|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airliner article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Suggested merge with Commercial aircraft
The contents in the commercial aircraft article is essentially referring to the same type of aircraft variant, but some information there is salvageable to rule out a complete redirect. A suggested merge is the most reasonable thing to do. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC) ╫
history of airliners
There is no mention of the development of airliners here and it seems to concentrate entirely on modern jet types.GraemeLeggett 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not rectified seven years later. The 707, which literally changed the face of global airline travel, is mentioned only in passing as an example of this that or the other.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Lack of diversity
The article should explain why modern airliners are so uniform. Today tail-engined planes (like DC-9 or Tu-154) become ever more rare. Almost all new designs are twin-engined, low-wing, engines in underwing pods, at least both Airbus and Boeing do this. We have a boring degree of uniformity!
The lack of aerospace diversity is suprising, for example the modern automobile industry has so much variation in car body form, position of engine, drive types, etc.
It looks like airliner-making is in stagnation, we have engineering advances (new material types used mainly), but we have zero scientific advances (new shapes and new propulsion types).
- Uh, if someone can find a published, reliable source about this - which I sincerly doubt - then it can be added. But until then, all of this is OR, conjecture, speculation, and even a bit silly. First, where are the engines of the CRJ and and ERJ families? The nose?? These are jet airliners. Second, remember the Boeing Sonic Cruiser? Nobody wanted to by it, but it was a serious proposal by Boeing. Boeing is also playing around with the BWB design. So there is diversity out there. Finally, the reason the twin engine, pod-under-wing design is common is that it's a proven design for over-100-set designs. Both EMB and Bombardier are using it for there larger designs, the E-Jets and CSeries, while the smaller MRJ and ARJ are both using tail-mounted engines. As far as propulsion goes, prop-fan designs are being considered again, as are geared turbofans. Turbofans are still getting bigger and bigger, and the standard sizes are becoming even more efficent. As far as your comparison to automobiles, most still use 4 wheels, one at each corner. Most engines are front-mounted. Three-wheel designs aren't very common any more, and I have yet to see a 5-wheel design. There have been a few rear-engine designs, and even fewer mid-mounted. But where are the side- or top-mounted engines?? We need more diversity in automobile design! Let's hear it for a 5-wheel car with top-mounted engine! - BillCJ (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are (or is it "they were" ?)- but they never built airliners. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
What speed do they fly ?
The mention of the An-2 is not appropriate in this article: it was never meant as an airliner, though it may occasionally have served the role. The An-2 really belongs to general aviation. Lacking sensible replies, I intend to remove it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be mentioned and a cruiser-feeder concept page can be made ? See http://www.atc-network.com/News/41331/Futuristic-cruiser-feeder-concept-saves-fuel 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
New aircraft designs
Perhaps new aircraft designs such as blended wing body aircraft and other airplanes with other improvements can be mentioned in the article (new article section). Notable are:
I have added a graph which shows the dramatic development of the capability of long range airliners. It uses figures from the Wikipedia pages for those aircraft provided they are relevant, exceptions are stated below..
The graph starts in the 1930s as that is arguably when the first aircraft that we would recognize as modern airliners appeared. All aircaft are the first model of their type where possible. There is no point in using a 747-8 as an example of what a 1970s aircraft could do. It is not always easy to find exactly comparable figures, but the aim is to show the large contrast between decades not subtleties between similar aircraft. This is only about the most capable long range aircraft of their time so several notable aircraft like the DC10 and Tristar are not included as they are medium range aircraft. Not all the relevant aircraft are shown, only enough to make the point or the graph gets too cluttered. Concorde is not shown because its speed causes all the other aircraft to bunch up at the bottom of the graph!
- Cruising speed is shown rather than maximum speed as that isn't really relevant. The figures are comparable. That for the A380 comes from www.koreanair.com/local/na/gd/eng/au/of/au_of_10.jsp.
- Range with maximum fuel is shown rather than range with maximum load. On the Wikipedia pages it is not always completely clear which is referred to. That for the DC3 comes from www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=188 and for the A380 from
www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/brochures_publications/aircraft_families/Airbus-Family-Figures-Mar13.pdf. The 747 page states that it is range at Maximum Take Off Weight, but www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.page has the same figure and calls it "Maximum Range".
- The choice of how to measure passenger capacity is debatable. Most older aircraft only quote one figure - perhaps since flying was only for the rich, all seats were first class seats? Nowadays two classes is more usual, perhaps three but seat pitch varies between airlines and some seats are more like cabins. It is difficult to compare figures so it shows single class. The figures are comparable.
- As for the seating I would put the figure if the aircraft is populated with 100% economy class seats. I have also correct the typo in 747 :-) --JetBlast (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- JetBlast "it shows single class" see above. Thanks for spotting my typo in the 747. Chris.Bristol (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt very much the cruisespeeds that you used. F.I i doubt that the 707 and DC-8 cruise faster than a 747. Furthermore, as said the A380 is shown with max cruise speed of M.89. I don't know exactly what the normal cruising speed is, but probably M.85. so your graph is incorrect. Rgds Saschaporsche (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Airliner not a legal term
In most countries, the specific term "airliner" is not a legal term, just a commonly used word by laymen to describe a particular class of aircraft. As such, I've added a  in the bottom of Airliner#Commuterliners_used_by_regional_airlines_and_air_taxi_operators, where it says that at least 2 engines are needed for an aircraft to be considered an "airliner". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I compiled some relevant information about real prices : User:Marc_Lacoste/sandbox/Airliner_prices. Do you think it would be better suited in Competition between Airbus and Boeing, in Airliner, Jet Airliner, or another relevant article? Thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)