T1B

Left Seater wrote: On top of that Malaysian is looking to dump theirs as well.

I believe they've already started with their Boeings.

They have. Apparently 777s are in higher demand than A380s. Not a good sign for the continued production of the whale.

I was referring to Flight 370.

How long have Airbus and Boeing been the dominant manufacturers of commercial airliners?

Better part of two decades. When McDonnell merged with Douglas they were still producing good commercial aircraft. This continued thru the purchase by Boeing in 97 (?). What is now the Boeing 717 is a solid aircraft.

There are other manufacturers but they have tended to stay in the regional jet market or very low end of "mainline" aircraft. Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats. Bombardier is also working on a new design that has had some decent orders but it is delayed.

Papa Willie wrote:I think that's pretty much all I needed to hear to make me not want to fly on a 340, Lefty. Jesus - that's scary.

From what lefty told us, it wouldn't get off the ground with your fat ass aboard, anyhow. So, you're safe.

Left Seater wrote:Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats.

Rode in a few, and maybe it's just because they were new, but that was some smooth riding planes. Seems like whenever I got on an Airbus, it was universally a rough ride.

Could just be coincidence, I guess.

There is some physics involved in the longer thinner jets riding thru turbulence slightly better.

Left Seater wrote:Better part of two decades. When McDonnell merged with Douglas they were still producing good commercial aircraft. This continued thru the purchase by Boeing in 97 (?). What is now the Boeing 717 is a solid aircraft.

There are other manufacturers but they have tended to stay in the regional jet market or very low end of "mainline" aircraft. Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats. Bombardier is also working on a new design that has had some decent orders but it is delayed.

Why do you think we haven't seen any major advances in aeronautics in 40-50 years that has dramatically reduced flight times? IIRC, we've had roughly the same flight times coast to coast for almost 60 years. I know the Concorde was supposed to be the big advancement, but that obviously isn't flying.

Feel free to call me an idiot, but I was just wondering this.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Feel free to call me an idiot

Glad you gave permission. Otherwise, no one here would ever do such a thing.

LS, do you know how the Concorde compared to other a/c when it comes to noise while sub-sonic, landing & t/o?

And have you ever done this?

Diego in Seattle wrote:And have you ever done this?

WTF?

That was a sqk 7700, and still is, but the a/c is still in the air an hour later, with that left loop now another oval racetrack. The pilot not know how to dump fuel?

Granted I am not an aerospace engineer but what the hell, why not play on here.

The main advances in aeronautics have come in distance and engine technology. Planes today of all kinds cruise at .9 Mach or even slightly faster. The airlines just haven't found enough people willing to pay for supersonic travel. The other huge limiting factor is the noise. No one wants a sonic boom anywhere near their home or business so most countries limit this to over water areas often 100 miles or more from land. This makes it difficult to offer any sort of domestic service. Airports like Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Dallas all are major airports and pretty much off limits to supersonic aircraft.

As for Concorde noise on takeoff and landing it was a beast. On takeoff the jet used afterburners which is basically dumping fuel into the exhaust to further add thrust. It quickly burns gas and makes hella amounts of noise. Most airports limited the takeoff hours of Concorde to day light "work day" type schedules. On landing it was comparable to the 707s or DC-8s when it was introduced.

I have never squaked 7700. As for the A319/320/321 they don't have fuel dumping abilities. Nor does the 737. In those cases if you have an emergency you are just going to have an overweight landing and maintenance will need to do some inspections before it goes back into service.

Thanks. Is it a general rule that noise reduction efforts in engines always result in reduced power? I know NASA is taking proposals from industry on an X-plane concept. I wonder when is the earliest possible time they could be implemented?

Here's the lead courtesy of Aviation Week--

Under its New Aviation Horizons initiative, NASA proposes building a series of large-scale X-planes over 10 years to demonstrate technologies for future ultra-efficient subsonic transports. To get a head start, the agency has awarded six-month contracts to develop the system requirements for flight demonstrators in five different configurations. The next step, funding permitting, will be a competition to take the first X-plane to a preliminary design review.

No. Today's engines produce far more thrust with less emissions and consume less fuel than those of a decade ago.

Left Seater wrote:As for the A319/320/321 they don't have fuel dumping abilities. Nor does the 737. In those cases if you have an emergency you are just going to have an overweight landing

Or do circles/ovals for an hour or so, as that AVA flight did?

Well I guess. But if I am declaring an emergency I don't want to circle for an hour before I put the bird on the ground. If I am declaring an emergency you can bet when I inform ATC of the emergency declaration I will also let them know that I am descending thru X at Y feet per minute.

Left Seater wrote:I will also let them know that I am descending thru X at Y feet per minute.

For at least the big birds, what's the fastest descent rate they can be doing to be considered safe?

I am not sure what that would be considering I am not type rated on any of them. However they can descend quite quickly. Passengers would freak out long before the plane approached its limits. Generally a rapid descent of this type would only be done in a decompression situation.

All that said, most gauges show 6000 feet per minute on the high end for climb or descent. However I would guess that 10,000 to 12,000 would be easy.