The Boeing 2707 Supersonic Transport

The 2707, Boeing's contender for a supersonic transport, may seem like ancient history now, but it was advanced then in both concept and technology. Perhaps it was too much so. Because the jet race had already been won by the UK with the de Havilland DH.106 Comet and the then-designated USSR with the Tupolev Tu-104,…

The 2707, Boeing's contender for a supersonic transport, may seem like ancient history now, but it was advanced then in both concept and technology. Perhaps it was too much so.

Because the jet race had already been won by the UK with the de Havilland DH.106 Comet and the then-designated USSR with the Tupolev Tu-104, the US was left without choice if it wished to turn the tides in the supersonic sector, especially since the same two countries were preparing to launch such designs of their own, respectively in the form of the Aerospatiale-British Aerospace Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 in the early 1960s.

Consensus in this early pure-jet period was that supersonic airline travel would be the next logical evolution of the subsonic one.

Submissions to fill this segment were made by several aircraft manufacturers in the United States. Boeing, for example, considered a Mach 1.8 aircraft, accommodating 227 passengers. Lockheed's concept was more ambitious and radical. It produced a design proposal incorporating an airfoil-shaped fuselage and a double compound delta wing projected to achieve Mach 3 speeds. Capacity, however, was not like that of Boeing's aircraft at 218. Designated NAC-60, North American's concept strongly resembled the military B-70 Valkyrie, itself a supersonic design with canards, a composite-swept delta wing, and four aft-mounted engines grouped in pairs. It was also slated for the Mach 3 speed realm.

Boeing's 2707-100, numerically considered the first of the second supersonic generation of airliners after its 707, was absolutely selected on December 31, 1966. Unlike the UK and USSR aircraft, it was intended, from the outside, to eclipse the boundaries of traditional configuration, structure, and speed, offering an extended service life.

Featuring titanium construction to withstand the 500-degree Fahrenheit structural temperatures generated by the friction of its intended, 1,800-mph / Mach 3 cruise speed, it spouted a variable geometry delta wing, which pivoted on screw jacks and titanium bearings to cater to the extreme velocity variations, ranging from low subsonic approach speeds in the extended position to high supersonic cruise ones in the retracted one. Trailing edge flaps were fitted for the former portion of flight.

The tailplane, with separate vertical and horizontal surfaces, was otherwise conventional.

Power was to have been provided by four General Electric, wing-underside attached engines.

A full-scale wooden mockup of the supersonic airliner, intended to carry 300 passengers, was built.

Although the 113 optioned orders placed by 26 worldwide airlines appeared promising in June of 1967, the ambitious design had exceeded the technological expertise to transform it into reality. Aside from the inherent instability it demonstrated during wind tunnel tests, the weight of the swing-wing aircraft was prohibitively excessive, carrying a 40,000-pound penalty, so leaving less available for the fuel needed to provide the range that carriers thought.

The immediate passenger capacity / payload reduction and / or fuel / gross weight increase solutions proved obligated.

Supersonic flight, other than in the limited, high-altitude military form, was little understood at the time, especially for routine, scheduled commercial operations, and obstacles found far beyond the drawing board of the design teams. Public reactions, sometimes bordering on hysteria, for instance, including protests concerning the sonic boom, its resultant property damage on the ground, the exclusion of overland flights (which reduced the potential airline market of the aircraft), the rise in world temperatures, the melting of the polar caps, the destruction of land- and ocean-dependent flora and fauna, and the reduction in radiation protection from the ozone layer.

Bureaucratically, the program was continuously delayed by airframe and powerplant reassessments and the granting of the necessary governmental funding of the design.

Because the type, as envisioned its initial version, failed to offer acceptable payload and range capabilities, a second, the 2707-200, was proposed. Although it featured an elongated fuselage and tu-144-resembling canards above and behind the cockpit, it weighed in at 750,000 pounds, which was 25 percent higher than envisioned and greater than that of a 500-passenger 747-100, and therefore failed to meet the FAA's finalized design submission deadline.

Even its 23,000-pound weight reduction program placed its gross weight 52,000 pounds above the target.

While its radical, swing-wing feature was technologically feasible, it failed to offer the needed parameters, because Boeing was unable to integrate the pivots, engines, and undercarriage in an efficient engineering package.

Forced to abandon this variable-geometry airfoil concept, it produced a third version, the 2707-300. Featuring a 268.8-foot overall length, it incorporated the fixed, supersonic standard delta wing planform utilized by Concorde and the Tu-144, with a 141.8-foot span and an 8,497-square-foot area. The horizontal and vertical tailplane, with a 50.1-foot height, remained conventional.

Powered by four 60,000 thrust-pound General Electric GE4 / J5P turbojets, it offered double the capacity and one-third more speed than its UK and USSR competitors, however, and was intended to transport 234 passengers 5,000 miles at 1,890-mph speeds at 60,000 -foot service ceilings. The prototype's 640,000-pound gross weight was expected to increase to 710,000 pounds on production aircraft.

Simplicity, coupled with a size reduction and the elimination of the variable geometry airfoil's weight and aerodynamic obstacles, resolved in lower production and unit costs, which, in turn, Boeing believed would have attracted greater sales. That figure was then envisioned as being as high as 500.

In October of 1968, or five months before Concorde first flew, the definitive 2707-300 was chosen as the US's supersonic transport design and construction of its prototype carried in September of the following year, provisioning it as the third airliner in its class to enter the market. But it never would.

Continually subjected to a design and development program that was, at times, even more turbulent than Concorde's, it cooked for survival.

The obstacles, as being of early 1960s commercial supersonic technology, were numerous and insurmountable, including escalating research and production costs, increasing gross weights, decreasing ranges and payloads, rising seat-mile costs, excess fuel burns and engine noise, the need for higher than subsonic fares, and the fear that first class passengers would switch to the higher-speed transport, leaving the conventional, subsonic ones without the yield on which they depended for profitability.

Limited in route application, the type could only be economically viable with high load factors on very long range routes.

