How much has the airplane evolved since the last 3 decades...

How much has the airplane evolved since the last 3 decades? Is the design we see today the best we can achieve in terms of transporting goods and people quickly on a global scale. If so, what can be improved?

Heaps.

AYYYY LMAO

-Ayyy Lmao

>How much has the airplane evolved since the last 3 decades?

Far more than it may seem

>Is the design we see today the best we can achieve in terms of transporting goods and people quickly on a global scale. If so, what can be improved?

Of course everything can be improved, but i don't see plane designs changing drastically anytime soon.

Also not really. The only thing that still has room for a lot of improvement is avionics if you ask me.

Airplanes are still improving vastly. From better fuel burn for longer ranges, better climb performance, and better aerodynamic designs. The 787 is made completely of composite which allows it to be lighter and faster than both the 767 and the 777. I would say we are heading in the right direction for this booming industry.

the last 10 years have seen a pretty dramatic change to avionics and engines. As well as new composite materials that have reduced weight, reduced noise polution and also cabin redesigns that have increased storage space, and changed inflight amenities from simple inflight entertainment systems to full on internet access.

Also dreamliner and 737 max wings are very different from the older variants of the 737 and other boeing aircraft.

Also a lot of the aircraft coming out now whether new designs or redesigns are in the double digits in terms of increased fuel efficiency.

Avionics technician here. Avionics at the high end of the scale are almost miraculous in capability. The reason aircraft in general are not equipped with said systems is simple economics. You equip an aircraft with what it needs to do the job it is meant for. If an aircraft has a perfectly serviceable weather radar system, there isn't any point in shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace it with something new.

Generally speaking though, the reason aircraft, in particular commercial airliners, don't really appear to have changed much in the recent past is that on the outside they all look the same for aerodynamic reasons. The number one consideration for airlines looking for new aircraft is efficiency, so a streamlined design with highly efficient engines carrying as many passengers and as much cargo as possible is best. Speed is a secondary consideration.

aircrafts are the past they are limited by the sound barrier and can progress no further than current day technology
high speed rail is the future it works in a vacuum so the only limit to speed is how much power you put in
in 200 years people will be traveling across earth in trains much faster and more comfortably than we do today in airplanes

>using trains to cross oceans.

C O N C O R D E
O
N
C
O
R
D
E

retards and minorities are building them now

look at boeing

we have the technology to run cables from one continent to another, why not tunnels
its simple

Jet engines, internal combustion, and liquid fuel rockets are all a complete fucking joke.

Because of the risk of collapse, it would be way too expensive to repair and rescuing the people stuck there would be extremely hard.

Yeah dude just build a vaccuum sealed mega railway across the bottom of the ocean alongside international internet cables

Just do it dude lol not that hard

The aircraft itself doesn't need improvements in terms of the cabin or storage areas. The engines and avionics are what get improved over time. The hull doesn't need that many upgrades as compared to replacing old engines and electronics systems

>vril energy

Oh that's where Hellboy got it from.

Cables break all the time, and what are we supposed to build a tunnel 2 miles under water. good fucking luck with that. and god forbid an underwater quake near a mid ocean ridge causes it to crack and leak.

Not enough. We need to go faster.

Doubt it, vacuum tubes are too dangerous and too costly if they fuck up.

R E S S U R E C T I O N

>aircrafts are the past they are limited by the sound barrier
>aircrafts
>limited by the sound barrier

How am I the first one to call this out?

Concorde will fly again by the end of the decade if digits are double.

>tfw replacing $30,000 of avionics on my meridian with $45,000 of new avionics that all do the same thing as my free iPad app

Fuck the FFA.

>Work at an airport
>See a 737-200 combi with gravel kit every day.
>needs the entire two miles of runway to take off to make it to Iqaluit when it's fully loaded.

Its actually terrifying When its well down the runway and not airborne yet. I've seen a 747 loaded up with cargo and fuel flying to japan use less runway.

Yeah but that rich and warm tube sound though....

>hundreds of miles of vacuum tubing

I can tell you right now that would never hold together.

He's not entirely wrong, aircraft need special reinforcement to not explode when they breach the sound barrier. It's like hitting a brick wall.

No, too many liberals complaining about noise, even though they decided to move next to a fucking airport

Too costly considering how many people can fly on it. Transportation is about maximizing the amount of people and decreasing the amount of fuel consumption. That is why Jumbo jets are used for people and cargo ships are used for goods. Now if they could cut the fuel costs and increase the size of the super sonic jet liner then yes it would be worthy of resurrection

Because flying faster than sound is not efficient to justify doing it. People want cheaper fares, not faster flights.

And as much as people complain about leg space, seat size, lack of amenities, extra fees etc. they still buy the cheapest tickets.

>aircraft need special reinforcement to not explode when they breach the sound barrier.

I nearly fell for that bait

The most important change has been the winglets.

