| General > General Technical Chat |
| Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus |
| << < (202/447) > >> |
| thinkfat:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 28, 2020, 06:48:57 pm --- --- Quote from: thinkfat on April 28, 2020, 06:46:18 pm ---Leaving just the middle seat empty will not give you the necessary separation. Especially not with air nozzles blowing down from the ceiling and distributing the virus aerosole in the entire cabin. --- End quote --- Fair point, air nozzles would be a problem. Airlines could decide to disable all air nozzles temporarily though. (I suppose you're talking about the individual air nozzles above each seat?) --- End quote --- Yes, shutting off the air nozzles might be doable. But IMHO, the whole design of ventilating airplane cabins needs overhauling. Creating a controlled draft that moves air upwards or downwards only, not sideways, would certainly be helpful. |
| langwadt:
--- Quote from: james_s on April 28, 2020, 05:10:57 pm --- --- Quote from: langwadt on April 28, 2020, 11:59:50 am ---they most be getting those 747 very cheap from all the airlines that are retiring them, they are not as fuel efficient as more modern planes and maintaining four engines instead of two is expensive --- End quote --- They sure are nice to fly on though, and significantly faster than the large twins that are taking over those routes. I'll be really sad to see the 747s go. --- End quote --- afaict the 747 is only slightly faster than the modern twins, isn't it just the airlines just flying slower to save fuel? |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: langwadt on April 28, 2020, 08:13:35 pm --- --- Quote from: james_s on April 28, 2020, 05:10:57 pm --- --- Quote from: langwadt on April 28, 2020, 11:59:50 am ---they most be getting those 747 very cheap from all the airlines that are retiring them, they are not as fuel efficient as more modern planes and maintaining four engines instead of two is expensive --- End quote --- They sure are nice to fly on though, and significantly faster than the large twins that are taking over those routes. I'll be really sad to see the 747s go. --- End quote --- afaict the 747 is only slightly faster than the modern twins, isn't it just the airlines just flying slower to save fuel? --- End quote --- Wikipedia says: * 747-400: Mach 0.855 * 777: Mach 0.84 * 787: Mach 0.85Their maximum speeds vary a bit more, but these cruise speeds are very close. I think the idea that speeds are dropping may come from the extremely long routes operated with 777s and A350s, where they need to optimise for consumption to get the range they need on a 20 hour flight. Boeing abandoned plans for a faster aircraft, because of weak response from the airline industry. There isn't that much point in higher speeds when so many hours are consumed by the journey on the ground at each end. |
| james_s:
My recollection was that the 747 was about 50mph faster than most of the twins, a few years ago my friend was on a 747 going from England to the US and the captain mentioned at one point that they were overtaking the 777 that took off some time before from the same airport. I don't actually know the reasons, just that the 747 is typically flown a bit faster. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: james_s on April 28, 2020, 04:23:03 am ---I'll buy some airline stock if it drops down low enough, I've been eyeing Boeing stock too. I'm in for the long haul and I know it'll come back up eventually. --- End quote --- Most stock is good to buy nowadays; now is a good time to put money into an investment fund. I just added some money to my (investment fund based) retirement plan. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |