Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will There Be A Need For A 10,000NM Jet In Future?  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13514 times:

With the larger twins and quads running ULH markets that average ~6000-8000nm, is that about the furthest the airlines will need an airplane to go? I know A or B could probably build a twin or quad that has 10,000+ NM capability, but time wise that would be, say, 20-22 hrs. Is there any market that would ever demand such an airplane?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3299 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13496 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Is there any market that would ever demand such an airplane?

The ever aspired LHR-SYD is probably the only route that really needs a non-stop connection. Other longer flights would end up being ETOPS restricted at that point. Remember that SIN-EWR (8285nm) is the longest flight currently, and is within the range of the A340-500 and 777-200LR. LHR-SYD is 9125nm. That's only about an 11% increase in range.

Also, once you hit flights of that length, some people will welcome a stop, so they can get out and stretch their legs for a bit. There's a reason the SIN-EWR flight has gone all-business class, and that the JFK flight continues to be routed through FRA. Economy travelers don't mind a stop on a journey of that length. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't add a huge amount of time to a flight.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13500 times:

actually, more than that

LHR-AKL is 9910nm, which requires a nearly 11000nm plane when flying against headwinds (unless they manage to fly it east-bound for both segments)


User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13471 times:

Hello--that's a nice idea--but unless the plane is very fast, people would rather stop at a midpoint city to relax. like an intermission in a movie. Twenty-plus hours on a flight is a long time.

Scottie


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13397 times:

The problem is that ULH flights are costly to operate because in the first few hours of flying "you burn fuel just to carry fuel." That is why SQ found it had to move to an all J class layout for its SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX non-stops. The previous J and Y+ layout wasn't profitable.

Non-stop flights between LON, SYD and AKL would not carry sufficient numbers of premium cabin passengers to make them profitable.


User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13353 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 4):
Non-stop flights between LON, SYD and AKL would not carry sufficient numbers of premium cabin passengers to make them profitable.

Unless the plane were supersonic and the flight lasted only 8 hours or so (I've no idea how long such a flight would last....)

Cheers,


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 4):
Non-stop flights between LON, SYD and AKL would not carry sufficient numbers of premium cabin passengers to make them profitable.

I think the real issue is they can't carry enough Economy cabin passengers to make them profitable.

The A340-500 and 777-200LR can connect LHR and SYD/AKL today if you just put 100-200 premium cabin customers in the plane. But start adding Economy class passengers, as airlines like QF and BA appear to wish to do, and the mission is no longer possible. Also, even when you offer a really nice Economy product, as SQ did on their A345, people seem to not want to pay for it.

SIN can make their two ULR routes work because they have enough premium connecting traffic going to NRT to support those flights while also allowing up to 200 people to fly direct to SIN. I don't know what SQ's connecting traffic that exits at SIN from LHR or SYD is, but I am guessing it's a good bit less than 100 people, otherwise they likely would have added an A340-500 non-stop between LHR and SYD already.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13315 times:

I'm not even convinced LHR-SYD needs to be nonstop. What do you save? An hour. Now here's the negatives, fuel burn per mile goes through the roof because you're carrying all that extra fuel weight all the way. At that range you can only manage a pax payload, with a stop you can fly max payload.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 2):
LHR-AKL is 9910nm, which requires a nearly 11000nm plane when flying against headwinds (unless they manage to fly it east-bound for both segments)

Headwind? Why would you fly against the wind when you're going to the opposite side of the world? You can always fly eastbound.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13285 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
Is there any market that would ever demand such an airplane?

Yes, but such an aircraft would have to be a derivative on an existing aircraft since the market certainly isn't big enough to justify the $10+ billion investment necessary to build a new airliner. Furthermore, an ultra long range aircraft would presumably be the model that has to make compromises, leaving the family as a whole optimized for the larger market.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13241 times:

It will get built only if the cost to engineer and certify it can be recouped by only 20-25 sales. That means it will have to, pretty much exclusively, mix and match pieces from existing frames.

