[QUOTE=Duckster]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
Stranger
