3 ms·

I don't think you're considering the scale of the airline industry. Winglets cut fuel consumption by 4-6% and literally changed the game.

• bertil 3y ago
  I agree that 5% efficiency justifies widespread adoption, but that didn’t require much more than a few hours of maintenance to set wingtips up. I’m not sure that 10% would justify switching to a new engine, a new airplane type, and investing in re-qualifying all your pilots. I remember hearing hesitation around RISE and braced wings. Those would “only” save 20% fuel but required too many changes to be adopted before planes needed to be replaced. On the other hand, working with a different fuel but with a similar power package, that could presumably be adopted before 2030, if the savings are indeed almost an order of magnitude of carbon footprint. This is why I think the article should have said a lot more about the supply chain and price of SAF.
  • masklinn 3y ago
    > I agree that 5% efficiency justifies widespread adoption, but that didn’t require much more than a few hours of maintenance to set wingtips up. Retrofitting winglets on an airliner costs a million+ upfront and grounds the plane for a week. It’s not to the level of buying a new plane, but this is not a few hours work on the tarmac between two flights, they’re not airfoils off of wish you glue onto your rust bucket.
  • RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    >didn’t require much more than a few hours of maintenance to set wingtips up. Try 14+ days for commercial aircraft.