New high capacity airplanes

October 29th, 2013 at 4:30:45 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7425

I guess they won't have any trouble landing the Airbus 380 in Dubai.
October 29th, 2013 at 7:05:38 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 95
Posts: 5850
Quote: Pacomartin

I guess they won't have any trouble landing the Airbus 380 in Dubai.


I remember reading it years ago that Dubai has a goal of being a sort of long-haul "crossroad of the world." If you look at a flat-map of the earth, the UAE is fairly dead-center so they planned to be a super-hub. I have heard that airport is a 24/7 booming place so no matter when your layover you have all the services and comforts you could desire.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
October 29th, 2013 at 1:51:54 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 3978
Quote: Pacomartin
A Yahoo article points out that with 32 deaths on the Costa Concordia people are getting increasingly worried about cruise ships. The biggest ones are now carrying 8000 to 9000 people between crew and passengers.

Costa Concordia...a Captain hazarding his vessel in shallow waters as part of a publicity stunt but mainly a macho gesture to his girl.
Most cruise ship deaths are medical and no matter how many hand washing stations the ship posts most of the viral outbreaks are due to food mishandling. Some cruise ship deaths are murders due to sexual relationships. Piracy? Most cruise ships steer clear of trouble or use ear blasting sonic defenses while awaiting more effective assistance. Cruise ships are top heavy and a risk at all times.

Sub-surface risks? Heck, most submarines/submersibles are directed at smuggling not at attacking cruise ships ... not much money in terrorism, you know. A mine alongside a ship will do just fine, no need to break its spine with a really large one underneath the hull. Time for evacuation? Sure. Rake the lifeboats with machine gun fire and time becomes less meaningful. If someone wants a terror incident on the high seas they can get it, but where is the profit?
October 29th, 2013 at 11:48:29 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7425
Quote: Fleastiff
If someone wants a terror incident on the high seas they can get it, but where is the profit?


Very little. When we were briefed on piracy, we were told that fancy yachts were seldom the target of piracy in real life. Pirates don't want to die, and there are a lot of guns and people onboard those ships.

Pirates often go for lightly manned cargo ships. Not because they have the most spoils, but you are more likely to get them and survive.

I saw little profit in the Boston Marathon bombings. But if you want a high body count, then a vessel loaded with people is a good target. And a mine would put a little hold in the ship and slowly sink it. But if you can rupture a hull, then people can't get away.

Incidentally, the reason the Navy wants to rupture hulls is not to kill everyone on board, but it is to prevent them from firing off all their weapons before they sink. Needless to say you are probably better off not hitting a submarine full of SSBN's then to hit it with a weapon that takes three hours to sink it.
October 30th, 2013 at 3:27:16 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 3978
In the days of Dreadnoughts that could happen when the initial barrage hit both magazines. I believe HMS Hood and Prince of Wales went so quickly that as the smoke cleared onlookers couldn't believe the ship had sunk so quickly.

It was the same thing with German submarine commanders being surprised to sink a Liberty ship with just one torpedo.

But things have transitioned from the accidental luxury of taking out a target quickly to the necessity of doing so. Look at the Falklands War, wherein Argentinian jets would have very little time over a target. It was see a ships mast, pop up, fire at the ship, pop down again and let the autonomous standoff weapon do its thing of high speed and close range. One missle sank a ship carrying all the helicopters to be used for troop transport. One missle sank a troopship rendering all aboard casualties who never fired a shot. Everyone now wants a Video Game war wherein targets are obliterated the moment they are resolved.
July 5th, 2014 at 11:46:13 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7425
What is the longest flight on a narrow body jets with a normal load of passengers (no specially outfitted jets with 16 seats)?

I think I have it:
Atlanta to Brasilia,
DL 221/ DL 222
4,170 statute miles
Boeing 757-200
8:45 each way.
167 seats

According to wikipedia the range of 757-200 is 3900 nm - 4100 nm with winglets. So this flight should be about as close to the max range as is commercially feasible.

Wikipedia does mention a 737 that can go for a range of (3,5106,340 mi) so it is possible there is a flight out there. The distance from ORD to HNL is 4230 statute miles, but nobody is flying narrow bodies that I know about.

I leave it as a challenge to find a narrowbody flight that is longer than this Delta flight of 4170 miles.
July 6th, 2014 at 4:43:05 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 3978
Quote: Pacomartin
I leave it as a challenge to find a narrowbody flight that is longer than this Delta flight of 4170 miles.
Why would anyone want to find a long flight? Isn't that akin to finding the rudest stewardess or noisiest child?
July 6th, 2014 at 6:47:46 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7425
Quote: Fleastiff
Why would anyone want to find a long flight? Isn't that akin to finding the rudest stewardess or noisiest child?


Partly it is a game, but since most of us are used to flying on narrow bodies jets only as far as transcontinental flights.

The new use of narrow body planes to go nearly twice the distance in theory could open up markets that are too small to fly with wide bodies.

United flights: miles from Newark, NJ via Boeing 757-200
3,980 Berlin, Germany
3,936 Stuttgart, Germany
3,930 Stockholm, Sweden
July 6th, 2014 at 12:38:57 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10174
My son is leaving the AF at 35 as a major
because he has 2 little kids under 3, and
they want to deploy him to the MidEast
for 6 months again. So he applied to 3
major airlines and got accepted by all 3.

They love AF pilots, they jump over the
privately trained pilots who have been
there for 10 or 12 years. Now he has
to look at planes and routes and hubs
and decide who he wants to work for.

70% of pilots are trained in private schools
and start in the industry at the bottom rung
for barely much above min wage. Their
goal is to work for a major airline eventually,
but it takes a long time. By the time you get
to be a major in the AF, they have invested
over a million in you with degrees and training
and actual flight time. Now it's going to pay
off for him.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 6th, 2014 at 4:08:21 PM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 610
Long flights going on now:

UA1020 IAH - ANC (Houston, Anchorage) - B753, 5,323km
AA121 CDG - JFK (Paris - New York) - B752, 5,840km
UA68 EWR - ARN (Newark - Stockholm) - B752, 6,314km

All these flights suck!