Wing span and fuel efficiency
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 548
Likes: 15
From: US
Wing span and fuel efficiency
In our ongoing saga about airport expansion at KASE the latest from the valley expert is
"But modern technology has proven that far more efficient planes with smaller wings can achieve the same or greater environmental benefits. Don't be misled by outdated ideas."
Does anyone know what he is referencing? Are there any transport scale planes under research or development that are using shorter wings?
Everything I have seen is going for longer wingspan.
"But modern technology has proven that far more efficient planes with smaller wings can achieve the same or greater environmental benefits. Don't be misled by outdated ideas."
Does anyone know what he is referencing? Are there any transport scale planes under research or development that are using shorter wings?
Everything I have seen is going for longer wingspan.
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
Greater aspect ratio is tied to efficiency, hence the long, slender wings on sail planes. Increasing span is one way to increase aspect ratio. Another way to improve the situation without increased span is via winglets which are popular as the spacing at gates is difficult to increase.
Not sure if that matches what the "valley expert" has to say, but that's what the aerospace engineering degree I got covered.
Not sure if that matches what the "valley expert" has to say, but that's what the aerospace engineering degree I got covered.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,682
Likes: 3,347
From: Everett, WA
What MechEngr said. Higher aspect ratio wings have reduced "induced" drag than shorter, fatter wings. Winglets try to mimic that effect (with varying degrees of success) due to gate dependent width limitations that Mech referenced. I've heard of zero development work that contradict that.
On the contrary, Boeing is going through considerable trouble and expense to put folding wingtips on the 777X while still allowing it to fit into the existing gate footprint.
On the contrary, Boeing is going through considerable trouble and expense to put folding wingtips on the 777X while still allowing it to fit into the existing gate footprint.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,682
Likes: 3,347
From: Everett, WA
I found that tends to quiet those sorts of 'experts' rather quickly.
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
Looking up the name and some articles hasn't turned up, for me, that particular claim, but Amory Lovins has railed against allowing a local airport to expand to allow larger aircraft to operate from it. The gist I am getting is that there are some wealthy Aspen residents who want to operate private jets that are larger than the current commercial service and the FAA is saying that the current operations don't require a larger facility.
Probably a topic for Jetblast over suitability of airport expansion.
If there is a link to a technical claim that could be interesting.
Probably a topic for Jetblast over suitability of airport expansion.
If there is a link to a technical claim that could be interesting.
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
Sounds like both sides are telling some fibs. Bigger planes tend to be more efficient on a per-seat-mile basis, but that could also drive increased use which is not good for the environment. If an airfare on a small plane costs $2000 because it's chartered and on a big plane is $150, then a lot more people could be coming on the big plane which, overall, burns far more fuel and is worse for the environment.
Since the analysis for this ad and the Coalition claim is missing, it's not clear what the basis is.
I highly doubt the Coalition is asking to create planes that resemble the WB-57, no 8-seaters with 120 foot spans.
Since the analysis for this ad and the Coalition claim is missing, it's not clear what the basis is.
I highly doubt the Coalition is asking to create planes that resemble the WB-57, no 8-seaters with 120 foot spans.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 548
Likes: 15
From: US
The Coalition is not asking to create any new planes, but to accept planes such as the A-220 which are considerably more fuel efficient than the E-175 that is the only passenger jet in production that can meet the Aspen wingspan limit of 96 feet.
I am just trying to find out if this "modern technology has proven that far more efficient planes with smaller wings can achieve the same or greater environmental benefits." exists. Every thing I have seen is longer wingspans are better from an environmental standpoint.
The guy who publishes this stuff is not an engineer, a pilot, has never worked for an aviation company or an airline.
As far as it goes - higher passenger loads are better as this means fewer flights. The E-175 is limited under scope clauses to 70 seats.
As for the issue of higher loads = more passengers -check Aspen hotels prices, no one comes here because of a cheap ticket.
I am just trying to find out if this "modern technology has proven that far more efficient planes with smaller wings can achieve the same or greater environmental benefits." exists. Every thing I have seen is longer wingspans are better from an environmental standpoint.
The guy who publishes this stuff is not an engineer, a pilot, has never worked for an aviation company or an airline.
As far as it goes - higher passenger loads are better as this means fewer flights. The E-175 is limited under scope clauses to 70 seats.
As for the issue of higher loads = more passengers -check Aspen hotels prices, no one comes here because of a cheap ticket.
