Hacker News Reader

Comment by massenpunkt | Hacker News Reader

Some more technical information: https://cleantechhub.lufthansagroup.com/en/focus-areas/aircr...

Most relevant part: “By applying a total of 950 square meters of AeroSHARK riblet film to the fuselage and engine nacelle surfaces of a Boeing 777, fuel savings of approximately 1.1 percent can be achieved.”

Seems hardly worth it ? 1.1%? What about the cost of application and maintenance ? I’m guessing it’s plastic too, which will pollute the environment somehow.

The plane can carry 45,000 gallons of fuel. 2.1 bucks a gallon. So probably 500 bucks of savings a flight since most flights arent full capacity. 130k flights in '23. So ez 65 million in savings a year.

Worth doing for the environment even if it's cost neutral probably.

What are the effects of this stuff on the environment ?

I’m not saying this is a negative , just that plastic pollution is a huge issue , I can’t see this stuff making the situation much better.

There’s a cost/benefit ratio chart in that link from GP comment.

The ROI appears to be 2 years. Considering the application is relatively easy, this looks like a good deal for airlines.

Very interested to understand what the maintenance would be like, are these thing essentially industrial grade stickers?

Expectation of success or profit = P(success)reward - P(failure)penalty - opportunity cost (TCO)

Supposed these panels were $100k/plane.

Jet fuel costs $0.36/lbs and a 777 burns about 30 lbs/nm in cruise. Suppose a 777 averages 14,000 nm/day. That's 420,000 lbs/day or $151,200/day. 1% savings would be $1,512/day, so the break even point would be roughly 2 months and would be profitable from then on. Suppose a 2 year lifecycle. That a savings $500k per year per plane.

Put a little more thought and data into your comments if you would be so kind.

Edit after-the-fact

P(success)*reward - P(failure)*penalty - opportunity cost (TCO)

Your back of the envelope calculation is off by over 10x, so I'm not sure it's him that needs to put more thought into their comments.

That provides more information (and visuals) on the technology itself.

I've spent a few minutes looking for imagery of the film itself, sufficient to show details. There's surprisingly little, and I suspect the manufacturer doesn't want visual details of the skin itself available.

There's a schematic in the link below, which also shows the contrast of the AEROShark film to actual shark skin. The film is more grooves than scales, for those curious.

<https://swiss.newsmarket.com/english/press-releases/swiss-ad...>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com