Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Science

Airplane Coatings Help Recoup Fuel Efficiency Lost To Bug Splatter 117

Posted by samzenpus 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airplane Coatings Help Recoup Fuel Efficiency Lost To Bug Splatter More

Airplane Coatings Help Recoup Fuel Efficiency Lost To Bug Splatter

Comments Filter:
  • It's called Teflon, unless I'm mistaken.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

  • thank you!!

  • Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ravenscar ( 1662985 ) on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:25PM (#50015105)

    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.

    • Re:Pneumatic bug launcher for the win! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday June 29, 2015 @06:53PM (#50015287) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mcrbids ( 148650 )

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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 !

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alioth ( 221270 )

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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lumpy ( 12016 )

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

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      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).

      • 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?

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

  • Sailplanes have used mechanical bug wipers for many years.

  • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      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 o

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alioth ( 221270 )

        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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jo_ham ( 604554 )

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jo_ham ( 604554 )

          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.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )

            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.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jo_ham ( 604554 )

              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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      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.

  • 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.

    • Re:Deicing? (Score:4, Informative)

      by occasional_dabbler ( 1735162 ) on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:47PM (#50015511)
      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.

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

  • 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?

  • 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.

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

    • 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/... [wikipedia.org], 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." htt [npr.org]

      • "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 h

  • Help me with the puzzle (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:02PM (#50015321)

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

  • So if ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:14PM (#50015657)

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

  • 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.

  • 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...

    • 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 [illinois.edu]. Oh, wait...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swell ( 195815 )

        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.

    • 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

  • Bugs (Score:3)

    by quenda ( 644621 ) on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @01:24AM (#50016827)

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

  • 5% seems really unlikely (Score:3)

    by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @01:40AM (#50016877)

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close