5 ms·
I think LNG would be more likely candidate , and doesn’t kg matter more than L here?
by aaronblohowiak 6y ago
I think LNG would be more likely candidate , and doesn’t kg matter more than L here?
- sokoloff 6y agokg matters a lot, of course, but most airplanes are out of space for additional tankage as currently designed. (They are designed for a given mount of fuel capacity volume, in relation to the mass of that fuel volume. None would have a 4x multiple.) Scaling volumetric storage by a factor of four produces about 2.5x the wetted frontal area (4 ^ (2/3))
- aaronblohowiak 6y agoIf I understand correctly LNG is 20MJ/L so not a 4x difference (but much colder, with all that implies...) I would agree there’s a likely range reduction, but I don’t have any stats on current normal fueling as a percent of max capacity (iow: are there many routes that are running more than half full today?)