The future? Bigger jets?

IFlyVeryLittle · Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:40 pm

Though this summer's supply vs. demand fiasco is likely a temporary hassle, but it's within the boundaries of reason that airlines won't staff back up to pre-pandemic levels (hardly any industries are). So, is the solution a higher average number of seats per departure to account for fewer crews, allow for fewer ground staff to fuel, handle luggage etc. In other words, four larger planes a day to a destination instead five somewhat smaller? Or is this all a transient thing that we'll all laugh about in 2023?

Avatar2go · Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:34 am

It's complex because the cost of fuel also factors in. My family did not take the usual July 4th driving trip this year, because the cost of gas is too high. So if people still want to fly and don't have a ready alternative, other airlines can cater a little less to the customer.

Also for the airlines, it may be cheaper for now to fly less numerous but fatter routes, with more connecting flights and longer layovers (more like the hub & spoke model).

If fuel prices ease and the airlines need to compete more fully for customers, then things will likely go back to the longer, thinner, and more numerous routes.

ILUV767 · Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:50 pm

Average gauge has been increasing over the years and will likely continue to do so. There are many sweet spots, size-wise, in aviation. Generally speaking, the 180 to 200 seat range and the 275-300 seat range are good areas for airlines. On the low end, larger RJ's and small mainline are becoming more common. You'll likely see the demise of the 50 seater in the coming years in favor of fewer frequencies but on larger aircraft. Airplanes with a capacity over 300 are a liability for airlines because tickets may need to be discounted to fill it.

rjsampson · Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:33 am

I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

That thing is going to push out insane thrust. Which begs the question: What would be the application for such an engine? It's already too large for the (struggling) 777X. As it's not expected to enter service until the 2030's: Surely discussions must have been had with Airbus/Boeing about a future VLA?

muralir · Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:26 am

ILUV767 wrote:
Average gauge has been increasing over the years and will likely continue to do so. There are many sweet spots, size-wise, in aviation. Generally speaking, the 180 to 200 seat range and the 275-300 seat range are good areas for airlines. On the low end, larger RJ's and small mainline are becoming more common. You'll likely see the demise of the 50 seater in the coming years in favor of fewer frequencies but on larger aircraft. Airplanes with a capacity over 300 are a liability for airlines because tickets may need to be discounted to fill it.

My understanding is that the expansion of those regional jets was due to contract arbitrage with mainline pilots vs lesser paid regional pilots, and had little to do with the intrinsic economics of the aircraft themselves. If that's true, what's changed to reverse this dynamic? Are mainline and regional contracts closer such that it no longer makes sense to have big regional operations?

bigb · Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:26 pm

muralir wrote:
ILUV767 wrote:
Average gauge has been increasing over the years and will likely continue to do so. There are many sweet spots, size-wise, in aviation. Generally speaking, the 180 to 200 seat range and the 275-300 seat range are good areas for airlines. On the low end, larger RJ's and small mainline are becoming more common. You'll likely see the demise of the 50 seater in the coming years in favor of fewer frequencies but on larger aircraft. Airplanes with a capacity over 300 are a liability for airlines because tickets may need to be discounted to fill it.

My understanding is that the expansion of those regional jets was due to contract arbitrage with mainline pilots vs lesser paid regional pilots, and had little to do with the intrinsic economics of the aircraft themselves. If that's true, what's changed to reverse this dynamic? Are mainline and regional contracts closer such that it no longer makes sense to have big regional operations?

The cost of regional air;I e employees are rising become much closer to mainline employees… The original purpose of regional airlines was to save on the cost of labor.

CowAnon · Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:49 pm

rjsampson wrote:
I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

GE9x fan Diameter: 136"... UltraFan Diameter: 140"
GE9x Pressure Ratio: 60:1... UltraFan Pressure Ratio: 70:1

That thing is going to push out insane thrust. Which begs the question: What would be the application for such an engine? It's already too large for the (struggling) 777X. As it's not expected to enter service until the 2030's: Surely discussions must have been had with Airbus/Boeing about a future VLA?

I think the thread starter was addressing upgauges to high-frequency regional/mainline narrowbody airliners, rather than making the large widebodies even larger.

The UltraFan demonstrator will produce 87,000 pounds of thrust, so it'll be a lot less powerful than the 105k lb GE9x and 115k lb GE90.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/pictures-rolls-royce-ultrafan-building-blocks

Due to its gearbox, UltraFan rotates a lot slower than the GE9x or GE90. So even though the UltraFan's fan is slightly wider than that of the GE90/GE9x, there's less overall air passing through that fan, which means it produces less thrust.

It looks like Rolls Royce is using the UltraFan's higher pressure ratio to reduce the size of the engine core, instead of increasing the amount of power produced by the core.

JayinKitsap · Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:40 am

Average size of airplanes will keep rising, but the market has clearly not choosing VLA. Large was needed in the past to get range, but once the A330, A350, and B787 arrived, the range was satisfied in a smaller capacity. Direct flights with these smaller planes are possible, often reducing the number of stops for most passengers. Soon the O-H-H-D flights will be gone except for the smallest O & D's.

The 779 will be OK, and do well a decade + out when the last of the 747 and A380's are retired. It may be a generation or more before a new VLA is launched.

There is a hollow in the mid - market for both range and passenger capacity. I would expect this to fill eventually, but it seems premature at the moment to seen a NMA from Boeing or a similar plane from Airbus between the A321 and the A338. The market will be OK until then.

There will be a need out there for new RJ's but until a suitable high efficiency engine is available for the 76 seat 86,000 lb proposed models this will be a barren field for a while.

RJMAZ · Mon Jul 18, 2022 5:04 am

I'd say aircraft are getting smaller. Point to point is winning against hub and spoke.