I see only two possibilities for building such an airliner in the near future:

1) An A350-800R with A350-1000 wings and engines, or
2) if Boeing builds a 787HGW (which looks less likely these days), a 787-8LR or -9LR with the HGW bits.

Obviously either of those would be heavier and less efficient on "normal" missions than the regular variants. So it would only sell to ULH customers. SYD-LHR, AKL-LHR, and GRU-NRT would have to support the plane by themselves.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13235 times:

From most major airports in the world, there aren't many destinations furthen than 8000 miles away but downunder. From Europe, either downunder or Chile, but both don't require hundreds of planes to justify the development.

I once made a flight AMS-LIM on KLM MD11 with a fuel stop in Aruba. After 10 hours, stretching the legs in a pleasant small airport was nice. I got the following idea, what do you think of it?

I personally find most airline food no joy. It cannot be made better given the environment I agree, but I would state that ground made fresh food can be made far better for lower prices than food in the air.
So for very long flights, let us say 8000 miles, why don't airlines fly 4000 miles with limited service, land for a refuel in about the middle, which is available on most connections, and be it on the Easter Islands, and in this time serve their passenger in a contracted ground restaurant. Would combine a great service with efficient fuel usage and low costs. What is wrong with it?


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13234 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 5):
Unless the plane were supersonic and the flight lasted only 8 hours or so (I've no idea how long such a flight would last....)

Good point but for how much of this route involves over-water flying ? Remember that, when in regular service, Concorde was not allowed to break the sound barrier when flying overland.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The A340-500 and 777-200LR can connect LHR and SYD/AKL today if you just put 100-200 premium cabin customers in the plane. But start adding Economy class passengers, as airlines like QF and BA appear to wish to do, and the mission is no longer possible. Also, even when you offer a really nice Economy product, as SQ did on their A345, people seem to not want to pay for it.

Neither BA or QF operates these plane types. If they did then maybe these carriers might have started non-stop flights, perhaps between LHR and PER,

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I don't know what SQ's connecting traffic that exits at SIN from LHR or SYD is, but I am guessing it's a good bit less than 100 people, otherwise they likely would have added an A340-500 non-stop between LHR and SYD already.

SQ is famed for carrying passengers between Europe and Australia via SIN. But its "sixth freedom" kangaroo route traffic has been hit in recent years with the arrival of the Gulf carriers. EK was unknown on the kangaroo route some 20 years ago ... today it operates 70 flights a week, mainly with B77Ws and A380s.

SQ would never be able to gain rights to fly UK-Australia non-stop. It has no bargaining position for such a route with either the UK or Australian govs.


User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13213 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
Yes, but such an aircraft would have to be a derivative on an existing aircraft since the market certainly isn't big enough to justify the $10+ billion investment necessary to build a new airliner.

Boeing seems to be further developing the 777. Is there a way to stretch its range by 3-4k nm?



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13193 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 11):
SQ would never be able to gain rights to fly UK-Australia non-stop. It has no bargaining position for such a route with either the UK or Australian govs.

Why shouldn't they? The Authorities might consider it as a competitive answer to EK.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13191 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
Boeing seems to be further developing the 777.

Maybe, and it seems to be a decent option at this point.

Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
Is there a way to stretch its range by 3-4k nm?

They can definitely get more out of it with a new wing, modified engines, and most importantly reduced structural weight. Even with that, 3000 NM of additional range (which would give a 77W about 11000 NM) is a lot to ask for, but getting withing spitting distance of 10000 seems pretty reasonable.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13192 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
Boeing seems to be further developing the 777. Is there a way to stretch its range by 3-4k nm?

