Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Commercial Vehicles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30th November 2016, 12:39   #451
BHPian
 
AbhisheKulkarni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pune
Posts: 75
Thanked: 136 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
With the retirement of Concorde we have see a long string of various initiatives all claiming to bring back supersonic air travel for the masses.

It will be nice when it happens, but I'm not holding my breath.
The flight time from Mum to EWR (Newark AP) ranges between 16 hours 15 minutes to 28 hours depending on carrier, routes and layovers. There is a NEED for a solution to this problem as nobody finds it convenient to travel for such a long duration from point A to point B. Not to add to the wasted time at layovers reducing productivity especially while traveling for work-related trips.

So if one considers this as a problem statement from a demand perspective, I'd day it's something which would be extremely lucrative financially if there could be a solution which would reduce this duration by 30 - 50%, with a cost premium of say 20-25%. The exact numbers of what would be acceptable/lucrative is debatable.

During Concorde's lifespan and when it was in commercial service the world economies weren't evolved to the extent where it's advantages could be appreciated. The average number of passengers travelling per year in 2016 is several times more than those in say 1990. The number of people who could even afford airline travel was significantly lesser back then, as compared to now.

As an example, there are so many people who pay outrageous cost premiums to travel for a business meeting say from Mum to Tokyo a day prior to the meeting (and return in a couple of days). Approximately 16-22 hours are lost purely due to the travel time, one layover and traveling to and from airports in the source/destination locations. Now multiply this by 2 to include the return journey. If there is a possibility for optimization in the air-travel time itself, it has value.

If there are attempts being made to solve this problem (Boom?) I'd say godspeed and good luck. It seems like a far simpler approach as opposed to some other ideas like low-earth orbit travel and re-entry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
One of the big problems of Concorde was the legislation and getting permission to operate in somebodies airspace at Mach 2 because of noise problems. I don't hear much about this part of the challenge. Must be many more!
Quoting the Wiki for Concorde:

The full link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range

Quote:
Nevertheless, soon after Concorde began flying, 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.[102] 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.[103] This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible. This was cancelled due in part to poor sales of Concorde, but also to the rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s.[104]
So even as back in time as 1970, improvements had already been identified with reasonable feasibility assessments! With the learning, knowledge and size of the commercial aviation industry today I'd go out on a limb and say that a lot more could be possible. So another angle of looking at this problem is instead of re-inventing the wheel, why not re-look at Concorde's design (which was excellent for it's time anyways with a very good safety record until the three incidents) and evolve it to fit the needs of today. One would do more good to take something that was proven and improve it rather than do something from scratch.

Last edited by AbhisheKulkarni : 30th November 2016 at 12:43.
AbhisheKulkarni is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 13:36   #452
BHPian
 
searchingheaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: KDCA-KDFW-VOBL
Posts: 308
Thanked: 1,235 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Does anyone have any data on the BAE146(RJ85)? The LAMIA Bolivia Avro RJ-85 that crashed yesterday just doesn't add up. The distance between the 2 airports is like 1630 nm, which seems to be higher than the aircraft's range. When I put those those numbers in a flight planner, the fuel planning throws up an error saying that the fuel required(including cont, alt and resv) for the trip is more than the available capacity.

Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review-img_20161129_17275501.jpg
Attached Thumbnails
Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review-img_20161129_17274501.jpg  

searchingheaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 14:48   #453
Senior - BHPian
 
libranof1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: All over!
Posts: 3,196
Thanked: 1,762 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingheaven View Post
Does anyone have any data on the BAE146(RJ85)? The LAMIA Bolivia Avro RJ-85 that crashed yesterday just doesn't add up. The distance between the 2 airports is like 1630 nm, which seems to be higher than the aircraft's range.
Fuel starvation seems to be the working theory.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/am...ion/index.html
libranof1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 16:47   #454
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 2,548
Thanked: 4,529 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingheaven View Post
Does anyone have any data on the BAE146(RJ85)? The LAMIA Bolivia Avro RJ-85 that crashed yesterday just doesn't add up. The distance between the 2 airports is like 1630 nm, which seems to be higher than the aircraft's range. When I put those those numbers in a flight planner, the fuel planning throws up an error saying that the fuel required(including cont, alt and resv) for the trip is more than the available capacity.
Lots of similar thoughts on PruNE:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...-medellin.html
Jeroen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 17:27   #455
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Delhi-NCR
Posts: 562
Thanked: 2,303 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254

South American airlines have had a history of running out of fuel for various reasons. The finger in these two cases points to pilot error.

Last edited by V.Narayan : 30th November 2016 at 17:33.
V.Narayan is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 17:28   #456
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 2,548
Thanked: 4,529 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbhisheKulkarni View Post
So even as back in time as 1970, improvements had already been identified with reasonable feasibility assessments! With the learning, knowledge and size of the commercial aviation industry today I'd go out on a limb and say that a lot more could be possible. So another angle of looking at this problem is instead of re-inventing the wheel, why not re-look at Concorde's design (which was excellent for it's time anyways with a very good safety record until the three incidents) and evolve it to fit the needs of today. One would do more good to take something that was proven and improve it rather than do something from scratch.
I admire your optimism, but I donít see it being shared by anybody in the aviation industry.

Like i said earlier, Iím not holding my breath for any supersonic planes.

Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 19:27   #457
BHPian
 
sriramr9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chennai
Posts: 192
Thanked: 40 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
but I don’t see it being shared by anybody in the aviation industry. Like i said earlier, I’m not holding my breath for any supersonic planes.
NASA and a host of companies such as Mc donnell D, Pratt Whitney, were involved in experimenting with a Russian supersonic plane Tupolev-144 (Another Supersonic speed enabled commercial air plane) back in 1990's, though technically, the several experiments that were conducted as part of the Flying Laboratory project were a success, the project was officially cancelled for unknown reasons.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...144/index.html
Attached Images
 

Last edited by sriramr9 : 30th November 2016 at 19:33.
sriramr9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2016, 22:30   #458
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 2,548
Thanked: 4,529 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by sriramr9 View Post
NASA and a host of companies such as Mc donnell D, Pratt Whitney, were involved in experimenting with a Russian supersonic plane Tupolev-144 (Another Supersonic speed enabled commercial air plane) back in 1990's, though technically, the several experiments that were conducted as part of the Flying Laboratory project were a success, the project was officially cancelled for unknown reasons.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...144/index.html
It was cancelled due to lack of funding, which is Governmental speak for it was economically unviable. Or to put it even more plainly, there were no commercial parties interested to pursue this on their own.

To many in the aviation industry this exercise was more of a PR stunt, to show of US-USSR cooperation. After all Tupolev had to engage several of the Concorde design team just to get the thing going. Even though we donít have full access to the flight and test data it is common knowledge that this was not a happy plane in any of its incarnations. It would have been cheaper and a lot faster to just call the Brits and the French Concorde design team.

Of course, there are those who blame the British. Rumour has it they leaked Concorde design documents to the Russian with intentional mistakes, just to put them on the back foot so to speak.

Why anybody would want to rent such a plane is probably beyond the comprehension of most aviation enthusiast, but it is certainly well within the realms of Geo-Politics to see this things happen and of course they are always heralded as hugely successful. But I donít see any practical proof of that. But I am highly skeptical of any US-Russia so called co-operation.

Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   (2) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2016, 03:19   #459
BHPian
 
searchingheaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: KDCA-KDFW-VOBL
Posts: 308
Thanked: 1,235 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

The lamia Bolivia's flight plan. Total EET = Total endurance. Had this been the US, this would never have happened. In fact , my airline has a policy of 20 mins extra endurance fuel over and above all the FAA mandated requirements.
Attached Thumbnails
Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review-iqo9wilsp51y.jpg  

searchingheaven is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2016, 16:13   #460
RVD
BHPian
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BANGALORE
Posts: 144
Thanked: 197 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingheaven View Post
The lamia Bolivia's flight plan. Total EET = Total endurance. Had this been the US, this would never have happened. In fact , my airline has a policy of 20 mins extra endurance fuel over and above all the FAA mandated requirements.
This would not happen anywhere in the world. They have a nominated Destination Alternate but do not have endurance to reach there. It defeats the purpose of having one.It is not a regulatory issue. It is probably a gross error in flight planning and unfortunately has gone unnoticed by a few people in the chain.
RVD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2016, 18:31   #461
BHPian
 
searchingheaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: KDCA-KDFW-VOBL
Posts: 308
Thanked: 1,235 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVD View Post
It is not a regulatory issue. It is probably a gross error in flight planning and unfortunately has gone unnoticed by a few people in the chain.
Unfortunately, you might want to think again about this. This aircraft flew regularly at the limit of it's fuel capacity.

Some gems from the article.

Quote:
Marcelo Chavez, regional director of Bolivia’s air traffic control agency and one of the suspended officials, told AP that an inspector had flagged the issue with the aircraft’s fuel and range but the airline went ahead anyway and air traffic controllers had no authority to stop them. Morales said he did not know the airline existed and called a “profound investigation”.
Quote:
Another Brazilian pilot, Evandro Garcia also pointed the finger at the Bolivian civil aviation authorities, who he said were more lax than other South American countries. “Their criteria, their demands, are below other countries,” he said.
searchingheaven is offline   (2) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2016, 18:52   #462
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dombivli/Gurgao
Posts: 2,517
Thanked: 990 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

A little off the track question.

I am currently staying in Delhi and the place where I am put up is somewhat directly under the approach path of planes to the IGI airport. There's an incoming plane every 3-4 minutes.

Now, what I observed is when I stand at the same place on the ground and observe the approaching aircraft, some appear smaller and some appear bigger. However, to my untrained eye, it could be that the bigger aircraft are flying a low approach path than the smaller ones. Does it happen so?

Or else it could just be an illusion...
honeybee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2016, 20:29   #463
RVD
BHPian
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BANGALORE
Posts: 144
Thanked: 197 Times
Default Re: Boeing 777 - Pilot's Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingheaven View Post
Unfortunately, you might want to think again about this. This aircraft flew regularly at the limit of it's fuel capacity.

Some gems from the article.
I don't think you quite understood my point. What I am saying that it is not a regulatory issue but an administrative one. The regulations that are governing aviation are more or less the same. It is the people that have to implement and those who need to follow are the ones that decide which way it goes. In the US, if a private charter filed a flight plan and did not carry the requisite fuel, is there any way that it could be flagged down ? Like I said, there was an oversight or perhaps the regulations were voluntarily disregarded by a few people in the chain.

Last edited by RVD : 4th December 2016 at 20:32.
RVD is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 (MH370) goes missing tharian Shifting gears 391 27th September 2016 15:46
Michelin launches Pilot Road 4, Pilot Power 3 superbike tyres Aditya Superbikes & Imports 5 3rd March 2016 19:21
Michelin Pilot Road 2 & Pilot Street Radial Motorcycle Tyres launched parrys Motorbikes 37 27th January 2016 23:27
Boeing builds a 4x4 for US Navy - The Boeing Phantom Badger Musa 4x4 Vehicles 4 2nd September 2015 12:28
Airplane Review (Boeing 747-400) by a Pilot : A first for Team-BHP! flyboy747 Commercial Vehicles 180 27th May 2014 15:48


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 05:51.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks