4 ms·
Why? That's a perfectly quantifiable claim.
by anarchy8 7y ago
Why? That's a perfectly quantifiable claim.
- mercutio2 7y agoI suspect the commenter is responding to “the world’s most advanced aircraft”, which does seem like a qualitative statement.
- baud147258 7y agoIt doesn't say it's for the same number of passengers, equivalent travel time and distance traveled.
- jsnell 7y agoFuel use is generally measured per distance traveled, so that part is implicit in the claim. The passenger capacity is talked about in the next paragraph: > What’s more, the Flying-V will carry the same number of passengers – 314 in the standard configuration – and the same volume of cargo, 160m3.
- dvtrn 7y agoI thought, specific to aviation, fuel efficiency was measured as a rate of time / power? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Propulsive_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Propu...
- jsnell 7y agoHmm... I've never heard of anyone mean thermodynamic efficiency when talking about fuel efficiency of a vehicle. Maybe people who design aircraft engines do? See e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transpor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transpor > The energy efficiency in transport is the useful travelled distance, of passengers, goods or any type of load; divided by the total energy put into the transport propulsion means.
- dvtrn 7y agoAh, seems like then it's possibly a bit of column A and a bit of column B. I'll defer to you on the correction though, I was merely speaking from third-hand/watercooler type discussions about aviation as someone who is just a passive enthusiast of airplanes.
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoAll airplanes are aerodynamic. There needs to be a mention of what exactly is happening to cause those fuel savings. I highly doubt that those numbers are trustworthy considering how closely we are scraping fuel efficiency numbers, unless there is some performance metric they aren't mentioned that has degraded.
- mmariani 7y ago> All airplanes are aerodynamic. There are exceptions. https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/730527/f-104-germanys-widow-maker/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Art...
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoThat plane was extremely aerodynamic, allowing high top speeds and high rates of acceleration. It wasn't easily controlled.
- Xylakant 7y agoGood old starfighter. A common joke was that the best way to acquire one was to buy a plot of land and wait. One would come crashing sooner or later.
- challenger22 7y agoIt has been known for a long time that flying wing designs are inherently more fuel efficient than typical passenger airline fuselage designs.
- lazyjones 7y agoBut in this extreme case of the fuselage being inside the wing and making it much thicker than typical and necessary, this isn't necessarily true, at least it's not obvious. If this design actually provides the claimed results, connecting 2 such wings (one behind the other) with a long fuselage (i.e. >---> which would incur almost no additional drag and twice the lift) would be even better, no?