Faster airplanes

Well standard commercial airliners are about as fast as you can get right now. Most of them do between .80-.85 mach (or nearly the speed of sound.) Breaking through the sound barrier, as E_T basically stated gets too expensive and dangerous. Again, as he said would be a sort of space-liner. I don't see that happening anytime too soon though

[edit on 9/30/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Well standard commercial airliners are about as fast as you can get right now. Most of them do between .95-.98 mach (or nearly the speed of sound.) Breaking through the sound barrier, as E_T basically stated gets too expensive and dangerous. Again, as he said would be a sort of space-liner. I don't see that happening anytime too soon though

Are you sure.

I believe they go .80 - .85 mach.

The .98 mach was the proposed speed of Boeings Sonic Cruiser, which as we all no is dead.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Are you sure.

I believe they go .80 - .85 mach.

The .98 mach was the proposed speed of Boeings Sonic Cruiser, which as we all no is dead.

You're right, I've no idea what i was thinking. Will edit. Thanks.

The Boeing 717 is the new name for the McDonnell Douglas MD-90.

And my colleague is right; Southwest flies nothing but Boeing 737s.

Yea airliners cruising at near mach 1...not good. Transonic drag...not good. These aircraft have high AR's (aspect ratios) and therefore do not use the area rule which raises the drag divergence number.

It's worth remembering that we now have private space programs. But what matters in passenger aviation is ticket price. I don't CARE if I can get from LAX to London in two hours for $10 000. I DO care if I can get from LAX to London twenty hours for $1 000. So what if I spend a few hours in a plane? I LIKE flying!! (Excuse the abundance of caps).

So, to sum up, short of antigravity, we're not going to see radical changes in bulk passenger transport. Private flying cars, yes, private space shots, yes, ultra high-cost suborbital intercontinental flights, yes, sometime in the future. But for broke fellas like me it's the good ol' subsonic slog.

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by waynosDe Havilland

Yeah what about De Havilland and Canadair Jet?

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

I meant: Can't De Havilland and Canadair Jet replace US companies in making parts for Airbus (without replacing European companies)? And what about Alenia?

I think any company that successfully bids for the work can have it, there's no closed shop. Isn't Alenia already in Airbus? I don't know but I would be surprised if they aren't. I presume that when you say De Havilland you mean the Canadian company as you also mention Canadair, well both these companies have been absorbed into Bombardier who also own Shorts in Northern Ireland, through them they contribute to Boeings airliner production and so are on 'the other side'.

I think if you look into it you will be surprised at how many aircraft manufacturers have closed down/merged/disappeared. You clearly think that a lot of companies are still around who aren't, except maybe as a division of some other company.

Why would it matter which companies are involved with Airbus anyway? A lot of European firms work closely with Boeing, its the way of the world. Even the 7E7's wings will be made in Japan. I bet you didn't realise, as not many do, that the 'Boeing Commercial Electronics' business is actually owned by BAE Systems.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Why would it matter which companies are involved with Airbus anyway? A lot of European firms work closely with Boeing, its the way of the world.

I'm a European so I want Europe to produce Airbuses without US' help. I want as much European companies getting market as possible.

It isn't 'help'. Its business. Airbus (and the European companies in it) could manage perfectly well without American companies and vice versa but it isn't the way we work.

I agree about wanting as much European involvement in high tech aerospace as possible, its just a shame that the French seem to think that Airbus is 'theirs', insisting on final assembly of all models in France or they wont play.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
its just a shame that the French seem to think that Airbus is 'theirs',

[edit on 1-10-2004 by waynos]

But as I can see from the link you provided most of parts are made in Germany so France can't say Airbus is theirs
Airbus BTW is/was meant to be the symbol of a European cooperation, not one country's dominance

In the main thats excatly what it is, a shining example of co-operation. I guess I'm just annoyed at the way A320 assembly was snatched away from Britain in the launch period of the type in the early eighties. BTW not EVERY Airbus is assembled at Toulouse as they allow Germany to assemble SOME A320's at Hamburg, which smacks of tokenism but there you go. In the main I do like the Airbus types, they really forced Boeing to up their game with their advanced tech at a time when, with the decline of Lockheed and MDC they probably thought they were going to have things their own way, for the tiime being at least Boeing have to make do with being No 2 but how long that will last who knows.

well i was on a 777 on my way to europe last month and as i checked the air speed while flying at night( everyone was sleeping) i was surprise that it was 1059 km/h thats damn near mach at 41,000 feet... so it can go up to .97 mach, even .99 mach BUT not normaly... cuz when the sun was out we were only going 850 km/h.

most comercail airliners can go mach one... but they dont for safty reasons and fuel cost. thats why .80-.90 mach is normal

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
BUT not normaly... cuz when the sun was out we were only going 850 km/h.

most comercail airliners can go mach one... but they dont for safty reasons and fuel cost. thats why .80-.90 mach is normal

Yeah when I was flying from Silesia to Frankfurt the airliner was flying at 800 km/h speed

originally posted by: Off_The_Street
The Boeing 717 is the new name for the McDonnell Douglas MD-90.

And my colleague is right; Southwest flies nothing but Boeing 737s.

The MD-90 is a different aircraft than the Boeing 717, which was originally called the MD-95 when McDonnell Douglas was still extant in the early 1990s.

Although the airlines are not in the mood for a hypersonic aircraft, Boom Aerospace is undertaking development of the Overture supersonic airliner, which will travel about as fast as the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 but is intended to use environmentally-friendly jet fuel. The XB-1 technology demonstrator has been constructed by Boom Aerospace to assist in development of the Overture, and it has been undergoing taxi tests since December 2022, preparing to make its first flight this summer. It's also important to note that the Boom Overture will be powered by a jet engine developed by Boom Aerospace, the Symphony.

Link:
aviationweek.com...
boomsupersonic.com...
news.aa.com... ertures-FLT-08/

originally posted by: beyondSciFi
well i was on a 777 on my way to europe last month and as i checked the air speed while flying at night( everyone was sleeping) i was surprise that it was 1059 km/h thats damn near mach at 41,000 feet... so it can go up to .97 mach, even .99 mach BUT not normaly... cuz when the sun was out we were only going 850 km/h.

most comercail airliners can go mach one... but they dont for safty reasons and fuel cost. thats why .80-.90 mach is normal

One things for sure, the window shading is nice, you can dim it down to where you can see out but not blind everyone else trying to sleep.

Also a very quiet and updated jet to fly on, I felt like I was a kid again for the first time on an airliner!