Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport

Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA
Date:         16 May 94 01:53:29 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1211@ohare.Chicago.COM>, (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:
>  We've been kicking this around a bit, and I thought I'd ask the group's
>  Assume for a moment that a commercial airframer could build a transport
>that is capable of flying halfway around the world in scheduled service.
>Does this have any real value?  Or are we happy at roughly 7000nm range?

>From just a traveller's point of view, such a thing would be of
great value to me.  As a person of Indian origin naturalized in
the USA, I travel to India fairly often.  The typical flight time
(Chicago-somepleceinEurope-Bombay) takes about 16 hours.  Add
that to two "local" flights I need to take (US leg and India leg)
and it comes a little over 20 hours in flight time alone. 
Connecting time of several hours added together makes it 30+
hours and one long tiring trip.  And it took even longer the last
time when I went (Phoenix-)LAX-Singapore-Madras (especially being
late by 20 hours in LAX and have the FAA inspect the airplane,
but that's another story).  It would be really nice to have at
least one stop and a few hour connection_wait cut off from this
list both for the business and personal_vacation traveller.

The primary market, at least for the next several years, for such
an airplane, would be from the US to China(PR)/India and Europe
to Australia/NewZealand.  With economic activity gaining momentum
in both China and India, and with both regions (US and Asia)
being well populated, travel is bound to increase in the near
future.  Trade that against how much modern communication can do
to reduce expensive business travel.  (Personal travel is not
affected as much by improved communication - when you want to see
your folks, you just want to go see them).

Now, since the advantage of a one hop for ~12000 nautical miles
is arriving not-so-tired there (at least to me), the airliner
design should do something to make the traveller less tired than
taking the two_flights+break it replaces.  Otherwise, part of the
value in the single hop is lost. To me, that would mean fresher
cabin air (and lower cabin pressure altitude than 8000' would be
nice, as long as I am asking the airframe_designer_fairie) and
someplace better than the typical economy seat to stretch your
feet for a while.  
Sethu R. Rathinam