Innovative technology, it had become unexpectedly handsome, could not support the supersonic concept on a commercial level. Yet, blinded at times by the need to recapture the title lost during the subsonic race and that “pride-goeth-before-a-fall” dynamic necessitated by the desire to regain national prestige, the program remained aloft with the continued, albeit obstacle -ridden, granting of federal funds.

Part of this buoyancy, needless to say, was airline interest in the product, but, as occurred with Concorde, this began to wane, since they were already financially strapped with orders for widebody 747s.

Public, government, and aircraft manufacturer doubts concerning the 2707-300's ability to ever economically achievable its fore-claimed noise, payload, and range design goals caused declination confidence to coincide with diminishing enthusiasm for the concept.

Presidential support for a supersonic transport program fluctuated broadly. Escalating development costs spawned by increasing technological hurdlers and requiring additional governmental funding only asserted in increasing opposition to it. Because Tupolev seemed unable to solve its own Tu-144 problems and Concorde's fuel-burn addressed in initial sales of only ten aircraft to Air France and British Airways (a number too small to pose any competitive threat), continued 2707-300 funding could no longer be justified.

On March 18, 1971, therefore, the House voted against it, echoed several days later by the Senate. Although supporters attempted to restart the program by rechanneling the $ 85.3 million for its termination into further development, and although the House itself voted in favor of this action on May 12, the Senate rejected it five days later.

Fifteen percent of the first 2707-300 airframe had been cut at the time and a 296-foot stretched version, to accommodate 321 passengers, was then envisioned.

All three US, UK, and USSR programs had been plagued by unprecended opposition to new technology that many believed would have been detrimental to the atmosphere, the earth's environment, and humanity. Because of its tremendous technological leak, exploding development costs, and irresolvable engineering difficulties, it never became the hoped-for reality in the US and, after a few route providing flights, the Tupolev Tu-144 itself was drawn from service in the USSR.

That only one such supersonic aircraft, Concorde, ever entered the planned sector, that it only accounted for a competent of sales to the carriers which Governments represented, and that the exorbitant fuel costs required to sustain its speed all indicate that, while a commercial design was then technologically feasible, that It was not economically feasible.

The Tupolev Tu-144 Supersonic Transport

1. Tupolev Tu-104: While the three major US, European, and former-USSR powers all designed supersonic transports, that of the latter was actually the first to fly. But its development was complicated and it ultimately ended in failure. Seeking to increase speeds and reduce travel times on scheduled routes, all of which were flown by Aeroflot,…

1. Tupolev Tu-104:

While the three major US, European, and former-USSR powers all designed supersonic transports, that of the latter was actually the first to fly. But its development was complicated and it ultimately ended in failure.

Seeking to increase speeds and reduce travel times on scheduled routes, all of which were flown by Aeroflot, the country stepped up to pure-jet technology with its first such airliner, the Tupolev Tu-104, when it first flew in prototype form on June 17, 1955.

The low-wing monoplane, incorporating many of the elements of the military Tu-16 twin turbojet bomber to reduce development time, featured a glazed nose navigator's station, a 35-degree swept wing mounted with significant anhedral, dual wing root buried, 14,881 thrust -pound Mikulin RD-3 or AM-3 eight-stage, axial-flow turbojets, and quad-wheel main undercarriage units that retracted into wing underside fairings. Although initial capacity was 50, 70-passenger Tu-104As and 100-passenger Tu-104Bs, in five-abreast configurations, followed.

Inaugurated into service on September 15, 1956 on the Moscow-Umsk-Irkutsk route, it severely reduced flying times over the piston types it replaced.

“At the time of its entry into service, the Tu-104 was the only turbojet-powered transport in airline service,” according to John Stroud in “Soviet Transport Aircraft since 1945” (Putnam and Company, Ltd., 1968, p. 199), “the de Havilland Comet 1 and 1A types having been withdrawn from service in 1954. It was not until the autumn of 1958 that BOAC introduced Comet 4s and Pan American World Airways Boeing 707-120s.”

Like the countries in the West, the former Soviet Union believed that a supersonic transport was the next logical development of commercial aviation.

2. Myasishchev M-52:

The foundation for a Russian supersonic transport was laid by the Myasishchev Design Bureau's M-52 intercontinental bomber. Powered by four Solovy'ev turbojets, two of which were pylon-mounted to the high, swept wings and two of which were attached to their tips, it was intended for at least Mach 2 cruise speeds.

Although the only example ever built publicly appeared in Tuscino in 1961, or a year after the design bureau which had given birth to it was abolished, commercial feasibility studies of it had been concluded. While its high-wing configuration was considered inappropriate for passenger-carrying services and its range was insufficient for such operations, this logic, at least in the Soviet Union, was sounder than may at first be considered, since both the turboprop Tupolev Tu-114 and pure-jet Tu-104 had been civil versions of, respectably, the Tu-95 and Tu-16 bombers.

3. Tupolev Tu-144:

An all-new supersonic design was clearly needed. Because Myasishchev's proposal was inappropriate and Ilyushin was preoccupied with rectifying the problems with its Il-62 long-range, pure-jet passenger aircraft, Tupolev, the country's long established military and commercial manufacturer, was selected to produce it.

The result, the Tu-144, was one of the few aircraft up to this time initially and exclusively designed for commercial operations.

Powered by four 38,500 thrust-pound engines, the aircraft featured a 188.5-foot overall length, an 83.10-foot span of its delta wing, and a 330,000-pound gross weight. Although still only in prototype form and resembling, as expected, Concorde in configuration, there were several differences between the two.

The fuselage, first and foremost, incorporated 18 percent of titanium in its construction to cater to the expected expansion and contracting cycles that resulted from the frictional heat buildup and internal pressurization, and it was wider, with a flatter cabin floor, for five-abreast coach seating. Its single-droop nose, deflecting to the 12-degree position, distributed top windows.

In planform, its double-delta wing featured an ogival or s-shaped leading edge and trailing edge elevons, but was devoid of camber or twist with a flat bottom.

Its NK-144 turbojets, grouped in barely separated pairs, were air inserted through its six-foot rectangular inlets on the leading edge and stretched across more than 17 feet to its exhaust pipes at the trailing edge.

