Copying Birds May Save Aircraft Fuel

Both Boeing and Airbus have trumpeted the efficiency of their newest aircraft, the 787 and A350 respectively. Their clever designs and lightweight composites certainly make a difference. But a group of researchers at Stanford University, led by Ilan Kroo, has suggested that airlines could take a more naturalistic approach to cutting jet-fuel use and it would not require them to buy new aircraft.

The answer, says Dr. Kroo, lies with birds. Since 1914, scientists have known that birds flying in formation—a V-shape—expend less energy. The air flowing over a bird’s wings curls upwards behind the wingtips, a phenomenon known as upwash. Other birds flying in the upwash experience reduced drag, and spend less energy propelling themselves. Peter Lissaman, an aeronautics expert who was formerly at Caltech and the University of Southern California, has suggested that a formation of 25 birds might enjoy a range increase of 71%.

When applied to aircraft, the principles are not substantially different. Dr. Kroo and his team modelled what would happen if three passenger jets departing from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas were to assemble over Utah, assume an inverted V-formation, occasionally change places so all could have a turn in the most favorable positions, and proceed to London. They found that the aircraft consumed as much as 15% less fuel (coupled with a reduction in carbon-dioxide output). Nitrogen-oxide emissions during the cruising portions of the flight fell by around a quarter.

There are, of course, knots to be worked out. One consideration is safety, or at least the perception of it. Would passengers feel comfortable travelling in companion? Dr. Kroo points out that the aircraft could be separated by several nautical miles, and would not be in the intimate groupings favored by display teams like the Red Arrows. A passenger peering out of the window might not even see the other planes. Whether the separation distances involved would satisfy air-traffic-control regulations is another matter, although a working group at the International Civil Aviation Organization has included the possibility of formation flying in a blueprint for new operational guidelines.

It remains to be seen how weather conditions affect the air flows that make formation flight more efficient. In zones of increased turbulence, the planes’ wakes will decay more quickly and the effect will diminish. Dr. Kroo says this is one of the areas his team will investigate further. It might also be hard for airlines to co-ordinate the departure times and destinations of passenger aircraft in a way that would allow them to gain from formation flight. Cargo aircraft, in contrast, might be easier to reschedule, as might routine military flights.

As it happens, America’s armed forces are on the case already. Earlier this year the country’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced plans to pay Boeing to investigate formation flight, though the programme has yet to begin. There are reports that some military aircraft flew in formation when they were low on fuel during the Second World War, but Dr. Lissaman says they are unsubstantiated. “My father was an RAF pilot and my cousin the skipper of a Lancaster lost over Berlin,” he adds. So he should know.

“Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here,” wrote the Victorian sage Thomas Carlyle. Well, not any more it is not.

Suddenly, Britain looks to have fallen out with its favourite historical form. This could be no more than a passing literary craze, but it also points to a broader truth about how we now approach the past: less concerned with learning from our forefathers and more interested in feeling their pain. Today, we want empathy, not inspiration.

From the earliest days of the Renaissance, the writing of history meant recounting the exemplary lives of great men. In 1337, Petrarch began work on his rambling writing De Viris Illustribus—On Famous Men, highlighting the virtus (or virtue) of classical heroes. Petrarch celebrated their greatness in conquering fortune and rising to the top. This was the biographical tradition which Niccolò Machiavelli turned on its head. In The Prince, he championed cunning, ruthlessness, and boldness, rather than virtue, mercy and justice, as the skills of successful leaders.

Over time, the attributes of greatness shifted. The Romantics commemorated the leading painters and authors of their day, stressing the uniqueness of the artist’s personal experience rather than public glory. By contrast, the Victorian author Samuel Smiles wrote Self-Help as a catalogue of the worthy lives of engineers, industrialists and explorers. “The valuable examples which they furnish of the power of self-help, of patient purpose, resolute working, and steadfast integrity, issuing in the formation of truly noble and manly character, exhibit,” wrote Smiles, “what it is in the power of each to accomplish for himself.” His biographies of James Watt, Richard Arkwright and Josiah Wedgwood were held up as beacons to guide the working man through his difficult life.

This was all a bit bourgeois for Thomas Carlyle, who focused his biographies on the truly heroic lives of Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte. These epochal figures represented lives hard to imitate, but to be acknowledged as possessing higher authority than mere mortals.

Not everyone was convinced by such bombast. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” wrote Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. For them, history did nothing, it possessed no immense wealth nor waged battles: “It is man, real, living man who does all that.” And history should be the story of the masses and their record of struggle. As such, it needed to appreciate the economic realities, the social contexts and power relations in which each epoch stood. For: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past.”

This was the tradition which revolutionized our appreciation of the past. In place of Thomas Carlyle, Britain nurtured Christopher Hill, EP Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm. History from below stood alongside biographies of great men. Whole new realms of understanding—from gender to race to cultural studies—were opened up as scholars unpicked the multiplicity of lost societies. And it transformed public history too: downstairs became just as fascinating as upstairs.

The hugely popular blog the Skint Foodie chronicles how Tony balances his love of good food with living on benefits. After bills, Tony has £60 a week to spend, £40 of which goes on food, but 10 years ago he was earning £130,000 a year working in corporate communications and eating at London’s best restaurants at least twice a week. Then his marriage failed, his career burned out and his drinking became serious. “The community mental health team saved my life. And I felt like that again, to a certain degree, when people responded to the blog so well. It gave me the validation and confidence that I’d lost. But it’s still a day-by-day thing.” Now he’s living in a council flat and fielding offers from literary agents. He’s feeling positive, but he’ll carry on blogging—not about eating as cheaply as you can—“there are so many people in a much worse state, with barely any money to spend on food”—but eating well on a budget. Here’s his advice for economical foodies.

41. Impulsive spending isn’t an option, so plan your week’s menu in advance, making shopping lists for your ingredients in their exact quantities. I have an Excel template for a week of breakfast, lunch and dinner. Stop laughing: it’s not just cost effective but helps you balance your diet. It’s also a good idea to shop daily instead of weekly, because, being human, you’ll sometimes change your mind about what you fancy.

42. This is where supermarkets and their anonymity come in handy. With them, there’s not the same embarrassment as when buying one carrot in a little greengrocer. And if you plan properly, you’ll know that you only need, say, 350g of shin of beef and six rashers of bacon, not whatever weight is pre-packed in the supermarket chiller.

43. You may proudly claim to only have frozen peas in the freezer—that’s not good enough. Mine is filled with leftovers, bread, stock, meat and fish. Planning ahead should eliminate wastage, but if you have surplus vegetables you’ll do a vegetable soup, and all fruits threatening to “go off” will be cooked or juiced.

44. Everyone says this, but it really is a top tip for frugal eaters. Shop at butchers, delis and fish-sellers regularly, even for small things, and be super friendly. Soon you’ll feel comfortable asking if they’ve any knuckles of ham for soups and stews, or beef bones, chicken carcasses and fish heads for stock which, more often than not, they’ll let you have for free.

45. You won’t be eating out a lot, but save your pennies and once every few months treat yourself to a set lunch at a good restaurant—£1.75 a week for three months gives you £21—more than enough for a three-course lunch at Michelin-starred Arbutus. It’s £16.95 there—or £12.99 for a large pizza from Domino’s: I know which I’d rather eat.