News Invisible Airbus
- Thread starter Mojave
- Start date
RisingFury
OBSP developer
This would only be awesome if the floor was transparent. That would make for some nice vertigo 
Oh! Look at our future plane! It's transparent! And it has moving seats! And funny transparent wireless displays! And the body heat of the passengers lights the cabin!
Seriously, this is silly. People will generally do stuff like this- "car of the future", "house of the future", "boat of the future", "spaceship of the future", that has a lot of "future" gimmicks in it, but in the end turns out to be utterly over-the-top, even for the time period it is thought of in.
Why is Airbus's "airliner of 2050" rubbish? Because it's totally unecessary. You're not going to burn extra fuel for some fancy "transparent fuselage", or a simulated golf game, or the bunch of empty space that you put into the cabin when you gave it that swivel-y seating arrangement.
At the one of the fancy 'Aviation and Defense' shows we have every two years here, Boeing had a huge mockup of the 787 cabin, complete with video screens in the windows, to get an impression of looking outside the aircraft. I was quite impressed by the lavish feel of the mockup, when I noticed a second series of rather less impressive seats a bit further back- a mockup of the coach-class cabin, not that different from the interior of your average 737, etc (I haven't seen a real first class cabin in years, and have never flown first class, so I guess my simple mind didn't recognise the significance
).
Airlines are all about economy. You want to run a business. You want to be, basically, a peoplemover. The "Airbus of 2050" is no peoplemover, it is a gimmick. For that reason, it is likely that the airliner of 2050 will probably be pretty similar to an airliner of today; after all, it has to do the same sort of thing.
It isn't only that airliners haven't changed much in the last 40-odd years, it's that many of the actual designs that are flying today are roughly 40 years old, and indeed the aircraft can be decades old themselves. The first decades of aviation saw huge advancements, but (in terms of airliners, at least) everything stopped at a certain point- because at that point, they did what they were needed for, in the way that was needed. Going faster, or higher, or carrying thousands of people, or whatever, wasn't necessary, and it wasn't worth the extra cost.
The advancements since then have been mostly related to things like efficiency and safety. So while the airliner of 2050 might not be that different in appearance, concept, or capability to the airliner of today, it could be highly efficient, and comparatively, very safe. Or could even be an evolved version of aircraft we see flying today, just as the highly popular 737 started out in the late 1960s.
And for the same reason, the Reaction Engines A2 would, at best, end up like Concorde. Not many people want to pay that much extra for that fast a flight. Granted, it could try to avoid many of the issues of Concorde, but flight at such speeds will always be more intensive than flight at the conventional high-subsonic speed.
Seriously, this is silly. People will generally do stuff like this- "car of the future", "house of the future", "boat of the future", "spaceship of the future", that has a lot of "future" gimmicks in it, but in the end turns out to be utterly over-the-top, even for the time period it is thought of in.
Why is Airbus's "airliner of 2050" rubbish? Because it's totally unecessary. You're not going to burn extra fuel for some fancy "transparent fuselage", or a simulated golf game, or the bunch of empty space that you put into the cabin when you gave it that swivel-y seating arrangement.
At the one of the fancy 'Aviation and Defense' shows we have every two years here, Boeing had a huge mockup of the 787 cabin, complete with video screens in the windows, to get an impression of looking outside the aircraft. I was quite impressed by the lavish feel of the mockup, when I noticed a second series of rather less impressive seats a bit further back- a mockup of the coach-class cabin, not that different from the interior of your average 737, etc (I haven't seen a real first class cabin in years, and have never flown first class, so I guess my simple mind didn't recognise the significance
).Airlines are all about economy. You want to run a business. You want to be, basically, a peoplemover. The "Airbus of 2050" is no peoplemover, it is a gimmick. For that reason, it is likely that the airliner of 2050 will probably be pretty similar to an airliner of today; after all, it has to do the same sort of thing.
It isn't only that airliners haven't changed much in the last 40-odd years, it's that many of the actual designs that are flying today are roughly 40 years old, and indeed the aircraft can be decades old themselves. The first decades of aviation saw huge advancements, but (in terms of airliners, at least) everything stopped at a certain point- because at that point, they did what they were needed for, in the way that was needed. Going faster, or higher, or carrying thousands of people, or whatever, wasn't necessary, and it wasn't worth the extra cost.
The advancements since then have been mostly related to things like efficiency and safety. So while the airliner of 2050 might not be that different in appearance, concept, or capability to the airliner of today, it could be highly efficient, and comparatively, very safe. Or could even be an evolved version of aircraft we see flying today, just as the highly popular 737 started out in the late 1960s.
And for the same reason, the Reaction Engines A2 would, at best, end up like Concorde. Not many people want to pay that much extra for that fast a flight. Granted, it could try to avoid many of the issues of Concorde, but flight at such speeds will always be more intensive than flight at the conventional high-subsonic speed.
Last edited:
Except that if one engine on a 737 fails, you can still safely make it to a landing. The airplanes are designed to still fly on only one engine in the event that one fails, and the pilots are trained for it. That's *why* you have multiple engines on airplanes in the first place.
I don't like the idea at all. Airbus produces the most boring airliners these days already: quiet cabins and cockpits without proper control columns. Aside from the size, the A380 is the most boring airliner today. Nothing will get me on that plane ever. It would bore the crap out of me only when I consider how people say "woooow it's soooooo quiet".
I prefer to hear roaring engine sounds on take off and noisy wind flow around the hull during cruise. I just love cramped seat configurations / standard cabins. Also, when I am visiting the flight deck I want to see switches, gauges, and control columns instead of a few flat buttons, screens, and insignificant looking side sticks. The last true aircraft Airbus build also was their first ones, the A300 and A310. The last true aircraft Boeing build was the 757 and 767. And never forget the epic L1011 and DC-10 trijets.
I really miss the old days of 3-man cockpit crews and noisy and cramped aircraft. I don't like the way everything is changing. Cars also become more and more the same boring modern mishmash. And that invisible plane wouldn't be a plane anymore. It would just be a flying something... :facepalm:
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------
Thanks for posting this. I wanted to post the same thing.
People always think that a loss of one engine would be a big deal. Even if you lose an engine with a twin engine jet like the 767 or A330 over the Atlantic Ocean, you still can either return to Shannon in Ireland, or reach Reykjavik in Island or St. John’s in Newfoundland without problems (those are the diversion airfields for northern Atlantic crossings between Great Britain and Canada/USA). A lot of people would never guess what pilots do fear more during Atlantic crossings: a loss of cabin pressure. Because it requires to descent to 10,000 feet and to continue the flight at that altitude which significantly increases the fuel consumption and might have a bad impact on reaching one of the diversion airfields if the weather also plays worse. This would be the most nasty scenario right after a complete loss of engine power. A loss of one engine really is the least problem. That's why we have ETOPS today (extended twin engine operations).
I prefer to hear roaring engine sounds on take off and noisy wind flow around the hull during cruise. I just love cramped seat configurations / standard cabins. Also, when I am visiting the flight deck I want to see switches, gauges, and control columns instead of a few flat buttons, screens, and insignificant looking side sticks. The last true aircraft Airbus build also was their first ones, the A300 and A310. The last true aircraft Boeing build was the 757 and 767. And never forget the epic L1011 and DC-10 trijets.
I really miss the old days of 3-man cockpit crews and noisy and cramped aircraft. I don't like the way everything is changing. Cars also become more and more the same boring modern mishmash. And that invisible plane wouldn't be a plane anymore. It would just be a flying something... :facepalm:
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------
Thanks for posting this. I wanted to post the same thing.
People always think that a loss of one engine would be a big deal. Even if you lose an engine with a twin engine jet like the 767 or A330 over the Atlantic Ocean, you still can either return to Shannon in Ireland, or reach Reykjavik in Island or St. John’s in Newfoundland without problems (those are the diversion airfields for northern Atlantic crossings between Great Britain and Canada/USA). A lot of people would never guess what pilots do fear more during Atlantic crossings: a loss of cabin pressure. Because it requires to descent to 10,000 feet and to continue the flight at that altitude which significantly increases the fuel consumption and might have a bad impact on reaching one of the diversion airfields if the weather also plays worse. This would be the most nasty scenario right after a complete loss of engine power. A loss of one engine really is the least problem. That's why we have ETOPS today (extended twin engine operations).
