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

Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#181

Post by lm28469 »

Every time I read something about new plane techs I go and read that article again:

https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

> Finally, in the 50's, Boeing ushered in the Jet Age with the Boeing 707, which could cross the Atlantic ocean at nearly 1,000 kph.

> I submit to you that the last thing that Boeing engineer would expect to see in 2014 is what actually happened. Here is today's most advanced passenger aircraft, the Boeing 787.

> Unless you are an airplane nerd, you would be hard pressed to distinguish the 787 from its grandfather. And in fact, this revolutionary new plane flies slower than the 707.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#182

Post by benhurmarcel »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #43
dan_quixote wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ribs are already all different across existing commercial airplane wings.

Across the wings yes but not across the majority of the fuselage.

In the fuselage they're called frames, not ribs for info

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#183

Post by Retric »

drewmol wrote: post #180
Retric wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lateral acceleration is less pleasant for passengers. You don’t want peoples drinks to fall off their tray tables for example. That said there is a fair about of wiggle room so I doubt it’s a significant issue in practice.

Cut a hole for cups to sit in on the back edge of the tray tables?

People falling over is more of a concern, it would take significant lateral acceleration before drinks fell it’s just easy to visualize.

As to why no cup holders, people aren’t going to use them most of the time and they don’t even help that much in turbulence.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#184

Post by brokencode »

robotresearcher wrote: post #144
brokencode wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, the only things I care about in a plane are safety (by a wide margin), comfort, and price. I spend all my time listening to music with my eyes closed or watching movies anyway, and the window doesn’t give me much. Maybe just put a bunch of cameras all over the exterior so the passengers can see what’s going on wherever they are sitting.

I hear you. But the first time I did a polar/Hudson Bay flight between Europe and west coast USA, I was transfixed by the view out of the window. I’m very happy to have seen that extraordinarily beautiful view. Cameras would be some compensation, but the direct view is amazing. Arguably not as spectacular, but I relish every city approach. The serpentine Thames as you stack over Heathrow, the mountains of Vancouver,…

Planes have a huge impact on both the climate and economy, and I don’t think the joy of occasional sightseeing is a strong enough argument against pursuing efficiency gains.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#185

Post by hindsightbias »

flaviut wrote: post #120
hindsightbias wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in turbulence with high roll rates and even as a pilot unbothered by moderate chop, it will cause me to sweat. I've been in the last rows of a 777 and watched the fuselage flex in chop. A blended body would be pretty rigid and have a very low wing loading because it's basically all a wing. So it would be pretty uniform. It would work if all turns were managed via controls to be a 1/4g, otherwise riding the…

Not a pilot, but I've flown in the MD-80 once, and I've found it much more unpleasant than most planes due to the engine noise in the cabin. But on the other hand, I've never experienced turbulence that's made me more than barely uncomfortable in any plane.

Secret was to not sit in the back

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#186

Post by hindsightbias »

thot_experiment wrote: post #113
hindsightbias wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in turbulence with high roll rates and even as a pilot unbothered by moderate chop, it will cause me to sweat. I've been in the last rows of a 777 and watched the fuselage flex in chop. A blended body would be pretty rigid and have a very low wing loading because it's basically all a wing. So it would be pretty uniform. It would work if all turns were managed via controls to be a 1/4g, otherwise riding the…

Good to know, I'm aware that high roll-rate turbulence is possible but presumably quite rare?

rareish but once was enough. After 5 minutes, people start puking and then it just gets worse.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#187

Post by midoridensha »

Retric wrote: post #170
midoridensha wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automakers solved this problem many years ago, by making cupholders that are deeply recessed instead of thinking that cups wills somehow magically stay in place with a very minimal indentation (see the "cup holders" on the backsides of glove compartments in 1970s American cars).

Airlines would rather have more people in economy than to include cup holders. You do sometimes see cup holders on private airplanes, but in commercial aviation the efficient solution is to avoid needing them.

Adding decent cupholders to cars didn't make cars bigger.

Similarly, adding decent cupholders to airplanes is not going to reduce passenger space.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#188

Post by Retric »

midoridensha wrote: post #187
Retric wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines would rather have more people in economy than to include cup holders. You do sometimes see cup holders on private airplanes, but in commercial aviation the efficient solution is to avoid needing them.

Adding decent cupholders to cars didn't make cars bigger. Similarly, adding decent cupholders to airplanes is not going to reduce passenger space.

Commercial aviation could stick as many as 850 passengers on an A380-800 in it’s maximum configuration, but the most an airline actually gets is 538 because of business and first class passengers having more room. Increasing passenger space by even 1 inch or just a pound of weight per seat makes a real difference.

Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes

#189

Post by midoridensha »

Retric wrote: post #188
midoridensha wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding decent cupholders to cars didn't make cars bigger. Similarly, adding decent cupholders to airplanes is not going to reduce passenger space.

Commercial aviation could stick as many as 850 passengers on an A380-800 in it’s maximum configuration, but the most an airline actually gets is 538 because of business and first class passengers having more room. Increasing passenger space by even 1 inch or just a pound of weight per seat makes a real difference.

Better cupholders do not decrease space at all. Some (better) airlines even have them: they flip down from the seatback. They literally take no space at all. This is ridiculous.
Post reply on HN