|
Murgos posted:Ensure the false bottom in your suit case and your money belt are well stocked with various widely accepted notes in varying denominations to pay your massive liquor and hotel bills due to the unique mix of maintenance, equipment, personnel and weather related issues generating delays of several months as you try and execute this. More like first class airfare. Hindenburg cost $400 US in 1936; $7,568.75 today.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
That is both a lot, but not as much, as I would have expected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Ensure the false bottom in your suit case and your money belt are well stocked with various widely accepted notes in varying denominations to pay your massive liquor and hotel bills due to the unique mix of maintenance, equipment, personnel and weather related issues generating delays of several months as you try and execute this. A ticket from London to Delhi cost £105 (£188 return), which works out at about £5300 and £9525 in modern currency (or $7360 and $13,200). But Imperial Airways was heavily subsidised, both by the mail carriage contracts and directly for the purposes of linking the empire and supporting the British aviation industry. The average annual wage in the UK in 1935 was about £300. For comparison, the P&O mail ships took 17-20 days to reach Mumbai from London, going via the Suez Canal (add on a day for the train between Mumbai and Delhi to reach the same terminus as the air route). A first class cabin ticket on the ship cost about £60 one-way, and a second class ticket was about £40. If you were really in a hurry, you could get on a train at London, which would cross the Channel by train ferry without you having to leave your seat and take your all the way to Brindisi, where you could pick up the P&O ship which had left London a week before you and then take that the rest of the way, which cut the voyage to about 10-12 days. Still a few days more than the air route, much more comfortable but about the same cost. Its Happening! posted:How many people are on those journeys? Is it a single important person, a group, or just people coming and going at different parts? The HP.45 carried 38 passengers, the Kent/Calcutta carried 16 and the HP.42 carried 24. It wasn't a single service - Imperial Airways operated more like a rail system, with passengers (and baggage and mail) changing between sections at interchanges. So there was a web of routes between London and the western European capitals, with London-Paris being by far the busiest, and two or three routes across or around southern Europe and across the Med, then all the various European routes would converge on Cairo, and then the service forked with HP.42s running either south towards Cape Town or eastwards towards Delhi. The HP.45s between London and Paris were backed up by older, slower and less comfortable (but cheaper and more frequent) services in older aircraft like the Argosy trimotor, but the HP.45s also carried mail, were more comfortable and more expensive/prestigous. It was effectively like having first class as entirely separate plane. Around the time that timetable was published it became even more complicated when you began having parallel 'express mail' services operated by monoplanes like the AW Atalanta which covered the same/similar routes more quickly but with only a handful of passengers carried in much less comfort. Imperial Airways was pretty much tailor-made for colonial administrators, government officials, civil servants, military officers and representatives of the big British business interests to get to and from London quickly, along with priority mail and diplomatic dispatches. Only well into the 1930s, as planes became (relatively) safer, faster, more dependable and more comfortable do you see 'ordinary' (read: still very wealthy) people use the air routes for ordinary travel in preference to the ships or for tourist purposes. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:Was the red line following you on the chart a complimentary amenity? I read in an ILM book about the making of that shot. Airplane had one and a half wings, one working engine, no fuel tanks, and was in a boneyard. The built the pier, got the engine running out of a jerry can, and everything else is a matte painting .
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
I think it would be cool to take an airship across the ocean just because they flew super low. Like 1000 feet from what I understand. That's low enough that you'd be able to make out whales under the surface and seals on icebergs and stuff.Ardeem posted:I read in an ILM book about the making of that shot. Airplane had one and a half wings, one working engine, no fuel tanks, and was in a boneyard. The built the pier, got the engine running out of a jerry can, and everything else is a matte painting . Unfortunately that's how it would have to be, since all of the 314s were scrapped before the 1960s. I think that really sucks. I'd love to be able to walk through one at a museum Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I think it would be cool to take an airship across the ocean just because they flew super low. Like 1000 feet from what I understand. That's low enough that you'd be able to make out whales under the surface and seals on icebergs and stuff. That is pretty cool... brb going to see if I can pitch a combo airship-foiling sailboat-ekranoplan to Dahir Insaat and make all my dreams come true
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 20:01
|
|
Boys who love boys
|
Ardeem posted:I read in an ILM book about the making of that shot. Airplane had one and a half wings, one working engine, no fuel tanks, and was in a boneyard. The built the pier, got the engine running out of a jerry can, and everything else is a matte painting .  That plane is at the Oakland Aviation Museum. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:If the alternative would be be a week long ride on a disease ship the proposition doesn't sound as bad. Plus back then you didn't spend half a day stuck at the airport prior to departure. An hour and a half (if that) in a comfortable lounge is a half-day hardship? You would probably spend more time at airfields total then you would today. Nebakenezzer posted:More like first class airfare. Hindenburg cost $400 US in 1936; $7,568.75 today. Keep in mind that's one way, so it's give or take twice the current lie-flat last minute round trip price. I'm also suspicious that Hindenburg's passenger cost was subsidized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:I read in an ILM book about the making of that shot. Airplane had one and a half wings, one working engine, no fuel tanks, and was in a boneyard. The built the pier, got the engine running out of a jerry can, and everything else is a matte painting . Apart from the close-up when boarding, everything else is models/matte painting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:somewhere around $9-10k for London > Karachi Be wary trying to adjust