Looking back to that day on an isolated dune at Kitty Hawk, one can only marvel at the humble beginnings of such an explosion in technology and an industry that would lead to the Modern Airliners of today.
Over the last hundred years, such leaps forward have been made in new aviation technology, fueled by the ever-increasing demand for mobility around the planet for leisure and for business. Various wars throughout the twentieth century helped to push forward with progress as governments made funds available to find ways to fly faster and higher than the enemy.
The latter part of the 1900s and the beginning of the 2000s has been affected by the 1970 oil crisis and its legacy and saw a move toward more economic and eco-friendly airplanes.
Airlines are now demanding more from plane makers. They need to reduce their kilometre/seat costs, they need to observe more stringent noise reduction laws enforced by airport authorities as their airfields are being surrounded by creeping urban expansion. Aircraft construction materials need to be lighter and more impervious to corrosion.
In short, aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing. Airbus and others are being pushed very hard to come up with new technologies that will reduce operating costs for airlines as well as keep the aircraft in the air longer, thus earning airfare dollars.
This site will provide some insight into the more popular airliners in the skies today. We will continue to add more aircraft, so please bookmark and come back to visit us.
Our Modern Airliners
Click on the aircraft names to be taken to more information on that airliner.
Airbus A220 Airbus A300 Airbus A320 Airbus A330 Airbus A340 Airbus A350 Airbus A380 ATR BAe 146 Boeing 707 Boeing 717 Boeing 727 Boeing 737 Boeing 747 Boeing 747-8 Boeing 757 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 Boeing 777X Boeing 787 Dreamliner Boeing 797 Bombardier CRJ Bombardier Dash 8 COMAC C919 Concorde Embraer E Jet Fokker F28 Fokker 70 Fokker 100 Frigate Ecojet Douglas DC-8 Douglas DC-9 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Lockheed L1011 Tristar
We are constantly growing so be sure to bookmark us and check back. Feel free to leave any comments or questions below too we would love to hear from you. Our menu at the top has lots of other interesting options also.
Greetings Peter.
Well, you really seem to know your stuff!
Surely, I will revisit your site for all my aviation inquiries. Nice niche!
Hi Lina, thank you. There will be new stuff coming all the time so yes please check back with us.
Really great site and I love th epics and makes me want to fly again
best regards
Paul
Hi Paul,
thanks for stopping by. Yes, if you can’t fly everyday at least you can look at and talk about aircraft.
Cheers Peter
I remember the 727 from the 1960s. My first thought when I saw its photo was, “Oh yeah, the noisy one if you sit in the back!” Still a beautiful airplane, and a heck of a lot faster than the 707.
Agree that you know your stuff. Also loved the video of pilot landing 737 in extreme turbulence. Woohoo!
Thanks for stopping by Nina. Yes the 727 was noisy in the back with three pure jets screaming around your head. Further forward it was a dream as all the engine noise was left behind. The only one I ever got to fly on belonged to Yemenia from London to Athens and back.
The 727 was not faster than the 707. The 707 was one of the fastest sub-sonic airliners ever. The early pure turbojet versions typically could go as fast as .90 mach. The later version 707-320B got the low-bypass P&W engines and that slowed it down to .87 to .88 mach. In contrast, the 727 usually cruised at .78 to .82 mach.
The Advanced 727 with the JT8D-17R engines had 16,400 pounds of thrust, not 17,400 as shown on your 727 page. This is frequently misquoted. I think because there is a typo in the Boeing manual “Airplane Characteristics, Airport Planning”, which is a highly disseminated .pdf file that can be downloaded by anyone from the Boeing website. And many people get information from that document.
On page five it lists the 17R as having 17,400 lbs. takeoff thrust but in the paragraph underneath that listing it correctly indicates 16,400 lbs thrust for the very same engine. It was simply a typographical error and Boeing documents usually have a few. Many other sources, such as Pratt & Whitney, the engine’s builder, also quote 16,4000 pounds. And they should know!!
Correction!
Actually, my previous statement regarding maximum thrust for the JT8D-17R is only partly right. The 17R equipped 727-200 Advanced had the APR system which would kick in two remaining engines at 17,400 pounds of thrust if one of the other two engines quit during takeoff or climb out. But normally the thrust rating for takeoff is 16,400 pounds if everything was fine. So the 17,400 is only for emergency engine out situations. And this APR was only offered for the 17R engine, not the plain 17 or 15.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for this insight, I will check that out. Comforting to know Boeing make so many typos.
Cheers Peter
this is so good
Hi Arslan,
thank you for stopping by. Be sure to mention us in your social media.
Cheers Peter
As usual a wealth of info on everything airliner related. Always curious what your take on the topics of the day are. Keep it up!!
I love the detail that this site goes into. I will definitely be using this site as my go to for aviation knowledge!
Hi Adam,
Thank you for liking our site. We keep working to add more so be sure to come back.
Cheers Peter
capacitor
Flux?
Awesome
We’re glad you like it, thanks for stopping by.
innovative
clear-thinking
Way cool! Sօme very valid points! I appreciate you wrіting
this article аnd alsо thе rest of the site іs also really good.
mesh
Detail or drawing sheet of the wing structures of the airbus A380
Hi Kanisorn,
for a very detailed manual on the Airbus A380, please feel free to Click Here.
Hi Pisquali,
I’m doing a presentation for an airline and I want to come as close as possible to calculating the interior cubic footage of the passenger area. Any suggestions? Great resource by the way!
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian,
thank you for liking our site. Was there a particular aircraft you were looking at? There are so many different cabin shapes with fuselage tapering that it is hard to find a one size fits all solution.
Cheers Peter