7 ms·

My biggest "surprise" always is how little we have progressed if you just look at how the planes look and how fast they fly (6h11m NY->London in 1958, that's pr

My biggest "surprise" always is how little we have progressed if you just look at how the planes look and how fast they fly (6h11m NY->London in 1958, that's pretty much what they do today, not?). It seems like the airline industry got a lot of stuff just right the first time and since then just has been doing performance tweaks (where I take "performance" to be very broad to include things like safety, economy, ...).

cromulent 9y ago
It's down to the laws of physics. They still fly at around 80% of the speed of sound, as that is close to the so-called "coffin corner". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)
- frenchman_in_ny 9y ago
  It's unrelated to the coffin corner. Planes in the ~80s were flying NY<>London faster than today -- the fuel savings generated by flying slower are what is driving the decision.
  - cromulent 9y ago
    Yeah, you are absolutely right :)
dom0 9y ago
Well the Concorde was twice as fast (record: 2 hours and 52 minutes), but it's decommissioned now.
ak217 9y ago
In 1958, the cost of a ticket was about 4x what it is today (adjusted for inflation but not earnings growth), flying was at least 20x less safe in terms of fatal crashes per departure, and consumed at least 4x more fuel per passenger-mile. Those are some impressive performance tweaks.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  Those of us with legs suffer at least 4x more - The price has been at least partly compensated for by cramming more people in.
  - slededit 9y ago
    A first class ticket is about double the cost and has the traditional leg room. If you can live with only half the cost of the 1950s then its an option.
Animats 9y ago
A little slower today, for fuel economy. Going supersonic uses 3x the fuel. That's what killed the Concorde.
- spaceflunky 9y ago
  This is the real reason. The 757 could cruise at Mach 0.8, but it's a lot less efficient at that speed. The 757 use to make the SFO-JFK route in a little under 5 hours, these days most flights make it in just under 6 (a 20% increase in time to save fuel). Air travel is technically capable of big improvements, but economics don't work out.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Nonstop SFO-JFK flights are 5:35 to 5:48. But this isn't all due to flying slower. Airlines have increased their scheduled flight times to improve their on-time arrival statistics. So if there are no delays then they actually arrive early.
waqf 9y ago
> airline industry got a lot of stuff just right the first time Not quite the first time: by looking at 1958, the start of the jet age, you have deliberately set as your starting-point the exact point at which they got things right, along that particular dimension (speed). Prop planes such as the DC-3 were most certainly slower. But it's true that commercial airliners have not got much faster over the past 50 years, and that's, as other replies to your comment point out, down to the speed of sound.
gozur88 9y ago
Air friction goes up with velocity squared, so a small decrease in speed gives you a relatively large savings in fuel. It's just too expensive to fly fast. There's a sweet spot where fuel savings, customer satisfaction, and capital costs meet, and it's at a much lower speed than engineers are capable of producing.
woodandsteel 9y ago
This is common in many areas of technology. There is a phase of rapid technological development, then it reaches the fundamental limits of the technology, and from then on it is all refinements. For instance take a look at liquid-fueled rockets. The first one was built by Goddard in the 1930's, they advanced rapidly with the German V-2 and then the Soviet and American military and space programs, reaching a peak with the Saturn V that has not been exceeded to this day.

cromulent 9y ago

It's down to the laws of physics. They still fly at around 80% of the speed of sound, as that is close to the so-called "coffin corner". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics)

frenchman_in_ny 9y ago
It's unrelated to the coffin corner. Planes in the ~80s were flying NY<>London faster than today -- the fuel savings generated by flying slower are what is driving the decision.
- cromulent 9y ago
  Yeah, you are absolutely right :)

dom0 9y ago

Well the Concorde was twice as fast (record: 2 hours and 52 minutes), but it's decommissioned now.

ak217 9y ago

In 1958, the cost of a ticket was about 4x what it is today (adjusted for inflation but not earnings growth), flying was at least 20x less safe in terms of fatal crashes per departure, and consumed at least 4x more fuel per passenger-mile. Those are some impressive performance tweaks.

lostlogin 9y ago
Those of us with legs suffer at least 4x more - The price has been at least partly compensated for by cramming more people in.
- slededit 9y ago
  A first class ticket is about double the cost and has the traditional leg room. If you can live with only half the cost of the 1950s then its an option.

Animats 9y ago

A little slower today, for fuel economy. Going supersonic uses 3x the fuel. That's what killed the Concorde.

spaceflunky 9y ago
This is the real reason. The 757 could cruise at Mach 0.8, but it's a lot less efficient at that speed. The 757 use to make the SFO-JFK route in a little under 5 hours, these days most flights make it in just under 6 (a 20% increase in time to save fuel). Air travel is technically capable of big improvements, but economics don't work out.
- nradov 9y ago
  Nonstop SFO-JFK flights are 5:35 to 5:48. But this isn't all due to flying slower. Airlines have increased their scheduled flight times to improve their on-time arrival statistics. So if there are no delays then they actually arrive early.

waqf 9y ago

> airline industry got a lot of stuff just right the first time Not quite the first time: by looking at 1958, the start of the jet age, you have deliberately set as your starting-point the exact point at which they got things right, along that particular dimension (speed). Prop planes such as the DC-3 were most certainly slower. But it's true that commercial airliners have not got much faster over the past 50 years, and that's, as other replies to your comment point out, down to the speed of sound.

gozur88 9y ago

Air friction goes up with velocity squared, so a small decrease in speed gives you a relatively large savings in fuel. It's just too expensive to fly fast. There's a sweet spot where fuel savings, customer satisfaction, and capital costs meet, and it's at a much lower speed than engineers are capable of producing.

woodandsteel 9y ago

This is common in many areas of technology. There is a phase of rapid technological development, then it reaches the fundamental limits of the technology, and from then on it is all refinements. For instance take a look at liquid-fueled rockets. The first one was built by Goddard in the 1930's, they advanced rapidly with the German V-2 and then the Soviet and American military and space programs, reaching a peak with the Saturn V that has not been exceeded to this day.