Why are planes so damn slow?

[Maljonic]

It really irritates me that Concorde was scrapped, it's like taking a step back in technology; just seen the latest planes that are super huge for tonnes of passengers but they still crawl through the skies at subsonic speeds, what the hell are they thinking? Trains speed up all the time, why not planes? They're still going the same speed now as they were 30 years ago... we should be hurtling across the Atlantic in and hour or so by now, relaxing on a leisurely 3 hour trip from London to Sydney. It needs sorting Branson!

 

[SoWat]

Concorde being scrapped hasn't made a jot of difference to normal working joes, as we couldn't afford to fly on it anyway (despite paying for it to be built).

Flying is a PITA these days and I doubt the new 'Super Jumbos' will make it any better. All those news items depicting passengers strolling around shops is pure fantasy... they'll be packing them in like sardines as usual

Oh and as for Branson... he has to be the world's No.1 sadist. The times I've sat in Virgin's cattle class watching the 'Upper Class' infomercial is enough to make me scream (it shows some rupert getting a neck massage whilst sitting at the bar upstairs).

 

[Tom]

They're called the laws of physics, and they've been around for about 8 billion years or so.

 

[TdC]

it's all about the money, it's all about the dumdum dum de dum dum.

 

[old.user4556]

What Tom said.

Additionally, Concorde wasn't profitable which i'm sure everyone knows - it's all about as many passengers as possible: bums on seats per flight.

G

 

[pcg79]

it's all about the money, it's all about the dumdum dum de dum dum.

hehe

 

[Maljonic]

They're called the laws of physics, and they've been around for about 8 billion years or so.

Lies! We should be bouncing off the atmosphere all the way to New Zealand by now....

 

[Maljonic]

Concorde being scrapped hasn't made a jot of difference to normal working joes, as we couldn't afford to fly on it anyway (despite paying for it to be built).

Flying is a PITA these days and I doubt the new 'Super Jumbos' will make it any better. All those news items depicting passengers strolling around shops is pure fantasy... they'll be packing them in like sardines as usual

Oh and as for Branson... he has to be the world's No.1 sadist. The times I've sat in Virgin's cattle class watching the 'Upper Class' infomercial is enough to make me scream (it shows some rupert getting a neck massage whilst sitting at the bar upstairs).

Ah, it's you that keeps screaming back there.

I don't really care so much about Concorde, just disappointed in how slowly aeronautical engineering is moving compared to other areas such as, cars, trains, ships, computers etc... When I was a kid it used to take 4 hours to get to London from York, now it takes 1 hour 45-55 minutes; at the same time it used to take 8 hours to get to New York when I was a kid, now it still takes 8 hours. I'm merely disillusioned about the myth of progress...

 

[Tom]

The same progress that makes it so cheap these days?

 

[Addlcove]

we should be hurtling across the Atlantic in and hour or so by now,

you should grab the train then

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2002/summer/bf_04.html

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,599827-2,00.html

The idea is as wondrous as it is audacious: Get on a train at New York City's Penn Station and hit Paris, London or Brussels just an hour later. "From an engineering point of view there are no serious stumbling blocks," says Ernst Frankel, retired professor of ocean engineering at MIT

 

[Maljonic]

The same progress that makes it so cheap these days?

No.

 

[Maljonic]

you should grab the train then

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2002/summer/bf_04.html

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,599827-2,00.html

That's more like it, should tide us over till someone invents Star Trek type anti grav stuff, then the plane can be reborn.

 

[Athan]

The problem with supersonic travel is that you need to get TO the speed and back down again, which loses some of the saving. Add in that people get uppity if you create sonic booms near where they live and you have to extend that time even more. My point being that just because you can technically go X speed doesn't mean you can do it practically. Those practicalities then increase your costs as your supersonic aircraft won't be very fuel efficient below supersonic speeds.

Still, there's some promising research into different plane shapes for reducing the sonic boom part of the problem. You've still got to get the plane big enough to be economically viable. Concorde never was that much of a money-spinner.

-Ath

 

[Addlcove]

I like the train solution better to be honest

 

[Munkey]

So how they would cope with the plates moving together/away from each other? would be interesting to see how they cope

 

[TdC]

the tunnel floats, the anchor points are flexable? something like that. I saw a documentary on discovery about it.

 

[pcg79]

what the hell are you going to do if the train breaks down in the middle of the tunnel? walk back?

 

[old.user4556]

A bit like when a plane breaks down in the middle of the sky, you're proper fucked.

 

[Maljonic]

So how they would cope with the plates moving together/away from each other? would be interesting to see how they cope

Do you mean the tectonic plates? I imagine the anchoring will be flexible enough to cope; the plates only move a few inches per year, most modern structures, tunnels, bridges etc, are designed with a certain amount of movement in mind. I'm sure they already thought of that with this too.

edit: didn't see tdc's post.

 

[Maljonic]

what the hell are you going to do if the train breaks down in the middle of the tunnel? walk back?

You sound like my mother...

 

[Wazzerphuk]

it's all about the money, it's all about the dumdum dum de dum dum.

Indeed. Take a look at how much fuel a plane needs, then take a look at the cost. Then, think of it like you would a car. A bigger, more powerful engine = better performance from the vehicle. However, this in turn significantly reduces the performance and value of the fuel and putting on a flight would cost 2-3 times MORE.

Not that we have any fucking fuel left.

 

[Maljonic]

Indeed. Take a look at how much fuel a plane needs, then take a look at the cost. Then, think of it like you would a car. A bigger, more powerful engine = better performance from the vehicle. However, this in turn significantly reduces the performance and value of the fuel and putting on a flight would cost 2-3 times MORE.

Not that we have any fucking fuel left.

Oh but we moved on from planes, it's all about trains now.

 

[Exoshear]

Boeing already have a solution - http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/flash.html

 

[Maljonic]

Boeing already have a solution - http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/flash.html

That stuff seems to be a couple of years old, I wonder if anything is becoming of it?