3 ms·
70% less fuel doesn't make sense. The energy required to lift and move a certain amount of weight is a known static quantity. The savings would have to be made
by manigandham 5y ago
70% less fuel doesn't make sense. The energy required to lift and move a certain amount of weight is a known static quantity. The savings would have to be made up entirely in efficiency, and modern plane designs are very efficient.
Reducing fuel usage to that extent based on wing and airframe shape alone seems rather ridiculous.
- fulafel 5y agoLifting and moving mass can take quite little energy compared to actual air travel energy consumption. Lifting 100 kg straight up by 1000 m at the lower bound of physics takes ~1 MJ. But real life air travel comes to 1+ MJ per just horizontal passenger-km.