it was great to get an aircraft that had a cheap VW engine, open canopy absolute minimum instruments and a cruise speed of around 70 knots. Now we want a full panel enclosed canopy long range 100kt cruise speed. Leather interior etc etc. I think that the Corby starlet is one of the best minimum cost aircraft around.

I guess that a new chip would increase the output. But the Bosch engine control module must be encoded some difficult way. There are several kits to add the 60hp max increase at the moment. From what I can see all halve the manifold pressure to the Bosch unit, it then increases the boost. Mmmmmmm. But what a trick BMW is doing.

The intent is to only use the brakes for taxing and holding the aircraft during starting the engines. No starter motors. Virtually no electric system. Batteries in hand held radio fitted with remote headset, signals for tachos and kill switches. EFIS in phone. Nothing in the aircraft that doesn't have to be there.

The discs are 15mm larger than the rim. With two side walls and tread roughly calculated at 15mm the discs may touch the ground but only just. The calipers are very small and fully floating. I did some tests some time ago and the discs were extremely difficult to twist. The craft AUW is 200kg.

More pics