New high capacity airplanes

July 11th, 2014 at 10:06:01 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 313
Posts: 10666
Quote: Pacomartin
I don't know if fuel costs would be minimal. You still have a lot of air to push, and in order to get a reasonable speed you can't build them lighter than air.


And mass to move. That counts.

Quote:
It might be safer to say that fuel costs would be less than airplanes,


Possibly.

Aircraft consume the most fuel when taking off and climbing and when descending and landing. A blimp consumes no fuel, or very little, in both such phases. But then most airplanes consume relatively little fuel when cruising because they have low air resistance/drag shapes. Blimps, though srtreamlined, expose a huge surface to the wind.

What engines would blimps use? For the low speeds I don't see trbofan engines, but perhaps turbo-props could be used. If you go with piston engines, that's a big difference in fuel efficiency.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
July 11th, 2014 at 10:44:13 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 689
Posts: 7926
Quote: Nareed
Possibly.


Aerostats are generally touted as more fuel efficient than airplanes. That was certainly true when zeppelins went 73 mph. I just think the term "minimal" is probably not appropriate until specifications are worked out. The biggest one is speed.

As fiber optics gets more sophisticated, we might be able to create comfortable spaces inside airplanes and eliminate windows. That would probably result in a massive fuel savings .

This may be the future of seating (6*38-10=218 seats with no reclining in a narrowbody).
July 11th, 2014 at 11:05:42 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 313
Posts: 10666
Quote: Pacomartin
Aerostats are generally touted as more fuel efficient than airplanes. That was certainly true when zeppelins went 73 mph.


When measured against piston engine prop planes, I wouldn't be surprised. Piston engines are lousy in fuel efficiency, even today. Turbine negines are much more efficient.

Quote:
As fiber optics gets more sophisticated, we might be able to create comfortable spaces inside airplanes and eliminate windows. That would probably result in a massive fuel savings .


Fiber optics are so XX Century :P

I wouldn't mind a wrap-around view of the outside of the plane projected inside in real time, pressumably on LED screens covering the inner fuselage. But that would make sleeping harder, especially during the daytime.

But are windows such a big drain in fuel efficiency?

Quote:
(6*38-10=218 seats with no reclining in a narrowbody).


Them's fighting words. Take no prisoners! Shoot to kill! Fire at Will, and Joe, and Frank, and Tom...!

;)
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
July 11th, 2014 at 9:09:09 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 689
Posts: 7926
Quote: Nareed
But are windows such a big drain in fuel efficiency?


Windows and the structure around them to keep them intact greatly increase the weight of the fuselage. Your putting dozens of holes in your structure and then asking it not to split. It's unlikely that FAA regs will ever change enough so that the middle emergency door requirement is lost.

Fiberoptics can bring natural light indoors, which makes people mellower


Disney has video screens instead of portholes on it's indoor cabins on cruise ships, so it might be possible to get people to live without them on jets.

SPike Aerospace envisions it's supersonic business jet as windowless.
July 12th, 2014 at 1:21:47 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 48
Posts: 4439
The Mall area at the Venetian has a Pseudo Sky that mimics the real one over Venice.

Give airline passengers a view of the ground then slowly change it to a realistic climb out and cruise level, people will forget that its a display panel rather than a window.
July 12th, 2014 at 2:14:56 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 689
Posts: 7926
Quote: Fleastiff
The Mall area at the Venetian has a Pseudo Sky that mimics the real one over Venice.

Give airline passengers a view of the ground then slowly change it to a realistic climb out and cruise level, people will forget that its a display panel rather than a window.


This executive jet, the Phenom 300 is fairly popular. It's price is $8.19 million, which is only slightly higher than a large executive helicopter


Max Range is 2,268 mi with IFR reserves, 6 occupants.
Range from Washington Dulles Intl, Washington, DC (IAD) to Los Angeles Van Nuys Arpt, Los Angeles, CA (VNY) is 2280 miles

Max Range: 2,760 miles for a Bombardier Learjet 60 XR but price (Approximate): $13.3 Million

So would you give up the windows if for 8 million dollars you could comfortably fly anywhere in CONUS? It might just give you an extra couple of hundred miles so you can fly from NY to San Francisco.
July 12th, 2014 at 6:40:20 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 48
Posts: 4439
The mission profile for an executive jet is take off, climb, fly straight to destination, descend, land. I don't think anyone plans for sightseeing at all. Executives can rest, read reports, hold meetings, doze, but they no need for sightseeing.
July 12th, 2014 at 11:37:52 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 689
Posts: 7926
Quote: Fleastiff
The mission profile for an executive jet is take off, climb, fly straight to destination, descend, land. I don't think anyone plans for sightseeing at all. Executives can rest, read reports, hold meetings, doze, but they no need for sightseeing.


(BOS) to (SFO) is 2700 miles
Max Range: 2,268 miles for $8.2 million
Max Range: 2,760 miles for $13.3 million

I suppose if your company is in Texas or Illinois you can get by with the cheaper jet, but coast to coast flying is pretty important. That's an awful big jump in price for those extra 500 miles. If you could get back part of those miles by giving up windows, and just looking at camera feeds, that is pretty valuable.

But nobody does it except for cargo planes. With the supersonic biz jet they probably don't have much of a design without giving up the windows.


=============
Hondajet has first flight of production model two weeks ago after 12 years in development.

I will carry 7 people including crew for $4.5 million, but has a range of 1,358 miles with 4 occupants.
It's 1240 miles from Dallas Ft Worth Intl, Dallas, TX (DFW) to Los Angeles Van Nuys Arpt, Los Angeles, CA (VNY).
It is 1390 miles from Dallas to JFK.

The problem with these tiny jets is there is no toilet. You could ask your executives to void their bladder and to wear Depends just in case, but they really don't want to do that.
July 12th, 2014 at 12:55:43 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 1731
I believe an "emergency" toilet might be an option - one of the seat cushions is removable, revealing what is essentially an RV toilet.

Those might only be available in the less expensive economy style airplane seats, though, and not in a fancy leather executive seat.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 12th, 2014 at 1:48:35 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 689
Posts: 7926
Quote: Dalex64
Those might only be available in the less expensive economy style airplane seats, though, and not in a fancy leather executive seat.


No, they all have the emergency toilet option. A Citation Mustang ($3.28 Million) has a toilet under the copilot seats. With a max range of 2161 km and a cruising speed of 630 km/hr that is max time of 3.4 hours.

As a practical matter, I think most corporations do not regularly use then anywhere near there max range. Most healthy people can control their bladder for two hours, and most people simply don't drink anything on the flights.

Mustang configuration



An Eclipse 500 ($2.15 m) which has a maximum time in air of 85 minutes does not have a lavatory. If you have a bladder problem you simply wear Depends.