Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Designs Aircraft That Uses 70% Less Fuel Than Conventional Planes

Posted by Soulskill on from the in-other-news-aircraft-refuelers-laid-off dept.

greenrainbow writes "Today a team of researchers at MIT unveiled their design for an airplane that uses 70% less fuel than conventional aircraft. The MIT design comes thanks to a NASA-funded initiative to increase fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and allow planes to take off on shorter runways. The team accomplished all of NASA's set goals with their innovative D-series plane, lovingly referred to as the 'double bubble,' which has thinner, longer wings and a smaller tail, and engine placement at the rear of the plane instead of on the wings."

3 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Slower than current aircraft by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One way they save fuel: flying slower than current aircraft. First, will customers accept that? And second, why not just fly current 737s a bit slower right now, to save on fuel?

    1. Re:Slower than current aircraft by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They sure will. If you can give me a 30% reduction in ticket price but a 10 hour flight instead of an 8 hour one across the atlantic that would be fine by me.

      Provided it is a nice European carrier like Lufthansa, who actually has free beer and back of the seat entertainment systems. Unlike American carriers who charge for beer and have 70s entertainment systems in the aircraft.

  2. Both of TFA's linked sadly lacking in details by Larson2042 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm disappointed in both of the linked articles. Some real substance about the design would have been nice, but as it is, I'm left with a lot of questions:
    -70% less fuel? How much of that is aerodynamic savings and how much of that is engine efficiency savings?
    -Did they do any wind tunnel testing of their model? How close were their CFD and tunnel test results?
    -Are they using engines based closely off existing ones, or are they projecting fuel savings 25 years into the future (the 2035 time frame from the article)?
    -What sort of structural weight-saving advances are they assuming, or projecting from?
    -So they made the tail smaller, what makes up for the reduction in control authority there?
    -Plus other more detailed questions based on the answers to those questions. Would it have been so hard for MIT to link a design document pdf or something? I guess not being a public university, they don't have to if they don't want to. Too bad.