Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
I feel this. The 747 and Concorde were in some ways the grand finale to an era of incredible progress in aviation... in the course of one lifetime we went from nothing at all to the first flight at Kitty Hawk (1903) to the first flights of the 747 and Concorde (1969). Someone born in 1900 would have taken their first steps in a world where no aviation existed, and by the time they were elderly they had the full range of modern jet-age travel available to them.
Since then it's been nothing but moderate and incremental change. Lots of tinkering around the edges, searching for efficiency, that kind of thing. But to anyone who isn't an accountant or engineer, the sight of a 321XLR or whatever will never stir the soul the way that a 747 did. I realize the search for efficiency has brought air travel to the masses and there is something to be said for that... but just the same, the era of the huge leaps in technology appears to be over for the time being.
|
I get the nostalgia. But....
Aviation is still progressing. The difference is the average person can't see the progression, because it has less to do with hardware, and more do to with software.
The leaps in technology you speak of are happening, but mostly on aircraft avionics or engines, to meet new performance, efficiency, and navigational standards and requirements.
EVS (enhanced flight vision system), RNAV LPV approaches, RNP AR approaches with curved segments, ADSB: These systems were not around as early as 20-25 years ago. Systems that operate behind the scenes and that the flying public in general has no clue about, but make a huge difference in the cockpit. It enable these planes to land at airports they couldn't a few years prior, especially in bad weather. Think of Paro, Bhutan, or even Castlegar or Kelowna, BC.
Airlines who want to hold on to their 30 year old frames often spend millions on them just to make sure they are up to snuff in terms of avionics requirements. AC and their A320s are a perfect example. Up until a few years ago, AC didn't even have GPS on their A320s. Simply an INS/IRU. That meant they couldn't fly all these new RNAV approaches popping up left and right at airports with no ILS, which meant that in inclement weather, they would often have to divert. Today, AC has GPS on all their A320s and can fly those RNAV approaches. It cost them a lot of money to upgrade, but they did it. But to an average person looking at an Air Canada A320, it still looks like the 30 year old planes they were back when they got them in the 90s. Not so.
Retrofit spending in commercial and business aviation is a $3-4 billion a year industry. The biggest segments in current fit and retrofit are navigation, surveillance and communications,
This is why aircraft part out and scrapping is such a big business. The airframe per se isn't worth much. Future coke cans, that's about it. It's the engines, landing gear and avionics that bring in the big bucks when reselling.
All this to say, an A321LR rolling out of Hamburg today is a far more advanced machine than the first A321 that rolled out 30 years ago. You can't see the difference or the technological advancements, but it's there. Just with the new engines and sharklets alone, an A320neo airframe is 15 to 20% more efficient than a A320ceo. That's amazing, to say the least.
The CSeries burns as much fuel as an E190 between YUL and YYC, carrying 40-45 more passengers and bags. These are huge gains for the industry, ones that the flying public doesn't see.
Prev
Linear Mode
