Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 974 times:
I thing that there would be market for these planes:
4 or 6 prop. engines shorthaul plane of 400-500 seats. Prop is cheaper to maintenance than jet. And it would be useful on domestic many-passengers flights. It would be cheaper to operate than B747 Domestic or A3XX Domestic. And the slower speed is nothing on domestic routes, I thing.
2 jet engines longhaul (6000-9500km) plane of 120-170 seats. Many airlines of small countries (like Lithuanian Ailines from mine country. They was wanted 767, but desired that it is to big) need this for flying transatlantic routes. It is also could be useful for flying between one small and other big city (Gent-New York, for example) It could be Boeing-737-800 Longhaul or 707-700. 707 was great I thing. Yes, it was expensive to operate, but with 2 engines the operation costs would be lower.
5 or 4 jet engines ultra-big longhaul plane. Could be useful in some routes. It would have ~800 seats. If it would be unprofitable, there can be smaller versions of it (~500 seats). It would great for Boeing to compete with A3XX and stop production of 747 (leave that sector to 777)
3 jet engines 400-600 seats planes. I thing that 747 and A340 have no need of 4 engines. Now there are good new engines. This plane would be useful for Airbus - Stop production of A340 and made bigger A330 here. This plane would fill the space between the bigger A330 and A3XX.
4 prop. engines shorthaul, medhaul or longhaul 200-300
only economy seater. Yes, it's noysy. Yes, it's slow. But it is a great way to fly very cheap: cheaper tickets will allow more people to use airplanes.
Supersonic Airliner (?). I thing about big (250-450 seats) SS airliner. There could be B797-100 (250 seats, 797-200 (295 seats), 797-300 (368 seats), 797-400 (410 seats) and 797-500 (465 seats). I donna, are there market for these planes. Please comment this.
If you thing that I was wrong, or you know more airplanes, which market needs, but wich wasn't build, please say thet here.
Fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1898 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 886 times:
Aviation enthusiasts interested in aircraft designs filling roles the big boys (Boeing and Airbus) have overlooked should examine the CIS (Russian and Ukranian) aviation scene. As non-Western products earn a reputation for quality and reliability and overcome Western bias, we will be seeing more and more interesting flying machines.
Back in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties, during a time of economic recession, there were all types of advanced turboprops and unducted jet fans on the drawing board, including a large Lockheed widebody design (for the high-density short-haul market, I presume) similar to your first proposal.
Personally, I like turboprops. In the West, however, the trend is toward regional jets. At least in the US, the public perceives turboprops as being rickety and unreliable things flown by inexperienced pilots. Having flown on an Olympic ATR-72, I can say the opposite is true: the plane was smooth and not terribly noisy and the crew was highly professional. Although jet aircraft have come a long way in the area of economy, the turboprop is still more fuel efficient and less costly to maintain. While the US flying public pays higher ticket prices for the luxury of short-haul jet travel, passengers in less wealthy countries will indeed be reaching their destinations for far less money in low-time used turboprops.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Advancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 812 times:
I thinK you have missed a great deal about
fuel pricing and the actual operating cost. How
would you explain why the Soviets never built a large
turbo-prop passenger air[lane in the 70s and opted
to build the IL 86?? In western Europe however, when the Airbus A300 was launched it was mainly
considered to be a short to medium haul airliner to
fly the short sectors within the European continent.
Ask Lufthansa and Air France about that.
That was all during and immediatly following the fuel
crises of the 70s. I hope that tells you somethinG.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 798 times:
Sorry, but some of those ideas are nonsense...but its nice to hear something different once in a while It costs so much to design new aircraft (Billions) that it negates any advantage that large prop aircraft would have. I doubt any passengers would be estatic about boarding a Super-duper-six engine propliner.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 792 times:
I dont know about the Lockheed project, sorry. But my favourite airliner never to be built would have been the McDonnell Douglas MD-12. I would be a four-engine derivation of the MD-11 with two decks and would be slightly smaller than the A3XX. The best part? There was a plan for an optional glass floor on the lower level. Now that would be spectacular! I remember seeing the proposal in either the 91-92 or 92-93 Janes All The World's Aircraft.
