View Poll Results: Which of these two commercial airplane's do you think travells faster?tr
The new Boeing 747-400ER?
10
7.04%
Concorde?
132
92.96%
Voters: 142. This poll is closed
Boeing claims 747-400ER is fastest commercial airplane in the sky (what about Conc ?)
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns:
My example was tight. However, it was also amazing. 20 hours of utilization, that's made in heaven.
In reality, if an airline is averaging 12 hours with their medium-to-long-haul fleet, they can easily up their utilization rate to 14 hours due to more windows of possible operations that I showed in my other post. That's equivalent of 16.5 hours of flights on a M.85 aircraft. That's 35-40% increase in productivity. It means an airline would reduce their medium-to-long-haul fleet requirement by 35-40%, and that's on top of the 15% increase in cockpit and cabin crew productivity. Thus, the 20-25% increase in fuel burn is insignifcant relative to other savings.
No, my examples are not specific to certain routes. In fact, anything longer than 4 hours, it works out pretty well. If you have not worked the numbers yourself, don't discount it just like that. If everyone is as closed minded as you are, we would still be flying turbo-props.
I won't even bother to argue with you about a larger version of SC.
My example was tight. However, it was also amazing. 20 hours of utilization, that's made in heaven.
In reality, if an airline is averaging 12 hours with their medium-to-long-haul fleet, they can easily up their utilization rate to 14 hours due to more windows of possible operations that I showed in my other post. That's equivalent of 16.5 hours of flights on a M.85 aircraft. That's 35-40% increase in productivity. It means an airline would reduce their medium-to-long-haul fleet requirement by 35-40%, and that's on top of the 15% increase in cockpit and cabin crew productivity. Thus, the 20-25% increase in fuel burn is insignifcant relative to other savings.No, my examples are not specific to certain routes. In fact, anything longer than 4 hours, it works out pretty well. If you have not worked the numbers yourself, don't discount it just like that. If everyone is as closed minded as you are, we would still be flying turbo-props.
I won't even bother to argue with you about a larger version of SC.
Surprising. Although the volume and content of this trans-atlantic debate is quite interesting, all these hot-headed individuals overlook the fact that the original Boeing statement as amended in the e-mail they sent, may be CORRECT, IF (yes there's more coming, read on) the word SUBSONIC is included.
Apart from Concorde and the TU144 every other airliner flying is for the sake of this argument a subsonic airplane. And in that class Boeing may very well try to lay this claim. Concorde is just in a completely different class.
And please take note of the words 'may be' above, I am perfectly willing to believe that other (subsonic) airliners fly faster than the 747-400ER. But why doesn't someone get out the manuals and compile a list of Mmo numbers for different airliners. That way it might be very easy to conclude this debate, but of course dredging up age-old arguments is much more fun I guess....
(and by the way, Concorde will never do M2.2 in service, BA sticks to a maximum of M2.06 for several good reasons.)
Apart from Concorde and the TU144 every other airliner flying is for the sake of this argument a subsonic airplane. And in that class Boeing may very well try to lay this claim. Concorde is just in a completely different class.
And please take note of the words 'may be' above, I am perfectly willing to believe that other (subsonic) airliners fly faster than the 747-400ER. But why doesn't someone get out the manuals and compile a list of Mmo numbers for different airliners. That way it might be very easy to conclude this debate, but of course dredging up age-old arguments is much more fun I guess....
(and by the way, Concorde will never do M2.2 in service, BA sticks to a maximum of M2.06 for several good reasons.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK! A really serious question. Has this poll and debate run its' course?
I think it has. In fact, since there can be no further 'argument' to support the theory of anything being faster than Concorde I think the point has been well and truly made.
We can do with a bandwidth saving so just a few more days and then I will close the thread.
Thanks to those who voted.
PPP
I think it has. In fact, since there can be no further 'argument' to support the theory of anything being faster than Concorde I think the point has been well and truly made.
We can do with a bandwidth saving so just a few more days and then I will close the thread.
Thanks to those who voted.
PPP
