JAL Fuel Savings

aloha · 01-17-2002, 12:30 PM

SCRATCH THE PAINT: After nearly 10 years of studying the performance of
an unpainted 747 cargo plane, Japan Airlines says it's found that it's
cheaper to operate and more environmentally friendly than the painted
version. The company reported that it saved about $15,000 per year in
fuel expenses because the plane is lighter. JAL says it plans to begin
flying unpainted passenger planes sometime in the future.

Stanman · 01-17-2002, 06:39 PM

Any idea of what the "unpainted" scheme will look like? Wondering if it'll be kind of like the present without the eurowhite bits.

Travelin' Man · 01-17-2002, 07:05 PM

I suspect it will be green and tan. Maybe American Airlines is on to something here with the metal fuselage lookie. But I have to tell you - $15,000 a year is not much savings considering the total amount of fuel for an entire year.

ZX1100F1 · 01-17-2002, 07:49 PM

I just read that: JAL just completed another study that could save as much as 15% in fuel expense (across the board).
They discovered that if they tape a magnet to the primary fuel line it changes the molecular structure of the fuel causing the engine to substantially reduce it’s burn rate.

Next week they’re trying out the Tornado® (as seen on TV)

Speaking of American Airlines, They discovered (back in 79 @ ORD) that removing an engine from a DC-10 saves about 30% in fuel. They also discovered a couple of adverse side effects (serious reduction in passenger comfort levels).

tdh8192 · 01-17-2002, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aloha
...The company reported that it saved about $15,000 per year in
fuel expenses because the plane is lighter...

...which is probably more than offset by increased maintenance costs for an all-metal finish.

Wingman · 01-18-2002, 12:00 PM

Pick-up the latest issue of 'Airliners' magazine, with the Frontier cover-story. In the Q&A section, someone asks about the pros and cons of an all-metal finish v. a painted fuselage.

Travelin' Man · 01-18-2002, 01:38 PM

Dave -

You have to remember that American Airlines 2 engine DC-10 experiment in 1977 led to what we now know as the two engine widebody jets of today. Most notable the 777, and 767 family of aircraft. Anything from Airbus with 2 engines is just a rip off of American designs so they do not count!

AirDar · 01-18-2002, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travelin' Man
Anything from Airbus with 2 engines is just a rip off of American designs so they do not count!

...It now seems that Airbus and AA are now trying to do the DC-10 findings one better by experimenting with a 'bus sans vertical stabilizer. I hear the weight savings is greater than found with the 2 engine DC-10, but the neighbors living in the flight path say it's unbearably noisy and it's wake leaves the neighborhood in a terrible mess.

ZX1100F1 · 01-18-2002, 05:20 PM

Both of you are correct!
However, I didn't realize that AA was responsible for the advent of the modern (Boeing all the way baby) Twin-Engine Widebodies. (Perfectly logical, I should have known this)

Isn't it interesting how American Airlines has changed their fuel savings strategies?
In the late 70’s they simply removed the item that was burning the fuel but in the 21st century they have resorted (in an effort to reduce drag I am assuming) to eliminating relatively low weight composite parts of the aircraft (the vertical stabilizer) and then take it a step further and elliminate both motors.
The amazing part of this is that: it appeared to have had no adverse effect on the performance of the Airbus. (The plane flew out of control and crashed as usual)

01-17-2002, 12:30 PM	#1
aloha Senior Collector Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 433	JAL Fuel Savings SCRATCH THE PAINT: After nearly 10 years of studying the performance of an unpainted 747 cargo plane, Japan Airlines says it's found that it's cheaper to operate and more environmentally friendly than the painted version. The company reported that it saved about $15,000 per year in fuel expenses because the plane is lighter. JAL says it plans to begin flying unpainted passenger planes sometime in the future.

01-17-2002, 07:49 PM	#4
ZX1100F1 Buford T. Justice Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 2,004	Answer man I just read that: JAL just completed another study that could save as much as 15% in fuel expense (across the board). They discovered that if they tape a magnet to the primary fuel line it changes the molecular structure of the fuel causing the engine to substantially reduce it’s burn rate. Next week they’re trying out the Tornado® (as seen on TV) Speaking of American Airlines, They discovered (back in 79 @ ORD) that removing an engine from a DC-10 saves about 30% in fuel. They also discovered a couple of adverse side effects (serious reduction in passenger comfort levels).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

01-17-2002, 06:39 PM	#2
Stanman Senior Collector Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: Waxahachie, Texas, USA Posts: 426	Any idea of what the "unpainted" scheme will look like? Wondering if it'll be kind of like the present without the eurowhite bits.

01-17-2002, 07:05 PM	#3
Travelin' Man Insane Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Aspen USA!!! Posts: 1,919	I suspect it will be green and tan. Maybe American Airlines is on to something here with the metal fuselage lookie. But I have to tell you - $15,000 a year is not much savings considering the total amount of fuel for an entire year.

01-18-2002, 12:00 PM	#6
Wingman Registered User Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Bangor, ME Age: 34 Posts: 429	Pick-up the latest issue of 'Airliners' magazine, with the Frontier cover-story. In the Q&A section, someone asks about the pros and cons of an all-metal finish v. a painted fuselage.

01-18-2002, 01:38 PM	#7
Travelin' Man Insane Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Aspen USA!!! Posts: 1,919	Dave - You have to remember that American Airlines 2 engine DC-10 experiment in 1977 led to what we now know as the two engine widebody jets of today. Most notable the 777, and 767 family of aircraft. Anything from Airbus with 2 engines is just a rip off of American designs so they do not count!

01-18-2002, 05:20 PM	#9
ZX1100F1 Buford T. Justice Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 2,004	Both of you are correct! However, I didn't realize that AA was responsible for the advent of the modern (Boeing all the way baby) Twin-Engine Widebodies. (Perfectly logical, I should have known this) Isn't it interesting how American Airlines has changed their fuel savings strategies? In the late 70’s they simply removed the item that was burning the fuel but in the 21st century they have resorted (in an effort to reduce drag I am assuming) to eliminating relatively low weight composite parts of the aircraft (the vertical stabilizer) and then take it a step further and elliminate both motors. The amazing part of this is that: it appeared to have had no adverse effect on the performance of the Airbus. (The plane flew out of control and crashed as usual)