6 ms·

> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://

> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a330neo-a-real-competitor-for-the-boeing-787-part-3 https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...

jacquesm 7y ago
20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to be put to the test.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Clearly the Shuttle's glide ratio was exceptionally bad, which is exactly why I used it for comparison. It still flies, after all.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick A brick has a glide ratio somewhere worse than 1:10; the shuttle (at subsonic speeds) is closer to a sailplane (~40:1, or ~9× better than the shuttle) than a brick (more than 50× worse).
    - lucisferre 7y ago
      I'd like to see the footage of the brick tests.
      - MertsA 7y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-9fEoeNc3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-9fEoeNc3I
  - Terr_ 7y ago
    Not quite that bad. I hear a wingsuit can get maybe 2.5:1, and that's clearly better than a brick...
    - the_seraphim 7y ago
      would the glide ratio be better after the engines fall off or before?
- a3n 7y ago
  > 20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km Unless you have to turn around to face back to the airport. You've lost a lot of altitude in the turn in that case.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Yep, the 60 km is straight line or nearly straight. As soon as you start to bank and turn you lose altitude faster than the ideal. So the 60 km is a maximum, not a guarantee.
- briandear 7y ago
  My Cessna T206 has a 9:1 glide ratio, though I plan around 7:1 as I am not a factory rest pilot under ideal conditions. And nothing glides as good as a glider. A 20:1 ratio is exceptional for any airplane, let alone a heavy airliner. To be fair though, I can safely land a Stationair on 700ft of dirt so my options are a bit better than a 787..
RowanH 7y ago
All a moot point when you're over the ocean :)
- asah 7y ago
  That's a Sully comment.

jacquesm 7y ago

20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to be put to the test.

dmitrygr 7y ago
That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Clearly the Shuttle's glide ratio was exceptionally bad, which is exactly why I used it for comparison. It still flies, after all.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick A brick has a glide ratio somewhere worse than 1:10; the shuttle (at subsonic speeds) is closer to a sailplane (~40:1, or ~9× better than the shuttle) than a brick (more than 50× worse).
  - lucisferre 7y ago
    I'd like to see the footage of the brick tests.
    - MertsA 7y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-9fEoeNc3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-9fEoeNc3I
- Terr_ 7y ago
  Not quite that bad. I hear a wingsuit can get maybe 2.5:1, and that's clearly better than a brick...
  - the_seraphim 7y ago
    would the glide ratio be better after the engines fall off or before?
a3n 7y ago
> 20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km Unless you have to turn around to face back to the airport. You've lost a lot of altitude in the turn in that case.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Yep, the 60 km is straight line or nearly straight. As soon as you start to bank and turn you lose altitude faster than the ideal. So the 60 km is a maximum, not a guarantee.
briandear 7y ago
My Cessna T206 has a 9:1 glide ratio, though I plan around 7:1 as I am not a factory rest pilot under ideal conditions. And nothing glides as good as a glider. A 20:1 ratio is exceptional for any airplane, let alone a heavy airliner. To be fair though, I can safely land a Stationair on 700ft of dirt so my options are a bit better than a 787..

RowanH 7y ago

All a moot point when you're over the ocean :)

asah 7y ago
That's a Sully comment.