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 790 times:
No prop could provide enough thrust to get 500 people off the ground, ever 5 of them.
I agree with the 120-150 long-range airliner. The experience Boeing gained with the BBJ would help this project a great deal. Think, a 737-700 with blended winglets, strengthened undercarriage, the wing of the 737-900, and uprated engines. That would greatly increase the range and fuel capacity, allowing it to serve very long routes. Imagine that, a 737 crossing the ocean. They would have an aircraft for everything! What Airbus product can say that!
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 739 times:
But B707 was profitable. If it wasn't, why as many airlines bought it? They could bought prop. Douglases then, don't goo to unprofitable jet.
So 737ER operations costs would be lower than 707, and it would be profitable. Not very much profitable, but profitable. Airlines would decide to fly and make some profit, not don't fly and don't make profit.
Advancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 733 times:
Sonic, please consider the time when the 707 was introduced and entered service. It was the begining of the jet era. the only serious competition to the 707 was another very similar prduct from Douglas, the DC 8
Besides back then the market for for the high capacity
didn't really appear until the 70s and that is also when sales for the good old 707s declined rapidly. Douglas
also had to shut down the production line for the DC 8
in '72. For long range everyone agreed the wide bodies
would soon take over becuase they were cheaper to operate, especially after the oil crises. It was prime time
for the 747,Tristar and DC-10. All these three grew in
range to meet or even exceed the range of the 707
and most of the DC 8s.
Pan Am and TWA will tell you, that during that era
utelising the 747s helped them reduce the frequencies
of their very lucrative trans-Atlantic flights without
loosing passengers or having over capacity while at
the same time reducing cost. Their 707s were then squeezed into thin routes with very few long haul
passengers until these routes grew for the wide body jets by the end of the 70s. After that the 707s served
mainly domestic routes until they were phased out.
I hope that helps. That little bit of history......
Traveler_7 From Estonia, joined May 2000, 540 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 732 times:
>2 jet engines longhaul (6000-9500km) plane of 120-170 seats.
I heard something (but I am not sure) that SwissAir going to order a couple of 737 with extended range and put them to serve route between some small town in Swizerland and New-Yourk (but i repeat that I could be wrong).
But why Lithuanian airlines don't whant to take 752? Does they already look for transAtlantic routs?
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 724 times:
They was looked for this plane two years ago. Now , after crise of Russia they must reorganisate. Many routes was cutted, and many added (Vilinus-Rome was changed by Vilinus-Napol, for excample). All old Rusian planes was rented to one asian airline (don't remember name) or sold (they had 11 Yak-42). They went to all-Boeing fleet on bigger routes (they own 2 Boeing 737-200, and have 1 B737-300 on option) and all-SAAB on smaller (2 SAAB-340B and 2 SAAB-2000 on option). After reorganisation, they, maybe look for transatlantic route again.
If you are interested, check their website http://www.lal.lt (it's in English)
OO-VEG From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 697 times:
Well a 737 with the capability of flying trans atlantic routes is not such a strange idea.
Especially airlines from the USA would like these kind of aircrafts for the simple reason they preffer to have small aircrafts which fly very frequently to destinations so you have more departure and arrival times you can choose out of.
It could also be used for short haule flights. I think there is a big market for these kinds of aircrafts.
But the A330-500 will come close to this situation. This version will have the same no. of seatings as the A310 but the range will be far more larger than the A310 or A330-200.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 49 Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 674 times:
Woah there, Sonic, not so fast. Your developments, while very interesting, seem to betray your age bracket. No offence, of course, everyone deserves an equal say, and I was in that age bracket untill a few years ago. In fact, your ideas seem very similar to mine from about 5 years back (heck, it may be even longer now!). So, lets take a quick look at them, because some of your ideas are a bit far-fetched, but I see good ideas too...
4-6 prop engine Shorthaul 400-500 Seater
Sorry, but the market just does not exist for an aircraft in its own right. Even today, the 747 is used domestically only in Japan, and to a lesser extent the US due to high capacities, and in large countries due to its range. Even though jets are expensive, a new aircraft unrelated to anything else would be significantly more expensive to develop, and hence to buy, especially due to the limited market. It is best to stick with derivatives of existing models, which will have attractive sale prices, and are fuel efficient in their own right.
Twinjet longhaul 120-170 Seater
Yes, a long range 737 or A32X makes an interesting proposal. In fact, I beleive the market could be there for this, although it could be expensive (as someone has already mentioned) due to the low pax numbers. Aircraft of these capacities are usually used for short routes, and as such have high passanger-hour numbers (multiply the number of passangers flown daily, by the number of hours flown daily). Larger long haul aircraft have large pax-hour numbers due to the large ammount of people they have. Thus, there would be a question of profitabilty on a route that does not have capacity to justify a 767 sized aircraft over long range. However, it is a possibility.
4/5 jet Ultra large longhaul
First of all, I doubt you'll see 5 engines. 4 engines would be easer to install and service, and would only have to be 1/4 as powerful again as what would be used if you had 5. Basically, the smaller end you have described is the A3XX. Today, it is unlikely there is a market for an 800 seater. However, give it 30 years, and I immagine that there will indeed be an 800 seater. I know Aerospatiale a few years back were looking into an 800 seat 3 or 4 engine flying wing, as were McDonnellDouglas. I would not be surprised to see this in 20 years time!
Trijet 400-600 seater
No, this will remain with the quads (or the twins, if 777 sales dont give out to the A340-500 and -600). There is simply no need to complicate things by going with 3 engines. Tail mounted engines are harder to service and replace. Boing was considering to fit a third engine in the 777ER, of less thrust than the other two, and mainly to avoid ETOPS. However, this didnt come to anything...
4 Prop 200-300 Seater
Props are no good for long range, because of speed, so forget that part. In the shorthaul market, other than the exceptions mentined before, most domestic flights are in the 100-150 seat range anyway. Whether props would offer cost advantages over jets in this market is arguable.
You have a lage seat range there, so I immagine you are thinking along the lines of the Airbus widebody fuselage. This would make for an interesting SST. Of course, you would start out by offering only on to the market, then later on offering streches and shortning as the market dictates. however, Boeing stopped its research into SSTs a few years ago, after concluding there was no real market. It is now thought that perhaps the future of SSTs, for now anyway, lies in SS Business Jets. That being said, it would be nice to see a widebody SST that brought Supersonic transport to the masses. Check back in 20 years, and who knows!
Well, this has got long, sorry! Sonic, you definitely have an active immagination, so keep it up, don't take my criticisms negatively, cos they are not meant like that. Keep dreaming, cos I reckon you have some good ideas, and with a bit more knowledge of the industry, who knows, you could be onto a goldmine!
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Caribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1628 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 671 times:
I can't comment on the technical aspects of any of these proposals but in terms of practicality I suspect a long haul A320/A319 or 737 would be a winner if it were technically possible. I can imagine many trans-Atlantic routes being re-jigged as many new nonstop flights between unlikely city pairs start sprouting up with these types of jets... more or less how the L1011, DC-10 & 767 replaced 747s on many routes by offering nonstop serve to smaller markets.
Imagine an A320 able to fly Albany-London, Detroit-Einhoeven, Greensboro-Frankfurt, .. even less likely pairs like Anchorage-Palm Springs, Cologne-Barbados, Quebec-Nantes.. Ultimately many such routes would reduce the need to go through hubs and redistribute air traffic patterns around the world.
Now.. where does one put trans-Atlantic fuel and luggage in an tube the size of an A319....?
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 665 times:
The A319 has just enough range to eeke out a westbound transatlantic crossing and plenty for one eastbound. Rumors are that Canada 3000 may use one of their A319s to fly to Europe from Halifax during the summer. Adding an extra centre fuel tank to either the A319 or B737-700 should be relativley easy and would allow them to make the jorney easily. Unfortunatley, that severly limits payload and therefore economic potential.