https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
Looks like they converted a PW-5.

On 3/3/22 10:04, John Foster wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
> Looks like they converted a PW-5.

It's got that look, but side by side two place. More like a Pipestrel
Taurus with a nosewheel. And an ugly wart on the top of fuselage.

On 3/3/2022 8:25 AM, kinsell wrote:
> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/

It seems hydrogen is not going to be the glider fuel of our future, though Airbus is
committing a lot resources to it for airliners.

"2022 marks a new and exciting phase for ZEROe – Airbus’ ambition to develop the world’s
first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035. The multi-year demonstrator programme has
officially been launched with the objective to test a variety of hydrogen technologies
both on the ground and in the air."

The demonstrator is an A380, modified to carry the hydrogen fueled test engine, and the
required fuel tanks.

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2022-02-the-zeroe-demonstrator-has-arrived

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:58:13 -0800, Eric Greenwell
<owner@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:

>It seems hydrogen is not going to be the glider fuel of our future

Rolls-Royce

"We already have work underway on the adaptation of gas turbines to
burn hydrogen, as well as land-based projects."
=================

Self launching glider packs a retractable jet engine
....
....
The engine weighs 42 pounds (around 1/3 the weight of equivalent
piston engines) and produces 240 pounds of thrust but does burn
through more than 20 gallons per hour. The BonusJet can carry 24
gallons of fuel, giving it a jet-powered flight time of around 1.5
hours. Although, with initial flight tests using the engine showing a
climb rate in excess of 900 ft/minute the pilot shouldn't have to run
the engine for very long to reach soaring altitude and the team is
projecting a sea level climb performance approaching 1,000 ft/minute.

https://newatlas.com/bonusjet-glider-with-jet-engine/16017/

> https://newatlas.com/bonusjet-glider-with-jet-engine/16017/

The BonusJet has been flying since 2010. I helped Bob Carlton build it and I am rated to fly it. (The FAA requires a turbojet Type Rating to fly any multi-passenger turbojet powered Experimental Aircraft, but the rule should really only apply to "Airplanes." That rule may be changed in the future.)

The TsT-14J (for "Jet") has been used for hundreds of training flights, including "Comparable Aircraft Training" for pilots using the PBS TJ-100 engine in a variety of homebuilt airplanes including the SubSonex and several BD-5Js. It has been an extremely reliable aircraft, with over 500 starts on the engine and zero failures. There were three occasions where the engine started but flamed out after a few seconds. In each case, it was successfully restarted with no problems.

The BonusJet was followed by four Arcus M gliders converted to turbojet power for Dennis Tito, using the same engine and retraction architecture. Dennis used these four "Arcus Js" to sweep eight categories in the 2018 OLC contest. I am also rated in the Arcus J, making me one of only a handful of pilots worldwide with two turbojet type ratings, but no powered airplane certificate.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
I'm not sure which is worse, the 143 pounds of lithium ion batteries in front of you waiting to burn, or the two 4300 psi hydrogen bombs behind you waiting to explode.
Bob Faris

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:04:13 AM UTC-8, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> > https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
> Looks like they converted a PW-5.

Oh wow, you must be pretty sharp.

On 3/3/22 16:41, Bob Faris wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
>> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
> I'm not sure which is worse, the 143 pounds of lithium ion batteries in front of you waiting to burn, or the two 4300 psi hydrogen bombs behind you waiting to explode.
> Bob Faris

After adding the batteries, the inverter, hydrogen tanks, fuel cells,
motor, propeller, and mast, I wonder how much useful load capacity is
left for a pilot?

It's not just Airbus pushing hydrogen, Toyota actually has a car in
production:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIj2XTSBuQ

It's hard to imagine infrastructure being developed to support these things.

-Dave

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:37:43 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> On 3/3/22 16:41, Bob Faris wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> >> https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
> > I'm not sure which is worse, the 143 pounds of lithium ion batteries in front of you waiting to burn, or the two 4300 psi hydrogen bombs behind you waiting to explode.
> > Bob Faris
> After adding the batteries, the inverter, hydrogen tanks, fuel cells,
> motor, propeller, and mast, I wonder how much useful load capacity is
> left for a pilot?
>
> It's not just Airbus pushing hydrogen, Toyota actually has a car in
> production:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIj2XTSBuQ
>
> It's hard to imagine infrastructure being developed to support these things.
>
> -Dave
Honda recently ceased production of the Honda Clarity. They've had a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle available since about 2003. Low sales as reason. However, they have not abandoned the hydrogen tech.

