Aviation industry tries to go green
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#2The motivation for the 737MAX was it burns 15% less fuel.
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#3The motivation for the 737MAX was it burns 15% less fuel.
Fuel saving solutions are always attractive in the industry. Originally it was thought jet engines would fail due to their fuel consumption, but the reduced maintenance requirements made them more attractive.
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#4The motivation for the 737MAX was it burns 15% less fuel.
Fuel saving solutions are always attractive in the industry. Originally it was thought jet engines would fail due to their fuel consumption, but the reduced maintenance requirements made them more attractive.
Yup. Piston aircraft engines indeed need tons of maintenance. A huge number of moving parts coupled with trying to minimize the weight and maximize the power is the cause.
In WW2 the Germans fitted aircraft engines to their tanks, which worked great when the engines ran, but too often they didn't due to battlefield conditions. (Germany was also terribly short of avgas, which crippled those tanks.)
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#5There are a number of other initiatives underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aviation. Synthetic kerosene can be manufactured using power and heat from renewable energy sources. Electric motors can be used for taxiing so that the turbines only have to be started immediately before takeoff. The electromagnetic catapults used on the latest Navy aircraft carriers can be scaled up to launch redesigned airliners from runways on land with lower accelerations.
But it will probably take many years until any of these innovations are widely deployed.
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#6There are a number of other initiatives underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aviation. Synthetic kerosene can be manufactured using power and heat from renewable energy sources. Electric motors can be used for taxiing so that the turbines only have to be started immediately before takeoff. The electromagnetic catapults used on the latest Navy aircraft carriers can be scaled up to launch redesig…
> Electric motors can be used for taxiing so that the turbines only have to be started immediately before takeoff.
I thought that this was pointless because the engines needed that time during taxiing to warm up properly anyway? If you moved them to the runway electrically they'd then just need to sit there burning fuel for five minutes to warm up.
Naval jet fighters, which launch through steam or electronically and don't need to taxi further than a few metres, still sit there for ages warming up. They don't just turn on and go.
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuel saving solutions are always attractive in the industry. Originally it was thought jet engines would fail due to their fuel consumption, but the reduced maintenance requirements made them more attractive.
Yup. Piston aircraft engines indeed need tons of maintenance. A huge number of moving parts coupled with trying to minimize the weight and maximize the power is the cause. In WW2 the Germans fitted aircraft engines to their tanks, which worked great when the engines ran, but too often they didn't due to battlefield conditions. (Germany was also terribly short of avgas, which crippled those tanks.)
> In WW2 the Germans fitted aircraft engines to their tanks, which worked great when the engines ran, but too often they didn't due to battlefield conditions. (Germany was also terribly short of avgas, which crippled those tanks.)
This sounded interesting so I skimmed the tanks mentioned in [0] and only found mention of prototypes exploring use of a turboshaft engine [1] from [2]. [1] explicitly states "none of these was fitted operationally", so I don't get the impression that these ever even encountered battlefield conditions before Panther II was canceled.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tanks_in_World_War_II
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#8The big win would obviously be electric aircraft, but I doubt we'll see that in my lifetime (barring a massive breakthrough in battery technology).
The problem is even the best batteries have a much lower energy density compared with traditional fuels. Also, a battery that weighs 100kg when full weighs pretty much 100kg when empty.
Real Engineering did a pretty good video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#9The big win would obviously be electric aircraft, but I doubt we'll see that in my lifetime (barring a massive breakthrough in battery technology). The problem is even the best batteries have a much lower energy density compared with traditional fuels. Also, a battery that weighs 100kg when full weighs pretty much 100kg when empty. Real Engineering did a pretty good video on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…
World's first fully electric commercial aircraft takes flight in Canada
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/11/worlds-first-f...
Of course far from intercontinental jet, but it’s a start :)
Re: Aviation industry tries to go green
#10There are a number of other initiatives underway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aviation. Synthetic kerosene can be manufactured using power and heat from renewable energy sources. Electric motors can be used for taxiing so that the turbines only have to be started immediately before takeoff. The electromagnetic catapults used on the latest Navy aircraft carriers can be scaled up to launch redesig…
Not a pilot but I’ve seen pilots doing a bunch of checks on engine metrics before pushing back from the gate too!