Don't you think Airplanes shoud also be more fuel efficient? It does not have to be a crazy glider which cannot travel at 200 mph and uses no fuel, but do you not think that this could also help the rate of increase of oil prices?

As others have mentioned, fuel efficiency IS an issue. There is, however, another hurdle. The FAA. While the FAA's rules and regulations have made aviation in the US the safest in the world, it also has hampered new technology. Without getting into a long-winded discussion of how, let me just summarize with the example that the style of engines that are being used in brand new Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc aircraft have been used since the 1950s.

There are a number of reasons for this. The first I've already alluded to, that is FAA regulation. It is extremely costly to do all of the required tests to satisfy the FAA. Consider the case of the Beech Starship, the first production aircraft to use composite materials. By the time the FAA was "satisfied" with the design, it was way over weight and no longer competitive. It nearly bankrupted Beech. 5-10 years later, after further research into composites, it was found that the extra reinforcing was unnecessary - hence the current lightweight composite aircraft.

There is another big reason why engine technology has not changed, and that is best summarized by what a Continnental (engine manufacturer) rep told someone I know: "Because people still buy the old technology". There's no point in companies going to the expenses of certifying a new engine if people still buy the old style.

Beyond that, cost is a huge factor. Any new technology is going to have the associated price tag, and despite the common misconception that most pilots are rich playboys, infact the average pilot you find at the average airport is instead a middle class person just trying to enjoy a fun and exciting hobby.

However, there have been great improvements to fuel economy in aircraft. For example, on basically the same engine, a Mooney goes around 150 kts versus a Piper Arrow at around 120 kts. This is purely on aerodynamics and making a clean design. With the new lightweight composites and computer modeling, there are many aircraft that do even better.

So, there have been things done to improve fuel economy, unfortunately it all costs money. And, chances are, if you did the economics of using more fuel, even at the current $4-5/gal price tag, versus spending 10s or 100s of thousands for the more fuel efficient technology, you'd find it cheaper to just burn a bit more fuel.
yeah im pretty sure it will we should use a oil I heard about.
GE is making more efficient jet engines, but they cost alot so their intro will be slow.
That may help, but cars, powerplants, heating and other stuff alike is more signifficant to this matter (I'm just guessing)
Like many problems in engineering, there isn't one correct solution. There are many solutions which are 'good enough'.

You can make airplanes more fuel-efficient, but they will cost more to build, so you'll have to sell them at a higher price. This means airlines won't buy as many of your planes (or any at all). Even if you manage to sell your advanced plane for cheap, the cost of maintaining and flying it must be less than the amount of money costumers are willing to pay to fly on it, otherwise the airlines will become bankrupt.

Even so, airplanes have been becoming more efficient (lower drag, higher efficiency engines, etc.) since the airplane was invented.
Fuel efficiency is the number one objective for airplane manufacturers. Everything going into an airplane needs to consider the weight it will add to the aircraft which has a direct impact on the amount of fuel it will need. ...which has a direct impact on how expensive the plane is to run, how profitable the owner can be, etc. Even the amount of paint you can add to an aircraft can add a significant amount of weight! (Ever wonder why most airplanes are bare metal??)
Yes, fortunately there has been major development in rubberband technology. Secret tests are underway for a Boeing 777 with rubberband propelled turbines.

The hurdle to overcome is the winding process. It is very tiring to the baggage handlers who have been assigned this task for no extra pay either.
Companies are already working on it, and airlines are buying it. Airbus designed the biggest and Boeing went fuel effecient and boeing has sold some 600 of the things already its the 787 made out of carbon fiber.
It is amazing to know that people still think that airplanes are fuel inefficient. Take the number of passengers it hauls and compute the fuel required to carry the same number of passengers in other modes of transport (except water) and you will find how efficient they really are. Now compare the time difference between these two hauls and put a value to that time and you will find the airplanes real effectiveness.

It is still the safest, most efficient mode of travel and it is getting better. Airplanes consume significantly less fossil fuel than the land vehicles collectively. You need to make the land vehicles more efficient if you are so concerned about fuel prices.

The answers post by the user, for information only, does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • What about a hybrid turbine car?
  • Machine element?
  • Can anyone give me info on robotics? I am wondering if it could be a future career for me.?
  • Potentiometer...?
  • Can crusher?
  • do slope, volume of flow, and streambed shape affect a river's speed?
  • How do i make solar power?
  • Safety: fix motor, hight voltage...?
  • How can i convert 100kva in in to amp please let me know the table of conversation thanks?
  • Describe the working of transistor switch in saturation.?