The Jetliner: still the same basic form after 6 decades
so man's first powered machine to take to the skies was this ungainly contraption from the early 20th century. certainly not a looker, but she proved the concept of powered flight, which is all that mattered
Wright Flyer, first flight 1903 http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...ight_16Nov.jpg source: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...s/Flyer_II.htm then, a mere 54 years later, aircraft designers had hit upon the winning formula for the world's first commercially successful and fully modern jetliner, the boeing 707. it's all there: a long thin circular fuselage, a single large swept-back wing with slats and flaps and podded jet engines slung underneath, a single large vertical stabilizer with horizontal stabilizers at the base, fully retractable tricycle landing gear, etc. Boeing 707, first flight 1957 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lla_N707JT.jpg source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707 and then 52 years after the 707, we have the latest and greatest with the boeing 787, and while it is packed with a whole host of new technology that the 707's designers could have only ever dreamed of, from a basic overall form perspective, little appears to have changed. Boeing 787, first flight 2009 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._in_flight.jpg source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner we often talk about how fast our world changes, but some designs get the formula so correct from the beginning that there seems little to be gained by going back and reinventing the wheel. in our lifetime, will the jetliner ever evolve into anything substantively different from this basic form, or is this it? |
I don't know--- the ability for modern aircraft to fly non-stop between any two points in the world and for aircraft to fly much quieter and more efficiently seems like a major improvement.
|
^ i'm not arguing that there haven't been significant performance improvements, i'm talking about the generally static nature of the overall FORM of modern jetliners over the past 60 years.
|
In case you'd forget, both British-French cooperation and the Soviet Union managed to achieve something slightly different and twice faster a long time ago already.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_airliner.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._G-BOAC_03.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde These were developed in the 60s and turned fully operational in the mid 70s. Concorde was so great that the US merely banned it from their airspace. LOL, God bless 'murika, baby!.. and no one else, huh. Oops, anyone grumpy at me right now? |
^ and both designs, despite massive government subsidies to prop them up, eventually flopped.
the successful jetliners being built today (737, 747, 767, 777, 787, A380, A350, A330, A320) all FAR more resemble the 707 than they do the concorde. |
Quote:
Barring substantial new innovations in lift or propulsion, we're basically locked into a combination of airfoil wings and jet engines for air travel. Faster/supersonic engines are possible, but the technology (or at least the declassified tech) uses so much energy that it's not cost-effective for commercial air travel. Concorde only worked financially (barely) by charging astronomical rates to globe-trotting elites, connecting elite cities, with huge taxpayer contributions. Plus, the sonic booms are generally not acceptable over populated areas except for defense reasons, which is why Concorde was only used for NY-London and NY-Paris flights, and only broke the sound barrier whilst over open water. For this reason, only a small fraction of air routes are feasible for supersonic travel. Likewise, the airfoil is the only technology we have that's realistically capable of generating lift. It's possible that a flying wing design may eventually be developed for commercial travel, but it would take billions in R&D to produce a stable and cost-effective airliner, and you'd have to develop a whole new infrastructure both to maintain it and to accommodate it at airports. |
I disagree. Can't tell about the Russian thing, but Concorde obviously left an engineering record here in Western Europe that might be recycled when demand for that kind of airliners makes their development more feasible. It's still some interesting starting point to work on, not a loss of money.
|
Quote:
|
Real transportation innovation is few and far between. Trains, cars, and planes are decades old and only improve marginally.
|
There's a valid reason why the Wright Brothers are credited being the first at controlled flight. Today's airfoils (wings) are less than 5% more efficient than their canvas and wood wings. Most of the advances in flight over the last 100 years has been advancemnets in lighter and stronger materials, and advancements in electronics.
|
The additional fuel and structure required to exceed the speed of sound has made ~550mph the 'sweet spot' for commercial aviation. Not to mention the sonic boom restricting supersonic speeds to just over the oceans. I agree though, it's a bit frustrating that we haven't engineered our way around these problems. It is certainly possible - it's just nobody who can do it (Boeing, Airbus) want to bet their entire company on it, since it would easily cost over $30 billion. It would be cheaper to send humans to Mars.
|
Quote:
the real issue is the cost of fuel and the inefficiency of flight at such high speeds, i think. |
All forms of transportation improvements in speed has been slow. On the ground, in the air, and in space.
|
Quote:
|
I'm old enough to remember the SST from the early 70s which Boeing just could not do and then laid-off a few thousand in Seattle and Wichita..
|
I don't think we are giving enough credit to the amazing advancements in design and technology of modern jetliners like the 787. The emphasis has been on reliability, operating costs, safety, and fuel efficiency because these are the things that are driven by consumer demands. There were were enough demand for supersonic trans-ocean flights they would be happening.
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...13/2/air12.jpg Source |
Quote:
noting this isn't so much a criticism of contemporary aviation engineering as it is a testament to how freaking far the 707's designers knocked the ball out of the park when they first conceived the aircraft so many decades ago. i stand in awe of the 707. |
Good points. At the same time you could say the same about autos - 4 wheels and box with seats has been the same design for over a century.
Maybe some technology finds the best form, then just makes refinements to that form? For aircraft, standard monowing design. But that design has seen small improvements such as winglets and now the flexible wings of the 787, two large, reliable engines replacing the standard 3 or 4 smaller engine designs, etc. Until we find another need and a large enough demand for that need, I don't see many major changes. Maybe one day there will be personal quadcoptors for everyone. Or new supersonic jet aircraft. That won't change until new tech and energy sources become cost effective compared to demand. |
The biggest difference between first-generation jets and current jet from this passenger's perspective is the the new ones are far, far less comfortable.
|
The 707 = meh. To me, there is no airplane on earth that puts me in awe than the 747. To me, that is the definition of an airplane. The 747-8 is beautiful. Just beautiful.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...478outside.jpg http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...478outside.jpg https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/...rst-flight.jpg https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/...rst-flight.jpg |
All times are GMT. The time now is 9:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.