https://www.businessinsider.com/see-a380-demonstrator-jet-that-will-test-hydrogen-powered-engines-2022-2
>>the fuel offers three times the energy per unit mass of traditional jet fuel
I wonder how that pencils out "all in" counting the tank weight. Still, it gives you a lot of weight to waste on the tank if you make it up 3:1 with the fuel
Turns out that during the Cold War, the US thought we were in a "hydrogen race" with the Soviets when U2 flights detected large hydrogen facilities. The US launched a hydrogen aircraft program that never... uh... really got off the ground. They couldn't solve the range problem. In the 1980s, the Soviets had a functioning hydrogen passenger plane that flew at least 100 flights, but the program did not survive the fall of the USSR.
The epic attempts to power planes with hydrogenQuoteHydrogen is very light compared to kerosene – traditional aviation fuel – and packs three times as much punch per unit of mass, but it needs four times the volume on an aircraft for the same hit, and storing it is tricky.
QuoteLiquid hydrogen has advantages over the alternative, pressurised hydrogen gas, which include a higher energy density (vital for longer ranges) and not needing strong, heavy tanks. Nonetheless, while Johnson's design for Project Suntan was as long as a B-52 bomber, it still couldn't achieve the range Johnson had promised the US Air Force.
The second problem was even greater. While it proved possible to produce enough liquid hydrogen, the infrastructure needed to run a hydrogen-powered plane was a different matter. Kerosene was just too cheap and convenient compared to transporting volatile liquid hydrogen in huge amounts to air bases around the world, storing it, and safely refuelling the aircraft.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220316-the-epic-attempts-to-power-planes-with-hydrogen