Jodie Foster Could Potentially Lose a Kid in It

By | May 1, 2006
2 Comments

Yep, it’s the Boeing 797. Shaped like a stealth bomber, seats a thousand. And check out these specs:

[T]he new design increases the efficiency of the aircraft by 33% while increasing its speed to mach 0.88, or 654 mph — a significant bump from the A380′s speed of 570 mph. This speed increase is a result of the 25% weight reduction and improved aerodynamics that the new body design features. The wingspan of 265 feet is over 50 feet longer than the 747′s but only 3 feet more than the A380′s.

boeing797_w3.jpg

Now that is a bona fide aircraft of the future, ladies and gentleman. I might even have to add this sucker to my list.

  • doctorpat

    Faster planes? Bigger planes? Who cares?

    Now if someone could work out how to get through the airport and on to the plane in less than two hours, THAT might make a difference.

    Except… I’ve been to heaps of airports where you get on the plane in 15 minutes. Little country airports where the plane takes 15 passengers: no security, no baggage wait (you just pick it up off the truck that brings it from the aeroplane, thus saving another useless wait).

    So if you want fast, comfortable travel, make small planes, fire all the security, and let people handle their own damn luggage. Of course it uses more fuel per passenger, but think of the other savings.

    A tiny plane isn’t worth hijacking as a weapon either.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Well, bigger and faster planes are a definite help where things like long-haul flights from the US to southeast Asia are concerned. (We make that trip regularly.)

    As for getting through the airport quicker, please see item 1 on my list. I’m all for removing the airport from the picture altogether.