How can this work? the tanker planes will use fuel to get their fuel up there, not to mention stoogeing around waiting for “customers”
bob(from black rock) said:
How can this work? the tanker planes will use fuel to get their fuel up there, not to mention stoogeing around waiting for “customers”
Got a link?
I’d guess if the planes are lighter at take off they use less fuel to get up. If one tanker is refuelling more than one plane it would add up.
I have noticed that planes instead of stopping and building up revs against the brakes, these days taxi out to the runway then whilst trundling just put the hammer down. I guess that is probably more fuel efficient than stopping and then starting x tonnes of plane.
AwesomeO said:
I have noticed that planes instead of stopping and building up revs against the brakes, these days taxi out to the runway then whilst trundling just put the hammer down. I guess that is probably more fuel efficient than stopping and then starting x tonnes of plane.
They probably just got less anal and would prefer not to stop like when you slow down further back approaching a red light so that you’re rolling when it turns. Would take fuel to get it moving again but it is also less comfortable to the passengers and pilot. If it is a protocol for saving fuel I bet most pilots think it’s a good one.
Seems like an abnormally large task to do all commercial refuelling in the air.
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
I suppose they have factored in the refuelling aircraft’s costs.
Tamb said:
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
I suppose they have factored in the refuelling aircraft’s costs.
Yeah, the cost of the refuelling plane and all of its overheads and write downs compared to a truck driven by a numpty would be a major factor and might even go toward negating the fuel cost benefit.
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
Training would probably be provided by the body that ran the tankers. You’d have to assume they would be regulated by a single body so the safety and details are the same across the board.
Postpocelipse said:
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
Training would probably be provided by the body that ran the tankers. You’d have to assume they would be regulated by a single body so the safety and details are the same across the board.
AwesomeO said:
Tamb said:
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
I suppose they have factored in the refuelling aircraft’s costs.
Yeah, the cost of the refuelling plane and all of its overheads and write downs compared to a truck driven by a numpty would be a major factor and might even go toward negating the fuel cost benefit.
Depends what plane you are using and how organised your logistics. I’d be fairly sure they’ve factored that into the fuel cost.
The trouble with this is that safety regulations would probably kill it.
I doubt any regulator would allow a plane to take off with insufficient fuel (and then some) to reach it’s destination.
Domestic might be OK but long haul, nyet.
More I think of it, I cannot see how they can close the cost disparity between fuel delivered on the ground and fuel delivered in the air.
Tamb said:
Postpocelipse said:
AwesomeO said:
I can see how it might save fuel, I can’t see how it will save theairlinesmoney paying for inflight refuelling training? It’s not an easy task. And all sorts of issues with seperation which don’t count for military flights.
Training would probably be provided by the body that ran the tankers. You’d have to assume they would be regulated by a single body so the safety and details are the same across the board.
I don’t think I’d like my plane refuelled by some death-wish Russian.
What about a russian woman looking for a husband?
Peak Warming Man said:
The trouble with this is that safety regulations would probably kill it.
I doubt any regulator would allow a plane to take off with insufficient fuel (and then some) to reach it’s destination.
Domestic might be OK but long haul, nyet.
If it is minimising the tasks at the airport(assume specific airfields for tankers) then regulators would go for it provided they regulate the tankers.
Peak Warming Man said:
The trouble with this is that safety regulations would probably kill it.
I doubt any regulator would allow a plane to take off with insufficient fuel (and then some) to reach it’s destination.
Domestic might be OK but long haul, nyet.
Are they taking off not fully fueled or is it just so long haul flights don’t have to land and refuel for the second part of the trip
AwesomeO said:
More I think of it, I cannot see how they can close the cost disparity between fuel delivered on the ground and fuel delivered in the air.
Big ass tankers…….
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
The trouble with this is that safety regulations would probably kill it.
I doubt any regulator would allow a plane to take off with insufficient fuel (and then some) to reach it’s destination.
Domestic might be OK but long haul, nyet.
Are they taking off not fully fueled or is it just so long haul flights don’t have to land and refuel for the second part of the trip
“found the link“https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26869539/refuelling-planes-mid-air-could-cut-fuel-use-by-23-study/
Postpocelipse said:
Tamb said:
Postpocelipse said:Training would probably be provided by the body that ran the tankers. You’d have to assume they would be regulated by a single body so the safety and details are the same across the board.
I don’t think I’d like my plane refuelled by some death-wish Russian.What about a russian woman looking for a husband?
Postpocelipse said:
AwesomeO said:
More I think of it, I cannot see how they can close the cost disparity between fuel delivered on the ground and fuel delivered in the air.
Big ass tankers…….
