News: Airlines Reduce Speed to Save Fuel

[RH77]

One of the top rules of EcoDriving is to slow your cruising speed to save fuel. So the question is answered, Pilots do hypermile...



According to CNN, Airlines are slowing their cruising speeds in an effort to cut back on fuel consumption. In many cases it amounts to less than 5 minutes, but an appreciable amount of fuel is not burned. How many times have you arrived at your destination early, only to find the gate occupied and there you sit, idling?

RH77

[trikkonceptz]

Smart thinking .. now will they P&G in the air? Shut off their engine in approach? LOL or simply over inflate their tires for less landing and take off resistance?

Quick tag some planes with Ecomodder decals ....

[RH77]

Originally Posted by trikkonceptz

Quick tag some planes with Ecomodder decals ....

Yeah, a quick EM cling on the tray-table should do it

Come to think, they don't really clean planes like they used to...

Seriously though, maybe some pamphlets in the seatback pocket or even the rental car, or the hotel drawer! This could go nationwide

RH77

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by RH77

Seriously though, maybe some pamphlets in the seatback pocket or even the rental car, or the hotel drawer! This could go nationwide

RH77

We AndrewJ to make up some pamphlets and make it a link so that when you click on them there is a printer friendly version so that each member can print them out at his station and deperse as necessary.

[LostCause]

It's nice to hear airlines are saving gas, but airplanes are limited in their ability to "hypermile."

Plane's will get their max range (i.e. mileage) when flying at a speed that maximizes their L/D (lift to drag) ratio. The L/D ratio varies with altitude and climatic conditions, but I bet most airlines know exactly where it exists on a given flight in every condition.

Fuel savings also come from modifying the rate of climb, descent, and amount of fuel carried for a flight. There are a lot of variables, but airlines are pretty restricted by regulations. Unfortunately, airlines are pretty much at the complete mercy of fluctuations in fuel prices.

I know someone on this board is at least a commuter pilot, so hopefully he'll elaborate.

- LostCause

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by trikkonceptz

Smart thinking .. now will they P&G in the air? Shut off their engine in approach? LOL or simply over inflate their tires for less landing and take off resistance?

Quick tag some planes with Ecomodder decals ....

Domestic flying is pretty environmentally damaging. The jet contrails are higher in the atmosphere so make a more potent GHG. Driving, even by yourself, in a fuel efficient car is better than flying in a full modern plane.

http://www.econewmexico.com/driving-vs-flying-co2

Now, if you want to fly to Chile or England, then that's better than driving or boating. Boating is not very nice for the environment.

I wonder how practical it would be to run a plane on hydrogen (generated of course from nuclear power)? That's the only thing that would really help. I don't think flying more slowly would really improve the GHG output that much.

[LostCause]

I was under the impression that boating was the most efficient form of transport available. While boats operate in a liquid (draggy) environment, they are the slowest and "densest" transporter of goods. What they lack in efficiency they make up in volume. This doesn't apply to the QM2, but goods shipping in general.

Ofcourse, the most efficient way to get to England would be sailing.

Originally Posted by hvatum

I wonder how practical it would be to run a plane on hydrogen (generated of course from nuclear power)? That's the only thing that would really help. I don't think flying more slowly would really improve the GHG output that much.

In the 1950's, the Airforce flew a B36 Peacemaker with a reactor onboard. It didn't power the aircraft, but that was the eventual intent.

I'd be worried about the energy density of hydrogen, which is pretty low compared to gasoline. Unless some type of substrate method takes off that increases fuel density, planes will either be severely handicapped performance-wise or space-wise.

I'd be more interested in the return of the Zeppelin. The ultimate marriage of hydrogen and aviation.



- LostCause

[RH77]

Originally Posted by LostCause

It's nice to hear airlines are saving gas, but airplanes are limited in their ability to "hypermile."

Plane's will get their max range (i.e. mileage) when flying at a speed that maximizes their L/D (lift to drag) ratio. The L/D ratio varies with altitude and climatic conditions, but I bet most airlines know exactly where it exists on a given flight in every condition.

Fuel savings also come from modifying the rate of climb, descent, and amount of fuel carried for a flight. There are a lot of variables, but airlines are pretty restricted by regulations. Unfortunately, airlines are pretty much at the complete mercy of fluctuations in fuel prices.

On many airliners, there's a computer system on-board that calculates the most efficient climb and decent. The article states that the programming may be tweaked.

As far as cruise, any aircraft has a "most-efficient" velocity and often times a faster, more reasonable rate of speed, per the manufacturer. It could simply be that they're using the "sweet spot" instead of "hurry-up and get there".

Of course, there's ATC and other traffic to deal with that eats up the fuel...

Originally Posted by hvatum

Domestic flying is pretty environmentally damaging. The jet contrails are higher in the atmosphere so make a more potent GHG. Driving, even by yourself, in a fuel efficient car is better than flying in a full modern plane.

True, but I don't think it's someplace to start. A full aircraft is more efficient than one that isn't.

For my job, I have to travel -- it's a given. I can either drive and get 25-34 MPG on the trip, or share a ride with 95 other people in a plane and get there quicker, and likely more efficiently (depending on the aircraft).

RH77

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by LostCause

I was under the impression that boating was the most efficient form of transport available. While boats operate in a liquid (draggy) environment, they are the slowest and "densest" transporter of goods. What they lack in efficiency they make up in volume. This doesn't apply to the QM2, but goods shipping in general.

Ofcourse, the most efficient way to get to England would be sailing.

Ok, that's true

But if you want to get there FAST then you're better off driving or flying then boating, speed boats get crap mileage.

Originally Posted by LostCause

In the 1950's, the Airforce flew a B36 Peacemaker with a reactor onboard. It didn't power the aircraft, but that was the eventual intent.

I'd be worried about the energy density of hydrogen, which is pretty low compared to gasoline. Unless some type of substrate method takes off that increases fuel density, planes will either be severely handicapped performance-wise or space-wise.

Yeah, I think that would be the problem. Also, just so we're clear, I don't mean putting a reactor on a plane, but using power generated on the ground to create hydrogen.

Originally Posted by LostCause

I'd be more interested in the return of the Zeppelin. The ultimate marriage of hydrogen and aviation.

- LostCause

hehe, yeah that would be cool. It would really be an experience to take a cruise in a Zeppelin. If it we're affordable I'd love to sign up for that.

Originally Posted by RH77

For my job, I have to travel -- it's a given. I can either drive and get 25-34 MPG on the trip, or share a ride with 95 other people in a plane and get there quicker, and likely more efficiently (depending on the aircraft).

Oh, I love flying too. I've nothing against it, but under no circumstances is flying in any plane more environmentally friendly than driving a really fuel efficient car. The raw amount of GHGs released is greater, and they are released higher and so more damaging. Flying is safer and faster though

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by hvatum

I wonder how practical it would be to run a plane on hydrogen (generated of course from nuclear power)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeCQblYHic