I’ve heard that the paint on planes is a factor in both weight and drag.
If this wastes fuel, and by extension create unnecessary high level pollution, what sort of weight is involved and what sort of waste is involved? And are there any organizations that object to this? Greenpeace or whoever nags the international conscience.
Not sure about a commercial airliner but the leaving the paint off the Shuttle’s external fuel tank (airplane size) saved 600lbs of weight. Cite.
I don’t have an answer for you but I understand that they are pretty careful to keep the planes clean as the grime adds up to increased costs on fuel and all that. That probably means that paint is equally significant. I miss polished metal planes, anyways. I hope you are right and they do something about it 
Supposedly the reason that American Airlines planes are largely unpainted is because of the weight savings.
I can’t immagine that paint has a significantly higher relative roughness than polished metal. Paint is heavy, but I just can’t see it affecting the drag much.
When I was working in Weights at The World’s Second-Best-Selling Commercial Jet Airplane Company, one of my co-workers said that the paint wieghed about 800 pounds; this would be on a medium-sized airliner.
This is some information from Boeing on aircraft finishes.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html
If you scroll down to Table 1 you can see that a fully painted B747’s paint weighs 550 lbs.
It also discusses the pros and cons of painted versus polished aircraft.
A fully loaded 747 has a max takeoff weight at about 750,000 lbs. I wouldn’t think that 550 lbs would be a big concern but, of course, there are other issues like aerodynamics, image, and maintenance to take into account.
I just want to point out that that was a cool link. I never would have imagined that paint on an airplane would be that interesting, but I thought the explanations and options were fascinating. And 550 pounds for a huge 747-400 seems like nothing. Think how much the paint on your house weighs. I bet my house has more paint (by weight) than a 747. Too cool.
Bombardier?
:: d&r ::
550 ponds?
Considering the average weight of most Americans these days, an airline need only not sell two tickets per painted plane and call it even.
Weightwise, yes. But that’s two tickets’ worth of revenue.
I strongly suspect that in the past the weight may have been greater – that modern paint technologies allow better coverage with thinnner coats. Of course, with the next generation of planes making even greater use of composite materials, one could eventually pre-color the plane at the factory; the problem would be what happens when the airplane (or the whole airline) gets sold to someone else…
Have you ever stripped your house before repainting it? It won’t be long until your front reaches the street with all the coats of paint we keep piling on top of each other.
Airlines figure out how much they’ll save by eliminating magazines, for crying out loud. That 550 pounds on every flight adds up when your margins are as razor thin as airlines’. Some airlines are now going to charge for more than one checked bag! We can gripe and bitch about airfares, but they’re cheap if you plan ahead, and the margins are next to nothing.
Note that a 747 has a lower surface area/passenger ratio than most airliners, so smaller airplanes, while carrying less paint, carry more per fare.
On the composite construction note: Production (vs homebuilt) composite aircraft (and AFAIK all boats) are literally built from the paint in. The first step in building a component for a modern sailplane is to spray the gel-coat (an epoxy based paint, basically) into the mold. The structural support is then layered onto the the paint. Yes they can be refinished, but it is an expensive process which starts with sanding/grinding down to the first layer of fibre reinforcement.
I remember seeing a news article last spring when the gas prices were taking off - Air Canada was stripping the paint off all of its planes to save money.