 |
 |
Airbus 380
| March 3rd, 2015 at 2:48:32 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Everything having to with technology is littered with such predictions.
It hasn't died, and there are cargo versions of it. I've seen several over the years, including rather recently a baby jumbo Air France Cargo in Guadalajara, and a full-size in Panalpina livery in Mex City. So that much they got right.
That should have happened.
That depends whether you count latter, bigger versions of the 747. Also non-passenger planes like the C-5 and the Antonov AN-2something. I wonder what the market would be for sub-orbital aircraft? They'd launch vertical like rockets, thrust on high G on a steep trajectory, briefly arch just outside the atmosphere, re-enter and glide to their destination. Ideally you could fly NYC to Tokyo in under 60 minutes. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| March 4th, 2015 at 7:25:04 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
I actually think the market for sub-orbital would be better than going at cruise speed: 1,320 mph and top speed: 1,354 mph like the Concorde. The reason I think that makes sense is the Concorde was competing against luxury travel for under 7 hours with a tiny seat that made it in 3.5 hours. The Concorde could never price a seat higher than first class full fare subsonic. But people have shown that they are willing to pay $250K to go nowhere on a suborbital trip. I think they would be happy to pay $300K initially to go somewhere and be suborpital. Eventually the price would have to come down, but I think it could level off at 3X a full fare first class ticket. |
| March 4th, 2015 at 7:38:48 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Consider right now the luggage allowance would be tiny, if there is one. You may not even be able to bring up a change of clothes.
The idea is to develop ever faster modes of transportation at a price competitive with a coach fare. Naturally even the development of a supersonic airliner with capacity for, oh, 250 passengers would be huge. Any company undertaking such an investment would want to sell thousands of planes. We'll have this eventually. Just perhaps not in my lifetime. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| March 4th, 2015 at 11:33:03 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
People that can pay $250K to fly for an hour to the edge of space can afford to buy or ship clothes.
If it cost $32 billion to develop the dreamliner with a seating capacity equivalent to the 767, but longer range and better fuel economy. I doubt that someone is going to develop supsersonic at coach fare. 9,520 km Boeing 767-300ER Madrid to Lima LAN Perú (217 seats) 11,057 km Boeing 787-8 San Francisco to Chengdu United Airlines (219 seats) 12,748 km Boeing 787-9 Los Angeles to Melbourne United Airlines (252 seats) More range, better fuel economy, but no substantive performance difference. |
| March 4th, 2015 at 11:57:40 AM permalink | |
| Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 241 Posts: 6108 |
When I flew from Aukland to Los Angeles there were a number of passengers staying on the same plane traveling to London. I was a little surprised that somebody flying from Aukland to London would travel eastbound. I meant to look up the distances when I got home, but forgot, until your post makes me think about it. Aukland to Los Angeles = 6510 miles Los Angeles to London = 5454 miles Total = 11,964 miles Aukland to London (directly) = 11,388 miles. So the stop in Los Angeles added only 576 miles. However the flight distance tool at travelmath.com shows a hypothetical direct flight would travel west bound and pretty much over the north pole. The only city reasonably on the way that Air New Zealand serves is Dubai. Here is those distances: Aukland to Dubai = 8826 miles Dubai to London = 3403 miles Total = 12,229 miles So, despite going in the right direction westbound, it is longer, because it wastes too much time traveling horizontally near the equator. Not that Air New Zealand flies to Moscow, but it would be a little quicker than going through LA. Aukland to Moscow = 10,060 miles (can planes even fly this far without refueling?) Moscow to London = 1,558 miles Total = 11,618 miles That is only 346 miles shorter than going through Los Angeles. Interesting how it is almost even whether to travel east or west. I guess is almost 180 degrees away in terms of latitude. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
| March 4th, 2015 at 12:43:20 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
And if it didn't cost that much to develop the Dreamliner? ;) Seriously, I don't expect the next SST for civilian use to be developed for anything other than the highest-end market, at first. In time the second-generation development will be cheaper. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| March 4th, 2015 at 12:44:31 PM permalink | |
| Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | A freight company in Minnesota still operates a DC-3, makes history with each flight. With electric planes and battery advances, what is the view of smaller airports, inner city airports, quiet operations |
| March 4th, 2015 at 2:39:39 PM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Auckland is slightly more than 5 degrees off of 180 degree. Zero degrees obviously goes through Greenwich, right outside of London. So the shortest distance is a polar route. The longest commercial flight of all time was 9,535 miles from Singapore to Newark NJ on Singapore Air. They ran the flight for 9 years, and finally Airbus agreed to buy back the planes and Singapore Air terminated the route. For the last 5 years they configured the plane with 100 business class seats, and the plane took off with 10X the weight of passengers plus luggage in fuel. So you are burning a lot of fuel to carry fuel. They now fly through Frankfurt (and use their 5th freedom to pick up Frankfurt to NYC passengers). The current longest commercial flight is 8,578 miles (Sydney to DFW). Dubai to Auckland nonstop would be a little longer at 8,833 miles, but Emirates puts Auckland on the tail end of three flights to Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney.Should Emirates decide to fly to Mexico City, that will be 8,914 miles. Routes usually become economic risks long before you hit the maximum range of the airframe. For one thing there are bad weather days, and luggage may have to be left behind to have enough fuel. The worst thing is when they decide en-route that they don't have enough fuel, and must make an unscheduled stop. The flights from LAX to HKG used to have to stop in Tapei on bad weather days (not any more). About two years ago, Qantas began stopping in Dubai on it's way to Europe (instead of Hong Kong or Singapore). It now runs the same route as Emirates, and is the only other airline to share Dubai's specially designed A380 concourse. But in general flights from Australia or New Zealand are more dependent on number of layovers and time of layovers. Flying to London via LAX means a single layover, while flying to australia first meant a second layover. Air New Zealand is considering using their new Dreamliners to expand beyond LAX. Las Vegas, Chicago, or Houston are the choices. London to Sydney is probably the longest flight that any airplane will ever be built to handle (10,588 miles). It is possible that there will be a special Airbus A350-900 XWB variant sold British Airways. If not then the 777x in 2020), may be able to do the flight. |
| March 5th, 2015 at 7:11:43 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
It's too bad there's no economical method for mid-flight refueling. The military has refined it to a high art form, but it's not economical. They use it to either extend the range, increase the take-off ordnance weight, or extend patrol times. Fuel cost isn't a consideration. It's just as well. Imagine all the usual nervous passengers thrust into a 40 minute period of unrelenting turbulence while their jumbo gulps from the tanker. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| March 5th, 2015 at 7:43:52 AM permalink | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |  El Al Israel Airlines advertisement titled ‘No Goose. No Gander’ was published circa 1957, indicating that their aircraft did not need to stop in Gander to refuel. There are only 5 airlines in the world with a flight over 8300 miles. I think they will simply wait until there is a plane that can fly the LHR to SYD route before they try in-air refueling. There are no flights not involving Northern America that are over 7300 miles. The European Airlines on't have to fly further than South America. Singapore, one of the most remote major cities in the world has given up all long haul flights over 7000 miles, and is now trying to make money from fifth freedom passengers.
Traditional break with ultra long haul flights (i.e. post 1976-77)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||