How airlines are saving fuel

The drastic increase of fuel prices (which have already reached over $116 a barrel) is exerting more and more pressure on airlines, which are fighting against present costs and worrying price projections. Three years ago fuel became the biggest airline expense at the U.S., leaving labor costs behind. Cost cutting measures are urgently needed and even the smallest initiatives, which may seem irrelevant at first, are highly welcomed.

Airlines all over the world are somewhat anxious for good news from the aerospace industry: lighter, aerodynamically improved airplanes and greener, more fuel-efficient engines. Many of the improvements are possible today through a wider use of composite materials, the addition of non-structural fairings, winglets or upgrade kits for engines, to name a few. These modifications, already rolling out on new airplanes or as upgrades for existing ones, help boost efficiency by directly reducing fuel consumption and weight, reducing drag and increasing lift.

But some of the technology, including brand new airplane designs, is still under investigation, so it will take years until a significant ‘leap’ is provided. Replacements for some of the best-selling commercial airplanes (the next generation of the 737 and A320 families) are not expected before the middle of the next decade… at least. Airlines therefore feel forced to take smaller steps which, altogether, may lead to important short to medium term savings. If every cent more per gallon adds millions to the airlines’ fuel bills (according to the Air Transport Association of America, increasing the fuel gallon by cents adds $195 million to fuel costs annually), than the opposite is also true. Significant amounts of money may be saved by cutting some pennies worth of fuel on each flight. And that’s why airlines are coming up with precious ideas on how to achieve that…

One of the objectives consists of eliminating weight where possible, now. How? For instance, by: serving smaller meals or snacks instead of hot meals; using food ware and packaging made of lighter materials (like plastic or card instead of metal or glass); installing lighter seats; using meal carts weighing some pounds less; removing non-essential utilities, like telephones, wiring, power converters, redundant lighting; trimming the amount of paper onboard, from the passenger cabin (less newspapers and magazines) to the cockpit (where some extra pounds may be saved by installing an Electronic Flight Bag, or EFB, which replaces printed charts and checklists); dissuading passengers from checking more than one bag by charging higher fares (as does EasyJet, for instance); carrying less utility water and managing the amount of fuel on each flight more efficiently; developing and applying lighter coatings to aircraft (as tried a few years ago by Air Canada).

There are also other moves, not weight-related, through which reducing fuel consumption is possible. Those include: adjusting routes to make them more direct, by adopting shorter legs over water instead of longer ones over land, if possible; taxiing with only one engine instead of two; using low reverse thrust levels, after landing; tweaking the aircraft’s flight paths and attitudes (by slightly increasing cruise speed, for example, it is possible to lower the airplane’s nose and, consequently, reduce drag. This only makes sense, though, if fuel savings resulting from drag reduction exceed the consumption increase associated to higher speeds).

Still, one of the most important measures to compensate for fuel cost increases is fuel hedging, through which airlines make advance purchases of a given percentage of their (future) fuel needs at a fixed, predetermined price. This way they’re able to partially protect themselves against price increases. Of course, if prices go down and below the negotiated value (which is far from likely, at the time), airlines may actually come off penalized.

So, next time you fly try to dress lightly. Not only will your body’s skin breathe better, you’ll also be saving the airline a few gallons of fuel.

TED Talks: Burt Rutan

In this passionate talk, legendary spacecraft designer Burt Rutan lambastes the US government-funded space program for stagnating: “Houston, we have a problem. We’re entering a second generation of no progress.” He calls for entrepreneurs to lead the next wave of space exploration, funding new crafts, new (manned) missions, and entirely new approaches to space exploration., TED Talks.

Watch it at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/4.

The world’s 10 scariest runways…

… according to Travel+Leiruse. The magazine has recently published a list of ten of the world’s most ‘challenging’ runways. Scariest for some… but an absolute must for others.

Location of the scariest runways according to Travel+Leisure.

Barra Airport, Barra (Scotland)
Gibraltar Airport (Gibraltar)
John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York (U.S.A.)
Juancho E. Yrausquin Airport, Saba (Netherlands Antilles)
Madeira Airport, Funchal, Madeira (Portugal)
Matekane Air Strip (Lesotho)
Paro Airport, Paro (Bhutan)
Princess Juliana International Airport, St. Maarten (Netherlands Antilles)
Reagan National Airport, Washington D.C., (U.S.A)
Toncontín Airport, Tegucigalpa (Honduras)

Have you ever landed on one of these locations? Was it an ‘interesting’ experience? Tell us about it!

Which is biggest?

Which is the biggest aircraft of the world? It is convenient to know what criteria to use: should the aircraft be compared to each other in terms of wingspan? Or Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)? What about length and/or height? The second option is the most widely used to rank airplanes, which actually makes sense, since the weight that goes up in the air is generally and somehow a clear indicator of the size of the thing. But why not rank them by occupied area? Or volume? What would be the size of the box if we had to put them inside one?

