Formation flying to save fuel
 

Sheer lunacy! IIRC, a decade or so ago, there were trials with F/A-18s to check the feasibility of saving fuel by flying in close formation. It turned out that formation that yielded significant savings was too close to be maintained comfortably during cruise. So there was an attempt to create close-formation-holding-autopilot, but it went nowhere.

Let's shortlist these fellows for IgNobel.

You can achieve the same/better results with a more efficient wing, e.g. larger span, better profile, winglets, etc. If you've got two flights going to the same destination at the same time/speed/altitude, you might as well combine them in a larger, more economic, single aeroplane: 2 x A330s --> 1 x A380, for example...

We already know that on ULH flights, we burn a quarter of the fuel for the total fuel we uplifted..

Why not aerial refuelling ?... better option than formation flying :rolleyes:

Actually, it is not crazy, just improbable. If you look at what the Stanford people proposed, it was two or three aircraft meeting over the continental US and flying two to five miles apart, not wing to wing. The idea (which came up in May, btw and has probably been hanging around the newspaper office ever since waiting for a slow day when not many reporters turned up) was a response to fuel-saving ideas that could be implemented immediately. The reporter made it sound loony, but the actual original story is pretty sensible. These are not amateurs.

Stanford School of Engineering - Research Profiles

For longer term solutions Prof Kroo, according to the Stanford web site, is a big fan of the flying wing, or Blended Wing Body, design, which was first used before WW1 and could result in fuel savings of up to 25% by turning the fuselage into a lifting body. Boeing and Airbus are too afraid of each other for one of them to take the initiative (unless the government is paying, which Boeing unsuccessfully tried to get the Pentagon to do). Airlines are not keen as they want windows, and the flying wing would have very few, if any, in the passenger compartment.

sounds a great idea to me, after all birds have been doing it for several million years and lets face it they fly far more efficiently than we ever will! :ok:

A couple of Gloster Javelins found the answer years ago: it's all written up in an ancient copy of Air Clues.

Two aircraft were cruising side by side. Pilots bored. One went into a very shallow descent which caused him to gain speed and pull ahead. He then went into a very shallow climb. He repeated this a few times and then levelled off with his mate - but he was a good mile ahead. Never explained, but if you programmed Long Haul auto-pilots to do the same - big $$$$ saved. No?

No. An examination of energy use quickly confirms it's nonsense, along with the formation flying rubbish! I have no wish to be 'kangaroo hopping' across the Atlantic for 8 hours thankyou. The fuel burnt trying to assemble a load of airliners into squadrons, or finger-four groups, will far outweigh any supposed savings. Then they will occasionally bump into each other leading to masses of holidaymakers for Orlando falling into the Atlantic at 30W, or whilst making up formations over Redditch. Redditch doesn't want it, pilots don't want it and we don't need to save fuel that much!
There's plenty. They're finding more and more of it- it grows in the ground you know.

Yup, it might end up in the "Annals of Improbable Research"

At least I wasn't dreaming about geese-emulating Hornets. Some links there for those yearning to learn more.

Sheer genius. Combined with formation take-off and landings, it'll also solve runway occupancy and CTOT issues at a stroke. :E

Sheer lunacy! Only the leader is steady - the rest juggle throttles - can't imagine that has changed - has it? So, no savings - in fact more fuel used!

Why not just tie them together like Pprune Pop did?

Actually I'm recruiting ex-mil pilots (for both seats) at the moment for a new airline 'Diamond9 Airways' - timed sequential launches from airfields along the route and sequenced 'dropping offs' across the pond, and of course some nifty formation changes mid-Atlantic to share out the savings.

One big benefit will be the reduced oceanic track loading, and the fuel saved will enable pilots to go up to 14% further past planned destination than at present.

BOAC, I think you're onto something:ok:. Use one airliner to tow the others. It worked with Dakotas and Waco Hadrians. If they use the 'snatch recovery' method to get them into the air they will even save on a landing fee, and can pick up the others en-route.:8 Got to be cheaper than buying an A380...

Can't see RR/GE/P&W going for it though, three airframes & only two engines, but it might use up some of those airframes littering deserts. Better keep an APU in each...

Hat, coat, alright, I'm off...:ouch:

Garbage
 

Just sit on a NatTrack and watch the lateral movements of proximal a/c at +/-1000ft, you wouldn't advocate airliner formation flying then!