Aviation Discussion

[AM9]

... It'll depend obviously on the cost for the quick spin and, importantly, on the craft type in use for such a long flight. If it was, for example, an A380 I wouldn't be so interested but a 777 or 787, oh yes please! ...

I have to ask, what's so bad about an A380?

 

[atillathehunn]

Biman Bangladesh are restarting service to Manchester on 4th January. Out from Dhaka and back via Sylhet. Timings can be found in various places on Twitter. 787-8 Dreamliner as the metal. I believe they have served Manchester before. Let's see how this works out.

 

[Ken H]

quick question for airliner experts. Sorry if its a silly question but something I thought about on a A320 flight recently.

Do aircraft have motored axles, or do they use the jet engines to taxi?
Could they have such motors fitted. And if so, could they dispense with the push back tractors?

 

[atillathehunn]

quick question for airliner experts. Sorry if its a silly question but something I thought about on a A320 flight recently.

Do aircraft have motored axles, or do they use the jet engines to taxi?
Could they have such motors fitted. And if so, could they dispense with the push back tractors?

No there is no motor in the axle. They use the thrust from engines to taxi, hence the need for a tug.

There are various proposals knocking round about an electric motor for taxi, but it's quite a challenge for various reasons.

An alternative would be a small electric tug (possibly remote controlled or autonomous) to do some of the work of the tugs. They could also, I suppose, be adapted to tow the aircraft round the airport which would save on the amount of engine power needed. This would be expensive and probably hard to manage.

 

[gsnedders]

No there is no motor in the axle. They use the thrust from engines to taxi, hence the need for a tug.

There are various proposals knocking round about an electric motor for taxi, but it's quite a challenge for various reasons.

Various companies have made prototypes, but ultimately they add a fair bit of unsprung weight and bulk to the landing gear. Note all of these use the APU to power the motors, so you're still burning some fuel. As far as I'm aware, the cost of retrofitting them doesn't work out with the current cost of aviation fuel.

An alternative would be a small electric tug (possibly remote controlled or autonomous) to do some of the work of the tugs. They could also, I suppose, be adapted to tow the aircraft round the airport which would save on the amount of engine power needed. This would be expensive and probably hard to manage.

Heathrow T5A uses remote controlled electric-powered tugs for pushback (T5B/T5C don't because they're almost exclusively larger aircraft beyond the weight rating).

Towing the aircraft around the airport is doable, but you end up with more vehicles driving all over the apron and you need somewhere safe for the aircraft to stop for a minute or two while the tug detaches.

 

[Techniquest]

I have to ask, what's so bad about an A380?

I'm currently enjoying some Oktoberfest beer as I type this, so if I drift off-topic or whatever you've been warned!

As for the A380, based on memory (which may not be reliable today), there is nothing fundamentially wrong with the craft type. Some of my opinion basically boils down to 'well it's not Boeing' however, while both craft types have their faults, my experiences on the 787s (still need a 787-8 for the record) have been more enjoyable than my one, albeit LONG, trip on an A380.

Don't get me wrong, my A380 being so quiet on an overnight flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi was welcome. If I'd had a seat upstairs, as daft as it sounds, I may have had a more biased opinion towards the A380. I've since had 2 A321 Neos, and I have admitted both on this thread and on my blog (techsworldfrenzy.wordpress.com ) that I have grown a liking to the Neos. So much so my trip to Krakow got booked partially because it was booked for Neos.

Incidentially, I've been wondering, what is the accepted abbreviation for the type? A321N makes sense, but does it?

Should I get to try an A380 that isn't Etihad *shudders* I may change my mind. I have two flights booked for 747-400s with BA for January 2020, never flown that craft yet, which shocks me, so we'll see what opinion gets formed.

So in short, TLR - I have bias against the 380.

 

[atillathehunn]

Various companies have made prototypes, but ultimately they add a fair bit of unsprung weight and bulk to the landing gear. Note all of these use the APU to power the motors, so you're still burning some fuel. As far as I'm aware, the cost of retrofitting them doesn't work out with the current cost of aviation fuel.


Heathrow T5A uses remote controlled electric-powered tugs for pushback (T5B/T5C don't because they're almost exclusively larger aircraft beyond the weight rating).

Towing the aircraft around the airport is doable, but you end up with more vehicles driving all over the apron and you need somewhere safe for the aircraft to stop for a minute or two while the tug detaches.

I can't imagine the proposals to put a motor on the landing gear as going anywhere particularly. I mentioned it for the sake of answering the question, but it's a non-starter.

While there are a lot of problems with the electric tug option, which you raised (not to mention the cost of having all those tugs), it's by far and a way the best solution they came up with so far. It would be very messy, though perhaps not insurmountable. It would go a long way to reducing the environmental impact of the airport, probably not to mention the fuel bill. The taxi length at some airports with a heavy aircraft means a lot of fuel is burned on the ground.

 

[atillathehunn]

I'm currently enjoying some Oktoberfest beer as I type this, so if I drift off-topic or whatever you've been warned!

As for the A380, based on memory (which may not be reliable today), there is nothing fundamentially wrong with the craft type. Some of my opinion basically boils down to 'well it's not Boeing' however, while both craft types have their faults, my experiences on the 787s (still need a 787-8 for the record) have been more enjoyable than my one, albeit LONG, trip on an A380.

Don't get me wrong, my A380 being so quiet on an overnight flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi was welcome. If I'd had a seat upstairs, as daft as it sounds, I may have had a more biased opinion towards the A380. I've since had 2 A321 Neos, and I have admitted both on this thread and on my blog (techsworldfrenzy.wordpress.com ) that I have grown a liking to the Neos. So much so my trip to Krakow got booked partially because it was booked for Neos.

Incidentially, I've been wondering, what is the accepted abbreviation for the type? A321N makes sense, but does it?

Should I get to try an A380 that isn't Etihad *shudders* I may change my mind. I have two flights booked for 747-400s with BA for January 2020, never flown that craft yet, which shocks me, so we'll see what opinion gets formed.

So in short, TLR - I have bias against the 380.

I would caution on booking a flight because a specific type of plane operates it - these things change all the time. A recent flight was upgraded from a 737 to an A350...

I think the abbreviation is indeed A321N.

The 747 is iconic, wonderful and also these days really ropey inside. I spend quite a bit of time on KLM's 747s and I am getting a bit fed up with the poor IFE and uncomfortable seat. But still, great engineering. If you get the Super-Hi J 747 on BA apparently they have a nice set up in Y.

 

[Bald Rick]

Incidentially, I've been wondering, what is the accepted abbreviation for the type? A321N makes sense, but does it?

I think the abbreviation is indeed A321N.

Yes indeed - A321N (or A320N / A319N), except for the A321NL - the long range variant with a 4,000NM range, and the soon to come A321NX with a 4,700NM range.

 

[AM9]

I'm currently enjoying some Oktoberfest beer as I type this, so if I drift off-topic or whatever you've been warned!

As for the A380, based on memory (which may not be reliable today), there is nothing fundamentially wrong with the craft type. Some of my opinion basically boils down to 'well it's not Boeing' however, while both craft types have their faults, my experiences on the 787s (still need a 787-8 for the record) have been more enjoyable than my one, albeit LONG, trip on an A380.

Don't get me wrong, my A380 being so quiet on an overnight flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi was welcome. If I'd had a seat upstairs, as daft as it sounds, I may have had a more biased opinion towards the A380. I've since had 2 A321 Neos, and I have admitted both on this thread and on my blog (techsworldfrenzy.wordpress.com ) that I have grown a liking to the Neos. So much so my trip to Krakow got booked partially because it was booked for Neos.

Incidentially, I've been wondering, what is the accepted abbreviation for the type? A321N makes sense, but does it?

Should I get to try an A380 that isn't Etihad *shudders* I may change my mind. I have two flights booked for 747-400s with BA for January 2020, never flown that craft yet, which shocks me, so we'll see what opinion gets formed.

So in short, TLR - I have bias against the 380.

OK, thanks for the candid answer. I've been on an Air Canada 787/9 LHR-YYC and back in June. Out in Premium and back in Business. Likes: very quiet, smooth and the lower cabin altitude pressure makes for more comfort. Negatives: for Economy travel, the 787 is not really wide enough for 3-3-3 seating, the manufacturers apparently designed it for 2-4-2. The issue I had with Business was that although the the herring-bone layout gives a good view through 2 windows and no head to feet neighbour (ala BA), the foot well has an offset taper, so laying on one side is more uncomfortable than the other.

I'll be going on a Thai A380-800 next week LHR-BKK in business both ways then on to DPS in a 747-400 and back also in business. I'm looking forward to going on a 380 for the first time (before they are all sold off) and although I'm just over 6ft, I'm hoping that the 74inch beds will be long enough. The 747 is in the old long-haul config with almost flat recliners on a 50inch pitch. That's OK for a 4.5 hour flight after (or before) the 380 11.5 hours.

p.s., what is 'TLR'?

 

[nicholaswood]

p.s., what is 'TLR'?

"Too long, didn't read". Its mainly used online to indicate a summary of a wall of text.

 

[J-2739]

Another positive of the 787s is the relatively high cabin humidity, allowing for a higher comfort when sleeping One thing that makes sleeping on flight really hard, is the dry eyes you get.

 

[atillathehunn]

Another positive of the 787s is the relatively high cabin humidity, allowing for a higher comfort when sleeping One thing that makes sleeping on flight really hard, is the dry eyes you get.

Doesn't outweight the horrific cabin most airlines adopt on the 787-8 - so cramped. The 787-9 is a bit better in this regard. Kenya Airways have by far and a way the worst cabin configuration for the 787-8 closely followed by Qatar with the horrific box under the seat that stabs shins. Norwegian were actually quite good. Ethiopian not bad either.

The A350 is a better compromise - good cabin pressure and humidity without the terrible seat size.

 

[Techniquest]

I would caution on booking a flight because a specific type of plane operates it - these things change all the time. A recent flight was upgraded from a 737 to an A350...

I think the abbreviation is indeed A321N.

The 747 is iconic, wonderful and also these days really ropey inside. I spend quite a bit of time on KLM's 747s and I am getting a bit fed up with the poor IFE and uncomfortable seat. But still, great engineering. If you get the Super-Hi J 747 on BA apparently they have a nice set up in Y.

Not familiar with what Super-Hi is to be honest, I'll just be happy to fly a 747-400. I've wanted to fly on a Queen of the Skies for a long time, so despite not having a seat upstairs (which really would have been the dream!) I'm not overly bothered which one I get.

Wise words for the booking just for the plane thing, I mean I'm going to Krakow anyway but the 321N persuaded me. If something else turns up on the day, so be it, I'd just shove in some earplugs if a 319 or similar produced. Which does actually remind me to sort out some music to download to my phone!

Yes indeed - A321N (or A320N / A319N), except for the A321NL - the long range variant with a 4,000NM range, and the soon to come A321NX with a 4,700NM range.

Thanks for those, shows how out of date I am with things as I didn't know there was a 321NX in existance.

Also, is there much difference in a nautical mile compared to a regular one?

OK, thanks for the candid answer. I've been on an Air Canada 787/9 LHR-YYC and back in June. Out in Premium and back in Business. Likes: very quiet, smooth and the lower cabin altitude pressure makes for more comfort. Negatives: for Economy travel, the 787 is not really wide enough for 3-3-3 seating, the manufacturers apparently designed it for 2-4-2. The issue I had with Business was that although the the herring-bone layout gives a good view through 2 windows and no head to feet neighbour (ala BA), the foot well has an offset taper, so laying on one side is more uncomfortable than the other.

I'll be going on a Thai A380-800 next week LHR-BKK in business both ways then on to DPS in a 747-400 and back also in business. I'm looking forward to going on a 380 for the first time (before they are all sold off) and although I'm just over 6ft, I'm hoping that the 74inch beds will be long enough. The 747 is in the old long-haul config with almost flat recliners on a 50inch pitch. That's OK for a 4.5 hour flight after (or before) the 380 11.5 hours.

p.s., what is 'TLR'?

Too Long Didn't Read that was, sorry I should have explained that. Think the beer was catching up with me at that point!

I'm running behind schedule in my prep for work this morning, so no time for a full reply but I do wish you an awesome trip with Thai. Sounds like an excellent adventure coming up!

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for those, shows how out of date I am with things as I didn't know there was a 321NX in existance.

Also, is there much difference in a nautical mile compared to a regular one?

Strictly speaking the XLR doesn’t exist yet, another few years before deliveries start.

A nautical mile is defined as the distance of 1 minute of latitude (1/69th of a degree) at any longitude. More recently it has been standardised at 1852 metres, which is 1.151 statute miles. 4,700NM makes London-LA possible (just!), although how popular that would be in a narrow body remains to be seen.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm doing that 12h40m flight on a BA 777 next month. In Economy, before you ask, yes.

I was more commenting on the planes than economy. Especially the 777 now it's 10-abreast. I did four hours on one of Emirates 777s and that was quite enough.

 

[jopsuk]

Lufthansa at Frankfurt are using "Taxibot", a tug that allows them to taxi most of the way to the runway before starting engines. It uses a human driver to pushback, then the pilot takes control for taxi-ing out. Engines started at holding areas where the vehicle uncouples. Seems to be narrow body only for now, wide body in development. Appears Delhi are using them too.

 

[atillathehunn]

Lufthansa at Frankfurt are using "Taxibot", a tug that allows them to taxi most of the way to the runway before starting engines. It uses a human driver to pushback, then the pilot takes control for taxi-ing out. Engines started at holding areas where the vehicle uncouples. Seems to be narrow body only for now, wide body in development. Appears Delhi are using them too.

Interesting. I haven't seen this before. It can't be for all narrow-bodies at FRA, as I've arrived and departed from there a few times recently (on Lufthansa) and we didn't have it. Delhi, I'm sure, will love anything that reduces their air pollution index!

 

[AlterEgo]

Biman Bangladesh are restarting service to Manchester on 4th January. Out from Dhaka and back via Sylhet. Timings can be found in various places on Twitter. 787-8 Dreamliner as the metal. I believe they have served Manchester before. Let's see how this works out.

Good news.

 

[atillathehunn]

Good news.

Certainly for the large Bangladeshi community living in the north west. Beats having a one stop option via the Middle East. Another interesting tail in the line up.

 

[gsnedders]

I was more commenting on the planes than economy. Especially the 777 now it's 10-abreast. I did four hours on one of Emirates 777s and that was quite enough.

Note the 777-X will all be 10-abreast, but also the fuselage walls are thinner so the cabin is wider. AFAIK, that should give similar seat-width to the old 9-abreast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note the 777-X will all be 10-abreast, but also the fuselage walls are thinner so the cabin is wider. AFAIK, that should give similar seat-width to the old 9-abreast.

Though there are plenty of regular 777s already 10-abreast. I don't, to be honest, find them that bad, and I'd rather have more legroom than 9 across if that was the choice.

 

[Techniquest]

I'd rather have more legroom than 9 across if that was the choice.

I think I have to agree here. Obviously the preference would be 9 across and good legroom!

Legroom on Ryanair is fine enough for me, so instead of say an extra inch of legroom I would sometimes prefer an extra inch of seat width. Depends where I'm sat, on which craft type and whether I have seat neighbours or not. For example, my ride on a BA 777-2 was much more comfortable than my ride on an Etihad 777-3, despite both being by the window on both flights. On the BA flight I didn't have seat neighbours, so didn't feel crushed in. On the Etihad flight, despite being about the same legroom, I had two seat neighbours blocking me in, so not only was I a bit stuck where I was it took some time for them to get up and move for me to get out.

An extra inch of seat width in that circumstance would have made a big difference. On the BA trip, I'd have not really cared too much!

EDIT: Also, thanks for the explanation on nautical miles!

 

[RichJF]

I think I have to agree here. Obviously the preference would be 9 across and good legroom!

Legroom on Ryanair is fine enough for me, so instead of say an extra inch of legroom I would sometimes prefer an extra inch of seat width. Depends where I'm sat, on which craft type and whether I have seat neighbours or not. For example, my ride on a BA 777-2 was much more comfortable than my ride on an Etihad 777-3, despite both being by the window on both flights. On the BA flight I didn't have seat neighbours, so didn't feel crushed in. On the Etihad flight, despite being about the same legroom, I had two seat neighbours blocking me in, so not only was I a bit stuck where I was it took some time for them to get up and move for me to get out.

An extra inch of seat width in that circumstance would have made a big difference. On the BA trip, I'd have not really cared too much!

EDIT: Also, thanks for the explanation on nautical miles!

If you want legroom & a widebody then book on a 767 if it flies that route. They can't physically fit any more seats in as the fuselage limits it to 2-3-2. Book a pair of seats & get the aisle seat. Nobody wants to book a window seat once the aisle seat has been filled & it gives you the space of the spare seat.

I actively seek out the 757/767 on routes I may be going as the general public tend to avoid them in favour of bigger/more modern aircraft, so it gives me a more pleasant flight!

 

[nlogax]

Nobody wants to book a window seat once the aisle seat has been filled

Could you maybe expand upon that? There are a good many of us who go for a window seat all the time.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think I have to agree here. Obviously the preference would be 9 across and good legroom!

Legroom on Ryanair is fine enough for me, so instead of say an extra inch of legroom I would sometimes prefer an extra inch of seat width. Depends where I'm sat, on which craft type and whether I have seat neighbours or not. For example, my ride on a BA 777-2 was much more comfortable than my ride on an Etihad 777-3, despite both being by the window on both flights. On the BA flight I didn't have seat neighbours, so didn't feel crushed in. On the Etihad flight, despite being about the same legroom, I had two seat neighbours blocking me in, so not only was I a bit stuck where I was it took some time for them to get up and move for me to get out.

An extra inch of seat width in that circumstance would have made a big difference. On the BA trip, I'd have not really cared too much!

EDIT: Also, thanks for the explanation on nautical miles!

Ryanair actually has good legroom, much better than BA on their new A321 interiors

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you maybe expand upon that? There are a good many of us who go for a window seat all the time.

With the 2 seats, everyone will pick a window with nobody in the aisle until such time as every row is full, though. So it reduces the chance of it.

It's a bit like the trick of a couple booking window and aisle in the hope the middle won't be filled, if it is you offer a choice of window or aisle to the middle passenger who will mostly be happy of the upgrade (does anyone like a middle?).

 

[Techniquest]

(does anyone like a middle?)

On a 'blink and it's over' flight I really don't mind the middle seats. Anything above 2, 2 and a half, hours and I do get a bit more fussy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a 'blink and it's over' flight I really don't mind the middle seats. Anything above 2, 2 and a half, hours and I do get a bit more fussy.

That's more putting up with them, though.

If you were allocated to a middle but you showed up and the two others there offered you a choice of window or aisle, you wouldn't object, would you?

The only people to whom that might be a problem might be autistic people who would find "sitting where they shouldn't be sitting" made them uncomfortable.

 

[Techniquest]

That's more putting up with them, though.

If you were allocated to a middle but you showed up and the two others there offered you a choice of window or aisle, you wouldn't object, would you?

The only people to whom that might be a problem might be autistic people who would find "sitting where they shouldn't be sitting" made them uncomfortable.

True on putting up with them, and whether I go window or aisle depends on the flight. Long ones I would go for the aisle so I can get up as and when I want during cruise. Nothing worse than being by the window with two sleeping passengers blocking you in.

Yeah my brother would not be happy about not being in his seat. He doesn't like it when trains are delayed either, quite he'd rather sit in front of his PS4 all day and not move from it except for PNBs and food breaks until it was bed time. Even then I swear he'd not go to bed if it wasn't necessary!