grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:35 am

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 43):
Grantcv, pull your head out of your a$$. Think about it, Yes, we do drive vehicles today that are overly large and thirsty, but compared to what was overly large and thirsty 30 or 40 years ago, they merely sip fuel. Even the largest passenger vehicles today are designed and built with fuel economy in mind. That wasn't so 30, 40 years ago. This is where the technological advances come into play. Fuel injection over carburation for example. Cruisng on half the cylinders and accelerating on all 8. I can't tell you how many vehicles produced back then would make a big nasty Toyota Sequoia or a deplorable Ford F#%) with a V10 triton look like a yaris or a civic.

First of all, I take exception to the general rudeness of your opening remark. That was uncalled for and rude.

Secondly, the fuel economy of the giant size SUVs that are all over the road is little better than the station wagons everyone drove in the 60's and 70's. The big strides in efficiency we saw in the late seventies, eighties, and early nineties were lost when we forgot about efficiency and began focusing on horsepower and size again. Driving overly large SUVs that produce gas mileage in the low to mid teens is not a big improvement over the station wagons back then that produced gas mileage in the low teens. I cannot understand your comment how yesteryear's cars make a V10 triton powered truck look like a civic or yaris. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can one make that parallel.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:24 am

As a continued joke/aside, here is a european study of hydrogen for air transports. The tank would be huge, comparatively, due to the energy density issues; liquid hydrogen has 4 times the volume (energy-wise) as kerosene. Obviously, that's a pretty big deal for an airliner. It won't likely ever happen.

http://www.eu.nl/research/transport/news/article_786_en.html

Lastly, I am curious, doesn't liquid hydrogen need to be refrigerated, or is that why the cryogenic tank is so large? Would there be a refrigeration-out-related ETOPS-style limitation on such aircraft?
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:29 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 50):
First of all, I take exception to the general rudeness of your opening remark. That was uncalled for and rude.Secondly, the fuel economy of the giant size SUVs that are all over the road is little better than the station wagons everyone drove in the 60's and 70's. The big strides in efficiency we saw in the late seventies, eighties, and early nineties were lost when we forgot about efficiency and began focusing on horsepower and size again. Driving overly large SUVs that produce gas mileage in the low to mid teens is not a big improvement over the station wagons back then that produced gas mileage in the low teens. I cannot understand your comment how yesteryear's cars make a V10 triton powered truck look like a civic or yaris. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can one make that parallel.

Ok, exception noted.

This forum was meant to be a discussion on the future of avaition design. Not a discussion on why birds have flown the same way for millions of years, or the fuel economy of current vehicles versus past vehicles. You didn't even tie your last post into the topic. It would be more suited to car forum as opposed to an aviation forum.

I take exception to your general attitude. And the air of personal greatness you are trying to convey to everyone else. If you wish your posts top be taken seriously, I would suggest making worthwhile contributions. Quoting everyone and then ripping apart what they say is hardly worthwhile contributions.
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:32 am

Here is an interesting thought. Mid-air refueling for commercial aircraft.
Wonder if there are any benefits? I'm sure someone else had thought about it. Most likely ome sort of study has been done. If an a/c was able to take off with minimal amount of fuel and then get topped up after take/off, would it enable any more radical designs to be considered?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:42 am

I thought the T-tail was gone because it was inefficient. Lo and behold, it is back again.

Does the aero advantage outweigh the structural weight penalty for T-tail rear engines (requiring super strong rear frame)?

I am pleased the T-tail may be making a comeback in midsize airliners. Wonder how big they could actually go with it (IL-62M anyone...)
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 7):
I don't believe that a delta wing like the Honeydew has would make sense for a small short range airliner at this point.

Tube and body has been proven to work in many areas, so those that cry "don't fix what ain't broke" have an argument. If it can be shown that different design concept can be better while cheaper or that the long term cost savings are worth the developmental cost increase, then why not? It's really up to a company whether they are willing to spend for long or short term gains.

Any wing can be optimised for any speed range, this is what designing and engineering is about. That most deltas have been optimised for highspeed only means using those wings at low speed makes no sense. These concepts and arguments of what 'should' have no place.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 37):
Even if it had caught on and been better optimized, the laws of physics are impossible to overcome - it takes more energy to fly faster

Compare the jets like the 787 to a 707, what happened based on the laws of physics? They go about the same speed, but over time they gradually used less fuel per payload and range, which increased. But somehow, this logic cannot be used on an SST or something faster? While you can, I certainly won't use the laws of physics at my convenience to downplay one idea while another flourishes because of it.

BTW, you're talking to someone that sincerely believes SST's can be made extremely efficient and inexpensive enough for mass travel with little to any sonic boom inconvenience to inhabitants below. Already being an aerospace engineer (focusing on propulsion and aerodynamics) helps.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:57 am

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 53):
Here is an interesting thought. Mid-air refueling for commercial aircraft.
Wonder if there are any benefits? I'm sure someone else had thought about it. Most likely ome sort of study has been done. If an a/c was able to take off with minimal amount of fuel and then get topped up after take/off, would it enable any more radical designs to be considered?

Ok, brilliant idea, the plane gets to take off without the penalty of having to carry it's fuel into the air. So just exactly how will the tanker aircraft get itself airborne without paying the penalty instead? The fuel must get airborne somehow - the most efficient way to get it up there is simply to put it into the aircraft on the ground in the first place.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:07 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 55):
Compare the jets like the 787 to a 707, what happened based on the laws of physics? They go about the same speed, but over time they gradually used less fuel per payload and range, which increased. But somehow, this logic cannot be used on an SST or something faster? While you can, I certainly won't use the laws of physics at my convenience to downplay one idea while another flourishes because of it.

That's not my point. Sure, with time the efficiency of airliners has improved. Nonetheless, it takes less energy to fly at Mach 0.85 than it does that to fly at Mach 2.0. Even if a supersonic airliner were made to be considerably more efficient than the Concorde was, it would still mean that an airliner flying at Mach 0.85 would be more cost effective. There just isn't enough of a compelling need in the world to fly at Mach 2.0 to make that trade-off work to the airlines favor.
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 57):
That's not my point. Sure, with time the efficiency of airliners has improved. Nonetheless, it takes less energy to fly at Mach 0.85 than it does that to fly at Mach 2.0. Even if a supersonic airliner were made to be considerably more efficient than the Concorde was, it would still mean that an airliner flying at Mach 0.85 would be more cost effective. There just isn't enough of a compelling need in the world to fly at Mach 2.0 to make that trade-off work to the airlines favor.

Not enough compelling need hey? I can see you 50 years from now insisting on flying on some 3rd world airlines old 787's because they're "tried tested and true", while the rest of the world accepts advances in technology and zips around in the SST's at mach 2.0.



Quoting Grantcv (Reply 56):
Ok, brilliant idea, the plane gets to take off without the penalty of having to carry it's fuel into the air. So just exactly how will the tanker aircraft get itself airborne without paying the penalty instead? The fuel must get airborne somehow - the most efficient way to get it up there is simply to put it into the aircraft on the ground in the first place.

Impressive comments, once again you seem to simply ignore the fact that these issues can be overcome. You would have been the guy 60 years ago saying "the sound barrier can't be broken, don't even try, its not worth it."

You certainly seem to limit your ideology to what has already been done. You and Rutan sure wouldn't mix.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:42 pm

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 58):
You certainly seem to limit your ideology to what has already been done. You and Rutan sure wouldn't mix.

Just because something has been done doesn't mean it can be done profitably.

And who's Rutan? A guy who launched a so-called 'spaceship' to not even 2% of the kinetic energy required to achieve orbit?  duck 
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:17 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 59):

Just because something has been done doesn't mean it can be done profitably.

And who's Rutan? A guy who launched a so-called 'spaceship' to not even 2% of the kinetic energy required to achieve orbit?

Agreed, but most things are done "unprofitably", with cost secondary, before they are refined to economically make sense.

Granted "spaceship 1" only achieves 2% percent of the kinetic energy required to reach orbit, but wouldn't you agree that Virgin Galactic in partnership with Scaled Composites will continue to pioneer commercial space travel. Today they merely touch the edge of space, but fifty years from now, who knows where we'll be.
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 36):
Um, that wasn't the point, Yes, all future airliners will be composite, but the benefits are less for a smaller aircraft than a larger one. By themselve, they don't warrant a whole new airliner. For smaller airliners, its the propulsion technology that will drive new efficiencies. You are comparing airlines optionally spending an extra million on each airliner to the billions it will cost to develop the next generation and the price to be paid if the chosen configuration precludes advances in propulsion that come after the configuration has been frozen. If either Boeing or Airbus make the wrong choice, they face finding their new bread-and-butter model out of favor with the market and that would be disastrous for them.

