Ideal travel experience

Quote: Nareed

I fail to understand the acronym.

In any case, you can buy used fighter planes and fly them, with many caveats (no weapons, for one). I don't think you could buy any Western jet fighter, but I recall old MiG's being sold in the mid-90s. In the US, several people own old, old WWII P-51 Mustangs.

It's a military term, stands for "Map of Earth". The process of flying so low that radar cannot see you. I find takeoff and landing to be the only enjoyable part of flight. If I could fly MOE, I'd at least have stuff to look at, and would be better able to appreciate the speed at which I was flying. Flying 600mph at 30k' might as well be a hot air balloon, as there's no reference.

I have seen military aircraft in use. I would bet tens of dollars that I saw a Lancaster flying overhead last time I was fishing Chautauqua Lake. If not a Lancaster, then surely some sort of WWII era decommissioned bomber. An attack jet as well, which came right down the lake not 100' off the water. It was down and gone so fast I couldn't get a read on it. Looked like an F4, but I couldn't be sure. Was very cool.

I know you can do the same and get many different fighter planes sans weapons. I just don't think the FAA would appreciate me flying across the country at treetop level ;)

Quote: Nareed

... a smoking section.

Don't we wish. Seems like it wouldn't be all that difficult. A lavatory sized room with some sort of ventilation to ensure the smoke goes out and not into the cabin doesn't sound all that difficult. It'll never happen, but it can't be hard. Perhaps when Babs and I get TreeTop Airlines up and running, you'll finally realize your dream of smoking in flight =)

I've used an e-cig in flight, but I'm not a hipster that gets his jollies off of blowing out great, billowing clouds by using a cig the size of a clarinet. Mine was the size of my index finger, easily concealable in my hand. Just holding my clenched fist up to my face, as if blocking a cough, was perfect for use. And if you hold the hit in instead of blowing out right away, there's no vapor released. I used a menthol juice, so there was no weird aromas wafting from me, and I've not once had a problem. Not even a curious glance in my direction from crew or passengers. It doesn't hold a candle to a real cig, but any port in a storm, ya know?

Quote: Face

It's a military term, stands for "Map of Earth".

Ok. Thanks.

Quote:

Don't we wish. Seems like it wouldn't be all that difficult. A lavatory sized room with some sort of ventilation to ensure the smoke goes out and not into the cabin doesn't sound all that difficult. It'll never happen, but it can't be hard.

During the swine flu scare a few years back, several airlines advertised how often the whole volume of cabin air is refreshed. I think less than 2 minutes for an A320.

You can smoke in private planes.

Quote:

I've used an e-cig in flight,

I think those were allowed for maybe 5 minutes before everyone decided it was safer to ban them.

I recall a man selling them in Vegas claiming no airline had any reason to forbid them. But he was asking too much and he had no nicotine cartridges available anyway.

If I ever want to fly to Europe, I need to quit smoking first. Or get a real knockout pill.

From reading aviation blogs, flying first or even business class is as close to ideal as it gets.

Consider:

You get a dedicated line or counter. In some airports a separate, dedicated set of counters (depending on class, airline and airport). You get a shorter line for security in many airports as well. You board first. Everything onboard is complimentary (except WiFi). You get plenty of room for yourself and as much privacy as there can be on what is, after all, mass transportation (in Etihad you even get walls and a door in a suite in first class on the A380). You get a lie-flat seat (with some exceptions), pillows and a blanket. In most airlines you also get pajamas. You get an amenity kit (mostly skin care products, along with toothbrush, toothpaste, a sleeping mask and slippers). The lavatories are not as cramped. And the food is really nice.

In addition to that, you get access to a lounge at the airport.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the focus now is not so much on speed, as it once was, but on luxury.

Given things like electrically actuated seats, chargers, large flat screens, in flight bars and even in-flight showers, it may be someday the sheer mass of first and business class may dwarf advanced, yet-to-be-invented supercruise engines. Until then, we're all stuck around Mach 0.8

Quote: Nareed

As I mentioned elsewhere, the focus now is not so much on speed, as it once was, but on luxury.

With the exception of the Concorde there hasn't been an emphasis on speed since the first jets were produced. The Boeing 707 could go 917 km/h which is faster than the A320 family which cruises at 828 km/h and has a maximum speed of 871 km/h.

What has changed was the expectation of speed. As we discussed earlier when the B747 was designed in the late 1960's, the expectation was that they would be converted to freighters before they were retired. Supersonic aircraft were expected to be commonplace by the late 1970's. The first flight of the aircraft was less than a month apart.

First flight 9 February 1969 (Boeing 747)
First flight 2 March 1969 (Concorde)
20 July, 1969 - lunar landing

Quote: Pacomartin

With the exception of the Concorde there hasn't been an emphasis on speed since the first jets were produced. The Boeing 707 could go 917 km/h which is faster than the A320 family which cruises at 828 km/h and has a maximum speed of 871 km/h.

The natural course for a trend is to run its course. Piston aircraft were faster than trains and ships, jet aircraft were faster than piston. naturally the next step would be either rocket aircraft or some kind of faster supersonic one. This trend was rudely interrupted by noise restrictions and pretty much the outright banning of commercial supersonic travel over land.

Then, too, aircraft development tends to happen in clusters. While Boeing was working on the 747, McDonnell Douglass was working on the DC-10 and Lockheed on the L-1011.

In America a consortium of private companies and government was set up to build a supersonic airliner, but the project was cancelled. In the USSR, a Concorde clone was made (I've no idea if it ever saw service). But pretty much nothing came to compete with the Concorde. When it failed commercially, nothing ever would for some decades.

I just never thought almost 50 years later there would still not be any follow-up. and that's because the focus switched to luxury.

What about airport security? What should change?

Security's been around ever since I can recall. Though way back when, the major concern was whether the X-ray machine would ruin one's rolls of film.

Did you see Airbus's patent for a Mach 4.5 jet? It will fly at about 100,000'. London to NYC would be one hour.

Quote: Pacomartin

Did you see Airbus's patent for a Mach 4.5 jet? It will fly at about 100,000'. London to NYC would be one hour.

I can't watch videos at work, and for some reason the tablet won't display FLASH videos in the browser. I'm just moving this thread up so I'll remember to look it up at home in the evening.

Quote: Pacomartin

Did you see Airbus's patent for a Mach 4.5 jet? It will fly at about 100,000'. London to NYC would be one hour.

I don't think it would b a good idea to make a plane so ugly :)

Quote: Nareed

I don't think it would b a good idea to make a plane so ugly :)

More seriously, I've lots of doubts about putting a rocket engine on a passenger plane.

Shortly after WWII jets and rockets were seen as very much alike, both forms of "reaction drives" or "jet" propulsion. Here "jet" means a stream of hot gasses expanding from a combustion chamber of sorts. Today this seems shortsighted, if not absurd. A relic of the time persists in the name of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (which today manages space probes).

Jets are more like piston engines in handling than rockets. They both have a range of acceleration and power, as well as idle settings. Liquid fuel rockets have power ranges (remember the Challenger blew up right after the crew acknowledged Houston's order to "throttle up"?) , and they can be turned off and back on. Solid rockets just go at one rate and can't be stopped. Hybrid rockets can be stopped and restarted, but I don't think they have a thrust range.

But rockets also operate at higher pressure, as well as lower and higher temperatures than jets. They're safe, but in case of a malfunction the results are usually catastrophic. Such results are rare with jets, though not unheard of.

I'd have to see a LOT of testing and operational deployment and maintenance before I'd trust my life to such a plane. In contrast, I'd board a new type Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier or Embraer without hesitation, even one making its first commercial flight.