Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airplane Coatings Help Recoup Fuel Efficiency Lost To Bug Splatter

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-stay-off dept.

MTorrice writes: When bugs hit the wings of oncoming airplanes, they create a problem. Their blood, called hemolymph, sticks to an airplane's wings, disrupting the smooth airflow over them and reducing the aircraft's fuel efficiency. To fight the problem, NASA is working on developing a coating that could help aircraft repel bug remains during flight. After experimenting with almost 200 different formulations, researchers recently flight-tested a few promising candidates. Results showed that they could reduce the amount of stuck bug guts on the wings by up to 40%. With further optimization, NASA says such coatings could allow planes to use 5% less fuel.

117 comments

  1. I believe one already exists. by idbeholda · · Score: 0

    It's called Teflon, unless I'm mistaken.

    1. Re: I believe one already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which doesn't pass rain/particle erosion tests, UV, etc. Not to mention other issues.

    2. Re: I believe one already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It handles my cooking just fine. Better than my own stomach in some cases.

    3. Re: I believe one already exists. by idbeholda · · Score: 1

      Meh. I figured the fact its melting point is 327c would have been enough. Guess not.

    4. Re: I believe one already exists. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Rain-X! Lots and lots of Rain-X!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re: I believe one already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      De-iceing systems which also run along the leading edges where bug detritus collects need to get away from thermal methods...

    6. Re: I believe one already exists. by EricTheMad · · Score: 2

      Rain-X! Lots and lots of Rain-X!!!

      My dad used to use Rain-X on his propeller to keep the bugs from sticking. It actually worked pretty well but had to be reapplied fairly often. I think they're going for something a little more permanent here.

      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
    7. Re: I believe one already exists. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Rain-X! Lots and lots of Rain-X!!!

      I've used Rain-X before. It's great stuff, (having some wax type properties) at and above 35 mph I never had to use my wipers and didn't. Any slower and there was no force (wind resistance) to move the rain/water, but at 35+ it was outstanding.

      Buying it at Costco I did indeed have lots of it, one purchase and I was bulked up with Rain-X for a long time.

    8. Re: I believe one already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Melting point says little to nothing about the ability to withstand mechanical forces and abrasion.

    9. Re: I believe one already exists. by dicobalt · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Goo Gone. There's a reason why they sell the stuff by the liter.

    10. Re: I believe one already exists. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      As is not particularly unusual, the title is incorrect.

      "Airplane Coatings Help Recoup Fuel Efficiency Lost To Bug Splatter"

      From Merriam Webster: recoup "to get an equivalent for (as losses) : make up for " or "to make good or make up for something lost"

      This coating would not 'recoup' the lost fuel efficiency. Better words to use would be "reduce" or "minimize".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re: I believe one already exists. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No, it's retroactive. From the first flight, their tanks will be gaining fuel in midair - making up fuel lost in the last 100 years without this coating.

    12. Re: I believe one already exists. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Does "Goo Gone" work at -35degC ?

      Serious question : most commercial aircraft spend most of their moving time at many kilometres high and many centigrade below zero. Products that work at near zero (degC) may simply not work under these circumstances.

      To a first approximation, drag varies as the square of the speed difference, and the speed difference is going to be greatest at cruising/ working altitude, not when taxi-ing around at STP.

      (Yes, it's a first approximation. When I was learning practical turbulence, I was advised to start searching for approximate coefficients by analysing my data set using drag = constant * flow^1.86 ; in theory it should be ^2, but the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, and in practice, there is.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re: I believe one already exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teflon is excellent for those times you cook eggs and such on your wings. It is nowhere nearly as efficient in allowing bugs to slide off.

  2. And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully that equates to 5% less on ticket prices.

    1. Re:And ticket prices? by sconeu · · Score: 0

      Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      Oh wait... you were SERIOUS????

      They're so cute when they're naive like this...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      sorry. your ticket prices are going to go up in order to comply with der Fuehrer's climate change regulations. get used to it.

    3. Re:And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully that equates to 5% less on ticket prices.

      Because fuel is the only cost an airline has?

    4. Re:And ticket prices? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Where companies don't pass on cost savings to their customers, it's not a competitive market.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:And ticket prices? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American corporations will instead do the following.

      Get a government grant for the coatings, claim the actual full purchase price at full retail as the cost and pass that cost to ticket buyers.

      Use the 5% fuel savings as a ,"we are saving the planet.... see? SEE?" advertising campaign.

      Also add the costs of the advertising to the ticket prices.

      Profits go up an additional 75%, claim they need more government subsidies.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re: And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on writing a lamer post than the one you were replying to.

    7. Re:And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully that equates to 5% less on ticket prices.

      If 100% of the ticket price was fuel, that might well be the case.
      But it isn't.

    8. Re:And ticket prices? by BradMajors · · Score: 0

      Where companies don't pass on cost savings to their customers, it's not a competitive market.

      Economics 101: There is no relationship between costs and prices. Prices are instead determined by how much people are willing to pay.

    9. Re:And ticket prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, ratchet up some more:
      > prices are instead determined by the margin curve - this balance point is known as "gouge optimization", or "who gives a fuck about the non-afforders".

      -AC:Falos

    10. Re:And ticket prices? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Competition works as thus: supplying the first units of a thing requires less labor (less cost) than supplying further units, unless you have an advantage (a more productive mine, local access to materials, better processes); you can inflate your prices to some point below what the next guy can charge. If it costs you $100/unit to build, and the next guy spends $150/unit, you can raise your prices as high as $150/unit; you can keep your prices as low as $100/unit to undercut and weaken the competition; you cannot go below $100/unit, and your competition cannot go below $150/unit, without taking losses and risking business failure.

      Whenever I explain wealth, people tell me I'm full of shit because reducing costs doesn't reduce price to consumers. They then turn around and argue something magical about competition driving prices down.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    11. Re:And ticket prices? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Why would that equate to 5% lower ticket prices? Fuel isn't the only thing they have to pay for; there's repairs, maintenance, salaries, etc. Just because one cost went down by 5% doesn't mean they can charge 5% less.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    12. Re:And ticket prices? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      > They then turn around and argue something magical about competition driving prices down.

      That's because the price isn't "Costs plus a markup", it's "Whatever the market will bear"

      Competition forces the price down to the former by giving the market a choice, otherwise vendors will charge whatever they like, because they can.

    13. Re:And ticket prices? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's because the price isn't "Costs plus a markup", it's "Whatever the market will bear"

      "The Market" is the magical part. Price is absolutely not less than cost--you can't stay in business spending $1000 to build computers that you sell for $10, although strategic undercutting happens (10 million volume manufacturer sells at a loss to put 10 thousand volume manufacturer out of business), as well as loss-leader strategies (sell the coffee maker cheap; overcharge on the coffee).

      Competition forces the price down to the former by giving the market a choice

      Which means if you have the means to produce at a lower cost than any competitor, competition will not lower prices; indeed, you can undercut competition below their costs, driving them out of business.

      That means competitive markets are strange beasts, especially with rising costs: if the producers charge $1000 for a product that costs $300, $500, and $700 to produce, rising costs can push you up to $350, $580, $820, and yet the price can stay around $1000 because Mr. $350 doesn't see a need to raise prices yet, and Mr. $820 is trying to cut his costs back by any means necessary. Soon Mr. $820 will have costs over $1000, and will sell his business to a competitor--Mr. $350 will have the most spare capital, and be able to make the best bid.

      Let the $820 guy find out how to make shit for $500, and he might undercut the market in a bid to get more market share and attempt a hostile take-over of the $580 business. Maybe not. In any case, a fourth player can make the product for $1100, but market price is $1000, so he can't enter the market.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  3. and please develop for my tesla model 3 please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    thank you!!

  4. and thats not all ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you add that to the clear coat of my car, jetski, and spaceship

  5. Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all - where do I pick up one of these guns:
    "To test these materials in the lab, researchers developed a pneumatic launcher to fire living bugs at a sample coating. They first used crickets as ammunition, but a physicist colleague urged them to switch to fruit flies, which would be more representative of what planes hit during takeoff and landing."

    Second - I hope they develop a clear coating as I would like it on my motorcycle visor.

    1. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lemon Pledge. No seriously. The high dollar aircraft windshield treatment for bugs and water called Plexus is nothing more than Pledge wax with no scent.

      Lemon pledge is used heavily by high mileage motorcyclists for years.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Use Mr Sheen on your visor. You need to apply it every time but it stops the bastards sticking. I also apply it to my fairing whenever I wash my bike and it makes cleaning it sooo easy and it makes it super shiny.

    3. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      +1 for Lemon Pledge. Works GREAT to clear bug remains! We use Lemon Pledge to clean our Cessna at the flight club.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      We use Lemon Pledge to clean our Cessna at the flight club.

      But... the first rule of flight club is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT FLIGHT CLUB !

    5. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      charlie or the father?

    6. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by swell · · Score: 2

      I clean my visor with a microfiber cloth and Armor-All (or equivalent). No scratching, no harsh chemical, a well-lubricated surface... The slight, slick residue helps prevent other bugs/debris from sticking in the future. There were three miracle chemicals produced in the last century- Armor-All, WD-40, and silicone (glues/sealers/lubricants/sex toys).

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    7. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I use Mr. Sheen on our aircraft. Lemon Pledge isn't available here. Mr. Sheen seems to do the job just fine.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    8. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, the idiot brother with his mother's last name. The uncool one.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      I clean my visor with a microfiber cloth and Armor-All (or equivalent). No scratching, no harsh chemical, a well-lubricated surface... The slight, slick residue helps prevent other bugs/debris from sticking in the future. There were three miracle chemicals produced in the last century- Armor-All, WD-40, and silicone (glues/sealers/lubricants/sex toys).

      So, what part of "clean" goes with "residue"? Seriously, how do you get that Armor-All crap off?

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    10. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      Well done. IDK why you posted this AC.

    11. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I dont like Mister Sheen, he always smells of Liquor and you constantly hear, "WINNING!" at random times.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He thinks WD-40 is a miracle product, you can't get much more clueless. There's always a better choice than WD-40. Even for penetrating oils.

    13. Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oscillating motion of your mother's bulbous ass while I pig fuck her silly removes its easily. I like big butts and I cannot lie.

  6. "working on developing" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    "up to (40%) " and "further optimization". and i'll eat less and exercise.

  7. I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    A 5% is substantial -- I am skeptical that repelling bug splatter can save that much. A 1% reduction in weight only results in about 0.75% reduction in fuel.

    1. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Falconhell · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not weight, it's maintaining laminar flow. It only takes very small objects to turbulate the boundary layer, increasing drag considerably.

    2. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      http://www.dianasailplanes.com...

    3. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the weight, it's the change to the airflow.

    4. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Indeed. You can measure the performance degradation in a sailplane caused by bug impacts on the leading edges.

    5. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, but golf balls travel further because they are turbulent.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golf balls aren't an airfoil generating lift.

    7. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So? If that's the only requirement, then the fuselage should be pitted, yes?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but golf balls travel further because they are turbulent.

      What you know about aerodynamics could fill one golf ball dimple with
      space left over for a cock which could fill your anal cavity.

    9. Re: I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the fuselage is a lifting body in almost all modern aircraft designs.

    10. Re: I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      it's long, straight, and round. What level of lift does it provide? http://www.airliners.net/aviat... and other sources indicate it's trivial.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re: I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, they're actually a spinning sphere that generates lift.

    12. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but golf balls travel further because they are turbulent.

      Not quite. They get turbulent flow with or without the dimples. The turbulent boundary layer is smaller with them though. Optimizing laminar and turbulent systems is very different.

    13. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The ideal would be for it to be smooth until the natural transition point then have vortex generators.
      If you look at a lot of aircraft the will have flush rivets over the front part of the fuselage and regular over the back for that reason. Some will have vortex generators on the wings as well also for that same effect.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...but.....