He means that the amount of power required to pass the sound barrier don't justify the expense for anything other than niche applications, and that's never going to change because physics.

I'm an aircraft engineer and I've said for years that airplanes should have a third wing. In case of a hijacking or a crash a third wing would provide stability and save fuel consumption.

Currently the most efficient ways to transport goods and people. Find a way to beat these and you win

Fag, it's rich-ass Republican suburbanites who complain.

Tell me about it, I also worked at a small airport that was 99% general aviation. We'd get a lot of stupid calls even though our circuit (pattern) was over a wide river.

One guy even called to tell me about a plane that was circling around his house, and he threatened to call the cops. I had to tell him that the plane was the cops.

Inb4 "that's what they said about flight"

Protip: You can't, and these two things are inseparable from oil. When it runs out, we run out.

>high speed rail is the future it works in a vacuum

Seems like a great way to die.

FUCKING REKT

Its morons in general. doesn't matter which side they choose to lean towards.

Size of the blades have also gotten bigger

Maintenance alone on tunnels like that would run the people who owned it underground

They need to bring it back
Also we need to bring back SR71 and the Shuttle

No, it's not an argument. it's a flat-earther statement.

THANKS

Like many other cutting technologies, airliner technology is currently largely limited by material science - primarily in terms of airframe strength/weight characteristics and what temperatures the engine components can withstand.

The term
>the best we can achieve
needs to be narrowed down some more to provide a look into what the future might hold for airplane technology. For example, are you interested in fuel economy or top speed?

It's a joke that an aerospace engineer working on an airliner would kill his own family for a 1% improvement in fuel efficiency. This is obviously not literal (in either the efficiency or murder sense) but an easy way of saying that the major/easy improvements have already been made within the current paradigm of aerospace technology. By "current paradigm" I mean the core technological elements of airplanes as we know them today - ie, aluminum airframe, high bypass turbofan engine, etc etc etc. Within our current paradigm the regions for improvement can be seen in the evolution of airplanes over just the last several years; the jagged edge at the trailing edge of the turbofan shroud and the use of winglets at the end of the wings come to mind.

In terms of a paradigm shift in airplane technology that will radically change their design over the next couple decades, we get to look forward to such things as greater use of advanced composite materials (carbon fiber), electric motors replacing hydrocarbon engines in some aircraft roles, things like morphing wings, and clever uses of multiple propulsion elements (like a dozen or more props, look up LEAPTech) - among many other innovations both currently known and on the threshold of being discovered.

Quite a lot of aerospace research is currently geared towards small, unmanned, electric aircraft.

Do you really expect Sup Forums to provide insight into niche engineering fields?

How is this pol related?

That's right, it isn't. Saged

Well the ship can go nuclear if we got rid of the pirates and terrorists

I don't know what the plane is going to do

>riding the airborne jew
No thanks, I take boats.

inb4 "so that means you think all progress is coming to a halt? lol, luddite."

The logistics for keeping nuclear anything running are impossible without cheap oil. Mining operations suck oil like mad, enrichment and refinement can't be powered on solar alone.

Oil is the singularity, and it has a time limit.

>riding the floating jew

>advanced composite materials (carbon fiber)
i came here to say this.
i was fortunate enough to work on the 787 dreamliner as an intern. i drilled thousands upon thousands of holes through carbon fiber, stainless steel stacks.
wew lad!
this was back in 09-10. #MAGA

>sailing the floating jew
No thanks, I take my tesla.

>fluidial yid

great way to die.

>Do you really expect Sup Forums to provide insight into niche engineering fields?
There are tons of engineers on Sup Forums/pol/. Probably too many t b h

Nice try oil kike

It's called high by pass ratio turbo fans. IIRC it came of military technology that was part of Globemaster development.

USA
USA

we can go electrical in theory, but with current technology you'll need 70% of the plane mass taken by batteries.

All models of tesla use several barrels of oil in their manufacture and maintenance. What do you think the wires and the tires are made of? Happy thoughts? What about the paint?

>Riding in the self driving jew

No thanks I'll take my bike.

>masive net-powered biplanes carrying people across oceans.

I like it. When?

>Not relying on the leg jew to take you places
I'll take my bike

MSEE here. worked in R&D for 787 while i was finishing my undergrad. #MAGA

If i ride that i have to buy food from the grocery yid which depends on the oil kikes.

There is no escape.

Not too mention the thousands of gallons of oil used in the extraction and refinement and fabrication of the parts, the oil used to fuel the assembly, and the oil used to ship the product.

>going uphill in the leg straining jew.

Why not just go downhill?

Biofuels or Liquid hydrogen, or legacy oil.

I always wanted a shift away from oil based cars and luxery goods because I always felt that Oil as a non-renewable resource was better served for more essential industries.

Yeah i meant to add that but forgot.

Does tesla even get all its rare earth metals from domestic sources? or do they use slave labor like cell phone manufacturers?

If that isn't your fancy then turn the clock back 2 centuries and go sail. Man I love ships

how does it make sense? Would'n you get more drag to lift ratio at the same speed? I'm really interested, user. I'm no engineer or anything

>Biofuels
Net loss.

>Liquid hydrogen
No means of containment.

>legacy oil.
Extremely limited.

It's over. There's no magic cure for painting yourself into a corner.

Then i would be depending on the solar yid to heat air and make pressure differences that we call wind.

even the latest model of the Avanti with it's little blade wings has winglets now

Compare your lives to mine and kill yourselves

Foot jew master race reporting in

Weren't we supposed to run out of oil by 2000?

Then we invented cracking, and opened up a whole slew of new oil reserves for extraction. A resource isn't a resource until it is. New technology will pave the way.

There are tons of ways to improve the design, notably in the manufacturing process. However, from an engineering standpoint, you are looking at blended body designs with the wings and cabin integrated as one. You have to get around the safety concerns if you have to evacuate the plane, but it can be done. You could find a way to optimize the engines for higher altitudes, but my guess the economics don't work out.

man that's over designed. You shouldn't need three control surfaces.

>I take my tesla.
>driving the high voltage heeb

>politics

>Weren't we supposed to run out of oil by 2000?

Yes, just like global warming was supposed to happen in the 90's. Does that discredit both?

>Then we invented cracking, and opened up a whole slew of new oil reserves for extraction
Yep. And it's lasted this long. But currently the cost of extraction for shale oils and other fracking methods is insolvent at current low oil prices. I'm sure you've heard of the record-breaking low oil prices?

Well that's killing our only source. They're going belly up all over the USA. When they're gone, we don't have anything else.

New technology will not save us from ourselves. There are limits.

Looks gay as fuck too.

Literally like flying a lil mouse.

And bio fuels and 50/50 fuels

Personally I wish we had something different than liquid fuel. If we got rid of the fuel aircraft and ship sizes would explode

these are future options in an oil scarce world.

>Net loss
Doesn't matter, its worth it if its the only option to keep aircraft flying.

>No means of containment
you don't store fuel in a plane. You only fuel a plane with enough fuel to get to its destination plus a bit for loiter time. You want that plane essentially empty when it gets to its destination and it'll be refueled there. I'm not an expert on liquid hydrogen aircraft so I can't say much about it though. Biggest issue would be storing the fuel at the airport.

>Extremely limited.
Of course the hope here is that we've switched over to a less oil based economy while still having some commercially viable reserves.

It all depends on whether or not aviation is considered an essential industry.

Know most of Sup Forums though. making it harder for immigrants to cross oceans might be a good thing.

Invent a source of energy that doesn't rely on heat engines and we'll be set.

Oh it's been a century now and nobody can? Well sucks to your exponential progress, piggie.

dis

dadcore/10

Seriously, my 59 year old dad has 2 pairs

Plenty can be improved, wasn't nasa and boeing still testing that 1 peice wing that flexes rather than have multiple moving parts?

Also there's and article about plasma wings, basically, the hotter plasma gets, the more viscous as a fluid it becomes, eventually becoming hard and can deflect wind etc, literally hardlight from halo.

The outside of the airplane looks the same because technology doesn't change basic principles of aerodynamics and we figured those out a while back

>these are future options in an oil scarce world.
How? They take energy to implement. It'll be too late once the energy starts to run dry.

>Doesn't matter, its worth it if its the only option to keep aircraft flying.
it does if it costs more to ship than the product is worth. Nobody can absorb that.

>you don't store fuel in a plane. You only fuel a plane with enough fuel to get to its destination plus a bit for loiter time. You want that plane essentially empty when it gets to its destination and it'll be refueled there. I'm not an expert on liquid hydrogen aircraft so I can't say much about it though. Biggest issue would be storing the fuel at the airport.

Hydrogen will leak out of a cylinder with 5ft thick steel walls. There is no way to contain it, much less the difficulties with keeping it cold enough to keep it liquid. It's not an option, at all.

>Of course the hope here is that we've switched over to a less oil based economy while still having some commercially viable reserves.
Odd how you're talking in future tense about something that had to have happened 30 years ago to have an effect. It's simply too late now.

will offer a much higher level of discourse on this topic

The biggest changes to commercial airliners in the past 30 years have been in the fuel efficiency and computer control areas

The basic design of the wings and fuselage is essentially at its apex in that it's reach optimum physical efficiency

It's a business jet. They're purposely designed to look cool to appeal to rich businessman with more money than sense. That being said, canards aren't a terrible idea on an aircraft with the wings set so far back.

A while ago

That isn't at all true. Ships and prop planes can use electricity (battery, solar, nuclear) and jet engines can use alternate fuels for the combustion phase, they're just more expensive.