Argument with friend: Passenger airplanes haven't progressed much in 40 years?

[DisgruntledVirus]

You could have the greatest safety belt in the world around your lap in the world's safest seat in the otherwise world's safest plane and you are still going to lose a leg as soon as anything happens that would test those safety mechanisms because the seat in front of you is 1 mm in front of your knee.

Okay, great.

Now take into account statistics on the chances of a person getting into an auto accident vs airline accident. It's extremely unlikely you will ever be in an airline accident, but it is extremely likely you will be in a car accident. So, 40 years ago was it safer to fly or drive, and what is the case today? Now you have 1 key part of the equation.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

40 years ago -

727-100
Cockpit crew.....Three

The 727 was one of the last airliners in service to have a three-person flight crew, including a flight engineer, a crew member whose tasks have been largely automated on newer airliners.

Max. seating capacity...................149
Length.........................................133 ft 2 in (40.6 m)
Wingspan....................................108 ft (32.9 m)
Tail height.....................................34 ft (10.3 m)
Zero fuel weight..................100,000 lb (45,360 kg)
Maximum take-off weight....169,000 lb (76,818 kg)
Maximum landing weight.....137,500 lb (62,400 kg)
Cruising speed...................Mach 0.81
Maximum speed.................Mach 0.90
Range fully loaded....................2700 NM (5000 km)
Max. fuel capacity.....................8,186 US gal (31,000 L)
Thrust....................................65,100 lbf
The 727 is one of the noisiest commercial jetliners.

Lower is better
Economy 6.2 L per km.
Economy per passenger 0.042 L/P/km

787-9
Cockpit crew................................Two
Typical Seating........................250–290
Length............................................206 ft (62.8 m)
Wingspan.......................................197 ft (60.0 m)
Height...............................................55 ft 6 in (16.92 m)
Zero Fuel weight......................254,000 lb (115,000 kg)
Maximum takeoff weight..........547,000 lb (248,000 kg)
Cruise speed.........................Mach 0.85
Maximum cruise speed..........Mach 0.89
Range.............................8,000 – 8,500 NM (14,800 – 15,750 km)
Maximum fuel capacity...............33,428 US gal (126,539 L)
Maximum thrust capability........140,000 lbf

Economy 8.0 L per km.
Economy per passenger 0.028 L/P/km

The 787 has a maximum takeoff weight ~ 4 times that of the 727, has twice the thrust, and carries nearly twice the number of passengers.

Calculate that for the 747 as it was the newest airplane at the time (in my post above it was released almost 40 years ago to the day)

 

[torpid]

Okay, great.

Now take into account statistics on the chances of a person getting into an auto accident vs airline accident. It's extremely unlikely you will ever be in an airline accident, but it is extremely likely you will be in a car accident. So, 40 years ago was it safer to fly or drive, and what is the case today? Now you have 1 key part of the equation.

How much of that is due to the general mode of transportation vs actual vehicle itself? There aren't as many planes in the air or people using airplanes for transportation. I would rather be in a car accident than in a plane accident. I've got airbags and all kinds of crazy safety mechanisms and I'm not stuffed like a sardine with high likelihood of leg injury.

Part of safety involves preventing injury when an accident occurs. Planes may have all sorts of mechanisms to avoid the accident, but if it happens I find it highly unlikely that the injury rates would be lower than in a decent car which costs several orders of magnitude less. I haven't seen a seat belt that crappy in a car since the 80's.

 

[bignateyk]

Until planes have parachutes, I'm not a fan. Some smaller private jets have them now.

LOL. Have fun jumping out of a jumbo jet going 500+ mph. I don't think a chute is gonna do much.

 

[Fritzo]

Until planes have parachutes, I'm not a fan. Some smaller private jets have them now.

I always wonder this---if a plane is going to crash, howscome they can't make a giant parachute pop out of the top? Or make some kind of inflatable bouncy ball things pop out (like they did with the Mars landers)?

 

[gsellis]

... further enhanced after an L-1011 crashed in the Everglades while the pilots were trying to solve an issue with a warning light. That Everglades crash also resulted in some changes to the autopilot system to make it more obvious to the pilots when the system was engaged/disengaged.

The Eastern Controlled Flight Into Terran was a cockpit management issue. The L-1011 has an effective radar altimeter. But the FO, SO, and Flight Engineer all focused on the light and no one flew the plane. I always have felt that that poor ATC guy must be kicking himself. If he had just said, "Eastern 401, say altitude", it would not have happened. But, rightly, that is not part of the job.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Calculate that for the 747 as it was the newest airplane at the time (in my post above it was released almost 40 years ago to the day)

I'm not doing all of it... the formatting takes too long (you hadn't posted when I posted).

