Lingque and other next generation Chinese Airliner

latenlazy

Colonel
Küchemann wrote an article in the mid-fifties in which he showed that in the mid nineteenth century people in England mostly married people who were born within two hours train travel and that later that century it became the lesser distance of two hours bike travel. That's why he wanted to develop aircraft that would travel in two hours from England to Australia. And what about being at the airport three hours before departure? :D
I think we should maintain the current cruising speed for short and mid range aircraft. In current large aircraft many passengers are already unable to look out and I see no objection to passengers looking at a video or using the built in screen as their computer monitor and so BWB aircraft of one kind or another can well be built without windows. But only if the tickets are significantly cheaper.;)
For the long distances flying will remain boring unless passengers are able to walk around and possibly sleep confortably. The way to reduce fuel consumption and avoid CO2 production is then the a liquid hydrogen fuelled airship. Flying at 200 km/h a flight from England to Australia will take not two hours but four days. But the fuel fraction for such a flight would be less than 3 %!
Time is an important commodity in the transit market. 4 days also means requiring more planes to service the same amount of people along a route per day. Fuel isn't the only factor airlines need to optimize for, and timely travel is an essential point of value for both the airline and its customers.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Who cares about windows these days. Most day time flights are so bright without the cloud cover people close blinds. Most night time flights people want to sleep and close blinds.

Also there really is nothing to see most of the time if you are flying over a giant landmass filled with farms or forest or the ocean. Only when landing is it interesting to look out.

Most people just watch movies on their backseat displays or their own devices anyway. What people care about is the duration of the misery. My 17 hours flight from San Fransisco to Singapore was only made tolerable because I had 3 seats to the 2 of us. If they can cut that down by a few hours, I will gladly take it.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Who cares about windows these days. Most day time flights are so bright without the cloud cover people close blinds. Most night time flights people want to sleep and close blinds.
That is a valid point, for short Tourist hops Windows and views are more important but most commercial aviation is point A to Point B don't bother me and God I hope United did not over book....
Also there really is nothing to see most of the time if you are flying over a giant landmass filled with farms or forest or the ocean. Only when landing is it interesting to look out.
you Sir have no Soul... but then again most commercial flights are either too high up or too Low for awe inspiring.
Or as the meme goes "Born too late to explore the earth, born too early to explore the galaxy..."
tourists want killer views of particular features, but not so high to dehumanize or so long as to become terius. Commercial flights are designed for transportation, the land masses pass by so fast it kinda just takes away from it. and we either want to see a paradise or a blue dot that puts it all in grand perspective.
Time is an important commodity in the transit market. 4 days also means requiring more planes to service the same amount of people along a route per day. Fuel isn't the only factor airlines need to optimize for, and timely travel is an essential point of value for both the airline and its customers.
What people care about is the duration of the misery. My 17 hours flight from San Fransisco to Singapore was only made tolerable because I had 3 seats to the 2 of us. If they can cut that down by a few hours, I will gladly take it.
Sadly Don't expect these to be shorter trips. Supersonic Airliners are totally impractical. What hybrid or Blended wing programs aim to do is atleast easy the sticker shock. Today Civil air travel is cheaper than it has ever been (adjusting for inflation) in the fairly short history of aviation.
The Aim of these products to to make it even Cheaper for the passenger, easier of the people who live around the Airport, and maybe add a few creature comforts.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
That is a valid point, for short Tourist hops Windows and views are more important but most commercial aviation is point A to Point B don't bother me and God I hope United did not over book....
you Sir have no Soul... but then again most commercial flights are either too high up or too Low for awe inspiring.
Or as the meme goes "Born too late to explore the earth, born too early to explore the galaxy..."
tourists want killer views of particular features, but not so high to dehumanize or so long as to become terius. Commercial flights are designed for transportation, the land masses pass by so fast it kinda just takes away from it. and we either want to see a paradise or a blue dot that puts it all in grand perspective.



Sadly Don't expect these to be shorter trips. Supersonic Airliners are totally impractical. What hybrid or Blended wing programs aim to do is atleast easy the sticker shock. Today Civil air travel is cheaper than it has ever been (adjusting for inflation) in the fairly short history of aviation.
The Aim of these products to to make it even Cheaper for the passenger, easier of the people who live around the Airport, and maybe add a few creature comforts.
I fly over the Rockies very often, so its pretty hard to get a view to beat that on most flights.

Also now I always try to get an aisle seat for the extra leg room.

When I do long haul with the wife, we both get aisle seats across from each other. Then its close enough to talk but still have the leg room.
 

t2contra

Major
Who cares about windows these days. Most day time flights are so bright without the cloud cover people close blinds. Most night time flights people want to sleep and close blinds.

Also there really is nothing to see most of the time if you are flying over a giant landmass filled with farms or forest or the ocean. Only when landing is it interesting to look out.

Most people just watch movies on their backseat displays or their own devices anyway. What people care about is the duration of the misery. My 17 hours flight from San Fransisco to Singapore was only made tolerable because I had 3 seats to the 2 of us. If they can cut that down by a few hours, I will gladly take it.
Airline corps. will override the choice of passengers in favor of fuel economy. With the available options as you described, they don't expect anything more than quiet grumblings from a few passengers.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
Sadly Don't expect these to be shorter trips. Supersonic Airliners are totally impractical. What hybrid or Blended wing programs aim to do is atleast easy the sticker shock. Today Civil air travel is cheaper than it has ever been (adjusting for inflation) in the fairly short history of aviation.
The Aim of these products to to make it even Cheaper for the passenger, easier of the people who live around the Airport, and maybe add a few creature comforts.
I don't expect supersonic travel for a while. Today's speed and travel time is the equilibrium rest point of a multivariable optimization around cost and demand. Until either the value of faster travel increases or the cost of faster travel goes down, it's just not happening.
 

delft

Brigadier
but 4 days on such means 4 days of food, 4 days of being trapped in a Carbon fiber gondola 4 days of being stuck with your fellow humanity in tight quarters. It would demand a Hindenberg style accommodations but the inefficiency of speed and such makes it dubious. Where an Airship might shine is in more remote reaches for Short hops in my opinion. Where in It's S/Vtol means it can land in far out places like remote villages or islands. where people want or need to travel but the closest Airport is hundreds of miles. parts of Alaska/Canada, China, Russia, Pacific islands. places where the next destination is close but unreachable without air or boat yet lack the space for a major airport or Harbor. Imagine flying to Hawaii landing on the large Island then hoping a Airship ferry to one of the smaller less crowded islands, the flight might be slow but they could make up for it with breathtaking views.
This also comes to Clean Sky as another interest in that program is Tiltrotors. Which can move more aviation to smaller less used fields for more efficiency based regional and local trips.
I was thinking of long haul so that means a large ship carrying hundreds of passengers in the comfort of a hotel, not a carbon fibre gondola. Space is at a premium in conventional aircraft but not in airships. You can work on board using internet. You would be flying at an altitude of 1500 to 2500 metres so you will be able to enjoy the scenery. And if you are really in a hurry you won't go flying but take to the internet. There might be a market to develop a supersonic small aircraft with global range or slightly less but I would be surprised.
What do you do when the weather turns bad in Hawaii or another small area? I wouldn't want an airship designed for that. Use STOL aircraft for such work. Your airship might have to clear out for perhaps days before resuming service.
Let an airship have the choice of several landing places connected by a high speed rail network. How often does it happen that Cairns and Adelaide and all places in between have bad weather, storms or thunderstorms? Of course a halfway suitable railway net now only exists in China, Japan and Western Europe but that is a matter of time.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
It has been pointed out that locations around windows required structural reinforcemt and adds substantially to an aircraft's structural weight. In addition, passenger comfort requires those seated next to the window be seated facing forward as most people are uncomfortable with moving scenery outside the window, particularly on the ground and at low altitude, if they are seated with their backs towards the front. Seating facing forward substantially increases the chances of injury or death in otherwise survivable crashes. Especially in wide body jets, only 20% of the passengers can have the privilege of seating next to windows anyway.

Since we are talking about wholesale rethinking of passenger airliner design, it seems to me a truly optimal passenger liner ought to dispense with windows all together. Designed for passengers to be seated facing the rear of the aircraft, use LED lighting to mimic the intensity of daylight inside the cabin when appropriate, provide and array of HD external cameras to give a view in any direction, and take advantage of modern high brightness, high dynamic range and high resolution display technology to give each passenger seat a high quality, high brightness display larger than the size of any airliner window, and enable the passenger to select any external view desired, including zoomed view to better see the ground from altitude if the passenger desires. The view should have brightness similar to looking directly out a window, and have enhanced saturation to overcome haze.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I was thinking of long haul so that means a large ship carrying hundreds of passengers in the comfort of a hotel, not a carbon fibre gondola. Space is at a premium in conventional aircraft but not in airships.
First Weight is always at a premium for aircraft even airships So a Carbon fiber gondola will be needed. however the low speed of an Airship, max speed under 100 MPH
This is What it sounds more and more like Sky Cruise ship.jpg
A Cruise Ship in the Sky.
You would be flying at an altitude of 1500 to 2500 metres so you will be able to enjoy the scenery. And if you are really in a hurry you won't go flying but take to the internet. There might be a market to develop a supersonic small aircraft with global range or slightly less but I would be surprised.
It's not a true form of Transportation more part of the Destination itself. You are well to do want to go on vacation so you board and along the way enjoy yourself make a few ports of call enjoy a few days at resorts reboard, move on the next stop. This is in some ways the same idea I am talking about, but it's not so much transportation as tourism. It's the Hindenburg crossed with Carnival Cruise Lines.
Supersonic transports are just not realistic in the near term. They are like the Brazilian Economy Always the land of the Future.
What do you do when the weather turns bad in Hawaii or another small area? I wouldn't want an airship designed for that. Use STOL aircraft for such work. Your airship might have to clear out for perhaps days before resuming service.
You have the Same issue with a long range Airship. It's easily pushed around by the Winds and Weather. If you have a storm on the route you need to change course or land.

Let an airship have the choice of several landing places connected by a high speed rail network. How often does it happen that Cairns and Adelaide and all places in between have bad weather, storms or thunderstorms? Of course a halfway suitable railway net now only exists in China, Japan and Western Europe but that is a matter of time.
being blunt For long range travel A fixed wing Aircraft is far more efficient in speed of travel ability to power through weather then a airship. You can try and say more fuel efficient and it is. but people looking to travel at ranges don't want to spend days on trips, unless the travel is the Trip. If you are a business Passenger in the 1930's a few days on the Hindenburg from Lakehurst to Frankford was a revolution in travel. Today No. Most people traveling don't have the luxury of time. Thats more a vacation/Tourist thing.
And the "environmental and Fuel efficiency" advantage would be tossed out if half the travel market is going supersonic.
as for Railways There are still parts of China, Japan and Europe without Rail. High speed Rail in the Americas is coming but like all things it has detractions.

In any case we are also starting to see Hybrid technology moving into Aviation. Using Electrical power combined with conventional jet propulsion to increase efficiency. by the 2030's They are already working to platforms that use electric drive.
 
Top