Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by pcurve | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pcurve·

2200 ton saved for 12 planes is about 1.5milliom usd

Each 777 can carry about 150 ton of fuel.

So they got about 15 fill ups free

View on HN

It might even compound. Ie if because of the sharkskin you have to take less fuel onboard, then the plane will be lighter and you will consume even less fuel. On long distance flights a significant portion of total plane weight is fuel.

Add the opportunity cost of grounding the plane for about a month to apply the coat, plus the cost of the coating. It can easily outweigh the savings or push the ROI to over many years.

LOL 1 month and minimal costs, for years of reduced fuel costs, someone did the calc above and its ~35m in savings a year seems worth it to me given they list the ROI of the film at 2 years.

> a month.

No, It says a week in the article.

“Each aircraft takes about a week to have its AeroSHARK film applied, which requires high-precision workmanship from our personnel.”

Yeah but planes fly a lot over the span of 25 years or so; granted, they need to be repainted every once in a while. It does add up, is all I'm saying.

That sounds like at least a percent or two in savings per year, which is not too shabby.

BASF quotes 1-1.5%, which is pretty damn good for a one-time, low-cost application.

I guess Swiss is Lufthansa's test before rolling it out to the rest of the group's brands.

Yep - the more detailed page on the Lufthansa site states a 777 sees a 1% reduction in aerodynamic drag (it's a bit less for a 747 at 0.8%)

Still solid for a application thats probably relatively cheap and has a 2 year ROI for ongoing savings

Reply on news.ycombinator.com