Future Planes

[Marc]

I'd like to see a plane like Fireflash from (G. Anderson's) Thunderbirds be built.

Wasn't that powered by a nuclear reactor like the Thunderbirds themselves? I sort of remember a cutaway diagram from Century 21 magazine showing that. Nuclear-powered aircraft -- very retro.

Ah, here we are:

http://lester.demon.nl/superm/tbirds/fireflash.html

The also the aircraft designed in "Alias Mr Hackenbacker" that seemed to have a more conventional fuel system - similar to the Fireflash in looks but the fuel cell was eject-able (had it's own rocket motors and self destruct capability).

 

[Marc]

Please note the rise of the twin-jet long-haul wide body airliners (the Boeing 777 as a case in point) in all but the longest routes..they cost less per mile/passenger than most of the quad-jet airliners flying today... and they are flying all over the world. Just 45 years ago, ALL long haul airliners were quad-jets.

Though part of that could of been the engine design - one engine on the 777 has more thrust than two units an a 747 combined.

I'm assuming your comment about the 777s and cost on all but the longest routes refers to the issue of the amount fuel they can carry and the balance between fuel/range and the point at which they start burning a large amount of fuel just to carry the fuel?

 

[STR]

The big problem with a commercial flying wing is that, to use the maximum available cabin space, you’d have passenger seating at a considerable distance from the aircraft’s centerline. In a normal banked turn, the effect for passengers in the most outboard seats would be like sitting at the ends of a very long seesaw. Maybe those seats could be reserved for the more adventurous passengers!

If the turns are coordinated, any passengers not looking out a window shouldn't be able to tell anything is happening, except, perhaps, for a slight increase in G forces. Uncoordinated turns, I agree, would be a problem for passengers.

Actually, what's kept the blended wing from the market is the fact that passengers hate the seating arrangement, as there's only a couple dozen people (out of 3-400) that get windows. Proposals to alleviate that by giving everyone virtual windows on screens haven't been cost effective.

Never underestimate the human need for windows. Why do you think subway cars have them? For sightseeing?

 

[MANT!]

Please note the rise of the twin-jet long-haul wide body airliners (the Boeing 777 as a case in point) in all but the longest routes..they cost less per mile/passenger than most of the quad-jet airliners flying today... and they are flying all over the world. Just 45 years ago, ALL long haul airliners were quad-jets.

Though part of that could of been the engine design - one engine on the 777 has more thrust than two units an a 747 combined.

I'm assuming your comment about the 777s and cost on all but the longest routes refers to the issue of the amount fuel they can carry and the balance between fuel/range and the point at which they start burning a large amount of fuel just to carry the fuel?

Exactly my point.. Fuel cost/ per passenger/ per distance traveled..

The Airbus A340 is much less efficent in that regard hence the dominance of the 777 on similar routes..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

 

[B.J.]

Not only that, but you've got twice the maintenance with 4 engines, so that drives up the operational cost as well.

 

[J.T.B.]

Though part of that could of been the engine design - one engine on the 777 has more thrust than two units an a 747 combined.

Yes, the engines weren't up to it back then. Back in the '60s American would have liked a big twinjet for routes like NY-Chicago, but it wouldn't have worked for Eastern on their Caribbean routes because the existing turbofans weren't powerful enough to make an alternate airport within 60 minutes on one engine (the 60-minute rule) nor for United because one engine couldn't provide enough thrust to keep altitude over the Rockies. So Lockheed went forward with the L-1011 and Douglas (or McDonnell Douglas, by then) decided to compete with the DC-10.

It also took hundreds of thousands of hours of operational experience with jets for the FAA to realize they could safely relax the 60-minute rule. So a few more pieces of the puzzle had to come together for the widebody twinjet to be viable, and when it happened Airbus was in a very advantageous position with the A300.

--Justin

 

[Marc]

Though part of that could of been the engine design - one engine on the 777 has more thrust than two units an a 747 combined.

Yes, the engines weren't up to it back then. Back in the '60s American would have liked a big twinjet for routes like NY-Chicago, but it wouldn't have worked for Eastern on their Caribbean routes because the existing turbofans weren't powerful enough to make an alternate airport within 60 minutes on one engine (the 60-minute rule) nor for United because one engine couldn't provide enough thrust to keep altitude over the Rockies. So Lockheed went forward with the L-1011 and Douglas (or McDonnell Douglas, by then) decided to compete with the DC-10.

It also took hundreds of thousands of hours of operational experience with jets for the FAA to realize they could safely relax the 60-minute rule. So a few more pieces of the puzzle had to come together for the widebody twinjet to be viable, and when it happened Airbus was in a very advantageous position with the A300.

--Justin

Was Airbus in that advantageous a position though? The 767 was the ETOPS-180 pioneer and it entered service in 1982 where as the A300 entered service in in 1974.

As to the A340 I gather that a number of airlines are selling or mothballing them because of the high running costs. I know Air Canada replaced it's A340's once it started getting the 777s and it's also phasing out the 767s (the famous Gimli Glider is awaiting scrapping in the U.S).

Having flown the 777, A340 and the 767 between Australian and Canada the first has the advantage of doing the trip non-stop but I'd take either of them over the 767.

 

[J.T.B.]

Was Airbus in that advantageous a position though? The 767 was the ETOPS-180 pioneer and it entered service in 1982 where as the A300 entered service in in 1974.

No question Airbus was in an advantageous position, but not because of ETOPS. With Lockheed and McDD fully committed to their tri-jet struggle and Boeing too cash-strapped to start anything new, Airbus was the only game in town for a twin engine wide body. It also came along at a time when it could take advantage of the next generation of turbofans, which gave US carriers a lot more route options under the 60-minute rule. Government subsidies allowed the A300 to get a foot in the US door with an incredibly generous deal with Eastern. Rising oil prices in the late '70s gave a big incentive to adopt the more efficient twin-jet, by which time Boeing was playing catch-up with the 767.

--Justin