Fokker, one of the world’s once-well-known aircraft names has plans to return to the sky after a checkered absence, with a new plan and a new airline partner.
Fokker Next Gen, a descendant of the Dutch aircraft manufacturer that went bankrupt in 1996, plans to have a 120-150 seat hydrogen-powered airliner, yet unnamed, to go into service by 2035. Based on size and range, it will compete in regional markets against such planes as the Airbus A220 and smaller versions of the 737, although at 2500 km it does not have their range.
The company has signed a memorandum of understanding with AirBaltic, which will provide end-user input into the development of the innovative liquid hydrogen combustion aircraft, assessing how hydrogen powered aircraft could fit into their future operations and on its routes.
The first concrete step in the new plan is to fit an existing Fokker 100 with hydrogen engines for a test flight by 2028.
AirBaltic is based in Latvia and is owned by the Latvian government. It flies a large number of routes in the Baltic countries and to the rest of Europe, using A220s; it is one of the largest users of the A220.
Fokker NextGen is the current version of what was called Rekkof Restart (yes, that’s Fokker spelled backwards), which planned in 1996 to restart production of the popular Fokker 70 and Fokker 100 regional jets. The restart didn’t happen, and the company then planned to build upgraded versions of the two planes, but until now no concrete steps have been taken. The company receive considerable financial support over the years from the Dutch government.
Wasn’t hydrogen what caused the Hindenburg disaster?
Well, in a way, yes… but:
In the Hindenburg, the ‘balloon’ was filled with hydrogen, a very lightweight gas, as a substitute for non-combustible helium. The ignition was accidental, if possibly predictable.
In the case of the engines that will be used for the Fokker, the hydrogen is the fuel, burned in much the way conventional aviation fuels are, except that there are no carbon emissions—although there are nitrous oxide emissions. It’s different from a hydrogen fuel cell in that respect; the fuel cell doesn’t burn the hydrogen, and the exhaust is pure water.
Even with the nitrous oxide issue, such engines are thought of us ‘greener’ than current engines, but they are nowhere near as efficient, which is why the Fokker project is more complicated than just switching engines.
And, as with all fuels, there remains the question of producing enough ‘green’ hydrogen. That’s ‘green’ vs ‘gray’—the difference being whether the electricity to produce the hydrogen by electrolysis is generated by renewables (wind, solar, hydro) rather than by burning fossil fuels, which only moves the carbon emission to someone else’s backyard.