Slower, Greener Airplanes

[hkskyline]

Greener jets will use less fuel but fly more slowly
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
30 August 2005
The Times

AIRLINE passengers will have to accept longer journey times on board a new generation of aircraft that will fly more slowly to save fuel.

Trips within Europe will take about ten minutes longer but aircraft will burn up to 20 per cent less fuel.

Aircraft manufacturers have abandoned plans to build faster jets, such as Boeing's Sonic Cruiser, which would have flown close to the speed of sound. Instead, they are designing aircraft that will do the least possible damage to the environment.

The new aircraft will look different to existing jets. The wings will be longer and straighter. The engines will sit on top of the fuselage rather than under the wings to reduce noise disturbance. There will be two tail-fins rather than one to prevent noise being deflected downwards. The aircraft will fly at about 430mph compared with more than 500mph flown by existing jets.

Airbus, the European aircaft manufacturer, is leading a European Commission research project on the new aircraft. It is working with more than 30 companies on the four-year project, entitled New Aircraft Concepts Research.

Joao Frota, the project's leader, said that the new aircraft would be half as noisy as existing jets. He said that the straighter wings would allow slower take-offs and landings. This would permit the use of more efficient engines, which would save several tonnes of fuel during each flight.

Mr Frota said that although flights would take longer, some time could be recovered by more efficient operations at airports. Removing national boundaries from the air traffic control system would save time and fuel by allowing aircraft to fly direct routes. At present, they have to fly in zigzags as they switch between sectors of airspace controlled by different countries. Ron van Manen, head of civil aeronautics at QinetiQ, Britain's leading aviation research centre, said that the aircraft would initially be used on routes of up to 1,000 miles. He said: "People won't mind spending an extra five or ten minutes on a flight from London to Frankfurt because you can already easily waste that time queueing for take off.

But it would take an extra hour to fly from London to Singapore and people are unlikely to want to do that. They will probably be prepared to pay extra to burn more fuel."

Mr Van Manen said that airspace would have to be divided into lanes to allow the slower aircraft to be overtaken.

Aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and is on course to be the biggest contributor by 2050. Worldwide air passenger numbers are due to double to 7.4 billion a year by 2020, according to Airports Council International. In Britain alone, passenger numbers are expected to grow from 200 million in 2003 to 470 million in 2030. Sustainable Aviation, a group representing British Airways, Virgin, BAA and 20 other British aviation companies, has set a target of introducing new aircraft by 2020, which will produce 50 per cent less carbon dioxide. The group has pledged to reduce noise by 50 per cent. Andrew Sentance, the head of environmental affairs at BA, said that flying more slowly would help to meet environmental targets but would not be welcomed by all passengers.

"A plane which is 20-30 per cent more fuel efficient would be very attractive but there are some business passengers for whom getting there as quickly as possible is very important."

Jeff Gazzard, of Greenskies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups, said: "Taking ten minutes extra is a small price to pay for the sake of the environment.

"But the only long-term cure is to fly less. Even the fuel savings on this slower plane will be outweighed by the huge growth in flights."

* LESS NOISE, LESS FUEL
*Double tailfin prevents engine noise from being deflected downwards
*Engines mounted on top of fuselage, rather than under wings, to reduce noise heard on the ground
*Aircraft is up to 20% more fuel efficient than existing jets but flies more slowly, with a top speed of 430mph rather than over 500mph
*Wing at right-angles to fuselage rather than swept back. Allows for slower take-off speed

[london-b]

10 minutes longe in Europe? I don't mind that!

[HiJazzey]

Or how about a turboprop? They're much more effecient and cheaper to run, they're increasingly faster (the Saab 2000 can cruise at 420mph) and most importantly they're available now!

[ch1le]

/\ noisy as hell

[CHANEL]

they are very noisy

[FM 2258]

Originally Posted by HiJazzey

Or how about a turboprop? They're much more effecient and cheaper to run, they're increasingly faster (the Saab 2000 can cruise at 420mph) and most importantly they're available now!

I love the sound of Turboprops. Maybe you have to be a plane enthusiast but don't mind flying out of a small airport just to catch a turboprop. Too bad Continental phased out their EMB 120's, that was a lovely plane to fly on. Also the American Eagle Saab 340 was a great experience as well.

This new "green" plane they're talking about sound like it will turn out to be a fugly duckling to me.

[heirloom]

one hour isnt so bad if the seats were suitable and the inflight entertainment more than adequate. often i find myself longing for the flight to be just 20 minutes longer so i could finish my 3rd or 4th movie.

[samsonyuen]

if it keeps costs down (for me) and is better for the environment, less than an hour more time wouldn't be so bad.