Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
Seems to me that there might be a market for slower aircraft on certain routes. Look at eastbound transatlantics such as JFK-LHR. Popular route - but there's just no time to get a good night's sleep.
How about someone invent an aircraft that makes the crossing in 10 hours. That'll be enough time to have an evening dinner on board, maybe watch a movie, then settle down for a full night's sleep and arrive in London at a reasonable morning hour instead of 5:45am when there's no public transport.
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2067 times:
People like to get from point A to point B as fast as possible. Sure, any trans atlantic plane can pull the throttles back and slow down, but people would be mad that they are late. I say make a plane that goes faster.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2028 times:
Yes...but don't you see? If you can get a good night's sleep, it will give you the illusion that you're only on the aircraft for a couple of hours. AND you'll wake at the other end feeling a damn sight better than on those "red eye" eastbounds - which earn their name because of the sheer tiredness you feel when you get off them.
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
A token for your consideration, mi amigos -
Plans have been drawn and studies are being conducted regarding just such an aircraft, though not quite what you've got in mind. The aircraft in question would make the journey in 37 hours, but the cost would be $175 roundtrip ($90 one-way). Those of you familiar with aviation history will pick up quickly on this one. For the rest, let your imaginations wander...
Each passenger would have a cabin, similar to a hotel room though without the bathroom. This would include twin-size bed, two sitting chairs, a table, and a flatscreen (for weight's sake) TV.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
Maybe they should just put the trusty (or is that rusty?) old DC-3 back into passenger service. Is THAT slow enough for you? Or maybe Boeing should now design a 'super-slow' airplane to complement the 7E7/super-efficient. They could call it, the REALLY SUB-Subsonic Cruiser, puttering along at a barely hair-ruffling .095 mach. Driving there might actually be faster!
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
There have been some studies by DARPA and Boeing on a plane called the "Pelican". It would travel at around 300 knots, and have a 4500 mile range over land. Over water, it would fly close to the ground and ride on the cushion of air that is created when an airplane with large wings flys close to the surface. This technique allows a range over water of 10,000+ miles. The plane would be unpressurized since it would travel at altitudes where pressurization is not necessary. The lack of pressurization greatly simplifies the design and prolongs airframe life.
The thing would be HUGE. It would have 8 ship-sized gas turbines powering four propellers. It would be capable of carrying 17 full-sized main battle tanks (for comparison, the C-17 can only carry one of these). These tanks weigh well over 50 tons. Boeing is also looking into using it for the civilian cargo market. It would be able to use ordinary airports and freight handling facilities. No word on anyone planning passenger service........
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7824 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
So I spend 4 more hours in a plane in exchange for sleep. I'd rather get those 4 additional hours to get a full days work in NY, be able to grab a quick dinner, and be able to make it to the airport and grab my flight to London.
I seriously doubt the premise that a slower plane is cheaper to develop and cheaper to operate. A ground effect, transoceanic plane would be incredibly susceptible to weather over the oceans. I thought the entire point of flying in the stratosphere was to get above the weather.
As for moving large tonnages over freight overseas... cargo ships will be able to fulfill that role cheaply and safely for the time being.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia