You've mentioned it in other videos, but type rating is also important. Airlines want as much compatability between pilots and aircrafts as possible. A new aircraft which requires specially trained crew is a hard sell.
The Icelandair airplane shown a few times while you're talking about the 757-300, the first time even with "54.4 meters 178 feet" captioned on the screen below it, is actually the shorter 757-200 variant. That is registration TF-FIU, a 155 ft long 757-200 painted in the "Aurora Northern Lights" special livery.
@@emerald39 not sure why you're saying it's only for entertainment purposes. This video and the host channel are clearly meant to be providing insight, information and education. As such, it's important that the images should be consistent with the narration. I'm sure the channel owner would welcome these points - I certainly would if it were my channel.
Having been the 757 a few times, the experience of getting on and off the plane actually wasn’t that bad compared to the 737 or 320. The big reason I noticed why is because the airlines didn’t typically use the door near the cockpit for boarding and disembarking, they used one closer to the wing / center of the aircraft. This meant about 2/3 of passengers went aft and 1/3 went forward, which significantly sped up this process. Wish more planes used this approach.
Ya, I don’t see why Airbus didn’t do this with the A321. It’s painful getting on an off versus the middle door on a 757. The same goes for the 737-9. I can’t imagine the 737-10
I love every mention of the "Flying Pencil" 757-300. I think I sure would hate to be a passenger on it. I can't recall if maybe I was, maybe decades ago, but I am amused and also chagrinned to see tales of it taking *forever* to exit the plane after landing! It surely looks better on the outside than the inside.
I was trying to remember if I'd been on one of the 757-300s myself. I think I most likely have been at some point. As I recall, the 757 was one of those aircraft where if you were important, you turned left when you boarded, otherwise you went back with the rest of the vermin to the right.
I've been in them several times with Delta. Delta's interior on it is actually pretty nice for a domestic config. It's at least on par with any other narrowbody out there for comfort in a config that doesn't have flat-bed seats installed. It does take a while to deplane when you're in the back, though. One nice thing about both the -200 and -300, though, is that boarding and deplaning are typically done from the L2 door rather than L1 (or even both L1 and L2 if parked at a gate that has 2 jet bridges.) So, everyone seated behind the L2 door doesn't have to walk past everyone in front of it to board or deplane. While the A321 does have a full-size L2 door, at least in North America, airlines do not use it for boarding because it's too close to the #1 engine to safely get a jet bridge in there. The -300 also has another pair of full-size exit doors behind the wing, so that creates another row of economy seats with nearly-unlimited legroom in the first row of the economy section behind the L3/R3 doors.
@@whatever8282828 Yes, the 757 is indeed an aircraft that is often boarded through the L2 door, so you turn left to go to First (or sometimes also the few rows of economy+) or right to go to the main economy cabin(s). Personally, I highly prefer that regardless of whether I'm seated in First or in economy.
In 1979 I stood next to a 747, I was just 12. I couldn’t get my head around how this huge metal thing managed to stay in the air for so long. This is a concept I’ve been battling to this day.
I remember the Super DC8 or Stretch DC8. We did a go around at JFK one day in the early 70s. I was stilling in the back. During initial climb-out, the fuselage started bending like a piece of wet spaghetti. I could see waves of flex moving aft/forward in the cabin. It took 2-3 seconds for the wave to move the length of the cabin. I should have been scared, but instead I was fascinated.
Years ago, I was in the last row of a Virgin Atlantic A340 on an aisle seat. As we were on approach, the FA's had secured the curtains between each cabin section and I could look down the entire length of the cabin. I could clearly see the whole tube flexing and shuddering and warping, and heard the metal groaning and creaking. I asked the FA in his seat beside me if that was normal. He shrugged and said, "Yeap." And that was an A340-300. I could imagine how that would look on a -600.
I remember flying home from Athens, having to eat meals in such an awkward and contorted way because I there was so little space for my arms to properly use a fork and knife. Too often I would just grab the hot food container and bring it to near my mouth, instead of bothering to try and eat from the seat tray.
@@stephenspackman5573 You can't blame the airlines, you voted for your money and are forcing them to fight for the lowest price. If you want more space pay for more space and when demand for more space is high enough more seats will have more space.
@@MegaLokopo That's not how that work. If the airlines want to make air travel so miserable, then fewer people will fly. If fewer people will fly, the airlines will then move to make their planes even more cramp and efficient to compensate for fewer flights. The biggest factor for airlines is fuel, so they will always strive for efficiency, giving you more seat space is the opposite of that.
Including how complex and challenging hydrogen logistics are likely to be was a great choice and is a real key factor. A suggestion I have for videos like this though is to maybe try to include direct side-by-side size comparisons when talking about different aircraft types, particularly narrow vs widebody. I believe that in most people's heads a twin engined aircraft is one 'fixed' size somewhere around the size of a 737 whereas your 777s are literally in a different size league to them and the fuselage of the 737 is about the same diameter as a GE90 on the 777. This way people can better visualise both extremes of the spectrum and they can really start to understand how interesting it's getting in that middle ground where they're starting to get closer and closer in size
I remember when a 737 could barely fly from Seattle to San Francisco. Now 737s can fly coast to coast and San Francisco to Honolulu. I know efficiency is good, but at some point you will find passengers who don't want to fly extra-long trips in a single aisle aircraft. Six hours is about my limit for a single aisle non-stop flight. Anything longer and give me a 787 (always preferred) or a 777.
Number of aisles is barely relevant during cruise. It's deboarding where 2 aisles makes a difference. During cruise you probably like the wider planes because they're TALLER and consequently more spacious.
Why is this video forcing the topic of Hydrogen? What's the relevance? Hydrogen is a terrible idea and pretending it has potential benefits is dishonest.
Short haul widebodies are basically Asia's primary target. There are a lot of exclusive widebody fleet airlines until recently, like Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, and so on. Some of them have to fold back their feeder operations and absorb its narrowbody fleet. SIA has been using A310 for most of its regional short routes and medium low density ones. They used A330-300 briefly to fill the gap, and currently is still forever looking for something similar. As you mentioned, the turn around time and cargo capacity is simply unbeatable.
Some of SIA's shorter widebody flights are to slot-constrained airports e.g. SIN-CGK/HKG (which for instance has 1/2 the no. of runways as YYC but has almost 5x the number of passengers). It rented A333s to replace its older B772s while waiting for its order of 78Xes to be delivered (it'd originally ordered 789s but diverted them to Scoot, which meanwhile is taking delivery of the even smaller E2, to serve smaller regional destinations e.g. USM)
@@oberstvilla1271 Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, while a person occupying more than one seat when they only paid for one is a stone-cold fact, not a prejudice. If the airline charges hundreds of dollars for a piece of luggage that's 1 KG overweight, it is only fair to charge someone more for bringing 30 KG in themselves and occupies half of someone else's seat.
@@KaiHinLkh That is correct in principle. However, it should be borne in mind that severe obesity can be the result of an illness. And charging sick people a higher airfare is highly questionable from an ethical point of view.
@@elbuggo Always nice to learn of a new type or make of airplane. I searched for images, found different models/types, all utilizing the body as a wing component. Thanks! Seems this configuration would benefit from use of a turboprop (x2) or a 7J7-type external/free fan.
@@cruisinguy6024 The metal fatigue has likely been the engineering crux. In even just a blended wing body design, the interior space (desired as pressurized, different than military platforms that support just a few souls) available is by definition not circular, and so not simple to make it a pressure vessel. I am mystified that FLAPPING WINGS are not yet a thing. Birds obvs have efficiency dialed, and some kinds do insane long flights. Not sure how Reynold’s Number would factor into that for big airframes, but Pterosaurs flew between continents - my reference for that is a vid (one of two on Pterosaurs) from the YT chan of the Royal Tyrrell Museum.
I believe the blended wing type design does not lend itself for “smaller” aircraft due to the cabin dimension requirements is not compatible with the wing chord/depth for the smaller aircraft. Where the size trade off is will be interesting to see. But the biggest disadvantage for the blended wing will be the inability to vary the aircraft size, seating wise easily. Its not as easy where you can just lengthen the fuselage compared to the tube & wing type design. Another problem with blended wing type design is the magnitude of single individual parts required to achieve the unique shape required. Whereas the fuselage tube is symmetrical and easier to produce with plenty of common parts. Maybe it will be the robot controlled production line that finally gets us the blended wing into service.
In the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich who worked for and later took over with Kelly Johmson's retirement, he told that they looked into Hydrogen for the SR71 but concluded that it would be too expensive to use considering all they would have to do to Store and Use it as a fuel.
@mentournow - you have hit the nail on the head when you said “have you had to wait for people to reach seat before removing their back packs etc” I am paraphrasing but ffs you would have thought people had a bit more foresight… imagine this on a 250 seat single isle plane. Especially when they have an archaic boarding process like tui 🤦♂️ 🤦♀️ 😮😢
I used the Perth - London non-stop flights last November and it was much better than having to make a stop or change flights. They were long flights but much less of a hassle.
Just a passenger. First flight was 1968 -- B727 National Airlines, DCA to PBI. 55 years later it is impossible to believe that passenger comfort is ever considered in new designs. The seats are narrower & harder (ask me about a red-eye nonstop from LAX to CLT during which the pain in my legs and hips became excruciating. Last time for that. I'll gladly take the layover @ DFW. Wait -- did I mention the space between rows? How about my knees jammed against the seat in front of me! And then the passenger reclines -- aaagghhh! I should get my hairstylist license and do their hair since their head is in my lap. Flying has become less expensive, but the cost is in comfort. I'd rather pay more -- thank you very much. Your channel is among my favorites.
Listening to all the different directions in aircraft size, configuration and logistics that the airline industry seems to be headed at the same time made me think of Juan Browne's commentary on how inefficient the industry can be sometimes. He was referring specifically to staffing and training, but I suspect it applies to many areas.
Absolutely love your videos. I’ve been watching for years and seeing the channels grow makes me so happy. I would love to hear your perspective on why there has been a ton of ground incident/accidents. Planes hitting each other when taxing, planes hitting light poles etc… seems alot of these things are occurring more frequently as of now. Much love from a fellow Scandinavian!! 🇩🇰🇸🇪!!
There is literally no other aircraft that does what the 757 does. United and Delta will be flying them until fatigue issues become unmanageable. The combination of passenger capacity, cargo capacity, and incredible short field/ high altitude and hot field performance is unmatched. I agree that the 757 is only the second most beautiful airliner because of the Concorde. I still remember the feeling of awe when I got to do my first overnight inspection on one. Quickly followed by frustration trying to figure out how to properly open and close the passenger doors!
It's not beautiful. But yeah, it's brutally effective at what it can do. Unfortunately that does fractionally impact its economics but airline economics are all in the fractions.
Would a 757 max even be worth it? The 737-10 alone has almost outsold the whole 757 family so I can't see the 757 max being anything other than a niche product for how much they'd have to invest.
Just to clarify though, the A330's in asia aren't the first airbus wide bodies to operate short haul routes at all... A300's and A310's were extensively used on short haul and domestic flights even in Europe back in the 90's (with Lufthansa for example)... I mean that was actually the main purpose of the A300, it still lacked the range to operate longer long haul flights despite it getting better etops clearances that previous twin engine jets... the same goes for boeing, maybe a smaller wide body with similar range to 737's was a new concept in the 80's but there were even purpose built 747 for japanese carriers to operate domestic routes... you could actually say wide body short haul operations were already booming in the 80's and have experienced a decline over past decades in some places because a lot of these jets have since been retired like the aforementioned 747's and A300's and Lufthansa for example hasn't operated wide bodies on short haul routes regularly ever since...
Singapore regularly files A350s (!) on their 1 hour SIN-KUL route. A massive overkill if you ask me but that's the only thing in their fleet that can regularly take the demand until Malaysia gets their head out of their posterior and starts building the high speed train that their country seriously needs.
The DC-8 stretch was epic in its day; I remember loving to fly in them in '78-'79 .Domestic flights in North America United Airlines; I'm guessing a DC-8 super 61. Even female flight attendants who were still referred to as stewardesses at the time were bragging about the fact that it was longer than a DC-10 "by 3 feet" Good times for an 8 or 9 year old like I was at the time.
I am eagerly waiting for a new video of aviation accidents and incidents in your other channel❤ I love them soooo much!! Thank you for interesting me with these types of videos as I am an aviation enthusiast and maybe dreaming of becoming a pilot in the future but still not sure
15:00 The thing with an elliptical fuselage is that it would be under much higher stress than a round fuselage. The reason round is so popular is that the structure isn't fighting its own internal air pressure - this makes it stronger for a given weight.. Its a particular problem in spacecraft (which are always round) but also applies to aircraft as well.
@avkay12Sorry I was talking about the section of the cabin. Virtually all airliners rely on the same self-supporting (at pressure) round shape.. Same principle as a diving tank or rocket fuel tank - or balloon.
Completely fascinated, I love your channels. I’d love to see a video about ATC systems and the importance of communications between pilots and controllers
The preference for direct flights is much more pronounced when they are short. For long-haul flights, many people will take a connection to get an A380. If the direct alternative is a single-aisle plane, even more people will go out of their way to avoid that option. If you're flying for 20 hours, a few extra hours to avoid a single-aisle plane is worth it.
I grew up in Adelaide SA, a city of 1.4mil that for many years had no direct international flights. We always had to fly to Sydney or Melbourne first. The introduction of twin engine wide bodies saw direct international flights beginning and I think something like the A321XLR might open up even more direct international flights. Even in 2023 our flight to France to France in October still requires us to go via Melbourne…which is 70 minute flight in the opposite direction
Another limit to how long planes can get and how many passengers can be crammed into them is the FAA's requirement that in an emergency, they have to be able to be evacuated in 90 seconds.
@@TimothyChapman i think more exits might be problematic. You can't jump off too close to the engines which inconveniently are in the middle of planes
@@TimothyChapman Exits require large holes in the fuselage. Plus added weight. Airlines won't pay for that. They'll just cut a few more inches out of the gap between seats to add more people.
Another GREAT video. I really appreciate you balanced perspective and presentation of details . As a long time aircraft/aviation fan, I would like to know if you have done (or would do) a video an how (specifically) Airbus got the upper hand on Boeing. I could be wrong, but way back when Airbus was started didn't they receive massive subsidies from European governments? If so, how did this affect Boeing's ability to compete? I'm sure that there are many other factors, but I would really like to know how much subsidies may have affected the competition. Thanks so much. 😺😺😺
Shame the 787-3 could not be made to work as on paper it looks pretty good. Personally I hate flying on the 737! Being tall it is very uncomfortable, the A320 is a little better.
Hey man, I'm currently a firefighter in the States and I'm strongly considering a career change. do you have any videos outlining the path to becoming an airline pilot? particularly the education side of things. Did your job as a FF help prepare you for this line of work?
I have several of my VERY early videos, over on the Mentour Pilot channel, talking about this. The firefighter job gave me a lot of understanding about that part of the operation, for sure. Also, check out www.theairlinepilotclub.com for more specific guidance. Good luck! 🍀
I can see the A321 being popular with US and A320 low-cost carriers because of the major US Domestic and near international destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean that are popular and can fill the void of the B757/767 replacement in those parts
I worked in military and commercial aerospace in the 1970s. "Flying Pencil" was a name for the stretched DC-8, more than a decade before the first Boeing 757 ever rolled out of Renton.
Highly elliptical pressurized fuselages have already been used with success. I used to fly on them all the time: the beech 1900 series. By far, the funkiest looking commuter plane I’ve ever flown on.
One must not forget that Boeing is now catering to airline accountants by certifying aircraft with greater seta density. The 787 did not sell as an 8 across aircraft but when Boeing started to pitch it as a 9 across aircraft, airline accountants applauded and sales came in by the hundreds, and once the narrow seats of the 787 were accepted by airlines, Boeing certified the 777 as 10 across with the narrower seats. And it is important for those who forget that the 787 was designed as a replacement for the 767 because the 767 was losing all sales against the 8 across 330, and when Boeing launched the 787, Airbus's first response was a mild update to the 330 and Steven Udvar Hazy told Airbus to go back to drawing board and it came back with the 350, originally also 8 across, but after Boeing started to sell the 787 as 9 across, Airbus added the "XWB" after the 350 and widened its fuselage to handel 9 across too. And the passenger 767 stopped being sold for passenger flights. A 777 with 10 across narrow seats and reduced seat pitch doesn't have much difference in capacity compatred to a comfortable 747. yet, the ecoomics of a twin engine 777 against 747 are indeniable. So by allowing densification of seats in the 777, Boeing killed the 777. But as a result, flying coach si no longer pleasant, especially not for a trans pacific flight 15 hour on a 777. As long as airlines fill their planes with fancy yield management pricing, they will continue to reuce seat pitch and make seats narrower to make coach as miserable as accountants can. The 321 now has positive image for oongr flights because it generally has wider seats in coach than the 787 and 777 and 350. On twin aisle narrowbody: the 767 was a great aircraft for passengers but terrible for accountants. Only one extra seat per row added at the cost of all the extra structural weight to support the wider fuselage and the second aisle, and the cargo area still too small to accomodate standars containers. This is one reason Boeing made sure the 787 was as good or better than the 330 which had hige advantage over the 767. The problem with your argument is that it isn't one OR the other, it is one AND the other. An airline could fly A380s hourly between JFK and LHR while flying A321 between Cleveland and Stockholm. There are routes where the large planes are better and routes where smaller planes are better. And the problem in USA is one of religion where airlines such as Delta , Continental and American have a "no big plane" religion and prefer to be inefficient on certain flights in order to avoid having big planes. Especially since domestically they compete on frequency and how their flights are ranked by the airline reservation systems. Note that the smaller 737 MAX is not yet in production since it is not a priority due to low sales (Southwest only). My guess is that whe there is a total refresh of the nattowbody product, the focus will be on what size will the 737/320 be optimized for, with variants up and down. Airbus has the 220 optimized for the 130-140 passengers, so its next plane will likely be optimized for for the 321 size with 320 being smaller, and a 322 being offered. And Boeig's 737 replacement (or "NMA)" will be optimized for the larger 737, with the enxtended version covering the 757-200 and a smaller version. Had boeing concluded its purchase of Embraer, it would have had somethint to fiull the gap at the lower end, so now it remains to be seen how it fills that gap. In terms of tech: it is not yet clear to me whether the bets made with 787 (composide one piece fuselage plugs, all electric system etc) have paid off and would bve used for a new aircraft. the 787 hasn't exactly been a production success. It might be cheaper to spit out aluminium aircraft with bleed air it the produtio costs are much lower and operating costs only slightly higher than a all carbon plane.
