Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 378 posts

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#271

Post by rsynnott »

schainks wrote: post #133
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Concorde wasn't made in the US. It was a UK/France partnership.

The US was still very much involved in its development and testing, so I think we can still chalk it up as a win for multi-country collaboration, eh :3

> The US was still very much involved in its development and testing

... Wait, how was that? The Concorde was essentially the Franco-British entry in what was once a rather fierce international race to build a supersonic passenger jet (then seen as the future); the US entries were the (failed) Lockheed L-2000 and Boeing 2707.

If the US had been open to collaboration, it is likely that the UK would’ve gone in with them, and we might live in an alternate universe where there was a UK/US Concorde-ish thing, and maybe a French mini-Concorde (the French design which got subsumed into Concorde was particularly small, only 70 passengers). In our universe, though, US manufacturers were sceptical of working with BAC because they believed that govt funding for a foreign design would be hard to come by.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#272

Post by Forgeties79 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #264
Forgeties79 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”

Trains will also be killed by fully autonomous cars. Trains still need stations, loading times, tickets, horrible food, waiting in lobbies, luggage limits, government ID ... check in . Trains are literally unable to ever deliver door-to-door transport. And, in north america, biulding tens of thousands of stations (one in every small town) plus millions of miles of track ... it just isnt going to happen in our lifetim…

Train travel is not this horrible experience you’re implying. When I’m in DC I swipe a card, walk on, walk off. Same with New York and Amsterdam. Even Netherlands into France is walk on/walk off - they recommend you get there 20min early. Luggage limits? First off, how often do you need to haul multiple suitcases and bags? Even then, I have walked on to trains with multiple suitcases. It is definitely not a big deal. This reads to me like how whenever bikes come up suddenly everyone has to haul a refrigerator uphill in the rain.

Autonomous cars would absolutely be the most convenient, comfortable experience. But it is incredibly inefficient/wasteful and it will never be economical. Trains are a great way to travel. Also, how far are you expecting autonomous cars to take you? I can’t imagine it’s economical after more than a couple of miles. It’s certainly wasteful out the gate because everyone expects to have their own cars in the US in particular. And not everything needs to be door to door, nor do we need trains for literally every town in the US. These are all absurd bars you’re setting that no one is calling for. You’re basically saying “trains aren’t luxurious enough for me and don’t go literally everywhere so therefore they should be killed.”

There’s also the wrinkle that we keep being promised they’re about to be here and yet we’ve seen very minimal deployment of any kind so far. I just don’t think personal, autonomous cars are going to be here in any reasonable timeframe, if for no other reason then how litigious the US is, and trains are just far more efficient at the end of the day for most cases.

Edit: forgot the food and waiting around… at least you have food available to you at a train station. If you’re in a car stuck in traffic, you just have to grin and bear it with no options. There’s also nothing stopping you from packing your own food, while eating in a vehicle isn’t yours is generally frowned upon in a car.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#273

Post by microtonal »

joezydeco wrote: post #217
microtonal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, if anyone is going to Southern Germany, it's worth going to Technik Museum Speyer, where you can really go into the guts of the 747. They also have a Russian Buran space shuttle. The next day you could go to Technik Museum Sinnsheim, which is about half an hour from Speyer, and has both a Concorde and a Tupolev Tu-144 (both of which you can go inside). All truly marvels of engineering.

I've been to this museum, it's absolutely incredible. It's their version of the Henry Ford museum in Detroit. The thing you neglect to mention is that the Speyer 747 is suspended 30 meters above the ground. It's breathtaking. https://simpleflying.com/technik-museum-speyer-lufthansa-boe...

The thing you neglect to mention is that the Speyer 747 is suspended 30 meters above the ground. It's breathtaking.

Fair. We had been to Sinnsheim a couple of times before Speyer. In Sinnsheim, they have the Concorde/Tu-144 on poles on top of one of the buildings. So, the 30 meters high suspension of the 747 was not so impressive anymore I guess :).

The museums are also great for kids. We went several times with our daughter and she loved it every time.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#274

Post by lukan »

SR2Z wrote: post #262
Forgeties79 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”

Sure, but when the 747 was new and gas was a few cents a gallon? An airplane is a very efficient way to move people. There is no ground friction, the route is pretty direct, and once the airplane is loaded 100 passenger-miles a gallon is not unreasonable. Even today the EU has to ban short-haul flights along rail corridors because jets are still competitive. I say this as someone who likes trains and chooses them whe…

"because jets are still competitive"

Yes, because airports and everything around is heavily subsidized and there is no tax on jet fuel.

"There is no ground friction"

And that argument is not so strong considering that air friction grows quadratic with speed.

And considering side effects like climate change - contrails combined with lots of other chemicals in the jet fuel are really not helping, their effect is worse than just the CO2 released which is also already huge.

So high speed trains are superior in almost every way - once a rail network is build. That is the advantage of planes - they just require start and landing strip.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#275

Post by Forgeties79 »

SR2Z wrote: post #262
Forgeties79 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously it is embarrassing how under developed trains are in the US. Yes there are some routes that don’t make sense but there are tons that do. It makes no sense. We’ve simply resigned to this general feeling of “well everything is probably too far apart and even if they aren’t it’s just not going to happen.”

Sure, but when the 747 was new and gas was a few cents a gallon? An airplane is a very efficient way to move people. There is no ground friction, the route is pretty direct, and once the airplane is loaded 100 passenger-miles a gallon is not unreasonable. Even today the EU has to ban short-haul flights along rail corridors because jets are still competitive. I say this as someone who likes trains and chooses them whe…

I don’t need a plane to travel 1-10mi and long distance trains are on the whole far more pleasant than domestic flights. Plus you don’t have to get there 90min-2hr early to go through invasive security theater.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#276

Post by perilunar »

wolvoleo wrote: post #195
rootusrootus wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, some people have that viewpoint. Very transactional. I think there was a time when I might have agreed. But as I have gotten older I've gained more of an appreciation for shared mythology and how it promotes social cohesion. Historically in many places religion has been a primary source of shared mythology. In America, despite prominent Christian religions, a strong historical shared mythology has been of our ow…

To me it's really because they have broken that promise. Governments take advantage of that cohesion. It's not really because of the transactionality to my benefit but just because what they stand for is a net negative for society and the world. Consider the military. Few wars are actually worth giving one's life for. Since 1945 basically none. If the Communists had won in Vietnam nothing would have happened to Ameri…

> If the Communists had won in Vietnam nothing would have happened to America

They did.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#277

Post by JsonDemWitOster »

tetris11 wrote: post #267
nehal3m wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you replied something like 'No, meeting this project deadline is more important than YOUR child dying, to me this is a paycheck.' That's what I would've been thinking in the shower 2 days after the conversation, anyway.

I feel like people on HN who have comfortable passive incomes from stocks or other sources forget that people need a paycheck to sustain their lifestyles.

But if $DAYJOB actually keeps you from your dying kid's bedside, is it still there to "sustain" it? Or is it just leeching into your life?

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#278

Post by fransje26 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #257
GrifMD wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of torn between the top deck and the nose seats. I've flown British Airways's business class on the upper deck, and I've flown Qantas' business class which is all on the lower deck starting at the nose. I wasn't quite at the front, but I was close enough to see the slightly more forward facing windows. I always thought it'd be great to sit in that first row and have that more forward facing view. I had a bla…

I would have to imagine that the newer 747-8 would have the much lower pressurization and other comfort standards of its generation of aircraft in the 2000s; the problem is that it didn't really sell so most people did not get to fly in one.

> I would have to imagine that the newer 747-8 would have the much lower pressurization

Two small corrections:

1) If it would have had a change in internal pressurization, the -8 would have a higher pressurization to allow for a lower cabin altitude pressure.

2) The -8 does not have a higher pressurization, because they did not change the fuselage construction. Newer airplanes have lower cabin-altitudes thanks to the use of composite materials, allowing for better fatigue properties.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#279

Post by lucumo »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #272
sandworm101 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains will also be killed by fully autonomous cars. Trains still need stations, loading times, tickets, horrible food, waiting in lobbies, luggage limits, government ID ... check in . Trains are literally unable to ever deliver door-to-door transport. And, in north america, biulding tens of thousands of stations (one in every small town) plus millions of miles of track ... it just isnt going to happen in our lifetim…

Train travel is not this horrible experience you’re implying. When I’m in DC I swipe a card, walk on, walk off. Same with New York and Amsterdam. Even Netherlands into France is walk on/walk off - they recommend you get there 20min early. Luggage limits? First off, how often do you need to haul multiple suitcases and bags? Even then, I have walked on to trains with multiple suitcases. It is definitely not a big deal.…

> When I’m in DC I swipe a card, walk on, walk off. Same with New York and Amsterdam. Even Netherlands into France is walk on/walk off

What train did you take to France? Everytime I go to Belgium I have to be careful to pick a train that doesn't require me to book a ticket on a specific train. I really like the "I'll get the next train whenever I reach the station" that domestic trains have. For long distance international trains that seems to only still be available to a limited set of trains to Belgium.

Re: The Boeing 747 begins its final descent

#280

Post by fransje26 »

addaon wrote: post #29
anovikov wrote: post #2

But really, it was just about four-engine planes becoming too expensive to run. Two-engine planes won. 777 burns 30% less fuel per passenger and has almost the same cabin width. And top level became a flop because it's too narrow for a first class cabin by today's standards and all other uses for them make no sense. Top floor existed at all because it was Boeing's entry for a heavy cargo plane competition in which C-…

> Top floor existed at all because it was Boeing's entry for a heavy cargo plane competition Yes, but it turns out the hump is great for area ruling (aerodynamic drag reduction at transonic speeds), as observed by the 747-300's extended hump giving lower drag (but higher weight, of course) than the short-hump versions.

Slightly pedantic, but this is not completely correct.

It had a lower Cd with the extended hump, but it still had a higher drag, due to the larger wetted area.

Post reply on HN