Hi I have a question about the V version of the Blackjack bomber and my googlefu is misfiring.
This version of the bomber uses hydrogen as a fuel the only thing that I can find written about is that the bomber has been extended to cope with the increase in fuel load. I was wondering what has happened to the system was it a failure or what? More importantly can it be revived and used on commercial jets instead of jetfuel they are currently using.
Tupolev Tu-160V
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Tupolev proposed a range of hydrogen powered aircraft in the 1980s, including variants of its large jet powered airliners. The Tu-160V was another paper proposal. More serious attention may have been given to the Tu-360 and several other designs for hydrogen powered rocket-ramjet bombs capable of about mach 6. Proposals for hydrogen fuel in various designs go back at least to the late 1950s.
Hydrogen has the duel advantages of providing a higher specific impulse and greater energy density then hydrocarbon fuel, but this comes at a significant price. The fuel is much bulkier and demands super cold liquefied storage. This is a several practical operation problem, and the huge costs imposed really can’t be justified with aircraft like the Tu-160 that only fly to mach 2.0. Its much more attractive for craft going mach 4+ because they can use the cold fuel for active cooling, and the weight advantage outweighs the drag penalty.
Natural gas fuel for airliners was also proposed by Tupolev, and other firms, in practical terms its much easier to work with then hydrogen. However advantages aren’t as great, and its still a hydrocarbon.
Right now airlines are in no shape to switch to gas fuel which would require entirely new airliners and ground equipment. They’ll keep using oil, and maybe start using some biofuel blends that will run without radical modifications. Ticket prices will simply have to rise to pay for it.
Hydrogen has the duel advantages of providing a higher specific impulse and greater energy density then hydrocarbon fuel, but this comes at a significant price. The fuel is much bulkier and demands super cold liquefied storage. This is a several practical operation problem, and the huge costs imposed really can’t be justified with aircraft like the Tu-160 that only fly to mach 2.0. Its much more attractive for craft going mach 4+ because they can use the cold fuel for active cooling, and the weight advantage outweighs the drag penalty.
Natural gas fuel for airliners was also proposed by Tupolev, and other firms, in practical terms its much easier to work with then hydrogen. However advantages aren’t as great, and its still a hydrocarbon.
Right now airlines are in no shape to switch to gas fuel which would require entirely new airliners and ground equipment. They’ll keep using oil, and maybe start using some biofuel blends that will run without radical modifications. Ticket prices will simply have to rise to pay for it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956