747 - 100

Efficiency 18.71 L per km
Efficiency per passenger 0.041 L/P/km

Overall efficiency per passenger is about the same as the 727 and much worse than the 787 (it consumes ~50% more per passenger per km).

 

[gsellis]

I always wonder this---if a plane is going to crash, howscome they can't make a giant parachute pop out of the top? Or make some kind of inflatable bouncy ball things pop out (like they did with the Mars landers)?

Some airplanes are mandated to have ballistic parachutes. The plane that crashed into the building in NYC was one of those. The aircraft cannot recover well from a stall and the FAA requires a ballistic parachute on the aircraft.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

The 747 also has a cockpit crew of 3 vs the 787's 2.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Planes have certainly progressed in the last 40 years, but, the improvements have generally been of economical/cost savings measures.... better fuel efficiency being the main driver.

The 40 years before that, planes saw exponential growth in terms of progress ..... So comparing the last 40 years, with the 40 before that, it would look like things have been standing still for 40 years.


Now, if you compared cars over the last 40 years vs planes, I would say that cars have had much more significant changes.

Many current generation 4 cyl cars have similar or better acceleration/performance of 8 cyl cars from 40 years ago, with much better gas milage, better cargo capacities, more comfort, and immensely improved safety.

Now, IMO, the challenge to improve some things on a plane is MUCH more difficult, and not fair to compare to a car. For instance, safety .. when a plane crashes, they pretty much always hit the ground at over 200mph, and in most cases, everyone dies. Even if you made the cabin 3 times as sturdy and magically fireproofed.... the Gs alone from smashing into the ground would often mangle up all the passengers beyond any chance for life ....

With road vehicles, airbags, crumple zones, better seat belts, etc have all contributed to survivability .... your chance to survive a head on wreck may have gone up from 50-90% With planes ... you make the same amount of improvements, and you likely will go from 0% to 0% .....


So, depending upon HOW you measure progress (by the improvements made, or by the measureable amount of result due to the improvements made?) .... you will come up with very different answers ... Thus, I suspect both you and your friend are wrong!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I'm not doing all of it... the formatting takes too long (you hadn't posted when I posted).

747 - 100

Efficiency 18.71 L per km
Efficiency per passenger 0.041 L/P/km

Overall efficiency per passenger is about the same as the 727 and much worse than the 787 (it consumes ~50% more per passenger per km).

That's fine. Just was curious since the 747-100 is 40 years old to the day (well just passed it).

Initially I was thinking cars have, but now I'm kind of starting to change that opinion.

 

[Meghan54]

Digital fly-by-wire.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Planes have certainly progressed in the last 40 years, but, the improvements have generally been of economical/cost savings measures.... better fuel efficiency being the main driver.

The 40 years before that, planes saw exponential growth in terms of progress ..... So comparing the last 40 years, with the 40 before that, it would look like things have been standing still for 40 years.


Now, if you compared cars over the last 40 years vs planes, I would say that cars have had much more significant changes.

Many current generation 4 cyl cars have similar or better acceleration/performance of 8 cyl cars from 40 years ago, with much better gas milage, better cargo capacities, more comfort, and immensely improved safety.

Now, IMO, the challenge to improve some things on a plane is MUCH more difficult, and not fair to compare to a car. For instance, safety .. when a plane crashes, they pretty much always hit the ground at over 200mph, and in most cases, everyone dies. Even if you made the cabin 3 times as sturdy and magically fireproofed.... the Gs alone from smashing into the ground would often mangle up all the passengers beyond any chance for life ....

With road vehicles, airbags, crumple zones, better seat belts, etc have all contributed to survivability .... your chance to survive a head on wreck may have gone up from 50-90% With planes ... you make the same amount of improvements, and you likely will go from 0% to 0% .....


So, depending upon HOW you measure progress (by the improvements made, or by the measureable amount of result due to the improvements made?) .... you will come up with very different answers ... Thus, I suspect both you and your friend are wrong!

I'm judging by the sound of your post that you believe cars>airplanes, am I correct in that?

Take a look at the VW Golf for example. It is very similar from the first model to todays model from fuel economy to HP to most other specs. Obviously todays Golf VI is safer, but is the improvement in safety from the Golf I to the Golf VI a greater improvement than a 747 to 787?

From a specs stance airplanes haven't made much improvements in top speed, passengers carried, or takeoff weights. They have greatly decreased their cost (in terms of fuel spent) per passenger per mile/km. Cars have remained stagnant in MPG for the most part, and haven't really increased HP/range/etc. So from specs I'd say airplanes win.