Excellent article! Really interesting. FWIW i think we're more likely to see a fuel like methanol as a hydrogen carrier for fuel cells, either direct or indirect. The energy density per volume is 4-5 times higher and comparable with kerosene, and the handling is equally comparable.
Would be interesting how many passengers when booking opt for the seats with more room ( a cost on the budget airlines ) . First class and private flights are a different bracket but on commercial slots I'd pay extra just for the sake of comfort if the flight is 5-6 hours point to point.
There is another way to make a larger plane fit in a gate built for a 36 meter wingspan: have more wings. Think of something like a Piaggio Avanti scaled up, it’s a configuration that naturally works with something like a RISE engine
I think I read somewhere that biplane wings cannot give twice the lift as they are working in the same air space. They only developed them in the early part of the last century because they couldn't build engines which were powerful enough and the extra wings gave the aircraft more robustness. Also additional wings add to the drag plus parasitic drag from struts etc. Maybe one day if engines can become much more efficient a biplane design could be used to save space in airports. But that's like the tail wagging the dog.
You have no idea what I would give to see something like that. Imagine an aircraft with all of those improvements. Elliptical fuselage, truss braced wings with folding wing tips, forward wing and maybe even a boundary layer thruster. Its efficiency would be unparalleled. Might be particulary useful for hydrogen based aircraft where they really want to decrease fuel tank volume.
Thank you for this very interesting and thoughtful video. One point of information, however - composites _do_ experience fatigue, and this is affected by a number of factors. The fatigue mechanisms may be different from metals, however. For example, composites can suffer from delamination over time due to cyclical loading.
One possible explanation for the ever increasing size of single aisles is 1) the ever increasing costs of pilots, well above inflation, 2) a natural increase in traffic, to the tune of 2-4% per year, and 3) somewhat lower COC costs per seat km. For a 1-2,000NM distance, an A321NEO is more competitive than say a MAX8 or an A220. Provided obviously that the bigger craft can be filled to capacity. Consequently, the sweet spot is A321s. Not the smaller A220s or MAX7. Things are different for twin aisles. Single aisles have almost always almost exclusively used on point to point routes. Twin aisles went the opposite way. The big copernican jump came about from 707s to 747s. They flew substantially further and for a fraction of the cost per seat km. The snag was that such big planes required that a lot of seats be filled, day in, day out, high or low season. So a hub and spoke model was created, which exists to this very day. And double spokes. Typical examples were found in the North Atlantic routes. For example, American passengers per concentrated in New York, taken to London, and then distributed from there to European destinations, and viceversa. A380 was a further expansion of this scheme. But then came 767, A330, 787 and A350, all of which offered comparable COC per seat km than the bigger craft, but very importantly far easier to fill. And the possibility to offer 2 daily departures rather than one, a situation greatly favoured by business travellers. As a consequence, the bigger 747s and A380s went the way of the dinosaurs. Further, this market fragmentation has also affected A350-1000 and 777-9. Their sales are not doing well at all, and this has been going o for some time. In this case. 787-9 and A350-900 are today in the sweet spot of the twin aisle market. Sales for 787-8, and even more A330-800 are quite disappointing.
I am 6th in comments! Seriously great content. I am really impressed that you were both a luggage handler and a firefighter before becoming a pilot. I think the crew resource management in flying has a place in fire and EMS. Particularly with our large scale incidents.
@@MentourNow CRM should apply everywhere there as occupation where you are not working alone. A happy coordinated team means a job well and safely done.
I assumed long-haulers got smaller because people hate having to transfer at a hub and direct flights got cheap enough. Having basically the same plane for short and medium trips makes sense for airlines, you can certify pilots, crew, maintenance for one plane and only pay a bit extra for upgrading that certification to the longer/shorter version.
the sizing trends for twin aisle aircraft I believe is due to airline shifting to twin engine configuration from anything more than that. Twin engine aircraft are becoming larger while 3-4 engine passenger airliner are going away
I flew last week on an A321 on row 38... last row... i hated the long waiting time to disembark... I always liked more the wide-body airplanes... the narrow body airplanes just seem so "cheap".... I don't know why, but for me the wide body just have more class.... maybe because I flew so many time in the 747 as a child... and I used to love it.
There are studies from BBD for the eco-jet that may point to use the body as part of the entire wing (blended wing-body). Openfans are red herring for gearbox development.
Very well encapsulated👌🏽🤍 while teasing with the main ideas.. while leaving enough room to have feature length, mini documentaries of their own... on alternative fuels, the newer design experiments (fuselage, wing design) and so on. As always🤍💙 loved it. (And again, from one non native English speaker to another... if pushing out/publishing an episode in limited time is not the case.. then adding subtitles might REALLY help amateurs understand many technical terms, nomenclature).
I just came back from E.U., both flights from US and back were late - our lugggage was lost in both ways. 1 hour waiting in passport line in Brussels, and 1hour waiting in security line in N.Y. They changed our schedule during flight back to US and we had to trvale in four different airplanes. Its VERY BAD my friend...
Fantastic, your videos are very interesting, congratulations, especially the economic considerations, on the choice of planes and strategies. In this regard, it would be interesting, I don't know if you've already done it, an analysis of the costs of individual tickets, compared to the cost of a flight, and how the companies manage to carry out important flights (Rome-London) at ridiculous costs without failing, in short an examination of the total cost of a flight, cost of airports, personal cost, fuel and final income, but all in broad terms, just to be understood by everyone ... thank you very much greetings
Are planes getting longer or is seating space getting more cramped? I just took a flight on Friday and had to seat coach because business was sold out and my knees were right into the back of the person in front of me. He kept giving me dirty looks because my knees were in his back and finally I told him "I'm sorry I'm so tall, what would you like me to do to remedy this situation?" We finally talked and he apologized and know my height is just something I have no control of and as long as leg space keeps getting reduced, this is going to continue to happen. Especially since people are getting taller on average, not shorter.
*the problem with the MAX series, as told to me by a pilot, is the fact that it is flying on engine vs wings - it's gotten too big for a comfortable wing span ratio, thus taking lot more runway to take off.. an issue with hot days at altitude*
Longest single isle aircraft isn't the 757-300 or any of the DC-8's, the title is held by the Russian TU-144 at 66 meters (65.7 metres or 215.6 feet according to Encyclopedia Britannica) And Concorde is about 62 meters long
Thanks for the reminder. Although as far as categories go I'm pretty sure that supersonic has its own category. But Tu-144 has the distinction of being the longest single-aisle supersonic🙂
The reduced boarding and deboarding times for double aisle aircraft might make it very attractive for short trips. The time saved might probably allow the airline to operate 1 more trip in the same day with the aircraft.
If you are going for an elliptical fuselage, 'tall body' seems advantageous over 'wide body'. Double-decker with two single-aisle decks would allow double the passengers in the same footprint without the boarding time issues. Yes it needs the air bridges updating, but potentially just new equipment in the same footprint.
I always wondered why fuselage shapes tend to be round and this kind of explains it well since doing other designs will require likely much more expensive materials for structural integrity. Would be cool seeing airliners that have more of a blended wing design potentially using lifting body fuselages which probably could sit more passengers and also have a shorter wingspan do to the added lift from the body, but I’m sure costs of production for that would be much higher and the aircraft wouldn’t be able to take as much checked in luggage. Might make sense to produce smaller aircraft for lower terminal parking costs for flights of short duration but then it’s an aircraft which doesn’t have the flexibility airlines might want. I don’t know so much about this so I would love to hear opinion on this!
