Megayachts

Have you seen the photos of these mega yachts that are being built while the world is in recession? The list of the top 100 in length for 2011 only includes 8 ships from the top 100 of 2006. There is basically only one classic pre-WWII yacht left in the top 100 (the Talitha G, named for J Paul Getty's actress wife who died of a heroin overdose in 1971




TALITHA G is the last of the old yachts still in the top 100. History last 80 years.
1930 as MY REVELER.
mid 1930's re-named CHALENA owned by Charles McCann, head of the Woolworth store chain
1939, re-named CAROLA ownership changed to Mr Leon Mandel
World War 2, U.S.S BEAUMONT she operated out of Pearl Harbour from June 1942 carrying two 3” guns, 6 anti-aircraft guns, depth charges, and a crew of 110
February 1946 decommissioned and laid up.
February 1947-1949 as MY ELPETAL under the new ownership of Mr. Woolworth.
1957 became the property of Mr. Marias Embiricos, a Greek shipping businessman (she was reportedly Winston Churchill’s favourite yacht).
1983 Re-named MY JEZEBEL, new owner Mr. Robert Stigwood, Australian impressario, film and musical produce
1993 J Paul Getty retrofitted her as MY TALITHA G, named after his wife who had died in 1971

A UK shipbuilder is trying to get people interested in the first billion dollar yacht

One advantage is that yachts seem to hold their resale value. Meanwhile the charter income at something like 43k a week plus 5k tip for a 40 meter motor yacht brings in a tidy sum. Yacht crew people often need Royal Yacht Club certifications for insurance purposes but its a great life for the crew. They visit exotic playgrounds of the rich and famous and only occasionally come to grief: some notable examples of late: chef killed in St. Maarten, Boatswain killed in a crowded Mediterranean harbor accident, etc. Some Ground Effect yachts are really sea-going airplanes that never fully take off.
Ofcourse lesser yachts are having some trouble these days, particularly in the Indian Ocean and off Venezuela where all electronics and lights are turned off as the yacht tries to sneak past the RPG toting pirates in the Indian Ocean and the police in Venezuela.

Quote: FleaStiff

One advantage is that yachts seem to hold their resale value. Meanwhile the charter income at something like 43k a week plus 5k tip for a 40 meter motor yacht brings in a tidy sum. Yacht crew people often need Royal Yacht Club certifications for insurance purposes but its a great life for the crew.

I doubt that anyone makes money who owns a yacht. They just lose a little less than other people.

My question is if you build that billion dollar yacht, and you never come within 12 miles of shore (just use the helicopter) can you become an independent country. Sort of like the ones planned by the Sea Steading Institute .

The very rich are often a country unto themselves already. One Russian yacht recently ran afoul of territorial laws but it was essentially a floating bordello. Many yachts have some taxation problems from time to time and often log books reflect a stay in Italian waters that is always less than the time which would trigger taxation. Immigration problems sometimes for crew members. Alot of US yacht owners don't want to hire American crews. So territorial waters can be nuisances for yacht owners but often not really a problem. The rich have lawyers to handle problems for them.

Most millionaires put their yachts on charter but the Santa Barbara Press owner's yacht sails the world unchartered and some Russian yachts are better armed than some patrol boats.

Smaller yachts such as a couple with a few kids might sail usually have to go to a customs office when entering port but there is usually no problem as long as the yachts papers are in order and the host country's flag is flown from the starboard yardarm or suitable place of honor. Some countries seize yachts and jail the owner if firearms or "contraband" is found aboard so carrying religious items aboard a yacht is unwise. The yacht Quest was found to have Bibles aboard and both couples were instantly riddled with fire from AK-47s. The yacht ING with its Man, Wife, Two Kids and one Crew-member were captured by pirates and are still prisoners somewhere in Somalia. Even the Somali troops that ventured too near the village holding them were ambushed and massacred. Piracy in the Indian Ocean is becoming like Kidnapping in Mexico: a fact of life that is simply dealt with. One yachting couple was held captive in Somalia for over two years but this does not trouble the very rich.

I didn't mention this in my Panama stories, but while I was at the canal a yacht came along. You can't tell from this picture, but with my binoculars you could clearly see a Playboy centerfold caliber blonde in a red bikini walking about the boat. There was also what looked to be a rich guy relaxing and puttering about. That is my idea of heaven.


Click on image for larger version.

Yachts are expensive holes in the water. If you have to ask how much the upkeep is,
you can't afford it. My brother in law had a big boat on Lake MI for 10 years and he
just sold it. Yup, he said, best day of his life, right up there with the day he bought it.

This design can fit 36 passengers and 43 crew.

That always cracked me up on the old yachts. The crew was always bigger than the passenger lists.

Quote: EvenBob

That always cracked me up on the old yachts. The crew was always bigger than the passenger lists.

That is a brand new yacht design.

I don't get the yacht. Necker Island which is owned by billionaire Richard Branson is $56,000 per night. You get 14 bedrooms (2 per bedroom). Eight bedrooms are in the great house, and the other 6 are private mini homes on different places around the island.
So you can rent that island for about $400K per week and have all your friends over. The staff is roughly 60 people.

