I’ve seen some aircraft, such as the ATR 72, that have a pole that gets inserted under the tail end of the fuselage during loading. It stops it from tipping back if it gets too tail heavy.
To the OP. The width of the aeroplane is not really relevant. The airlines have the option of puting whatever seating in it thy want. They’ve found that 3 and 3 works on a B737. They could make it 2 and 3 and charge more per seat, but people won’t pay that much more per seat.
You’ve already stated that you won’t pay for a first class or business class seat. You say this would not be a vote against the economy class. What you are missing is that every time you pay for an economy tickets you are essentially voting for the economy layout and proving the airline right.
There are some airlines such as Air New Zealand that have a premium economy class. These seats primarily have more leg room but the point remains that they are a slightly better seat offered at a higher price.
This claim is beyond absurd, if for no other reason than that the rear airstair is not a structural member! Any aircraft designed such that some combination of loading would cause it to tip over or backwards on the ground would never get past the concept stage. Please think about what you’re saying before you relate “what a reliable buddy told me,” or “according to my sister’s cousin’s father-in-law.” Shagnasty is correct that the aircraft has a reputation of being difficult to land in high cross winds, but this is an artifact of its glide ratio which made it the first commercial jet aircraft capable of landing at high altitude airports.
Regarding changing a design to a wider body, Whack-A-Mole and David Simmons both have it right; manufacturers loath to change an existing, working design because they’ll have to redesign fixturing and figure out how such a change modifies the aerodynamic response of the aircraft. This isn’t like stretching a limosine; making the fuselage wider can have a very signficant impact on the handling properties of the aircraft, especially at the critical low speed landing approach. It also adds weight and cost, and as David Simmons notes, increases the form drag. The viscous drag or so-called “skin friction” (I hate that term) that Johnny L.A. refers to isn’t nearly as much of an issue for something the size of an jetliner in air.
Anyway, there isn’t any economic incentive for jet manufacturers to increase the width, or airlines to offer wider seats. As much as you might pay an extra $20 or $50 for wider seats, airlines make their money in volume, and unless you are travelling three or four times a week that extra squeeze just isn’t going to net them enough to demand a change Boeing or Airbus. (Lockheed fell out of the commerical airliner business after the L-1011 and McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing, so for the large jet market that’s all the choices you have.) The real solution to the issue is to go to a blended wing body design (like the B-1B bomber) which gives better low speed lift and comperable high speed performance. However, BWB fuselages are unconventional, expensive to design, require significantly more complex avionics, and have other issues (like lack of windows and easy escape routes) which make them very, very challenging to design for commercial use. Given that aircraft manufacturers are tremulous at the thought of designing even a new wing-and-tube design, and that one bad product could potentially sink a company, I don’t think BWB designs will ever happen without subsidy, so the company doesn’t have to risk its future on an uncertain design.
In regard to high speed trains–I’d love to see an L.A. to Seattle or Vancouver rail line, and I’d use the hell out of it, but I doubt it’ll happen within my lifetime. The infrastructure cost of building and maintaining such a line would be huge, and air travel–as miserable and uncivilized as it is–it just too bloody cheap to make it worthwhile. Rail took root in Europe when cars were a costly item to have, but the Europeans seem to love their automobiles about as much as Americans, despite the increased cost of maintenance, licensing, and fuel.
Yes, Midwest Express is a fantastic option for people who want more space and better service, but you have to pay a little bit more and you can rarely take non-stop flights unless you are going to one of their hubs.
But the options are out there with a little research.
The case may be overstated, but there appears to be at least something to it. Here’s a paper with a reference to an AIAA case study on the 727 that mentions an incident (first footnote). It appears you have to buy the case study to actually read it.
The reliable person is a relative who manages the ground support for a major carrier at an international airport in the Midwest. He has told me many stories surrounding 727s and selected AirBus aircraft. I have no reason to doubt his words.
You are 100% incorrect. Our company OpSpecs required us to load/unload the 727 with the airstair down because of the risk of it tipping back on its tail. The airstair doubles as a tailstand. Many aircraft can be tipped back from improper loading procedures.
I think you are the one who needs to think about what you’re saying before you “correct” someone else.
Well, hell. This turned into some sort of a debate anyway.
Basically, all I want to know is, for example, how much per passenger mile would it cost the airline to provide a few more inches of shoulder room for passenger room.
I was even careful to point out that I wasn’t negatively criticizing the airlines.
So yes, a “sheesh” is appropriate.
Well, I guess I’m going to have to eat crow on this issue. I’m frankly amazed that such a design would continue to be allowed in service, especially since one company I worked for in the construction equipment business was essentially driven to bankruptcy due to a liability issue with the selection of a steel twenty years previous which was entirely within engineering and industry practice at the time. To have a vehicle designed such that it could fall over in a static loading scenerio is…bizarre in my experience.
I’m totally in the wrong here, and my sincere apologies to Duckster.
That is the problem with being dyslectic is that you read shit backwards. I read “rear cargo hold is always loaded last and unloaded first.” as always loaded first, and unloaded last.
::: Hangs head in shame:::
forgive me as I fucked up.
:smack:
Once, while my mother and I were boarding a very small commuter plane from Montreal to La Guardia, they asked my mother to switch seats for balance reasons.
My mother is not a large woman. As in, she’s small enough she couldn’t even take offence. She said, “If my weight is going to make a difference, I’m not sure I want to be on this plane.”
It’s not specific to the 727. I think it is inherant in aircraft design to some extent. You’re dealing with large aircraft able to take heavy loads and the main wheels must be relatively close to the centre of gravity so that the tail plane has enough authority to pitch the nose up when taking off.
I’ve also seen light aircraft do it when the pilot gets out first before the passengers.
In order:
1: DC 10/MD11
2: 747
3: did not display
4: did not display
5: did not display
6: MD-11
7: did not display
8: 747
9: 4 out of 24 of them are in fact 727s but look close at the nose of one of the 727 notice anything unusual about the nose of that bird?
In Private Pilot Land where I live you are supposed to get even a light dusting of frost off your airplane, because even a barely-visible coating of frost can change the aerodynamics of important items like wings and tail surfaces. Brooms/brushes like those used to remove snow from car windows are employed to do the same for small airplanes. They can also remove light coatings of frost. This is called “de-icing” because all of that frozen precipitation is actual ice, and it’s quicker than saying “I’m removing frost, snow, and ice and anything else I find on the airplane”
If, however, you have a serious coating of ice on your small airplane you’re sort of screwed. There isn’t that much available at most small airports to remove such ice without damaging the aircraft. If you’re at a big airport you can ask for de-icing like the big guys (and pay for it, too!) but the solution I most commonly see is to stick the flying popsicle into a heated hangar until the ice melts off. In which case judicious use of brushes can help remove large sheets of ice as they loosen.
(And yes, I know of a few cases where the solution was “wait until spring thaw”)
But mostly, in my experience it’s largely snow removal. It’s a little different than what you do for you car, though, in that you really do have to remove all of it, not just around the windows, and it’s a much, much larger surface area to deal with. Add in freezing temperatures and the winds that always seem to be screaming across a ramp in January and you’ll understand why FBO’s are able to charge for parking planes in heated hangars in the winter and why pilots are willing to pay for such services.
I was about to ask, but thought it better to read forward and see if anyone (inevitably) got their first. Is it something to do with an “area rule”, I remember hearing that mentioned on a documentary somewhere.
Same here. Combine that with the total lack of leg room and I’m pretty miserable on most flights.
We always get to the airport WAY WAY early, and rarely get exit rows.
None of the routes I typically fly have business class. Some don’t have first class, that is if I would even consider paying 3-4 times the cost. It’s absurd.