I really wouldn't agree that the same thing hasn't been seen with widebodies. Pretty much every popular family of widebody jets that has been around long enough has been extended, some of them multiple times. Demand for larger widebodies has certainly reduced and the largest ones have essentially become entirely obsolete (with both the 747 and A380 having stopped production now,) but, within each family of widebody jets that lasted long enough, new models with longer fuselages have been common. The 747 was extended several times over its long life. Even the -8 was substantially larger than the -400. The 767 was extended several times, with the -400ER being quite a lot larger than the early 767s. The 777 had its MTOW increased for both of the original length jets (-200 -> -200ER/LR and -300 -> -300ER) and then both were lengthened into the -8 and -9 for the 777X. The 787 and A350 both received stretches as later releases to their original generation (the -10 and -1000, respectively.) Even the relatively short-lived A340 was lengthened considerably when its re-engined variants (the -500 and -600) came out, to the point that the smaller -500 was larger than the previous largest variant, the -300. Basically the only recent notable widebodies that haven't been stretched are the A380 (which had a longer variant planned, but never had enough demand to actually launch it) and the A330. The A330 is the odd one out here, as it's a very popular aircraft and has been around for quite some time, but its re-engined versions (-800 and -900) are the same length as the original versions (-200 and -300.) However, I would assume the reason for this is that the A330 is already relatively close in size to the smaller A350 variant, so Airbus likely doesn't want to invest money to make a longer A330 just to end up cannibalizing orders from the A350-800. Also, a slight correction regarding the narrowbodies: the 717 is smaller than its most of its predecessors, not larger. This is why it's jokingly called the "Angry Puppy," being younger and smaller than the "Mad Dog" MD-80/MD-90. The 717 was originally the MD-95, which was designed to be the smaller variant of the MD-90, but was renamed to the 717 since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglass before it entered service. The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 family of jets is certainly not an exception to the rule of jets being stretched over time (the DC-9 was stretched several times, stretched further into the MD-80, then stretched yet further into the MD-90,) but the 717 just happened to be a shorter version of the MD-90 rather than a longer one. As far as needed gate and taxiway size is concerned, I don't think that was really the 757-300's problem at all. After all, the 757-200 requires exactly the same gates and taxiways and was enormously successful (and airlines still love them today, especially on busier domestic and regional routes within or from the U.S.) The 757-300's problem was more one of timing and fuel efficiency. It just happened to enter the market at a very terrible time for the aviation industry with the .com bust's recession in full swing and 9/11 causing a further dramatic drop to air travel. Also, when the -300 came out, it was still using the same RB211's and PW2000s from the -200. This was an aircraft entering service in 1999 with an engine that had its first run in 1969! Needless to say, they weren't winning many fuel efficiency competitions in 1999 with a 30-year-old engine (or the 20-year-old PW2000) and this came at a time when fuel costs were also rising dramatically and the airline industry was also receiving a lot more pressure to reduce carbon emissions than it was in the early 80s when the 752 entered service. While the 752 and 753 do require wider stands and taxiways than the 737 and A320 require, virtually all U.S. airports other than the smallest regional ones support them. Delta and United fly 757s all over North, Central, and even Northern South America all the time, as well as from the West Coast to Hawaii and including to medium and even relatively small-market airports. I've even flown on a Delta 757 into Bozeman, Montana, for example, hardly a major airport. Especially since the A330neo was brought up as possibly filling this role, while it's true that the 757 (both -200 and -300) require ADG IV stands and taxiways (vs. ADG III for the A320 and 737,) the A330 (ceo and neo) requires the same ADG V stands and taxiways that the 777, A350, and even 747-400 use, so the 757 actually has quite large advantage over the A330 here. Granted, this advantage might not be as pronounced in Asia as it is in North America. Pretty much the only ADG IV plane that are still being heavily used are the 757 and 767, with the vast majority of those being in the North America market, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of airports around Asia, Europe, Africa, etc. simply don't have any ADG IV stands or else very few of them and just go straight from ADG III to ADG V. For airports like Atlanta, though, being able to use ADG IV stands is a big advantage for both the 757 and 767, as Delta operates hundreds of them and they can fit a lot more of them in the same space than if they had to use ADG V stands, such as are needed for the 787, A330, A350, and 777.
I'm not sure how it is where you are but here, in New England, most Delta flights still use the hub and spoke. If I want to fly out of PVD I can go to NYC or Detroit.
The use of a compact twin isle elliptical body would seem to be a good fit with a blended wing-body design - especially for short haul budget carriers where fast turn round of passengers is needed and limited cargo space isn’t a problem.
Ellipses do not perform well under internal pressure. Circles are the only efficient shapes that stay in direct tension, which is more efficient than flexure in resisting load. That is why fizzy drink bottles are always prismatic simple circles, never ellipses.
Former Boeing Everett... I proposed getting rid of the fuselage all together. 2 GE9X's, no fuselage, no wings, seats duct taped around turbofans. Now you know why I'm 'Former Boeing'. Kidding, but I did propose a more modular design with wings that could be easily lengthened for more lift on larger aircraft. New fixtures capable of making all different variants without retooling. Similar concept for fuselage. The B-797 has wings and a fuselage, lots of seats, giant engines, composite structures, plus a bunch of new features. Date of release - TBD.
Does the danger of tail strike on takeoff and landing serve as a limit on how long these stretched versions can get? Or do other considerations kill them first?
Lengthened landing gear struts can handle tail clearance (as well as larger-diameter wing engines). Typically the longer gear will mean substantial changes to the wing structure, however, as was the case for the 777-8/9 stretches.
12:40 if boarding times are high, why not let passenger board through the door right in front of the wing, so passangers in business go forward and economy go backwards ? That's why it is done on the big long haul airplanes. That model would work just as well for a single aisle aircraft. The only issue is if the jet bridge in a smaller door reaches that far back.
Don't forget that Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Skunkworks put a lot of money into U.S. military aircraft. One can guarantee that the technologies developed for military aircraft will find their way into commercial aircraft as well. I don't know anything at al about Airbus and their military side of things.
I normally only fly 2 to 4 hours but for boarding a dual aisle plane would be wonderful (we can now move at twice the speed of the slowest passengers).
The MD DC 8 or the flying hotdog pushed the limits of the day. There are those who swear you could see the fuselage flex in EXTREME weather/crosswinds while landing when sitting in the last row.
Get a Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's completely risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
Du har blivit fet precis som jag. Ger lögnerna dig sömnproblem som du dövar med mat?
hope you're ok. you look different. I'm a long time viewer.
VPN services are villains. Please stop getting themas sponsors. Thank you.
Planes are getting bigger but the seats are getting smaller. Some of the economy class seats and the space in front of them is pathetically tiny.
@Karl with a K 😊😊
You've mentioned it in other videos, but type rating is also important. Airlines want as much compatability between pilots and aircrafts as possible. A new aircraft which requires specially trained crew is a hard sell.
Great point!
Agreed. That is why Boeing presented the 373 MAX as "nothing changed"
The Icelandair airplane shown a few times while you're talking about the 757-300, the first time even with "54.4 meters 178 feet" captioned on the screen below it, is actually the shorter 757-200 variant. That is registration TF-FIU, a 155 ft long 757-200 painted in the "Aurora Northern Lights" special livery.
Indeed, and then they switched to the -300 to illustrate the -200 😂
This video is only for entertainment purposes
@@emerald39 not sure why you're saying it's only for entertainment purposes.
This video and the host channel are clearly meant to be providing insight, information and education. As such, it's important that the images should be consistent with the narration.
I'm sure the channel owner would welcome these points - I certainly would if it were my channel.
@@MrReasonabubble A pilot should be focused on flying. This is for fun only.
Ackchyually
Having been the 757 a few times, the experience of getting on and off the plane actually wasn’t that bad compared to the 737 or 320. The big reason I noticed why is because the airlines didn’t typically use the door near the cockpit for boarding and disembarking, they used one closer to the wing / center of the aircraft. This meant about 2/3 of passengers went aft and 1/3 went forward, which significantly sped up this process. Wish more planes used this approach.
Ya, I don’t see why Airbus didn’t do this with the A321. It’s painful getting on an off versus the middle door on a 757. The same goes for the 737-9. I can’t imagine the 737-10
I am mostly intrigued about 7J7. Please make a video about it!
I love every mention of the "Flying Pencil" 757-300. I think I sure would hate to be a passenger on it. I can't recall if maybe I was, maybe decades ago, but I am amused and also chagrinned to see tales of it taking *forever* to exit the plane after landing! It surely looks better on the outside than the inside.
I was trying to remember if I'd been on one of the 757-300s myself. I think I most likely have been at some point. As I recall, the 757 was one of those aircraft where if you were important, you turned left when you boarded, otherwise you went back with the rest of the vermin to the right.
I've been in them several times with Delta. Delta's interior on it is actually pretty nice for a domestic config. It's at least on par with any other narrowbody out there for comfort in a config that doesn't have flat-bed seats installed. It does take a while to deplane when you're in the back, though.
One nice thing about both the -200 and -300, though, is that boarding and deplaning are typically done from the L2 door rather than L1 (or even both L1 and L2 if parked at a gate that has 2 jet bridges.) So, everyone seated behind the L2 door doesn't have to walk past everyone in front of it to board or deplane. While the A321 does have a full-size L2 door, at least in North America, airlines do not use it for boarding because it's too close to the #1 engine to safely get a jet bridge in there.
The -300 also has another pair of full-size exit doors behind the wing, so that creates another row of economy seats with nearly-unlimited legroom in the first row of the economy section behind the L3/R3 doors.
@@andy_in_colorado7060 I don't think so.
I think the Flying Pencil looks ridiculous whichever side you are on.
@@whatever8282828 Yes, the 757 is indeed an aircraft that is often boarded through the L2 door, so you turn left to go to First (or sometimes also the few rows of economy+) or right to go to the main economy cabin(s). Personally, I highly prefer that regardless of whether I'm seated in First or in economy.
In 1979 I stood next to a 747, I was just 12. I couldn’t get my head around how this huge metal thing managed to stay in the air for so long. This is a concept I’ve been battling to this day.
same here!! but back in 1976... MEA beauty
I remember the Super DC8 or Stretch DC8. We did a go around at JFK one day in the early 70s. I was stilling in the back. During initial climb-out, the fuselage started bending like a piece of wet spaghetti. I could see waves of flex moving aft/forward in the cabin. It took 2-3 seconds for the wave to move the length of the cabin. I should have been scared, but instead I was fascinated.
Yep, it's interesting to sit in the rear and loose sight of the front end of the aisle.
Years ago, I was in the last row of a Virgin Atlantic A340 on an aisle seat. As we were on approach, the FA's had secured the curtains between each cabin section and I could look down the entire length of the cabin. I could clearly see the whole tube flexing and shuddering and warping, and heard the metal groaning and creaking. I asked the FA in his seat beside me if that was normal. He shrugged and said, "Yeap." And that was an A340-300. I could imagine how that would look on a -600.
Thanks!
When the 757 first came along, I was sure the 737 would stop being built and the 757 would be its replacement. Boy was I wrong!
The 757 was built for performance and the 737 was built for economy. Shockingly, airlines rather saving money.
I agree, I think Boeing stopped building one of the best Narrow Body Aircraft it ever produced, far better than the 737 will ever be.
i really enjoy your videos when you mention both airbus and boeing at the same time
Part of the capacity increase can be attributed to an ever decreasing space per seat.
Yes, there was more than one moment where I thought, wait, but we're forgetting the hating-the-passengers component in these decisions :-}.
I remember flying home from Athens, having to eat meals in such an awkward and contorted way because I there was so little space for my arms to properly use a fork and knife. Too often I would just grab the hot food container and bring it to near my mouth, instead of bothering to try and eat from the seat tray.
@@stephenspackman5573 You can't blame the airlines, you voted for your money and are forcing them to fight for the lowest price. If you want more space pay for more space and when demand for more space is high enough more seats will have more space.
@@Edax_Royeaux So exactly like Brian Regan's portrayal of flying?
@@MegaLokopo That's not how that work. If the airlines want to make air travel so miserable, then fewer people will fly. If fewer people will fly, the airlines will then move to make their planes even more cramp and efficient to compensate for fewer flights. The biggest factor for airlines is fuel, so they will always strive for efficiency, giving you more seat space is the opposite of that.
Including how complex and challenging hydrogen logistics are likely to be was a great choice and is a real key factor. A suggestion I have for videos like this though is to maybe try to include direct side-by-side size comparisons when talking about different aircraft types, particularly narrow vs widebody. I believe that in most people's heads a twin engined aircraft is one 'fixed' size somewhere around the size of a 737 whereas your 777s are literally in a different size league to them and the fuselage of the 737 is about the same diameter as a GE90 on the 777. This way people can better visualise both extremes of the spectrum and they can really start to understand how interesting it's getting in that middle ground where they're starting to get closer and closer in size
That would actually make it first-class!
I remember when a 737 could barely fly from Seattle to San Francisco. Now 737s can fly coast to coast and San Francisco to Honolulu. I know efficiency is good, but at some point you will find passengers who don't want to fly extra-long trips in a single aisle aircraft. Six hours is about my limit for a single aisle non-stop flight. Anything longer and give me a 787 (always preferred) or a 777.
My limit is 4 hours. And boarding is insane in the stretched versions.
Yeah, I would tend to agree with you.
I don't care about aisles, I care about seat pitch.
Number of aisles is barely relevant during cruise. It's deboarding where 2 aisles makes a difference. During cruise you probably like the wider planes because they're TALLER and consequently more spacious.
Why is this video forcing the topic of Hydrogen? What's the relevance?
Hydrogen is a terrible idea and pretending it has potential benefits is dishonest.
I like how you said “squeeze in more passengers”. Lol. Seats seem to shrink more every year”.
Short haul widebodies are basically Asia's primary target. There are a lot of exclusive widebody fleet airlines until recently, like Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, and so on. Some of them have to fold back their feeder operations and absorb its narrowbody fleet.
SIA has been using A310 for most of its regional short routes and medium low density ones. They used A330-300 briefly to fill the gap, and currently is still forever looking for something similar. As you mentioned, the turn around time and cargo capacity is simply unbeatable.
Some of SIA's shorter widebody flights are to slot-constrained airports e.g. SIN-CGK/HKG (which for instance has 1/2 the no. of runways as YYC but has almost 5x the number of passengers). It rented A333s to replace its older B772s while waiting for its order of 78Xes to be delivered (it'd originally ordered 789s but diverted them to Scoot, which meanwhile is taking delivery of the even smaller E2, to serve smaller regional destinations e.g. USM)
Passengers are getting bigger too. When Kevin is spilling over to one and a half seats it’s difficult to put him in the middle of three.
That’s actually a good point
Fares could be based on per KG/Pound of passenger weight? Larger or smaller seats supplied accordingly.
@@rainscratch But that would be very discriminatory against overweight people and would certainly bring a shitstorm to the airline.
@@oberstvilla1271 Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, while a person occupying more than one seat when they only paid for one is a stone-cold fact, not a prejudice. If the airline charges hundreds of dollars for a piece of luggage that's 1 KG overweight, it is only fair to charge someone more for bringing 30 KG in themselves and occupies half of someone else's seat.
@@KaiHinLkh That is correct in principle. However, it should be borne in mind that severe obesity can be the result of an illness. And charging sick people a higher airfare is highly questionable from an ethical point of view.
If we're going an elliptical body might as well do a flying wing plane for super efficiency!
Or a Burnelli!
I’m actually surprised a flying wing has not entered civil service yet
@@elbuggo Always nice to learn of a new type or make of airplane. I searched for images, found different models/types, all utilizing the body as a wing component. Thanks!
Seems this configuration would benefit from use of a turboprop (x2) or a 7J7-type external/free fan.
@@cruisinguy6024 The metal fatigue has likely been the engineering crux. In even just a blended wing body design, the interior space (desired as pressurized, different than military platforms that support just a few souls) available is by definition not circular, and so not simple to make it a pressure vessel.
I am mystified that FLAPPING WINGS are not yet a thing. Birds obvs have efficiency dialed, and some kinds do insane long flights. Not sure how Reynold’s Number would factor into that for big airframes, but Pterosaurs flew between continents - my reference for that is a vid (one of two on Pterosaurs) from the YT chan of the Royal Tyrrell Museum.
I believe the blended wing type design does not lend itself for “smaller” aircraft due to the cabin dimension requirements is not compatible with the wing chord/depth for the smaller aircraft. Where the size trade off is will be interesting to see. But the biggest disadvantage for the blended wing will be the inability to vary the aircraft size, seating wise easily. Its not as easy where you can just lengthen the fuselage compared to the tube & wing type design. Another problem with blended wing type design is the magnitude of single individual parts required to achieve the unique shape required. Whereas the fuselage tube is symmetrical and easier to produce with plenty of common parts. Maybe it will be the robot controlled production line that finally gets us the blended wing into service.
In the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich who worked for and later took over with Kelly Johmson's retirement, he told that they looked into Hydrogen for the SR71 but concluded that it would be too expensive to use considering all they would have to do to Store and Use it as a fuel.
@mentournow - you have hit the nail on the head when you said “have you had to wait for people to reach seat before removing their back packs etc” I am paraphrasing but ffs you would have thought people had a bit more foresight… imagine this on a 250 seat single isle plane. Especially when they have an archaic boarding process like tui 🤦♂️ 🤦♀️ 😮😢
I used the Perth - London non-stop flights last November and it was much better than having to make a stop or change flights. They were long flights but much less of a hassle.
Just a passenger. First flight was 1968 -- B727 National Airlines, DCA to PBI. 55 years later it is impossible to believe that passenger comfort is ever considered in new designs. The seats are narrower & harder (ask me about a red-eye nonstop from LAX to CLT during which the pain in my legs and hips became excruciating. Last time for that. I'll gladly take the layover @ DFW. Wait -- did I mention the space between rows? How about my knees jammed against the seat in front of me! And then the passenger reclines -- aaagghhh! I should get my hairstylist license and do their hair since their head is in my lap. Flying has become less expensive, but the cost is in comfort. I'd rather pay more -- thank you very much.
Your channel is among my favorites.
Listening to all the different directions in aircraft size, configuration and logistics that the airline industry seems to be headed at the same time made me think of Juan Browne's commentary on how inefficient the industry can be sometimes. He was referring specifically to staffing and training, but I suspect it applies to many areas.
Absolutely love your videos. I’ve been watching for years and seeing the channels grow makes me so happy.
I would love to hear your perspective on why there has been a ton of ground incident/accidents. Planes hitting each other when taxing, planes hitting light poles etc… seems alot of these things are occurring more frequently as of now.
Much love from a fellow Scandinavian!! 🇩🇰🇸🇪!!
Always interesting and informative 👍 thanks Petter!
Glad you enjoyed it
I like seeing the assembly-line shots that you show of them building various parts of the airplanes
Canceling the beautiful 757 was a stupid move at the time I thought because I loved the looks, now they probably wish they had 757max for the market
There is literally no other aircraft that does what the 757 does. United and Delta will be flying them until fatigue issues become unmanageable. The combination of passenger capacity, cargo capacity, and incredible short field/ high altitude and hot field performance is unmatched. I agree that the 757 is only the second most beautiful airliner because of the Concorde. I still remember the feeling of awe when I got to do my first overnight inspection on one. Quickly followed by frustration trying to figure out how to properly open and close the passenger doors!
It's not beautiful. But yeah, it's brutally effective at what it can do.
Unfortunately that does fractionally impact its economics but airline economics are all in the fractions.
@@dougrobinson8602 VC10 used to be a pretty stellar aircraft for hot and g
High take offs, and actually pretty.
Would a 757 max even be worth it? The 737-10 alone has almost outsold the whole 757 family so I can't see the 757 max being anything other than a niche product for how much they'd have to invest.
Just to clarify though, the A330's in asia aren't the first airbus wide bodies to operate short haul routes at all... A300's and A310's were extensively used on short haul and domestic flights even in Europe back in the 90's (with Lufthansa for example)... I mean that was actually the main purpose of the A300, it still lacked the range to operate longer long haul flights despite it getting better etops clearances that previous twin engine jets... the same goes for boeing, maybe a smaller wide body with similar range to 737's was a new concept in the 80's but there were even purpose built 747 for japanese carriers to operate domestic routes... you could actually say wide body short haul operations were already booming in the 80's and have experienced a decline over past decades in some places because a lot of these jets have since been retired like the aforementioned 747's and A300's and Lufthansa for example hasn't operated wide bodies on short haul routes regularly ever since...
Singapore regularly files A350s (!) on their 1 hour SIN-KUL route. A massive overkill if you ask me but that's the only thing in their fleet that can regularly take the demand until Malaysia gets their head out of their posterior and starts building the high speed train that their country seriously needs.
The DC-8 stretch was epic in its day; I remember loving to fly in them in '78-'79 .Domestic flights in North America United Airlines; I'm guessing a DC-8 super 61. Even female flight attendants who were still referred to as stewardesses at the time were bragging about the fact that it was longer than a DC-10 "by 3 feet" Good times for an 8 or 9 year old like I was at the time.
This has been going on for a long, long time in the industry. DC-1, DC-2 and DC-3, in the 1930's, for example.
I am eagerly waiting for a new video of aviation accidents and incidents in your other channel❤ I love them soooo much!! Thank you for interesting me with these types of videos as I am an aviation enthusiast and maybe dreaming of becoming a pilot in the future but still not sure
15:00 The thing with an elliptical fuselage is that it would be under much higher stress than a round fuselage. The reason round is so popular is that the structure isn't fighting its own internal air pressure - this makes it stronger for a given weight.. Its a particular problem in spacecraft (which are always round) but also applies to aircraft as well.
@avkay12Sorry I was talking about the section of the cabin. Virtually all airliners rely on the same self-supporting (at pressure) round shape.. Same principle as a diving tank or rocket fuel tank - or balloon.
I don’t know how you make so many amazing videos! Thank you!
We do what we can! Glad you liked it
Great explanation! Really interesting.
Glad you think so! 💕
Fantastic analysis and an interesting shift. I must say since COVID I am doing less long haul and more short haul myself.
Standing “seating” is another option for shorter flights. As a taller than average flyer I’m all for this.
Excellently detailed and on point analysis.
Completely fascinated, I love your channels.
I’d love to see a video about ATC systems and the importance of communications between pilots and controllers
Excellent insight. Thank you you Mentour 🙏🏽
The preference for direct flights is much more pronounced when they are short. For long-haul flights, many people will take a connection to get an A380. If the direct alternative is a single-aisle plane, even more people will go out of their way to avoid that option. If you're flying for 20 hours, a few extra hours to avoid a single-aisle plane is worth it.
I grew up in Adelaide SA, a city of 1.4mil that for many years had no direct international flights. We always had to fly to Sydney or Melbourne first.
The introduction of twin engine wide bodies saw direct international flights beginning and I think something like the A321XLR might open up even more direct international flights.
Even in 2023 our flight to France to France in October still requires us to go via Melbourne…which is 70 minute flight in the opposite direction
I mean you could fly via Qatar or Singapore airways
@@Coolsomeone234
Exactly. Adelaide people like to whinge but still choose to fly Qantas and are thus responsible for what they get.
Another limit to how long planes can get and how many passengers can be crammed into them is the FAA's requirement that in an emergency, they have to be able to be evacuated in 90 seconds.
Wouldn't that just mean more exits are needed?
@@TimothyChapman i think more exits might be problematic. You can't jump off too close to the engines which inconveniently are in the middle of planes
@@TimothyChapman Exits require large holes in the fuselage. Plus added weight. Airlines won't pay for that. They'll just cut a few more inches out of the gap between seats to add more people.
@@innocento.1552 "which inconveniently are in the middle of planes" (MD-80 just laughs...)
@@murphsmodels8853 Well, Ryan Air will pay for that with the 737 max 10 order
Great & insightful video, the "flying wing" design is a consideration for future aircraft design...
Keep up the Above Average work!
See exterior truss example on the river Singapore almost same fuselage design
Another GREAT video. I really appreciate you balanced perspective and presentation of details . As a long time aircraft/aviation fan, I would like to know if you have done (or would do) a video an how (specifically) Airbus got the upper hand on Boeing. I could be wrong, but way back when Airbus was started didn't they receive massive subsidies from European governments? If so, how did this affect Boeing's ability to compete? I'm sure that there are many other factors, but I would really like to know how much subsidies may have affected the competition. Thanks so much. 😺😺😺
Thank you very much for this very informative thoughts!🙂👍
I liked that 7J7 . That plane looked really cool.
Shame the 787-3 could not be made to work as on paper it looks pretty good. Personally I hate flying on the 737! Being tall it is very uncomfortable, the A320 is a little better.
Hey man, I'm currently a firefighter in the States and I'm strongly considering a career change. do you have any videos outlining the path to becoming an airline pilot? particularly the education side of things. Did your job as a FF help prepare you for this line of work?
I have several of my VERY early videos, over on the Mentour Pilot channel, talking about this.
The firefighter job gave me a lot of understanding about that part of the operation, for sure.
Also, check out www.theairlinepilotclub.com for more specific guidance.
Good luck! 🍀
@@MentourNow awesome, Thank you!
I can see the A321 being popular with US and A320 low-cost carriers because of the major US Domestic and near international destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean that are popular and can fill the void of the B757/767 replacement in those parts
This is awesome stuff to think about!
Planes could be getting more efficient soon!
I worked in military and commercial aerospace in the 1970s. "Flying Pencil" was a name for the stretched DC-8, more than a decade before the first Boeing 757 ever rolled out of Renton.
And a Dornier in WW2.
The stretched DC9 was known as The Long Beach Sewer Pipe.
Highly elliptical pressurized fuselages have already been used with success. I used to fly on them all the time: the beech 1900 series. By far, the funkiest looking commuter plane I’ve ever flown on.
One must not forget that Boeing is now catering to airline accountants by certifying aircraft with greater seta density.
The 787 did not sell as an 8 across aircraft but when Boeing started to pitch it as a 9 across aircraft, airline accountants applauded and sales came in by the hundreds, and once the narrow seats of the 787 were accepted by airlines, Boeing certified the 777 as 10 across with the narrower seats. And it is important for those who forget that the 787 was designed as a replacement for the 767 because the 767 was losing all sales against the 8 across 330, and when Boeing launched the 787, Airbus's first response was a mild update to the 330 and Steven Udvar Hazy told Airbus to go back to drawing board and it came back with the 350, originally also 8 across, but after Boeing started to sell the 787 as 9 across, Airbus added the "XWB" after the 350 and widened its fuselage to handel 9 across too. And the passenger 767 stopped being sold for passenger flights.
A 777 with 10 across narrow seats and reduced seat pitch doesn't have much difference in capacity compatred to a comfortable 747. yet, the ecoomics of a twin engine 777 against 747 are indeniable. So by allowing densification of seats in the 777, Boeing killed the 777. But as a result, flying coach si no longer pleasant, especially not for a trans pacific flight 15 hour on a 777.
As long as airlines fill their planes with fancy yield management pricing, they will continue to reuce seat pitch and make seats narrower to make coach as miserable as accountants can. The 321 now has positive image for oongr flights because it generally has wider seats in coach than the 787 and 777 and 350.
On twin aisle narrowbody: the 767 was a great aircraft for passengers but terrible for accountants. Only one extra seat per row added at the cost of all the extra structural weight to support the wider fuselage and the second aisle, and the cargo area still too small to accomodate standars containers. This is one reason Boeing made sure the 787 was as good or better than the 330 which had hige advantage over the 767.
The problem with your argument is that it isn't one OR the other, it is one AND the other. An airline could fly A380s hourly between JFK and LHR while flying A321 between Cleveland and Stockholm. There are routes where the large planes are better and routes where smaller planes are better. And the problem in USA is one of religion where airlines such as Delta , Continental and American have a "no big plane" religion and prefer to be inefficient on certain flights in order to avoid having big planes. Especially since domestically they compete on frequency and how their flights are ranked by the airline reservation systems.
Note that the smaller 737 MAX is not yet in production since it is not a priority due to low sales (Southwest only). My guess is that whe there is a total refresh of the nattowbody product, the focus will be on what size will the 737/320 be optimized for, with variants up and down. Airbus has the 220 optimized for the 130-140 passengers, so its next plane will likely be optimized for for the 321 size with 320 being smaller, and a 322 being offered. And Boeig's 737 replacement (or "NMA)" will be optimized for the larger 737, with the enxtended version covering the 757-200 and a smaller version. Had boeing concluded its purchase of Embraer, it would have had somethint to fiull the gap at the lower end, so now it remains to be seen how it fills that gap.
In terms of tech: it is not yet clear to me whether the bets made with 787 (composide one piece fuselage plugs, all electric system etc) have paid off and would bve used for a new aircraft. the 787 hasn't exactly been a production success. It might be cheaper to spit out aluminium aircraft with bleed air it the produtio costs are much lower and operating costs only slightly higher than a all carbon plane.
15:43 looks very Star Trek TNG 😄
Interesting! I remember the talk about the 7J7, but I hadn’t heard (or at least I don’t recall) that it was discussed as a double-aisle.
Excellent article! Really interesting.
FWIW i think we're more likely to see a fuel like methanol as a hydrogen carrier for fuel cells, either direct or indirect. The energy density per volume is 4-5 times higher and comparable with kerosene, and the handling is equally comparable.
Would be interesting how many passengers when booking opt for the seats with more room ( a cost on the budget airlines ) . First class and private flights are a different bracket but on commercial slots I'd pay extra just for the sake of comfort if the flight is 5-6 hours point to point.
There is another way to make a larger plane fit in a gate built for a 36 meter wingspan: have more wings. Think of something like a Piaggio Avanti scaled up, it’s a configuration that naturally works with something like a RISE engine
I think I read somewhere that biplane wings cannot give twice the lift as they are working in the same air space. They only developed them in the early part of the last century because they couldn't build engines which were powerful enough and the extra wings gave the aircraft more robustness. Also additional wings add to the drag plus parasitic drag from struts etc. Maybe one day if engines can become much more efficient a biplane design could be used to save space in airports. But that's like the tail wagging the dog.
The Piaggio Avanti doesn’t have struts though, the wings are in tandem. Neither is it a Canard, both sets are true wings
You have no idea what I would give to see something like that. Imagine an aircraft with all of those improvements. Elliptical fuselage, truss braced wings with folding wing tips, forward wing and maybe even a boundary layer thruster. Its efficiency would be unparalleled. Might be particulary useful for hydrogen based aircraft where they really want to decrease fuel tank volume.
Or they might use folding wings e.g. 777x, 737 MAX (whose wings nautrally curl outwards when in flight to extend their wingspan)
Great video thanks Mentor!!!
yet the DC-8 had the "series 60" versions that was 57 meters long.
Still the longest single aisle airliner ever.
Yep, that’s the I’ve I was referring to
And they built 107x DC8-63, vs only 55x 757-300s
@@Boffin55 Don't forget the DC-8-61 was the same length as -63 and had 88 examples built. Adding to the 107 -63's, that makes 195 longest DC-8's.
That’s long
The Super 60s were very comfortable and re-engined lasted for decades
Thank you for this very interesting and thoughtful video.
One point of information, however - composites _do_ experience fatigue, and this is affected by a number of factors. The fatigue mechanisms may be different from metals, however. For example, composites can suffer from delamination over time due to cyclical loading.
One possible explanation for the ever increasing size of single aisles is 1) the ever increasing costs of pilots, well above inflation, 2) a natural increase in traffic, to the tune of 2-4% per year, and 3) somewhat lower COC costs per seat km. For a 1-2,000NM distance, an A321NEO is more competitive than say a MAX8 or an A220. Provided obviously that the bigger craft can be filled to capacity. Consequently, the sweet spot is A321s. Not the smaller A220s or MAX7. Things are different for twin aisles. Single aisles have almost always almost exclusively used on point to point routes. Twin aisles went the opposite way. The big copernican jump came about from 707s to 747s. They flew substantially further and for a fraction of the cost per seat km. The snag was that such big planes required that a lot of seats be filled, day in, day out, high or low season. So a hub and spoke model was created, which exists to this very day. And double spokes. Typical examples were found in the North Atlantic routes. For example, American passengers per concentrated in New York, taken to London, and then distributed from there to European destinations, and viceversa. A380 was a further expansion of this scheme. But then came 767, A330, 787 and A350, all of which offered comparable COC per seat km than the bigger craft, but very importantly far easier to fill. And the possibility to offer 2 daily departures rather than one, a situation greatly favoured by business travellers. As a consequence, the bigger 747s and A380s went the way of the dinosaurs. Further, this market fragmentation has also affected A350-1000 and 777-9. Their sales are not doing well at all, and this has been going o for some time. In this case. 787-9 and A350-900 are today in the sweet spot of the twin aisle market. Sales for 787-8, and even more A330-800 are quite disappointing.
I am 6th in comments! Seriously great content. I am really impressed that you were both a luggage handler and a firefighter before becoming a pilot. I think the crew resource management in flying has a place in fire and EMS. Particularly with our large scale incidents.
Absolutely. I wouldn’t be as much of a pilot if it wasn’t for my previous experiences.
@@MentourNow CRM should apply everywhere there as occupation where you are not working alone. A happy coordinated team means a job well and safely done.
It's amazing to think the 737 and A320 have a higher capacity than a high density 707.
Finally a video that doesn't make me terrified of flying!
I assumed long-haulers got smaller because people hate having to transfer at a hub and direct flights got cheap enough. Having basically the same plane for short and medium trips makes sense for airlines, you can certify pilots, crew, maintenance for one plane and only pay a bit extra for upgrading that certification to the longer/shorter version.
"The aircraft is only making money while it's in the air."
Yes, new merch coming soon! I need this:)
the sizing trends for twin aisle aircraft I believe is due to airline shifting to twin engine configuration from anything more than that.
Twin engine aircraft are becoming larger while 3-4 engine passenger airliner are going away
The dH106 tee looks cool, one on order!
Absolutely awesome video Petter!
Many thanks! 💕💕
I flew last week on an A321 on row 38... last row... i hated the long waiting time to disembark... I always liked more the wide-body airplanes... the narrow body airplanes just seem so "cheap".... I don't know why, but for me the wide body just have more class.... maybe because I flew so many time in the 747 as a child... and I used to love it.
There are studies from BBD for the eco-jet that may point to use the body as part of the entire wing (blended wing-body).
Openfans are red herring for gearbox development.
Very well encapsulated👌🏽🤍 while teasing with the main ideas.. while leaving enough room to have feature length, mini documentaries of their own... on alternative fuels, the newer design experiments (fuselage, wing design) and so on.
As always🤍💙 loved it.
(And again, from one non native English speaker to another... if pushing out/publishing an episode in limited time is not the case.. then adding subtitles might REALLY help amateurs understand many technical terms, nomenclature).
I just came back from E.U., both flights from US and back were late - our lugggage was lost in both ways. 1 hour waiting in passport line in Brussels, and 1hour waiting in security line in N.Y. They changed our schedule during flight back to US and we had to trvale in four different airplanes. Its VERY BAD my friend...
Fantastic, your videos are very interesting, congratulations, especially the economic considerations, on the choice of planes and strategies.
In this regard, it would be interesting, I don't know if you've already done it, an analysis of the costs of individual tickets, compared to the cost of a flight, and how the companies manage to carry out important flights (Rome-London) at ridiculous costs without failing, in short an examination of the total cost of a flight, cost of airports, personal cost, fuel and final income, but all in broad terms, just to be understood by everyone ... thank you very much greetings
Are planes getting longer or is seating space getting more cramped? I just took a flight on Friday and had to seat coach because business was sold out and my knees were right into the back of the person in front of me. He kept giving me dirty looks because my knees were in his back and finally I told him "I'm sorry I'm so tall, what would you like me to do to remedy this situation?" We finally talked and he apologized and know my height is just something I have no control of and as long as leg space keeps getting reduced, this is going to continue to happen. Especially since people are getting taller on average, not shorter.
