Faster on land but slower in the air

Something doesn't seem right:

 

Nowadays, 0-60mph for exotic car territory is around 3 +/- 0.3secs. That's quite a leap from say 8 years ago. And "regular" car are getting faster too.

 

Conversely, commercial airlines are getting slower. A trans-Pacific flight on a 747-400 a few years back vs. today's 777-300ER is faster by at least 50mins (cruising at Mach 0.855 vs. 0.840 respectively) and the Airbuses are slightly slower still. Even the all CF-bodied 787's are cruising at only Mach 0.850. Ok, the new jets usually have 2 less engines but why would anyone or the industry want to prolong the flight time? They really should update and built a super-Concorde with a higher seating capacity.

 

Thoughts?

Fuel saving?

 

I agree I would love to see another Concorde like plane, I hate flying so the faster I get there the happier I am.

Fuel saving?

 

I suppose but I'm not sure of its long-term feasibility. The trend now is aiming for more comfort during flight time with those pod and cubicle seats. Some are adding another class between business and economy; premium-economy . At the end of the day, flight time is still exactly that --- time in the air. And smaller planes with increasing seat sizes would result in less capacity/passenger. So basically, while using less fuel, it's also less people travelling. I guess one really has to work out the numbers on the break-even point between passenger volume vs. operating costs. But I definitely do not want to spend more time on a commercial airliner.

I suppose but I'm not sure of its long-term feasibility. The trend now is aiming for more comfort during flight time with those pod and cubicle seats. Some are adding another class between business and economy; premium-economy . At the end of the day, flight time is still exactly that --- time in the air. And smaller planes with increasing seat sizes would result in less capacity/passenger. So basically, while using less fuel, it's also less people travelling. I guess one really has to work out the numbers on the break-even point between passenger volume vs. operating costs. But I definitely do not want to spend more time on a commercial airliner.

 

As long as you are forced to use the airlines, they can probably get away with most of whatever they want. Unless Amtrak or something starts providing real competition for them, and even then, that's only domestically.

It comes down to efficiency. Different airframes (and engines) have different speeds at which they are most efficient (best range or best endurance). This speed also changes with weight, altitude, and configuration.

 

You can expect the airline to always fly at best range in order to get the farthest distance per unit of gas. The real variable here is wind. When I flew over to Hawaii about 4 weeks back it took me pretty much 9 hours. On the way back, 7. I flew the same speed both ways because the airplane was the same weight and configuration (and pretty much same altitude). The difference? Winds.

 

We can go full cross eyed and also talk about how a faster airplane will spend less time on each route and can there for generate more money but I couldn't speak to that as an expert. I can say the airlines employee lots of experts and they prefer flying slower and burning less fuel than flying artificially faster in an attempt to get one more leg out of the jet.

 

The Concorde was a very cool airplane but there just isn't the demand for it anymore. If it was economically feasible you bet your ass there would be Boeing SST's or Airbus XXX's filling the skies and cutting commute times down by large factors. I have read plenty of DARPA/NASA related stuff at attempting to minimize/eliminate the sonic boom associated with supersonic flight. This is absolutely critical to any future for a SST. If you handcuff an entire type of airliner to only being efficient to a portion of it's trip it won't perform well. Thus, when the Concorde could only go Mach 2 over the Atlantic it eliminated the logic of it flying anything but a small number of unique routes (NY to London not Chicago to London).

 

I can go on if you want.

I can go on if you want.

 

Thank you. Please do.

 

I knew about the winds. I once was on a eastward trans-Pacific flight with a very strong tail wind, a supposedly 9hr flight took only 7:51!

 

The seating capacity of a Concorde was around 110 on average. And it was, afterall, a product of the late 60's. So, given the advancement in aviation and areospace technologies, it doesn't seem too far fetch to make a new craft that seats around 250 with much more efficient engines. I am aware of the sonic boom, but its cruising attitude is also a lot higher (I am also aware of the air pressure and UV exposure factors). Time is likely very precious for all of us; and compared to hiring a private jet, the Concorde fare (e.g. JFK - LHR route) wasn't really too much of a premium. There must be more to this...

Was doing some Googling on this; what I've read is that a main problem with any supersonic design is fuel efficiency. None of the designs are as fuel efficient as subsonic designs.

I would to be in the air as little as possible since I havea fear of flying (working on it and it is getting better, but still it sucks)

 

What I would like to see is SAFETY improvements as well, just as speed. We have gone from nothing to 200 airbags in a VW Lupo along with 20 ECUs helping drivers with aid in different conditions to pedestriansafety, lanechanging reads your eyes if you fall asleep etc

 

Where are the damn airbags and parachutes in the planes!?

I would to be in the air as little as possible since I havea fear of flying (working on it and it is getting better, but still it sucks)

 

What I would like to see is SAFETY improvements as well, just as speed. We have gone from nothing to 200 airbags in a VW Lupo along with 20 ECUs helping drivers with aid in different conditions to pedestriansafety, lanechanging reads your eyes if you fall asleep etc

 

Where are the damn airbags and parachutes in the planes!?

 

The National Safety Council compiled an odds-of-dying table for 2008, which further illustrates the relative risks of flying and driving safety. It calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident to be 1 in 98 for a lifetime. For air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights), the odds were 1 in 7,178 for a lifetime, according to the table.

It comes down to efficiency. Different airframes (and engines) have different speeds at which they are most efficient (best range or best endurance). This speed also changes with weight, altitude, and configuration.

 

You can expect the airline to always fly at best range in order to get the farthest distance per unit of gas. The real variable here is wind. When I flew over to Hawaii about 4 weeks back it took me pretty much 9 hours. On the way back, 7. I flew the same speed both ways because the airplane was the same weight and configuration (and pretty much same altitude). The difference? Winds.

 

We can go full cross eyed and also talk about how a faster airplane will spend less time on each route and can there for generate more money but I couldn't speak to that as an expert. I can say the airlines employee lots of experts and they prefer flying slower and burning less fuel than flying artificially faster in an attempt to get one more leg out of the jet.

 

The Concorde was a very cool airplane but there just isn't the demand for it anymore. If it was economically feasible you bet your ass there would be Boeing SST's or Airbus XXX's filling the skies and cutting commute times down by large factors. I have read plenty of DARPA/NASA related stuff at attempting to minimize/eliminate the sonic boom associated with supersonic flight. This is absolutely critical to any future for a SST. If you handcuff an entire type of airliner to only being efficient to a portion of it's trip it won't perform well. Thus, when the Concorde could only go Mach 2 over the Atlantic it eliminated the logic of it flying anything but a small number of unique routes (NY to London not Chicago to London).

 

I can go on if you want.

 

The National Safety Council compiled an odds-of-dying table for 2008, which further illustrates the relative risks of flying and driving safety. It calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident to be 1 in 98 for a lifetime. For air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights), the odds were 1 in 7,178 for a lifetime, according to the table.

 

Although this is true, you would need to adjust for time spent in each transportation mean to have a more relevant calculation, i.e. the VAST majority of Americans spend a LOT more time in their cars than in airplanes. If you adjust for that, your rate of death is a lot closer from what I remember reading. However, I would NOT be surprised if it was better in airlines, as you are dealing with professionals flying vs idiots driving, maintenance is under a lot more scrutiny, etc.

Thank you. Please do.

 

I knew about the winds. I once was on a eastward trans-Pacific flight with a very strong tail wind, a supposedly 9hr flight took only 7:51!

 

The seating capacity of a Concorde was around 110 on average. And it was, afterall, a product of the late 60's. So, given the advancement in aviation and areospace technologies, it doesn't seem too far fetch to make a new craft that seats around 250 with much more efficient engines. I am aware of the sonic boom, but its cruising attitude is also a lot higher (I am also aware of the air pressure and UV exposure factors). Time is likely very precious for all of us; and compared to hiring a private jet, the Concorde fare (e.g. JFK - LHR route) wasn't really too much of a premium. There must be more to this...

 

The retirement of the Concorde with no replacement was the first step backwards in aviation history (ditto with the Space Shuttle). But that all comes down to economics. There just aren't enough people willing to pay a lot of money to cut their commute time in half on those limited routes.

 

NASA has been working on limiting (or eliminating) sonic booms with this ugly little girl:

 

It's a modified F-15B Eagle.

 

This technology, combined with supercruise could be the game changer for making supersonic passenger airplanes affordable and economically viable for airlines. It would cost less (no need for sustained afterburner thus dramatically less fuel burn) and it could fly anywhere (not restricted to oceanic for supersonic flight).

 

 

The other interesting airline economic battle is that of the Boeing 787 versus the Airbus A380. Boeing bet on a super efficient medium sized jet while Airbus wanted the flag ship super jumbo A380. The A380 is still fighting for sales and profitability while Boeing is fighting battery technology. I would easily summarize that the 787 is going to make Boeing a lot more money than the A380 is going to get Airbus. I think the future of the 4 engine airliners is numbered, especially with all the ETOPS-330 certs for the 777.

 

But I am also fairly openly biased...if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!

 

Dat ass...

^ Thank you.

 

Fully agreed on going backwards in aviation.

 

So how far is NASA on the technology of limiting/eliminating sonic boom? Will it be put into civilian use within the next 10 years?

 

Agreed that the 4-engine commercial airliners are going the way of the dinosaurs. Also concur that the 787 will win over the A380 on sales although I honestly don't see how special the 787 really is. For one thing, the larger and electro-chromatic window is no big deal to me. Not thrilled about a completely plastic bathroom either.

 

It seems that in general, European cars are better than US cars; but as far as commercial airliners are concerned, I don't see Airbuses being better than Boeing either.

Although this is true, you would need to adjust for time spent in each transportation mean to have a more relevant calculation, i.e. the VAST majority of Americans spend a LOT more time in their cars than in airplanes. If you adjust for that, your rate of death is a lot closer from what I remember reading. However, I would NOT be surprised if it was better in airlines, as you are dealing with professionals flying vs idiots driving, maintenance is under a lot more scrutiny, etc.

 

I'd argue that chance of death per X miles travelled is a lot more interesting than time spent travelling. Airplanes come out way ahead of cars in terms of safety.

I'd argue that chance of death per X miles travelled is a lot more interesting than time spent travelling. Airplanes come out way ahead of cars in terms of safety.

 

Per miles would be a very interesting comparison for sure. There again, you would probably find out that the average human will travel a lot more miles in a car during a lifetime vs airplane. I know a few people that have taken trips less than 5 times in their lives but they've been driving since they were 16 yo. I would still think, just like you, that airplanes are safer, but the margin is smaller than the first number you quoted, that's all.

 

VCR, very interesting discussion you started. And StoleIt, thanks for providing professional-level information.

My idea. There are more and more planes, if they'd go faster they'd land faster, that make sense. Problem is that they wouldn't take off faster! Once landed, the plane has to be emptied of passengers and cargo, cleaned, refuelled, checked and then prepared for its next flight. I'm pretty sure that all of these have been optimized so it takes as little time as possible to complete. So if planes were faster it probably means that there would be more of them on tarmac, resulting in a queue to get serviced. Empty planes waiting on tarmac is the last thing an airliner wants. So this is my idea, time managment on land, which is funny with your threads title! If planes don't go faster in flight it's because the operations on land can't go faster!

Great thread. I have nothing to add but I enjoy reading everything. Keep it coming

I'm not so sure (as my own experience is limited) flight time is a serious argument to prefer one airliner over another. Everyone knows time in the air can be largely influenced due to conditions. Since airlines win customers by the service they provide, they can save money by reducing fuel cost. In the future, speed will only decrease to be able to fly more economically. It is rumored next-generation airplanes will have less sweep (more straight wings) but longer ones, optimized for lower cruise speeds.

I'm on the bandwagon that it's all about economics. One thing to consider is the fact that flying isn't considered a luxurious thing anymore, what is left is only the transportation bit and for that people are not willing to pay a lot of money. (I'm eliminating private planes, 1st class and maybe even business class, since that amount of people is so small that it really doesn't make a difference financial wise in the big picture, mostly image/marketing wise) This of course means that the airlines need to adopt and come up with transportation that fits the publics needs, a flying cheap bus.

 

We are at a point where people choose the cheapest way of flying even if it means a many hours layover at some airport, when peoples buying behavior is like this the speed of an plane doesn't really make any difference.

 

"It's not flying, it's airlining"

Doesnt the 787 also have a range to connect any two airports in the world non stop? I know when they were developing it I read that was the plan. Not sure if they met that goal.

Commercial aviation is just that -- a commercial enterprise. Thus, the performance of any aspect of an aircraft used for business purposes flexes with needs of the business. Technology is at the mercy of decision makers who would be not unlike any other consumer as to what they need vs. what they get or what they might be able to have. Like any technology, airplane makers can be driving that bus and be driven by demand at the same time. As StoleIt eluded to, there are a lot of brains and formulas behind the decisions of how to fill seats and reduce costs per seat, and the airline industry has it down to a science that is even taught in college courses. In the same breath, StoleIt is talking about efficiency translating to $.

 

With the Concorde, it simply accumulated enough strikes to ground it, as un-fun as that sounds. Some of this is obvious, while some of this is easily forgotten.

 

- Operating costs. Maintenance, fuel, and expendable costs increase over the lifespan of the airframe along with inevitable limitations on parts supplies. The Concorde was getting old, thus something as simple as a particular o-ring might become rare and expensive. The economics of fuel alone are amplified by 50-100% if we're talking about an afterburning aircraft that shits half its load out the back in a few minutes just to satisfy its primary purpose. An aircraft may also not be as efficient as it could be with antiquated fuel control units, cooling systems, generators, etc. With age also comes the growing possibility that undiscovered faults or malfunctions can occur leading to costly fixes or unsafe conditions such as hidden airframe cracks, chaffed wiring, or flammable wire insulation. Other costs are associated with pilot training and maintenance training dedicated to such an aircraft which blends into operational limits.

 

- Operational limitations. The Concorde can't land everywhere or fly supersonic everywhere. Runway lengths, noise abatement regulations, environmental roadblocks, political/social barriers, fuel availability, qualified maintenance support facilities, supply of trained pilots and maintainers, etc. all lead to increasing costs or limiting profitability.

 

- Design limitations. Supersonic flight is still largely dependent on afterburner (the injection of raw fuel into the exhaust gases for huge thrust increase, penalized by enormous fuel expenditure). The Concorde, B-1, F-15, etc. cannot reach supersonic speed in level flight with average loads/weights without afterburner. Supercruise is the ability to fly supersonic in level flight without dependence on AB, but "who's gonna pay for it kid, you?" Yet even if an aircraft is supercruise capable, it's not exactly sipping fuel to do it -- today's engines are still at 100% power to do it (AB is 100% +). Again, the airlines' gonkulations can't justify it for the number of seats they could fill, destinations to service, or routes to hold. It's useful in fighters when you're trying to kill as many people as possible but not quite economical to transport as many people as possible, which is still a relatively small number due to size and weight limits.

 

Supersonic aircraft also deal with different priorities such as higher surface temperatures and aggressive weight-reduction choices to the extent that more expensive materials go into the aircraft than those of a subsonic aircraft. Issues like surface heating reduce material and equipment lifespan and eat up more money on the initial buy as well as service life costs. Just like cars, specialized materials can become expensive due to either rarity (rare metals) or complexity (composites, high order metallurgy). The ability to repair the aircraft due to material complexities can also add cost above that of a bread & butter subsonic jet. More costs are associated with the rest of the aircraft's systems that are designed to accommodate or enhance supersonic flight such as variable geometry inlets, fuel pumps, exhaust nozzles, etc.

 

- Safety. Perception is reality whether an aircraft is at fault or not. Crashes are bad all 'round. If the customer who is paying for it loses enough faith in it, it doesn't fly or make money. Almost like the Bugatti on Volkswagen's balance sheet, the aircraft's last purpose in serving in a symbolic flagship role for its makers and the airlines can be quickly rendered ineffective by a fickle consumer.

I understand the noise ordinance restrictions but what is the problem with Sonic Booms? I work at a naval test facility and there are F-18's among other supersonic aircraft flying around regularly. I have reached a point where I don't really notice them anymore but for the extremely short, mild burst of noise that is produced, I don't really see any issues with them.

Economics = cost = $$$ --- that seems to be the cardinal rule for making planes slower.

 

Now let's add another cliche: time = $$$ or vice versa. Despite the rise of the internet, there are times that one has to be physically there. I personally would pay $$$ if I can fly across the Pacific in half the current travel time.

I understand the power of the economic engine and the infrastructural changes required for the airports, but just look at what we are doing to "embrace" the hybrid cars. I have yet to see one (yes, just one) charging station (required by law to be installed at all the newly-built buildings) being used. I am sure the percentage of hybrid cars aren't enough to make economic sense yet. No one to this day can proof whether hybrid cars are really contributing to the environment especially at the end of their life cycle (how are they going to dispose the batteries properly). And dollar per car, hybrid cars are definitely a lot more expensive than their good old pure combustion engine counterpart. And yet we are going through all the BS...

 

A bit far-fetched but definitely related: compare to regular snail mail deliveries, look at how much more --- percentage and figures wise --- we are paying for FedEx, UPS, DHL etc... for a "speedy" courier services. What if the "cargo" were actually people who need to get to their destination quickly? Isn't that the same analogy?

 

I actually read several articles about the surfaces of the Concorde had better lifespan than a regular subsonic airliner. Apparently, the heat generated from the supersonic flight actually helped to preserve the surfaces better due to lesser surface temperature fluctuation. Not sure how reliable are those findings but definitely more than one or two articles had said the same.

I personally would pay $ if I can fly across the Pacific in half the current travel time.

I have no doubt that rapid trans-Pac flight is inevitable and will be justified long before the Atlantic spurs anyone to innovate.

 

I actually read several articles about the surfaces of the Concorde had better lifespan than a regular subsonic airliner. Apparently, the heat generated from the supersonic flight actually helped to preserve the surfaces better due to lesser surface temperature fluctuation. Not sure how reliable are those findings but definitely more than one or two articles had said the same.

Concorde was amazing, and unlike a lot of tactical aircraft in many ways to its credit. Definitely a sad passing of a legendary aircraft and brave thrust into aircraft design. But it's a lot like building ships. The skills that create these masterpieces grow and are passed on over time in such an industry. When we are so quick to nix things like that without any long term vision, and wait so long to develop new technologies because we're too busy attacking world hunger, the only thing we retain is the expectation that the innovation will just pick up where we left it. Meanwhile, the kids coming out of college don't have the same intellectual infrastructure and experience base to further advance a technology and the people who would have helped them retire or die. They are forced to reinvent their own wheels and we are left disappointed and losing faith in entire industries when we did it to ourselves without realizing it. We hardly build ships anymore in the United States either (outside of a few anchor points in military shipbuilding) in what used to be a massive industry. Shipbuilding and its skills have largely evacuated to points beyond. We make a lot of really disappointing cars too. Aerospace is America's last great strong hold (under attack every day).

 

When people are upset about the cost of a bloated defense project, troubled new airplane, or poor man's space project, what never comes out is how if we just drop this stuff and save our money, we're only screwing ourselves in the worst way possible because we didn't get to be where we are today because one generation of genius' just woke up one day and decided to make awesome stuff. There is a well-known quote that goes something like, "there are fewer countries in the world capable of making a jet engine than can make nuclear weapons" and that says it all.

^Very well put, SingleSeat.