These mega yachts have to cost way more than $400K per week once you figure in fuel, food, the huge staff and the financing of hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of private houses and pools and 74 acres to walk around, you have staterooms.

No casino, I never stay where theres no casino.

Quote: FleaStiff

The yacht Quest was found to have Bibles aboard and both couples were instantly riddled with fire from AK-47s.

Proof of this please? The link below states that they were taken prisoner, then later killed by the Somali pirates during negotiations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41715530/ns/world_news-africa/t/four-american-hostages-killed-somali-pirates/#.TlEtrKjczRc

The yacht had been boarded and the two couples were obviously prisoners. The couple from Marina del Rey were delivering a large quantity of Bibles as part of their missionary work. This stuff about the USS Sterrett commandos opening fire suddenly and provoking the shooting is probably garbage. I also doubt the RPG being fired at the ship and particularly doubt it having been fired from 600 yeards since the effective range of an RPG is 300 meters.

The pirates were exploring the loot aboard the vessel and found the Bibles and did what ignorant muslim peons armed with an AK-47s do under such circumstances. All of Somalia is Klan and Sub-Klan oriented. The pirates are simply parts of organized shake down operations, the pirates do not divide the ransoms, the Klan leaders, often wealthy businessmen, distribute the ransom money and finance the satellite phones, AIS receiving gear and night vision equipment. Most targets of piracy are large ships, yachts are seized as mere targets of opportunity worth a million dollars or two in ransom money.

Its rare to even have naval vessels involved in protecting yachts since the EUFOR ships are tasked to the commercial shipping lanes and are not prone to divert (2 hour trip atleast) or send helicopters (30 minutes). Often naval vessels have stood by as the pirate skiffs approached and boarded the yachts.

Quote: EvenBob

Yachts are expensive holes in the water. If you have to ask how much the upkeep is, you can't afford it. My brother in law had a big boat on Lake MI for 10 years and he just sold it. Yup, he said, best day of his life, right up there with the day he bought it.

That's an old joke that the happiest day in a man's life is when he buys his boat, and the second happiest is the day he sells it.

But I am looking at value for your money. In 2008 Prince Charles rented the Mega Yacht Leander for a state visit to 5 Caribbean islands that were once part of the British Empire. He was touring slums and towns destroyed by volcanoes, but he got there in style.

The MY Leander was launched in 1992 at 245' 3" and by now has slipped to #79 position. In 2006 it was advertised for $490K per week. It comes with a crew of 24 and is good for 12 guests.

Now Necker Island is 74 acres, comes with a staff of 60, and has 14 bedrooms (where 6 are private houses for one couple scattered through the islands). In 2011 the island is available for $400K per week.

While Prince Charles needed a floating palace for his state visit, I think your average group would prefer the privacy of an island over being crowded onto a yacht.

Quote: pacomartin

That's an old joke that the happiest day in a man's life is when he buys his boat, and the second happiest is the day he sells it.

But I am looking at value for your money. In 2008 Prince Charles rented the Mega Yacht Leander for a state visit to 5 Caribbean islands that were once part of the British Empire. He was touring slums and towns destroyed by volcanoes, but he got there in style.

The MY Leander was launched in 1992 at 245' 3" and by now has slipped to #79 position. In 2006 it was advertised for $490K per week. It comes with a crew of 24 and is good for 12 guests.

Now Necker Island is 74 acres, comes with a staff of 60, and has 14 bedrooms (where 6 are private houses for one couple scattered through the islands). In 2011 the island is available for $400K per week.

While Prince Charles needed a floating palace for his state visit, I think your average group would prefer the privacy of an island over being crowded onto a yacht.

When you look out your window on Necker Island, you will see pretty much the same jungle, sand and water. The weather could be bad, and you will just have to take it. Why not put your money in a floating home, that can move with the weather, and take you to other exciting destinations?

Quote: Wizard

I didn't mention this in my Panama stories, but while I was at the canal a yacht came along. You can't tell from this picture...
Click on image for larger version.

Wizard, you need to put a zoom lens on your Christmas list. If you are good, maybe Santa will bring you one.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Why not put your money in a floating home, that can move with the weather, and take you to other exciting destinations?

Thats the appeal of a boat over an island. You can move around,
islands tend to be boring and by the 2nd day you wish you were
somewhere else.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats the appeal of a boat over an island. You can move around,
islands tend to be boring and by the 2nd day you wish you were
somewhere else.

Clearly the mega-rich seem to like yachts. But dollar for dollar you get more privacy on a 74 acre island which you can drive around via golf carts. Your guests have their own little houses so you don't have to overhear anyone.

Personally, if I had upwards to several hundred thousand to spend per week several times a year, I would like to rotate it around so that I could stay in a beach resort, a ski resort, and different kinds of urban or historic locations. I would not want to be bound to a yacht, no matter how luxurious.

When the president of Mexico would come to Oaxaca he would rent this 7 bedroom boutique hotel called Casa Oaxaca. Rack rate was about US $1400 per night for the entire hotel plus food and wine. I don't know what they charged the president. I would like the flexibility.

So much for going to Necker Island, it just burned down today.



Necker

Along with your Megayacht you need one of these cars. You can drive to the nearest airport and fly up to 500 miles to get home.

On another note, a co-worker of mine had a 20 foot sail boat that he sailed in Cheery Creek Reservoir in Denver. It's about a mile across LOL. He decided to tow it to California and sail it to Catalina Island. I asked if they had insurance vending machines., like at the airports long ago. He did not find that funny.

He drove onto beach and backed sailboat into the ocean. Got out to unhitch it and the next wave carried his car further into the ocean. He eventually got towed by some guys on the beach with a Jeep, but only after they stopped laughing. He washed and vacuumed the car at a carwash,as water had got inside it. But he did not change the oil, which was contaminated with salt water. He actually cleared the Rockies on the way home, but motor siezed in Denver suburbs. Tried to file an insurance claim, but broker told him the policy did not cover stupidity !!

The flying car graced this issue of popular mechanics in 1957.

I was watching some episodes of Time Tunnel which was on TV when I was a child (in 1966). One episode took it for granted that we would be racing to land a manned mission on Mars by 1978. Who would have guessed that we would go 6 times over a 3.5 year period, and then never return.

In 1966 I was fresh out of the military and remember reading 2 articles, probably in Life magazine. One was about a rich couple and their $25,000 a year income. The other was about the German work week being 32 hours and what would the American worker do will all his spare time in the future. Now $25,000 is barely above poverty level and Mom and Dad both work. The times, they are a changing LOL

I was 17 in 1957, high school dropout, and just learning how in hustle pool. In 1961 on my 21 st birthday I saw the Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, and George C. Scott in " The Hustler". The stake holder in the movie, no spoken lines, also the technical adviser, was Willie Mosconi. The greatest pool player ever, whom I racked for in an exhibition game in Baltimore in 1957.

Quote: pacomartin

The flying car graced this issue of popular mechanics in 1957.

The whole notion of a flying car is deeply flawed. Flying and driving are very different things. A car behaves exactly how you expect it to, meaning it's intuitive. You can drive "by the seat of the pants." A plane does not act as 99.9% of people expect it to. For example, if you go faster, the plane climbs higher. If you climb, it flies slower. If you turn, you loose speed altitude. If you slow down it descends. If you descend it speeds up. Not to mention that what makes a good car doesn't make for a good airplane, and viceversa. Or that planes are at least an roder of magnitude more expensive to build and maintain than an equivalent car or bus (meaning a plane that can carry five adults for 500 kilometers). And then there's navigation, too.

Maybe someday, but not for the foreseeable future. Rigth now I'd settle for easing in air traffic jams and having faster commercial planes. It's high time for a reasonably priced, go anywhere supersonic airliner.

Quote: pacomartin

The flying car graced this issue of popular mechanics in 1957.

"Where's my flying car? They promised us flying cars!"

Red Foreman, 'That 70's Show'

Popular Mechanics was big on the flying car idea. They had
some great covers over the years. Some editors even wrote
a book about it in 2010.



Here's another concept from 1951. We were all going to have one.

Quote: Nareed

Maybe someday, but not for the foreseeable future. Rigth now I'd settle for easing in air traffic jams and having faster commercial planes. It's high time for a reasonably priced, go anywhere supersonic airliner.

A day late.
Supersonic airliners aren't coming back. Too expensive, too 70's, and with fuel prices rising, not getting any cheaper.

I've actually seen quite a few promising developments in the field of low-cost aircraft at airshows. Not talking about Terrafugia. They'll remain a niche thing simply because driving is, well, enough for most everyone. But you do get lower-than-driving fuel consumption, land and takeoff anywhere, costs starting as low as $20,000, compact enough for a good garage. Demand is lacking more than supply is.

Flying an aircraft is not necessarily that hard. There are some serious flight sims (distinct from games) that let you get very close to real control experience, provided you have the hardware. A number of designs is developed specifically for easy control, you could learn them in as much time as it takes to learn to drive. (By learning to drive I mean learning to drive, not just getting a license.)
So I see easily purchased aircraft coming, at least, before new supersonic airliners.

Quote: P90

A day late.

But not a dollar short :)

Quote:

Supersonic airliners aren't coming back. Too expensive, too 70's, and with fuel prices rising, not getting any cheaper.

As far as I know no serious players in the industry are even looking into it, which of course makes any development all the more distant. But in the long run I believe they are inevitable. Serious palyers do keep making progress on supersonic fighters and their engines. Such designs don't easily scale up, but supercruise engines are out there, and ramjet designs are improving constantly.

Quote:

But you do get lower-than-driving fuel consumption, land and takeoff anywhere, costs starting as low as $20,000, compact enough for a good garage. Demand is lacking more than supply is.

Think of your typical city or suburb dweller. What would she do with such a plane?

Quote:

Flying an aircraft is not necessarily that hard.

Agreed. Any reasonably intelligent person can learn to fly any plane. I don't know how many would want to.

Quote:

So I see easily purchased aircraft coming, at least, before new supersonic airliners.

Very likely. My point is that I would prefer supersonic airliners to personal airplanes.

Consider, I would much rather take a one hour flight from Mexico to Vegas on an airline, than fly myself for 7 hours or so there.

My aunt is an office manager for a marina in Florida that docks some huge Mega Yachts. She has met Dale Earnhardt, Tiger Woods, countless other PGA golfers and a lot of wealthy business owners and management of multinational corporations. Most of these have crew of 5-10 including a captain, someone who cleans all the time and an executive chef. Pretty awesome to have taken a tour of some of these, including Tiger's

Quote: Nareed

Consider, I would much rather take a one hour flight from Mexico to Vegas on an airline, than fly myself for 7 hours or so there.

A Piaggio P180 Avanti II is a luxury turboprop that can fly a maximum of 1,612 miles ( it is 1510 miles from Mexico City to Las Vegas) for 9 people at a cruise speed of 368 mph with reasonable fuel economy. That is a little over 4 hours.

I am not sure if it was even possible for the Concorde to reach top speed of 1300 mph in a trip of 1510 miles. If so, I doubt they could hold it for more than 15 minutes. I doubt that you will ever see jets flying at supersonic speed over land in the Western hemisphere.

The record time for Los Angeles to East Coast of USA 2,086 miles
was set on March 6, 1990 by retiring blackbird SR-71A #64-17972:
Time: 67 minutes 53.69 seconds
But I don't know if the Concorde ever flew at supersonic speeds over North American land.

It's possible to reduce the boom in the sonic boom, in which case, you could schedule supersonic flights over land.

NASA and the private industry are working on a number of solutions to reduce the effect of the sonic boom.

Biplane stops sonic booms

From the FAA, 2.6MB

There are two ways to reduce boom.

(1) Fly high enough so that the you are not flying faster than the speed of sound at your altitude which would not create a sonic boom (for speeds up to about Mach 1.2)

(2) Shape the aircraft to control the strength and position of the disturbances, thus minimizing the wave when it hits the ground.

NASA and private companies have found some success so far. Perhaps the supersonic era will come back with this technology, I am guessing in 20 - 30 years.

Quote: Nareed

As far as I know no serious players in the industry are even looking into it, which of course makes any development all the more distant. But in the long run I believe they are inevitable.

Possibly. Well, I mean, in the really long run, as we are digging up Cydonia and the fringe theories come true... - in that long a run certainly yes. And I'm sure 21st century will see its share of SSBJ and perhaps indeed a couple larger supersonics.
But mainstream? Not sure. Fuel is not getting any cheaper.

Quote: Nareed

Serious palyers do keep making progress on supersonic fighters and their engines. Such designs don't easily scale up, but supercruise engines are out there, and ramjet designs are improving constantly.

Don't tell me about it. We're a bit off the topic already, and I don't want to start shooting formulas about turbofan and ramjet Isp. Suffices to say this - jet fighters use low-bypass engines, which are not nearly as efficient as high-bypass turbofans in airliners. As for ramjets, you can just write them off when looking for economical engines.

Also, the term "supercruise" is misleading and can sometimes be written off as just marketing. It means the engine can fly supersonic on dry thrust, but that is not cruising, because they consume almost as much fuel as other planes on afterburner.
There are planes that can "supercruise", but have better fuel efficiency on wet thrust than they have on dry thrust (among them Mig-25). Some older planes can go supersonic on dry thrust, but can't cross the sonic barrier, and then again, neither can some "supercruising" fighters, and F-22 only can because of its internal armament. Concorde was already supercruising, by the accepted definition of the term.

Quote: Nareed

Very likely. My point is that I would prefer supersonic airliners to personal airplanes.
Consider, I would much rather take a one hour flight from Mexico to Vegas on an airline, than fly myself for 7 hours or so there.

I guess so. Like I said, personal planes are a niche thing.

Though how would you like that flight from Mexico to Vegas for $5,000? I can see that for a flight from Vegas to Mexico...

And even then, if I was taking a $5,000/person flight to Vegas, I'd rather take it in a relatively luxurious A380 suite than in half the time in seats only a bit less cramped than premium economy class. People don't go to Vegas to save time.

Quote: pacomartin

A Piaggio P180 Avanti II is a luxury turboprop that can fly a maximum of 1,612 miles ( it is 1510 miles from Mexico City to Las Vegas) for 9 people at a cruise speed of 368 mph with reasonable fuel economy. That is a little over 4 hours.

Current commercial jets make the trip in between 3:30 and 3:55 hours, if you can believe the figures posted by the airlines. So on speed it sounds ok. But the interior alone looks to be worth much more than $20,000...

BTW your typical medium-haul airliner, (A-319/320, B-737, DC-9 B-717, etc) claim to have cruising speeds of over 550 mph. This is true, but cruising speed is not the average speed. Take off and climb out may be faster as far as air speed is concerend, but ground speed is lower since the movement is diagonal. On approach, descent and landing, the technique is to slow down to lose altitude. So a cruise speed of 380 mph would mean a trip longer than it seems. Say about 5 hours.

Quote:

I am not sure if it was even possible for the Concorde to reach top speed of 1300 mph in a trip of 1510 miles.

Not likely, but then afterburners are tricky things when it comes to acceleration. Even so, Concorde could sustain a cruising speed of Mach 1.5+ easily over such a short distance, so the trip ought to be much shorter. She climbed faster, too, due to the large wing area, overpowered engines and slim fuselage. As I recall Concorde topped out at Mach 2+

You really don't hit your cruising velocity until you are at your final flying altitude. Your speed is carefully controlled by ATC during your climb and descent. Once you are well into your descent your speed is typically down to between 200 - 280 knots. For a major center like Chicago or New York it's not uncommon to get this request a few hundred miles before you land, just for spacing. But typically your slow order comes when you're well into your descent and only for the last 20 minutes of flight.

Climbs are typically at 18 - 20 degrees up. You can take the cosine of that angle to figure out that the horizontal component of the speed is about 94% of the ground speed. The power is directed into lift, and a speed of about 70 - 80% of cruising speed is typical. On descent you'll get your slow order as you get to about 20K feet or so, so your first and last 20 minutes of flight are slower. Then of course you have to land against the wind. So, if you're going west to east, typically, you have to go around the airport to land which will add 30 or so miles to the flight.

Quote: P90

But mainstream? Not sure. Fuel is not getting any cheaper.

No, but who knows what the future will bring. There was some excitement about hydrogen and fuel cells a few years ago. if that pans out, hydrogen will be relatively cheap. Yes, I know it has a host of other problems even in gaseous form, but it would be a good fuel for jets.

Quote:

Don't tell me about it. We're a bit off the topic already, and I don't want to start shooting formulas about turbofan and ramjet Isp. Suffices to say this - jet fighters use low-bypass engines, which are not nearly as efficient as high-bypass turbofans in airliners.

No formulas, pelase. I'm a dolt when it comes to math. But I do know semantics. Fighters (with rare esceptions) use turbojet engines, which rely more on the hot gas exhaust than on compressed bypass air for thrust. It's what most epople still think of when they hear the word "jet." Airliners sue turbofan engines, which rely much mroe on compressed bypass air. The commonality is that both are powered by a turbine. BTW when will we ahve turbine-powered cars? Turbines are incredibly efficient and versatile.

Quote:

Also, the term "supercruise" is misleading and can sometimes be written off as just marketing.

Well, no surprises there. I understand it to mean traveling above Mach 1 without using afterburners, even if you need them to reach Mach 1.

BTW do you remember the hype both Douglass and Boeing made about the unducted fan engines?

Quote:

And even then, if I was taking a $5,000/person flight to Vegas, I'd rather take it in a relatively luxurious A380 suite than in half the time in seats only a bit less cramped than premium economy class. People don't go to Vegas to save time.

I take it you don't smoke. Whatever the cost, I'd spend any 4 hour flight asleep 90% of the time. And that's why I also prefer a shorter flight.

Quote: Nareed

No, but who knows what the future will bring. There was some excitement about hydrogen and fuel cells a few years ago. if that pans out, hydrogen will be relatively cheap. Yes, I know it has a host of other problems even in gaseous form, but it would be a good fuel for jets.

Fuel cells just consume hydrogen. They are too heavy for airborne use; any practical aircraft would use turbines.

But to produce hydrogen, you need energy. A lot of it, that's kinda self-explanatory. About 70% is spent deriving it from water via hydrolysis or (preferably) catalyzed thermolysis, another 30% must come in electric and mechanical forms to compress or liquefy it.
US power production is struggling as it is, it will take about 20 years just to fix that, and only then can we start talking about hydrogen as a clean and abundant fuel. Just start talking at that point, about building a hydrogen coproduction infrastructure. And that was before 5/13/2011; now we have to tack at least another 5 years on that due to psychological effects. Then 25 years to actually build that infrastructure.

Quote: Nareed

No formulas, pelase. I'm a dolt when it comes to math. But I do know semantics. Fighters (with rare esceptions) use turbojet engines, which rely more on the hot gas exhaust than on compressed bypass air for thrust.

All 4th generation fighters use turbofans. Turbojets were the norm in the 2nd generation jets, started fading out in the 3rd gen. Currently everything is 4-gen (the term 5-gen is based on so much cherry-picking that LM even tried trademarking it), running turbofans.
However they are low-bypass turbofans, with bypass ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.45, rather than 4 and above for subsonic airliner engines.

Quote: Nareed

BTW when will we ahve turbine-powered cars? Turbines are incredibly efficient and versatile.

1) Very expensive. A microturbine with a generator will set you back about $1,500/kW or $1,100/horsepower. It's quite alright by industrial standards (coal plants cost $3,600/kW), but you don't want to pay that money for a car engine.
2) Not so efficient at small scale. Microturbines deliver about 28%-30% efficiency, which is only slightly above most car engines and actually lower than Porsche engines. They only deliver it at full output, dropping sharply at partial load.
3) Not so good at eating dirt. The powerpack of M1 Abrams is a disaster, turning what would otherwise be a very competitive tank into one of the worst MBTs in service today. No one else wants them, everyone buys Leopard 2 if they have the money or T-90 if not. And not the turbine-powered T-80 either, even though T-80's powerpack isn't quite as bad with its centrifugal filter.

Quote: Nareed

BTW do you remember the hype both Douglass and Boeing made about the unducted fan engines?

While propfans didn't quite take off, they weren't a dead idea. Airbus recently launched A400M, using a similar high-speed turboprop engine. Propellers may yet have a partial comeback. Keep in mind that Tu-95 is actually faster than most airliners, and still holds a number of records (good ones, not just for its noise).

Quote: Nareed

I take it you don't smoke. Whatever the cost, I'd spend any 4 hour flight asleep 90% of the time. And that's why I also prefer a shorter flight.

Well, suppose you have 5 grand to drop on it. But is that the case for enough people? The GDPPC of Mexico is $11,000; we're talking half the year's income for the average citizen. They'll have to allow coke in check-in luggage to make that flight route viable... just kidding (not really).

Quote: P90

Fuel cells just consume hydrogen. They are too heavy for airborne use; any practical aircraft would use turbines.

My mistake. I forgot to clarify: given widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells on land, hydrogen would be a reasonable fuel for use in turbine engines.

Quote:

But to produce hydrogen, you need energy. A lot of it, that's kinda self-explanatory. About 70% is spent deriving it from water via hydrolysis or (preferably) catalyzed thermolysis, another 30% must come in electric and mechanical forms to compress or liquefy it.
US power production is struggling as it is, it will take about 20 years just to fix that, and only then can we start talking about hydrogen as a clean and abundant fuel.

All roads lead to nuclear fusion :)

Quote:

However they are low-bypass turbofans, with bypass ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.45, rather than 4 and above for subsonic airliner engines.

I didn't know that.

Quote:

While propfans didn't quite take off, they weren't a dead idea. Airbus recently launched A400M, using a similar high-speed turboprop engine. Propellers may yet have a partial comeback. Keep in mind that Tu-95 is actually faster than most airliners, and still holds a number of records (good ones, not just for its noise).

I dont' think we're talking about the same thing. Turboprops, like the Hercules and some commuter planes, ahve been around since the 50s or earlier, and are propellers driven by turbines.

In the late 80s Boeing and Douglass, I suppose along with G.E. or Pratt & Whitney, developed a kind fo faster turboprop but with counter-rotating, curved (to deal with supersonic airflow), outsize blades. Officially this was the unducted fan, or UDF, engine. They were tested and used for demos on a DC-9 and a B-727. THis was all before Boeing swallowed Douglass. Because of the size of the blades, they had to be mounted on the fuselage rather than on the wing.

The claim was that the engines would be more efficient and produce less noise.

Quote:

Well, suppose you have 5 grand to drop on it. But is that the case for enough people? The GDPPC of Mexico is $11,000; we're talking half the year's income for the average citizen. They'll have to allow coke in check-in luggage to make that flight route viable... just kidding (not really).

These days you're more likley to get away with snorting coke than lighting up (not kidding), at least in some places.

Right now a plane ticket to Vegas goes, for the most expensive, for about $700 US, and thats' traveling first class. As I recall Concorde was about three times as expensive as first class, on the NYC/Washington to London/Paris routes. That's a lot, but not the 7.2 to 1 ratio $5,000 would be.

But the problem with Concorde wasn't the palne itself. Rather it was the lack of follow-up versions. Sure, that market crashed quickly (and literally if you count the TU-144), and it hasn't recovered. Airlines have gone in for size on one hand, and flexibility on the other. Even the growth in transpacific flights ahsn't created demand for a faster plane.

Quote: Nareed

My mistake. I forgot to clarify: given widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells on land, hydrogen would be a reasonable fuel for use in turbine engines.

That involves high demand for hydrogen. TBH it's not even clear if H2 or batteries win for land vehicles.
For 21st century we just have fission, fusion is more 22nd, at least as far as widespread deployment goes. There is no sign of post-WWII rapid industrial advancement repeating anytime soon, everyone is too busy with the service sector, so technology deployment rates, other than for existing computers, have slowed down greatly since then.

Quote: Nareed

In the late 80s Boeing and Douglass, I suppose along with G.E. or Pratt & Whitney, developed a kind fo faster turboprop but with counter-rotating, curved (to deal with supersonic airflow), outsize blades. Officially this was the unducted fan, or UDF, engine. They were tested and used for demos on a DC-9 and a B-727.

I know. They weren't the only ones working on this. But this is propfan (unducted fan is just how they called it), the same general engine type as turboprop, or rather a particular variation of a turboprop. There is no particular line separating them.

Quote: Nareed

Right now a plane ticket to Vegas goes, for the most expensive, for about $700 US, and thats' traveling first class.

So-called "domestic first" class, which is just a notch above premium economy and well below international business class, much less first class. for international flights (which Mexico technically is, but doesn't count). It's just a notch above premium economy and a far cry from international first class, or even business. This is reflected in price.
International first class looks more like this (the photo is a bit flattering, but you get the idea) than this ("domestic first").

Concorde ticket prices exceeded FY00$8,000 each way by the end if its service. Even at that price it was around breakeven to operate and the program was an overall economic loss. Mexico to Nevada is half the distance, so I figure FY12$5,000 as a reasonably optimistic estimate.

Quote: P90

Concorde ticket prices exceeded FY00$8,000 each way by the end if its service. Even at that price it was around breakeven to operate and the program was an overall economic loss. Mexico to Nevada is half the distance, so I figure FY12$5,000 as a reasonably optimistic estimate.

Singapore Air has had a nonstop from Newark & Los Angeles to Singapore for about 8 years. The Newark flight flies very close to the North Pole, and is the longest distance of any commercial route. They have removed first and economy seats, and have only 100 business class seats in an A340-500 (which carries 375 people in an all economy configuration). Round trip is $8K to $9K.

Singapore to
1) Newark SQ21 15,345 km (9,535 mi) - 18 hr 50 min & 18 hr 40 min Airbus A340-500 - since 29 June 2004
2) Los Ang. SQ37 14,114km (8,770 mi) - 17 hr 20 min & 18 hr 05 min Airbus A340-500 -since 3 February 2004

A theoretical SST with the speed of the Concorde, but much more endurance would be around 9 hours each way. If they set up a business meeting room in the airport, the way they did with the Concrde, you can have a meeting and be back in a 24 hour day.

A first class British Airways ticket on short notice from New York to London is $18,743 round trip. Economy on United is $2,195. Business is $5,774 . How much would you pay to save 3 hours? Once you weed out the ultra rich and ultra pampered, most people would be overjoyed to have a horizontal seat bed, and a shower waiting for them in London.

I wish somebody would hurry up and invent transporters (like in Star Trek). Or for you conspiracy theorists, I wish the government would quit killing off all of the inventors who created a working transporter system . . .

(Well, it would totally screw up the economy, and kill the auto industry, freight and shipping industry, airlines, gas & oil industries, etc.)

Quote: Toes14

I wish somebody would hurry up and invent transporters (like in Star Trek). Or for you conspiracy theorists, I wish the government would quit killing off all of the inventors who created a working transporter system . . .

(Well, it would totally screw up the economy, and kill the auto industry, freight and shipping industry, airlines, gas & oil industries, etc.)

Have you read Larry Niven's short stories about that theme? I think several are collected in "A Hole in Space."

seriously hijacked thread...megayachts,...focus!

Quote: P90

Concorde ticket prices exceeded FY00$8,000 each way by the end if its service. Even at that price it was around breakeven to operate and the program was an overall economic loss. Mexico to Nevada is half the distance, so I figure FY12$5,000 as a reasonably optimistic estimate.

I concede.

But let me get back to my point. Concorde was built using 1960s technology. Regardless of why and how it failed, it's evident we could do much better using current technology. To quote Concorde level prices is like using the DeHaviland Comet to calculate modern jet travel.

Forget even the first jets. The first apssenger planes were quite expensive to fly in, too, even if they beat contemporary modes of transportation, like trains and cars, all hollow. But things kept progressing and prices kept falling, despite the fact that oil and fuel prices have increased. If supersonic passenger travel follows the same route, it will become commonplace and relatively inexpensive someday. It has to, eventually, but obviously it has a higher threshold to get past merely to get started. And the bad experiences of Concorde don't help.

I would guess to say that about 1/4 of the travellers in business class are actually paying for their own tickets. For example, in my company, folks a level above me can travel business for flights longer than 5 hours (the client or the company pays for the travel).

Many folks up in business class do so on frequent flyer upgrades and points. Some are op-uped (operational upgrade) when the plane is full or nearly full -- they put the standbys in economy and bump up those with the most points or status to business.

For example, in my program, I get upgrades for every 20,000 miles that I fly and I start of the year with a number of credits that I can use. So, if I fly say, YYZ to LAX like I did last week, I used some upgrade credits and flew business.

For short notice trips, it really depends on who is flying, who is paying, and how important the meeting is. When it comes time to open up business and get customers to sign contracts, a big thing for the customer is that the business comes to them. Teleconferencing or videoconferencing doesn't do it.

Quote: Nareed

But let me get back to my point. Concorde was built using 1960s technology. Regardless of why and how it failed, it's evident we could do much better using current technology. To quote Concorde level prices is like using the DeHaviland Comet to calculate modern jet travel.

Modern prices will be higher.
Concorde didn't have the same amount of safety regulations to deal with. It didn't have the same passenger comfort expectations to meet. And the average American was more than 30 pounds lighter in 1960 than he is today, with a few inches less in the waistline as well, which directly affects seat width. If only there was a way to airlift just the lean mass and transport the fat separately by tankers. Just kidding.

Quote: Nareed

If supersonic passenger travel follows the same route, it will become commonplace and relatively inexpensive someday.

But not today. And barring an incredible discovery in Cydonia or a revolutionary lifespan increase, only maybe in any of our lifetimes. Not that we'll care by then, time is one thing retirees can spare.

There are several factors that make supersonic travel objectively more expensive.
1. Parasitic drag. While regular skin drag keeps increasing, a whole new component, shock wave drag, is added past the sonic barrier. It takes more energy to carry the same mass through at supersonic velocity.
2. Lift drag. The act of producing lift involves also producing drag. Subsonic aircraft have lift:drag ratios as high as 15:1-20:1. Supersonics only reach 6:1 to 7.2:1. Though Tu-144 reached 8.4:1 - it beat Concorde in a number of aspects, but Tu-160 engines required couldn't be flown internationally due to secrecy concerns, and their export-approved replacement was no good.
3. Weight. Supersonic aircraft are subject to much greater loads and require more powerful engines, so will always have worse payload:weight ratio than subsonics.
4. Heat. What are the modern advances in aerospace construction? To large extent, it's adhesives and CFRP. But neither work too well at high temperatures. High speeds mean high temperatures, and these mean metals and/or high-heat composites, which are neither as strong nor as light as their low-temperature counterparts.
5. Special design considerations. These include shock wave mitigation, expansion joints, noise control, and more. None of these affect subsonic aircraft to significant degree. Any special considerations add cost, weight, and, from weight, more cost.

With all these factors considered, generally, you can expect a little under 1:10 ratio between subsonic and supersonic flight cost, for the same seat size, luggage, service, etc. It may be reduced to 1:4-1:5, which is about the fuel expenditure ratio, but any lower is just not happening; any expectable advancement that makes supersonic flight cheaper will have the same effect on subsonic flight.

There is also a number of potentially very powerful advancements in air travel that apply to subsonic aircraft, but not to supersonic ones. For instance, flying wings don't work supersonically. Ultralight materials, specifically cross-linked aerogel core panels, can allow for very low weight:volume ratios, enough to build "cruise airliners", extracting lift from thick airfoils at very high altitudes, but they don't work the same way for supersonic lift extraction, which doesn't benefit from thickness. Liquid hydrogen carriage will inevitably involve very high volume (and aerogel core assemblies will be immensely useful as well), which works out at subsonic speeds only.

Finally, there is a major competitor to supersonic travel: telepresence. If your trip is business, telepresence is even faster than supersonic aircraft, which only save you 20%-25% of the travel time (since time wasted on the ground is the same). If your trip is pleasure, you might ask yourself if you're doing it right if 25% of travel time matters so much.

If you still smoke, it's not the worst time to quit or move to e-cigs. Even if airlines were to embrace smokers, they don't need faster planes - in fact a few airlines still allow smoking onboard. The downside is that air filters and generally air systems get gunked up in a couple weeks as badly as in a year on a non-smoking plane, so maintenance gets expensive. No one is going to build supersonic transports for that.

The big question is will it ever be possible to merge Vertical Take off and Landing, with supersonic business jet technology, and megayachts to bring the ultimate Richie rich fantasy to a lucky few.

+1 P90. Great post.

Back to Megayachts...

Microsoft Billionaire Paul Allen's 416 ft long yacht, "The Octopus", is currently involved in a search and rescue operation off the coast of Palau. I note from the article, that his yacht has TWO helicopters, and a submarine...





A question that has been bugging me for some time is: What is the difference between a "boat" and a "ship"?

Quote: Ayecarumba

What is the difference between a "boat" and a "ship"?

The answer I have heard is that a ship is a vessel considered worthy of traveling the seas itself, while a boat is for protected waters or may be carried aboard a ship. Even nuclear-powered, ballistic-missile submarines are called boats because of the tradition -- submarines originally were (and some still are ) carried on ships to a point where they were deployed.

My billionaire's boss' yacht was bigger than Paul Allen's... then he sold it to Geffen. Now his new boat's only 88 meters long.

Now I better get back to work.

Quote: P90

But not today. And barring an incredible discovery in Cydonia or a revolutionary lifespan increase, only maybe in any of our lifetimes. Not that we'll care by then, time is one thing retirees can spare.

I plan to live forever. I urge you to do similar arrangements ;)

Quote:

There are several factors that make supersonic travel objectively more expensive.

All that only means more energy and more maintenance. That's not good now when energy is getting expensive, but expensive energy is abd for everything. The race is on for cheap energy.

Quote:

If you still smoke, it's not the worst time to quit or move to e-cigs.

I'll quit when I reach my weight goal. E-cigarettes are a big disappointment. Most brands don't even contain nicotine, which is the whole point. You don't need to buy a gadget to pretend you're smoking.

Quote:

Even if airlines were to embrace smokers, they don't need faster planes - in fact a few airlines still allow smoking onboard.

1) If smoking were allwoed, i wouldn't mind the 4 hour flights so much. But I'd still like faster planes. My last long flight, of about 10+ hours, I was ready to get out and push if it would get us there faster ;)

2) Which airlines still allow smoking? I know US law allows it on international fligths of 6 hours or more, but none of the known airlines allows smoking aboard anymore. Few enough airports still do. It is allowed on private planes, but that's really expensive!