Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
The Self cleaning planes proposal is very interesting, however the judges decided not to advance this proposal for 2 main reasons:
1. This is not a particularly novel. Indeed there has been considerable research on this since the 1970/80s - the judges advise the author to refer to papers such as Croom, C. C., & Holmes, B. J. (1986). Insect contamination protection for laminar flow surfaces. This paper highlights the infeasibility of carrying such larges volumes of water, relating to the second reason below.
2. The judges were unsure of the 1% fuel benefit claim and felt that further investigation would be needed. They consider that the amount of water that needs to be carried for such an intensive, all-aircraft cleaning mechanism would outweigh the benefits of the cleaning mechanism itself!
Although the concept is potentially feasible, given the lack of perceived impact and the novelty factor, the judges decided against advancing this proposal.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Congratulations! Your proposal, Self Cleaning Planes in the Aviation contest, has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.
You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from now until June 15th 2016.
We’ve also included ratings and feedback that will be posted to the “Evaluation Results” section of your proposal. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round. We also ask that you summarize the changes that you make on the Evaluation tab to help us understand what you have changed. Your proposal will be evaluated on what is on the description tab, so please make sure all new and updated information is included there. As you make revisions, we recommend you save an offline copy as a backup, as the site will log you off after 30 minutes.
Judges comments:
- The judges felt that this proposal was unique, but may not have a significant impact. They agree that bugs and other aerodynamic issues may have a drag penalty and the impact is indeed around 1%. However, there were some concerns as to the prospected fuel savings from using this technology and also the weight penalty from using the cleaning devices.
- The proposal could consider alternative means such as better materials. Another issue that could improve fuel savings further is to mitigate icing on the wings and engine that can ruin the aerodynamic performance of commercial aircraft.
At the revision deadline, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.
Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!
Sincerely,
Contest Judges
1comment
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Aadhithya Sujith Jun 13, 2016 11:41  | Proposal creator I have revised my proposal taking into account various suggestions by the esteem jury, I have also investigated the alternative use of better materials, coatings and added the merits and de merits of the same. I have also incorporated de icing technology with the proposed self cleaning system of the plane so that in addition to bug gut and dirt cleaning the proposed system can also remove icing on the wings, currently it is labor intensive process to de ice a plane with chemicals and man power. So my proposed concept can add additional value and more prospected fuel savings from using this technology adding value to the concept and justifying the small increment in weight and cost. |