For long flights airlines are choosing the smallest widebody with the 787 and A350. This gives them the versatility of opening new thin routes.

Airlines that ordered the A321XLR are downgauging widebody routes. This is a very strong indicator of what is to come. Unfortunately the A321XLR doesn't quite have the range to target the widebodies bread and butter routes. If/when Boeing launches a long haul narrowbody with range up to 6,000nm I predict it will capture a huge portion of the widebody market.

Narrowbody aircraft are getting bigger but if they are performing existing widebody routes then the average aircraft size might be shrinking.

Yes we currently have slot restrictions at hubs that operate these A350 and 787 long haul flights. As soon as we have a long haul narrowbody we will see more smaller hubs doing direct flights and less connecting flights are then needed.

Fast forward 30 years and the short haul connecting flights will probably be landing vertical at the airport. So there will be plenty of landing slots on the main runway for the long haul aircraft.

Covid has set us back nearly a decade worth of airline growth. Airlines slots were becoming a huge problem at mega hubs but covid has delayed the problem a few more years. So the plans for an extra runway at some airports are now on hold.

Ruddman · Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:52 pm

We dont want bigger. We dont want better fuel economy.

We all want FASTER!!!!!!!!!!

Airliners are flying slower than they did 30 years ago. What the? Bring back the Concorde. Please!!!!!!!

DrPaul · Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:30 pm

CowAnon wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

GE9x fan Diameter: 136"... UltraFan Diameter: 140"
GE9x Pressure Ratio: 60:1... UltraFan Pressure Ratio: 70:1

That thing is going to push out insane thrust. Which begs the question: What would be the application for such an engine? It's already too large for the (struggling) 777X. As it's not expected to enter service until the 2030's: Surely discussions must have been had with Airbus/Boeing about a future VLA?

I think the thread starter was addressing upgauges to high-frequency regional/mainline narrowbody airliners, rather than making the large widebodies even larger.

The UltraFan demonstrator will produce 87,000 pounds of thrust, so it'll be a lot less powerful than the 105k lb GE9x and 115k lb GE90.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/pictures-rolls-royce-ultrafan-building-blocks

Due to its gearbox, UltraFan rotates a lot slower than the GE9x or GE90. So even though the UltraFan's fan is slightly wider than that of the GE90/GE9x, there's less overall air passing through that fan, which means it produces less thrust.

It looks like Rolls Royce is using the UltraFan's higher pressure ratio to reduce the size of the engine core, instead of increasing the amount of power produced by the core.

To move the discussion in a slightly different direction, is there the possibility of building an engine more powerful than what we have on the 777-300s and 777-900s, and how wide do people think its fan diameter might be? Two factors militating against such a development seem to me to be, firstly, would there be any demand for such an engine, seeing that it's unlikely that there will foreseeably be anything bigger than the 777-900; secondly, that a fan of 12' diameter or more would lead to design problems because of ground clearance.

Avatar2go · Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:11 am

DrPaul wrote:
CowAnon wrote:

The UltraFan demonstrator will produce 87,000 pounds of thrust, so it'll be a lot less powerful than the 105k lb GE9x and 115k lb GE90.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/pictures-rolls-royce-ultrafan-building-blocks

Due to its gearbox, UltraFan rotates a lot slower than the GE9x or GE90. So even though the UltraFan's fan is slightly wider than that of the GE90/GE9x, there's less overall air passing through that fan, which means it produces less thrust.

It looks like Rolls Royce is using the UltraFan's higher pressure ratio to reduce the size of the engine core, instead of increasing the amount of power produced by the core.

To move the discussion in a slightly different direction, is there the possibility of building an engine more powerful than what we have on the 777-300s and 777-900s, and how wide do people think its fan diameter might be? Two factors militating against such a development seem to me to be, firstly, would there be any demand for such an engine, seeing that it's unlikely that there will foreseeably be anything bigger than the 777-900; secondly, that a fan of 12' diameter or more would lead to design problems because of ground clearance.

Might be possible to build an engine with greater thrust, but as CowAnon said, there are limits to increasing fan diameter. The main reason to do so is to increase efficiency, by moving a larger quantity of air at a lower velocity, by spinning more slowly.

Reducing the fan speed requires either multiple spooling or reduction gearing. Both approaches are are being pursued. At some point the effectiveness of the duct also diminishes, which points to open rotor, to continue increasing efficiency. But then open rotor begins to be limited in power by practical blade considerations, so most likely not well suited for the larger widebody airliner market.

So my guess is that we will not see huge continued increases in thrust, diameter or efficiency from turbofans. There likely will still be incremental increases in efficiency from this point forward. The 777x is the last big push to convert quad engine jets to twins.

gloom · Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:47 am

Ruddman wrote:
Airliners are flying slower than they did 30 years ago. What the? Bring back the Concorde. Please!!!!!!!

Slower? Really?

767 was cruising .80. DC-10 at .82. 747 at .85. NB: 737 Classics at .74, BAe 146 at .70. I believe Fookers 70/100 .72.

Today, majority of WB cruise at .85, 777 at .84. NB: most at .78, Embraers and A220 at .76.

Numbers above are "more-or-less", since every airline is free to choose whatever CI/profile they want to use.

The planes today cruise faster than they used to. Concorde being the only difference. They were never a fleet big enough to make a difference though, you know. It's the 60s-70s transition when the human flew to moon and explored supersonic flight at any cost.

So, a big disagree on your view here.

Cheers,
Adam

Ruddman · Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:14 am

gloom wrote:
Ruddman wrote:
Airliners are flying slower than they did 30 years ago. What the? Bring back the Concorde. Please!!!!!!!

Slower? Really?

767 was cruising .80. DC-10 at .82. 747 at .85. NB: 737 Classics at .74, BAe 146 at .70. I believe Fookers 70/100 .72.

Today, majority of WB cruise at .85, 777 at .84. NB: most at .78, Embraers and A220 at .76.

Numbers above are "more-or-less", since every airline is free to choose whatever CI/profile they want to use.

The planes today cruise faster than they used to. Concorde being the only difference. They were never a fleet big enough to make a difference though, you know. It's the 60s-70s transition when the human flew to moon and explored supersonic flight at any cost.

So, a big disagree on your view here.

Cheers,
Adam

Well, you already posted the difference on some older showing a higher cruise speed. 747 classic at anything from 0.84-0.86. Not any slower.
From another 'well known' site :
In the early days of the B747, transcontinental cruise speeds for a B747-238 ( Qantas) M0.88. Climb was 360 IAS above 10,000, descent was 0.88/360.
Where there was no speed limit below 10,000, descent was 0.88/360 to 3,000 agl.

VC-10 - 0.835
727 - 0.80 - 0.82 and up to 0.84-0.86+ easily evidently ( before the famed oil crises early/mid 70's)
Trident - 0.88 (Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). 0.93 in training) < from the 'other' site.
CV-990 - 0.84-0.88

Compare to the A320/737NG at anything from 0.75 - to 0.78 depending on CI..I'm seeing a trend. Slower. Fuel savings better. Better for the environment. Bit still slower.

Starlionblue · Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:52 am

Ruddman wrote:
gloom wrote:
Ruddman wrote:
Airliners are flying slower than they did 30 years ago. What the? Bring back the Concorde. Please!!!!!!!

Slower? Really?

767 was cruising .80. DC-10 at .82. 747 at .85. NB: 737 Classics at .74, BAe 146 at .70. I believe Fookers 70/100 .72.

Today, majority of WB cruise at .85, 777 at .84. NB: most at .78, Embraers and A220 at .76.

Numbers above are "more-or-less", since every airline is free to choose whatever CI/profile they want to use.

The planes today cruise faster than they used to. Concorde being the only difference. They were never a fleet big enough to make a difference though, you know. It's the 60s-70s transition when the human flew to moon and explored supersonic flight at any cost.

So, a big disagree on your view here.

Cheers,
Adam

Well, you already posted the difference on some older showing a higher cruise speed. 747 classic at anything from 0.84-0.86. Not any slower.
From another 'well known' site :
In the early days of the B747, transcontinental cruise speeds for a B747-238 ( Qantas) M0.88. Climb was 360 IAS above 10,000, descent was 0.88/360.
Where there was no speed limit below 10,000, descent was 0.88/360 to 3,000 agl.

VC-10 - 0.835
727 - 0.80 - 0.82 and up to 0.84-0.86+ easily evidently ( before the famed oil crises early/mid 70's)
Trident - 0.88 (Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). 0.93 in training) < from the 'other' site.
CV-990 - 0.84-0.88

Compare to the A320/737NG at anything from 0.75 - to 0.78 depending on CI..I'm seeing a trend. Slower. Fuel savings better. Better for the environment. Bit still slower.

Slower for short to medium haul, not for long to ultra-long haul. Latest generation widebodies cruise at M0.85 while burning way less for a given payload.

gloom · Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:54 am

Ruddman wrote:

In the early days of the B747, transcontinental cruise speeds for a B747-238 ( Qantas) M0.88. Climb was 360 IAS above 10,000, descent was 0.88/360.
Where there was no speed limit below 10,000, descent was 0.88/360 to 3,000 agl.

VC-10 - 0.835
727 - 0.80 - 0.82 and up to 0.84-0.86+ easily evidently ( before the famed oil crises early/mid 70's)
Trident - 0.88 (Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). 0.93 in training) < from the 'other' site.
CV-990 - 0.84-0.88

Compare to the A320/737NG at anything from 0.75 - to 0.78 depending on CI..I'm seeing a trend. Slower. Fuel savings better. Better for the environment. Bit still slower.

Well, three things I think we disagree on here:
1. What is an airplane "30 years ago". Is it a 60s plane, still in use as 25-30 years old frame, or is it a plane designed in 80s, just brand new.

It's well known fact that back in 60s/70s many desings were built for speed. 727 being one of them. But it was built between 60s and 80s, designed in 60s, and I personally wouldn't call it a plane from 30 years ago. High sweep angle, high Mmo. First design before 70-s fuel crisis.

Trident is similar, 60s design.

If we look at 80s design, I'll hold my line "today we're flying faster". It would be different story if you said "50 years ago". But 80s? No, no, no.

2. And, yes, I know 747 can go all the way to .88, or actually up to .92, if we ignore a chance to go over Mmo with wind switch. So do modern WB. All three most popular (777, 787, 350) can go .88 (Mmo .89), they don't for cost. They won't go 360IAS, I know, I don't think it's where you could say "slower" for LR WB. So, I'd rather stick to nominal cruise, or Mmo, and not SOPs of a particular carrier.

3. We could go on with this list. DC8 at .82, same for DC10. .78 for A300. .80 for 757. Same for dc9. Plenty of them to show that 60s it was faster, 70s more-or-less similar (with exception for LR-then planes), 80s and 90s not really (today planes are faster).

That's my point of view.

Cheers,
Adam

Ruddman · Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:05 pm

And my point is we've gone nowhere in 40+ years. Backwards with speed. There's no real on the edge advancement now days in aviation. Safe, and fuel economy rules for some reason. Odd.

Ruddman · Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:06 pm

gloom wrote:
Ruddman wrote:

In the early days of the B747, transcontinental cruise speeds for a B747-238 ( Qantas) M0.88. Climb was 360 IAS above 10,000, descent was 0.88/360.
Where there was no speed limit below 10,000, descent was 0.88/360 to 3,000 agl.

VC-10 - 0.835
727 - 0.80 - 0.82 and up to 0.84-0.86+ easily evidently ( before the famed oil crises early/mid 70's)
Trident - 0.88 (Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). 0.93 in training) < from the 'other' site.
CV-990 - 0.84-0.88

Compare to the A320/737NG at anything from 0.75 - to 0.78 depending on CI..I'm seeing a trend. Slower. Fuel savings better. Better for the environment. Bit still slower.

Well, three things I think we disagree on here:
1. What is an airplane "30 years ago". Is it a 60s plane, still in use as 25-30 years old frame, or is it a plane designed in 80s, just brand new.

It's well known fact that back in 60s/70s many desings were built for speed. 727 being one of them. But it was built between 60s and 80s, designed in 60s, and I personally wouldn't call it a plane from 30 years ago. High sweep angle, high Mmo. First design before 70-s fuel crisis.

Trident is similar, 60s design.

If we look at 80s design, I'll hold my line "today we're flying faster". It would be different story if you said "50 years ago". But 80s? No, no, no.

2. And, yes, I know 747 can go all the way to .88, or actually up to .92, if we ignore a chance to go over Mmo with wind switch. So do modern WB. All three most popular (777, 787, 350) can go .88 (Mmo .89), they don't for cost. They won't go 360IAS, I know, I don't think it's where you could say "slower" for LR WB. So, I'd rather stick to nominal cruise, or Mmo, and not SOPs of a particular carrier.

3. We could go on with this list. DC8 at .82, same for DC10. .78 for A300. .80 for 757. Same for dc9. Plenty of them to show that 60s it was faster, 70s more-or-less similar (with exception for LR-then planes), 80s and 90s not really (today planes are faster).

That's my point of view.

Cheers,
Adam

When you're stuck in a tube for 12-14 hours, no one cares for fuel economy. Wind her up!

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:27 pm

Passengers that pay for the fuel bill thru fares care about fuel economy. Bizjets are stabilizing at M.88-M.90 but their passengers don’t care about fuel burns, unless they want a full night’s sleep, then loaf along aimlessly at M.78.

rjsampson · Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:18 pm

As a passenger back in the day, if we were anticipating a late arrival, the Captain would apologize and say something to the effect of "we're gonna speed up to make up some time."

...was that really a thing?

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:08 pm

If he was trying to make a connection to commute home, it was definitely a thing.

Starlionblue · Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:27 pm

rjsampson wrote:
As a passenger back in the day, if we were anticipating a late arrival, the Captain would apologize and say something to the effect of "we're gonna speed up to make up some time."

...was that really a thing?

Yes, that was a thing. However, back in the day there was more margin, and probably more contingency fuel carried.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If he was trying to make a connection to commute home, it was definitely a thing.

It's funny because it's true.

rjsampson · Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:28 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
As a passenger back in the day, if we were anticipating a late arrival, the Captain would apologize and say something to the effect of "we're gonna speed up to make up some time."

...was that really a thing?

Yes, that was a thing. However, back in the day there was more margin, and probably more contingency fuel carried.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If he was trying to make a connection to commute home, it was definitely a thing.

It's funny because it's true.

Back in the day when fuel was cheaper! I can’t imagine what the increased fuel burn would be.

Would anyone be able to chime in with examples of initial cruise speed (Mach) vs. the hurry-up speed?

Seems like mmo isn’t too far off from typical cruise speeds. Would they push it to the edge of the barber pole?

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:13 pm

In the 727, if the overspeed clacker wasn’t going off, you weren’t trying. Today, with all the FOQA monitoring and fuel consciousness, nobody’s flying at Mmo to make up time. OTOH, every M.01 Increase saves 1 minute every 600nm, so going from M.80 to M.88 saves 8 minutes every 600 nm at cruise. Across the US, about 28 minutes plus whatever climbing and descending fast helps. ATC then factors in, so “go fast” doesn’t save earth shattering time.

e38 · Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:21 pm

rjsampson wrote:
Would anyone be able to chime in with examples of initial cruise speed (Mach) vs. the hurry-up speed?

Seems like mmo isn’t too far off from typical cruise speeds. Would they push it to the edge of the barber pole?

rjsampson, at my carrier, in the Airbus A-320 series, a typical cruise mach (U.S. domestic network) would be M 0.78. For an increase, probably around M 0.80.

Reference your second question, "Would they push it to the edge of the barber pole?"

Most responsible pilots will leave some buffer to account for an unexpected increase in airspeed; i.e., turbulence.

e38

DocLightning · Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:17 pm

rjsampson wrote:
I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

GE9x fan Diameter: 136"... UltraFan Diameter: 140"
GE9x Pressure Ratio: 60:1... UltraFan Pressure Ratio: 70:1

That thing is going to push out insane thrust.

Will it? The GE9x is slightly less powerful than the GE90-115B. Size is not the same as thrust. The fan diameter impacts propulsive efficiency by moving more air at a lower speed (closer to the speed of the passing air), but it isn't necessarily directly related to thrust.

Ruddman · Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:59 pm

rjsampson wrote:
As a passenger back in the day, if we were anticipating a late arrival, the Captain would apologize and say something to the effect of "we're gonna speed up to make up some time."

...was that really a thing?

It still is a thing. I’ve heard it many a time.

penguins · Sat Aug 27, 2022 5:57 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passengers that pay for the fuel bill thru fares care about fuel economy. Bizjets are stabilizing at M.88-M.90 but their passengers don’t care about fuel burns, unless they want a full night’s sleep, then loaf along aimlessly at M.78.

Should be interesting with the boom overture arrives on the game. I figure once the flying public gets a taste for real speed, there is no turning back. Similar to the first time I drove a Miata MX-5

djpearman · Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:09 am

penguins wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Passengers that pay for the fuel bill thru fares care about fuel economy. Bizjets are stabilizing at M.88-M.90 but their passengers don’t care about fuel burns, unless they want a full night’s sleep, then loaf along aimlessly at M.78.

Should be interesting with the boom overture arrives on the game. I figure once the flying public gets a taste for real speed, there is no turning back. Similar to the first time I drove a Miata MX-5

Using this premise, please explain Concorde.

JayinKitsap · Sat Aug 27, 2022 12:23 pm

DocLightning wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

GE9x fan Diameter: 136"... UltraFan Diameter: 140"
GE9x Pressure Ratio: 60:1... UltraFan Pressure Ratio: 70:1

That thing is going to push out insane thrust.

Will it? The GE9x is slightly less powerful than the GE90-115B. Size is not the same as thrust. The fan diameter impacts propulsive efficiency by moving more air at a lower speed (closer to the speed of the passing air), but it isn't necessarily directly related to thrust.

Technically, the GE9x has the thrust record but its rated thrust is lower 110K vs 115K. It had to do with three of the big criteria test levels - one was RPM over speed, the second was fan diameter, can't remember the 3rd.

The GE9X engine for the Boeing 777X set a new GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS title for thrust to become the most powerful commercial aircraft jet engine (test performance) after reaching 134,300 pounds. This achievement breaks the record held by GE’s GE90-11B engine of 127,900 pounds set in 2002.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... tle-thrust

Matt6461 · Sat Nov 12, 2022 6:15 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
I can only surmise that Rolls-Royce seems to think that (very) large aircraft will have a market.

They've started ground testing their gargantuan UltraFan, and the figures are mind-boggling. Compared to the next largest engine, the GE9x:

GE9x fan Diameter: 136"... UltraFan Diameter: 140"
GE9x Pressure Ratio: 60:1... UltraFan Pressure Ratio: 70:1

That thing is going to push out insane thrust.

Will it? The GE9x is slightly less powerful than the GE90-115B. Size is not the same as thrust. The fan diameter impacts propulsive efficiency by moving more air at a lower speed (closer to the speed of the passing air), but it isn't necessarily directly related to thrust.

Technically, the GE9x has the thrust record but its rated thrust is lower 110K vs 115K. It had to do with three of the big criteria test levels - one was RPM over speed, the second was fan diameter, can't remember the 3rd.

The GE9X engine for the Boeing 777X set a new GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS title for thrust to become the most powerful commercial aircraft jet engine (test performance) after reaching 134,300 pounds. This achievement breaks the record held by GE’s GE90-11B engine of 127,900 pounds set in 2002.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... tle-thrust

One thing to keep in mind though is that's static thrust: due to lower overspeed, the GE9X has more thrust lapse as you move down the runway and lift off. By the time you're at V2, even a maximally-rev'd GE9X would probably be pushing less than a -115B. But that's the point of the new wing: you don't need as much thrust at V2 with OEI.

BlindMarshall · Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:09 pm

Boom’s Overture planes represent a tangential direction that the industry will go in. I don't think that everything will go in the "smaller, faster" category but that part of the industry will expand in my opinion.

SteelChair · Sat Nov 12, 2022 6:29 pm

The marketplace always speaks whenever this topic comes up. If technology exists to make faster = cheaper, then it will happen. Time is frequently NOT money no matter what the old saying says. Speed generally equals higher cost.

While overall size is increasing, imho this is due to the RJ's becoming un-economical. I agree with the earlier poster that said VLA's are done....for now. Maybe in 20 years, if we can get the world economy growing rapidly enough VLA's can come back. According to the UN, in the last 30 years ~30% of the abject poverty in the world has been eliminated (sorry, I can't find the study). As poverty continues to go down, and if we can avoid political problems/wars, one would think that eventually enough people flying could cause VLA's to return at some point. Disclaimer: at some point. Right now, as near as I can tell. the A321 is in the sweet spot, operating cost wise.

rjsampson · Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:45 pm

BlindMarshall wrote:
Boom’s Overture planes represent a tangential direction that the industry will go in. I don't think that everything will go in the "smaller, faster" category but that part of the industry will expand in my opinion.

The Boom Overture represents no such tangential direction. The company is producing absolute vaporware, and that it’s received any investment boggles the mind. And their engine partner, RR , said in (quite terse terms) “we’re out!”

If they ever make a flying prototype of the overture, I will make a legally binding agreement right here, under penalty of perjury, to pay everyone here on this thread $1,000 USD

JayinKitsap · Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:14 am

Matt6461 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

Will it? The GE9x is slightly less powerful than the GE90-115B. Size is not the same as thrust. The fan diameter impacts propulsive efficiency by moving more air at a lower speed (closer to the speed of the passing air), but it isn't necessarily directly related to thrust.

Technically, the GE9x has the thrust record but its rated thrust is lower 110K vs 115K. It had to do with three of the big criteria test levels - one was RPM over speed, the second was fan diameter, can't remember the 3rd.

The GE9X engine for the Boeing 777X set a new GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS title for thrust to become the most powerful commercial aircraft jet engine (test performance) after reaching 134,300 pounds. This achievement breaks the record held by GE’s GE90-11B engine of 127,900 pounds set in 2002.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... tle-thrust

One thing to keep in mind though is that's static thrust: due to lower overspeed, the GE9X has more thrust lapse as you move down the runway and lift off. By the time you're at V2, even a maximally-rev'd GE9X would probably be pushing less than a -115B. But that's the point of the new wing: you don't need as much thrust at V2 with OEI.

So true, I suspect it can get to just 110 before going into territory that voids warranties. The bigger fan and higher compression forced a test with all factors at a maximum, why it broke the record, but it also broke the test engine.

Didn't the 77x have a raised MTOW but it can do it with 4% less thrust, due to the more efficient wing, with a longer range. Maybe the MTOW is the same, but the fuel savings allow for more payload, several more rows of pax, and a bit more range even if the OEW went up.

BlindMarshall · Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:25 am

rjsampson wrote:
BlindMarshall wrote:
Boom’s Overture planes represent a tangential direction that the industry will go in. I don't think that everything will go in the "smaller, faster" category but that part of the industry will expand in my opinion.

The Boom Overture represents no such tangential direction. The company is producing absolute vaporware, and that it’s received any investment boggles the mind. And their engine partner, RR , said in (quite terse terms) “we’re out!”

If they ever make a flying prototype of the overture, I will make a legally binding agreement right here, under penalty of perjury, to pay everyone here on this thread $1,000 USD

Investment? They have sales. Your one-way bet seems a bit strange Im not sure why you even take the time to say that.

JayinKitsap · Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:29 am

rjsampson wrote:
BlindMarshall wrote:
Boom’s Overture planes represent a tangential direction that the industry will go in. I don't think that everything will go in the "smaller, faster" category but that part of the industry will expand in my opinion.

The Boom Overture represents no such tangential direction. The company is producing absolute vaporware, and that it’s received any investment boggles the mind. And their engine partner, RR , said in (quite terse terms) “we’re out!”

If they ever make a flying prototype of the overture, I will make a legally binding agreement right here, under penalty of perjury, to pay everyone here on this thread $1,000 USD

But the party parade is still going, not much different than Theranos. PTI is going crazy building roads, a bridge, a hanger, and a whole bunch of site prep. It's all the government funded part, with Boom pretending it will all be great. Some day, the investor's cash will be all burned up and the house of cards will fold. At least PTI can attract another good tenant for this site.

https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/ ... upersonic/

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlo ... s-forward#

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/n ... r-AA11RwgV

Matt6461 · Sun Nov 13, 2022 7:36 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:

Technically, the GE9x has the thrust record but its rated thrust is lower 110K vs 115K. It had to do with three of the big criteria test levels - one was RPM over speed, the second was fan diameter, can't remember the 3rd.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... tle-thrust

One thing to keep in mind though is that's static thrust: due to lower overspeed, the GE9X has more thrust lapse as you move down the runway and lift off. By the time you're at V2, even a maximally-rev'd GE9X would probably be pushing less than a -115B. But that's the point of the new wing: you don't need as much thrust at V2 with OEI.

So true, I suspect it can get to just 110 before going into territory that voids warranties. The bigger fan and higher compression forced a test with all factors at a maximum, why it broke the record, but it also broke the test engine.

Didn't the 77x have a raised MTOW but it can do it with 4% less thrust, due to the more efficient wing, with a longer range. Maybe the MTOW is the same, but the fuel savings allow for more payload, several more rows of pax, and a bit more range even if the OEW went up.

Same MTOW and AFAICS max payload is no greater. The mission fuel savings at MTOW goes to higher OEW and a slight range extension. And yes, better mission Payload beyond the 77W's MZFW range.

Sancho99504 · Mon Nov 14, 2022 1:08 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Average size of airplanes will keep rising, but the market has clearly not choosing VLA. Large was needed in the past to get range, but once the A330, A350, and B787 arrived, the range was satisfied in a smaller capacity. Direct flights with these smaller planes are possible, often reducing the number of stops for most passengers. Soon the O-H-H-D flights will be gone except for the smallest O & D's.

The 779 will be OK, and do well a decade + out when the last of the 747 and A380's are retired. It may be a generation or more before a new VLA is launched.

There is a hollow in the mid - market for both range and passenger capacity. I would expect this to fill eventually, but it seems premature at the moment to seen a NMA from Boeing or a similar plane from Airbus between the A321 and the A338. The market will be OK until then.

There will be a need out there for new RJ's but until a suitable high efficiency engine is available for the 76 seat 86,000 lb proposed models this will be a barren field for a while.

There are over 1,000 787s in service and guess what? The hub and spoke model hasn't lost any steam. Sure, there are some point to point( truly non-hub to non-hub) that have been created, hubs are still the present and future.
Even WN doesn't fly as much p2p as they used to 15 years ago.

rjsampson · Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:05 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
But the party parade is still going, not much different than Theranos... with Boom pretending it will all be great. Some day, the investor's cash will be all burned up and the house of cards will fold. At least PTI can attract another good tenant for this site.

rjsampson · Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:07 am

BlindMarshall wrote:

Investment? They have sales. Your one-way bet seems a bit strange Im not sure why you even take the time to say that.

True, AA have placed non-refundable deposits on 20 aircraft. The amount of those deposits is confidential ($50k? $500k? $1million?) I have it on good word from an AA manager that this was a publicity stunt. The aircraft won't be certified and they know it. It's great PR, though!

What WOULDN'T be great PR is if (in an alternate universe) the Boom gets delivered, and AA is saddled with an extremely-expensive-to-operate (bean counters won't like that), an environmental disaster of a product (SAF? That's not going to replace Jet-A at scale in our lifetimes). Lord only knows how much tickets would cost. And cutting a short long-haul flight's time in half, well: Whatever the cost, it's far less appealing to travelers whom can afford much more comfortable business class.

The Concorde had the tiniest of business cases: Get from JFK-LHR-CDG in a hurry to be back by dinner. That was a different time. Before powerful computers, teleconferencing, et. al. ..oh, and WiFi wasn't a thing. There's no business case, the technical challenges are insurmountable, and AA got some free press with their deposits.

JayinKitsap wrote:
But the party parade is still going, not much different than Theranos... with Boom pretending it will all be great. Some day, the investor's cash will be all burned up and the house of cards will fold. At least PTI can attract another good tenant for this site.

You hit the nail on the head. Another Theranos saga. Failed investments such as these are a dime-a-dozen.

JayinKitsap · Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:57 am

Sancho99504 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Average size of airplanes will keep rising, but the market has clearly not choosing VLA. Large was needed in the past to get range, but once the A330, A350, and B787 arrived, the range was satisfied in a smaller capacity. Direct flights with these smaller planes are possible, often reducing the number of stops for most passengers. Soon the O-H-H-D flights will be gone except for the smallest O & D's.

The 779 will be OK, and do well a decade + out when the last of the 747 and A380's are retired. It may be a generation or more before a new VLA is launched.

There is a hollow in the mid - market for both range and passenger capacity. I would expect this to fill eventually, but it seems premature at the moment to seen a NMA from Boeing or a similar plane from Airbus between the A321 and the A338. The market will be OK until then.

There will be a need out there for new RJ's but until a suitable high efficiency engine is available for the 76 seat 86,000 lb proposed models this will be a barren field for a while.

There are over 1,000 787s in service and guess what? The hub and spoke model hasn't lost any steam. Sure, there are some point to point( truly non-hub to non-hub) that have been created, hubs are still the present and future.
Even WN doesn't fly as much p2p as they used to 15 years ago.

WN has evolved into a many hub airline, with the smaller ones being feature cities (or similar). Instead of P-P, passengers like to call them non-stops. Well WN has 2 hubs with over 70 non-stops, 5 @ 51-60, 2@ 41-50, 3@ 31-40, 9 @ 21-30, 21 @ 11-20, and 45 @ 5-10 non-stops. Probably 85% of WN passengers do not connect (1 stops). 15 years ago it took 3 segments to get from SEA to BWI, now just 1 stop mostly because SEA is Alaska's fortress & WN has only 10 destinations.

Rogers99 · Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:07 pm

Point to Point is really a myth and hasn’t actually materialised.

All smaller aircraft do is just open thin routes from major hubs. Especially on the longer haul routes.

Even the 321LRs and XLRs serve major routes. JFK-LHR, IAD-DUB, PHL-DUB, BOS-LHR

So point to point if you actually think about it has not materialised.

I’m waiting for that long haul secondary to secondary airport that everybody has been taking about.

Point to point may exist on short haul but it always has

Because how many people in secondary cities actually fly 7 hours to go to another secondary city? However a lot of people from secondary cities would not like to have to connect to get a major city internationally. Especially when majority of business and leisure is conducted in major cities.

Let’s look at it this way:

How many people in Charlotte want to actually go to Edinburgh? Or Birmingham?

I can’t imagine either of those places would be particularly attractive to people in Charlotte, unless you have family or specific business there and how much business would possibly link Birmingham to Charlotte.

(Even if you’re moving abroad from a secondary city, chances are you’re moving to a major city because that’s probably where job opportunities are cantered.)

London however is different. People from Charlotte would want to visit london for tourist reasons, there’s a lot of business activity in london, people would probably have more relatives in london, especially if they live abroad in smaller towns

All the smaller planes do like your XLRs is allow domestic carriers join in on the international fun and the major full service carriers go to more secondary or third tier cities into their jam packed hubs

dennypayne · Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Rogers99 wrote:
So point to point if you actually think about it has not materialised.

I’m waiting for that long haul secondary to secondary airport that everybody has been taking about.

No one has been talking about that except people willingly trying to misunderstand or misrepresent the business case being referred to here.

No one seriously expected Burlington VT - Marseille direct when talking about more point-to-point routes. What *was* being referred to was a trip that used to require Burlington - JFK - CDG - Marseille to become Burlington- JFK - Marseille, with the second hub stop removed, and indeed that JFK - Marseille flight is a feasible new point-to-point route with smaller widebodies and/or A321XLR. Just because JFK is a hub in and of itself doesn’t invalidate the argument that this model is superior to the VLA model that requires feed through BOTH of the hubs to service this demand. Indeed the market has spoken and prefers more point-to-point routing like JFK-Marseille.

Rogers99 wrote:
How many people in Charlotte want to actually go to Edinburgh? Or Birmingham?

I can’t imagine either of those places would be particularly attractive to people in Charlotte, unless you have family or specific business there and how much business would possibly link Birmingham to Charlotte.

Seriously?? Firstly, Charlotte is one of the biggest financial centers in the US - meaning there’s a lot of highly paid people that absolutely want to go to Edinburgh for a trip to Scotland. There’s a ton of local demand there, plus you do realize it’s also an AA hub, right? It would be super convenient for me in TYS to take the short hop to CLT and be able to get to many destinations directly, rather than even fooling with JFK. Again, this - more direct routings overall - is what point-to-point means. I don’t understand why this concept keeps getting distorted into “long haul secondary to secondary.”

Rogers99 · Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:44 pm

dennypayne wrote:
Rogers99 wrote:
So point to point if you actually think about it has not materialised.

I’m waiting for that long haul secondary to secondary airport that everybody has been taking about.

No one has been talking about that except people willingly trying to misunderstand or misrepresent the business case being referred to here.

No one seriously expected Burlington VT - Marseille direct when talking about more point-to-point routes. What *was* being referred to was a trip that used to require Burlington - JFK - CDG - Marseille to become Burlington- JFK - Marseille, with the second hub stop removed, and indeed that JFK - Marseille flight is a feasible new point-to-point route with smaller widebodies and/or A321XLR. Just because JFK is a hub in and of itself doesn’t invalidate the argument that this model is superior to the VLA model that requires feed through BOTH of the hubs to service this demand. Indeed the market has spoken and prefers more point-to-point routing like JFK-Marseille.

Rogers99 wrote:
How many people in Charlotte want to actually go to Edinburgh? Or Birmingham?

I can’t imagine either of those places would be particularly attractive to people in Charlotte, unless you have family or specific business there and how much business would possibly link Birmingham to Charlotte.

Seriously?? Firstly, Charlotte is one of the biggest financial centers in the US - meaning there’s a lot of highly paid people that absolutely want to go to Edinburgh for a trip to Scotland. There’s a ton of local demand there, plus you do realize it’s also an AA hub, right? It would be super convenient for me in TYS to take the short hop to CLT and be able to get to many destinations directly, rather than even fooling with JFK. Again, this - more direct routings overall - is what point-to-point means. I don’t understand why this concept keeps getting distorted into “long haul secondary to secondary.”

But that JFK example you gave. Is that not more hub and spoke than point to point? Isn’t the point of “point to point” the elimination of a hub? The fact that JFK is there in itself is not point to point, it sounds more like hub and spoke.

So what would be classified as hub and spoke. If not that?

I’m sure if there were a lot of people that wanted to go to Edinburgh from Charlotte as you claim, it would somewhat exploited, even by BA specifically. I know it’s an AA hub, but it’s not a tier 1 hub though. It wouldn’t sit with the likes of JFK, Dallas, LAX, Chicago, Miami

That is, in terms of traffic.

BA doesn’t even bother with its own frame out of Charlotte.

dennypayne · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:55 am

Rogers99 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
No one seriously expected Burlington VT - Marseille direct when talking about more point-to-point routes. What *was* being referred to was a trip that used to require Burlington - JFK - CDG - Marseille to become Burlington- JFK - Marseille, with the second hub stop removed, and indeed that JFK - Marseille flight is a feasible new point-to-point route with smaller widebodies and/or A321XLR. Just because JFK is a hub in and of itself doesn’t invalidate the argument that this model is superior to the VLA model that requires feed through BOTH of the hubs to service this demand. Indeed the market has spoken and prefers more point-to-point routing like JFK-Marseille.

But that JFK example you gave. Is that not more hub and spoke than point to point? Isn’t the point of “point to point” the elimination of a hub? The fact that JFK is there in itself is not point to point, it sounds more like hub and spoke.

So what would be classified as hub and spoke. If not that?

There is a hub eliminated in this scenario - CDG. That's the whole point. The fact that JFK is also called a "hub" (for some airlines) is immaterial. Nobody in previous times would waste a frame on JFK - secondary cities (such as Marseille). Sure, Marseille would be considered a "spoke" in this case for an airline that had a hub at JFK. but again, "point to point" and "hub and spoke" are not mutually exclusive concepts - they were only portrayed that way by VLA proponents who thought Boeing was making the wrong bet on the 787. Somehow that erroneous definition - that "point to point" only means "secondary to secondary" with no hubs at all - keeps being perpetuated. That was never the actual business case.

We can now clearly see that the VLA proponents were largely mistaken - A380's are mostly being scrapped and 748's are barely used, but the 787 and A321XLR have opened up new direct "point to point" markets that wouldn't have been viable before. LHR-AUS, LHR-BNA, etc. (Getting from a secondary European city to Nashville used to require Secondary-LHR-JFK-BNA - now you can eliminate the JFK stop and just travel Secondary-LHR-BNA.)

LH707330 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:04 pm

dennypayne wrote:
Rogers99 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
No one seriously expected Burlington VT - Marseille direct when talking about more point-to-point routes. What *was* being referred to was a trip that used to require Burlington - JFK - CDG - Marseille to become Burlington- JFK - Marseille, with the second hub stop removed, and indeed that JFK - Marseille flight is a feasible new point-to-point route with smaller widebodies and/or A321XLR. Just because JFK is a hub in and of itself doesn’t invalidate the argument that this model is superior to the VLA model that requires feed through BOTH of the hubs to service this demand. Indeed the market has spoken and prefers more point-to-point routing like JFK-Marseille.

But that JFK example you gave. Is that not more hub and spoke than point to point? Isn’t the point of “point to point” the elimination of a hub? The fact that JFK is there in itself is not point to point, it sounds more like hub and spoke.

So what would be classified as hub and spoke. If not that?

There is a hub eliminated in this scenario - CDG. That's the whole point. The fact that JFK is also called a "hub" (for some airlines) is immaterial. Nobody in previous times would waste a frame on JFK - secondary cities (such as Marseille). Sure, Marseille would be considered a "spoke" in this case for an airline that had a hub at JFK. but again, "point to point" and "hub and spoke" are not mutually exclusive concepts - they were only portrayed that way by VLA proponents who thought Boeing was making the wrong bet on the 787. Somehow that erroneous definition - that "point to point" only means "secondary to secondary" with no hubs at all - keeps being perpetuated. That was never the actual business case.

We can now clearly see that the VLA proponents were largely mistaken - A380's are mostly being scrapped and 748's are barely used, but the 787 and A321XLR have opened up new direct "point to point" markets that wouldn't have been viable before. LHR-AUS, LHR-BNA, etc. (Getting from a secondary European city to Nashville used to require Secondary-LHR-JFK-BNA - now you can eliminate the JFK stop and just travel Secondary-LHR-BNA.)

Yeah, this gets at the concept well.

I would add that part of why the VLAs are dead is that they were poorly executed. The A380 and 748 were both overbuilt with lots of extra weight that hurt their economics.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net