Future Air Craft

[Palpatine001 57]

After some much discussion and (head clashing), it looks like the B787 will outstrip the A380 in order numbers and other stats.

Conclusion, bigger isn't always better, (Suppose that's a bit late for Emperor Palpatine and all those Death Stars and Executors )

Anyhow what do you think the future or air travel will be (that's Earth travel not space travel for u sci fi's out there)

Here is a couple of pics attached.

Some of you will recognise it other's won't, for those who don't I'll start it off:

Introducing Fireflash, a hypersonic airliner that flies at Mach 6 normal crusing at a height of 125,000ft or nearish 40-50km. 600 passengers on 4 classes; everyday bums, business bums, first class bums and those bums who we dispise cause they are $$$$$$$$$ )

Its power source u ask? Well that's the best bit, originally it was Atomic power now they are looking at micro fusion. Either way, this craft needs TLC and hey, I'll pay NZ$4000 for a 3.5 hour trip from New Zealand to London on this puppy even with a reactor behind me )

[Yellowlab 11]

See, the problem is that not many people can drop $4000 on an airplane flight. Also, as soon as something goes wrong with one of those flights, you can kiss profits goodbye. People are very jittery when it comes to atomic power.

I think the future of flight, at least the near future, are mid-range, smaller jets like the 787. What with fuel prices, the A380 is little more than a show of technical know-how. It's just too inefficient for mass use.

[Palpatine001 57]

$4000 while is expensive, I think for people who pay upwards of NZ$2500 for a economy class seat to fly 1/2 way round the world for 24 hours might be inclined to pay that little bit more for speed, (oooops I forgot to mention that was Business Bums pricing, economy is about NZ$3700) and less discomfort of long haul flights. The point on if the aircraft crashes good bye profits, same for conventional craft as well for a period of time. And yes I'm also jittery of Atomic power but as fossil fuels become more scarce and we really hit space travel, then nuclear power (fission then fusion which is far safer) will be more inclined acceptable. Also I know other future power sources that are more lethal that are needed for space travel.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I've heard that the A350 is going to be one of the next best things...

[Easy Bakes 253]

The 797 will be next.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The biggest problem is everyone is in such a frantic rush.  I would rather take a long distance flight in a dirigible airship.  With the unfortunate Hindenberg incident, the idea of public transporation by air kind of died, but it needs to be revisited.

These days, with modern communication systems, you need not be out of touch with your colleagues while travelling, so why not make it luxurious and relaxed.  Why should you be jammed in a small, regimented seat, when you could expansively travel in the same luxurious surroundings as an ocean liner, without the risk of stoms at sea.

Jamming more and more people into a jet propelled fuel-waster is not the way to fly.

[Trigger_tre 1]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body The biggest problem is everyone is in such a frantic rush.  I would rather take a long distance flight in a dirigible airship.  With the unfortunate Hindenberg incident, the idea of public transporation by air kind of died, but it needs to be revisited.quote>

Actually, dirigibles are now being highly revisited, especially by the US Military. I forget where I read about it.

However, the interest rests on the fact that pound for pound an airship can carry much greater payloads than any other aircraft (airplane & helicopter) and at far cheaper costs.  Also the actually cargo space an airship can have is far superior to the largest Military cargo plane.

I also read somewhere that perhaps darpa was interested in developement of a sort of aircraft carrier /  command center in the sky.  Basically a huge dirigible that would hold the main command center for military operations and would be capable of housing certain military weapons and/or craft. ( The bonus was that the command center could have aerial superiority as well as being much faster then a water-locked aircraft carrier that must travel around entire continents to reach the desired targets.)

-trigger

[callagrafx 3]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Introducing Fireflash, a hypersonic airliner that flies at Mach 6 normal crusing at a height of 125,000ft or nearish 40-50km. 600 passengers on 4 classes; everyday bums, business bums, first class bums and those bums who we dispise cause they are $$$$$$$$$ )

Its power source u ask? Well that's the best bit, originally it was Atomic power now they are looking at micro fusion. Either way, this craft needs TLC and hey, I'll pay NZ$4000 for a 3.5 hour trip from New Zealand to London on this puppy even with a reactor behind me )quote>

This looks remarkably like one of the aircraft from 60's TV show Thunderbirds...are you sure someone's not having you on?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Trigger_tre

Originally posted by: N_O_Body The biggest problem is everyone is in such a frantic rush.  I would rather take a long distance flight in a dirigible airship.  With the unfortunate Hindenberg incident, the idea of public transporation by air kind of died, but it needs to be revisited.quote>

Actually, dirigibles are now being highly revisited, especially by the US Military. I forget where I read about it.

However, the interest rests on the fact that pound for pound an airship can carry much greater payloads than any other aircraft (airplane & helicopter) and at far cheaper costs.  Also the actually cargo space an airship can have is far superior to the largest Military cargo plane.

I also read somewhere that perhaps darpa was interested in developement of a sort of aircraft carrier /  command center in the sky.  Basically a huge dirigible that would hold the main command center for military operations and would be capable of housing certain military weapons and/or craft. ( The bonus was that the command center could have aerial superiority as well as being much faster then a water-locked aircraft carrier that must travel around entire continents to reach the desired targets.)

-triggerquote>

 

Wouldnt that be vulnurable to  easily be attacked? Dirgibles are realy not all that manuverable to escape attackers like a  jet plane would be. at least they would be able to run away

[xiziz 11]

The near future is more Fuel-Economical Jets, Maby even going back to Huge-Turboprops(Like the russian Bear) because they have a very, very good fuel per km and seat ratio.

People arent willing to pay several thousands to be crammed into a tin-jar in an uncomfortable seat, even if there is a Tv right infront of you, but make that a very cheap flight, and all of a sudden people are actually willing to fly rather than take a bus.

Since 9/11 people seem afraid to fly in general, i dont think having a nukelear reactor ombord will help that. Even if it shortens the flights by 400%, Make them 400% cheaper och you will have more people flying. I think in general people arnt botherd sitting on a plane for a day or two if they know it was cheap.

I know that if it was cheap to fly to Japan from Sweden, id go there atleast every year. but since it costs about 500USD on the cheapest flights its not really something one can do.

so basicly, i think Aircraft will become more economical and more enviromentaly freindly in the near future. in the far future we will probably have high speed trains running around the globe, between all major metropolitans. Like Supersonic trains travveling in vacum-tunnels.

[Constantina 5]

In my opinion, it is likely we would have more than about 3 classes of travel in an aircraft. In the near future, there would be First Class/Club Class, Business, Standard/Economy... and this, which to me, looks like er, Last class?

[xiziz 11]

Originally posted by: Constantina In my opinion, it is likely we would have more than about 3 classes of travel in an aircraft. In the near future, there would be First Class/Club Class, Business, Standard/Economy... and this, which to me, looks like er, Last class?quote>

Now thats what im talking about! Cheap airfares if they put the price on that at 20USD id gladly stand up, even for long haul. Imagine beeing able to get to London/Berlin/Paris for the price of a bottle of Vodka ^^

[Constantina 5]

Also, I am not ruling out the fact that we might be able to have our very own aeroplane. People like us can drive cars so why can't we fly privately? It wonders me.

[hello_SC4 1]

Originally posted by: Yellowlab I think the future of flight, at least the near future, are mid-range, smaller jets like the 787. What with fuel prices, the A380 is little more than a show of technical know-how. It's just too inefficient for mass use.quote>

 

I don't agree with that. The A380 has been designed for routes with very high traffic where the 747 dominates. In that respect it is much more fuel efficient, as it transports more people in one plane and it also reduces congestion in the skies.

The A380 never was designed and never will be used for routes where the 787 will dominate, but neither will the 787 be able to take the cake from the A380. In pure production numbers I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 787 outsold the A380, after all, it has 3 times less seats, so you'd theoretically need 3 times as many planes to transport the same amount of people. In terms of passengers transported though, I think the A380 will perform better than the 787, however that's pretty much understandable..

We're talking about two completely different airplane classes here. Sort of like comparing a sedan to an MPV, really..

[Micah 16]

Although I won't ever take one, it will be interesting if these aircraft start causing problems. I must admit, that aircraft looks awesome!

[simoplis_mayor 3]

i think that a 797 will be next. also faster smarter and more efficent planes will come out

[simoplis_mayor 3]

sorry

[Palpatine001 57]

Great to see stimulating discussion here. Some one provide the stats on the A350 please. Also yes Fireflash is from Thunderbirds for those interested. It is to note that this type of nuclear hypersonic aircraft is continiously being looked into. I remind people here that Fireflash is now powerd by micro Fusion which is FAR SAFER than conventional atomic power.

And still I'll pay the money to go hyper sonic from Auckland to London for 3.5 hour flight time. I would also like to point out that you are not crammed into economy class in Fireflash like todays aircraft, it is in fact roomy - which yes does make it an large aircraft. But with a FUSION reactor on board, no problems for power. Also with nuclear power it MIGHT and I say MIGHT be possible for rather cheap fares in economy class on Fireflash as it only needs to be refueled every 6 months on average. The only quam is that the anti radiation shielding would need inspection and service after every 24 hours of aero operation, but hey all aircraft do any how. Also what could drive prices down is that a single Fireflash can make upto 4 flights in a single day around the world instead of a single flight by a 747. 4x the passengers moved!

On airships, I see a future of them for luxary air type cruise liner travel between destinations, some days I would take the slow road in luxary over hyper sonic speeds.

[Palpatine001 57]

It is also to note that Hindenburg was kept up with hydrogen which is very explosive, (seen the Americans wouldn't sell helium) helium is far safer so airship travel can be done even after Hindenburg

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Why doth no one listen...eth. The 797 will not be next because it has only just been announced, the A350 on the other hand has been announced and there are even some cool computer pictures.

It looks very similar to the A330, but it is shorter and stubbier, I think it will be used for long range flights, but with not as many passengers as other routes, e.g London - Hong Kong, and Edinburgh - Hong Kong (I wish ).

[Odainsaker 2,137]

A revitalization of the giant zeppelins would be a cool sight to behold. Various semi-rigid ariships, larger than blimps but yet not quite giant dirigibles, have been constructed and sold already mostly as touring and sightseeing craft for Europe and Japan. The revived modern Zeppelin company has produced the modestly-sized Zeppelin NT ship.  The biggest catch to the great monster zeppelins, unfortunately, remains their exteme sensitivity to local weather. Being lighter than air and having an affected surface area larger than most skyscrapers, many zeppelins have been damaged or lost on the ground due to being inadvertantly blown like like giant sails into obstacles, often their own hangars.

Even today a passing tiny blimp is enough to make people stop and gaze. Imagine having an aircraft the size of an ocean liner slowly floating low enough overhead that you can actually see and yell to the passengers waving out the openable picture windows. Then again, even in the 1930s the Zeppelin company complained that when flying their passenger ships over crime-ridden American cities, us undisciplined yankees would take potshots at them with our shotguns. Imagine one flying over L.A. or Miami today!  But I will choose to imagine that round-the-world Graf Zeppelin cruise visiting all the major cities and seeing the passing landscape closeup from an aerial luxury hotel.

As for nuclear airplanes...the U.S. Air Force developed and flew the NB-36H fission nuclear powered bomber in the 1950s, but the obvious problems became apparent. You needed heavy lead shielding to protect the pilots in the cockpit from the radiation of the reactor. More aircraft weight means less payload, and the maintenance overhead for all this is frightening. Also, accidents can and will always happen...blow out a tire on takeoff and you wipe out your own airbase and render your own countryside uninhabitable in an atomic catastrophie. Whoops! Less worried about such trivial safety concerns, the Soviet Union also flew their own nuclear powered bombers up into the 1960s.

[nealos101 20]

I imagine battery powered aircraft coming in instead of fusion and nuclear energy, scientists are already working on batteries to fit inside mobile phones that could hold so much power an up-to-date phone such as mine could stay on for at least a month.  Now think of the possibilities for aviation when they expand this... Then they'll work on quicker recharching... Say plug the sucker into an outlet while they clean the plane and boom! They're ready to fly again.

It would make more sence... Micro Fusion sounds placeable but we return to the using up of resources again... Scientists are also working on the size/power output ratio on solar panels, who knows... Maybe in a few years aircraft will be solar-power-charged?

[hamsterTK 93]

the giant blimp idea is pretty cool. A flying ocean liner, with cruises around mountain ranges and beautiful scenery. These days we definetely have the technology do design and build something like that.

It would actually be sort of weird, like a steampunk genre comic coming to life...

[Nugget699 0]

Originally posted by: callagrafx

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Introducing Fireflash, a hypersonic airliner that flies at Mach 6 normal crusing at a height of 125,000ft or nearish 40-50km. 600 passengers on 4 classes; everyday bums, business bums, first class bums and those bums who we dispise cause they are $$$$$$$$$ )

Its power source u ask? Well that's the best bit, originally it was Atomic power now they are looking at micro fusion. Either way, this craft needs TLC and hey, I'll pay NZ$4000 for a 3.5 hour trip from New Zealand to London on this puppy even with a reactor behind me )quote>

This looks remarkably like one of the aircraft from 60's TV show Thunderbirds...are you sure someone's not having you on?quote>

Yeah, It does look very similar to the Thunderbirds model.

[Compromise 1]

Yes Fire Flash is from that great program called Thunderbirds. It was made in the 1960's aiming to show what the world would look like in the future. At the time people thought nuclear power was going to be the future of power production. Unfortunately it is only in recent times that we have really understood the danger of nuclear power and that it can never fully replace fossil fuels as it is also a nonrenewable resource. In the end if nuclear power does play a role in aviation it won't be a very large one.

I believe more direct routes are the future of aviation so the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are a good step forward into the future. However high capacity routes will remain busy and important so the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747 will still have a roll to play in the future too.

Currently both Airbus and Boeing are trying to develop a passenger version of one of these:



Its a blended wing/fuselage design which will increase the planes capacity and efficiency. However in a passenger version only a minority of passengers will have window seats. This has apparently been solved by TV screens but evacuation and construction still need to be worked on.

Supersonic passenger aircraft will also have a role to play in the future as well but problems with the sonic boom, fuel consumption and the fact more and more passengers prefer cheaper rather than faster journeys are putting off the idea of another Concorde for the time being.

[callagrafx 3]

This is the ONLY way to fly....

[GingerBlokey 30]

Maybe something that runs on Cow Poo or Alcohol. Ahh vote Green people. Lol.

[brancra 1,206]

This is the 787, right? Also known as the 7E7?

[hello_SC4 1]

Originally posted by: brancra

This is the 787, right? Also known as the 7E7?quote>

 

Yes..

[Compromise 1]

Originally posted by: brancra

This is the 787, right? Also known as the 7E7?quote>

 

Yep, thats it. It was known as the 7E7 but the name was changed to 787 to fit in with the Boeing family.

More info: http://www.newairplane.com/