3000-4000nm? not a chance in hell and unnecessary. Unless you meant 300-400nm, which is certainly managaeable. I'd recommend Boeing focussed on making the 777NG lighter and more efficient, possibly reducing the MTOW instead of giving it a performance nobody really needs.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13173 times:

The payload would be marginal compared to the fuel load. The 789 seems a better plattform for going beyond 9000.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13153 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16):
The payload would be marginal compared to the fuel load. The 789 seems a better plattform for going beyond 9000

I think that there is a chance that is the case, but I think the only way the development is justified is if Boeing goes ahead with a 787-10 that has a modified wing and perhaps a higher MTOW as well and then roll those mods back into the -9.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13129 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 4):
The problem is that ULH flights are costly to operate because in the first few hours of flying "you burn fuel just to carry fuel."

Technically, you burn fuel to carry fuel all the way, not only in the first few hours. The real issue with ULH flight is you burn more fuel to carry more fuel. All the way down under.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I think the real issue is they can't carry enough Economy cabin passengers to make them profitable.

That is illogical.

Given the average J class fare is 3-5 times that of Y and cost is not 3-5 times more, airlines will always prefer to put as many F/J seats in as possible and only put Y class in for the remainder of the aircraft. Unfortunately not everyone can afford to travel F/J so they are forced to put some Y seats in in most cases. Yield maximization?

Think about it this way - if the whole earth can afford to travel in F, why would they rely on Y to make any money?



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13062 times:

The UK and Siingapore already have an Open Skies agreement that is, well Open Skies. So it allows, for example, SQ to opersate (and sell tickets) on any UK domestic segment of any of their flights:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...rebusinessnews/view/303608/1/.html

I do not know how liberal the Australia-Singapore bilateral is. The above article suggests, because SQ does not have trans-Pacific rights from Australia, that it is not that liberal. But I am guessing that since SIN is a mini long haul hub for BA/QF with flights in from various Australian citiies that the agreement cannot be too restrictive.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8202 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13062 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
Obviously either of those would be heavier and less efficient on "normal" missions than the regular variants. So it would only sell to ULH customers. SYD-LHR, AKL-LHR, and GRU-NRT would have to support the plane by themselves.

I suspect that in 20 years time when better technology exists for such a plane, you will see more routes, some as a result of emerging economies and others as a result of increased global trade. A few that I can think are: JNB-NRT/SFO/MEX, MEX-PVG/DEL/SIN, SYD-YYZ/MIA, SCL-NRT/BOM, GRU-China.
The biggest problem here is not how many routes such potential routes there will be. The biggest problam is how scattered they are which makes aircraft aquisition and maintenance very expensive because most airlines would need only 3-5 of these planes. Maybe by then the synergies of airline alliances will have migrated towards combined and shared fleets which would allow multiple airlines within the same alliance to pool aircraft, crew, and maintenance resources to operate these routes.
Take the routes above as an example. You could have *A place a combined order for such an airplane to be operated on GRU-China/NRT, NRT-JNB/SCL, and JNB-SFO routes.


User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

Quoting vv701 (Reply 19):
But I am guessing that since SIN is a mini long haul hub for BA/QF with flights in from various Australian citiies that the agreement cannot be too restrictive.

Good point. I had forgotten that BA/QF use SIN as a hub where the LHR-SIN A380/B747/B777 flights converge into feeder flights serving not just SYD and MEL and PER but many of the smaller Oz destinations too.


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13007 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 10):
I personally find most airline food no joy. It cannot be made better given the environment I agree, but I would state that ground made fresh food can be made far better for lower prices than food in the air.
So for very long flights, let us say 8000 miles, why don't airlines fly 4000 miles with limited service, land for a refuel in about the middle, which is available on most connections, and be it on the Easter Islands, and in this time serve their passenger in a contracted ground restaurant. Would combine a great service with efficient fuel usage and low costs. What is wrong with it?

Like the Greyhound or Tourist Busses! - Actually it could be a good sell, a stop in an exotic place for a Luau that is included in the ticket price. Spend $40 on lunch instead of $80 on the fuel to bypass the stop.

Also, get in conjunction with the local resorts, allow for continuation so pax could stay a night or two then continue on without busting the standard round trip ticket.

[Edited 2010-07-15 07:30:39]

User currently onlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6709 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12928 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 1):
There's a reason the SIN-EWR flight has gone all-business class, and that the JFK flight continues to be routed through FRA. Economy travelers don't mind a stop on a journey of that length. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't add a huge amount of time to a flight.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that "Economy travelers don't mind a stop on a journey of that length." Rather, economy travelers aren't necessarily willing to pay the fare premium which would be required for non-stop ultra-long-haul service.

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 4):
The problem is that ULH flights are costly to operate because in the first few hours of flying "you burn fuel just to carry fuel." That is why SQ found it had to move to an all J class layout for its SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX non-stops. The previous J and Y+ layout wasn't profitable.

Not just fuel, but crew costs, too. For a flight over 20 hours, the airline would have to pay three sets of pilots and flight attendants 20+ hours' worth of pay. With a stop in the middle, you still pay the same number of people, but they're all on the clock for far fewer hours. Potential revenue is also reduced considering the amount of space which would have to be dedicated to crew rest seating/bunks.

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 3):
Hello--that's a nice idea--but unless the plane is very fast, people would rather stop at a midpoint city to relax. like an intermission in a movie.

I imagine people said exactly the same thing about U.S.A.-Australia back when flights all stopped in Honolulu.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 10):
So for very long flights, let us say 8000 miles, why don't airlines fly 4000 miles with limited service, land for a refuel in about the middle, which is available on most connections, and be it on the Easter Islands, and in this time serve their passenger in a contracted ground restaurant. Would combine a great service with efficient fuel usage and low costs. What is wrong with it?

Restaurants don't really handle 200-500 people all arriving at once very well. To make the economics work (i.e. cost of the facility and employees), you'd need several daily flights using such a restaurant. Getting 200-500 people off the aircraft and into/out of the restaurant, not to mention time to order, serve, etc. would be extremely time-consuming; it would probably require at least three hours on the ground. And part of the reason why airline food is largely unsatisfying is that it has to be mass-produced and largely prepared beforehand; there would be little difference with a restaurant trying to serve 350 people all at once.

And you mentioned the Easter Islands; getting good, fresh ingredients to isolated locations is very expensive, if not impossible. Even on an island like Aruba with plenty of tourist traffic, certain foods are difficult to find and quite costly.

In any event, one plus of the meal onboard is that you're actually getting closer to your destination while eating; the meal helps pass the time.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
I see only two possibilities for building such an airliner in the near future:

1) An A350-800R with A350-1000 wings and engines, or
2) if Boeing builds a 787HGW (which looks less likely these days), a 787-8LR or -9LR with the HGW bits.

Personally, I'd suggest that if Boeing DO go ahead and make wholesale improvements to the 777-300ER in order to counter the A350-1000, then you'll get this plane pretty much for FREE - it will be the 777-200LR NG  
Quoting c5load (Reply 12):
Boeing seems to be further developing the 777. Is there a way to stretch its range by 3-4k nm?

I'm absolutely sure you don't need that sort of improvement.
The 772LR is already good for 9 500Nm nominal. I'd have thought c. 1 000Nm more would give you all the range you'll EVER need  

Rgds


25 tdscanuck : An airplane with that capability should have no real issue getting ETOPS 207 or more, which would largely negate the ETOPS issue. Tom.
26 AustrianZRH : The direct route LHR-AKL is 9910 nm. Making the route westbound (or eastbound AKL-LHR) via 80°N 180°W gives you 9935 nm, an increase of 25 nm or 0.
27 SEPilot : The maximum feasible range for planes will increase as fuel efficiency improves. This will reduce the percentage of payload at a given range, increas
28 cosmofly : Virgin Galatic may lead the way. If you can fly into space and back, you can get anywhere in probably 3 hours.
29 MingToo : How about a J (or F) only service LHR-SYD in a 737-700ER with a very quick 'pit-stop' for fuel and crew change somewhere cheap and uncongested along
30 RJ111 : How is that any different to a 744/A380 flying the route?
31 LondonCity : I believe you would need two stops en route for LON-SYD. So overall flight time wouldn't compete with the likes of BA, QF, EK and SQ.
32 MingToo : No economy passengers as 'padding'. Just high yielding J or F.
33 Post contains links MingToo : Picking Chengdu as a stop http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-CTU-SYD That's 5200 miles on the first segment and 5400 on the second segment with the 737
34 AM744 : Could be nice for some leisure travelers with plenty of time in their hands, but unfortunately I don't see it working. Landing fees, ground services,
35 Post contains images seabosdca : I wonder whether a 777 would be efficient enough when built for ULH, even as revised... but of course, I tend to feel no plane would be efficient eno
36 A388 : How can an extra stop on a longhaul flight with all the extra costs involved be efficient fuel usage and low costs? A388
37 SSTsomeday : I think the times savings would be at least 2 1/2 hours, considering the additional flight time required to land and take off and get back to altitud
38 MingToo : Less that 1/3 of the carbon emissions of cement production I believe. Aviation (and particularly long haul) is the wrong place to focus. A good way t
39 IMissPiedmont : I'll happiliy spend the extra time and overnight stays. No way I will ever spend more than 6 hours in any airplane.
40 Post contains images Shany : Sounds good at the first place but: - you have to unload all the passengers and reload them. That may take let's say 2x30min for 300 pax + dining: an
41 oykie : The only way to make a 10 000 Nm plane work is to increase the speed. Like the Subsnic cruiser from Boeing. It would make sense on all routes between
42 707lvr : I'm looking forward to seeing which manufacturer announces a new aircraft with an 11,000NM range.
43 AADC10 : Are there any markets beside SYD-LHR and AKL-LHR that could use non-stops that cannot be effectively served by existing aircraft? Aircraft manufactur
44 RJ111 : We won't, you would need to remodel the whole wing. But regarding M0.95 - transonic is the least efficient speed to fly at. If you're going to go fas
45 Post contains links and images fanofjets : I am probably showing my age here, but I still remember when traveling was as much fun as reaching one's destination. Landing at an interesting airpor
46 pylon101 : I completely agree. Many vacation pax would love to make a planned stop for 24 or 48 hours. It doesn't even need Aruba. Dubai and Singapore are fine:
47 baw716 : I beg to differ with you, but range is a matter of payload/weight/fuel burn. If you get the weight right, you can fly a 77L 11000nm, year round with
48 Post contains links fanofjets : While surfing the'Net, I found two intresting concepts: First, if future jets will be slower than those of today, owing to environmental factors such
49 Post contains links hawkercamm : LHR-SYD with a great circle of 9188nm will require a design range of 10500nm to carry a standard passenger payload. Using the B77L as an example that
50 ScottB : And perhaps not. The potential traffic flows aren't large enough and they'd never be able to get the facilities built in such an environmentally sens
51 Viscount724 : I doubt the UK-SIN open skies agreement permits cabotage within the UK. That would be very unusual. The US-EU and Canada-EU open skies agreements don
52 airbazar : The key word here being "was". These days most airports are a hassle and the good new ones are looking more and more like your regular neighborhood m
53 ikramerica : One of the completely unproven and unsupported facts of a.net. No studies are ever cited, or surveys, but it's just accepted as a reality. I would ra
54 Stitch : QF have noted they don't have enough Economy Class seats on their A380-800s, which is impacting their revenues (and, I would expect by extension, pro
55 tdscanuck : I'm looking forward to seeing how any manufacturer would justify an 11,000 NM aircraft at anything larger than biz-jet size. Tom.
56 planemaker : And... as weight is reduced. Eventually, thermoplastics will reach a technology, price and manufacturing point where they will be able to be used far
57 gemuser : I strongly doubt that either the UK or Australian governments would give SQ such rights. Not having seen the text of the UK/SIN agreement I don't kno
58 Superfly : What was the forecasted range of the proposed Boeing 2707 SST? Would be great if that could be done with modern technology and be able to have a rang
59 oykie : Then why did Boeing activly try to sell a plane that would cruise at Mach 0.95-0.98? You are completely right. Get the weight right on the 777, and i
60 Superfly : Agreed. Or how about the 747 or A380? It's a more spacious cabin than the 777. Flying 20+ hours, the bigger the better. That is more room to install
61 MingToo : Hopefully not off-topic but ... In terms of weight, which I guess is the major variable in range, has there been any thought on capturing moisture fro
62 BMI727 : You can design a wing that will be more efficient at those speeds, but there will be some tradeoffs. The airlines decided that they would rather have
63 AirbusA6 : Is there enough high yield traffic to support SYD/MEL-LHR, as while there are strong cultural and tourism links between the UK and Australia, aren't
64 tdscanuck : Because they were trading speed against fuel burn...the Sonic Cruiser burned just as much fuel as predecessor aircraft. This made sense when you real
65 MingToo : Yes my bad. On reflection, I guess the vapour trails are actually evidence of a lack of moisture in the atmosphere since the water vapour created by
66 PITingres : By weight, perhaps, but hydrogen's energy density by volume is nothing short of wretchedly awful. Hydrogen takes up a *lot* of space.
67 ScottB : But I suspect this is because demand for First/Business Class travel is down, so they're flying a bunch of empty premium seats around. To me, all tha
68 MingToo : Ok ... back of the envelope calculation .... 250Kg of hydrogen @145MJ/kg = 36GJ which at 50% efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell = 18GJ which over a 12
69 PITingres : The only way you are liquefying LH2 is cryogenically, and the stuff loves to escape from tankage and pipes. When you add back the machinery needed to
70 Post contains links MingToo : For anyone who is interested (which may well be none as its only vaguely on topic in which case apologies), here is a 2003 report I found of an EU fea
71 Mortyman : How about CDG - PPT non stop ? 9765 mi Would Air France or Air Tahiti Nui be interested in this ? or CDG - NOU non stop 10366 mi Would Air France or A
72 rb211 : The only way i can see that happening right now if it is contracted by the military . But, landing fees "plus", versus a direct sounds more profitable
73 tdscanuck : Fuel cell APU's are fairly far along in the concept stage now, for this very reason. Although packing hydrogen is a pain...far easier to just use a h
74 Stitch : My argument is not that Economy is the most profitable cabin, but that is an important part of running a profitable operation because it is not as "p
75 MingToo : Hydrogen would be a step too far at this point I would agree. It's better to wait and see and what happens with hydrogen as a fuel generally in terms
76 DocLightning : There's also the fact that most people would rather stop somewhere and stretch their legs than sit in a Y seat for 23 hours straight. When you're goi
77 frmrCapCadet : Caterers do it all of the time. I'll bet I am not the only BBQer who can and does do a meal for 80-100 in one day. Supplies would come in by boat, an
78 Aesma : Yeah I was gonna mention them. And those are "domestic" routes with mandatory government help. However, if the cost is vastly superior to the current
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will There Be Winglets For The B 747-400XQLR? posted Tue Feb 26 2002 17:50:25 by United Airline
Will There Be A Jet A Surplus In Sept/Nov? posted Thu Jul 10 2008 23:53:44 by IAD51FL
Will There Be A Shortage Of Pilots In The Future? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 09:15:07 by A319XFW
Will There Be Another Airline Based In Hong Kong? posted Fri Apr 10 2009 19:53:21 by United Airline
Will There Be More Orders For The Boeing 717? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 04:18:50 by Kaitak744
Will There Be Another TWA In Ten Years Time? posted Sat Apr 7 2001 06:07:50 by United Airline
Will There Be Any New US Customer For The B 747? posted Sun Dec 24 2000 07:27:23 by United Airline
If KC-X Gets GEnx Will There Be A Civil Verision? posted Sat Jun 27 2009 02:26:16 by OyKIE
Will There Be A A320 Combi? posted Sat Jun 20 2009 04:03:33 by Accrazy
Who/What Will U2 Be Flying For 2009 Tour? posted Tue Apr 14 2009 16:19:06 by JayDub