this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
26 points (90.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33377 readers
1926 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I think that the additional weight on the water on the surface of the outer airplane body increases friction with the air, and also weight of the aircraft. But does the fuel consumption increase? And by how much?

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Total guess but I imagine the increase in relative humidity impacts the combustion efficiency of the engine as well

[–] OldFartPhil@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Fun fact. In the days before high-bypass turbofan engines, water was deliberately injected into jet engines to cool down the combustion chamber and increase thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)#Use_in_aircraft

[–] Hobbes@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So they were part steam engine. Cool.

[–] OldFartPhil@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Never thought of it that way, but yeah, you could say that.

[–] chippy@murffys-place.club 1 points 2 years ago

Water injection is still used in some industrial gas turbines as a control for emissions, along with a modest increase in power. Steam injection is also used in some situations.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Damn what a rabbit hole and TIL

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Came here to write the same :)

I guess this effect is much stronger than a few raindrops on the surface.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

If you consider the fuselage a cylinder and calculate the surface area of the lateral surface it’s 2pir*h. this site has the length as 209.08ft and the diameter as 20.3. That means the fuselage surface area is about 13300ft^2. That same site lists the wing surface area as 4605ft^2, for a total of 17905 square. Assuming an 1/8” of water accumulates uniformly, which is a bad assumption, that’s 2238 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot weighs about 62 pounds, so that much water weighs 136000 pounds. The normal takeoff weight of a 777 is 534000 pounds, yeah that is a lot. However, only about half the surface area is exposed to rain and 1/8 inch is a lot. Id imagine it’s less than half that weight.

[–] freecandy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thats like 2.5 times the weight of fuel when full. Math is bad

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s the upper bound of a plane fully covered with an eighth inch of water. Reading is hard.

[–] freecandy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Youre probably the same kind of student I was. Shows that you know how to do the work, but don't care enough to actually find the right answer

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Hell yes lol nailed it. I feel seen

[–] all-knight-party@kbin.cafe 1 points 2 years ago

I'm even worse at math than either of you, what's bad here?

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I appreciate this answer. The other posts showing the math are still cool, but in theory I could do it myself.

You highlighted shit that wouldn't occur to me.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I don’t know much about it myself, but I would guess it is negligible. Maybe for small propeller machines with a fairly limited amount of fuel capacity; but larger planes, especially commercial ones, have reserve fuel for quite some time.

Situations where landing at the destination is temporarily unavailable, air traffic requires the plane to circle for some time, or they are even rerouted to a different airport can always occur and are accounted for. A minor increase from rainfall shouldn’t make a dent. I would think.