Undercarriage controlled of a two-wheeled, aft-retracting nose unit and two 12-wheeled, forward-retracting main units mounted outboard of the engine ducts and rotating 180 degrees before settling into their airfoil bays.

First flying from Moscow's Zhukovsky Airfield after executing a 25-second acceleration roll-which marked the world's first commercial supersonic flight of any design-the prototype, number 68001, remained airborne for 28 minutes, with its landing gear extended the entire time. Unpressurized, it internally transported flight test equipment.

Although no photographs were released at the time, it is believed that a second airframe, numbered 68002, was damaged during its own flights and a third, 68003, was used for static testing.

Fuel thirsty and range deficient, the type, requiring consistent, 100-passenger load factors to even meet breakeven costs, indicated the need for an intensive redesign of a production version, which more closely reflected Concorde.

Stretched, the fuselage, now with a 215.5-foot length and sporting 34 as opposed to the previous 25 windows, facilitated accommodation of up to 140, and its droop nose, of greater length, introduced side windows.

Two canards, installed on the upper fuselage immediately behind the cockpit, extended out- and forward to improve the aircraft's low-speed handling characteristics.

The composite swept, full delta wing, 94.5 feet in span, offered variable camber and sculpting and a circular underside.

The engines, with square inlets, were repositioned further outboard and there was greater separation between their pairs, while the main undercarriage units, of shorter length, retracted into them.

Range, with a 33,000-pound payload, was projected as 2,000 miles.

Numbered 77101, the first prototype of this extensively redesigned version first flew in August of 1972, while the second, 77102, was the first exhibited in the West at the 1973 Paris Air Show. Its pride was short-lived, however.

During a demonstration flight on June 3, the aircraft made a low pass with its canard surfaces and undercarriage extended, before executing a steep, afterburner-augmented climb. Appearing to experience a stall at 3,000 feet, however, it preceded a dive, abruptly leveling off only a few feet above the ground, at which point the right wing to turn off at the root.

Spitting flames from its engines, it rolled and the other wing dislodged itself from the structure. Exploding and plummeting to the earth, it affected, killing the six crew members on board, eight on the ground, and damaging more than a hundred buildings in Goussainville, France.

Although no official cause was ever found, it was believed that the Tu-144 attempted to land on the wrong runway, beginning a go-around when the error was discovered, which placed it on a collision course with a Mirage fighter. Diving to avoid it, it was projected to g-forces beyond the airframe's capacity and too little altitude remained in which to recover. Its structural failure was therefore not attributed to any design flaw or deficiency.

After operating cargo and mail root providing flights between December of 1975 and 1976, the Tupolev Tu-144 entered scheduled service on the 2,400-mile segment between Moscow and Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, on November 1 of the following year, operating 102 such services with an average of 70 passengers, before they were discontinued on June 6, 1978. The aircraft logged 181 airborne hours, of which 102 were at subsonic periods.

Despite its extensive redesign, it had failed to rectify its shortcomings. Still excessively fuely, it was only able to cover the 2,400-mile route with half its payload capability, attained by deliberatively leaving its half unoccupied, and the cabin noise level, caused by the engines and the air conditioning required to counteract the external , skin friction created heat, was intolerable.

The succeeding Tu-144D, fitted with uprated, more economic Koliesov RD-36-51A turbines, while offering hope when it first flew on May 23, 1978, fared little better. A fire in the left engines, propagating to the fuselage, left insufficient power to reach an alternate airport, causing the aircraft to careen into a field and explode. Of the five crew members aboard, two were killed and three were injured.

Although the type began route provides flights on the 3,480-mile sector from Moscow to Khabarovsk on June 23 of the following year and it covered the distance in three hours, 21 minutes, it never proceeded to scheduled status. The noise, fuel consumption, and range parameters of supersonic flight could not be transcended for commercial operations, leaving the one prototype, the two pre-production, the nine production Tu-144s, and the five production Tu-144Ds as the only testaments to this fact.

4. Tupolev Tu-144LL:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teamed with US and Russian aerospace industries over a five-year period to conduct a joint international research program to develop viable technology for an early-21st century supersonic transport that would resolve the obstacles plagued by the three Boeing 2707, Aerospatiale-British Aerospace Concorde, and Tupolev Tu-144 actual and still-born designs.

Conduced as part of NASA's High Speed ​​Research (HSR) program and managed by the NASA Langley Research Center, the project was initiated after the June 1994 agreement was signed by US Vice President Al Gore, Jr. and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chemomyrdin.

Cornerstone of it was the last Tu-144D, constructed in 1981 and sporting tail number 77114, which itself never entered commercial service, but logged 82 hours, 40 minutes during research and test flights. Originally powered by four Koliesov RD-36-51 turbojets, which provided it for a maximum Mach 2.15 / 1,450-mph speed at a 59,000-foot service ceiling, it had a range of less than 2,500 miles.

Modified for the joint program to Tu-144LL Flying Laboratory standard, it was retrofitted with four 55,000 thrust-pound Kuznetsov, afterburner-equipped NK-321 turbofans originally produced for the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack bomber, resulting in a Mach 2.3 speed and 3,500 nautical mile range with 224,000 pounds of fuel at a 410,000-pound maximum take off weight.

Other configurations including the addition of thermocouples, pressure sensors, microphones, and skin friction gauges to measure the aerodynamic boundary layer, an emergency crew escape system, and a Damian digital data collection system that replaced the earlier analog one.

The first of the two-phase program, running from June of 1996 to February of 1998, entailed two ground engine and six flight experiments, which required 19 airborne sorties to complete, from the Zhukovsky Air Development Center near Moscow, and involved studies relating the aircraft exterior surface, the internal structure and powerplant, temperatures, boundary airflows, interior and exterior noise, airfoil ground effect characteristics, and varying flight profile handling characteristics.

The second phase, taking place between September of 1998 and April of 1999, entailed six losses, which not only facilitated greater understanding of the original six airborne experiments, but also provided analysis of fuselage and wind deflections, angles-of-attack, sideslip angles , and nose boom presses.

Although no bonafide US supersonic airliner designs have been established, with those appropriate for the business jet segment more likely to precede them, these Tu-144LL aerodynamic, structural, acoustic, and operating environment experiments may pave the way for long-range, higher- capacity, economic fight that minimizes ozone layer deterioration, and the ground-experienced sonic boom.

Article Sources

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) website.

Stroud, John. “Soviet Transport Aircraft since 1945.” London: Putnam and Company, Ltd., 1968.

Knowing The Relevance of Fixed Base Operators on Commercial Airports

For the uninitiated, FBO stands for Fixed Base Operator – a term that's extremely relevant in both the general and commercial aviation sectors. The aviation industry is propelled by a number of companies and service providers, many of which are focused on helping different parties with vested interests. FBO basically cater to the needs of…

For the uninitiated, FBO stands for Fixed Base Operator – a term that's extremely relevant in both the general and commercial aviation sectors. The aviation industry is propelled by a number of companies and service providers, many of which are focused on helping different parties with vested interests. FBO basically cater to the needs of general aviation, and depending on their profile, they may work with commercial carriers and other individual companies that require on-airport services. In this post, we will talk about FBOs and how their services are important and pertinent for the sector.

The need for FBO

It is very hard to generalize the scope of work done by Fixed Base Operators, primary because their roles at different airports can vary tremendously. They are, however, extremely important to the aviation customers they serve. As mentioned, an FBO may choose to work with a regular commercial airline, or they may be involved in airport maintenance as approved by the airport sponsor along with the overseeing regulatory authority. FBOs are important because they provide a critical service, the supply of aviation fuels, at the airports they serve. Their services help in maintaining standards and services at an airport, and they can serve commercial carriers as well as the general aviation public. Many FBOs are described as full service, meaning they provide additional services such as Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) and Aircraft Charter and Management (ACM) in addition to the core FBO services of aircraft handling, fueling and hangaring. It greatly depends on the nature of the airport and local demand for services.

Things to expect

FBOs serve in different roles. Almost all FBOs provide the core line services of aircraft handling, fueling and hangaring. Most also provide facilities with amenities for the flying public and flight crews, including general aviation terminals with customer service desks and seating areas, flight planning and pilot lounges and rest areas, and other amenities. When it comes to commercial services, FBOs at many regional airports will provide commercial handling and fueling where there is not enough commercial service to rise to the level of a stand-alone third party provider. Although somewhat less frequent, FBO personnel can also provide some above wing services such as passenger ticketing, check in and gate agent services.

Working with a FBO

If you are an airport sponsor or someone who needs assistance with airport businesses, you should be careful about how you choose the best FBO management service. Expertise and experience matters the most in this sector, given that the cost of operations is getting higher as demand for higher service levels and better facilities continues to increase. You need a team that knows your business goals and can offer dedicated assistance with complex aviation logistics. As a prospective client, you should carefully diligence their experience and capabilities, and you should always be able to contact their references. FBOs are great at overcoming challenges, but working with the right service provider who understands your needs and meets your expectations is critical.

Check online now to find the best FBOs in business.

Aircraft Fasteners – How Are Fasteners Used in Aircrafts?

Fasteners: The fastener is a hardware device that mechanically connects two or more objects together. Fasteners can also be used to shut down a container such as a bag, box. They may also involve keeping together the sides of an opening of flexible substance, connecting a lid to a box / vessel, etc. Fasteners can…

Fasteners:

The fastener is a hardware device that mechanically connects two or more objects together. Fasteners can also be used to shut down a container such as a bag, box. They may also involve keeping together the sides of an opening of flexible substance, connecting a lid to a box / vessel, etc. Fasteners can be of many types like Bolt, Nut, Screw.

Bolt:

Then bolt is also a form of (sewing machine) fastener with an outbound male thread. Bolts are used in a wide variety of head designs. These are designed to capture with the tool used to screw up them. The most general / usually used Bolt today is the hexagonal head.

Nut:

The nut is also one variety of fastener with a threaded hole. Nuts are almost always used in coincidence with a mating bolt to fasten two or many parts together. The two collectively are kept together by a mixture of their threads friction, a slight extend of the bolt, and contracting of the parts to be held together. The most usual shape of Nut is hexagonal.

Screw:

The screw is also one form of the fastener and at times similar to a bolt. It is generally made up of metal, and characterized by a circular ridge known as a male thread. A screw is an inclined plane fold around a nail. Some screw threads are designed to mate with a complementary thread, known as a female thread. The most general uses of screws are to hold an item / thing together and to position item / thing. The screw will generally have a head on one side that contains a specially formed shape that allows it to be turned with a tool. The most general tools for driving screws include screwdrivers. The head is generally larger than the body of the screw which keeps the screw from being operate in depth than the length of the screw and to give a bearing work surface.

The Some of the applications of the fasteners are:

1. It is used in Sheet-metal assemblies.
2. It is used in Aircraft.
3. It is used in Air conditioners.
4. It is used in Engineering Field.
5. It is used in cold storage.
6. In Engineering Field.
7. In kitchen equipment.
8. In the Lighting industry.
9. In Office furniture
10.In Railways.

The Some of the advantages of the fasteners are:

1. It is Corrosion Resistant.
2. It is having Strength.
3. It is Cosmetically Appealing.
4. It is Largely Non-Magnetic.
5. It is Reasonably Inexpensive.
6. It is Readily Available.
7. It is ROHS Compliant.
8. It is Ease of manufacturing.
9. It is Ease of assembly and transportation.

Air Freight – An Easy Way To Shift

Overview Air freight is the shipment and transfer of goods via an air carrier that may be commercial or charter. Such shipments can travel out of commercial and passenger aviation gateways to anywhere the planes can fly and land. The global air freight market report is segmented by aircraft type and freight item. The aircraft…

Overview

Air freight is the shipment and transfer of goods via an air carrier that may be commercial or charter. Such shipments can travel out of commercial and passenger aviation gateways to anywhere the planes can fly and land. The global air freight market report is segmented by aircraft type and freight item. The aircraft type segment is further segrated into express, all cargo, ad hoc cargo & charter carrier, and combination. The freight item segment is further segmented into pharmaceutical, machinery & electrical equipment, aircraft spare part, and others.

Market Dynamics

The increasing economic activity and world trade is the one of the most important economic drivers for the global air freight market. Although the economic conditions have been modified over the past few years, they have recently started to improve. Air freight has remained an indispensable tool for the transport of time-sensitive commodities, like perishables, high-value, low-weight goods, including consumer electronics, high-fashion apparel, pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery, and high-value intermediate goods, such as auto parts.

The global air freight market grew by 6.9% Year-on-Year in 2017, which is more than its five-year average growth rate. The APAC region held the largest market share with more than 40% of the total market in 2016 and it increased by 7.5% YoY, with China leading with 15% of the total market share, and which, is expected to continue in the future. Mature markets, like North America and Europe, have started to recover from the global economic meltdown and are showing promising signs of growth. This is evident from their growth rates, which are 8.7% and 8.5%, respectively.

The rising fuel prices have a complex effect on this market and air transport has become more expensive. However, it is also driving the need for more efficient planes, which has created a market for advanced cargo-only flights. Of the current global cargo fleet, 61% have been converted from old passenger flights. However, this is changing gradually and will have a positive impact on the market, as the performance, efficiency, and reliability of new, purpose-built freighters are expected to outweigh the low purchase prices for converted large freighters in the long run, especially for intercontinental operations, where high cargo density, larger payloads, and extended range are critical.

Segmentation

The report analysis looks into the current composition of the cargo fleets of various major airlines around the world, segregating them on the basis of size, like wide-body aircraft, very large aircraft, and narrow-body aircraft, across the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. The market has been segmented on the basis of aircraft and freight item.

The UAV Market Takes Off Amid Rising Military Applications

A UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) is a small pilotless aircraft, which is either controlled by a remote or an app. The global unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) market is poised to register a CAGR of 9.27%, during 2018-2023 (the forecast period) as per a report by a market intelligence firm. Military expenditure is the primary driving…

A UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) is a small pilotless aircraft, which is either controlled by a remote or an app. The global unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) market is poised to register a CAGR of 9.27%, during 2018-2023 (the forecast period) as per a report by a market intelligence firm.

Military expenditure is the primary driving factor of the global UAV market. UAVs have the capability of reducing collateral damage while hovering, searching, identifying, and striking targets, which makes them an asset for the military.

These vehicles use aerodynamic forces to navigate and perform desired functions. Drones can reach, travel, and traverse areas and facilitate ease of operations in areas where it is arduous for humans to maneuver. They are used to carry small payloads, perform delivery and minor services, carry video and static cameras for photography and videography, and perform commercial and military surveillance and operations.

Segmentation by application:

Based on the application, the military UAV segment accounts for more than 80% of the market. The ability of these UAVs, to aid in ISR missions, aerial surveillance, and tactical operations, is accelerating its adoption. However, the commercial & civil segment is programmed to register the highest CAGR according to the market intelligence firm .

Segmentation by class:

Based on the class, the small UAV segment is anticipated to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The demand for small UAVs is constantly increasing, due to opportunities in commercial applications as well as their potential battlefield usage.

Asia-Pacific is expected to register the highest CAGR during 2018-2023 (the forecast period). Also, North America dominates the global UAV market, due to the increased UAV application in military, homeland security, and commercial areas.

Recent developments include BAE Systems working on UAVs with stealth capabilities. These are based on a new concept that removes conventional moving parts to provide greater control as well as reduce weight and maintenance costs.

Entry of new players is getting difficult in the defense segment due to the uncompromising safety, and regulatory policies and requirements. Moreover, the market is highly competitive but consolidated with only a few vendors, who dominate the shares of the market. Tough there is a huge scope in the market the various factors effecting are so huge restricting new firms to enter the market.

Some of the key market players featured in the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) market include AeroVironment, Israel Aerospace Industries, 3DR, DJI, Textron, and SAAB.

Quick Guide to The Basic Services Offered by Fixed-Based Operators

Like any other industry, the aviation services sector is propelled by a number of specific functions. In North America and parts of Europe, the concept of Fixed-Based Operator (FBO) services is understood to consist of certain components. So what's a FBO? What kind of services do they offer? In this post, we will discuss these…

Like any other industry, the aviation services sector is propelled by a number of specific functions. In North America and parts of Europe, the concept of Fixed-Based Operator (FBO) services is understood to consist of certain components. So what's a FBO? What kind of services do they offer? In this post, we will discuss these attributes and more.

What are Fixed-Based Operator (FBO) services?

To understand the services provided by FBOs, it is important to understand the process of entering an airport and using general aviation. FBOs provide a welcoming, private general aviation terminal for those passengers flying in general aviation aircraft. Unlike their commercial counterparts, there are no security lines or lengthy check in procedures. Instead, the FBO staff assists the flight crew for the general aviation airplane to prepare the plane for departure. This can consist of handling (moving) the airplane from the hangar or ramp standing area to the terminal for departure, as well as fueling the aircraft and provisioning the airplane with sundries and other specific requests of the passengers (such as catering, other cabin supplies , etc. Since the passengers are known to the flight crews and the flight crews and the passengers are known to the FBOs, the boarding process is very fast and efficient. with baggage stowage and ensuring any other pre-flight requirements are met.

What additional services do FBOs provide?

Pretty much everything needed by the flight crew or passengers. They are responsible for the facilities through which general aviation flights take place. These include hangar facilities at most airports and general aviation passenger terminals and other facilities. Within the definition of general aviation facilities, the FBO ensures that the flight crew can do their flight planning, check the weather and do all of the necessary preparation for the aircraft and passengers. The FBO also provides areas for the flight crew to rest and relax when they are not actively preparing for a flight. Depending upon the airport and local regulations, passengers themselves may use the facilities for staging before a flight or they may be driven or escorted out directly to the aircraft by the FBO staff.

What other services do FBOs provide?

The short answer is whatever the passengers and flight crews need for a successful trip. Often this includes arranging or providing ground transportation for the passengers and crew, whether this is a ride hailing service or rental cars or taxis. It can also entail helping passengers with other concierge arrangements, such as booking hotels, finding restaurants, etc. FBOs usually have conference rooms for private meetings and may offer additional facilities for passengers and flight crews as well.

If you would like to learn more about Fixed-Based Operator (FBO) services and FBO management, you can search online to find service providers and management companies. You should diligence their experience and service offerings and ensure that they have the capabilities and capacity to meet your needs.

The History of Northeastern International Airways

Its four-year reign was brief and tumultuous, with a high representative what could have steadily been if aspirations had not exceeded expenses. But perhaps its greatest legacy is that it sparked one of Long Island MacArthur Airport's development cycles, attracting passengers and, quite, other carriers, putting the fledging airfield, which had consistently driven for identity…

Its four-year reign was brief and tumultuous, with a high representative what could have steadily been if aspirations had not exceeded expenses. But perhaps its greatest legacy is that it sparked one of Long Island MacArthur Airport's development cycles, attracting passengers and, quite, other carriers, putting the fledging airfield, which had consistently driven for identity and purpose, on the map. The airline had the globe-suggesting name of Northeastern International Airways with the unofficially two-letter code of “QS,” although it never stretched further than the West Coast. And its founder was Stephen L. Quinto.

Born on July 8, 1935 in the Bronx, but raised on Long Island, he could certainly identify with the roots of his own enterprise, and his exposure to aviation came before his teenage years, at the age of 12, when his older brother started his own air service. Like father, like son, the saying goes, yet in this case it was closer to “like brother, like brother.”

His brother's reign, at least characterized by his life, was also brief, since he was succinctly succumbed to a military aircraft accident. Despite the tragedy, the event could have been the seed that grew into Quinto's own aviation undertaking in a turn-pain-into-purpose philosophy.

“I think that probably had a great deal to do with looking at what this business is all about,” he later remarked.

Yet two decades passed before that seed could take root, during which time his pursuits ended in unsuccessful completion.

As honorable as it was, his appointment to the US Military Academy at West Point was a nonevent, because he was too young to legally accept it-by all of seven days! His other educational endeavors, including those at the University of Michigan, New York University, the Polytechnic Institute in Brooklyn, and Pratt University, were also impressive and at least enabled him to leave a footprint on their campuses, but he walked away without a degree from any of them.

Seeking to escape it all, he moved to France for a decade, but it was on this side of the Atlantic, specifically in England in 1968, that his aviation seed finally sprouted wings with the Sagittair Company he established. It would be the first of three. The last, as already hinted, rose from his home soil of Long Island, emphasized by its inclusion in the name of the very airport that would become its operational base, Long Island MacArthur. Until his airline's fleet-initially consulting of a single airplane-appeared on its tarmac, no one had heard of it. Then, again, the airport itself was seriously world-renown.

Constructed in 1942 as a result of Congress's Development of Landing Areas for National Defense (DLAND), it was originally intended as a military facility sparked by the outbreak of World War II and could be used for civil purposes during times of peace. Because it was initially considered an appendage to military aviation, its commercial counterpart was viewed as a segment of the national defense system.

That commercial purpose was realized, albeit in limited form, before the end of the decade when a 5,000-square-foot passenger terminal was constructed and air taxi operator Gateway Airlines scheduled scheduled service to Boston, Newark, and Washington with 11-passenger de Havilland Doves and 15-passenger Herons in 1956.

As the long-envisioned reliever airport to JFK and La Guardia, it inched toward this goal ten years later when a more ambitious, 50,000-square-foot oval terminal was built to handle the mostly morning business rush to Albany, Boston, and Washington with USAir BAC-111-200s and DC-9-30s and to Chicago with American Airlines' 727-100 Astrojets.

Another long-term goal, as disclosed by market studies, was the establishment of nonstop Long Island-Florida service to facilitate travel of those wishing to visit their sunshine state retired parents and tap into the tourist trade seeking winter warmth. Airline deregulation and Quinto made both possible.

Leasing a former Evergreen International DC-8-50, registered N800EV, and operating it in a single-class, 185-passenger configuration, he inaugurated Long Island MacArthur (Islip) -Ft. Lauderdale service on February 11, 1982, charging low, unrestricted fares. As an intercontinental aircraft, its relatively low fuel uplift, combined with a full passenger and baggage complement, enabled it to use 5,186-foot Runway 33-Left, from which climbed out over Lake Ronkonkoma and departed Long Island over its South Shore, while complementary soft drinks and snack baskets of peanuts, cheese and crackers, sandwiches, and fresh fruit were served in the cabin. Checked baggage was included in the fare.

The initial schedule entailed four weekly rotations to Ft. Lauderdale and a single one to Orlando, although a second aircraft, registered N801EV, made increased frequencies and destinations possible.

In its first year of operations, it carried more than 150,000 passengers and ended the period on a high note by transporting a monthly record of 32,075 in December, a figure attributed to weather-caused, Florida-bound flight cancellations at the major New York airports and the privileged bus transfer of stranded flyers to Islip.

The Long Island airport's own statistics were also promising, with 3,071 annual air carrier movements and 250,406 passengers in 1982, since it could now boast three pure-jet operators after American and USAir.

Quinto attributed his carrier's initial success to the trusted and proven concepts of service quality and low, unrestricted fares, along with filling a market gap that had been hungry for years. For this reason, Northeastern adopted the slogan of “A lot of airline for a little money” and, because it served the hometown airport of MacArthur, eliminating the commute to either JFK or La Guardia for eastern Nassau and Suffolk County residents, it also toted, “We're one step closer to home.”

Although its corporate headquarters was located in Ft. Lauderdale, Long Island remained its operational base. After leasing two 128-passenger former Pan Am 727-100s, which were draped in pink and blue cloud liveries, it offered seven daily departures from Islip to Ft. Lauderdale itself, Hartford, Miami, Orlando, and St. Louis Petersburg, which was a secondary airport to Tampa. Nonstop flights were also offered from the Connecticut airfield.

Low-fare, deregulation-sparked momentum, once initiated, could not be arrested. The following year, which entailed the acquisition of three longer-range DC-8-62s-including N752UA from United Air Leasing, OY-KTE from Thai Airways International, and N8973U from Arrow Air-saw service to 11 destinations and the annual transport of just under 600,000 passengers.

Long Island MacArthur Airport, with which it was inefficiently tied, also reaped financial reward, recording 6,597 air carrier movements and a 546,996-passenger throughput in 1983.

Yet, deviating from its that far successful strategy and ignoring the tried-and-true “if it is not broken, do not fix it” philosophy, Northeastern elected to tackle the big boys at airports such as JFK and acquire widebody aircraft, ultimately operating transcontinentally. The widebodies themselves came in the form of four Airbus A300B2s in 314-passenger single-class, eight-abreast configurations: D-AIAD from Lufthansa in January (1984), D-AIAE from Lufthansa in February, F-ODRD from Airbus Industrie in May, and F-ODRE from Airbus Financial Services, also in May. It became the second US airline after Eastern to operate the European type.

The strategy may have elevated the low-cost carrier with Long Island roots to a big player, but its overexpansion was defeated by insufficient cash flow. Although it had earned $ 64.7 million in revenues in its fiscal year ended on March 31, 1984, it recorded a $ 5.2 million loss.

Its nonfinancial statistics told another story. By the summer, it operated 66 daily flights to 17 US destinations with a three-type, 16-strong fleet, including 727-200s from the likes of Mexicana de Aviacion and VASP, and employed 1,600 personnel. During the first half of the year, it recorded the highest load factor, of 71.5 percent, of any US airline, and in May became the 18th largest as measured by revenue passenger miles.

Its June 1984 system timetable encompassed Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Hartford, Islip, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York-JFK, Oklahoma City, Orlando, St. Louis. Petersburg, San Diego, Tulsa, and West Palm Beach.

Although Long Island MacArthur was still its flight base, New Orleans had become its principal hub, with service to 15 cities. The large-capacity A300s were deployed on the east coast from JFK to Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, and Orlando and on the one-stop southern transcontinental one from Miami to Los Angles via New Orleans itself.

Yet gravity was not the only element to cause an airborne object to descend, even those with wings. Finances provided provided-or, in this case, nullified-lift, sparking a rapid descent. Another $ 4.4 million was lost during the third quarter that ended on September 30, 1984 and with it began the survival-mode strategy of eliminating aspects which could no longer be monetarily supported, including the layoff of 450 employees and the return-it was actually a repossession-of the A300 fleet.

Viewing his once rapidly rising carrier as a jigsaw puzzle, Quinto attempted to keep its picture whole without its forcibly removed pieces and replace them with what he could scrounge. Ten former Braniff 727-200s, which were vitally needed to quench the thirst of the winter sun-seeking market during the 1984-1985 season, were promoting replacements. However, a Dallas judge ruled that this sublease of airplanes and crew would have violated the terms of Braniff's own bankruptcy reorganization agreement.

Like plugs rolled from Northeastern's rapid rise, the lights outlining its structure blacked out. Destinations were eliminated, reservation lines were severed, flights were canceled, bills were not paid, and passengers were left stranded. And on January 3, 1985, the three-year, low-cost carrier fell to the same fate as Braniff, filing for Chapter 11 in a Miami Bankruptcy Court with $ 28 million in assets and $ 48 million in liabilities. It owed some $ 15 million to more than a thousand unsecured creditors and could no longer meet its employee payroll.

“I do not know who to blame,” Quinto told reporters at the time. “All I can tell you is that we have an awful lot of paper, but no cash.”

Northeastern never rose to its former, but brief glory again, although Quinto wave heart and soul trying. Likened to a “junkyard dog,” he made continual effort to piece scraps together and keep his enterprise airborne, which he did sporadically, despite the bankruptcy filing.

A single no-frills flight, from Islip to Ft. Lauderdale at a $ 69.00 fare, strung an aerial thread down the east coast, but with gradual regrowth, the four major Florida cities of Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando, St. Louis Petersburg, and West Palm Beach were linked to Chicago as well as Islip and Philadelphia, albeit for a $ 20.00 higher fare, until the plug was once again pulsed in March, when it missed an aircraft lease payment.

Four months ensued before it was in the sky again, on June 21, serving the familiar Florida routes with 727-200s leased from United, although some sectors were sporadically operated by All Star Airlines and Emerald Air DC-9s on its behalf.

But its market had been intermittently lost. Confidence was lost. Airplanes were lost. And its fares, as low as $ 49.00 to compete with the more established, familiar-name carriers, could hardly sustain it.

The last glimmer of hope came at the end of the year with a $ 1 million loan and the lease of a single MD-82 from Alisarda, registered HB-IKL. Yet its final light was doused in early 1986, drowned by liquidation, but not necessarily on the Long Island airport that had spawned it and to which its legacy had been left.

Attracting interest, passengers, and other airlines, with 10,750 air carrier movements and 810,751-passenger totals in 1984, Northeastern's last full year of operations, it had demonstrated the airport's market potential, serving as the catalyst to its growth and never again leaving it without the all-important Long Island-Florida aerial link, which was provided by a dozen other airlines, including AirTran, Allegiant, Braniff (III), Carnival, Delta Express, Eastern, Elite, Frontier, Pan Am, Southwest, Spirit, and USAir.

Aviation Industry

We live in an era where saving time is more critical than saving money. Perhaps this is why air transport, which earlier was solely reserved for the extremely affluent or for emergencies, is now being used on par with its competitors, ie, rail and road transport. The number of passengers flying has increased multi-fold over…

We live in an era where saving time is more critical than saving money. Perhaps this is why air transport, which earlier was solely reserved for the extremely affluent or for emergencies, is now being used on par with its competitors, ie, rail and road transport. The number of passengers flying has increased multi-fold over the past couple of decades, and the count is still on the rise. A few decades ago, only the mature, developed, and wealthy nations like the United States, the countries of Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc. were the ones that had air connectivity with main domestic cities and also international destinations. But now, the number of countries connected to each other by air has increased dramatically, and that did not stop there. The domestic air connectivity has also spiked, connecting many cities in many different countries. Not just the developed and wealthy nations, but also developing countries like China, India, and Brazil, etc. have gained a lot because of growing air connectivity. Not only has the connectivity has gotten better, but also the experience of traveling by air has improved. Let us take a look at the aspects that have changed significantly in the past few decades.

Traveling Time
Air travel, which has been the fastest mode of transportation right from its absorption, has become even faster over time. The flight from the Australian subcontinent to London was, and still is among the longest known flights. During the late 1950s, the cities of Sydney and London were connected by Qantas Airways of Australia. The trip then was a 4-day journey with a whoping 55 hours in the air and the flight touching the ground at six places other than Sydney and London. The airline still runs between the countries but in a different way. The New Kangaroo Route 2018, as Qantas Airways calls it, connects Perth to London without stopping or touching down anywhere else. The journey now just takes 17 hours in the air, covering over 9000 miles in the air in one take off.

It is not even the most time in the air or the longest distance covered in a single take off. As planes got increasingly efficient and technologically advanced, flights with even longer air times and journeys were made possible. Another venture by Qatar Airlines between Auckland and Doha is now that longest flight, covering a staggering 9025 miles in a single run (or fly) reflecting 16 to 18 hours in the air. Imagine the passengers clinging to their seats that long!

Inflight Meal
There is a reason why the early flying period was dubbed the 'Golden Era' of flying. For the price that passengers then paid for the travel was compensated by the food and beverages served during the voyage. But the airlines had their own set of issues to deal with. The flyers of the early 1920s had to deal with weight issues when there were cases where passengers were weighed before boarding. The same rule applied to the food, which restricted the amount of food being transported into the sky. As the planes got better and the journeys longer, the food got better and hotter. Food was more than just a survival essential. Flights of the early 1930s had kitchens, which were able to provide a hot meal and a dining room where the passengers would assemble and have a lift up in the air. Then, in the 1940s came the frozen food era, thanks to which a variety of meals were served in the sky. As the aircraft got bigger, the number of passengers flying increased and so did air meal storage spaces. But now, personalization became important, compared to offering unified exotic meals across the passenger group. The airlines currently allow passengers to order food of their choice before boarding, which would be delivered directly to their seats. For instance, iFLEAT, is a mobile-based service that delivers food ordered by the passenger from a restaurant, straight to their seats. The service is now associated with Air Berlin and is planning to associate with more airlines in the future. Although in-flight catering providers will feel the impact of this service, it is a win-win situation for the passenger, as one gets the food of one's choice to eat, as well as for the airlines as they can probably retain their customers by allowing them to do what they like.

In-flight Entertainment and Connectivity
A recent survey of airline passengers has stated that Wi-Fi was more important than food for the passengers traveling by air. This shows how connected people are to the internet. And even the airlines are trying to retain existing customers and attract more customers by providing entertainment and connectivity to them. Many airlines already are offering Wi-Fi in at least some of their flights, but the travelers have to buy the service. Airlines provide free internet access only to the travelers in first class. Big names in the aviation industry like Etihad, Finnair, Lufthansa, etc. provide internet access on all or some of its fleet, but at a cost to the passenger. On the other side, there are few others like Emirates, Turkish Airlines, Hong Kong Airlines, etc. that provide free Wi-Fi access to its passengers. There are many travelers out there praying for this to happen in all the airlines, and I too hope it happens soon. With the number of travelers expected to double by 2035, according to a market research firm many more changes will be made by the airlines to attract new passengers and retain the existing ones.

The Hybrid Future OF Aerospace

When it comes to environmental impacts, the global aviation industry accounts for a mere 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. Neverheless, there is a growing environmental concern. Since 1990, the industry has witnessed an 83% rise in emission levels. The primary reason for this has been the increasing number of fossil fuel-powered aircraft taking to the…

When it comes to environmental impacts, the global aviation industry accounts for a mere 2% of greenhouse gas emissions. Neverheless, there is a growing environmental concern. Since 1990, the industry has witnessed an 83% rise in emission levels. The primary reason for this has been the increasing number of fossil fuel-powered aircraft taking to the skies. Gaseous emissions, however, can not be singled out as the sole environmental impact. Water vapor emissions at high altitudes about a phenomenon called contrails. These residual plumes of exhaust contribute to the global warming effect by trapping heat emanating from the Earth's surface.

While the adverse effects on the environment and stringent environmental regulatory standards are a major motive, they are not the only prompts for moving towards greener power-and-propulsion systems. A move towards electric / hybrid propulsion systems can translate to a business edge for companies investing in them. One of the most decent advantages of electric motors is that they are lighter and cheaper than their gas turbine counterparts.

The lighter weight of the electric motors opens up a world of possibilities for design. This particular advantage of the electric motor allows them to be easily incorporated into new designs as well as existing electric-compatible designs. An example of this which is poised to majorly affect urban air mobility solutions is the use of electromagnetic power on the next generation of tilt-wing vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. The flexibility of electric cables grant them an obvious compatibility advantage with wing orientation over rigid fuel lines.

We have steadily begin flying in the right direction. The promise of a cleaner flight over new and exciting frontiers has been appealing to companies all over the world. One example that has come to the fore is that of Zunum Aero. The Seattle-based aerospace company plans to commercially deploy electric planes. The aircraft under development is estimated to have a cruise speed of 545 kilometers per hour with a flight range of over 1,100 kilometers. The revolutionary design of the aircraft features a V-shaped tail and fully electric propulsion gear powering twin engines.

The Global Aerospace industry continues to grow at a rapid pace to meet airline requirements. The industry faces increasing pressure to reduce costs, improve Maintain, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) value chain to increase the overall efficiency and reliability of the asset. L & T Technology services' decades of experience in Aerospace has enabled us to adapt quickly to provide a wide range of tailor engineering services.