“Concepts considered included alternative aircraft configurations such as the blended wing body and the laminar flying wing, and the use of an unducted fan (open rotor) power plant. The study concluded that these two aircraft concepts could offer significant fuel burn reduction potential compared with a conventional aircraft design carrying an equivalent payload. Other studies (Leifsson and Mason, 2005) have suggested similar results.”
What are the other studies? Leifsson and Mason is referenced as:
Leifsson, L.T. and W.H. Mason, 2005: The Blended Wing Body Aircraft, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA, accessed 30/05/07.
Virginia Tech, not bad. Until you look at the paper. It is only three pages long, unless you include the pictures pasted in, then it is eight. There are only six references, and four of them are for the five pages of pictures. Of the two real references, one is a presentation the authors gave at a conference.
Read the paper. It isn’t in a journal, it isn’t a PHD or Master’s Thesis, it isn’t a ‘study’ at all. I don’t know why it was written. I’ve contacted the author, and have not received a response.
When the IPCC says “Other studies have suggested similar results” what they mean is they found a paper that said what they wanted. Except, it only says half of what they wanted. They say, “the use of an unducted fan (open rotor) power plant” is one of “these two aircraft concepts could offer significant fuel burn reduction potential“. This study doesn’t mention anything about that at all. As far as I can tell (comment if you think I’m wrong) there is no original research in this three page paper at all.
Why even include this ‘other study’? The original study was done by the group Greener by Design. Here is the original study they were backing up:
GbD, 2001: The Technology Challenge. Greener by Design, accessed 30/05/07.
Not actually a study either, although if you go on their site they have far more in depth information than the Virginia Tech ‘study’. Perhaps simply citing a group with Green in their name didn’t sound official enough, they had to reference ‘Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’.
I’m not claiming that the figures the IPCC gives are wrong. I’m just showing, again, that those who claim the IPCC is the gold standard are only kidding themselves. That paper wouldn’t have a dream of being published in any journal, yet the IPCC calls it a ‘study’ and cites it. That’s just plain lazy, at best, and downright devious otherwise. They are either incompetent or misleading. Maybe both.