Faster airplanes

When there will be faster airliners invented?
It looks like the airliner technology has stopped in improving itself
When and what will be those new airliners?
What will be they like?

You've a good point there, in fact it looks as if airliner technology is going backwards when you consider that, for example, Phil Collins feat at Live Aid in 1985 of playing at both the London and Philadelphia venues is now impossible to repeat with todays aircraft!

Of course tech isn't really going backwards, or even static. The Boeing 7E7 and Airbus A380 are pushing the boundaries of technology ever forwards, even the A320 was an order of magnitude more advanced than what had gone before.

The trouble is this is all in the spheres of avionics and structures, dull, dull, dull to your plane spotter that has seen a Mach 2 jet that can carry 130 passengers and all their luggage on a daily basis! Concorde was truly one of the worlds greatest technological achievements.

BAe Boeing and Aerospatiale studied a joint concorde replacement in the early '80's but it came to nothing, as have all such studies. I doubt if we will see any airliner faster than the 7E7, which is itself only as fast as a Vulcan bomber, in the next three decades.

Pretty much next big step would be space airplanes. High speeds in lower atmosphere requires much fuel and also makes lot noise.
Air friction would affect space airplanes flying in upper atmosphere/suborbital flight, and lack of air would also prevent noise.

Those would be like this:
www.globalsecurity.org...

My favorite new passenger jet is the 7E7 Dreamliner. Its better in every field except for the one that I think is the most important - SPEED.

But a close second would windows, This is the first boeing commercail aircraft to have 33% larger windows. Also its going to be 20% more fuel efficient, which i'm hopeing will make ticket prices go down.

Cool 7E7 Wallpaper

Speed is really the most important. People waste a lot fo time anyway at customs waiting for their turn so they must fly with faster airplanes. Is the 7E7 going to be a jet with two decks?
It will really be important for Europe if Airbus will win, this will mean success for Messerschmitt

Speed cost's money.....How fast do ya wanna go?

Originally posted by PARALYZ
Speed cost's money.....How fast do ya wanna go?

2000 kmh or faster; when I leave Frankfurt at 8:00, I want to get to Hong Kong in a few hours

[edit on 30-9-2004 by AtheiX]

Speaker visited our campus from Boeing and talked about their airliners about half a year ago. From what I rememeber, and you are correct - they aren't making any HUGE leaps into technology, but they talk about how they reduced engine noise radiation across neighborhoods and such. Then they just talked about the lame stuff like passenger space, improved dimming light systems at night so people could sleep, TV's placed here and there for comfort/entertainment, and improved aisle space. As you can imagine, they didn't get down right into the mechanics of how they reduced noise radiation and such because it wasn't a class it was just presented to show that they ARE doing something with their time : P

About your topic, making an airliner faster...I would say they aren't doing this because (generally) as you make an aircraft go faster the engine you choose to use usually loses proficiency and this would defeat the purpose for an airliner.

TV's are indeed important for entertainment but they are only on intercontinental airliners, at least in LO
Improved dimming light systems at night are also important as such lights are beautiful

You ought to realize that I am somewhat biased, given that, even though I will not divulge my employer, it rhymes with "going".

First off, the speed thing, as far as all the aircraft builders and airlines are concerned, is a loser. The Concorde, although it was a technological whizzbang, was a dead end that didn't make any money and was more of a "see how cool I am, I flew the Concorde!" thing. There simply aren't that many people who would pay a three-thousand dollar premium to save four or five hours of travel time.

Recall that we were funded by the government to look into an SST and actually built one; then we realized that it was a money loser, and the only thing left of the whole deal is the name of the home town's basketball team.

When we designed the Sonic Cruiser in early 2001, we really thought it was a possibility, but with the terror attacks pretty much wiping out the travel and airline industry, there were simply no buyers.

But the 7E and the 380 are driven, not by technology, but by two different and competing ideas of how we (Boeing and Airbus Industrie) think the travel market will go in the next ten years.

Airbus is a big believer in the innate goodness of the hub-and-spoke concept of airline travel. If I want to go to Kyoto, I have to take a 737 from Phoenix Sky Harbor to LAX, a 747 or MD-11 to Tokyo Narita, and then another 737 or 717 to Kyoto Kansai. This is goodness indeed for the 380, which is simply to big to fly out of Sky Harbor, Salt Lake, or Kansai.

Not that the airports' infrastructures couldn't physically handle them; they all could be remodeled to do so, as LAX is now. But there simply aren't that many people who want to travel from Salt Lake to Narita or Phoenix to Kansai each day, and the 380 needs a lot of passengers to earn money on such a run.

On the other hand, the 7E, since it operates much cheaper, can make good money flying 200 people on those particular routes, and, given the fact that most people don't want to make a bunch of stops and running back and forth between gates, the 7E, in the opinion of Boeing, fulfils the point-to-point scenario and is the way to go.

I personally dislike hubs, since everytime I go to Japan, I end up in LAX for a couple of hours, and whenever I go to Central America, I have to transition through Houston. Why, next month, my wife and I will be flying from Belize City to Mexico City -- via &^%$#$()Houston!! How bogus is that!!??

The 380 has made tremendous inroads in the Middle East countries and some Asian countries, since the "local" airport (like Chek Lap Kok or Bahrain) is a hub. But Airbus needs to sell at least 300 of those A380s to break even, and I personally (although I am, of course, biased) don't think they will.

But even if Airbus will succeed it won't be a complete success for Europe and defeat for US; there are some US companies participating in creating Airbuses; US will succeed one way or another; this si one of the things I'm concerned about; some European companies should replace Pratt&Whitney and CFM. What about Junkers, Dornier and Heinkel?

How about the fact that Junkers Dornier and Heinkel don't actually exist. It isn't one way either. Wht about all the European companies that participate in Boeing aircraft, there are many. The obvious one is the Rolls Royce engines, which are also fitted to Airbuses.

Originally posted by waynos
How about the fact that Junkers Dornier and Heinkel don't actually exist.

Maybe Dornier and Heinkel don't exist (but I doubt) but Junkers exists. I even have its product (but it's a house gas water heater not a plane)

I think that the 380 will be such a failure for the company that it may ruin it. There just isn't a need for that big a jet. The 747 is just fine for the BIG routes (NY-London, LAX-Tokyo) and it fits in current airports. People will definitely be shying away from hub mentality( It used to be cheaper to go the hub route, now it's THE ONLY WAY. No one likes that downtime).

Smaller and cheaper is the way to go. Minimize fuel costs with technology, Maximize speed, and give more options in terms of destinations while minimizing maintenance costs. Some of the most successful airlines have few aircraft types and NO big planes (I don't think southwest has any jumbos)

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by waynos
How about the fact that Junkers Dornier and Heinkel don't actually exist.

Maybe Dornier and Heinkel don't exist (but I doubt) but Junkers exists. I even have its product (but it's a house gas water heater not a plane)

Exactly! As aerospace companies they do not exist, they have no capability in this area anymore. Remember the Saro Princess? It was the largest flying boat the UK ever produced. For the last three decades Saro have made polystyrene packs for mushrooms, they could not contribute to an aerospace programme today even if they wanted to. Its the same with the companies you mentioned, except for Dornier who stayed in the aircraft business but went bust a few years ago. Heinkel built the Fouga Magister in the 50's under license but then went on to build a bubble car that became quite chic in the 60's.

www.heinkel-club.de...

If you think they could build part of any Airbus you're living in a dream world.

The last Junkers aviation project was the RT-8 spacecraft of 1961 (a sort of mini shuttle). They have had no connection with the aerospace industry for over four decades.

You can doubt what you like, I myself wish for Hawker, De Havilland, Avro etc etc but they are all gone.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
and then another 737 or 717 to Kyoto Kansai.

What? They still use 717s? Such old planes?
Don't tell me they still use 707s

Originally posted by waynosDe Havilland

Yeah what about De Havilland and Canadair Jet?



[edit on 30-9-2004 by AtheiX]

[edit on 30-9-2004 by AtheiX]

KC-135s are actually 707s, and they'll be flying for a while. Just MD-10 will be flying for years from now as KC-10 and AWACS. Leave it to the military to fly a plane forever....(B-52, A-1, C-141, KC-97)

Originally posted by soulforge
KC-135s are actually 707s, and they'll be flying for a while. Just MD-10 will be flying for years from now as KC-10 and AWACS. (B-52, A-1, C-141, KC-97)

What? Such junk is still in the skies? (MD-10 is junk as well)
And junk like MD-11 is going to fly as well?

I believe that there Is a market for BOTH.

The A380 will be for long trips to another country, While the 7E7 will be for smaller trips, as for who will sell the most planes, thats easy, it will be Boeing, But Airbus will deffinatly make alot of money to, Fed-Ex bought 10 A380's back in May, and no doubt UPS will get some, US, China, Europe, etc.

The 7E7 will be like that 777 in that it will have 2 big engines, which saves money on fuel, maintainence, costs, etc.

Overall in the Future Boeing will be the winner of this battle.

But as for faster, that wont be for some time, for that to make a big impact we have to either reduce or get rid of the Sonic Boom.

Originally posted by AtheiX

What? They still use 717s? Such old planes?

Don't tell me they still use 707s

Originally posted by waynosDe Havilland

Yeah what about De Havilland and Canadair Jet?

What makes you think that the 717 is 'old'? Seeing that they were all built during the 1990's there are much older planes in the world.

And what about De Havilland? I don't know what you mean.