Both
Love the tee blue up brown down.
*the problem with the MAX series, as told to me by a pilot, is the fact that it is flying on engine vs wings - it's gotten too big for a comfortable wing span ratio, thus taking lot more runway to take off.. an issue with hot days at altitude*
Longest single isle aircraft isn't the 757-300 or any of the DC-8's, the title is held by the Russian TU-144 at 66 meters (65.7 metres or 215.6 feet according to Encyclopedia Britannica) And Concorde is about 62 meters long
Thanks for the reminder. Although as far as categories go I'm pretty sure that supersonic has its own category. But Tu-144 has the distinction of being the longest single-aisle supersonic🙂
7J7 video plz!
The reduced boarding and deboarding times for double aisle aircraft might make it very attractive for short trips. The time saved might probably allow the airline to operate 1 more trip in the same day with the aircraft.
Or you might do what RyanAir does & rent another airstair to let people board from the rear too
If you are going for an elliptical fuselage, 'tall body' seems advantageous over 'wide body'. Double-decker with two single-aisle decks would allow double the passengers in the same footprint without the boarding time issues. Yes it needs the air bridges updating, but potentially just new equipment in the same footprint.
A stubby A380 with only two engines sounds like the most cursed plane design ever.
But I like that way of thinking.
I always wondered why fuselage shapes tend to be round and this kind of explains it well since doing other designs will require likely much more expensive materials for structural integrity. Would be cool seeing airliners that have more of a blended wing design potentially using lifting body fuselages which probably could sit more passengers and also have a shorter wingspan do to the added lift from the body, but I’m sure costs of production for that would be much higher and the aircraft wouldn’t be able to take as much checked in luggage. Might make sense to produce smaller aircraft for lower terminal parking costs for flights of short duration but then it’s an aircraft which doesn’t have the flexibility airlines might want. I don’t know so much about this so I would love to hear opinion on this!
2:10 Ol mate using his Eee Pee Cee
I really wouldn't agree that the same thing hasn't been seen with widebodies. Pretty much every popular family of widebody jets that has been around long enough has been extended, some of them multiple times. Demand for larger widebodies has certainly reduced and the largest ones have essentially become entirely obsolete (with both the 747 and A380 having stopped production now,) but, within each family of widebody jets that lasted long enough, new models with longer fuselages have been common. The 747 was extended several times over its long life. Even the -8 was substantially larger than the -400. The 767 was extended several times, with the -400ER being quite a lot larger than the early 767s. The 777 had its MTOW increased for both of the original length jets (-200 -> -200ER/LR and -300 -> -300ER) and then both were lengthened into the -8 and -9 for the 777X. The 787 and A350 both received stretches as later releases to their original generation (the -10 and -1000, respectively.) Even the relatively short-lived A340 was lengthened considerably when its re-engined variants (the -500 and -600) came out, to the point that the smaller -500 was larger than the previous largest variant, the -300.
Basically the only recent notable widebodies that haven't been stretched are the A380 (which had a longer variant planned, but never had enough demand to actually launch it) and the A330. The A330 is the odd one out here, as it's a very popular aircraft and has been around for quite some time, but its re-engined versions (-800 and -900) are the same length as the original versions (-200 and -300.) However, I would assume the reason for this is that the A330 is already relatively close in size to the smaller A350 variant, so Airbus likely doesn't want to invest money to make a longer A330 just to end up cannibalizing orders from the A350-800.
Also, a slight correction regarding the narrowbodies: the 717 is smaller than its most of its predecessors, not larger. This is why it's jokingly called the "Angry Puppy," being younger and smaller than the "Mad Dog" MD-80/MD-90. The 717 was originally the MD-95, which was designed to be the smaller variant of the MD-90, but was renamed to the 717 since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglass before it entered service. The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 family of jets is certainly not an exception to the rule of jets being stretched over time (the DC-9 was stretched several times, stretched further into the MD-80, then stretched yet further into the MD-90,) but the 717 just happened to be a shorter version of the MD-90 rather than a longer one.
As far as needed gate and taxiway size is concerned, I don't think that was really the 757-300's problem at all. After all, the 757-200 requires exactly the same gates and taxiways and was enormously successful (and airlines still love them today, especially on busier domestic and regional routes within or from the U.S.) The 757-300's problem was more one of timing and fuel efficiency. It just happened to enter the market at a very terrible time for the aviation industry with the .com bust's recession in full swing and 9/11 causing a further dramatic drop to air travel. Also, when the -300 came out, it was still using the same RB211's and PW2000s from the -200. This was an aircraft entering service in 1999 with an engine that had its first run in 1969! Needless to say, they weren't winning many fuel efficiency competitions in 1999 with a 30-year-old engine (or the 20-year-old PW2000) and this came at a time when fuel costs were also rising dramatically and the airline industry was also receiving a lot more pressure to reduce carbon emissions than it was in the early 80s when the 752 entered service.
While the 752 and 753 do require wider stands and taxiways than the 737 and A320 require, virtually all U.S. airports other than the smallest regional ones support them. Delta and United fly 757s all over North, Central, and even Northern South America all the time, as well as from the West Coast to Hawaii and including to medium and even relatively small-market airports. I've even flown on a Delta 757 into Bozeman, Montana, for example, hardly a major airport. Especially since the A330neo was brought up as possibly filling this role, while it's true that the 757 (both -200 and -300) require ADG IV stands and taxiways (vs. ADG III for the A320 and 737,) the A330 (ceo and neo) requires the same ADG V stands and taxiways that the 777, A350, and even 747-400 use, so the 757 actually has quite large advantage over the A330 here. Granted, this advantage might not be as pronounced in Asia as it is in North America. Pretty much the only ADG IV plane that are still being heavily used are the 757 and 767, with the vast majority of those being in the North America market, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of airports around Asia, Europe, Africa, etc. simply don't have any ADG IV stands or else very few of them and just go straight from ADG III to ADG V. For airports like Atlanta, though, being able to use ADG IV stands is a big advantage for both the 757 and 767, as Delta operates hundreds of them and they can fit a lot more of them in the same space than if they had to use ADG V stands, such as are needed for the 787, A330, A350, and 777.
Считаю тебя профессором в своем любимом деле. Ты - лучший, Петтер!
6:23 that pronunciation of humongous though 😂😂😂😂😂
I recently travelled on an Airbus A320 Neo (IndiGo Airlines)... It's a beauty for domestic travels in India...
I'm not sure how it is where you are but here, in New England, most Delta flights still use the hub and spoke. If I want to fly out of PVD I can go to NYC or Detroit.
good work
I can think of two US airlines that use 747's however they are cargo / charter flights, Atlas Air and Kalitta Air.
I read an article about a designer who designed double decker type of new seats for the planes.
The use of a compact twin isle elliptical body would seem to be a good fit with a blended wing-body design - especially for short haul budget carriers where fast turn round of passengers is needed and limited cargo space isn’t a problem.
Ellipses do not perform well under internal pressure. Circles are the only efficient shapes that stay in direct tension, which is more efficient than flexure in resisting load. That is why fizzy drink bottles are always prismatic simple circles, never ellipses.
Former Boeing Everett... I proposed getting rid of the fuselage all together. 2 GE9X's, no fuselage, no wings, seats duct taped around turbofans. Now you know why I'm 'Former Boeing'. Kidding, but I did propose a more modular design with wings that could be easily lengthened for more lift on larger aircraft. New fixtures capable of making all different variants without retooling. Similar concept for fuselage.
The B-797 has wings and a fuselage, lots of seats, giant engines, composite structures, plus a bunch of new features. Date of release - TBD.
Does the danger of tail strike on takeoff and landing serve as a limit on how long these stretched versions can get? Or do other considerations kill them first?
Lengthened landing gear struts can handle tail clearance (as well as larger-diameter wing engines). Typically the longer gear will mean substantial changes to the wing structure, however, as was the case for the 777-8/9 stretches.
12:40 if boarding times are high, why not let passenger board through the door right in front of the wing, so passangers in business go forward and economy go backwards ? That's why it is done on the big long haul airplanes. That model would work just as well for a single aisle aircraft. The only issue is if the jet bridge in a smaller door reaches that far back.
Don't forget that Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Skunkworks put a lot of money into U.S. military aircraft. One can guarantee that the technologies developed for military aircraft will find their way into commercial aircraft as well. I don't know anything at al about Airbus and their military side of things.
8:36 GRYMT!
I normally only fly 2 to 4 hours but for boarding a dual aisle plane would be wonderful (we can now move at twice the speed of the slowest passengers).
The MD DC 8 or the flying hotdog pushed the limits of the day.
There are those who swear you could see the fuselage flex in EXTREME weather/crosswinds while landing when sitting in the last row.