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

[hiromizu]

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

Well it didn't exactly sink. It hit an iceberg which the ship wasn't designed for and caused a hull breech which caused the water to rush into areas not designed for water and eventually caused other damages which eventually caused the 'ship' to sink. I think they did good and went the extra mile by having little safety boats.

Airplanes would lose a significant amount of efficiency by stuffing it with a large parachute and will thus add tremendous operating costs which will trickle down to the customer's wallet and if the customer has a choice, the customer will choose the efficiency model, not the overkill safety, expensive model.

Anyway in case you don't know because you don't seem to know many things, there is in fact, a black box that sheds enough information about what was going on before a crash. That's more than enough safety features one could possibly want in an aircraft. Think of that as the little safety boats. Not necessary but it's there just in case.

 

[marincounty]

Passenger jets have regressed. In the early days of air travel (it was very expensive) you got a china plate and real knives and forks to eat your nice meal. Now you can purchase a turkey wrap if you are lucky.
Automobiles have vastly improved their emissions while planes have not AFAIK.
Autos have vastly improved the safety in the cabin, with side airbags, front airbags, better seatbelts, some cars even have radar to prevent collisions. Where is the freaking airbag on the plane?

 

[Fenixgoon]

saying jets haven't advanced in 40 years is like saying cars haven't advanced in 40 years.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Come to our local airport and fly in one of the Dash 8s, then go in an Airbus. HUGE difference. Not sure how old the dash 8s are but they're probably less then 40 years. First off they are LOUD and the propellers, well, yeah there are propellers, no jet engines, and they create lot of air turbulence on the body of the plane, a vibration you can feel and hear.

I don't have much experience flying, only a single trip (4 planes total). Dash8 -> Airbus then the reverse to go back.

TBH I actually enjoyed the dash8 flight better, seemed to have a better view, and more turbulance which makes it that much more fun. The Airbus I went in was a smaller one, maybe 100 passengers? Just guessing here. They also had LCDs in the seats which was pretty cool. That could count as a tech advancement.

 

[Bignate603]

Passenger jets have regressed. In the early days of air travel (it was very expensive) you got a china plate and real knives and forks to eat your nice meal. Now you can purchase a turkey wrap if you are lucky.
Automobiles have vastly improved their emissions while planes have not AFAIK.
Autos have vastly improved the safety in the cabin, with side airbags, front airbags, better seatbelts, some cars even have radar to prevent collisions. Where is the freaking airbag on the plane?

Last I checked, plates and meals had nothing to do with the technology of the plane itself. Airlines cut those out because people just don't want to pay for it anymore. Passengers started buying tickets based solely on the lowest fare, without looking at the amenities. We voted with our dollars and it's pretty obvious the cheaper fares won.

Airbags wouldn't really help in planes because of the kinds of accidents they see. Either they are minor where the lap belt works (worked fine for the water landing on the Hudson, turbulence or minor runway problems) or absolutely catastrophic with the plane basically disintegrating. In either case, you wouldn't see much benefit from the airbags. In cars you're going at lower speeds and you're on the ground. The type of collisions you see in a car can benefit much more from airbags.

 

[TruePaige]

I'm going to say that cars have had more advancements due to a faster refresh cycle.

Look at how long it takes for a jet redesign and model line refresh. Look at the cost involved in changes and the huge chain of events to get one to market.

While cars have advanced more though in some ways, jets are much more complicated and required more economics based adjustments rather than passenger safety and comfort adjustments.

 

[mafia]

You can compare them from a "40 years ago this was the average/top of the line car, and today this is the average/top of the line car". Then do the same for airlines, and compare/contrast the differences. Whichever has more improvements over their respective spot 40 years ago wins.

IMHO cars and airplanes are about equal, with cars maybe more simply because the refresh cycles are much shorter and less expensive so there are more generations in the same amount of time.

If you care to look at some #'s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes#Boeing

The 747 just past its 40th anniversary of it's first delivery (and on Jan 21 will be 40 years since it's been in service). So, it's a perfect airplane to represent the tech 40 years ago. Take a look at the tech sheet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications for it, and compare it to the current tech which is the 787 Dreamliner (specs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Specifications).*

Cruise speeds are close enough to be the same (787:561-587 mph vs 747:555-594 mph), but top speed is actually down in the 787.

Max range is up on the 787 depending on model (787: 8,200 NM vs 747: 5,300 NM)

Total seating is down (787: 250 vs 747: 452)

Max takeoff weight is down (787: 502,500 lbs vs 747: 735,000 lbs)

etc.

So, basically the 787 can transport less passengers/weight further with higher fuel economy per flight. The real interesting statistic would be per-passenger/seat what the cost is to fly a 747 vs a 787. Obviously this isn't the whole story, but based on those spec sheets we haven't progressed a whole lot in those 40 years.

*I realize this is leaving out safety and control systems like fly-by-wire in newer systems. This is also comparing only one version, and I didn't spend the time to match up the closest spec wise. Maybe I will later.

In the car department, you have a similar thing. Take a look at the VW Golf from first produced in the early 70's to todays Golf. They have similar HP, similar MPG, still carry 5 people, etc.

What I'm really trying to say I suppose is that the only meaningful "improvements" to both autos and airplanes (commercial variants) are in regards to safety and "features". Air conditioning, air bags, ABS, powered windows/locks/steering, etc are now more common "standard features" in most cars. In airplanes you have auto pilots, many improvements in safety, etc. All of this boils down to which has a better:

Cost to transport 1 passenger/x weight from destination A to B, more safely and reliably.

You should compare the 787 with the 767. Boeing is replacing 767 with 787. Even though the 767 is not 40 years old, you can see that the 787 is a much bigger improvment. It would be better to compare airplanes that are in the same class. You should compare the Boeing 747 with the Airbus A380 IMO, to see the improvments, as the A380 was designed to compete with the 747. Comparing the 747 to a 787 is like comparing a an older BMW 7 series to a newer 3 series. Its not the same class, and you won't see that much improvment.

 

[Arkaign]

Last I checked, plates and meals had nothing to do with the technology of the plane itself. Airlines cut those out because people just don't want to pay for it anymore. Passengers started buying tickets based solely on the lowest fare, without looking at the amenities. We voted with our dollars and it's pretty obvious the cheaper fares won.

Airbags wouldn't really help in planes because of the kinds of accidents they see. Either they are minor where the lap belt works (worked fine for the water landing on the Hudson, turbulence or minor runway problems) or absolutely catastrophic with the plane basically disintegrating. In either case, you wouldn't see much benefit from the airbags. In cars you're going at lower speeds and you're on the ground. The type of collisions you see in a car can benefit much more from airbags.

Actually I just had an interesting idea. What about, well we would have to give it a crazy name : SUPER airbags? As in airbags that come in from the fuselage from top and bottom and basically fill the entire interior for the impact period? Of course it would still not prevent the majority of crash fatalities (hitting the ground at 300mph is going to be fatal no matter what), but I think it would boost the survivability a decent amount.

That would be pretty costly though, and present a big engineering challenge.

 

[waggy]

40 years ago, airplanes could not take off from a treadmill.

Today, they can.

That is progress.

damn you! i wanted to make a treadmill joke =(

 

[KillerCharlie]

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."

Sorry, your friend is not an engineer. He's a simple mechanic. He doesn't know anything about the efficiency of airplanes or cars. If he can't tell the difference in technology between a JT9D and a GenX he's an idiot.

The name of the game with passenger airplanes is efficiency. They fly at the same speed as they did 40 years, but are lighter, more aerodynamic, and much much more efficient.

Look at the materials they use. The 787 is completely carbon fiber. Turbofan compressors have composite blades and some turbine blades are single grain metal. How you can compare this to automobiles is beyond me.

 

[Bignate603]

Actually I just had an interesting idea. What about, well we would have to give it a crazy name : SUPER airbags? As in airbags that come in from the fuselage from top and bottom and basically fill the entire interior for the impact period? Of course it would still not prevent the majority of crash fatalities (hitting the ground at 300mph is going to be fatal no matter what), but I think it would boost the survivability a decent amount.

That would be pretty costly though, and present a big engineering challenge.

It still wouldn't really make a difference. The crashes in planes still fall into the 'lap belt is enough' category or the 'plane shreds to pieces as it slams into the ground in a fireball' category. For the first category the airbag isn't needed because the lap belt is fine and for the second if the plane is breaking apart or you're slamming into the ground the air bag isn't going to help. It will just be shred to pieces.

 

[Arkaign]

Sorry, your friend is not an engineer. He's a simple mechanic. He doesn't know anything about the efficiency of airplanes or cars. If he can't tell the difference in technology between a JT9D and a GenX he's an idiot.

The name of the game with passenger airplanes is efficiency. They fly at the same speed as they did 40 years, but are lighter, more aerodynamic, and much much more efficient.

Look at the materials they use. The 787 is completely carbon fiber. Turbofan compressors have composite blades and some turbine blades are single grain metal. How you can compare this to automobiles is beyond me.

Simple, more has changed overall in consumer automobiles than in airplanes for all intents and purposes. Efficiency in cars has vastly increased in the past 40 years. Instead of a typical 15mpg for mixed driving, you get 25-35mpg pretty typically, along with VASTLY improved safety.

My USAF buddy is in fact an engineer, and can talk at length about the substantial improvements in avionics, materials, radar, and so on. It's just that substantively, passenger airline capability and overall safety are not far off from 40 years ago, mainly due to two things :

(1)- Crashes are going to kill you pretty much invariably, unless they are fairly minor.

and

(2)- The limitations of flying subsonic mean that going from Chicago to L.A. takes the same amount of time as it did in 1969, perhaps even more due to the added procedures.

The efficiency angle is indeed important considering rising fuel costs and the associated reductions in aircrew made possible by newer tech, but even comparing the 747 to the 787, only a ~50% per passenger fuel efficiency has been achieved. A lot of that has to do with the general subsonic passenger jet airframe design being pretty much perfected half a century ago with not a lot of room for amazing improvements. Compare that to the staggering improvements in auto efficiency, where more room to improve was there to take advantage of :

1969 Camaro 396
375hp 6.2L V8 (SAE Gross, which measured in the current standard SAE Net = 260hp)
10mpg city / 17mpg @ 55mph
0-60 in 6.8 seconds
abysmal safety, no traction/ABS/airbag/crumple zone/etc

2010 Camaro V6
306hp 3.6L DI V6 (SAE Net)
17mpg city / 26mph @ 60mph
0-60 in 6.1 seconds
4-wheel disc, ABS, TC, gobs of airbags, 5-star safety ratings, OBD, etc.

The OP was the one that brought it up, it only makes sense to look at both rationally. I think Aviation simply advanced more quickly than the automotive world, leaving more room for auto improvements over the past 40 years or so.

 

[Bignate603]

Sorry, your friend is not an engineer. He's a simple mechanic. He doesn't know anything about the efficiency of airplanes or cars. If he can't tell the difference in technology between a JT9D and a GenX he's an idiot.

Well, if his friend truly does military engines he may just be stuck on an old program. For example the Chinook started its service life way back in 1962 and is still in service. It's powered by the Lycoming (now absorbed Honeywell Engines where I work) T55. The original T55 made 2,200 hp. The newest version of the T55 makes over 3,750 hp. That's a 70% increase in power over 47 years. I think 6 different models of the T55 were used over that run, and from what I remember from what one of the older guys said they only did a new centerline on that (aka brand new internal engine layout) once during all of those model changes. All of the other model changes would have looked very similar so unless you knew what you were looking at you'd have no clue what the change was.

A combustor or turbine vane that can deal with higher heat or is more efficient won't really look that much different than a less efficient one. Shafting and bearings that can tolerate higher speeds may appear pretty much the same, some of those changes may simply be better control on manufacturing and assembly tolerances which are impossible to see.

 

[poncherelli2]

Simple, more has changed overall in consumer automobiles than in airplanes for all intents and purposes. Efficiency in cars has vastly increased in the past 40 years. Instead of a typical 15mpg for mixed driving, you get 25-35mpg pretty typically, along with VASTLY improved safety.

My USAF buddy is in fact an engineer, and can talk at length about the substantial improvements in avionics, materials, radar, and so on. It's just that substantively, passenger airline capability and overall safety are not far off from 40 years ago, mainly due to two things :

(1)- Crashes are going to kill you pretty much invariably, unless they are fairly minor.

and

(2)- The limitations of flying subsonic mean that going from Chicago to L.A. takes the same amount of time as it did in 1969, perhaps even more due to the added procedures.

The efficiency angle is indeed important considering rising fuel costs and the associated reductions in aircrew made possible by newer tech, but even comparing the 747 to the 787, only a ~50% per passenger fuel efficiency has been achieved. A lot of that has to do with the general subsonic passenger jet airframe design being pretty much perfected half a century ago with not a lot of room for amazing improvements. Compare that to the staggering improvements in auto efficiency, where more room to improve was there to take advantage of :

1969 Camaro 396
375hp 6.2L V8 (SAE Gross, which measured in the current standard SAE Net = 260hp)
10mpg city / 17mpg @ 55mph
0-60 in 6.8 seconds
abysmal safety, no traction/ABS/airbag/crumple zone/etc

2010 Camaro V6
306hp 3.6L DI V6 (SAE Net)
17mpg city / 26mph @ 60mph
0-60 in 6.1 seconds
4-wheel disc, ABS, TC, gobs of airbags, 5-star safety ratings, OBD, etc.

The OP was the one that brought it up, it only makes sense to look at both rationally. I think Aviation simply advanced more quickly than the automotive world, leaving more room for auto improvements over the past 40 years or so.

You are ignoring the vast improvements in operating costs. 2 man cabin crews instead of 3, the new 787 composite airframe will drastically reduce maintenance costs as compared to metal allow, as will the transition from 4 engines to 2 engines on all but the very largest of widebody aircraft.

 

[Genx87]

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

Believe the 400 is a 2 crew config.

 

[Genx87]

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?

They installed a complimentary Samuel L Jackson on each mutherfuckin plane!

 

[Genx87]

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."

That happens when you service B-52s and C-130s that were built in 1959.

 

[Genx87]

Passenger jets have regressed. In the early days of air travel (it was very expensive) you got a china plate and real knives and forks to eat your nice meal. Now you can purchase a turkey wrap if you are lucky.
Automobiles have vastly improved their emissions while planes have not AFAIK.
Autos have vastly improved the safety in the cabin, with side airbags, front airbags, better seatbelts, some cars even have radar to prevent collisions. Where is the freaking airbag on the plane?

Planes are more efficient than they were 40 years ago so their emissions per passenger are down. An airbag on a plane would only serve to remind of of your impending doom in .3 seconds.

 

[Bignate603]

You are ignoring the vast improvements in operating costs. 2 man cabin crews instead of 3, the new 787 composite airframe will drastically reduce maintenance costs as compared to metal allow, as will the transition from 4 engines to 2 engines on all but the very largest of widebody aircraft.

Or engines that now have ridiculously long amounts of time they can stay on the wing before their first overhaul, drastically reduced oil burn and coking, large improvements in noise and vibration in the cabin, etc...

 

[Genx87]

One of the cool things people may not realize is the advancement of jet engine technology. It is being pushing into general aviation on VLJ's. These run about the cost of a King Air but are pure jets and have speed of a pure jet and comfort with a glass cockpit. I could see within a few decades instead of piston prop trainers you are on a turbo prop.
My dad had a pair of Pipe Navajos back in the 80s. They had a very simple weather radar. Then my dad flew King Airs for a company a few years ago and they all had nice color radars that were easy to read. The King Airs coming off the production line have near glass cockpits now.

 

[Arkaign]

That happens when you service B-52s and C-130s that were built in 1959.

He also (primarily) services F15s and F16s, both of which are a bit long in the tooth now, though the Eagle is definitely his favorite aircraft of all time. He also works in the private sector now that he has dropped to reserve, and is a NTSB consultant.

 

[lsd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes#Boeing

The 747 just past its 40th anniversary of it's first delivery (and on Jan 21 will be 40 years since it's been in service). So, it's a perfect airplane to represent the tech 40 years ago. Take a look at the tech sheet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications for it, and compare it to the current tech which is the 787 Dreamliner (specs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Specifications).*

Cruise speeds are close enough to be the same (787:561-587 mph vs 747:555-594 mph), but top speed is actually down in the 787.

Max range is up on the 787 depending on model (787: 8,200 NM vs 747: 5,300 NM)

Total seating is down (787: 250 vs 747: 452)

Max takeoff weight is down (787: 502,500 lbs vs 747: 735,000 lbs)

etc.

So, basically the 787 can transport less passengers/weight further with higher fuel economy per flight. The real interesting statistic would be per-passenger/seat what the cost is to fly a 747 vs a 787. Obviously this isn't the whole story, but based on those spec sheets we haven't progressed a whole lot in those 40 years.

*I realize this is leaving out safety and control systems like fly-by-wire in newer systems.
Cost to transport 1 passenger/x weight from destination A to B, more safely and reliably.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Have you not heard of the 747-800? That should be the comparison to the 747 classic, not the 787.

Commerical aircraft can fly, navigate and land themselves. 40 years ago autoland was in its infancy. Today it's common place.
So until consumer cars can navigate themselves there's no argument.

 

[Genx87]

He also (primarily) services F15s and F16s, both of which are a bit long in the tooth now, though the Eagle is definitely his favorite aircraft of all time. He also works in the private sector now that he has dropped to reserve, and is a NTSB consultant.

Hehe I figured. I was just giving you a little crap

 

[KMFJD]

Come to our local airport and fly in one of the Dash 8s, then go in an Airbus. HUGE difference. Not sure how old the dash 8s are but they're probably less then 40 years. First off they are LOUD and the propellers, well, yeah there are propellers, no jet engines, and they create lot of air turbulence on the body of the plane, a vibration you can feel and hear.

I don't have much experience flying, only a single trip (4 planes total). Dash8 -> Airbus then the reverse to go back.

TBH I actually enjoyed the dash8 flight better, seemed to have a better view, and more turbulance which makes it that much more fun. The Airbus I went in was a smaller one, maybe 100 passengers? Just guessing here. They also had LCDs in the seats which was pretty cool. That could count as a tech advancement.

Dash 8's where first built in 1984, they aren't very old actually....

 

[rudder]

Go sit in the cockpit of a Boeing 727, then go visit the cockpit of the 787 dreamliner. Planes 40 years ago could not land themselves.

Boeing 727: http://www.airliners.net/photo/FedE...1625195/&sid=5071c7edf5f1e00481972e8d33bcb5e6

Boeing 787 (mock up): http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boei...1320408/&sid=bdff776759481f2a1f0421e8b9b946f5

And I almost forgot... the 727 flight engineers panel...: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nati...1258534/&sid=54312bc2f6ed11d6e8fa76382373deef

But I must add that a lot of passenger planes built 40 years ago are still in service. Many are nearing the end of their useful life because the number of cycles (pressurized/depressurized) is getting into the unsafe zone. Many will still fly a lot more years for smaller carriers or converted to freight where they will only under go 1-3 cycles per day at most.