[TECH]:: Fuel economy in aircraft. Black holes :-)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[TECH]:: Fuel economy in aircraft. Black holes :-)

RussellMc
Fuel economy in aircraft. Immensely interesting and complex subject. Too
many good links :-)

An unsurprisingly surprisingly large number of factors and rabbit holes to
follow up.
eg Winglet devices and their kin added to improve fuel economy also affect
ICAO airport classifications of aircraft leading to mechanically
interesting construction which in turn ... .

Wake following (as eg Geese do) is able to add over 10% to fuel efficiency
- with following distances in the 1-2 km range. Trial introduction expected
a few years from now.


Good modern aircraft offer a slightly superior litres per passenger km fuel
consumption than my current car with two people in. It's the most fuel
efficient car I've ever owned.
Concorde was about 5 times worse.
The very best modern aircraft is about 50% better again. (The 737 MAX
variants are near the top).

https://wiki2.org/en/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft


Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [TECH]:: Fuel economy in aircraft. Black holes :-)

Brooke Clarke
Hi Russell:

Any comment on:
https://www.ottoaviation.com/celera-500l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Celera_500L
The claim is better fuel economy.

The Background paragraph makes their business case:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9446835
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=OTTO+AVIATION+GROUP

--
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
https://www.PRC68.com
http://www.end2partygovernment.com/2012Issues.html
axioms:
1. The extent to which you can fix or improve something will be limited by how well you understand how it works.
2. Everybody, with no exceptions, holds false beliefs.

-------- Original Message --------

> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 20:28:06 +1300
> From: RussellMc<[hidden email]>
> Subject: [TECH]:: Fuel economy in aircraft. Black holes :-)
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."<[hidden email]>
> Cc: ApptechNZ<[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Fuel economy in aircraft. Immensely interesting and complex subject. Too
> many good links :-)
>
> An unsurprisingly surprisingly large number of factors and rabbit holes to
> follow up.
> eg Winglet devices and their kin added to improve fuel economy also affect
> ICAO airport classifications of aircraft leading to mechanically
> interesting construction which in turn ... .
>
> Wake following (as eg Geese do) is able to add over 10% to fuel efficiency
> - with following distances in the 1-2 km range. Trial introduction expected
> a few years from now.
>
>
> Good modern aircraft offer a slightly superior litres per passenger km fuel
> consumption than my current car with two people in. It's the most fuel
> efficient car I've ever owned.
> Concorde was about 5 times worse.
> The very best modern aircraft is about 50% better again. (The 737 MAX
> variants are near the top).
>
> https://wiki2.org/en/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
>
>
> Russell
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist