Why planes are slower than they used to be

[Gnarly Gnu]

[/url]

 

While we all love to complain about air travel, there's one annoyance few travelers even notice: Flying isn't getting faster.

 

In fact, cross-country flights were a little quicker 50 years ago because airlines included less scheduled time for inevitable delays.

 

 

 

We're used to the idea that 50 years is an eternity is technological innovation. So why aren't we flying faster than we did in 1967, before humans landed on the moon? This video from Wendover Production tackles a number of curious developments that led to this speed stagnation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Very interesting & thought provoking. I am sure that the argument was/is correct however there is a bit of American rewriting of history in the dialog.

 

The failure of the Concord as a commercial aircraft was ALSO due, in no small part, to the USA preventing sonic overflights ( eg London - San Francisco).

 

The American passenger market is by far the most lucrative for international airlines.

 

Any prevention of/reduction in or costly access requirements has a detrimental impact on the commercial viability of an airline.

 

The Americans have a long and very dirty history, of trying to suppress technological advances that have their origins outside the USA - that is when they can't buy them out.

 

Their denial of sonic overflights was a calculated attack on the viability of Concord operations.

 

Its amazing that the aircraft remained in use for as long as it did.

 

 

[dsam]

The maximum range of the Concorde with pax & payload was only about 3500 nautical miles - certainly not long enough to fly LHR - SFO.

 

Indeed, an ATC friend at Halifax, Nova Scotia advised me that all Concorde flight plans LHR to New York would start out with Halifax as the primary destination due to (even more) limited range when subsonic. Only when they established supersonic speed, could they revise their flight plan to New York, knowing they had achieved their most efficient speed.

 

I believe Halifax actually had one or two Concorde landings there, due to an inability to remain supersonic (mid-Atlantic engine issues, I believe).

 

 

[kaz3g]

Everything is relative.

 

I just finished reading The autobiography of Dvid Crookes DFC who was asked to collect his CO's private aircraft and bring it back to join the squadron.

 

It was a Drone, powered by a converted Ford 10 and with a top speed of 45 mph.

 

Carden-Ford - Wikipedia

 

LIGHT CAR OF THE AIR - POWERED WITH FORD 10-h.p. ENGINE - Singleton Argus (NSW : 1880 - 1954) - 5 Feb 1937

 

He flew most do the 120 mile trip below the tree tops and had to commence climbing a couple of miles before crossing even a low hill. A mob of Starlings accelerated past him!

 

David commented it was a bit different to his Spitfire....

 

Kaz

 

 

[Birdseye]

The maximum range of the Concorde with pax & payload was only about 3500 nautical miles - certainly not long enough to fly LHR - SFO. Indeed, an ATC friend at Halifax, Nova Scotia advised me that all Concorde flight plans LHR to New York would start out with Halifax as the primary destination due to (even more) limited range when subsonic. Only when they established supersonic speed, could they revise their flight plan to New York, knowing they had achieved their most efficient speed.

 

I believe Halifax actually had one or two Concorde landings there, due to an inability to remain supersonic (mid-Atlantic engine issues, I believe).

Your friend gave you duff gen. If for any reason the Concorde could not make or maintain supersonic cruise, they would assess options which could include the best alternate airport. If it occurred early in the flight then a return to Heathrow or Paris was the most likely. While Halifax might have been an alternate option, the planned destination was always KJFK.

 

Note that is not based on hearsay, but on the fact that I issued the clearance to quite a number of them.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The maximum range of the Concorde with pax & payload was only about 3500 nautical miles - certainly not long enough to fly LHR - SFO. Indeed, an ATC friend at Halifax, Nova Scotia advised me that all Concorde flight plans LHR to New York would start out with Halifax as the primary destination due to (even more) limited range when subsonic. Only when they established supersonic speed, could they revise their flight plan to New York, knowing they had achieved their most efficient speed.

 

I believe Halifax actually had one or two Concorde landings there, due to an inability to remain supersonic (mid-Atlantic engine issues, I believe).

Hmm!

 

That Concord had Halifax as its alternate is not particularly surprising

 

I believe you are correct regarding the subsonic fuel consumption but not about Concords ability to ultimately fly London - Frisco.

 

I quote Wikipedia:

 

"Performance

 

• Range: 3,900 nmi (4,488.04 mi, 7,222.8 km)"
   
   
  

 

 

 

" .........a Concorde "B" model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions.[113] It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy afterburner. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593.[114] This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible."

 

Google:

 

"The distance between London and San Francisco is 8,629 kilometers (5,362 miles)." -only just outside the above combined figures.

 

Concords development was stifled, at least in in part by the American

 

opposition to the aircraft. (Something similar happened with the DH Comet)

 

I think you are probably (inadvertently) supporting, at least in part, my information. If Concorde had been allowed to cross the USA at sonic cruise, it would have eventually been able to fly to the east coast of America non stop.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The comet was a true pioneer of passenger jet travel first flying in 1949 but the crashes due to metal fatigue & stress fractures in the corners of square windows were a serious blow. This learning curve ensured that later competitors like the Boeing 707 didn't have these problems. Sales never fully recovered but the comet 2 & 3 ultimately led to the very successful Comet 4 that flew from 1958 for over 30 years. The Nimrod was the most successful variant only being retired from the RAF in 2011. So its career spanned more than 60 years so I wouldn't call it a failure or an issue with American opposition. Newer designs abounded during its lifespan but none have lasted as long.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

In the late 40's to mid 50's, I believe the Americans strongly opposed the use of jet engine technology on civilian aircraft. They feared the technology would fall into enemy hands (USSR).The British not only disregarded the American pressure but perhaps perversely sold the technology to the Russians.

 

One might ponder the the reason that not a single US air carrier operated a Comet (unofficial boycott?).The structural failures that blighted the early operating life of this beautiful pioneer aircraft were completely overcome but without US support its future as a commercial success was screwed.

 

The arrival of the big ugly American Boeing 707, 10 years after the introduction of the Comet, changed the face of international air traffic. The American influence assured the success of its own "johnny come lately".

 

America's influence over almost all things aviation, pretty well continues today. It is very hard for any aircraft or aviation technology, to succeed if its does not win over the American market. The best thing for an aspiring aviation entrepreneur to do is move their operation to the States and pose as being as "original as apple pie".