backtop

Print 29 comment(s) - last by aliasfox.. on Sep 12 at 12:21 PM
Airbus wants to cut travel times and reduce CO2 emissions

Airbus, a well-known global aircraft manufacturer, revealed the future of aviation in 2050 and beyond in a new installment of its series, the Future by Airbus.

The new installment focuses on ways to cut emissions in the future when air travel use is expected to increase. It also looks at how to cut passenger journey times. According to Airbus research, flights in the U.S. and Europe could be around 13 minutes shorter on average. With about 30 million flights annually, finding a way to cut trip times would save 9 million tons of excess fuel, save 5 million hours of excess flight time and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 28 million tons.


Design concept for a future Airbus jumbo jet [Image Source: Airbus S.A.S]
 
So how does Airbus plan to meet these goals in 2050 and beyond? Through five main ways, including new take-off methods, new flight formations, new free glide approaches/landing approaches, different efficient ground operations and the use of sustainable biofuels and other alternative energy sources.

Within those categories are some long-term flight benefits and ideas, such as assisted take-offs and renewably powered acceleration for steeper climbs from airports (reaches efficient cruise altitudes faster); shorter runways; using smart technology to select the most efficient routes; using high frequency routes to fly in formation like birds in order to increase efficiency; use free glide approaches into air ports to eliminate airbreaking or engine thrust; reduced landing speed, and switching engines off sooner upon landing to for shorter landing distances.


5 Keys to Airbus' "Smart Skies" innitiative

“Our engineers are continuously encouraged to think widely and come up with disruptive’ ideas which will assist our industry in meeting the 2050 targets we have signed up to," said Charles Champion, executive vice president of engineering at Airbus. "These and the other tough environmental targets will only be met by a combination of investment in smarter aircraft design and optimising the environment in which the aircraft operates. That is why our latest Future by Airbus Smarter Skies concepts focus on not just what we fly but, how we may fly in 2050 and beyond.”

Source: Airbus


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
That rendering...
By aliasfox on 9/10/2012 10:41:03 AM , Rating: 4
I saw renderings like that when I borrowed books from the library 20 years ago. The swept wings, twin tails, etc... never happened. Saw the first renderings of the dreamliner, they looked like that too. The 787 comes out and it looks like... a swoopy 757. Which was the same thing as a 707 with two fewer engines (707 and 757 share a fuselage).

Fifty years after the first jetliners, forty years after Concorde, and we're still traveling at 550 mph in planes that Don Draper would instantly recognize. Except ours have smaller seats and worse food. But the flight attendants are the same.

Sure, we're twice as efficient now, but that's really not all that exciting. If we compare the past 50 years of air travel with 50 years of ocean liners between 1880 and 1930 (shortly after steam power came into accepted use), ships went from 12 knots to 24 knots and then onto 31 knots with the Normandie and the Queen Mary... and they grew from 10k tons displacement to 80k tons displacement.

End rant. I just wish this 'future of air travel' actually happened.




RE: That rendering...
By IranTech on 9/10/2012 11:22:47 AM , Rating: 1
And it is all going to happen after 2050. Looks more like a guarantee to the oil companies that things will stay the same rather than a technological undertaking.


RE: That rendering...
By arazok on 9/10/2012 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
I’m with you on the oil company pandering.

I have no doubt, NONE, that if greed and money weren’t at play, this plan would have demonstrated a solar powered jumbo jet that fired rainbows out its tail.


RE: That rendering...
By Apone on 9/10/2012 12:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fifty years after the first jetliners, forty years after Concorde, and we're still traveling at 550 mph in planes that Don Draper would instantly recognize


Your reasoning makes sense from an emerging technology perspective, however you have to look at the big picture which is cost. Case in point, look at the Concorde. It's so fast it can cruise at Mach 2 (about 1360 mph) so you can imagine how quick you can get to your destination. However, I remember hearing a while back the average roundtrip ticket is $12,000 for a Concorde flight. British Airways retired it because it was simply too expensive to maintain the fleet (in addition to the 2003 crash issues that grounded the fleet permanently).

My guess is that unless there is a new radical breakthrough in design, propulsion engineering, or fuel that can revolutionize the concept of flight such as significantly carry many more passengers, ridiculously reduce flight time, and streamline operations by minimizing costs, I think we're going to be stuck with sub-Mach 1 (>761 mph) plane speeds for a while.


RE: That rendering...
By michael67 on 9/10/2012 1:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My guess is that unless there is a new radical breakthrough in design, propulsion engineering, or fuel that can revolutionize the concept of flight such as significantly carry many more passengers, ridiculously reduce flight time, and streamline operations by minimizing costs, I think we're going to be stuck with sub-Mach 1 (>761 mph) plane speeds for a while.

I agree, but there is all ready 90y old tech for reducing fuel consumption by 40%, the ground effect vehicle.

The Russians build hole fleets of them, and even do they have there downsides and cant be used for everything, a 10 to 20% use of these planes instead of normal one's would still save a lot of fuel and money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle


RE: That rendering...
By Solandri on 9/10/2012 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've actually worked at a company building ground effect vehicles. And a friend of mine works at a company making WIGs (wing in ground effect vehicles) - the type of vehicle you're talking about.

The problem is you have to be near the ground to benefit from ground effect (duh!). That pretty much limits the terrain you can travel over to the ocean. Land has these annoying things which stick up called trees, hills, and mountains, making it dangerous for any high-speed ground effect vehicle to travel over land.

Air is denser near the ground, so as you travel faster you encounter more resistance. The speed of sound at sea level is actually higher the closer you are to the ground.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0...

So you can travel faster near the ground without breaking the sound barrier (and all the extra energy that takes). But nobody does it because the increased air resistance more than offsets any fuel savings gained from lowering mach number. If you want to travel faster than a certain speed, it's more efficient to climb to altitude to benefit from thinner air, than it is to stay near the ground and benefit from ground effect.

So ground effect vehicles are pretty much limited to overseas routes which are short-haul (not enough distance to warrant a plane climbing up to cruise altitude), and not as time-critical. i.e. a good alternative to passenger ferry ships. The Russian ones predominantly provide service over the Black and Caspian Seas.

Japan is researching a track-based WIG. Rather than using rails, they're researching if a WIG train could improve speed and efficiency by reducing friction, without having to resort to the complexity of electromagnetic levitation.


RE: That rendering...
By aliasfox on 9/12/2012 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Mach 1 at altitude is closer to 660mph, IIRC.

I hope there's some radical breakthrough as you're suggesting. I hate flying now - it's no longer fun, it's slow, tedious, invasive, and I inevitably get some sort of sick from breathing the same recirculated air as the guy with a cold/flu in row 17. But with two companies making planes (Airbus and Boeing) and only a handful of engine manufacturers (P&W, GE, Rolls Royce... anyone else?), what're the chances we're going to get that kind of breakthrough?


RE: That rendering...
By Solandri on 9/10/2012 12:06:35 PM , Rating: 4
The sweep angle of the wing has more to do with the cruise speed of the plane, not how new it is. The greater the sweep angle, the more efficient the wing is at speed, but the less efficient it is at take-off and landing speeds. Since pretty much all planes since the 707 cruise at mach 0.75-0.85 (any faster and it starts costing a lot more fuel), they have nearly the same sweep angle.

Winglets have already happened, though distance between terminal gates probably has as much to do with it as aerodynamics. (How close can you park two planes without their wings touching while maneuvering?)

Most plane tails spend most of their time pushing down rather than up. So there's not exactly a rush to increase their lifting capability. That's why people are toying with canard designs.

quote:
Fifty years after the first jetliners, forty years after Concorde, and we're still traveling at 550 mph in planes that Don Draper would instantly recognize.

That's because physics hasn't changed since the 1960s. This isn't fashion contest where a design is outdated after a few years. The engineers in the 1930s-1950s pretty much figured out most of the optimal aerodynamic shapes. The best we can do is use computers to refine or trim their edges here and there. It's just the little bits (e.g. winglets) which have been added in recent years.

quote:
Sure, we're twice as efficient now, but that's really not all that exciting. If we compare the past 50 years of air travel with 50 years of ocean liners between 1880 and 1930 (shortly after steam power came into accepted use), ships went from 12 knots to 24 knots and then onto 31 knots with the Normandie and the Queen Mary... and they grew from 10k tons displacement to 80k tons displacement.

Ship speed for displacement monohulls depends on Froude number (google it), which is proportional to size. The longer your ship, the faster it goes. Planes OTOH are limited by Mach number, which is based on the speed of sound in the air you're flying through. Changing the size of the plane doesn't change this.


RE: That rendering...
By aliasfox on 9/12/2012 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
If the shape's already been perfected, then why tease us with all of these cool new renderings? And I doubt the shape's been perfected - there are studies out there that suggest that lifting bodies/blended wing structures like the B2 could provide significant efficiency gains in terms of volume/mass lifted for a given amount of fuel. And yet, nothing, not even cargo planes (where windows aren't a concern) have been put into production.

I know there are reasons why nothing new is ever attempted - airport design, rising fuel prices, etc. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. Does it not seem sad that we could go from NY to London in less time and more comfort 30 years ago than we can now?


RE: That rendering...
By woody1 on 9/10/2012 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're wrong about the flight attendants being the same. In Draper's time, the flight attendants had severe age and weight restrictions imposed by the airlines. They were mostly young, single, and babelicious. Being a flight attendant was a glamour job at a time when women had many fewer opportunities.

Now, it's just a demanding job with flight perks. Flight attendants no longer have to be young or thin or babelicious.


RE: That rendering...
By aliasfox on 9/12/2012 12:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, they're the same flight attendants. They were hired in the 60s and 70s and never left...


Secret pic of Airbus 2050
By christojojo on 9/10/2012 7:12:11 AM , Rating: 5
http://scienceblog.scienceblogcom.netdna-cdn.com.s...

IT was dicey on how I was going to sneak it past security, but it was worth it to see how fuel efficient this monster is.




By inperfectdarkness on 9/10/2012 7:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
SQUIRREL!


Ahhh...
By Amiga500 on 9/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ahhh...
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/10/2012 9:25:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a steaming pile of sh!te
Kind of like your post here, if you don't like the article, don't fucking read or comment. Not that hard.

And DT, fix the rating bullshit, still can't rate...


RE: Ahhh...
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2012 12:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if you don't like the article, don't fucking read or comment.


Far be it from me to point out the blatantly obvious...

But, its kinda hard to know if you like an article or not before you read it.

;-)


RE: Ahhh...
By DanNeely on 9/10/2012 9:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with quiksilvr on why #3 is unlikely to happen, #1 (continuous assent) and part of #2 (direct flight instead of only in defined corridors) are part of why the FAA is upgrading air traffic control systems. #4 (improved efficiency of ground operations) is something that airlines/airports are always trying to do, although mostly in the context of cramming more flights into the same amount of airport space. As for #5 for using solar/hydrogen/etc on the ground is being played with now and things like solar roofs in sunny areas (or areas with very expensive electricity) will almost certainly be installed in the future as panel prices continue to fall. The same will be true of using biofuels (although they've got much farther to fall before being cost-competitive).


RE: Ahhh...
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2012 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
#1 No no - you haven't seen the half of it. One fork of the idea was a sled on the runway would get the aircraft up to speed - kinda like a catapult-ite. The other was solar & battery augmented main engines.

#2 The last time I read a paper on formation flight to reduce drag I near fell off my dinosaur in shock that they were still considering it. It has been the coming 'thing' for longer than I have lived!

#3 You've already commented on.

#4 Low emissions ground ops are on the way, but not using tugs.

#5 Meaningless.


Good luck with free glide approach.
By quiksilvr on 9/10/2012 6:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
That is the holy grail of commercial aeronautics, but good luck trying to get that past by the FAA.