      There are two different types of air Drag. Skin Friction Drag (Df) and Pressure Drag (Dp, drag due to separation effects).

      Df is much smaller under laminar conditions and much larger under turbulent conditions.

      Dp is the opposite. Larger for laminar flows, smaller for turbulent flows.

      Depending on which drag force is the controlling one will determine whether adding dimples or inducing turbulence will reduce drag overall.

      As an object flies through the air, the tendency of the air to separate behind the object is what creates pressure drags. The blunter the object, the greater the pressure drag. Compared to an airfoil, a golf ball is a much blunter object and the greater the pressure drag. In the case of a sphere, the separation drag is the controlling factor for the total drag. By adding dimples, you induce turbulence earlier in the process which reduces the air separation behind the ball which reduces the pressure drag significantly at the expense of increasing the skin friction by a little bit (comparatively).

      An airfoil and airplane fuselage on the other hand are much less blunt objects. The air that flows around the body reconnects readily and the separation effect drag is much less. When this happens, the skin friction drag is the controlling condition. This is a function of the fluid viscosity, the 'smoothness' of the surface and the total surface area. Adding dimples increases the skin friction drag and since this is the controlling condition will have the opposite effect as it would on the golf ball.

    15. Re: I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      You might think it's trivial, but fuselage lift accounts for about 1/3 of the total lift on a Boeing 747 at cruise.

      There's a reason they fly nose-high.

    16. Re:I'm skeptical of the 5% claim by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      What you know about aerodynamics could fill one golf ball dimple with
      space left over for a cock which could fill your anal cavity.

      There is a fine line between humour and trolling, and you have managed to erase that line. Well played.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  8. Huh. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Sailplanes have used mechanical bug wipers for many years.

  9. Or by sexconker · · Score: 0

    Or you could wash the wings once in a while. You're on the tarmac for over an hour while:
      - Passengers are busy boarding despite their boarding group not being called.
      - Crews are not loading your luggage.
      - The pilot is working on his second cup of "sober up" coffee.
      - The flight attendants are gossiping about who fucked whom.
      - Etc.

    Might as well have a guy spend 2 minutes hosing off the wings. Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

    1. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

      Reminds me of a lame joke my grandpa told me...

      something about telling Jose to connect Hose-B, pull Lever-A then leave 'er be. (You have to pronounce lever as lee-ver to make it work)

      So awful.

    2. Re:Or by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      Surely, you're utterly wrong. One takeoff can easily put enough bugs on the leading edge to destroy laminar flow. Heavy bug loads on the leading edge can easily increase drag by 30% over a clean wing. Glider pilots use mechanical wipers to remove the bugs in flight. Waviness of more than .005 inch is needed to maintain laminar flow. Once the flow becomes turbulent, drag rises considerably. Just washing the wings on the ground won't help.

    3. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 minutes to thoroughly wash of the remains of bugs on the leading edges of an airframe? Could barely do the windscreen of a car properly in that time. Have you actually never seen an airliner up close to know how large it is?

    4. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, taking off means flying right through more bugs, especially for morning and evening flights.

    5. Re:Or by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

      I can imagine a flight out of Orlando Florida in August could easily make this worthwhile. I'm not sure if speed makes any actual difference for the number of bugs that get hit, but it always seemed like I had a lot more bugs splattered on my car when I drove faster. If so, a plane certainly hits higher speeds than I have in a car.

    6. Re:Or by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Or you could wash the wings once in a while. You're on the tarmac for over an hour while:
            - Passengers are busy boarding despite their boarding group not being called.
            - Crews are not loading your luggage.
            - The pilot is working on his second cup of "sober up" coffee.
            - The flight attendants are gossiping about who fucked whom.
            - Etc.

      Might as well have a guy spend 2 minutes hosing off the wings. Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

      Bug guts are sticky. They do not simply hose off. You need to actually scrub them off, and if you're doing that, you need skilled labor because there are lots of sensitive things that stick out of aircraft.

      More than one aircraft has been lost because someone missed removing some tape covering some hole or other that was applied in order to wash the aircraft.

      And there's a lot of surface to scrub, too.

      Even little bug smashers like Cessnas take a good while to clean off (and flying through a bog meant you often flew through a crowd of mosquitos, so the leading edge was covered in lots of little red spots).

    7. Re:Or by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So how do wash the wings right after takeoff?

      I think that's going to add quite a lot of time if the plane has to circle really low for multiple passes each time for Jose to hose the wings off.

    8. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually never used a proper pressure washer? We're not talking about your thumb over a garden hose here.

    9. Re:Or by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Or you could wash the wings once in a while. You're on the tarmac for over an hour while:
      - Passengers are busy boarding despite their boarding group not being called.
      - Crews are not loading your luggage.
      - The pilot is working on his second cup of "sober up" coffee.
      - The flight attendants are gossiping about who fucked whom.
      - Etc.

      Might as well have a guy spend 2 minutes hosing off the wings. Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper than having Jose hos-e off the bugs.

      Knowing the way airports work. They'll have to spend at least 25 minutes hosing down the wings with a special machine (which is just a Karcher that costs 18 times as much) which will only result in all your luggage getting wet as the handlers will be hosed down as they go through it for anything worth stealing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well have a guy spend 2 minutes hosing off the wings

      Spoken like a man who knows nothing about aircraft or the aviation industry.

      The closest analogy to this is de-icing, and it would be a huge undertaking, and not something you can do at the gate.

      Impact of build-up during a single flight surely falls below the point where applying and maintaining a fancy coating is cheaper

      A modern passenger aircraft probably costs easily in excess of $150-200 million, and has a 20+ year operating life.

      The aircraft industry wouldn't be looking into it if it wasn't going to save money. Fuel costs are the hugest expense airlines have after the planes, and anything which saves on fuel is a good thing.

      If you don't actually know anything, please, shut up. You only prove your own ignorance.

    11. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the passengers clean it. Put a rope out to the wing tip, passengers take turns, right after take off, walking out on the wing at low altitude to give her a good scubbing.

    12. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandblast them off! It'll also get rid of the tacky paint jobs.

    13. Re:Or by Alioth · · Score: 1

      If you do the leading edges and windscreen with furniture polish (people swear by Lemon Pledge, I use Mr Sheen because Pledge doesn't seem to be sold locally) the bug guts wipe off very easily (and I suspect many just don't stick but I've not done a scientific test of this).

      Take an awful lot of Pledge to do an airliner leading edge, though.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    14. Re:Or by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Same way as many cars wash their headlights? There are piles of answers to the question. A temporary surface used for takeoff that's retracted after takeoff, removing all the bugs with it.

      I can think of 100 ways to solve this, so when people make it sound hard, that just proves they are dumb. Yes, not all are good, and at most one would be optimal, but give me a few million dollars, and I can make more headway.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    15. Re: Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what, I bet you could even invent some fancy coating that only has to be applied every time the plane goes into maintenance! That wouldn't even add significant weight or mess with the already complex internal structure of the wing! I'll start a kickstarter right now

    16. Re:Or by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You think there are piles of answers to this question, but as with all armchair quarterbacks you seem to think that the people who are actually working on the problem are stupid.

    17. Re:Or by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      you seem to think that the people who are actually working on the problem are stupid.

      Nope, I just think the idiots here are idiots (not that everyone's an idiot, but the idiots are, by definition).

      So how do wash the wings right after takeoff?

      How do cars wash their headlights? How do gliders do it? How do in-flight de-icing systems work?

      THe point is some idiot asking a stupid question with 1,000,000 answers can't think of any of the answers, so he assumes the answer is hard. It isn't. Doing it cheaply, reliably, and with no weight may be harder, but those are implementation details, not big picture.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    18. Re:Or by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the sarcasm inherent in my original comment.

      The GP was claiming that they could just hose the wings down rather than using an anti-bug coating.

      I was just wondering out loud how that would work when the plane is in flight given that the hose probably has a finite length.

  10. Deicing? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this will eliminate the need to deice planes in the winter. Or if will cause issues with it repelling the deicing fluid they spray on the planes when it's cold.

    1. Re:Deicing? by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 3, Informative
      It will make no difference at all. It's a very different issue.

      The most sensitive part of a modern aircraft wing is just aft of the leading edge where the flow makes the transition from subsonic to transonic. Having even 'frosting' in this area can destroy all lift from a wing so they are liberally sprayed with gelatinous treatments that are specially formulated to melt any ice that forms from rain or snow while the aircraft is static, yet become sufficiently diluted during the take off to be washed of the wing for flight.

      Once airborne, the problem becomes one of thermal balance and heat is supplied to the wing leading edges using engine bleed air.

      The bugs don't affect icing and so far, no coating has been found that cna get rid of ice under all conditions mandated by the FAA.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  11. Bug wipers by leathered · · Score: 1

    Glider pilots have been using these for many years, though I'm not sure how they'd hold up against a 500 knot airspeed vs 50kn.

    --
    For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
  12. Is this really a big problem? by swb · · Score: 1

    I guess if estimates say 5% of fuel, but...

    - half or more of flights are in the winter, when there are no bugs or a lot less of them.

    - most flights spend most of their time at bug free altitudes.

    - many airports are in urban areas with reduced bug populations

    Is this mostly a small plane phenomenon?

  13. Other applications? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

    Can I get some for my motorcycle windscreen, and the visor on my helmet?

    During the spring and summer, I have to wipe my helmet on a daily basis.

    1. Re:Other applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get some for my motorcycle windscreen, and the visor on my helmet?

      During the spring and summer, I have to wipe my helmet on a daily basis.

      I just have my pet bat on a sort of little balcony attached to the front of my helmet. He gobbles up all the bugs.

  14. Bugs on a plane by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Got it. Bugs in the airplane's airflow decrease fuel economy, but aren't considered a safety concern.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Bugs on a plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugs on a sailplane are considered a competitive disadvantage in racing.

    2. Re:Bugs on a plane by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Got it. Bugs in the airplane's airflow decrease fuel economy, but aren't considered a safety concern.

      Safety my first thought, but in respect to the stealth aircraft, and it's pilots. Missions launched from the U.S. to say Iraq, they should accumulate a lot of bugs, - I did check, Hemolymph being a copper-based protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., not so stealthy when they arrive at their destination. I know they also fly patterns to avoid areas known to have radar coverage, but those times they are in an area of radar coverage.

      "May Berenbaum says pilots have long known insects can fly very high." http://www.npr.org/sections/kr... with the bumblebees as high as 18,000ft, so many that from China to the U.S. "They are likely to be burning a ton of energy to maintain flight." http://www.independent.co.uk/n... (Kool picture of a Bumblebee about to get high).

      So maybe it's already been done (finding a way to reduce bug splatter), but would be a security risk if revealed, as anything to do with the Stealth aircraft is.

    3. Re:Bugs on a plane by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Stealth" aircraft are only stealthy at certain frequencies and certain angles, plus they have a nasty tendency to be Hangar Queens.

      The F-35 sticks out like dogs bollocks once you're 35 degrees off the nose (ie, no stealth at all) and the B2 was happily tracked right across England by the RAF's radar system (Both are totally visible to russian VHF radar and Over-horizon systems like Australia's Jindalee)

      The intent of "stealth" aircraft is to get past local defences before they're noticed. Even mach 6 SAMs have trouble catching up to the tailpipe of a passing B2, but the whole model falls apart if the defence systems are regionally networked such that missile systems ahead of the aircraft can be directed by radar systems behind it.

  15. Help me with the puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Under every summary, there's a small puzzle of colored blocks. Looks like it says "bird fucking", but I don't get it.

    1. Re:Help me with the puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CAN NOT UNSEE.

    2. Re:Help me with the puzzle by Amouth · · Score: 1

      That is awesome, truly awesome

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Help me with the puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God, that was beautiful.

      Already +5 funny, wasting another point anyway.

    4. Re:Help me with the puzzle by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Spoiler: put the bird at the end. Fucking twit.

    5. Re:Help me with the puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, programs like AdBlock Plus can also block those stupid social trackers. Just use it and you don't have those silly blocks show up.

  16. The Israelis have developed a similar compound... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they use it on their tanks to reduce the incidence of Palestinian children's guts sticking to their tracks....

  17. Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How well does this new coating work on drones that douchebags like to fly around airports?

  18. And in other news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ticket prices have now gone up by 20% due to debugging.

    Oh, and there was also a storm in Algeria, so we need to bump it up another 20%.

    Oh, and an 8 year old killed and ant with a laser pointer in Boston... so there's another 20%....

    etc.

  19. So if ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... bug parts detract from aircrafts' ability to fly, then how do bugs fly at all.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:So if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to see a splattered bug get up and fly away. QED.

    2. Re:So if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugs fly because they are whole. Once they are in parts, they don't fly so well anymore.

  20. Mayday! Mayday! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    I've been binge-watching Mayday (a.k.a. Air Crash Investigations), and I have not seen a single episode where bug splatter on the wings brought down a plane. There was one episode where a spider built a nest in the pitot tube, but nothing with the wings. They would be far better off developing anti-ice coating. Ice brings down planes on a regular basis.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  21. citation please by swell · · Score: 1

    I see no evidence that anyone has studied the additional drag caused by bug debris. Lots of study given to a cure, none for the 'problem'. Exactly how much drag do they cause? Perhaps they should start with an analysis of the golf ball. All those distortions on the surface that we call 'dimples'. They must cause a great deal of drag that prevents long distances being reached. Oh, wait...

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:citation please by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      No evidence other than the fact that the summary and article indicate a 5% loss of efficiency due to bug debris? Or are you accusing NASA of just pulling an arbitrary number out of their asses? Hmm... who to believe...

      And I'll bet no one has thought of dimpling an airplane wing before. Oh, wait...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:citation please by swell · · Score: 1

      Sorry, still don't see any evidence of research. It's a slightly interesting link but lacking anything but an assertion. If you have the citation, show it.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    3. Re:citation please by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Golfballs are rotating and the dimples help create lift by breaking up the turbulent flow at the rear of a spherical ball (This is more related to small scale bluff body aerodynamics than aerofoils)

      Aircraft wings are not rotating, nor do they have spherical trailing edges.

      A sharkskin covering might help make wings "slicker" by easing transition layer drag but we're a long way away from the materials science needed to make one which is both straightforward to apply and which will stay in place for prolonged periods.

      Highly polished leading edges have been known to help for a long time but those are labor-intensive to maintain.

  22. Bugs by quenda · · Score: 2

    I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!

    1. Re:Bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to know more.

  23. 5% seems really unlikely by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    There is some loss of laminar flow, but 5% seems wildly optimistic for eliminating bugs under any normal sort of operation. I only fly piston planes so maybe someone flying jets can comment, but 5% is enough to affect your fuel reserve calculations and I've never heard of a "bug" correction.

  24. Microsoft will love this.. by miknix · · Score: 1

    .. by coating Windows with this new product will finally make it the OS people have been waiting for!!! :D

  25. Re:The Israelis have developed a similar compound. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually after the IED that the terrorists strapped to the children explodes there's not enough of the children left to impede the tanks (or ambulances, aid trucks, buses, family cars, etc. whatever it is they were trying to blow up). Most Palestinian children have enough common sense to stay away from tanks anyway, it's only the idiotic adult terrorists that might have the problem you mentioned.

  26. How about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Stopping Bugs from being hit by planes in the first place?

  27. "Eating your words" != GOOD nutrition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)

    Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    &

    MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    Tells us, omniweasel:

    * HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?

    LMAO...

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    &

    Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk

  28. "Eating your words" != GOOD nutrition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)

    See subject: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    &

    MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    Tells us, omniweasel:

    * HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?

    LMAO...

    Additionally - have some manners!

    It's NOT POLITE to talk with your mouth full as you "eat your words" quoted above after all that proof to the contrary from reputable sources.

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly: You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    &

    Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk