wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Except something like 70% less fuel burn, significantly less emissions, MUCH higher reliability and safety...nope nothings changed.
Single Engine (big) Airliner? Possibly...
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
Except something like 70% less fuel burn, significantly less emissions, MUCH higher reliability and safety...nope nothings changed.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
§ 121.159 Single-engine airplanes prohibited.
No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part.
Nothing about takeoff weight or anything. If someone's flying Caravans for Part 121 business, it seems like they're doing it wrong. Unless it's in Alaska... you can probably get a waiver there or something.
Also, this biplane-in-disguise looks like something you'd use to peel potatoes. Alton Brown does not approve!
Also, also, NASA FAIL! for not even naming the program under which the contracts were awarded to Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Northrop to develop designs for their 2025 aircraft in the info release on nasa.gov.
PenAir, Hageland, and Warbelows operate their smaller airplanes and cargo birds on 135 certs up north, then use the 121 certs for their big scheduled pax runs.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
From a system perspective, it takes me just as long total travel time to do LAX-Idlewild...JFK I mean...as in the Connie days.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Wait, what? Who are you flying on? Just doing a quick Google search, it seems that the Connie used to do a transcon in about 11 hours with a fuel stop. A jet does the same in 5 non-stop...
Itchy
Well-Known Member
HVYMETALDRVR
Well-Known Member
Probably not going to happen IMO for a couple of reasons.
1. Across the pond DEFINITELY would be out of the question for 121.
2. The aircraft is BIG, but we've kind of seen the trend that for safety reasons, fuel economy, runway size, etc. That there is a limit for how big an airliner can get A380 anyone?
3. Now if you have a SE airliner THAT BIG with THAT MANY people and something does happen (no matter how unlikely) your going to kill that many more people in one fell swoop.
4. Even if the operation is limited to over the continental US or Europe and the engine fails your over land okay. But an airliner that big can't land on a grassy knoll or even a 2000ft. strip so your still screwed. I think I'd rather put it down on a sunny afternoon 10 miles off the Miami shoreline (assuming theres proper flotation gear and rafts for everyone) and wait for the cavalry to show up than in the Colorado Rockies. And this is just an engine failure during the day nevermind at night...
1. Across the pond DEFINITELY would be out of the question for 121.
2. The aircraft is BIG, but we've kind of seen the trend that for safety reasons, fuel economy, runway size, etc. That there is a limit for how big an airliner can get A380 anyone?
3. Now if you have a SE airliner THAT BIG with THAT MANY people and something does happen (no matter how unlikely) your going to kill that many more people in one fell swoop.
4. Even if the operation is limited to over the continental US or Europe and the engine fails your over land okay. But an airliner that big can't land on a grassy knoll or even a 2000ft. strip so your still screwed. I think I'd rather put it down on a sunny afternoon 10 miles off the Miami shoreline (assuming theres proper flotation gear and rafts for everyone) and wait for the cavalry to show up than in the Colorado Rockies. And this is just an engine failure during the day nevermind at night...
Orange Anchor
New Member
I spoke with the 787 test pilot, Mike Carriker, at Farnborough. The question was about the speeds being slower now than earlier. He said early one with the 787 Boeing offered more speed at the same efficiency or greater efficiency at the same speeds and ALL the airlines came back with 'same speed, greater efficiency.'
NASA and some of the GenAv manufacturers keep toying with the SSBJ and defeating the boom. There has been considerable progress in *mitigating* the boom compared to earlier proposals. Apparently the big booms occur in transition, not stabilized flight.
The 'quiet spike' technology was tested on an F-15B
The modified fuselage was tested on the modified F-5. The graphic on the fuselage is the pressure rise and fall of the boom.
This machine I saw a few years ago in a Florida museum.
As for the other concept, that is the blended body as being explored by the Boeing X-48B scale model.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Even if that were true (it's not) a car goes 60 mph just as fast 50 years ago as it does now, but it gets 3x-5x the fuel economy, is MUCH safer (collapsing frame and air bags), quieter, smoother, and much more reliable. It would be stupid to say "nothings changed" in the automotive world in 50 years, wouldn't it?
z987k
Well-Known Member
I think he means total time door to door. Then it's probably still close to 11 hours.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
All things being equal, the jet still takes a much shorter amount of time. You could throw in a bunch of weather delays to slow the jet down, but I could expand that into "I could drive across the country faster than taking a plane," of course, if JFK is under 6 feet of snow. Under normal circumstances, the jet is much quicker and is much less likely to cancel for poor weather. Not even sure why this is a debate.
z987k
Well-Known Member
depending on airport, time that you leave you're front door get through security, etc then 5-6 on plane, get bags etc.... it's usually an all day affair.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
I know...I've flown a couple times.
Do you really think it was any better in a Connie with weather and 11 hours just block to block?I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I know...I've flown a couple times.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I'm not saying it's better. More complaining about the ridiculousness of all the stuff before and after the flight itself.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
It's an all day affair because you are coming across 3 time zones adding 3 hours to the flight.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Have you ever had an issue getting your bags at the end? Mine show up with 10-15 mins w/ SWA. I wouldn't call that ridiculous.
Security sucks, although as a passenger I haven't ever waited more than 40 mins and that was going thru customs as well the day after Remembrance Day in Canada.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I know...I've flown a couple times.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Yes, because the Connie is sexy! Duh! :insane:
(Certain Boeing jets have considerable sex appeal, but don't come close.)
I have no problem once the door is closed and I'm glad we aren't bouncing around at 220 the whole time, but everything else that happens before or after the flying is simply ridiculous. By the time I drive to LAX, get parked, wait for the shuttle, wait to check in, wait to get frisked, get frisked, go to the gate, get onboard, wait for release, (I would go on, but I'll spare the page space). You get the point. We go across the ground faster but there's more screwing around that happens.
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
There certainly is a lot of truth in these statements!