PlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 739 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
If cabin air was replaced as frequently as in the 70's to mid 80's, (partly because smoking was permitted back then), bleedless engines wouldn't be viable, as the power req'd to heat incoming air for cabin use would be too great. As cabin air standards are currently set so low, bleedless is possible.
What is the maximum cabin refresh rate the 7e7 is going to be capable of at 30,000 feet versus 777, 767, 757, 747, A32, A33, A38, MD11?
How will 7e7 operators raise the refresh rate if a higher standard is demanded / req'd by customers and/or the World Health Organisation?
JetMechMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
There is no difference between the rate the cabin air was "replaced" in the 70s. and 80s. The same aircraft are in service, with the same packs, recirculation fans, and out-flow valves. They are operated the same way they always have been. The goal is to pressurize the cabin, and heat it to a comfortable level. That's it. Nothing has changed. I can not answer your other questions about the 7E7's rate, or WHO standards. Sorry.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2594 times:
Great! Disease runs rampant all over the globe. In parts of Africa, AIDS is more common than electricity and WHO decides to set standards for airliner cabin air.
What a useless bunch of fops!
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
JetMechMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
SlamClick,
If you were not already on my rec list, after that comment I would be adding you. Thanks for the laugh.
Dalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2366 posts, RR: 15 Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
The current rate of air refresh is actually very high. Somewhere I read a report from Boeing detailing the 767 system. The air exchange rate actually exceeds the rate for an infectious desease area of a hospital. I'll bet the 7e7 will still have a similar rate.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
According to Boeing, the norm on most Boeing aircraft is 50% recirculated and 50% fresh air. I say, "most Boeing aircraft," because the 717 is 100% fresh air. Also current cabin air systems circulate enough air to replenish the whole cabin every 2-3 minutes. This is way better than the air exchange rate in an air-conditioned building. More info can be found here:
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
The B732 I remember correctly did not have Recirculating Fans,so the Air was 100% Fresh bleed extracted Air.Later versions did come up with One or Two Recirculating fans & so the percentage of Recirculated Air Increased.
However Present Day Aircraft have a refresh rate thats adequate,With no Smoking on board,things are more better.
regds
MEL
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 739 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 380 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 139 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
