HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:11 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,244
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

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

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


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?
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 16, 2016 at 5:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:16 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 3,873
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.
__________________
No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,244
^ 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.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:41 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
that prick
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nimbyland Paris, Museum France
Posts: 2,327
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144


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?
__________________
psst... A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13:34)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:53 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,244
^ 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.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 15, 2016 at 7:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:55 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
in our lifetime, will the jetliner ever evolve into anything substantively different from this basic form, or is this it?
The airliner form is very efficient for what it does, and produces a very stable flight pattern.

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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 7:03 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
that prick
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nimbyland Paris, Museum France
Posts: 2,327
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.
__________________
psst... A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13:34)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 7:05 PM
initiald's Avatar
initiald initiald is offline
City of Oaks
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 4,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ and both designs, despite massive government subsidies to prop them up, eventually flopped.
Yup. Too loud and guzzled fuel were too much to offset it's faster flight time. Not enough mega-rich passengers to keep it afloat.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 8:15 PM
ChargerCarl's Avatar
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 1,915
Real transportation innovation is few and far between. Trains, cars, and planes are decades old and only improve marginally.
__________________
This Machine Kills NIMBYs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 8:19 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,765
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 11:29 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,063
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 4:20 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
...For this reason, only a small fraction of air routes are feasible for supersonic travel...
obviously i agree about the sonic boom thing... but aren't a huge number of the world's most lucrative routes over water? basically the entire east coast of north america to nearly all of europe, and the entire west coast of north america to most of asia...

the real issue is the cost of fuel and the inefficiency of flight at such high speeds, i think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:00 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 41,480
All forms of transportation improvements in speed has been slow. On the ground, in the air, and in space.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:20 AM
ChargerCarl's Avatar
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 1,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
All forms of transportation improvements in speed has been slow. On the ground, in the air, and in space.
We are living the The Great Stagnation.
__________________
This Machine Kills NIMBYs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:41 AM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 467
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..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 1:28 PM
initiald's Avatar
initiald initiald is offline
City of Oaks
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 4,753
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.


Source
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 4:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
Professional Midwesterner
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edgewater, Chicago
Posts: 17,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by initiald View Post
I don't think we are giving enough credit to the amazing advancements in design and technology of modern jetliners like the 787.
i'm fully aware that the guts of a 787 are an entirely different universe of modern technological wizardry compared to a 707, but as i have stressed now a couple of times, this thread is about the similarity in the overall form of modern jetliners over the past 6 decades. yes, other arrangements were tried (and abandoned) over the years (the concord, trijets, "T" tails, etc.), but all modern full-size jetliners that are being built today still follow the same basic overall form first laid out by the 707 back in the 1950s.

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.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:19 PM
initiald's Avatar
initiald initiald is offline
City of Oaks
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 4,753
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.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:45 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 970
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 7:11 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,010
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


https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/...rst-flight.jpg
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.