prices for inflation over that long a period of time. Inflation metrics aren't really reliable for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Keep in mind that's one way, so it's give or take twice the current lie-flat last minute round trip price. I'm also suspicious that Hindenburg's passenger cost was subsidized. It's a good point. As for subsidies, hm. I remember reading that the DC-3 was the first airplane that *didn't* need subsidies for passengers. Zeppelin travel is something else. If you know of how it was done, I'd love to hear it. I have two gut objections: first, a $14K hyper-luxury cabin doesn't seem like something that needed subsidizing, and two, the Nazis despised Zeppelin co as Hugo Eckner was a vocal anti-nazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's a good point. As for subsidies, hm. I remember reading that the DC-3 was the first airplane that *didn't* need subsidies for passengers. Zeppelin travel is something else. If you know of how it was done, I'd love to hear it. I have two gut objections: first, a $14K hyper-luxury cabin doesn't seem like something that needed subsidizing, and two, the Nazis despised Zeppelin co as Hugo Eckner was a vocal anti-nazi. DZR was a three-way partnership (formed in something of a shotgun marriage...) between the Zeppelin company, the Reich Air Ministry and Deutche Luft Hansa (DLH itself already being heavily subsidised by the Air Ministry) so I don't think there was any problem with funnelling state funding into the airship operation. As it was, the way DZR worked was that Zeppelin Luftschiff provided the airships, the government provided the money to operate them and DLH provided the operational side of things. According to wiki: Wikipedia posted:Between 1935 and 1936 the company's share of revenues rose from 47 to 57 percent, allowing the Reich government to decrease financial support from 53 to 43 percent. which certainly implies that the German government was pretty much bankrolling the airship services. Given the propaganda value of the airships that's hardly surprising, and there wasn't a single government in the 1930s that didn't provide heavy subsidies of some sort to at least its flag-carrier airline, if not the entire air transport sector. Even the US domestic network, which was leagues ahead of anything else in the world, needed mail contracts and tight regulation and price-setting to survive. As you say, the DC-3 was the first aircraft to be able to carry enough passengers at a low enough cost/high enough profit per seat to feasibly operate without subsidies. Although I believe the actual honour goes to the DH Fox Moth, which profitably operated as a (very) short haul airliner and air taxi for several years before the Gooney Bird first flew, but that was because it was a very small, cheap to buy, cheap to run single-engined aircraft that managed to cram three passengers inside it. Not exactly practical for running a 'proper' air line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Be wary trying to adjust prices for inflation over that long a period of time. Inflation metrics aren't really reliable for that. The above post points out that the cost for a one-way ticket was about 1/3rd of the 'average' annual wage. 1930's England wasn't a high water mark for wages but then again neither is today so it's probably correct to say that the trip was out of the reach of anyone within about a standard deviation of a median income. Probably once your up in the top 5th percentile you could 'afford' to take the trip but it would still probably tax your wealth pretty substantially. So, $10k-$15ish per person one way seems in that ball park.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
So how does the cost compare to the Concorde? I know the tickets started as first class + 10%, but I also remember reading that later in its career ticket prices went way higher than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
The only reason Concorde was ever profitable was because development and procurement costs of billions were eventually written off. Did that really make it profitable? Guess it depends how you look at it. e: Found this from 1986 https://apnews.com/article/fa1e281d544267a8afe77afceaf3f03f slidebite fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Mar 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The only reason Concorde was ever profitable was because development and procurement costs of billions were eventually written off. BA operated Concorde at a profit, but as you say that's a very different thing to the entire project being profitable, considering that the development of the aircraft was basically paid for by the governments involved and then post-1979 Energy Crisis British Airways bought out the UK govt's part in the entire project - not only the physical aircraft, but the government-owned parts stocks, engineering facilities, support teams and even managed to buy its way out of the profit-sharing scheme it had originally signed up to, whereby a portion of operating profits from Concorde would be reimbursed to the government. That was at a total cost to BA of £16.5 million, which included two Concordes transferred for a nominal value of £1 each. This was followed by BA putting Brian Walpole in charge of the Concorde operations (then making a loss) with a two-year deadline to get it making a profit or the airline would stop flying Concorde (since it had spent a relative pittance acquiring them it could afford to do so, especially if it was essentially writing off mounting losses in the long term). That was where the famous marketing research took place where they asked passengers how much they thought the tickets cost and found that the expectations of the price paid was way above the reality, because most Concorde flyers didn't actually book or pay for their tickets themselves - it was done through their businesses or their PAs. So Walpole doubled the ticket prices and put Concorde at a (very significant) operational profit. But if BAC/Aerospatiale had had to develop Concorde from private capital and then BA would have had to purchase the aircraft at a price that reflected that development, there's no way it would have been feasible as a business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
No production run of just 14 aircraft could possibly be profitable so that’s kind of a given.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
OPM strikes again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
I don't really understand the significance of this but apparently today was the first time in history with no westbound north Atlantic tracks. https://nats.aero/blog/2021/03/nats-records-first-day-with-zero-westbound-north-atlantic-tracks/
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
The Real Amethyst posted:I don't really understand the significance of this but apparently today was the first time in history with no westbound north Atlantic tracks. EDIT: FlightRadar24 shows a bunch of westbound flights over the North Atlantic right now. 
standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Mar 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I read that as no westbound North Atlantic tracks on that set of airways because they transitioned to ADSB-facilitated free routing. meltie posted:They're going to test "no published NAT Tracks" – all aircraft on Random Routes over the pond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
The Real Amethyst posted:I don't really understand the significance of this but apparently today was the first time in history with no westbound north Atlantic tracks. It's another step along the way of ADS-B taking over all of air traffic control
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
If this means being able to type in actual 5 letter waypoints and not dealing with typing in a dozen lat/long NXXXXX/WXXXXX waypoints and then verifying said waypoints in the FMS I am loving here for it. NAT tracks are a tedious pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:If this means being able to type in actual 5 letter waypoints and not dealing with typing in a dozen lat/long NXXXXX/WXXXXX waypoints and then verifying said waypoints in the FMS I am loving here for it. NAT tracks are a tedious pain in the rear end. I wouldn't count on that. Based on my experience on the ATC side of the North Atlantic, you likely won't see 5 letter waypoints for anything but entry & exit points (and I wouldn't expect any more than they already have). Lat/longs are just too versatile, albeit a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
How about flying for 64 days 22 hours straight...in a Cessna 172!! https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/march/pilot/endurance-test-circa-1958
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:How about flying for 64 days 22 hours straight...in a Cessna 172!! That's an amazing accomplishment, but I'd rather kill myself than attempt trying to beat the record (in a 172 at least).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
The smell. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
That article doesn't have my favorite part, which is the pilot saying afterwards that "if I ever have the bright idea to try something like that again, I'll just lock myself in my broom closet with the vacuum cleaner running until I get my head straight"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:How about flying for 64 days 22 hours straight...in a Cessna 172!! imagine the piss bottles
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's an amazing accomplishment, but I'd rather kill myself than attempt trying to beat the record (in a 172 at least). If you try it with that 172 at least the people watching might be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
I love that that flight killed all future motivation to try and set endurance flying records instantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
All I learned from that article is that all maintenance intervals can be ignored as long as you log less than a 1500.0 on your flight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:All I learned from that article is that all maintenance intervals can be ignored as long as you log less than a 1500.0 on your flight. Hey, they did oil and oil filter changes...what more do you want?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Hey, they did oil and oil filter changes...what more do you want? How??? Did they have two oil filters and plumbing to switch between active filters or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
drat, aerial refueling from a fueltruck driving down a road
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:How??? Just bypass the filter for a while. The engine doesn't need 100% filtered oil all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Just bypass the filter for a while. The engine doesn't need 100% filtered oil all the time. This. Most filters already have a pressure bypass either in the filter itself or somewhere else in the oiling system in case the filter gets plugged. Dirty oil is better than no oil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Was it a joke about old planes having screens instead of filters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:How??? From that AOPA article: AOPA posted:Through-firewall plumbing was installed so that the engine oil and oil filters could be changed without shutting off the engine. I guess this is as you describe - you find similar setups on big diesel generators and marine engines which have to run for hundreds/thousands of hours continuously, so they have multiple oil and fuel filter cartridges on a 'tree' of pipework with shut-off valves. You open the valves on a fresh filter, shut off the ones on the old one, change the old one and then switch back the fresh element at the next change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
I think moving the filter plumbing into the cockpit and having a bypass makes the most sense; oil filters aren't picking up that much gunk at a time and then you don't have the extra plumbing for a second filter. The pressure bypass is kind of a different thing because if your filter gets plugged enough to open the bypass you're probably already in some degree of trouble, where in a normal system the filter is taking occasional small particles out of the oil stream so they don't create more particles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 17:58
|
|