I was making the point that there will be another 737 replacement that is composite... He was saying that there was not really any use to replacing the 737NG. How many more take offs and landings will a smaller airliner encounter over its life. Since quite a bit of fuel is burnt during take off... I'm sure with a lot more take offs the efficiency will be quite nicely noticed on the smaller airliners as well... More so then the 737NG which by the way is an awesome aircraft but if you can get more efficient then why not... Given the amount of 737's that have been purchased I think there is a lot of potential in them.

[Edited 2007-08-13 08:45:56]
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:41 pm

Quoting Thorny (Reply 33):
Then use the locomotive and the automobile. Both over a century old, and still more or less the same as they were in 1900. The changes are mostly under-the-hood.

Not getting much better... So in the 1900's we go from steam and the early diesels to electric trains that can travel at 10-15 times that speed using less energy and polution... Same with automobiles. With hybrids as well as electric and if you want to compare a 78 Buick to a 07 Acura TL and tell me that the difference is all under the hood... You obviously don't know cars!
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:12 pm

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 44):
the pilots will be data entry clerks

Uh... there won't even be pilots. Did you miss this Boeing concept from the article...

The documents show Boeing has looked at other concepts as well: a supersonic business jet; a megasize freighter; airplanes that use biofuels or hydrogen; and even a "reduced crew" airliner — one with no windows in the cockpit, judging by a sketch in the Boeing documents.

I believe that the 737RS will be designed with single-pilot upgrade capability built-in for around 2020.  Big grin  Big grin
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 44):
Yes, design is in a rut from a the viewpoint of an aircraft aficionado.

What does that mean? Other than general configuration, today's airliners have nothing in common with the 707/DC-8. All new materials, all new systems, all new architecture, all new airfoils, all new control systems, all new navigation, all new avionics, all new engines...

Which part, exactly, is in a rut?

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 55):
Compare the jets like the 787 to a 707, what happened based on the laws of physics? They go about the same speed, but over time they gradually used less fuel per payload and range, which increased.

There's a big difference between energy required and fuel required. The 707 needed roughly the same amount of energy (per lb) but had significantly less efficient engines...hence, higher fuel burn. The original poster was referring to energy...it's physically impossible to fly at Mach 2.0 with less specific power than at Mach 0.85.

Tom.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:08 am

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 51):
As a continued joke/aside, here is a european study of hydrogen for air transports. The tank would be huge, comparatively, due to the energy density issues; liquid hydrogen has 4 times the volume (energy-wise) as kerosene. Obviously, that's a pretty big deal for an airliner. It won't likely ever happen.

http://www.eu.nl/research/transport/news/article_786_en.html

Lastly, I am curious, doesn't liquid hydrogen need to be refrigerated, or is that why the cryogenic tank is so large? Would there be a refrigeration-out-related ETOPS-style limitation on such aircraft?

For these reasons above, airplanes will be the last technology to go for alternative energy. Weight is disproportionately critcal to airplanes relative to other energy applications, so because of energy density issues, as long as hydrocarbon fuel is in use anywhere, it will be on airplanes.
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 63):
Uh... there won't even be pilots. Did you miss this Boeing concept from the article...

The documents show Boeing has looked at other concepts as well: a supersonic business jet; a megasize freighter; airplanes that use biofuels or hydrogen; and even a "reduced crew" airliner — one with no windows in the cockpit, judging by a sketch in the Boeing documents.

I believe that the 737RS will be designed with single-pilot upgrade capability built-in for around 2020.

I don't like that idea... I think the word concept will always be in the same sentance as no window, no pilot, or single pilot... Nothing like that in my opinion should or will be developed...
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:26 am

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 66):
I don't like that idea... I think the word concept will always be in the same sentance as no window, no pilot, or single pilot... Nothing like that in my opinion should or will be developed...

Progress sucks for some!  Wink But single-pilot and then no-pilot will advance beyond concept... technology marches on. The only debate is timing... perhaps single-pilot capability by 2020 and no-pilot by 2040.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 55):
If it can be shown that different design concept can be better while cheaper or that the long term cost savings are worth the developmental cost increase, then why not?

It is also important to note that a lot of the resistance to revolutionary designs is because of certification risk. You can have a perfectly good, perfectly safe, significantly superior aircraft - if it is really non-conventional, the FAA/EASA will make you go through HELL to approve it. The level of uncertainty that this causes in terms of project cost, schedule and viability cannot be minimized. It is bad to the point where people will refuse even to think outside the box, because "that would never get certified".

Good were the days that you made your product, put it on the market and bet your good name and fortune on its success. Now you get to appease a thousand beaurocrats first, and then bet your good name and fortune on its success.

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 65):
For these reasons above, airplanes will be the last technology to go for alternative energy. Weight is disproportionately critcal to airplanes relative to other energy applications, so because of energy density issues, as long as hydrocarbon fuel is in use anywhere, it will be on airplanes.

 checkmark  YES! YES! YES!

And this should happen around 2200, unless we get usable micro-fusion before then.
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting Scramjetter (Reply 49):
The USAF had a nuclear powered B-36, the NB-36H. And the Soviets also had a nuclear test bomber but apparently it was deemed to hazardous for the crew to operate. The shielding was very heavy and in some cases marginal. But the advantage was that the aircraft could, in theory, operate for long periods of time.

The nuclear pile on the NB-36 did produce power; however, it was never used for any propulsion whatsoever. It was used primarily to prototype some of the issues that would have to be addressed (e.g., shielding) had the USAF ever decided to move forward with it.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:17 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 57):
There just isn't enough of a compelling need in the world to fly at Mach 2.0 to make that trade-off work to the airlines favor.

Your opinion, however...

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 57):
That's not my point. Sure, with time the efficiency of airliners has improved. Nonetheless, it takes less energy to fly at Mach 0.85 than it does that to fly at Mach 2.0.

Fair enough, where is the relative efficiency mark? Boeing needed to replace 767 anyway, first with SC and now 787, that just happen to bring better technology to the table. The primary compelling reason seems to be cost savings. Supposedly, its what put Sonic Cruiser to the back burner, that airlines prefered using less fuel over high speed at the same fuel burn rate as other airliners.

I won't deny the unfortunate possibility of such a bold engine to render Mach 2.0+ speed at the efficiency of todays M0.85 planes be downrated for subsonic hyper-efficiency, a la Boeing's SC/7E7/787, per your energy argument claiming not "enough compelling need".

If it would cost the same to operate there is no trade off, if it would cost much less to operater regularly, what would be the trade off?

That's like either buy a high end computer with the best at the time components, or get cheaper components and overclock them while keeping the money you saved. Fact is, when overclocking a component, it will use more energy than a stock component at high speeds. But an overclocking computer enthusiast doesn't see it that way, they conclude, "why spend 4 times as much when a slow part can get similar performance when tweeked as such?"

My argument is, "if it didn't cost you extra, would you take it or choose to pay even less for something you would have wanted anyway?"

787 is changing the bar of efficiency compared to previously efficient planes, people here reference it even now, before it has a chance to prove it with testing. They have faith in 787's technology.

Others seemingly don't have faith is supersonics.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 70):

787 is changing the bar of efficiency compared to previously efficient planes, people here reference it even now, before it has a chance to prove it with testing. They have faith in 787's technology.

Others seemingly don't have faith is supersonics.

It isn't a matter of faith... it is a matter of physics.  Smile
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:02 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 67):
Progress sucks for some! But single-pilot and then no-pilot will advance beyond concept... technology marches on. The only debate is timing... perhaps single-pilot capability by 2020 and no-pilot by 2040.

If you consider that me thinking progress sucks. Progress is great to a certain extent. But your first example being single pilot conversions... What happens when that pilot gets sick or has a stroke or heart attack or any number of possible things that could occur in flight, (which has happened to pilots numerous times in flight) and it's up to the other to take on most if not all of the flying responsibility... with one pilot, whose hands are passengers left in... If relying ona machine... Who's to moniter aircraft systems as well as make decisions factoring all factors for example a passenger with a life threatening situation on board. Last I checked machines and computers can't do that... You can say progress... I prefer to say safety works for me! I rely on people, not machines...
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:53 pm

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
What happens when that pilot gets sick or has a stroke or heart attack or any number of possible things that could occur in flight, (which has happened to pilots numerous times in flight)

Numerous times? What % is numerous times? Where exactly does one find the "stroke or heart attack during a commercial flight statistic"?

But to answer your hypothetical question, nothing happens if the pilot "ate the fish".  Wink

As someone already jokingly said, the pilot will only be a "data entry clerk" in the future. Therefore, the flight continues to the destination airport as programmed unless an immediate diversion is required to the nearest airport... and that technology is already viable now (it is just not applied yet). You know, the Global Hawk has been taking off and landing autonomously now for a few years. So in 15 years this will all be extremely mature technology.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
Who's to moniter aircraft systems

It is already being done on a real-time basis on airliners everyday!

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
for example a passenger with a life threatening situation on board.

There will be still be Cabin Crew on board to deal with any pax situation.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
Last I checked machines and computers can't do that...

Computers are doing much more than you realize. In 15 plus years they will be doing even more.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
I prefer to say safety works for me! I rely on people, not machines...

Actually, every time you fly in an Airbus (and other jets) you are relying entirely on machines!! And, BTW, pilot error is the biggest cause of airline accidents.

Just remember, I was not talking about next year... I said that perhaps by 2020 there would be single-pilot capability built-in and no-pilot airliners perhaps by 2040. I can certainly be off by a decade but the point remains that it is not a question of "if" but "when".
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:54 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 70):
787 is changing the bar of efficiency compared to previously efficient planes, people here reference it even now, before it has a chance to prove it with testing.

What's left on the 787 for efficiency that hasn't been tested? The structure is known weight and strength, the aerodynamics have been CFD'd and windtunneled up the yin-yang, the engines have been run...all the stuff that goes to efficiency is pretty much known. There are the inevitable systems integration, flutter, etc. issues that you only work out with full-aircraft testing but I don't see how any of those are going to significantly alter the efficiency part of the design.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 72):
I prefer to say safety works for me! I rely on people, not machines...

Planemaker beat me to it...way more safety problems are caused by people than by machines.

Tom.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Nex

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:11 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 74):
way more safety problems are caused by people than by machines.

You're quite right about that!

Instead of pilots flying the plane into a mountain, we will have software developers flying the plane into a mountain.
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:48 am

At the end of the day you'll find there will always be pilots behind commercial aircraft... passengers are not all airplane enthusiasts and are not going to think the way you do... Nobody is going to want to fly on a pilotless plane... I have seen numerous flight where pilots have been sick and others when pilots hae died midflight... I haven't seen any machines that can factor real life situations into a final decision... machines don't think logically they have no personality or emotions. Think what you want... It's nog going to happen. I remember that airbus thay they tried to land with no pilot... totally overshot the runway and blew up in a forest... Successful eh guys?? That killed a few as well...

And you say by 2020... So with the new 737 replacement being built somewhere around 2014, you mean to tell me boeing will come out with another single pilot aircraft by 2020... Seven years??? Plus you think it'll only take 20 years if that happened to go to no pilots?? Dream on!!! It'll take way longer if that ever happend which it wont. There will always be pilots in the sky behind the controls. You can say I'm wrong but you can just say I told you so in 30 years.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:12 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 71):
It isn't a matter of faith... it is a matter of physics.

Don't go there. Most folks are already used to thinking that if something isn't widespread then it probably doesn't work. Technology is capable of a lot more than a business is willing to invest in. High end technology usually results in a very small market, which means the customer has to tolerate high unit costs. If not, company will claim no market. As a result, people get the impression that said technology probably doesn't work, or only meant for those willing to pay for it.

Customers and companies have to believe a product is worth their money and time. This belief IS faith in that technolgy and its precieved usefulness, otherwise it has to be demonstrated beforehand. Lack of sales is never fault of technology, so don't gimme that physics argument!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:53 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 77):
Technology is capable of a lot more than a business is willing to invest in.

While technology is capable of many wonderful things, and additional investment will always advance technology faster, no matter what, technology cannot amend the laws of physics. Those are a constant.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:25 pm

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 76):
And you say by 2020... So with the new 737 replacement being built somewhere around 2014, you mean to tell me boeing will come out with another single pilot aircraft by 2020... Seven years???

Please re-read my post and then tell me if anywhere in it did I even leave a wee little impression that Boeing would have to develop a replacement for the RS seven years later!

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 77):
Don't go there.

You're way too late... I already was there... you can't break the laws of physics!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:51 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 79):
Please re-read my post and then tell me if anywhere in it did I even leave a wee little impression that Boeing would have to develop a replacement for the RS seven years later!

You didn't and I never said you did. What aircraft will be in the skies as you said that is single piloted by 2020?
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:01 pm

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 80):
You didn't and I never said you did.

Yes you did! For the second time I post the same quotes that you said!!!

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 76):
And you say by 2020... So with the new 737 replacement being built somewhere around 2014, you mean to tell me boeing will come out with another single pilot aircraft by 2020... Seven years???
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:34 am

I wasn't refering to replacing the RS...
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:16 am

Planemaker is gay and likes to take pictures of little boys in compromising positions mid-flight. Due to this new revelation, all previous and future posts by said airliners member will be immediately discredited.

Moderator



hehehe

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos