Revolutionizing Aviation: Faster Takeoff and Landing Technology Explained

In summary: No, to be fair, I just wasn't aware of the restrictions. I was told after open heart surgery that I shouldn't fly for the next several weeks (and check w/ the cardiologist in any case) but I was not aware that airlines had regulations about it, so I really was wrong. I thought it was just medical guidelines. I guess the airlines don't want anyone dying on their planes...
  • #1
182
1
hello!

I recently flew from Athens to London, with regular flight.

I noticed that a significant part of the whole travel time is taken by the take off and landing.

Why don't we develop a system, similar to helicopters, in order to achieve the fastest take off and landing?

Also, I wonder why the plane couldn't just fly faster after taking off and before landing. Can't the human sustain such accelerations and velocities? We don't have the technology to fly that fast? What is the problem exactly?

I strongly believe that with current technology it would be possible to diminish the flight duration to a fraction of its current amount.

We already have airoplanes that drive much faster. Also, human body can sustain faster velocities and accelerations I believe. Current accelerations in a regular airoplane are not even noticeable!

Any thoughts?

Thanks!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nuisance abatement, costs and safety are preeminent considerations.
 
  • Like
Likes profinger
  • #3
I don't see how we cannot meet these with new systems, vertical landing and take off
as for costs, they earn millions!
I don't see why they cannot be safe, in fact, normal landing and take off seem more risky to me!
 
  • #4
I don't see why VTOL would make takeoff and landing any faster, after all you'll still have to get up to cruising speed. As for faster journeys you might want to take a look into Concorde, specifically how uncompetitive it was compared to regular business class, private jets and growing use of telecoms in business.
 
  • #5
physior said:
hello!
Why don't we develop a system, similar to helicopters, in order to achieve the fastest take off and landing?

Also, I wonder why the plane couldn't just fly faster after taking off and before landing. Can't the human sustain such accelerations and velocities? We don't have the technology to fly that fast? What is the problem exactly?

The real problem is efficiency. Most planes are designed to cruise at a certain speed and going much faster/slower than that affects the performance of the aircraft. It's not a speed limitation; it's a fuel conservation thing.

As far as VTOL, there's a lot of research in it, but it's not reliable yet.
 
  • #6
physior said:
Also, I wonder why the plane couldn't just fly faster after taking off and before landing. Can't the human sustain such accelerations and velocities?
So in your world, people with heart conditions wouldn't be allowed to fly? o_O
 
  • #7
Most of the delays encountered at airports are due to the number of flights landing or taking off at any given time. It's not that the planes are that slow landing or taking off, but you've got a pretty complicated 3-D problem trying to manage the flights on the ground and in the air. There are only so many runways and so much airspace which can be safely occupied at anyone time.
 
  • Like
Likes Ryan_m_b
  • #8
Borg said:
So in your world, people with heart conditions wouldn't be allowed to fly? o_O

in the world YOU are living, people with heart conditions aren't allowed to fly, too
 
  • #9
physior said:
in the world YOU are living, people with heart conditions aren't allowed to fly, too
I find that unlikely. Can you cite a solid reference for that information or is it just your opinion?
 
  • #11
physior said:
you must not be serious...
scroll down to see a list of contraindications
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/flying-with-medical-conditions
OK, thanks. I was aware of guidelines about not flying if you have had heart surgery or a heart attack within a few weeks but there seem to be even more restriction that I was not aware of.
 
  • #12
physior said:
you must not be serious...
scroll down to see a list of contraindications
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/flying-with-medical-conditions

phinds said:
OK, thanks. I was aware of guidelines about not flying if you have had heart surgery or a heart attack within a few weeks but there seem to be even more restriction that I was not aware of.

Those contraindications are generally because of the low O2sat levels involved in flying at altitude. I'm thinking that phinds was referring more to the g-levels that you were implying in shortening the duration of flights...
 
  • #13
berkeman said:
Those contraindications are generally because of the low O2sat levels involved in flying at altitude. I'm thinking that phinds was referring more to the g-levels that you were implying in shortening the duration of flights...
No, to be fair, I just wasn't aware of the restrictions. I was told after open heart surgery that I shouldn't fly for the next several weeks (and check w/ the cardiologist in any case) but I was not aware that airlines had regulations about it, so I really was wrong. I thought it was just medical guidelines. I guess the airlines don't want anyone dying on their planes :smile:
 
  • #15
yeah, I was imagining a combination of VTOL and horizontal movement
to the point it becomes hardly noticeable (0.5g?)

now, we get 1g during the take off and after that, we don't feel any acceleration
why not the plane accelerate during the half of its travel? and deccelerating for the rest half
 
  • #16
physior said:
now, we get 1g during the take off and after that, we don't feel any acceleration
why not the plane accelerate during the half of its travel? and deccelerating for the rest half

Because as has been mentioned, it is more efficient to climb steeply and then level off to cruise most of the way. Saves on fuel, etc.

There are lots of great books and learning resources on airplane design and jet engine design. Check out your local library or do some searching on the net. It's a fun subject to study. :-)
 
  • #17
A plane can't accelerate for half the journey due to drag. The faster you go the worse drag becomes meaning you have to burn even more fuel.
 
  • #18
SteamKing said:
Most of the delays encountered at airports are due to the number of flights landing or taking off at any given time. It's not that the planes are that slow landing or taking off, but you've got a pretty complicated 3-D problem trying to manage the flights on the ground and in the air. There are only so many runways and so much airspace which can be safely occupied at anyone time.
So, ways around this problem:

1. Build more airports. (expensive)
2. Fly planes closer together. (dangerous)
3. Fly larger planes. (possible!)
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
So, ways around this problem:

1. Build more airports. (expensive)
2. Fly planes closer together. (dangerous)
3. Fly larger planes. (possible!)

The problem with 3) is that the larger planes are more expensive to purchase and their size and the number of people which they carry can lead to 1) which can handle either the size of these planes, the number of passengers, or both. The size of these planes also means that 2) is not only dangerous, but may be lethal to smaller aircraft flying into or out of the same airports.

The Airbus A380, which is currently the largest commercial passenger plane in production (and the one which can carry the largest number of passengers)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

has been reported recently to be ending production due to a variety of reasons.
 
  • #20
berkeman said:
Those contraindications are generally because of the low O2sat levels involved in flying at altitude. I'm thinking that phinds was referring more to the g-levels that you were implying in shortening the duration of flights...
I was referring to the g-forces. The link to airline restrictions is nice but I've never been questioned about medical conditions like that. In general, people aren't dying from heart attacks during takeoff and landing and the airlines are pretty lax about questioning passengers about their health unless they show up in obvious distress. Increasing g-forces significantly would change that equation.
 
  • #21
SteamKing said:
The problem with 3) is that the larger planes are more expensive to purchase and their size and the number of people which they carry can lead to 1) which can handle either the size of these planes, the number of passengers, or both. The size of these planes also means that 2) is not only dangerous, but may be lethal to smaller aircraft flying into or out of the same airports.

The Airbus A380, which is currently the largest commercial passenger plane in production (and the one which can carry the largest number of passengers)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

has been reported recently to be ending production due to a variety of reasons.
Something has to give. More people are going to want to fly every year, so the problem you highlighted (airport congestion) is going to keep getting worse. Yes, I'm aware the A380 isn't doing well because carriers are opting for more flights with smaller planes (particularly, budget, domestic carriers). But I think ultimately if they want to grow and they can't get new airport gates or departure times, they won't have a choice but to start flying progressively bigger and bigger planes.

I understand it is currently not considered a desirable option, but I think it is the least undesirable of the options moving forward.
 
  • #22
Takeoff itself takes relatively little wasted time. Conventional takeoff allows the plane to get up to speed and begin it's parabolic ascent/trajectory. What benefit would VTOL give? Getting altitude is the least of the concern, why waste fuel which could be used for horizontal velocity (which creates lift itself) on only vertical lift, which doesn't get you any closer to your destination.

The only benefit of VTOL, maybe, would be the reduction in runway traffic - which is admittedly a huge time waster. But you'd still have to account for air traffic. 200 planes can't just take off in 200 different directions at once...
 
  • #23
It is not difficult to think of air travel as having reached some sort of point of diminishing returns, as being saturated. Bigger, faster AC make longer more frequent ground transportation delays at the airports capable of handling them. A common trip is to a regional airport for access to a hub without ground traffic delays.

With other air travel inconveniences and expenses those of us with more time to spare than money may find intracontinental ground travel preferable. I can afford to drive to a bicycling event to which I could not afford to fly my bicycles and for just a fraction more time.
 
  • #24
Airlines seem to have been working overtime to drive passengers away in recent years. More fees, especially on checked baggage, crowded cabins, fewer, if any, amenities during flights, etc.

People used to complain about airline food; on many flights, you're lucky if you get a bag of peanuts.

I used to fly regularly on one of the regional carriers in the US before deregulation. Even without first class, it was a much better experience before deregulation than afterwards. At least, if your flight had a leg which was at least an hour in duration, you got a basic meal with your ticket. Also, this was before the hub concept was adopted wholesale by the airlines. If your flight didn't pass thru one of the congested airports like Atlanta or Chicago, it was a relatively painless experience. Now, unless a flight is relatively short, it's an experience to be endured rather than savored.
 
  • #25
russ_watters said:
So, ways around this problem:

1. Build more airports. (expensive)
2. Fly planes closer together. (dangerous)
3. Fly larger planes. (possible!)

why not diminish the area needed to land/take off planes, by installing helicopter-like mechanisms to airplanes for taking off and landing?
and diminish the time required to occupy a whole area (landing aisle)? if the airplane lands within seconds, instead of tens of minutes
 
  • #26
physior said:
why not diminish the area needed to land/take off planes, by installing helicopter-like mechanisms to airplanes for taking off and landing?
and diminish the time required to occupy a whole area (landing aisle)? if the airplane lands within seconds, instead of tens of minutes

Think of it in terms of return on investment. The cost of a VTOL commercial jet is likely to be greater than the available alternatives.
 
  • #27
Ryan_m_b said:
Think of it in terms of return on investment. The cost of a VTOL commercial jet is likely to be greater than the available alternatives.

ofcourse there is a cost to develop and test and manufacture such an airplane
but don't airflight companies earn very much already? I paid 500 GBP for a flight that regularly costs 150, and all this because it was inflatedly swollen, because of Xmas.
they prefer to increase capitals of the rich people who own and run them, instead of putting them into research and advancing of technology
maybe national and international organisms should research and develop such airplane and force then all the airflight companies to buy that technology, as being safer, faster, perhaps more economical (as flight duration will diminish), but most importantly it will save numerous hours from people's lifes and allow them to enjoy more times with their lives?
 
  • #28
physior said:
ofcourse there is a cost to develop and test and manufacture such an airplane
but don't airflight companies earn very much already?
It's not clear what you are asking here. Does 'airflight companies' mean the airlines which take passengers from A to B, or are you talking about the makers of the aircraft themselves?

I paid 500 GBP for a flight that regularly costs 150, and all this because it was inflatedly swollen, because of Xmas.
If you book an airline flight last minute or during the holiday rush, you will probably pay a premium for the price of the ticket. High demand during the holidays with only a fixed number of seats means the airlines can charge more for each seat. That's Economics 101, basic supply and demand. Either purchase your ticket several weeks ahead of time or find an alternate means of transportation, in order to avoid bankrupting yourself.

they prefer to increase capitals of the rich people who own and run them, instead of putting them into research and advancing of technology
maybe national and international organisms should research and develop such airplane and force then all the airflight companies to buy that technology, as being safer, faster, perhaps more economical (as flight duration will diminish), but most importantly it will save numerous hours from people's lifes and allow them to enjoy more times with their lives?
The airplane manufacturing companies are more competent at designing and producing aircraft, especially commercial aircraft, than any national or international organization (not organism). A lot of economic analysis goes into working out the performance characteristics of a new plane design to make sure that it is affordable to the customer (the airlines) to purchase and maintain, and to ensure that the aircraft can be operated profitably on its intended route.

It takes an investment of billions of dollars to design, build, test, and certify a new aircraft before it goes into production. Once in production, the manufacturing and development costs for the aircraft must be earned back, otherwise the aircraft producer goes out of business.

Because production volumes for commercial aircraft are so low, and because it takes years to introduce a new aircraft to the market, the economics of airplane construction can turn quickly unfavorable to the producer, which often means heavy losses in capital invested, not to mention reductions in work force to cut costs.

It's currently not technically feasible to combine the VTOL capabilities of a helicopter with the high flight speed of a conventional aircraft. If you try to make such a hybrid aircraft, what little bit of time you save on take-offs and landings will be more than offset by the additional hours you'll spend in the air between airports because your airliner cannot fly as fast as a conventional plane.
 
  • #29
physior said:
ofcourse there is a cost to develop and test and manufacture such an airplane
but don't airflight companies earn very much already?

Before we discuss how much they earn you should look carefully again at what I said: Return On Investment (ROI). Airline companies want to be able to get the biggest ROI possible, so they want their running costs to be low and their profits high. It seems from what people are saying in this thread and others that the cost of running a VTOL plane will be higher than a normal one. So the return on investment would be lower. Assuming you are right and VTOL allows more planes to come and go in anyone time then it might offset this lower ROI somewhat. This may be easier to understand with a hypothetical (all numbers here are entirely made up for illustration), let's say that:

A normal plane costs $100,000
A VTOL plane costs $500,000

Using a runway a normal plane takesoff/lands every 10 minutes
Using a landing pad a VTOL plane takesoff/lands every 5 minutes

A plane journey of either kind makes a profit of $10,000

If this is true which should an airline invest in? A fleet of normal planes with a runway, or a fleet of VTOLs with a landing pad? I'll let you answer it yourself but the key message is for a VTOL to be worth the investment the increase in turnover has to be great enough to offset the cost of the plane. This is true whether you are talking about an private company looking to make profit or a publicly owned transport system looking to provide the best value for money for the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
I understand what you say
the problem is that some times, and I am saying that this is a good time, we must not act with goal the profit, but the benefit of the society

and don't tell me that it doesn't work like that
how many times government or companies have spent money to do research or technology?
war aircrafts is a good example, I think maybe that technology (VTO) already exists there!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
but this thread is about the future of airflight technology
and I strongly believe that we will see such technology
maybe flying saucepans? who knows
 
  • #32
I doubt it. It's not economical and it makes very little engineering sense. The Harrier jet has this capability, but it's used for a specific purpose during combat missions. VTOL is expensive in fuel and weight, and really doesn't help anything regarding air traffic congestion, so I really don't see where it would be beneficial.
 
  • #33
Travis_King said:
I doubt it. It's not economical and it makes very little engineering sense. The Harrier jet has this capability, but it's used for a specific purpose during combat missions. VTOL is expensive in fuel and weight, and really doesn't help anything regarding air traffic congestion, so I really don't see where it would be beneficial.
I cannot comment on fuel or weight
but I cannot understand how you cannot see the benefit for air congestion
to be fair, I am not talking about congestion in air, but when landing and taking off only
 
  • #34
physior said:
I understand what you say
the problem is that some times, and I am saying that this is a good time, we must not act with goal the profit, but the benefit of the society

Of course the pursuit of economic profit is not something we do all the time. Often we do things that have value beyond money. This isn't one of those cases though, here we're discussing if there are any advantages to VTOL planes.

You yourself have complained about the price of tickets. How would you feel if airliners replaced all their current jets with more expensive VTOLs and had to double, triple or even increase by 10x the price of their tickets? No airliner can run at a loss.

physior said:
and don't tell me that it doesn't work like that
how many times government or companies have spent money to do research or technology?
war aircrafts is a good example, I think maybe that technology (VTO) already exists there!

The military is vastly different but they still have to consider their ROI. It's just in that case the return they are looking for is the best weapon/logistics. In terms of government spending: let's say the government announced they were going to create their own airline, that would be cheap (like public transport), not overly concerned with making a profit and paid with taxpayers money. Would you, as a taxpayer, prefer they spent that money on a cool but inefficient VTOL fleet or an standard but efficient fleet of normal jets?
 
  • #35
physior said:
I cannot comment on fuel or weight
but I cannot understand how you cannot see the benefit for air congestion
to be fair, I am not talking about congestion in air, but when landing and taking off only

It's not that people can't see the benefit, it's the idea that the very minor saving in time would be worth the much larger expense of VTOL jets. Which have never been built anywhere near the size of a passenger jet (there are some tiltwings but they are slower and have a lower range than jets). Think of it this way: in a normal jet once it's ready to go it spends on average 10 minutes (in my experience) taxiing to the runway and taking off. Occasionally it takes longer if there is a problem but that's not too common in my experience. I've tried to find if there's any data on average times between planes being ready and taking off but didn't manage to, as this is key to your argument physior why don't you try to look for this? In a hypothetical VTOL jet the only difference is that the jet would take off once it is ready. So the total saving is on the order of 20 minutes, maybe a bit longer on flights that commonly are put into holding patterns whilst they wait for a runway (again it would be useful to have some numbers on this).

Given that do you really think that the expense of developing and introducing, what are likely to be much more expensive, VTOL jets is worth it just for an average saving of 20 minutes?
 

Suggested for: Revolutionizing Aviation: Faster Takeoff and Landing Technology Explained

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
232
Replies
40
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
976
Back
Top