Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Status On EasyJet EcoJet?  
User currently offlineTobias2702 From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 701 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

Hi guys, this was last discussed here two years ago. Are there any news?

Here the information of EZY on the planned EcoJet:
http://www.easyjet.com/en/News/easyjet_ecojet.html

Thanks for enlighten me!


PA, AF, UK, BA, AB, DL, LH, FR, BD, A3, EZY, DY //// A319/320/346, B733/735/73G/738/744/763, AT4, 146, CR2, DH4
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5364 times:



I don't know the ecojet status inside Easyjet. I think it was a well aimed initiative of Easyjet to stimulate Boeing and Airbus to move on and not sit back with their large backlog of moderately efficient 737s and A320s. To show the public they think new technology has arrived. KLM/AF, SW and AA gave similar messages.

Open rotor or CROR (Counter Rotating Open Rotors) have seen a revival during the last 2 yrs. GE, RR, PW Airbus and Boeing are all doing renewed research. new materials, CFD modelling let to opportunities that weren't there 20 years ago in the areas of noise and efficiency.

The Easyjet Ecojet configuration seems a bit unfeasible. Twin engined aircraft must comply with strict regulations. The ecojet engines are placed close together.
 arrow  From a noise standpoint this would mean shockwaves from both engines come together creating interesting effects.
 arrow  The added risk of a part of one exploding #1 engine taking out #2 is higher then on conventional aircraft (blade containment regulations)
 arrow  Recent CROR's look different. E.g. the blade numbers, shapes and lenghts of front and aft rotors are totally different.

As a result research agencies seem to focus on more conventional aircraft layouts. Here's a recent picture from our local R&D agency NLR that is involved in a variety of european research programs.


source : http://www.nlr.nl


Personally I applaud the Easyjet innitiative. But I don't think Easyjet will continue with it. They got the message ("we need cleaner aircraft & think its possible soon") out & that was probably their goal.


User currently offlineBeakerLTN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

Completely dumb question of the day:

I've always wondered this. If, in my car I want to save fuel, I slow down a bit. The effects are quite drastic.

Why not the same in aircraft? - Surly cruising at 450 instead of 550mph would make quite a difference?

I'm guessing there's a simple answer to this, probably to do with less legs possible during each flying day, or customers would just go to the fastest airline.



300/319/320/321/330/732/733/734/73G/738/744/772/77W/146/EMB135/EMB145
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5307 times:



Quoting BeakerLTN (Reply 2):
Why not the same in aircraft? - Surly cruising at 450 instead of 550mph would make quite a difference?



Quoting BeakerLTN (Reply 2):
I'm guessing there's a simple answer to this, probably to do with less legs possible during each flying day, or customers would just go to the fastest airline.

Its not a dumb question. The open rotor design are optimized for ~M .7 , a little slower then current naarowbodies. During the recent fuel spike some airlines started flying slower. Within e.g. busy european skies with most flight < 100 minutes. ATC, slots etc. determine travel times more then relatively small speed reductions. Turbo props are having a revival. 100 seaters are under development..


User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3149 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5250 times:



Quoting BeakerLTN (Reply 2):
Why not the same in aircraft? - Surly cruising at 450 instead of 550mph would make quite a difference?

Adding to the answer of Keesje, it's indeed not a dumb question and some airlines did actually fly slower when the fuel prices skyrocketed.

One reason why it isn't as obvious as with cars, is that airplanes are designed for a specific optimal speed; you need a certain speed to keep enough uplift. Wing, engines, flaps, everything is designed for this speed. Boldly, you cannot fly at 300 km/h efficiently. But some reductions are well possible.

Other reason: aircraft utilization. When you fly a lot, flying faster can mean that you can serve more / longer routes on a daily basis. For very short-haul (< 1 hour block time) this aspect is not really relevant, but for sectors of 2:30 (say UK-Spain, UK-Italy) , it makes a difference flying in 2:30 or 2:45.

Regional aircraft are often designed for lower cruise speeds than long-haul aircraft. The Fokker 100 is designed for 737NG is designed for Mach 0.78(514 mph, 825 km/h), the 777 for Mach 0.84 (560 mph, 905 km/h).


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

The status of the EcoJet is the same as when it was presented - it is merely a concept aircraft that Easyjet presented to send a message to A&B that it did not want to wait until around 2022 for a narrowbody replacement.

Of course that concept didn't come out of nowhere, you'll find similar airplane concepts in the archives of research institutes or the A&B future project offices. What is noteworthy is an airline taking the initiative and stating that open rotors are the way to go, and showing that they have high expectations for this technology. One of the arguments against open rotors is often fear for customer and passenger reaction to a "strange" aircraft.


User currently offlineBeakerLTN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4893 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):



Quoting Joost (Reply 4):

Many thanks to both of you for your replies.. so it wasn't such a stupid idea afterall?

I remember earlier this year, on my usual EDI-LTN route I do being told that due to congestion around London we had to reduce speed. It was actually lovely, quiet and smooth.. Very enjoyable.



300/319/320/321/330/732/733/734/73G/738/744/772/77W/146/EMB135/EMB145
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4802 times:



Quoting BeakerLTN (Reply 2):
Why not the same in aircraft? - Surly cruising at 450 instead of 550mph would make quite a difference?

As mentioned above, a given aircraft has an optimum speed. GIV's, for example, burn the least fuel per mile flown at M.77. This is significantly slower than the high speed cruise of M.85 and normal cruise of M.80, but you don't get any improvement going slower than M.77.

It is also important to remember that operating costs are not simply tied to fuel burn. Crew, maintenance, etc. all factors in, and are often looked at on a per flight hour basis. Thus the faster the plane flies, the lower these costs are for a given distance flown.

In addition, the aircraft itself is a valuable and expensive asset, so the more flights it can do in a given time period, the better.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 5):
it is merely a concept aircraft that Easyjet presented to send a message to A&B that it did not want to wait until around 2022 for a narrowbody replacement.

I'd tend to think it was a concept aircraft designed to appease the increasingly environmentally conscious people in the EU who make up Easyjet's market. From a marketing standpoint, looking like you are actively supporting a green alternative to current aircraft is a big plus, regardless of if it ever gets built. I don't doubt they want an aircraft like the one they propose, but I think Easyjet management is realistic enough to know that simply making a big model isn't going to move Airbus and Boeing to change their long term strategic plans.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 5):
One of the arguments against open rotors is often fear for customer and passenger reaction to a "strange" aircraft.

Other arguments are that they are noisy and prone to excessive vibrations. How much this can be improved is an open question, but I'm still skeptical that we will see UDFs on large airliners (737/A320 and larger). GTFs and other advances are less distressing to the customer and fit better with current schedules.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
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...
Latest Update On EasyJet's A320's? posted Mon Jun 8 2009 11:38:21 by 8herveg
What's The Status On LGW These Days? posted Thu Feb 19 2009 16:20:11 by UAL747
Status On AA 777 New J Class? posted Sat May 10 2008 16:07:35 by Albird87
Status On CRJ-900 Deliveries? posted Wed Apr 30 2008 00:31:59 by Pilotboi
What Is The Status On The 787 posted Wed Feb 27 2008 19:11:21 by Tonytifao
Questions: Status On NW's A330 Fleet posted Fri Feb 1 2008 23:01:31 by FlagshipAZ
Connecting On Easyjet posted Fri Jan 18 2008 12:44:49 by Ansett767
Status On UA's 747-451s N105UA/N106UA? posted Sat Dec 29 2007 14:24:54 by FlagshipAZ
CO FF Status On Passenger List. Purpose? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 16:52:27 by BlueFlyer
Current Status On Delta Ship 139? New IFE/seats? posted Mon Nov 12 2007 11:52:28 by 1337Delta764
Connecting On Easyjet posted Fri Jan 18 2008 12:44:49 by Ansett767