4 ms·

I'm disappointed in the minimal amount of innovation we've seen in airplanes since the 70s. That's great that it is 20% more fuel efficient, but we're flying w

by geori 14y ago

I'm disappointed in the minimal amount of innovation we've seen in airplanes since the 70s. That's great that it is 20% more fuel efficient, but we're flying with basically the same tech that we did 40 years ago. Can Elon Musk please build us a hypersonic jet liner!?

mitchty 14y ago
Hypersonic? Innovation in airplanes has been rather high, just not in making them go faster. This is similar to complaining we don't have 10ghz processors. Yes this is true, but as it turns out thats a hard problem and we can work around it elsewhere. Hypersonic presents a completely different set of problems in things like materials, design, shockwave management, etc.... That and it likely isn't profitable. Better to design fuel efficient jets that fly closer to the speed of sound than another concorde.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I think it's just a point of diminishing returns, really. Range keeps going up. Now you can fly a big airliner between pretty much any two large airports on the planet, if you can sell the tickets for that route. The trip takes a max of, what, 20 hours or so? Cutting that down to, say, 6 hours just doesn't win you that much. Sure, there are some people who would really benefit, but I'd wager that the vast majority of travelers either get almost as much benefit from the 20-hour trip as they would from the 6-hour trip, and the vast majority of people for whom the 20-hour trip is too long to be useful would also find the 6-hour trip to be too long to be useful. The world is only so big, and at some point, making the stuff go faster doesn't get you all that much. Personally, if I magically had the choice, I'd much rather fly on an airliner that traveled at current speeds but was more comfortable and didn't have security nonsense surrounding it than on a hypersonic airliner with the same ergonomics and security nonsense we have right now.
  - kreek 14y ago
    I agree that comfort is the issue. The airlines squeeze so many seats now into coach that for tall or larger passengers it's very uncomfortable for cross country flights. I'm 6'2" the space under the seat in front of me is always taken up by someone's carry on bag. Two hour flights are no problem, the five hours cross-country is ok, but any long haul in coach is pretty miserable.
    - lliiffee 14y ago
      What, really? I've never had someone in front of me use the space beneath their seat. That's my space! (I'm also 6'2" and only bring a small carry-on because I need that space for legs.)
  - r00fus 14y ago
    > Cutting that down to, say, 6 hours just doesn't win you that much. Very important point. Airtravel after 9/11 took a huge step back for the sake of security theater. Used to be, I could get to airport 30m before flight time, and the terminal 10m before takeoff on a relatively light day and have no problem making the flight (I had done this repeatedly). Add ~30m to get to the airport and you're looking at 1hr each way for +2 hrs door-to-door (on average, YMMV). Now, those times are doubled to tripled, with the added treacherous possibility of missing the flight completely if you happen to get randomly flagged or say or do the wrong thing during security (all with the bonus of either being groped or irradiated). So that 20hrs becomes 26+ and 6 becomes 12+. Now you've lost a day, either way.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    Not me. Being in a ten-plus-hour flight sucks. I'd take six hours packed like a sardine with over-recycled airline food farts over 20 hours with better air pressure/humidity and bigger windows any day, cost being equal.
throwaway54-762 14y ago
Look at the Concorde — new crazy fast airplane technology is great, but it's not affordable or attractive enough to make it worth an airline's time. Make it affordable and we'll all fly on your hypersonic jet liner tomorrow.
draggnar 14y ago
Virgin Galactic is probably on the closest trajectory right now for a hypersonic jet liner.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
gamble 14y ago
The problem is not technology, but the willingness to pay for it. The average flight is only a few hours long, but costs at least a hundred dollars. Most people are willing to put up with a lot of discomfort to save a few bucks. A supersonic jet would effectively be an all-business-class service, which has been tried many times before and has always failed due to a lack of demand. The 787 optimizes for what customers want: namely, lower ticket prices.
snorkel 14y ago
Market forces pushed airliners in the opposite direction: low ticket prices == cram as many cattle that be legally packed into the fuselage, close the door, and go So all the cool features Boeing cares to demonstrate on this plane will not be ordered by any major airline aside from Emirates, all the major US carriers will be choosing the standard plastic window shade instead.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I suspect there is a disconnect between what you want and what the general flying public / airlines want. I come to that suspicion by the route that there has been a huge amount of innovation in airlines (even with regulatory drag) which apparently you are not acknowledging. The whole fly-by-wire / auto land thing which would make a remake of "Airport" much less of a thriller. Its taken a long time to get these systems certified but they have changed the way these planes are managed. There has been a lot of change in entertainment and communication options, from a single four channel radio phone of the 90's we've now got multichannel live satellite feeds and internet access. Per seat entertainment choices vs one VHS tape for everyone. Speed and range gains have also made it possible for smaller airports to support non-stop flights to distant destinations. While people near SFO or NYC may not see a change, the fact that you could fly from Reno to Tokyo non-stop is a big change. Finally you have to realize that a plane is a 20 year investment by an airline so you'll see changes on the order of 10 years not every year. The 787 is a pretty amazing piece of gear, full up replacement planes are a slow process.

by geori 14y ago

mitchty 14y ago

Hypersonic? Innovation in airplanes has been rather high, just not in making them go faster. This is similar to complaining we don't have 10ghz processors. Yes this is true, but as it turns out thats a hard problem and we can work around it elsewhere. Hypersonic presents a completely different set of problems in things like materials, design, shockwave management, etc.... That and it likely isn't profitable. Better to design fuel efficient jets that fly closer to the speed of sound than another concorde.

mikeash 14y ago
I think it's just a point of diminishing returns, really. Range keeps going up. Now you can fly a big airliner between pretty much any two large airports on the planet, if you can sell the tickets for that route. The trip takes a max of, what, 20 hours or so? Cutting that down to, say, 6 hours just doesn't win you that much. Sure, there are some people who would really benefit, but I'd wager that the vast majority of travelers either get almost as much benefit from the 20-hour trip as they would from the 6-hour trip, and the vast majority of people for whom the 20-hour trip is too long to be useful would also find the 6-hour trip to be too long to be useful. The world is only so big, and at some point, making the stuff go faster doesn't get you all that much. Personally, if I magically had the choice, I'd much rather fly on an airliner that traveled at current speeds but was more comfortable and didn't have security nonsense surrounding it than on a hypersonic airliner with the same ergonomics and security nonsense we have right now.
- kreek 14y ago
  I agree that comfort is the issue. The airlines squeeze so many seats now into coach that for tall or larger passengers it's very uncomfortable for cross country flights. I'm 6'2" the space under the seat in front of me is always taken up by someone's carry on bag. Two hour flights are no problem, the five hours cross-country is ok, but any long haul in coach is pretty miserable.
  - lliiffee 14y ago
    What, really? I've never had someone in front of me use the space beneath their seat. That's my space! (I'm also 6'2" and only bring a small carry-on because I need that space for legs.)
- r00fus 14y ago
  > Cutting that down to, say, 6 hours just doesn't win you that much. Very important point. Airtravel after 9/11 took a huge step back for the sake of security theater. Used to be, I could get to airport 30m before flight time, and the terminal 10m before takeoff on a relatively light day and have no problem making the flight (I had done this repeatedly). Add ~30m to get to the airport and you're looking at 1hr each way for +2 hrs door-to-door (on average, YMMV). Now, those times are doubled to tripled, with the added treacherous possibility of missing the flight completely if you happen to get randomly flagged or say or do the wrong thing during security (all with the bonus of either being groped or irradiated). So that 20hrs becomes 26+ and 6 becomes 12+. Now you've lost a day, either way.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  Not me. Being in a ten-plus-hour flight sucks. I'd take six hours packed like a sardine with over-recycled airline food farts over 20 hours with better air pressure/humidity and bigger windows any day, cost being equal.

throwaway54-762 14y ago

Look at the Concorde — new crazy fast airplane technology is great, but it's not affordable or attractive enough to make it worth an airline's time. Make it affordable and we'll all fly on your hypersonic jet liner tomorrow.

draggnar 14y ago

Virgin Galactic is probably on the closest trajectory right now for a hypersonic jet liner.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

gamble 14y ago

The problem is not technology, but the willingness to pay for it. The average flight is only a few hours long, but costs at least a hundred dollars. Most people are willing to put up with a lot of discomfort to save a few bucks. A supersonic jet would effectively be an all-business-class service, which has been tried many times before and has always failed due to a lack of demand. The 787 optimizes for what customers want: namely, lower ticket prices.

snorkel 14y ago

Market forces pushed airliners in the opposite direction: low ticket prices == cram as many cattle that be legally packed into the fuselage, close the door, and go So all the cool features Boeing cares to demonstrate on this plane will not be ordered by any major airline aside from Emirates, all the major US carriers will be choosing the standard plastic window shade instead.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I suspect there is a disconnect between what you want and what the general flying public / airlines want. I come to that suspicion by the route that there has been a huge amount of innovation in airlines (even with regulatory drag) which apparently you are not acknowledging. The whole fly-by-wire / auto land thing which would make a remake of "Airport" much less of a thriller. Its taken a long time to get these systems certified but they have changed the way these planes are managed. There has been a lot of change in entertainment and communication options, from a single four channel radio phone of the 90's we've now got multichannel live satellite feeds and internet access. Per seat entertainment choices vs one VHS tape for everyone. Speed and range gains have also made it possible for smaller airports to support non-stop flights to distant destinations. While people near SFO or NYC may not see a change, the fact that you could fly from Reno to Tokyo non-stop is a big change. Finally you have to realize that a plane is a 20 year investment by an airline so you'll see changes on the order of 10 years not every year. The 787 is a pretty amazing piece of gear, full up replacement planes are a slow process.