Kruse Kronicle

Silent skies: Green Aircraft

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

From the Economist: Silent skies: Green Aircraft

…The researchers envisage a mid-range aircraft that would carry 215 passengers. Its top speed would be 0.8 Mach—that is, 0.8 times the speed of sound or around 600 miles per hour, slightly slower than the coming generation of airliners. Indeed, it is a slower speed that enables such an aircraft to be so quiet: it would drift in to land rather than powering in, all engines blazing, as today's jets do. Its low approach speed, combined with steep climbs and descents, would make it inaudible outside the airport.

…….

The passenger aircraft is currently a conceptual design. There are many challenges that would have to be overcome before it could become a reality by 2030, as the researchers hope. Not only would passengers have to accept windowless flight, but several technical problems would also need to be overcome, including the need to manufacture pressurised cabins that are not the standard tubular shape.

But it is the concept aircraft's fuel efficiency that is really making aircraft manufacturers take note. The researchers claim that it would use 25% less fuel than current aircraft do. Airliners that are cheaper to run and contribute less to climate change may be more attractive than silent ones. That is why a slightly noisier alternative design by the same researchers that is even more fuel-efficient shows most promise.

Comments

2 responses to “Silent skies: Green Aircraft”

  1. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Nine hours in a windowless “auditorium” that periodically banks, climbs and dives? Sounds hellish.
    A couple of decades ago, crash tests revealed that passengers in rear-facing seats had a slightly better chance of survival in some crashes. The military changed some of its transports to the rear-facing configuration, which makes sense, since they’re much more likely to crash-land than an airliner. Plus the soldiers didn’t have a choice. No airline adopted the change, though, because when they tested it, customers resolutely refused to fly backwards.
    It strikes me that the whole windowless business suffers from the same fatal flaw, albeit to an even greater degree. The most disorienting thing about air travel is the lack of control and disorientation. Windows aren’t there so passengers can enjoy the scenery, they’re there so passengers don’t freak out every time the aircraft banks. Even a ten-inch-by-ten-inch piece of plexiglass gives enough visual cues to figure out whether the aircraft is upright.
    Of course, Europe being Europe, someone in Brussels will eventually mandate that all passenger flights be made in windowless boxes in which no one wants to ride.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “Windows aren’t there so passengers can enjoy the scenery, they’re there so passengers don’t freak out every time the aircraft banks.”
    LOL. Yup! As the article notes, that was the biggest obstacle the first time they canned these ideas. I guess now they are checking to see if people would rather have disorienting flights or by fried to a crisp by global warming. I’m guessing they will chose “fried to crisp.” *grin*

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading