Private jets and speed

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
I’ve read a few articles over the years (sorry, no links – these were in such publications as Flying) that say it’s often more time-efficient to fly a piston-engine aircraft on shorter trips. The typical scenario involves two people leaving their homes at the same time. One catches a commercial flight, and the other goes to the local airport to fly a Mooney or something. The commercial flier has to drive to the airport, often fighting congested traffic, getting there early to go through the security checkpoint, waiting until the flight boards, flying to the destination, obtaining ground transportation, and then going from the airport to his destination.

The private flier goes to his local field, gets a weather briefing and files a flight plan, preflights the aircraft, flies to his destination, and then travels the shorter distance (in these articles) to the destination.

The conclusions I’ve read say that on trips of 400 miles or less, the private flier saves time vs. flying on a scheduled airliner. And there’s no security checkpoint with its removal of belts and shoes, no carry-on limits, no waiting by the carrousel for the checked baggage, the flight can leave when it’s ready, and the private flier gets to perform the most enjoyable activity that exists.
[/QUOTE]
If only the cost worked out that way too! I did the numbers once…to fly one of my club’s Cessnas out to visit my dad, who lives about 400 miles from here, It would cost me about $900 for the round trip. Since it only costs me $200 + hassle (which is free :)) to fly commercial, it’s no contest in my tax bracket.

But if I had a trust fund…

42

[QUOTE=Figaro]
If only the cost worked out that way too! I did the numbers once…to fly one of my club’s Cessnas out to visit my dad, who lives about 400 miles from here, It would cost me about $900 for the round trip.
[/QUOTE]

True. But look at it this way: If you spent the same amount of time poking holes in the sky it would still cost you $900. Plus the $200 airfare and the hassle. :wink:

43

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
The conclusions I’ve read say that on trips of 400 miles or less, the private flier saves time vs. flying on a scheduled airliner. And there’s no security checkpoint with its removal of belts and shoes, no carry-on limits, no waiting by the carrousel for the checked baggage, the flight can leave when it’s ready, and the private flier gets to perform the most enjoyable activity that exists.
[/QUOTE]

You can play with your own control stick if you want; meanwhile, I’ll be getting a hummer from a flight attendant. :smiley:

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Really All That Bright, although you are correct about the fuel consumption of the Concorde, British Airways and Air France both claimed that the service was economically viable; however, operating and maintenance costs were high and demand was insufficient to justify building replacements to the aging fleet, along with reduced demand after the Air France 4590 crash and the September 11, 2001 attacks.
[/QUOTE]

Air France I’m not sure about, but Concorde was never a profitable venture for BA. It was forced on them while they were still a nationalised company- and required heavy additional subsidy even then- and kept afterwards only as a loss-leader; it was, of course, an excellent flagship for the fleet, and a handy reward for Executive Club (BA frequent flyer) members, but never profitable in and of itself.

44

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Modern airliners have what are called anti-shock bodies or K-carrots (little flanges or spurs which prevent the formation of standing shock waves) to allow them to operate in the 0.75-0.85 Mach range efficiently and prevent shock-induced vibration.
[/QUOTE]

The Convair 990 was apparently well-known for its carrots :smiley:

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, that’s because very few R&D dollars are going into making jetliners faster.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, because that problem was pretty much solved to its practical limits half a century ago. Unless some genius comes up with a way around the sonic boom issue, or figures out a magical way to do mach 0.995 while burning only a tiny bit more kerosene than mach 0.85, there’s just no point twiddling with the design for a few tens of mph. Hence the near-instantaneous transformation of Boeing’s much-hyped ‘Sonic Cruiser’ into “the utterly generic engine-under twin that’s a fraction more modern and cheaper to run than competing engine-under twins”

45

[QUOTE=Quartz]
Here’s a tale of another advantage: many years ago, a friend of my father’s was being flown from A to B in Africa. He spotted something interesting on the ground and wondered aloud wahat it was. So the pilot, being an ex WW2 fighter pilot, dove the plane down for a better look. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]
Well?

What was it?

46

Just some wildlife.

47

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Not Really All That Bright, although you are correct about the fuel consumption of the Concorde, British Airways and Air France both claimed that the service was economically viable; however, operating and maintenance costs were high and demand was insufficient to justify building replacements to the aging fleet, along with reduced demand after the Air France 4590 crash and the September 11, 2001 attacks.
[/QUOTE]
There was an interesting PBS “NOVA” documentary recently called “Supersonic Dream”, that showed what a back-breaking double whammy that was. After the July 2000 Air France crash, British Airways was keen to push ahead… (from the NOVA transcript):

However, even though Rudy Giuliani greeted the first post-9/11 Concorde passengers personally, as Concorde pilot Jock Lowe put it (same transcript as above paragraph):

48

Interesting.

I had no idea that 9/11 had laid such a focused blow on Concorde (beside the obvious air-travel-in-general malaise.)

49

Since money’s no object, one simply has to build a time machine, and stow onboard Buck Adams’ SR-71 on September 13, 1974. Actually, that’s a joke, because there’s no place to stow away on an SR-71. You’d have to take Bill’s back seat from him.

Los Angeles to London: 3 hours, 47 minutes, 39 seconds.

Failing that, since we need to travel around 5500 miles, and refueling would cause unacceptable delay, I think the best real solution might be a private 747 rental. I’m sure that’s available, for a price. Theres always a few parked at the factory, just across Possession sound from me.

The advantage of using a 747 is that we could have a huge intercontinental dopefest on the way! Who’s up for this, by the way? Since we can’t order a giant treadmill, but we can order a private flight on a 747, I think it would be great fun if we got 400 or so dopers together for a flight to London. Someone do the math, OK?

Who’s in?

50

[QUOTE=Danalan]
Since money’s no object, one simply has to build a time machine, and stow onboard Buck Adams’ SR-71 on September 13, 1974. Actually, that’s a joke, because there’s no place to stow away on an SR-71. You’d have to take Bill’s back seat from him.
[/QUOTE]

There would be plenty of space to stow away if you removed all the surveillance equipment and ECM stuff.

51

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
There would be plenty of space to stow away if you removed all the surveillance equipment and ECM stuff.
[/QUOTE]
It would get pretty hot in there…even the cockpit was not too hospitable a place without a pressure suit.

52

[QUOTE=Figaro]
It would get pretty hot in there…even the cockpit was not too hospitable a place without a pressure suit.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say you wouldn’t be a bit dead, just that you could stow away…

53

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I didn’t say you wouldn’t be a bit dead, just that you could stow away…
[/QUOTE]
True :smiley:

54

How is the security different using a small regional airport and a privately owned, for-hire plane? Is that a loophole that we should be worried about? I’m thinking less about terrorist activity and more about drugs/money coming in and out of the country BTW.

55

[QUOTE=Madd Maxx]
How is the security different using a small regional airport and a privately owned, for-hire plane? Is that a loophole that we should be worried about? I’m thinking less about terrorist activity and more about drugs/money coming in and out of the country BTW.
[/QUOTE]
If you cross international borders in a small plane you are required to land at the nearest “port of entry” airport and submit to customs inspection. I’ve never piloted across a border, so I can’t report on how well this is enforced or how rigorous the inspections are, but I can’t imagine it’s often overlooked given how tightly most airspace is monitored these days.

56

[QUOTE=Madd Maxx]
How is the security different using a small regional airport and a privately owned, for-hire plane?
[/QUOTE]
Quickie answer: Only official “airports of entry” have US Customs service available at all, and even then it may be a single person on call. Even at the big international airports, private planes get shunted off to remote facilities and a Customs officer may have to come over from the main terminal to take care of you. Either way, an appointment is required, and you have to be there on time (or late - if you arrive early, before Customs, no telling what you may have gotten away with). You do need a formal flight plan too when flying transborder, even when VFR.

Entering Canada from the US is less involved - call 888-CANPASS with your details 24 hours ahead, they’ll give you a PIN, and when you land at the Airport of Entry you said you’d land at, and when, just call them again with your PIN and get a “Have a nice trip, eh?” If something comes up when they run your info, you’ll be met by somebody and have a conversation that may have its difficult moments.

57

Even prior to 9/11 there was a requirement to file a specific sort of flight plan and keep to a schedule regarding when exactly, you cross the border in a private aircraft of any size, and requirement to provide proper updates if you are delayed or whatever. Upon landing, one could not depart the aircraft and/or leave a designated area until the proper customs officials showed up. Since 9/11 the requirements have not changed much, but the enforcement, from what I’ve been told, is definitely stepped up a bit.

Do people manage to sneak over the border and smuggle various illegal things? Yes, it does continue to happen, just as airplanes are still occasionally stolen. However, since 9/11, at least in my area, such stealing and sneaking has become much less common. In fact, the last time someone around here got caught smuggling drugs in a private aircraft that I’m aware of it was in an airplane they rented legally for a vacation. They just didn’t mention that one night of that week-long vacation in Texas involved sneaking over the Mexican border for marijuana. They were caught, however - I don’t know if the border radar has been beefed up or they were just stupid/inept or both. Apparently the tactic of legally renting an airplane has become more common as stealing them is, it seems, really that much more difficult than it once was thanks to increasing security at both small airports and on the part of aircraft owners. I have also noticed, over time, that while renting an airplane is still pretty easy they do ask a heck of a lot more about you, copy a picture ID, and otherwise do a lot more to make sure you are who you say you are, and, in the event you do something wrong, they can give the authorities more information about who you are, what you look like, and so forth.

58

The journey proposed in the OP, Los Angeles to London, obviates much of the talk re: private jets. The only private business jet that has the range without refueling would be the Gulfstream V. Several other jets are marginally faster overall, but don’t have the range. Note that I’m not including the Boeing Business Jet in this category, as you can get virtually any of Boeing’s planes in a business jet version.

Since the route would be over uninhabited areas for much of the journey, a supersonic aircraft would seem ideal; however any privately available supersonic plane, such as a former military fighter, would need to refuel at least once in the journey. So our best options are a commercial 747-400ER flight, renting a private 747-400ER, or renting a Gulfstream V.

A commercial flight is the least fast of the options, because of both the increased load, and the tendency to fly at max economy, rather than max speed. Commercial flights are listed as taking 10 hours, 30 minutes.

Between the private 747-400ER and the Gulfstream V, the 747-400ER is faster, and the 747-400ER has the edge in range; particularly as you would likely have a much reduced load - potentially just you and your luggage. If you take even 12 people, the loading of the Gulfstream becomes problematic for speed vs. range, while 12 people is a negligible load for the 747.

In any case, a private flight will be quicker than a commercial flight, for sure, since the maximum speed of at 747-400ER is about 100 knots above max economy speed. That potentially shaves 15-20% off our time - so figure 9 hours for the trip.

Since we are talking unlimited funds, assuming my earlier time travel suggestion unrealistic, I suppose one could develop a long-range supersonic jet, to further reduce the time required by maybe 25%. LAX to LHR is too far for either the Concorde or the Tupolev Tu-144 to make without refueling. One could also buy in-flight refueling for ones private military jet, come to think of it. So times under 8 hours are possible, even without any exceptions to supersonic transport over populated areas.

59

I saw a program that said that one of the killers of the Concorde was its inability to carry much cargo beyond passengers’ luggage. They implied that what makes passenger travel profitable is that they shuttle cargo around as well. Is this true?

Thanks,
Rob

60

[QUOTE=Broomstick]
I don’t know if the border radar has been beefed up
[/QUOTE]
From everything I’ve seen, it has, but details are sparse. The Feds are using both static balloons and UAV’s to identify and track targets near the border.

It ain’t like it used to be - near me, there’s a couple of Lockheed Constellation airliners awaiting renovation, but that still have the rigging inside for dropping marijuana bales. Imagine even trying it today.
Oh yeah, the OP … just not dealing with baggage and customs is enough to make a private flight faster, even without using smaller airports nearer the actual departure/destination points. That’s all on the ground side, of course.