The largest airplanes built so far…

The largest airplanes (still) in service, and which are to be compared shortly, are the Airbus A380, the Boeing 747, the Antonov An-225 Myria ‘Cossack’ and An-124 Ruslan ‘Condor’ and the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. At a final stage, the Hughes HK-4 Hercules ‘Spruce Goose’ and the KM, best known as ‘Caspian Sea Monster’, will also be added to the ‘contest’. Although the ‘Sea Monster’ is actually an ekranoplan, not an aircraft (but it flew!), it’s included just to make things a little bit more interesting.

In-service aircraft

The Airbus A380 during its first visit to India. Image: Airbus.

The Boeing 747-400ER. Image: Boeing.

The Antonov An-225 Myria ‘Cossack’ carrying the Soviet space shuttle Buran, the only fully completed and operational vehicle from the reusable spacecraft program Buran. Image: Antonov.

The Antonov An-124 Ruslan ‘Condor’. Image: Volga-Dnepr.

A Lockheed C-5 Galaxy from the U.S.A.F.’s Air Mobility Command. Image: Lockheed Martin.

Weights and dimensions for the airplanes mentioned above are presented below:

Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) in lbs (kg)
1 – An-225: 1,411,000 (640,000)
2 – A380 (model -800): 1,234,600 (560,000)
3 – 747 (model -400ER): 910,000 (413,000)
4 – An-124: 886,250 (402,000)
5 – C-5: 837,000 (380,000)

Wingspan in ft (m)
1 – An-225: 290 (88)
2 – A380: 261.8 (80)
3 – An-124: 240.5 (73)
4 – C-5: 222.8 (68)
5 – 747 (model -400): 211.4 (64)

Maximum length in ft (m)
1 – An-225: 275.5 (84)
2 – C-5: 247.8 (76)
3 – A380: 239.3 (73)
4 – 747 (model -400): 231.8 (71)
5 – An-124: 226.8 (69)

Maximum height in ft (m)
1 – A380: 79.7 (24)
2 – An-124: 69.2 (21)
3 – C-5: 65.1 (20)
4 – 747 (model -400): 63.7 (19)
5 – An-225: 59.3 (18)

Maximum occupied area in sq. ft (sq. m)
An-225: 78,895 (7,392)
A380: 62,649 (5,840)
C-5: 55,210 (5,168)
An-124: 54,545 (5,037)
747: 49,002 (4,544)

Maximum occupied volume in cu. m
1 – A380: 140,160
2 – An-225: 133,056
3 – An-124: 105,777
4 – C-5: 103,360
5 – 747: 86,336

There we have it: the An-225, with the highest MTOW and maximum occupied area, may be considered the largest, in service, airplane in the world. The A380 is the biggest commercial aircraft, with the 747 trailing behind at a distant second place.

If we were to add the Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental and the Airbus A380-800F, which are still to be built, what would the rankings be? Introducing those airplanes won’t make any difference: the 747-8i (both the -8 and the -8F) is expected to have an MTOW of 970,000 lbs (440,000 kg), a wingspan of 224.6 ft (68 m) and a slightly smaller maximum length than the 747; the A380-800F will be 50,700 lbs heavier than the passenger version, with an MTOW of 1,285,300 lbs (583,000 kg). Thus, expect the An-225 and the A380 to retain their titles for a ‘few more’ years.

Classic airplanes

The Hughes ‘Spruce Goose’ was conceived as a giant cargo plane (or flying boat) and its first and only flight happened in 1947. It was the tallest airplane in the world until the introduction of the A380, but one can say that they now share that title. And although still holding record for the largest wingspan to this date (approx. 320 ft or 98 m), it weighed roughly 300,000 lbs (136,000 kg), which may seem less than expected for an aircraft of its size… But let’s not forget that it was born in the 1940s and made from wood.

The Hughes HK-4 ‘Spruce Goose’. Image: Aerospaceweb.org.

The KM, or ’Caspian Sea Monster’ as known among the Americans who first observed it, was an experimental WIG (Wing In Ground) vehicle, flying just above sea level to benefit from the ground effect. It made its first debut in 1966, was powered by 10 turbojet engines (8 of which were nose-mounted) and weighed around 1,190,000 lbs (540,000 kg), with a maximum wingspan of 131 ft (40 m) and a stunning 347 ft (106 m) maximum length. It is somewhat far from being the biggest vehicle here presented, nevertheless the longest.

The ‘Caspian Sea Monster’. Image: Theregister.co.uk.

Sources: Aerospaceweb.org, Airbus, AW&ST Source Book 2008, Boeing, Wikipedia.