Cost per litre of fuel delivered on the ground is fuel plus truck, it’s depreciation, wages etc. cost per litre of fuel delivered in the air is fuel, plus big arse tankers, it’s depreciation, pilot and spotters wages, insurance, training for air refuelling, modifications to, or more expensive fuel tanks with probes etc.
It’s a big disparity.
Tamb said:
Postpocelipse said:
Tamb said:I don’t think I’d like my plane refuelled by some death-wish Russian.
What about a russian woman looking for a husband?
Had an experience like that in Russia.
The phone rang in our hotel room & a sultry voiced Russian woman asked if I’d like to spend some time with a sexy Russian woman. I told her that I was married, to which she responded that my wife could join in if she wished. I graciously declined.
They’d still do old world service in Russia. You’d never know what the service you’d signed up for might turn out to be at a guess. :/
AwesomeO said:
Postpocelipse said:
AwesomeO said:
More I think of it, I cannot see how they can close the cost disparity between fuel delivered on the ground and fuel delivered in the air.
Big ass tankers…….
Cost per litre of fuel delivered on the ground is fuel plus truck, it’s depreciation, wages etc. cost per litre of fuel delivered in the air is fuel, plus big arse tankers, it’s depreciation, pilot and spotters wages, insurance, training for air refuelling, modifications to, or more expensive fuel tanks with probes etc.
It’s a big disparity.
Read the link. I still have to.
Postpocelipse said:
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
The trouble with this is that safety regulations would probably kill it.
I doubt any regulator would allow a plane to take off with insufficient fuel (and then some) to reach it’s destination.
Domestic might be OK but long haul, nyet.
Are they taking off not fully fueled or is it just so long haul flights don’t have to land and refuel for the second part of the trip
:(
hehe :)
The RECREATE project also includes a second, and far more radical proposal: creating a sort of air-metro system, with giant aircraft circling the globe, and smaller “feeder aircraft” unloading passengers, luggage and waste midair and transporting them to destinations along the way.
The researchers acknowledge though that for the second part of the project, “neither airworthiness nor acceptance of the idea by the general public is within sight.”
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
Spiny Norman said:
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
Plus what if the passengers want to get out and go to the servo shop on the refuelling plane
Cymek said:
Spiny Norman said:
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
Plus what if the passengers want to get out and go to the servo shop on the refuelling plane
You could have fast food pulling up at the sides Fifth Element style…….
…..and a transfer to the Disco Without Dawn …… for those who are into that sort of thing.
just cover the top of the fuselage with wafer thin solar panels that ran the air con system and helped with creating air pressure
the fuel saved by flying in daylight hours above cloud catching the sun would do winders for fuel efficiency
get rid of superfluous weight such as newspapers and install bigger screens so people could read electronic papers
reward passengers that carry less weight on board , penalise those that try taking too much stuff as hand luggage.
get rid of first class , business class and any “ premium “ seats – it’s the peasants that most likely subsidise the rich that fly – you need bums on seats and make every flight a full flight , by getting rid of the premium space hungry rich seats you can give everyone else more leg room.
“study”, what study?
REsearch on a CRuiser Enabled Air Transport Environment (RECREATE)
Youtube about the system. Researchers test air to air refuelling of passenger aircraft
Run from 2013 to end Jan 2015. NLR press release from Oct 2014
Technical article Overview of Research on RECREATE
“Concepts with transfer of payload and passengers
based on engines burning chemical fuel have been
shown not be economically feasible, as the overall
weight of the system and thus the total amount of fuel
burnt are too high. However, if the cruiser can be
propelled by a nuclear power source, the efficiency is
very high compared to the reference case, even if the
total weight of the system is higher. Although the
nuclear cruiser cannot be shown to meet airworthiness
requirements with today’s technology, this concept
has been retained for study because it cannot be
excluded that new nuclear physics will be discovered
and confirmed in the future.”
I did some calculations a year or so ago on the possibility of nuclear powered passenger aircraft. I concluded that the weight of the shielding would have to be so large that it wasn’t a possibility. A nuclear-powered refuelling aircraft on the other hand … hmm.
Spiny Norman said:
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
That’s a shame
dv said:
Spiny Norman said:
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
That’s a shame
Tamb said:
dv said:
Spiny Norman said:
Interesting idea and yes it would save a lot of fuel but it’ll never happen.
Technically too difficult to do at a commercial level with acceptable safety and reliability for the public.
That’s a shame
Be better to make planes 23% more fuel efficient.
Well it would be better to make planes 23% more fuel efficient AND use airborne refueling shortly.
(in fairness, there have been great improvements in fuel efficiency of airliners over the last 40 years)
dv said:
Tamb said:
dv said:That’s a shame
Be better to make planes 23% more fuel efficient.Well it would be better to make planes 23% more fuel efficient AND use airborne refueling shortly.
(in fairness, there have been great improvements in fuel efficiency of airliners over the last 40 years)