What will passenger airplanes be like in 50 years?

silverharp

Junior asked me the question and my answer was pretty much the same as now and that no they wont look like the planes in the Marvel movies

so is that basically it, the advances will be materials, economy but planes will largely still be sub sonic?

DellyBelly

I really think we'll be using things like teleporters to transfer us from one place to another so I think planes could be a thing of the past in 50 years

youreadthat

Not that different to today, variants of 747's and 737's are flying today and their core design is approaching 50. Efficiency will become ever important. Perhaps there'll be a fully electric powered regional airliner and I'd be surprised if they hadn't attempted another supersonic airliner again at least once.

Greenmachine

Things not likely to go subsonic. Concorde was capable of that but aviation law prevented those kind of speed above land.

Tenger

silverharp wrote: »

Junior asked me the question and my answer was pretty much the same as now and that no they wont look like the planes in the Marvel movies

so is that basically it, the advances will be materials, economy but planes will largely still be sub sonic?

Its very boring but I would be in agreement. The B787/A350 and their 2nd/3rd generations will be dominant for longhaul over the next 10-30 years. For shorthaul we will see the B737/A320 replacements from A/B from 2025. (assuming they launch in 2020-2021)

New forms of propulsion could change the basic layout of commercial aircraft. but sub-sonic efficiency is the future if we are stuck with carbon fuels.

braddun

you will go into space then come down about an hour later at your destination


only way to stop sonic boom from stopping faster travel times


they already want to build planes with no windows


and round planes


next they need planes that fly over bad weather,which would be nearly in space



The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space

notharrypotter

braddun wrote: »

you will go into space then come down about an hour later at your destination

Nothing new here. this has been speculated since the 1980's.

Updated in 2014

UK report on space planes.

Still no closer. Cost is a major factor.

Tenger

braddun wrote: »

......
The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space

Oh look, someone can use wikipedia.

Atlantic Dawn

We are going backwards due to fuel costs, Concorde kicked ass and is now gone, I suppose the only inovations will be either hybrid or the most sensible option nuclear powered.

owenc

I don't think they will be too different to be honest.

owenc

Greenmachine wrote: »

Things not likely to go subsonic. Concorde was capable of that but aviation law prevented those kind of speed above land.

I wouldn't be that bothered but it would be nice if they could make the aircraft go hypersonic i.e. 700mph.

5uspect

It's going to be all about efficiency and materials rather than radical changes in aerodynamics. The designs aren't going to change much but you'll see more composites, low drag surface coatings to reduce weight and fuel burn. Gas turbines will push for greater efficiency by continuing to push core temperatures as materials while increasing bypass ratios. Noise will continue to see improvements so you may see some fancy nacelle designs.

hfallada

Comfort is going to have to improve. Im not taking about larger seats. But more technology on board like wifi, better air quality etc. Take the fact that high speed trains are starting to kill traffic on some routes. eg Shaghai to Beijiing in China, London to Paris. High speed rail will continue to be a competitors to air travel. Particularly the talk of high speed trains in the US eg LA to San Francisco.

Boskowski

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We are going backwards due to fuel costs, Concorde kicked ass and is now gone, I suppose the only inovations will be either hybrid or the most sensible option nuclear powered.

But nuclear powered is still very mechanical. As in nuke heats water which drives turbine isn't it? That may be ok on a ship but in a plane?

owenc

hfallada wrote: »

Comfort is going to have to improve. Im not taking about larger seats. But more technology on board like wifi, better air quality etc. Take the fact that high speed trains are starting to kill traffic on some routes. eg Shaghai to Beijiing in China, London to Paris. High speed rail will continue to be a competitors to air travel. Particularly the talk of high speed trains in the US eg LA to San Francisco.

Hopefully the seat pitch standard can be set and the seat thickness is increased. Airlines need more standards.. I really think the low cost 29 inches is rediculous.. E.g Easyjet.

I'm not sure how secure their seats are but i've always felt they were very flimsy.

Del2005

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We are going backwards due to fuel costs, Concorde kicked ass and is now gone, I suppose the only inovations will be either hybrid or the most sensible option nuclear powered.

Did Concorde ever make money, even when fuel was cheap? I thought it was a fuel guzzling monster which is why the only operators where the national airlines of the country's that developed it. Even the Americans with their love of gas guzzling cars dropped their supersonic jet.

I think flying wings will be the next generation, loads of space for passengers and cargo.

But then something completely unexpected could be invented or happen that rewrites how we travel or air travel could return to its early days of only being for the mega wealthy and normal people go back to boats

Tenger

Del2005 wrote: »

Did Concorde ever make money, even when fuel was cheap? I thought it was a fuel guzzling monster which is why the only operators where the national airlines of the country's that developed it. Even the Americans with their love of gas guzzling cars dropped their supersonic jet. ....

