Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8434 times:

Quote:
EUROPEAN manufacturer Airbus is targeting a 50 per cent reduction in aircraft fuel consumption by 2020.

Airbus vice-president, environmental affairs, Philippe de Saint-Aulaire, said the manufacturer was looking at airframe improvements to provide about 25 per cent of the reduction, while between 10 and 15 per cent would come from engine manufacturers.

"The remainder, about 10 per cent, will come from air traffic control - to ensure there are more direct flights, to ensure that aircraft are not (circling) around the airport before they land," he said.

The Airbus environmental boss expects airframe improvements to come from weight reduction with the greater use of composites, aerodynamic improvements, and new systems that would allow the aircraft to operate more efficiently.

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...9482-23349,00.html?from=public_rss

Is this realistic?

[Edited 2007-03-28 19:51:19]

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8412 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

25% from the airframe alone?

Weight and drag, right? 25% seems huge!


User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8412 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
Quote:
"Airbus vice-president, environmental affairs, Philippe de Saint-Aulaire, said the manufacturer was looking at airframe improvements to provide about 25 per cent of the reduction, while between 10 and 15 per cent would come from engine manufacturers.

"The remainder, about 10 per cent, will come from air traffic control - to ensure there are more direct flights, to ensure that aircraft are not (circling) around the airport before they land," he said.

The Airbus environmental boss expects airframe improvements to come from weight reduction with the greater use of composites, aerodynamic improvements, and new systems that would allow the aircraft to operate more efficiently.

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...2-23349,00.html?from=public_rss"

Is this realistic?

Well 2020 is quite a way off...

It may *need* to be possible if the aviation industry keeps getting the public flogging it is getting almost on a daily basis in the European press for carbon emissions...


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8331 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 2):
It may *need* to be possible if the aviation industry keeps getting the public flogging it is getting almost on a daily basis in the European press for carbon emissions...

You beat me to it, HB88. I believe that the impetus to reduce emissions and get on the green bandwagon is going to ramp up in the next 10 years. Could we actually see the day when manufacturers "flog" carbon credits to sell airframes (did I use "flog" right?)!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8300 times:

25% out of an airframe seems like alot. How much more aerodynamic can the tube with wings get? How much weight can we safely lose through composites and such to get such benefits?? Winglets can effectively add around 5%, where does the other 20% come from?

10-15% out of the engines seems entirely reasonable. We will probably see such an improvement on the NG narrowbody aircraft.

10% from ATC?? This is the loophole for the company. When Airbus is NOT saving 50% in the next 15 years they can effectively say ATC isnt routing planes properly to save fuel. Here is the escape for the company.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That would have to be some serious airframe improvements to knock 25% off. CFRP alone isn't going to get you near that, so it will require significant improvements in interior fittings (and fancier and heavier premium cabin seating isn't going to help) and other areas...

In a decade? I just don't see it happening unless the penalties for not doing it are so draconian (like a carbon tax equal to the price of the airframe and engines) that they, in and of themselves, would cut air travel in half.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8270 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 2):
Well 2020 is quite a way off...

Not really in aviation terms. Thats only 13 years ago. 13 years ago the 777 was coming out.... and that thing is still at the forefront of modern technology. Heck, we're still flying many hundreds of planes that were built 30+ years ago and are still economically viable. It takes a long long time to make a change on the order of what they're talking about here. My prediction is that 13 years from now, airliners will be very similar (or, more likely, the same exact airframes) that we're seeing out there right now.

A 50% reduction in fuel consumption is going to be HUGE. That is going to take a lot more than modifications of current technology, it is going to take all new technology beyond what we currently have. Entirely different ATC systems with neural network processing, new engines (no more standard turbofans... how about unducted fans?), new airframe designs (no more tube and wings... how about flying wings?), etc. You just can't move people with for half of the fuel you're using today with the current ways of doing things.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8201 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 2):
It may *need* to be possible if the aviation industry keeps getting the public flogging it is getting almost on a daily basis in the European press for carbon emissions...

Or the EU will just become less relevant as they voluntarily cripple themselves while the rest of the world expands.

Just because the EU press thinks it can somehow make 1.5l planes a reality by flogging airlines unfairly, doesn't mean the world will follow suit...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8190 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
25% out of an airframe seems like alot. How much more aerodynamic can the tube with wings get? How much weight can we safely lose through composites and such to get such benefits?? Winglets can effectively add around 5%, where does the other 20% come from?

Well, how old is the A340 family by now? 15 years? If so then in 2020 the A340 will be some 30 yrs old. Better knowledge of CFRP and it's new design flexibilities can help a lot too.

And considering the A340 uses quite a bit more fuel than even current models, I don't think it's that far-fetched.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
10-15% out of the engines seems entirely reasonable. We will probably see such an improvement on the NG narrowbody aircraft.

 checkmark 

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
10% from ATC?? This is the loophole for the company. When Airbus is NOT saving 50% in the next 15 years they can effectively say ATC isnt routing planes properly to save fuel. Here is the escape for the company.

Next Generation ATC is GPS based. I don't know much about it, but it sure could help. Especially if it cuts on-ground engine running times.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8132 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
How much more aerodynamic can the tube with wings get?

I think thats the key right there. Goodbye tube with wings.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with setting a target.

Every year my company sets a zero accident target. The fact we've never yet achieved it, doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7979 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 2):
It may *need* to be possible if the aviation industry keeps getting the public flogging it is getting almost on a daily basis in the European press for carbon emissions...

Perhaps if the European press would take a little time to ask why the CO2/global warming "relationship" is reversed they would be flogging someone else rather than the aviation industry.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 9):
I think thats the key right there. Goodbye tube with wings.

Not by 2020.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSkyyMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7889 times:

Some of our rocket scientists (literally) had better start coming up with some ideas for alternative fuel sources soon. Oil is a finite resource. It's not a matter of if, but when that supply runs out. Along with the rest of the worlds economy, airlines will cease to exist if alternatives are not found. It will take many years and many dollars to bring this new form of propulsion into fruition. Yes, the need to cut current fuel consumption is critical, but we have to be even more forward thinking than that.

User currently offlineAA777SJC From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7877 times:

If you aren't delivering anything on time anyway, you might as well set unreachable goals so it's less of a let down when you fail to succeed.

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

50% reduction over what? The 787? Proposed A350? That's 70-80% reduction from a 767.

I certainly hope Airbus has something huge they've been hiding, or they're going to have to shove their foot so far into their mouth it'll come out the other end...


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7807 times:

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 13):
Some of our rocket scientists (literally) had better start coming up with some ideas for alternative fuel sources soon.

Done. It is just a matter of consumer costs. No one is willing to pay $4-5/gallon for gas... yet!

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 13):
Oil is a finite resource. It's not a matter of if, but when that supply runs out.

To be accurate, only conventional oil is a finite resource. There are several non-conventional sources of oil to last at least a couple of centuries.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7662 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 15):
50% reduction over what? The 787? Proposed A350? That's 70-80% reduction from a 767.

I would say the A340!!!  Wink

Seriously though, this A350 is going to have to be pretty darn fuel efficient when it EIS's. 2020 is much further out than that, and it will be interesting to watch.

James



Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7459 times:

Well, it's a very ambitious goal and I wish them all the sucess in the world in meeting or coming close to it. Lord knows we need to move in that direction and need to do so yesterday.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 15):
50% reduction over what? The 787? Proposed A350? That's 70-80% reduction from a 767.

Maybe it's the 707 they are comparing to. That should be easy to achieve...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7382 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 9):
I think thats the key right there. Goodbye tube with wings.



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12):
Not by 2020.

If B or A winds up deploying a BWB for government services roles, then the cargo industry could easily use a derivative. Passenger service may be a different matter, but between the airframe and engine, you'd have most of the 50% right there.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6725 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
25% from the airframe alone?

Weight and drag, right? 25% seems huge!

Well, according to a recent article in the New Scientist, there are many ways of designing and building airframes that would achieve the 25%. 50% does seem to be a bit optimistic though!

http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/archive/2592/25921606.jpg

http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/archive/2592/25921605.jpg

http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/archive/2592/25921604.jpg

http://www.newscientisttech.com/data/images/archive/2592/25921607.jpg


User currently offlineDeltaDAWG From United States of America, joined May 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Maybe Airbus has figured out a way to bend the rules of physics and aerodynamics?

Or, they have a hybrid coming: takes off on fuel, reaches altitude then switches over to electric batteries (lightweight batteries by then of course), and glides in for landings - 50% savings!



GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
User currently offlineOldOilGuy From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6393 times:

It reminds me a new engineering manager 25 years ago. To get that promotion, he promised to the upper management that he could reduce 50% manpower to do the same work. What a disaster that was. He was booted out quickly.

User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5981 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020

.... cue Gordon Brown to increase 'green' taxes on flying from the U.K. by unrealistic percentage each year until then


25 SJCRRPAX : Sounds like they are saying airlines should buy the A380 to reduce congestion at major airports and airlines should buy the a350xwb to reduce congest
26 WAH64D : Heady words indeed. I'd be enjoying a very nice caribbean holiday right now if I had £1 for every time this year I've heard some very knowledgeable
27 Post contains images Ikramerica : They are not mutually exclusive events, my friend... I did not say you'd lose ground to the USA, but on the world stage. Two different things. The EU
28 2H4 : Some of the most advanced winglets are already indicating over 10% fuel savings in prototype form. By 2020, 15% would not be unrealistic. Also, bear
29 HB88 : Holy canoli, you might want to point that out to Aviation Partners, Winglet Technologies, Boeing and Airbus! Outside of marketing literature, I belie
30 Flyabunch : I think it is good to set a high goal. I do it myself with my sales targets. However, when the stated goal is out in the public like this one, then it
31 AADC10 : I wonder if Airbus really means 25% savings in carbon profile from airframe manufacturing. Making aluminum consumes a huge amount of energy.
32 Post contains links 2H4 : Aviation Partners already knows. They are developing winglets that have already shown a fuel savings of "greater than 10%". I interpret this as 11% o
33 HB88 : I'm aware of the comments that have been made in the media, but there are no data as far as I know which back up these claims. AP themselves cite a s
34 Post contains links 2H4 : Did you visit the link I posted? From the Aviation Partners Website: What better benchmark than comparing the new winglet data with: - that of a non-
35 Remcor : I think Airbus is going to tell pilots to stop shifting into a lower gear to slow down. Another 5% can be saved by turning of the AC during cool days
36 WAH64D : No offence was intended by my original post. I am not saying in any way shape or form that your country is "horrible". Sure, it has its problems (mai
37 WAH64D : double post removed. Apologies to all.[Edited 2007-03-29 21:56:50]
38 Post contains images HB88 : Yep! I'm well aware of it and will believe the 10% when I see independent testing results! My recollection is that the spiroid winglet has been aroun
39 Post contains images SailorOrion : A 50% reduction in fuel consumption is reasonable, even if the 2020 timeframe sounds very ambitious: Let's start out with the engines: A geared fan in
40 Sebolino : Very classy. I suppose Airbus is setting a target, which is the first step to do anything. It may be only a dream, who knows. But what is sure, is th
41 Ruscoe : If Airbus can achieve 50% reduction by 2020, then nobody is going to order a 350-1000 for delivery in 2015, when a five year wait will yield such an i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus To Cut 10000 Jobs-article posted Wed Jan 17 2007 20:26:57 by Lumberton
Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:44:43 by FlyDreamliner
Airbus To Boost Production By 50% posted Mon Jul 19 2004 22:20:46 by YUL332LX
China Aims To Produce Jumbo Jets By 2020 posted Tue Mar 13 2007 17:39:16 by Bbobbo
Volareweb To Cut 50% Of The Network posted Mon Sep 13 2004 22:44:11 by Airblue
US Airways Pilots Offer To Cut Pay By 12.5 Pct posted Sat Jun 26 2004 05:13:30 by InnocuousFox
KLM To Cut Transatlantic Capacity By 20%? posted Mon Apr 7 2003 06:15:01 by Triley1057
AA To Cut Pay By 1.8B Immediately posted Tue Feb 4 2003 20:20:37 by Aa777flyer
Airbus To Lead Civil Aviation By Mid-decade... posted Sun Aug 18 2002 15:37:50 by F4N
Boeing To Cut Production By Half posted Wed Dec 5 2001 13:00:09 by Godbless