Frank

On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 21:55:09 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> Honda recently ceased production of the Honda Clarity. They've had a
> hydrogen fuel cell vehicle available since about 2003. Low sales as
> reason. However, they have not abandoned the hydrogen tech.
>
I'm not really surprised: there are only about three practical ways to
carry hydrogen in a vehicle:
1) compressed to 130 atmospheres (1800 psi) in a metal cylinder.
Disadvantages: weight of tank, tendency of H2 to diffuse out through
the cylinder wall unless that are thick enough (and heavy).

2) liquid H2, kept at cryogenic temperatures in a light metal tank and
kept cold by allowin gthe H2 ro evaporate.
Disadvantages:
- when Mercedes tried that, a full tank completely evaporated in 7
days week even if the car wasn't used
- don't walk into the garage with a lit cigarette in your mouth.
Better: only keep the car in th eopen and NEVER in a garage under
your house

3) Back in the late 60s/early 70s I remember reading about and seeing
film about storing hydrogen on a chemical adsorbant in a light metal
tank. It was safe: you could fire a bullet through a full tank
without it exploding. but I don't remember seeing anything about
weight or how the energy content (and hence driving range) of a full
tank compared with a same sized tank of gasoline.

More recently I found a piece written in 2006 saying that the adsorbant
can be one of three families of materials: activated carbons, zeolites
and stacked clays: all have some mechanical strength and are safe,
light and cheap. However, the low boiling point of hydrogen (-253C)
makes it necessary to employ temperatures of about -196C in order to
store enough hydrogen to be useful, so the tank still needs thermal
insulation, which adds to its size. However, getting hydrogen back out
of the tank can be quite fast and needs only small changes of pressure
and/or temperature.

However, I don't remember seeing anything about how the weight of tank
plus adsorbant compares with a tank of gasoline or how the energy
content (and hence driving range) of a full tank compares with the
same sized tank of gasoline.

OK, two more, this time somewhat more far-fetched:

4) an unpowered hydrogen-filled airship to carrying passengers and/or
freight, towed cross country by an electric locomotive on the existing
(electrified) rail network.

Not altogether crazy, since startups are already planning to 100%
electrify the US rail network and rail in the UK and Europe is already
largely electrified.

5) an airship with an over-size gasbag and that burns some of the lift gas
to run its engines.

> 4) an unpowered hydrogen-filled airship to carrying passengers and/or
> freight, towed cross country by an electric locomotive on the existing
> (electrified) rail network.

Once again, a far fetched idea arises. How to you plan on towing an airship under a bridge? Or power line, highway overpass, etc.?

And if I remember my high school chemistry and physics classes, it takes more energy to split the chemical bond between hydrogen and whatever other atoms to which it is attached than recombining it with oxygen in a fuel cell or by combustion. Result? A net LOSS in energy, unless perpetual motion has been discovered without my notice.

I see the unicorn herd is growing in GB also.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:46:04 -0800, Mark Mocho wrote:

>> 4) an unpowered hydrogen-filled airship to carrying passengers and/or
>> freight, towed cross country by an electric locomotive on the existing
>> (electrified) rail network.
>
> Once again, a far fetched idea arises. How to you plan on towing an
> airship under a bridge? Or power line, highway overpass, etc.?
>
Best take that up with David Brin, since he wrote, not startlingly good
by his standards, SF novel I saw that idea in.

personally,I preferred the horse-drawn zeppelin the featured in one of
the Goon Shows yonks ago - it also suffered from the same problem with
bridges etc, but was allegedly used to cross the South African veldt.

> And if I remember my high school chemistry and physics classes, it takes
> more energy to split the chemical bond between hydrogen and whatever
> other atoms to which it is attached than recombining it with oxygen in a
> fuel cell or by combustion. Result? A net LOSS in energy, unless
> perpetual motion has been discovered without my notice.
>
No, that's incorrect: the use of a tankful of absorber to store H2 in a
tank at low pressure is OK: If it was a chemical interaction as you
imply, then you couldn't simply open the tap on the tank and light the
outflowing hydrogen stream or use it to run an engine as has been
demonstrated: the one thing everybody seems to be keeping quiet about is
how efficient a tank containing hydrogen adsorber fully saturated with
hydrogen is as an energy store when compared with a tank containing
either pure hydrogen or hydrocarbons and you're looking at both the
stores energy capacity and its overall weight and/or volume.

There's a (very) partial description hydrogen absorption at the atomic
level here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-absorption

Its been demonstrated to work: as I said, I once saw a film showing it
working, and anyway, it doesn't involve a chemical bond, just some form
of much weaker attraction between a hydrogen molecule and some chemical
group on the absorber. AFAIK hydrogen molecules remain intact when
adsorbed into an adsorbant.
> I see the unicorn herd is growing in GB also.
>
No unicorns here (I hope).

Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
cryogenic air or electrolysis?  Both of those processes require a bunch
of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels.  I don't see or hear of
hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.

And, with a tip of the hat and not to Mocho, maybe hydrogen comes from
unicorn farts.

Dan
5J

On 3/4/22 08:33, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:46:04 -0800, Mark Mocho wrote:
>
>>> 4) an unpowered hydrogen-filled airship to carrying passengers and/or
>>> freight, towed cross country by an electric locomotive on the existing
>>> (electrified) rail network.
>> Once again, a far fetched idea arises. How to you plan on towing an
>> airship under a bridge? Or power line, highway overpass, etc.?
>>
> Best take that up with David Brin, since he wrote, not startlingly good
> by his standards, SF novel I saw that idea in.
>
> personally,I preferred the horse-drawn zeppelin the featured in one of
> the Goon Shows yonks ago - it also suffered from the same problem with
> bridges etc, but was allegedly used to cross the South African veldt.
>
>> And if I remember my high school chemistry and physics classes, it takes
>> more energy to split the chemical bond between hydrogen and whatever
>> other atoms to which it is attached than recombining it with oxygen in a
>> fuel cell or by combustion. Result? A net LOSS in energy, unless
>> perpetual motion has been discovered without my notice.
>>
> No, that's incorrect: the use of a tankful of absorber to store H2 in a
> tank at low pressure is OK: If it was a chemical interaction as you
> imply, then you couldn't simply open the tap on the tank and light the
> outflowing hydrogen stream or use it to run an engine as has been
> demonstrated: the one thing everybody seems to be keeping quiet about is
> how efficient a tank containing hydrogen adsorber fully saturated with
> hydrogen is as an energy store when compared with a tank containing
> either pure hydrogen or hydrocarbons and you're looking at both the
> stores energy capacity and its overall weight and/or volume.
>
> There's a (very) partial description hydrogen absorption at the atomic
> level here:
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-absorption
>
> Its been demonstrated to work: as I said, I once saw a film showing it
> working, and anyway, it doesn't involve a chemical bond, just some form
> of much weaker attraction between a hydrogen molecule and some chemical
> group on the absorber. AFAIK hydrogen molecules remain intact when
> adsorbed into an adsorbant.
>
>> I see the unicorn herd is growing in GB also.
>>
> No unicorns here (I hope).
>

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:31:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
> cryogenic air or electrolysis?  Both of those processes require a bunch
> of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels.  I don't see or hear of
> hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.
>
There seem to be three normal sources:

1) 'Green' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
renewable energy.

2) 'Blue' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
low-carbon electricity, i.e. typically from methane or natural
gas powered generators.

3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.

Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this rating
probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy sources
and the electrolysis plant were being built.

> Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this rating
> probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy sources
> and the electrolysis plant were being built.

Note that wind turbines do NOT sprout from Magic Beans, and there are NO solar-powered solar cell factories.

On 3/4/2022 2:31 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
> cryogenic air or electrolysis?  Both of those processes require a bunch
> of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels.  I don't see or hear of
> hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.
>
> And, with a tip of the hat and not to Mocho, maybe hydrogen comes from
> unicorn farts.
>
> Dan
> 5J
>
> On 3/4/22 08:33, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 04:46:04 -0800, Mark Mocho wrote:
>>
>>>> 4) an unpowered hydrogen-filled airship to carrying passengers and/or
>>>> freight, towed cross country by an electric locomotive on the existing
>>>> (electrified) rail network.
>>> Once again, a far fetched idea arises. How to you plan on towing an
>>> airship under a bridge? Or power line, highway overpass, etc.?
>>>
>> Best take that up with David Brin, since he wrote, not startlingly good
>> by his standards, SF novel I saw that idea in.
>>
>> personally,I preferred the horse-drawn zeppelin the featured in one of
>> the Goon Shows yonks ago - it also suffered from the same problem with
>> bridges etc, but was allegedly used to cross the South African veldt.
>>> And if I remember my high school chemistry and physics classes, it takes
>>> more energy to split the chemical bond between hydrogen and whatever
>>> other atoms to which it is attached than recombining it with oxygen in a
>>> fuel cell or by combustion. Result? A net LOSS in energy, unless
>>> perpetual motion has been discovered without my notice.
>>>
>> No, that's incorrect: the use of a tankful of absorber to store H2 in a
>> tank at low pressure is OK: If it was a chemical interaction as you
>> imply, then you couldn't simply open the tap on the tank and light the
>> outflowing hydrogen stream or use it to run an engine as has been
>> demonstrated: the one thing everybody seems to be keeping quiet about is
>> how efficient a tank containing hydrogen adsorber fully saturated with
>> hydrogen is as an energy store when compared with a tank containing
>> either pure hydrogen or hydrocarbons and you're looking at both the
>> stores energy capacity and its overall weight and/or volume.
>>
>> There's a (very) partial description hydrogen absorption at the atomic
>> level here:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-absorption
>>
>> Its been demonstrated to work: as I said, I once saw a film showing it
>> working, and anyway, it doesn't involve a chemical bond, just some form
>> of much weaker attraction between a hydrogen molecule and some chemical
>> group on the absorber. AFAIK hydrogen molecules remain intact when
>> adsorbed into an adsorbant.
>>> I see the unicorn herd is growing in GB also.
>>>
>> No unicorns here (I hope).
>>

Why the "hydrogen economy" boondoggle keeps popping up in the public
conversation is beyond me. Yup there are no "hydrogen wells". It's not
an energy source. It's an energy storage medium - and a poor one at
that. Conversion of electricity to hydrogen (via electrolysis) and back
again (in a fuel cell) has an overall efficiency of only about 25%. And
storing the hydrogen is difficult since it tends to leak right through
materials such as steel. Storing it in a lightweight container is even
more difficult and dangerous.

Yes some sort of portable fuel that can be created from, e.g., solar
power, would be nice. But there are options far more practical than
hydrogen. E.g., ammonia, or methanol.

On 3/4/22 13:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:31:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
>> cryogenic air or electrolysis?  Both of those processes require a bunch
>> of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels.  I don't see or hear of
>> hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.
>>
> There seem to be three normal sources:
>
> 1) 'Green' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
> renewable energy.
>
> 2) 'Blue' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
> low-carbon electricity, i.e. typically from methane or natural
> gas powered generators.
>
> 3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
> it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.
>
> Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this rating
> probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy sources
> and the electrolysis plant were being built.
>
>

By far, most hydrogen today comes from number 3 above. Maybe the Poles
should just be working on coal fired gliders. Makes as much sense as
hydrogen powered ones. The Germans tried that with jet fighters in WW
II, never really perfected them. If you don't succeed at first . . . .

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-8, kinsell wrote:
> On 3/4/22 13:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:31:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >
> >> Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
> >> cryogenic air or electrolysis? Both of those processes require a bunch
> >> of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels. I don't see or hear of
> >> hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.
> >>
> > There seem to be three normal sources:
> >
> > 1) 'Green' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
> > renewable energy.
> >
> > 2) 'Blue' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
> > low-carbon electricity, i.e. typically from methane or natural
> > gas powered generators.
> >
> > 3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
> > it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.
> >
> > Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this rating
> > probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy sources
> > and the electrolysis plant were being built.
> >
> >
> By far, most hydrogen today comes from number 3 above. Maybe the Poles
> should just be working on coal fired gliders. Makes as much sense as
> hydrogen powered ones. The Germans tried that with jet fighters in WW
> II, never really perfected them. If you don't succeed at first . . . .

How about (4) Black hydrogen generated by coal-fired power plants?

On 3/4/22 21:09, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-8, kinsell wrote:
>> On 3/4/22 13:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:31:07 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where does the pure hydrogen come from initially, distillation of
>>>> cryogenic air or electrolysis? Both of those processes require a bunch
>>>> of energy, probably generated by fossil fuels. I don't see or hear of
>>>> hydrogen gas just laying around waiting to be collected.
>>>>
>>> There seem to be three normal sources:
>>>
>>> 1) 'Green' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
>>> renewable energy.
>>>
>>> 2) 'Blue' hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using only
>>> low-carbon electricity, i.e. typically from methane or natural
>>> gas powered generators.
>>>
>>> 3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
>>> it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.
>>>
>>> Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this rating
>>> probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy sources
>>> and the electrolysis plant were being built.
>>>
>>>
>> By far, most hydrogen today comes from number 3 above. Maybe the Poles
>> should just be working on coal fired gliders. Makes as much sense as
>> hydrogen powered ones. The Germans tried that with jet fighters in WW
>> II, never really perfected them. If you don't succeed at first . . . .
>
> How about (4) Black hydrogen generated by coal-fired power plants?

That's such a bad idea it doesn't even make the list:

https://www.h2bulletin.com/knowledge/hydrogen-colours-codes/

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:11:39 -0700, kinsell wrote:

> On 3/4/22 13:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> 3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
>> it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.
>>
>> Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this
>> rating probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy
>> sources and the electrolysis plant were being built.
>>
>>
>>
> By far, most hydrogen today comes from number 3 above.
>
Yes, I should have mentioned that. As things stand, its pretty safe to
say that hydrogen, as currently produced, is NOT a 'green' fuel.

There's been quite a lot of good, readable coverage of the use of
hydrogen as fuel and its green credentials in Ars Technica

https://arstechnica.com/

over the last year.

> Maybe the Poles
> should just be working on coal fired gliders.

:-) "We need a climb right now or we gonna land out! Shovel, stoker!"

> Makes as much sense as hydrogen powered ones. The Germans tried that
with jet fighters in WW II, never really perfected them. If you don't
succeed at first . . . .
>
though IIRC that was to produce synthetic liquid fuel rather than
hydrogen. That work was revived in South Africa during the apartheid
years too. Dunno if they improved the process efficiency much, though.

On 3/5/22 07:18, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:11:39 -0700, kinsell wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/22 13:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> 3) 'Grey' hydrogen is produced by steam reforming natural gas. Using
>>> it as fuel often emits as much carbon as using coal instead.
>>>
>>> Of the three, only (1) can be considered carbon-free, though this
>>> rating probably excludes the carbon emitted when the renewable energy
>>> sources and the electrolysis plant were being built.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> By far, most hydrogen today comes from number 3 above.
>>
> Yes, I should have mentioned that. As things stand, its pretty safe to
> say that hydrogen, as currently produced, is NOT a 'green' fuel.
>
> There's been quite a lot of good, readable coverage of the use of
> hydrogen as fuel and its green credentials in Ars Technica
>
> https://arstechnica.com/
>
> over the last year.
>
>> Maybe the Poles
>> should just be working on coal fired gliders.
>
> :-) "We need a climb right now or we gonna land out! Shovel, stoker!"
>
>> Makes as much sense as hydrogen powered ones. The Germans tried that,
> with jet fighters in WW II, never really perfected them. If you don't
> succeed at first . . . .
>>
> though IIRC that was to produce synthetic liquid fuel rather than
> hydrogen. That work was revived in South Africa during the apartheid
> years too. Dunno if they improved the process efficiency much, though.
>

There have been attempts to make liquid fuel from coal over the years,
but Alexander Lippisch of Me 163 fame designed the P.13a with a rotating
wire mesh basket of burning coal granules in a ramjet engine.

Supposedly Mach 1 capable, it was a delta wing design with reinforced
leading edges intended to ram other aircraft and glide back for a
landing on a skid. Engine was tested in Vienna, but development was cut
short by the end of the war. He went on to design similar looking
airplanes for Convair in the U.S.

> >>
> > though IIRC that was to produce synthetic liquid fuel rather than
> > hydrogen. That work was revived in South Africa during the apartheid
> > years too. Dunno if they improved the process efficiency much, though.

You are correct, Martin!
That process was called the 'Fischer - Tropsch Syntese' and was developed in Germany during WW-II to produce synthetic fuels. These plants were called 'Hydrierwerke' and were the allies' air forces prime targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
The process was developed further and optimized by South Africa and other nations to lessen the dependency on imported oil.

Uli
'AS'

http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samoloty/2170/126/PW-7

On Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 17:04:13 UTC, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
> > https://sustainableskies.org/the-aos-h2-hydrogen-powered-motor-glider/
> Looks like they converted a PW-5.

Burning the H2 for propulsion; so how is lift maintained/?
JMF