The Future of Passenger Planes
Jan 19, 2011 | 07:24 PM
#11
Teamspeed Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 899
From: Where I'm told to be.
Fuel consumption. When I fly private we beat commercial flights to the same destination sometimes by 20-30 minutes per hour. Typically due to throttle down flying I presume.
Jan 19, 2011 | 07:27 PM
#12
Full of Win.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,295
From: Gobbles Air Force Base
I'm not sure what you are traveling on while flying, but you are likely beating commercial flights due to differences in routing, and flying direct to destination instead of major airports. You also aren't dealing with TSA, security, baggage claim, so door to door is almost always faster.
Jan 19, 2011 | 10:10 PM
#14
Teamspeed's Mr. Spock
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,947
From: Los Angeles
OK, let me rephrase my question.
It would seem like if we have the same progress as we have made on passenger cars, that we would have relatively affordable supersonic passenger airliners, as well as private planes that can fly supersonic.
That airliner died a few years back, and no replacement is coming to my knowledge.
Private supersonic jets?
I just don't understand why there has been such little progress in civilian aviation, and why it still cost so much, and it still takes about a day to get from LA to BKK.
I mean, in 1995 you could pay 100K and have a safe and reliable car capable of traveling at 185mph on the autobahn.
16 years later in 2011, it still takes about a day to fly anywhere in SE Asia, in planes that are such old design (747's).
I just don't get it.
It would seem like if we have the same progress as we have made on passenger cars, that we would have relatively affordable supersonic passenger airliners, as well as private planes that can fly supersonic.
That airliner died a few years back, and no replacement is coming to my knowledge.
Private supersonic jets?
I just don't understand why there has been such little progress in civilian aviation, and why it still cost so much, and it still takes about a day to get from LA to BKK.
I mean, in 1995 you could pay 100K and have a safe and reliable car capable of traveling at 185mph on the autobahn.
16 years later in 2011, it still takes about a day to fly anywhere in SE Asia, in planes that are such old design (747's).
I just don't get it.
Jan 19, 2011 | 10:44 PM
#15
Full of Win.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,295
From: Gobbles Air Force Base
OK, let me rephrase my question.
It would seem like if we have the same progress as we have made on passenger cars, that we would have relatively affordable supersonic passenger airliners, as well as private planes that can fly supersonic.
That airliner died a few years back, and no replacement is coming to my knowledge.
Private supersonic jets?
I just don't understand why there has been such little progress in civilian aviation, and why it still cost so much, and it still takes about a day to get from LA to BKK.
I mean, in 1995 you could pay 100K and have a safe and reliable car capable of traveling at 185mph on the autobahn.
16 years later in 2011, it still takes about a day to fly anywhere in SE Asia, in planes that are such old design (747's).
I just don't get it.
It would seem like if we have the same progress as we have made on passenger cars, that we would have relatively affordable supersonic passenger airliners, as well as private planes that can fly supersonic.
That airliner died a few years back, and no replacement is coming to my knowledge.
Private supersonic jets?
I just don't understand why there has been such little progress in civilian aviation, and why it still cost so much, and it still takes about a day to get from LA to BKK.
I mean, in 1995 you could pay 100K and have a safe and reliable car capable of traveling at 185mph on the autobahn.
16 years later in 2011, it still takes about a day to fly anywhere in SE Asia, in planes that are such old design (747's).
I just don't get it.
The development costs involved in aviation versus the automobile industry are absurd because the standards for production, acceptance, tolerances, etc. are all much higher.
The alternator belt on my 1972 Piper Arrow costs $7 at the auto parts store, except I can't buy it there. I have to buy a PMA'd or STC'd belt from an authorized supplier, and that same belt is $78. And I mean same belt - down to the part number silk screened on it.
Jan 20, 2011 | 01:52 AM
#16
Teamspeed's Mr. Spock
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,947
From: Los Angeles
One word. Liability.
The development costs involved in aviation versus the automobile industry are absurd because the standards for production, acceptance, tolerances, etc. are all much higher.
The alternator belt on my 1972 Piper Arrow costs $7 at the auto parts store, except I can't buy it there. I have to buy a PMA'd or STC'd belt from an authorized supplier, and that same belt is $78. And I mean same belt - down to the part number silk screened on it.
The development costs involved in aviation versus the automobile industry are absurd because the standards for production, acceptance, tolerances, etc. are all much higher.
The alternator belt on my 1972 Piper Arrow costs $7 at the auto parts store, except I can't buy it there. I have to buy a PMA'd or STC'd belt from an authorized supplier, and that same belt is $78. And I mean same belt - down to the part number silk screened on it.
Last edited by stuka; Jan 20, 2011 at 02:57 AM.
Jan 20, 2011 | 02:53 AM
#18
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,667
From: Nashville, TN
Jan 20, 2011 | 08:36 AM
#19
Thread Starter
| Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,258
From: NOVA
Are experimental planes safe?