It is surmised that AF didn't make money on their Concorde fleet. However did make a profit on theirs. The business ties between London and NYC made it a cash cow with all the high level financial people shuttling back and forth.
For AF it was more a celebrity status operation, while it was an important business route Paris does not have the same financial sector ties that London did.

Now this refers to the operating cost/profit. Factoring in the developmental costs I am not sure if overall the Concorde program broke even. Just look at the A380, apparently it requires over 200 units sold to break even, which it has not done yet.

Inn terms of the US supersonic attempts, they did make the effort but realised the costs of development and cancelled. The US led effort to ban supersonic travel overland is seen as an attempt to hobble the UK-French successful program.

Haithabu

Del2005 wrote: »

Did Concorde ever make money

Concorde did not make money. It was a huge investment and only two handful of machines built so it must have been a massive loss for the manufacturer.

As for the operators, it was likely not a win either as otherwise more machines would have been ordered. I never flew with one but went into the one in the museum in Barbados where they said there is no market for this. It's a more or less all first class machine so super expensive and there is not enough demand for that. Demand is for low cost rather than fast transport.

LoonyLovegood

BA made money on their Concorde operations, but it operated at a loss for the first while. Apparently business people thought it was a lot more expensive, but they weren't the ones booking flights on it, their secretaries were. So BA upped the price to where business people thought it was, and they ended up making money over time.

Haithabu

silverharp wrote: »

What will passenger airplanes be like in 50 years?

I'd say the planes won't be much different in size or speed. Theu will likely be more fuel efficient and more quiet to allow the starting and landing at nighttime.

The future of air travel will likely be less travel required in general as more can be done from home, especially business travel will be less as video conferences become similar to sitting in the same room with your business partner. Also I imagine that airlines move away from big hubs like London, Paris or Frankfurt to fly to New York, Tokyo or Hong Kong. Instead I think you will see more direct connections from smaller airports like Manchester, Dublin or Berlin to smaller destinations like Chicago, Shanghai or Cebu. So I think that instead of flying faster you save the time by flying more direct in the future.

Tenger

Haithabu wrote: »

...The future of air travel will likely be less travel required in general as more can be done from home, especially business travel will be less as video conferences become similar to sitting in the same room with your business partner.......

Yeah I watched that Tomorrow's World episode approx 25 year ago too.

Haithabu wrote: »

..... Instead I think you will see more direct connections from smaller airports like Manchester, Dublin or Berlin to smaller destinations like Chicago, Shanghai or Cebu......

Never realised that Shanghai and Chicago were "smaller destinations"
Isn't Chicago O'Hare one of the top 10 airports in the world?

cml387

Any improvement will probably be in the engines and structure.

Try to make the aircraft as light as possible with engines that are more fuel efficient. The overall shape was fixed in the 1950's and hasn't been improved since then.

There is the outside possibility that in the short term flying will become less safe, as accountants try to shave as much from operating costs as possible. One article in The Guardian by a retired BA pilot this week was pointing at the maintenance costs, and how there are no regulations governing how long maintenance engineers are supposed to work.

murphaph

Tenger wrote: »

Yeah I watched that Tomorrow's World episode approx 25 year ago too

To be fair video conferencing is changing how we work. I video conference every day with other members of my team down in Munich. I've only actually had to go to Munich for works outings, parties etc. All our meetings are done by video conference and screen sharing which suits me just fine.

I think more advanced video conferencing featuring 3D head sets will be commonplace in much less than 50 years so you really will be able to sit in a meering room with your remote colleagues "sitting" beside you. Of course this won't spell the end of business travel but will see less need for it.

L1011

Video conferencing is mature already and has for done very little in terms of reducing business travel. There were high quality (ISDN PRI, dear but so are flights) systems 20 years ago.

And people aren't going to willingly wear headsets, really

Haithabu

L1011 wrote: »

Video conferencing is mature already and has for done very little in terms of reducing business travel. There were high quality (ISDN PRI, dear but so are flights) systems 20 years ago.

Yes, proper video conferencing equipment comes at a price. But it's one investment while travelling as an alternative are permanent costs.

L1011 wrote: »

And people aren't going to willingly wear headsets, really

Not wearing a headset in a conference is not the future but the present.

L1011

Haithabu wrote: »

Yes, proper video conferencing equipment comes at a price. But it's one investment while travelling as an alternative are permanent costs.

That wasn't my point - perfectly usable videoconferencing technology has been available at a justifiable price point for two decades and it has stopped very little business travel. We're still being told that "the future" will let videoconferencing replace travel when it hasn't done it for the 20 years we've had it!

I'd wonder whether the increased contact it's allowed has possibly generated just as many new trips as were stopped in the first place in terms of things which are always done face-to-face.

Haithabu wrote: »

Not wearing a headset in a conference is not the future but the present.

It was someone suggesting that people would be wearing headsets I was replying to.