Okay, give me my 2". That’s just another 12" width for the cabin.
Or, let’s get some high-speed (300mph+) trains.
When I was designing test equipment for use by Boeing I had the chance to talk to the Boeing engineers. They said that there are a wide variety of seating configurations on all the planes. The airlines if they chose could put in 2 on one side and 3 one the other. They are also in total control of the the row to row spacing as well.
The no frills low cost airlines like soutwest are taking over because people really want cheap plane tickets and are unwilling to spend extra for more comfortable seats.
Where would you put such trains, mangeorge? Even in the countries that use them, my impression is that they’re all very limited area/destination systems. In the US, the only places I could see such a train being economic would be NYC-to-DC on the east coast, and LA-to-SF on the west. And given the cost of land in both those areas, I’m not sure that high speed rail could be put in which would be able to compete economically with the airlines.
I didn’t realize I’d expressed any confusion. I simply stated that buying a first class seat would in no way “vote” for wider coach seats. I took your suggestion quite literally, as I assume it was meant.
That’s why I asked for an answer from a designer, in hopes for more than guesses. I like the guesses too, but some numbers would be cool. I’m curious as to why the planes are designed so closely narrow. If wider coach seats cost me an extra 3% on my fare, I’ll pay. No problem.
If a mod wants to move this to IMHO, that’s okay with me.
[Nitpick] Early 1960’s. The first order was in Feb of 1965. It is safe to say they did some design work before they sold one. 
[/nitpick]
I think the land and right-of-way are already there in the SF to LA run.
The Oakland to Bakersfield route is (or was) quite successful, even though far from high speed.
Aren’t the ones in the countries that use them also successful?
That’s pretty nitty, alright. The first to go into service (Lufthansa) was in '68.
I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that any of the high speed trains require substantially improved road bed compared to current rail road beds. If you think about it, you can see that small bumps where rails meet that are currently ignored by slower moving trains may well prove a problem at 300 mph. And making a road bed that won’t settle to allow that is expensive.
Similarly, my understanding is that high speed trains do not like to share rails with freight trains. If so I’d think it would be a matter of the difference in weight for the two types of train. Which affects how rapidly the roadbed would degrade with use. ETA: Which I think means that there would be a need to acquire an additional right of way, instead of simply using the current one.
So, my initial counter is to wonder whether the current rights of way would be suitable for high speed trains.
For high speed trains in other countries - My understanding is that most of them connect, at most, three major cities in countries the size of states here in the US. So, my contention is that we’re comparing apples to oranges when we try to lift the European or Japanese model for high speed rail to the US.
I first class seat or a business class is a wider seat. For some reason you don’t purchase them. You like a lot of others purchase the cheap seats. So the airlines make a lot of cheap seats available.
According to relatives in the airline industry, the 727 was/is so tail heavy that the rear stairs had to be lowered all the time while on the ground to prevent it from tipping during passenger loading/unloading. I do not recall which version, but the current Airbus suffers from the same fate. That’s why the rear cargo hold is always loaded last and unloaded first. It also explains why after landing passengers often have to wait before they open the doors for departing; the ground staff have to begin unloading the rear cargo area, lest the plane tips as the forward cabin is emptied and everyone in the rear waits.
I am an aviation fiend and I have never heard that about the 727 but it may well be true based on something I learned in an aviation magazine a couple of months ago. The 727 was an absolute bitch to land in adverse conditions because of the weight and balance problems and not so well designed landing gear. Lots of airliner pilots opted not to fly them at all and others transferred to another type of airliner when they got tired of the 727.
It isn’t about fat at all. I don’t think fat changes the width of my shoulders at all, yet if I’m in an aisle seat, I have to lean against the person next to me to let the flight attendant go by with a cart, and I’m constantly hit by people’s luggage and purses as they walk by. I can’t sit in a window seat at all, as one shoulder is pressed against the cabin wall and the other is well over the line into the next seat.
Granted, I’m 6’4" tall, so my shoulder hits the curve of the plane’s fuselage higher than most, but it’s still ridiculously narrow and “fat” isn’t the reason.
Not only that but the 737 was built on the same platform as the original 707 designed a decade earlier. Boeing wanted to build the 707 a foot *narrower * but the airlines convinced them to go wider.
Then don’t fly if driving is an option. Obviously, if you’re going from New York to Seattle, flying is your best bet, but I’ve seen people fly from Toronto to Detroit. I could drive there faster than I could fly.
Obviously you personally cannot change the airlines, but the public could. And to be honest, they have; they vote for cheapness, overwhelmingly. That’s got a lot of benefits, too.
I’m fat but it’s usually leg room I have the issue with, never been on a plane that was too narrow to my mind, just not enough leg room. I hate when people with families think they have the right to take my seat without asking though. That grinds my gears.
:rolleyes: A 727 can’t tip forward, it is on a tricycle landing gear.
Maybe just maybe if you left the passengers off, and loaded the rear cargo hold full of lead brick you could get it to tip backwards, but there is no way in hell it can tip forward.
Airlines are removing magazines and pillows to save on gas prices! They’re looking to shave off any tiny increment of weight in any way they can. That’s the overwhelmingly huge reason they don’t want to add thousands or ten of thousands of pounds to the plane’s weight (not to mention the extra drag which would also worsen efficiency.) Wider coach seats would not add 3% to your fare, but 100% or more. Nobody would pay for them. gazpacho is quite correct. The options for wider seats are there and are called first class. They are outrageously expensive. Everybody else who flies wants the absolutely cheapest possible fare. And that requires the absolute narrowest possible seats.
Aircraft bodies are made with as small a cross sectional area as possible in order to minimize form drag which predominates at high speeds. Since the plane spends most of its time at high speed it’s important to minimize form drag.
I think the method is to pack as many seats in as possible while still maintaining low drag and the ability to empty the plane within the time limit in simulated evacuations.
Whack-a-Mole had it. Increase the diameter, and you increase weight. Weight requires power, and power requires fuel and/or more powerful (and expensive) engines. There’s also a drag penalty. All of that extra skin is going to increase the parasitic drag. Here’s a Wiki article on drag.
It can’t tip forward, but it could possibly tip backward, which is what Duckster wrote.