Planes today are 100% capable of doing a free-glide approach. The problem is two-fold as to why we DON'T DO IT:
1) Runways would have to double in length in order to bring the plane to a breakable speed via the tires without a parachute or reverse thrusters.
2) It is a HUGE risk on human life because forward thrust > wind/weather anomalies. Even on a clear and low wind day, a random gust can alter the course of the plane entirely and correcting this requires a LOT of talent or forward thrust to negate these effects.

I'm not trying to rain on Airbus' parade. I'm just saying that a free glide approach will never happen until runways are significantly lengthened and/or we can locally control the wind around airports.




RE: Good luck with free glide approach.
By drycrust3 on 9/10/2012 12:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Planes today are 100% capable of doing a free-glide approach.

I think gliding in to land will only save a small amount of fuel because a plane has to carry enough fuel so that it can fly not just to its destination, but then to an alternative destination as well. This extra fuel is dumped prior to landing, i.e. wasted.
Maybe a better approach would be to find a way that allows a plane to land safely with all the extra fuel still on board, or to dump it in a way that is retrievable, e.g. detachable fuel tanks that parachute or glide to the ground.
Also, they might try to get rid of the vertical tail fin, like birds and insects don't have.


By Fritzr on 9/11/2012 12:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
Unless they are making an emergency landing and need to shed mass to get down to a safe landing weight or expect a fire hazard when they are on the ground (gearup, planned crash, etc.) a commercial airliner will not dump fuel. Those long waits as they circle the destination airport are due to traffic congestion, not a need to discard fuel they may need following a wave off.


CONFUSED
By Iketh on 9/10/2012 12:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and switching engines off sooner upon landing to for shorter landing distances.


lol what?? Are you saying quicker routes to the terminals? Because that's the only time the engines can get shut off... unless you shut off after touchdown and get towed to the terminal...

A true saver would be an unpowered glide like the shuttle used to do, but you would need engines that can fire up and produce thrust almost instantly in the event of an abortion (<--- can i use it that way??)




RE: CONFUSED
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2012 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because that's the only time the engines can get shut off... unless you shut off after touchdown and get towed to the terminal...


They are suggesting getting towed by autonomous tugs.

But there are other ways and means. The DLR have been working on electric motors in the wheels for some time. Taxi on APU->electric->electric motors is more fuel efficient than taxi on main engines.

There are more things in the pipeline beyond that.


#3 on diagram is retarded
By Iketh on 9/10/2012 12:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
#3 on the picture is bogus... someone is just trying to look smart...

the landing speed of an aircraft is set by the engineers... changing the approach method does not change the speed you should touch down... landing distances will NOT get shorter




RE: #3 on diagram is retarded
By DanNeely on 9/10/2012 1:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
The distance being talked about in #3 is the distance between when the plane starts descending and when it's on the ground. The current practice (due to ATC limitations) is to descend a bit, stop descending, descend a bit, stop descending, etc. A continuous decent would eliminate all of the mandatory stops in mid-descent, allowing the plain to remain at cruising altitude for longer.


change
By mchentz on 9/10/2012 6:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
I am hoping for new future technologies in aviation that will make these changes different. IMO this is still not enough.




Is that all they came up with?
By XZerg on 9/10/2012 8:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the ideas have nothing to do with improving airplanes in anyway. Hell if they had decided to use solar panels on top of the airplanes then I would be okay that they are making progress into saving energy.




Not quite.
By futrtrubl on 9/10/2012 10:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also looks at how to boost passenger journey times.


Ummm, I think you mean the opposite. They want to cut journey times.




efficiency
By Ammohunt on 9/10/2012 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am reminded of the super guns that died in the 90ies where they would fire a projectile into low earth orbit allowing it to drop a destructive device immense distances assisted by the spin of the earth and the lack of atmosphere in near space. Point being that any slick looking ariframe design is just that; a slick looking airframe. I feel any significant new effeminacies will be gained by flying much higher coupled with some sort of ground assisted take off.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki