Airbus 380

February 3rd, 2017 at 3:34:06 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
IT stands to reason that eventually airport congestion, air traffic, delays caused by too many flights, etc. will inevitably make some kind of very large airplane (VLA) desirable on at least some routes, be they long or short.


While it may seem inevitable, it isn't the only solution.

We may have commercial planes flying in a peloton. Increasing automation may make it easier to fly with minimal pilots (so that a co-pilot becomes optional). That way you can form larger and larger pelotons for larger groups of planes.

Pelaotons could increasingly become the transportation method of choice for flights from Dubai to Europe. Dubai has the desert space for multiple runways. Five planes could take off, form a peloton to save fuel, and split apart as they land in multiple nearby European hubs.



The runway problem in other countries might be solved by water based floating runways.
February 3rd, 2017 at 3:51:29 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin
It was certainly the intention of Boeing to start with a clean slate design, but the threat of Southwest to replace their entire fleet with the neoA320 stopped them dead in their track.

As we discussed earlier the B737-7max and the neoA319 are both pretty much dead on arrival as the clean slate Bombardier design seems to offer so much more performance for the money.


Seems like the 737 is the Ford Panther platform of the aviation industry.
The President is a fink.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:20:10 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Seems like the 737 is the Ford Panther platform of the aviation industry.


The Ford Panther platform was used by Ford Motor Company for full-size, rear-wheel drive sedans. Introduced in late 1978 for the 1979 model year. As of the 2011 model year, the Panther platform was in use longer (32 model years) than any other platform in North American automotive history.

Unibody construction design most have proved more cost effective or simply a more reliable automobile. Of all the issues facing the 737 the clearance to the ground for increasingly larger engines is the limiting design factor. Moving the wings would probably cost more than a clean sheet design.



The Bombardier 28 April 2016 Cseries order of 75 jets by Delta Air Lines has opened up the floodgates and there are now 360 jets on order for the C-series plane.

Interest in the new smaller B737-7 MAX is unchanged at three orders for a total of 60 jets. These customers could upgauge to the B737-8 so I think the C-series has killed the smaller version forever.
Dec 13, 2011 Southwest Airlines 30 B737-7 MAX (170 B737-8 MAX)
Sep 26, 2013 WestJet Airlines 25 B737-7 MAX (40 B737-8 MAX)
Dec 15, 2014 Canada Jetlines 5 B737-7 MAX
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:49:19 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
We may have commercial planes flying in a peloton. Increasing automation may make it easier to fly with minimal pilots (so that a co-pilot becomes optional). That way you can form larger and larger pelotons for larger groups of planes.


1) I'll get on a commercial flight with one pilot when someone can guarantee the sole pilot won't ever be incapacitated in flight. It's a rare occurrence, but it happens. If it does with only one pilot onboard, it's lights out for everyone.

2) If you depend on 5 planes departing at nearly the same time, any delay in one wrecks the whole concept.

Quote:
The runway problem in other countries might be solved by water based floating runways.


Perhaps it's time for a return to the flying boat era ;)
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:58:24 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Of all the issues facing the 737 the clearance to the ground for increasingly larger engines is the limiting design factor. Moving the wings would probably cost more than a clean sheet design.


The thing is Boeing has kind of attempted clean-slate designs for a narrow body lots of times, and always ends up modifying the 737. About the only thing they ever did differently, was adopting the MD-90 as the B-717.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:33:55 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
Perhaps it's time for a return to the flying boat era ;)


You laugh, but it is seriously being considered in the context of ultra huge jets that can carry 2000 passengers and use hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel takes up four times the amount of space of traditional kerosene fuel and is currently impractical for conventional aircraft to store. The plane would ride across the water to a convenient ramp to disembark passengers.

These monsters could only be practically or safely landed on water.

But seaplanes are not practical for multiple landings of B737 size planes. In addition to all the logistical difficulties of boarding and disembarking, you would have the safety requirements of building a hull strong enough to withstand a water landing. That would make the plane too heavy to be able to build a competitive option to current models.

In 2013
Hong Kong to Taipei, in Taiwan 4.9 million passengers
Dublin to London was taken by 3.5 million passengers
Jakarta to Singapore 3.4 million passengers
London to New York, on which 2.7 million passengers

But London to NYC in 2013 only works out to daily 3,700 passengers each way. There would have to be a lot more traffic to justify a 2,000 seat aircraft. BA never flew one of their A380s on this route, as businessmen are more interested in departure options than in big planes.

Hong Kong to Taipei is largely over water, but the distance is about 500 miles. Jakarta to Singapore is about 560 miles. IDK if a flying boat and water landing concept would work for such distances. But traffic between these cities may go to 10 million per year in a decade.

London to Dublin is under 300 miles, and much of it is over land. It is more of an example of a route where a neutrally buoyant train tunnel might be appropriate.
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:44:57 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
You laugh, but it is seriously being considered in the context of ultra huge jets that can carry 2000 passengers and use hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel takes up four times the amount of space of traditional kerosene fuel and is currently impractical for conventional aircraft to store. The plane would ride across the water to a convenient ramp to disembark passengers.


I merely smile.

But 1) a 2000 passenger plane, 2) hydrogen fuel, and 3) flying boat have "Impossible" written all over.

Other than biofuels, which are essentially like oil fuels but made from living organic matter, commercial aircraft may be the last place we'll see alternative fuels take hold (or maybe military aircraft will be last).

Quote:
But seaplanes are not practical for multiple landings of B737 size planes. In addition to all the logistical difficulties of boarding and disembarking, you would have the safety requirements of building a hull strong enough to withstand a water landing. That would make the plane too heavy to be able to build a competitive option to current models.


Yup.

And you can add choppy seas even in fair weather, and the difficulty of landing over choppy seas when it rains, and timing operations to tides, etc. Early flying boats were used because there were few airports available. And that scenario, no airport, pretty much justifies the few remaining sea planes. At a summer camp in Ontario I attended once, they landed a small sea plane on the camp's lake.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:57:20 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Lots of seaplanes in operation in British Columbia Nareed. Some are because they fly to areas with no airports. YVR even has a satellite terminal on the Fraser River that is within the confines of the airport. Downtown Vancouver has a float plane base in the harbour that has dozens of scheduled flights a day to the capital city Victoria which is on Vancouver Island. It lands in the Victoria harbour minutes from the parliament building. By far the fastest way between the two cities other than helicopter.

Lots of sea plane still Nareed just a speciality niche. Mostly carry about 10 passengers.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
February 3rd, 2017 at 11:45:11 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
But 1) a 2000 passenger plane, 2) hydrogen fuel, and 3) flying boat have "Impossible" written all over.


Dr Levis begs to differ. He even said the hydrogen fuel comes in handy to keep the passengers above the water line. He does say such a plane would never be competitive with passenger loads of current size, and they would be restricted to passenger seating above 800.

Quote: Dr. Errikos Levis
Alas, the seaplane is not likely to take off anytime soon, even though, says Dr. Errikos Levis, a researcher in the Department of Aeronautics at Imperial College London, the technology is basically there. “There’d need to be some research, but it’s not like we’re using anti-gravity! The vast majority of the things we used (to design these planes) are there,” he says. Still, he imagines that if work started on it today, it would take about a decade before the design became a reality.“What’s really lacking at the moment is the will to try something new,” he says.

http://q13fox.com/2015/06/08/could-seaplanes-be-the-future-of-transatlantic-flight/
February 3rd, 2017 at 12:03:35 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Dr Levis begs to differ.


Optimist.

But you'll notice he admits it won't fly any time soon. Also, notice the ten-year estimate. That's about how long it takes experienced manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus to design, build and test a new type, from drawing board to entry into service. For a radical new design with a different fuel and, I assume, different engines, ten years is very optimistic.

I'll read the whole thing later. It seems interesting.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER