Not entirely relevant, but I always think it's a shame that Concord never fully took off (excuse the pun) so to speak - the idea of flying from New York to Paris in only around 3.5 hours compared...
Not entirely relevant, but I always think it's a shame that Concord never fully took off (excuse the pun) so to speak - the idea of flying from New York to Paris in only around 3.5 hours compared to the usual 8 is mind-blowing, and it somewhat irritates me to think of how many hours I've lost as a result of longer flights which could've been cut in half.
good point - presumably with them being in widespread usage they would've found a way to decrease the excessive fuel consumption? I'm dealing entirely in hypotheticals here tbh so take my thoughts...
good point - presumably with them being in widespread usage they would've found a way to decrease the excessive fuel consumption? I'm dealing entirely in hypotheticals here tbh so take my thoughts with a grain of salt :)
Not really, plane speed is a product of the density and composition of our atmosphere, no amount of engendering can solve this. Going that fast uses loads of fuel because you have to move all that...
Not really, plane speed is a product of the density and composition of our atmosphere, no amount of engendering can solve this. Going that fast uses loads of fuel because you have to move all that air out of the way, it's why the hyperloop at a near vacuum is so attractive for efficient high speed travel.
I tried looking a little into the hyperloop you mention but haven't really found a beginner's introduction to it - any chance you could ELI5? I've always found physics-y stuff interesting but a...
I tried looking a little into the hyperloop you mention but haven't really found a beginner's introduction to it - any chance you could ELI5? I've always found physics-y stuff interesting but a bit too hard to understand unfortunately.
The idea is to build a tube then suck out all the air and have a train running inside on magnetic levitation. All this reduces the friction and air resistance to a point were you're mostly...
The idea is to build a tube then suck out all the air and have a train running inside on magnetic levitation. All this reduces the friction and air resistance to a point were you're mostly fighting inertia (resistant to movement, like pushing a pram vs car) and very minimal friction losses.
Compare that to a plane that has to constantly be fighting/pushing aside all the air in front of it, the concord had heating problems to it's exterior from all the air it had to move.
Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by the end of the flight.
I don't know what the marketing numbers are for the hyperloop but suffice it to say it would be very fast, and compared to a concord way more energy efficient for each trip. The problem is in the infrastructure.
The idea is that, by removing most of the air from the tunnels you're moving through, you're wasting less energy on pushing that air out of the way. This means you can go at higher speeds without...
The idea is that, by removing most of the air from the tunnels you're moving through, you're wasting less energy on pushing that air out of the way. This means you can go at higher speeds without using ridiculous amounts of fuel.
I'll have to watch that video posted by /u/Kelsier when I get a chance, but I suppose I've always assumed that as they became more widely utilised they would have presumably lowered in price, as...
I'll have to watch that video posted by /u/Kelsier when I get a chance, but I suppose I've always assumed that as they became more widely utilised they would have presumably lowered in price, as happened with cars over the duration of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
I wonder what this means as a shift for air travel over the next 15 years or so. As a frequent traveller, I really appreciate that the A380 has changed premium class scene—the sheer space of the...
I wonder what this means as a shift for air travel over the next 15 years or so.
As a frequent traveller, I really appreciate that the A380 has changed premium class scene—the sheer space of the upper deck encouraged airlines to give passengers more individual private space, which has now trickled its way down to "smaller" aircraft, such as 777s, 787s, etc. And some airlines are even running four class configs on their aircraft—premium economy being my default mode of personal travel.
But, if the bet for city-sized aircraft is gone, does this mean that the premium travel scene will change again—and will we soon more über-modern smaller planes? As someone who makes the pond jump a few times a year for business, I'd sure give up premium seating in exchange for an economy seat on a Concorde.
As it looks like the first flight of the A380 was in 2005, I wonder if this means Airbus has taken a bath on the programme, as it only had a 14 year production run.
As it looks like the first flight of the A380 was in 2005, I wonder if this means Airbus has taken a bath on the programme, as it only had a 14 year production run.
It's worth pointing out that the 747-8 is running out of, err, runway too. They're doing a big run (19) of 747-8F freighters for UPS, a couple for Volga-Dnepr Cargo and the government of Saudia...
“What we’re seeing here is the end of the large, four-engine aircraft,” said Enders, who admitted that the company was a decade late in developing the superjumbo. Boeing, Airbus’s American arch-rival, this month celebrated 50 years of production of its 747.
It's worth pointing out that the 747-8 is running out of, err, runway too. They're doing a big run (19) of 747-8F freighters for UPS, a couple for Volga-Dnepr Cargo and the government of Saudia Arabia, and then that's it for current orders. At this point Boeing's delivered the last passenger 747s they expect to, and see the future of non-cargo 747s as VIP-only.
Not entirely relevant, but I always think it's a shame that Concord never fully took off (excuse the pun) so to speak - the idea of flying from New York to Paris in only around 3.5 hours compared to the usual 8 is mind-blowing, and it somewhat irritates me to think of how many hours I've lost as a result of longer flights which could've been cut in half.
it uses 5x the fuel and the flights could only be international.
good point - presumably with them being in widespread usage they would've found a way to decrease the excessive fuel consumption? I'm dealing entirely in hypotheticals here tbh so take my thoughts with a grain of salt :)
Not really, plane speed is a product of the density and composition of our atmosphere, no amount of engendering can solve this. Going that fast uses loads of fuel because you have to move all that air out of the way, it's why the hyperloop at a near vacuum is so attractive for efficient high speed travel.
I tried looking a little into the hyperloop you mention but haven't really found a beginner's introduction to it - any chance you could ELI5? I've always found physics-y stuff interesting but a bit too hard to understand unfortunately.
The idea is to build a tube then suck out all the air and have a train running inside on magnetic levitation. All this reduces the friction and air resistance to a point were you're mostly fighting inertia (resistant to movement, like pushing a pram vs car) and very minimal friction losses.
Compare that to a plane that has to constantly be fighting/pushing aside all the air in front of it, the concord had heating problems to it's exterior from all the air it had to move.
I don't know what the marketing numbers are for the hyperloop but suffice it to say it would be very fast, and compared to a concord way more energy efficient for each trip. The problem is in the infrastructure.
Sounds fascinating, thanks for the information :)
The idea is that, by removing most of the air from the tunnels you're moving through, you're wasting less energy on pushing that air out of the way. This means you can go at higher speeds without using ridiculous amounts of fuel.
Yes I think it was wendover who made a video on the concord
Edit - Here it is
I'll have to watch that video posted by /u/Kelsier when I get a chance, but I suppose I've always assumed that as they became more widely utilised they would have presumably lowered in price, as happened with cars over the duration of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
I wonder what this means as a shift for air travel over the next 15 years or so.
As a frequent traveller, I really appreciate that the A380 has changed premium class scene—the sheer space of the upper deck encouraged airlines to give passengers more individual private space, which has now trickled its way down to "smaller" aircraft, such as 777s, 787s, etc. And some airlines are even running four class configs on their aircraft—premium economy being my default mode of personal travel.
But, if the bet for city-sized aircraft is gone, does this mean that the premium travel scene will change again—and will we soon more über-modern smaller planes? As someone who makes the pond jump a few times a year for business, I'd sure give up premium seating in exchange for an economy seat on a Concorde.
As it looks like the first flight of the A380 was in 2005, I wonder if this means Airbus has taken a bath on the programme, as it only had a 14 year production run.
It's worth pointing out that the 747-8 is running out of, err, runway too. They're doing a big run (19) of 747-8F freighters for UPS, a couple for Volga-Dnepr Cargo and the government of Saudia Arabia, and then that's it for current orders. At this point Boeing's delivered the last passenger 747s they expect to, and see the future of non-cargo 747s as VIP-only.