Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Next Gen Aircraft, More Noise & Maintenance,Slower  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

-> but using less fuel!

In tomorrows trade-offs you simply can't have it all.

Shorter time on wing, doing more maintenance.

Back to fuel stops on long haul..



Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...intenance-trades-to-save-fuel.html

Setting priorities, and this is only from the Technology Side.

What about reducing the cheap city week-end shopping, $500 Asia tickets and limiting the conference mania?

We should get used to not ever getting more of the same.

There is an end to oil. Welcome to the future.


Second thought, maybe this forum is not the right place to even suggest rationalization / shrinking iso growing the business  Big grin

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4397 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Second thought, maybe this forum is not the right place to even suggest rationalization / shrinking iso growing the business

Indubitably.

I did learn from the article, though. I never really considered that ULH routes employ inherent inefficiencies.
What I want to know is why they're content with such a high degree of compromise. They start at the 15% option, which they say basically should be accomplished by someone else. Namely, the operator, making a stop for fuel, and slowing down.
Odd.
Then, to achieve the 50% option, they say that maintenance will be horrendous.

Okay, those ARE two viable options, but I predict the winner of the next narrowbody generation will be the manufacturer that provides the LEAST amount of compromise from the get-go. High efficiency would also seem to include not having to remove the engine every three days for overhaul, would it not?
I exaggerate, but you get the point.

If PW or GE or the alliances (IAE or CFM) can accomplish high efficiency without penalizing the maintenance aspects, they'll fare better.

That said, I'm a mechanic, so an inherently unreliable engine sounds like a great idea to me!!!


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

This will be the option for airfreight and over shorter distances and for Low Cost type flights (if fuel goes up more). However there are already technologies being developed..in particular HST using Hydrogen (capable of flying up to mach 8 and able to fly SYD-LHR in about 4 hours). With Hydrogen not being dependant on oil and being clean burning (provided it can be produced cleanly ie carbon neutral) then this is the future of airtravel (albeit at a higher price point than todays historically cheap economy tickets).


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1072 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4001 times:

I don't see liquid hydrogen being used for passenger aircraft anytime in the next several decades.

Reusable cryogenic storage tanks and lines are very heavy. Rockets and specialty research planes get away with light tanks and lines because they are a very low number of use cycle items.

I do for-see a return to the turbo-prop (open rotor) for many aircraft.

I also find it interesting how much fuel burn can be saved by stopping for refueling. Will the next generation of large passenger planes have limited range? No more non-stops of 5000 or more KM?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3944 times:

I think speed & comfort are moving down the priority list.

Reducing direct operating costs (fuel, crew) are up.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 3):
I do for-see a return to the turbo-prop (open rotor) for many aircraft.

On another forum we have been discussing big props for short haul where speed, ceilingand cargo have a lower priority. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...s/turbolinermai17.jpg?t=1216803219

It seems RR responded positively to the idea; http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...boprop-solution-for-new-civil.html


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3812 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
I think speed & comfort are moving down the priority list.

 checkmark 

The current consumer demands (a) speed (b) a low price.

Can't work. Airlines providing both (a) and (b) operate at a loss. The answer is not to provide the consumer with what he wants, run up massive losses, refinance or dump debt through bankrupcy and and then repeat the hopeless cycle. If the consumer will not buy at a viable price, the answer has got to be to offer a lower cost service (at a lower speed) at a price that the consumer is prepared to pay.

If that means technical stops on long hauls and using props for short haul, that's good. IMO it's good because it gives the airlines a chance to conduct their business on a sound financial basis.

Fuel savings could be achieved by using lighter components and operating the engine at higher combustion temperatures, in return for a reduction in time between overhauls.

"One per cent of fuel now is probably the same as about 10-15% of maintenance costs, depending on whether you're short range or long range," says King


The RR view seems to make sense to me - run the engines hotter to use less fuel at the cost of replacing components after a shorter time.

Personally I find the idea of ultra long haul flights somewhat grotesque if they are extremely inefficient when it comes to fuel burnt. I would like to see the manufacturers turn their attention to designing long haul aircraft that require a stop for fuel. Apart from some flights across the Pacific, what routes could not be flown using aircraft with a 5000 mile range?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3793 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think people want convenience, more then speed.

ULH non-stops have already proven themselves to be a very niche market.

One advantage of shorter hops is the ability to use MTOW for revenue payload and not fuel. The Middle East is exceptionally well-placed to handle EU to Oceania traffic as the distances are likely within their plane's range with maximum structural payload.

Asia-North America, alas, still needs long-haul non-stops - unless the US turns Midway Island into the next Dubai.  Smile


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

Funny how old wisdoms need to be re-invented over and over again. Rule of thumb is that an aircraft designed for 3000NM staging two flights for a total of 6000NM would use about 30% (THIRTY - give or take) less fuel than an airplane designed for flying 6000NM non-stop.
I'm sure there'll be replies aplenty pointing out that it's actually 20% or 40%, but in any case the savings would be substantial.
Even air-refueling after 3000NM would yield a saving - including the fuel burn of the tanker aircraft! If only it wasn't too dangerous for airline operations.
In the light of this, I think flying 8000NM non-stop is a folly, more so as the 787 doesn't quite make it (yet) and the A350 is likely to run into the same problems. In terms of flight physics, both design specs are borderline. And both design specs are driven by ULH niche players.

Regarding propellers:
I think propfans are a blind alley. If you REALLY want to save fuel, then limit flying to begin with. If you want to go with propeller airplanes, then limit speed to what a 'standard' turboprop can handle. Say Mach 0,65, perhaps Mach 0,70 or what have you. Beware that flying slower also means flying lower, hence more drag and more flying 'around the weather', both adding to fuel burn.

Another issue is, the larger the aircraft, the larger the prop(s). This means that from a certain threshold point the prop(s) grow so large in diameter that you run into lots of engine/airframe integration problems. Then you either have to go to smaller contra-rotating props or to smaller props driven by more engines. Both bad for reliability and maintenance cost.

Regarding Keesje's favourite twin propliner powered by A400M engines: What's the single engine safety speed?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3651 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Asia-North America, alas, still needs long-haul non-stops - unless the US turns Midway Island into the next Dubai.

Maybe high fuel prices are "good news" for Narita.

Transforming one of the east Siberia AF bases into a gas station with a lot of runways, douches, bathrooms, tax free and cargo facilities also might be a good idea  Smile They have space, money and sit inbetween US and Asia.

ORD-SIN" target=_blank>http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=ORD-SIN ORD-SIN


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3623 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
douches

Douches!? I hope you mean showers?  duck 


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3542 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 9):
Douches!? I hope you mean showers?

I thought "douches" was ok:
http://images.google.nl/images?um=1&...nl&q=Douches&start=20&sa=N&ndsp=20

Then I saw this shocking "douches" video  Wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mpie8Z0Mq4
Maybe "Russia & showers" can also bring up some hefty material  Wink

But lets stick to the topic. Open rotors are on the table again. What was learned from earlier test & can be seen in the picture on top is that blade tip noise is critical. Not using the same number of blades on the two rotors, giving them different shapes and cross sections and balancing the distance inbetween helps. As descriped in the article RR is doing tests in a big tunnel in the Netherlands to measure noise and developing models to reduce it..


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Next Gen Aircraft, More Noise & Maintenance,Slower
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
OPS & Maintenance Costs Comparision posted Sun May 13 2007 22:13:36 by Saikham
Next Gen NB Engines : Contra Rotating Turbofan Fan posted Fri Apr 27 2007 13:25:59 by Keesje
Efficiency Of Aircraft Via SFC & SR posted Wed Jan 3 2007 16:23:18 by Corsair2
Can Bigger Turbofans Create More Noise? posted Sat May 17 2003 03:31:41 by Lehpron
Next-Gen Systems And Questions posted Tue Jan 28 2003 06:49:26 by TechRep
Next Gen Survivable Crash Recorders posted Mon Mar 25 2002 18:52:51 by TechRep
Air Tahiti Nui & Maintenance posted Sun Sep 16 2001 22:06:28 by Airways
Stress & Aircraft Maintenance posted Mon Dec 18 2006 05:29:08 by HAWK21M
Emission And Noise Levels Of Gen. Av. Aircraft? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 01:56:14 by Bahadir
Maintenance Question For BGA Aircraft posted Mon Jun 30 2008 14:18:39 by Airxliban

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format