From a safety stance, airplanes vs cars is interesting. Statistics show that you are much more likely to die in a car than plane. However, you also are in a car much more in the course of your life then a plane. So, we would need to know the number of deaths per mile traveled that is weighted so the two are equal regarding the amount of time spent in each on average through life. I think that if you found out what that number was, planes would be safer than cars.

So, I am going to change my view to planes win.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The real question though is how have airplane manufacturers reacted to the increasing threats of snakes on their planes and what progress has been done to get them off the plane?

 

[TechBoyJK]

LOL. Have fun jumping out of a jumbo jet going 500+ mph. I don't think a chute is gonna do much.

I mean the plane needs to have a parachute. Not the passengers.

 

[Zargon]

mutha f&*^$in snakes on the damn plane!

 

[hiromizu]

The end all reason why airplanes don't have parachutes etc. is because they aren't designed to crash. They are designed to carry passengers from one place to another. It's that simple.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'm judging by the sound of your post that you believe cars>airplanes, am I correct in that?

Take a look at the VW Golf for example. It is very similar from the first model to todays model from fuel economy to HP to most other specs. Obviously todays Golf VI is safer, but is the improvement in safety from the Golf I to the Golf VI a greater improvement than a 747 to 787?

From a specs stance airplanes haven't made much improvements in top speed, passengers carried, or takeoff weights. They have greatly decreased their cost (in terms of fuel spent) per passenger per mile/km. Cars have remained stagnant in MPG for the most part, and haven't really increased HP/range/etc. So from specs I'd say airplanes win.

From a safety stance, airplanes vs cars is interesting. Statistics show that you are much more likely to die in a car than plane. However, you also are in a car much more in the course of your life then a plane. So, we would need to know the number of deaths per mile traveled that is weighted so the two are equal regarding the amount of time spent in each on average through life. I think that if you found out what that number was, planes would be safer than cars.

So, I am going to change my view to planes win.

In General, yes, I believe that progress in cars over the last 40 years has exceeded that of airplanes over the last 40 years. But, it's also not consistent, and depending upon how you measure the progress, you could easily come up with one or the other....

Using the VW golf as an example ....

The Mk1 Golf in 1975 came with a 70hp 1.5L 4 cyl with a top speed of 93mph. no idea of the fuel economy, but I suspect it's no better than the current golfs.

Now, in 2009 a VW GTI comes with a 200hp I4, 20+mpg city 30+mpg highway....

Also, the 2009 comes with a 6 speed where the 75 had either a 3 speed auto or 4 speed manual.

I would say that 300% increase in power while maintaining fuel economy, gaining a lot of weight, a lot more passanger room/comfort, cruise control, power lock/windows, remote start, and all the modern conveniences is a bigger improvement than the upgrades between a B727 and a B787 .....

 

[coloumb]

Eh - who the hell cares? I'm just glad they got rid of being able to smoke on the plane. 🙂

However, the food [meals] / snack service on US domestic flights have changed to craptastic status. They really need to learn something from foreign domestic flights [healthier meals/snacks] - same time/type of plane- you get a healthy snack/drink on a foreign domestic flight. US domestic flight - chips/drink.

 

[jonks]

Neither has Spam. You don't mess with perfection.

 

[Arkaign]

In General, yes, I believe that progress in cars over the last 40 years has exceeded that of airplanes over the last 40 years. But, it's also not consistent, and depending upon how you measure the progress, you could easily come up with one or the other....

Using the VW golf as an example ....

The Mk1 Golf in 1975 came with a 70hp 1.5L 4 cyl with a top speed of 93mph. no idea of the fuel economy, but I suspect it's no better than the current golfs.

Now, in 2009 a VW GTI comes with a 200hp I4, 20+mpg city 30+mpg highway....

Also, the 2009 comes with a 6 speed where the 75 had either a 3 speed auto or 4 speed manual.

I would say that 300% increase in power while maintaining fuel economy, gaining a lot of weight, a lot more passanger room/comfort, cruise control, power lock/windows, remote start, and all the modern conveniences is a bigger improvement than the upgrades between a B727 and a B787 .....

This is really important. Also consider this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g&feature=player_embedded

That's 50 years instead of 40, but a 1969 Chevy Bel Air wasn't any better in terms of safety other than better seat belts. Crumple zones and composite construction techniques didn't pop up for a long time yet.

Let's do a couple for fun :

1969 Chevy Bel Air, most common model :

4.1L 6 Cylinder motor, 155hp, 18.4mpg @ 55mph, 3 speed manual or 3 speed auto, 5 seater 4-door sedan, top speed 90mph, no ABS, no traction control, no NAV, no CD player, no shoulder belts, no air bags, no OBD system of any type, drum brakes, extremely noxious exhaust, tires with low grip, and overall very dangerous in collisions above 30mph.

2009 Chevy Malibu, most common model :

2.4L 4 Cylinder motor, 169hp, 30mpg @ 60mph, 4 speed auto, 5 seater 4 door sedan, top speed electronically limited to 112mph, seat-mounted thorax airbags, side-curtain airbags, traction control, anti-lock brakes, advanced OBD, 4 wheel disc brakes, almost zero emissions, and the rest of the standard specs read like science fiction compared to the '69 model :

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/chevrolet/malibu/101028431/standard.html

 

[postmortemIA]

I work in aerospace industry, so here's my opinion:
-new engines are much more efficient than 40 yrs ago.
-weather radars use state-of-the-art electronics from this age
-cockpit in modern plane (787 or such) is almost 100% digital, with LCDs. some planes even feature full synthetic vision
-passenger entertainment: personal monitors, even internet are becoming norm
-safety is better thanks to electronics and mechanical advances

 

[Inspector Jihad]

The end all reason why airplanes don't have parachutes etc. is because they aren't designed to crash. They are designed to carry passengers from one place to another. It's that simple.

kinda like how the titanic wasn't designed to sink?

 

[Bignate603]

My best friend is a USAF jet engine mechanic with 20 years experience on both military and private jet engines, mainly GE and Pratt & Whitney.

"Cars have definitely advanced far more than passenger airliners in the past 40 years."

If he deals mostly with military he's not going to see much change unless he gets stuck on a brand new program (JSF comes to mind). The military runs their vehicles with some small updates for a LONG time before they send them to the boneyard.

For commercial aircraft the cost of starting from the ground up on a new design is quite high. The planes we have right now are pretty darn good so it's not like you can just toss something together and have it come out even better. Because of that much of the improvements in commercial aviation have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. We've been going after 5 and 10% improvements based around an existing design rather than going back to the drawing board.

Cars have advanced in some ways, airplanes in others. From the passanger's standpoint a commercial airliner is just a tube they sit in, their experience has changed very little from the older jetliners. The basic shape looks very similar to older generations and some planes (the 737 and 747 come to mind seem to have been in production forever. What they don't see is a huge amount of improvements to improve fuel economy, safety and reliability.

In a plane you walk down the aisle and sit in your seat. Your interaction is pretty much limited to that. You're not the one pulling the throttle, tracking how long an engine can stay on wing until it needs an overhaul, watching the fuel economy, changing course to adjust for or looking at fatigue cracks on the air frame (all aluminum airframes have cracks, it's just a matter of how big).

In a car you're the one pushing the throttle, you do the steering, play with the radio, pay for the maintenance, and everything else. You notice the improvements there because it's something that you are much more involved in.

 

[Arkaign]

If he deals mostly with military he's not going to see much change unless he gets stuck on a brand new program (JSF comes to mind). The military runs their vehicles with some small updates for a LONG time before they send them to the boneyard.

For commercial aircraft the cost of starting from the ground up on a new design is quite high. The planes we have right now are pretty darn good so it's not like you can just toss something together and have it come out even better. Because of that much of the improvements in commercial aviation have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. We've been going after 5 and 10% improvements based around an existing design rather than going back to the drawing board.

Cars have advanced in some ways, airplanes in others. From the passanger's standpoint a commercial airliner is just a tube they sit in, their experience has changed very little from the older jetliners. The basic shape looks very similar to older generations and some planes (the 737 and 747 come to mind seem to have been in production forever. What they don't see is a huge amount of improvements to improve fuel economy, safety and reliability.

In a plane you walk down the aisle and sit in your seat. Your interaction is pretty much limited to that. You're not the one pulling the throttle, tracking how long an engine can stay on wing until it needs an overhaul, watching the fuel economy, changing course to adjust for or looking at fatigue cracks on the air frame (all aluminum airframes have cracks, it's just a matter of how big).

In a car you're the one pushing the throttle, you do the steering, play with the radio, pay for the maintenance, and everything else. You notice the improvements there because it's something that you are much more involved in.

That sums it up nicely. Of course passenger aviation has gone through some pretty tremendous developments over the last 40 years, they aren't as visceral as the changes to passenger autos.

Another thing to consider is that airplanes are almost invariably purpose-built, with aesthetics really taking a backseat to practicality and air safety. With autos 40 years ago, the designers took a lot of shortcuts and let stylists do things that were pretty haphazard to the practicality of the vehicle in order to generate sales. To a lesser but still valid extent, this is still true today, but the monumentally more rigid safety regulations and high consumer standards demands that pretty much any new car today blows the socks off of common cars 40 years ago.