LTJ 100 Airliner - Cuz The Future Needs More Elbow Room
Monday, March 15, 2010 at 09:24PM 
The LTJ 100 airliner is a radical new concept in airliner design, and it’s another one of the trend-resisting ideas to fall out of my head. I’ve known for years that I don’t think like most people do, the real challenge has been in trying to figure out if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I’ve sensed that no clear consensus has yet been formed on the matter : )
Anyway, about a month ago I started taking notice that with the Bombardier CSeries jet getting an official re-launch of the program, there was a pretty large field of approximate 100-seat airliners popping up in the world, and most all were taking the same basic form: 2 fan engines mounted on the wings while the rest of the shape between them all was just a little bit of a push, a pull, or a point away from being the same.
That’s where the idea for the Twinjet Beauty Pageant Poll I posted last Friday came from… wondering which of these similar looking airplanes was the best looking overall in the mind of the people. It also got me thinking that while it’s not a bad thing that they all have a similar basic design, there’s gotta be something fresh out there to bring to the world of airliners intended to cart around enuf people to fill 200 shoes.
So, a couple late nights of wringing out my transversely-mounted gray matter and the LTJ 100 was born. Well, kind of. It’s not really a complete concept just yet. This is also a good time to remember that I skipped out on going to aeronautical engineering school in the fall of ‘79 to be an airport bum instead. I’ve also had a really hard time coming up with the cash to make my car payments in the last 18 months, so I’m really about the least likely person to come up with the definitive 100-seat airliner for the late two thousand teens.
But I am a dreamer who sometimes comes up with some pretty sweet ideas, so let’s talk a little about the basics of the concept. If you look at the picture above, you’ll see my idea for what the cabin of the future needs to look like. In a word, roomy. I did a poll last year that asked this question: Would you ride a 400mph airliner over a 550mph one if it offered a lot more seat room and many additional cabin comforts and activities to take your mind off the time? It’s not a scientific poll, and the sample size is tiny, but 84% said they’d take the slow ride. Hmm, interesting. It made me wonder if it was feasible to design an airliner around a 400mph cruise speed with the assumption that it would lead to a significantly lower fuel burn.
By the way, LTJ stands for ’Love This Jet’, which is the primary design principle here… come up with an airliner experience that makes people say those three little words every time they fly it. The biggest and best way to make people happy is to give them room. The LTJ 100 concept is technically a narrow-body cross section yet it has two aisles. Now obviously it’s not a narrow-body like we’ve always known, but it sure isn’t a wide-body either. It’s a wide oval cross section with a height like a narrow-body, but that extra width pretty much changes everything! It gives the room for two isles, and they are also pretty wide as shown above at 20” each.
But the best part is the seats. As shown, they are 20” wide, and in the 2+2+2 configuration, you’re never more than one seat away from an aisle. So you’re getting more elbow room, a wider shorter cabin visually, two paths around that cabin, and it's always an easy task to get into a path. In my mind, the 2+2+2 config is the only option here, as there’d never be any reason to go 3+3 with a mega aisle, and you’d also never wanna try 3+4 with a single aisle, and there's not enuf room to ever go 2+3+2. So this design philosophy pretty much mandates that the airline give the pax both room and comfort. I realize that getting an airline to accept that kind of limitation is a pretty big challenge, but as I said, I’m a dreamer.
I have a lot more in mind for the design to the LTJ 100, including some concepts for the aerodynamic configuration. I even have a basic drawing for it. It’s every bit as different on the outside as it is on the inside. I’m interested in showing what I have in mind, but it’s gonna take some interaction thru the comments area to get me to show more. If y’all care enuf and take the time to communicate with me about it, I’ll be happy to tighten the drawing up a little and show the world. I also have lots of detail ideas for the cabin that I haven’t even touched on here. The bottom line is that discussion in the comments area about all kinds of thoughts and ideas would be a lot of fun.
If it remains quiet in the comments tho, then I’ll probably tuck the LTJ 100 away in the corner of my mind and occasionally send the maid around to make sure it isn’t getting too dusty: )
Reader Comments (6)
I wonder if there needs to be carryon bins in the middle - or else they could be sold as "comfortably stand" seats. With that much bin space, passengers wouldn't be sweating bullets on whether or not they would be forced to ramp check a carryon. I'm in the minority here, but a lot of the time when I travel I have a Pelican wheeled camera case to keep my photo gear safe that I absolutely refuse to check. It's too valuable to risk. So most of the time when I board, since I always fly on the super-cheap seats, I'm freaking out inside over whether or not there's going to be a spot somewhere for my gear to go.
The elimination of 3+3 and its middle seat is fantastic.
While it'll ultimately be up to the airline, I know Boeing's talked about aspects of the 787 being designed to force the airline's hand toward some passenger comfort - and I hope it works. I'd take a 400mph ride like this over a 550 (honestly, even over a supersonic...) ride every flight.
Adam- Thanx for the feedback... the overhead bins as shown are deep enuf to take the biggest carry-on bag the long way (wheels first) which allows high bag density for a small aircraft. Having the middle ceiling area unobstructed is essential for creating a much more open feel, adding to the 'passive' comfort. As you say, it also makes a third of the seats really nice for tall people. I also think that the bin and ceiling areas need to be very uncluttered visually which gives the appearance of more room and also is far less boggling to the eye.
Correction - I originally posted that the seat width was 18", but it was supposed to be 20", the same as the aisle width - Duh! : )
The one thing I see missing here is a mention of seat pitch(distance from headrest to headrest, AKA "legroom"). Standard Economy pitch is usually 30-32 inches, Business Class is usually somewhere in the 60-80" range and First is usually 80+. Where would you say the LTJ fits into that scheme ?
jetdillo- The seat pitch details haven't been defined yet because there are so many variables that can affect what passes for 'comfortable'.
I think a whole new generation of seating needs to be designed/engineered that dramatically combines comfort with new ideas to get good use out of the space available. To fit the 'LTJ' design philosophy tho, the pitch would have to be very generous. Probably the simple answer to your question is: something along the lines of business class.
The biggest challenge in the whole aircraft design process is to build and airplane that will perform in the marketplace in such a way to allow the airline to be profitable while still focusing on pax comfort. The big problem tho, just like we see today, is that what might be a profitable airplane in one era with 'X' number of pax might have to be altered to 'X+25%' to make money in another era.
With the LTJ, the cabin cross section is sized such that there's not a more dense layout than the 2+2+2 that will work. This at least means that lateral comfort would remain even if the operators were forced to reduce pitch to remain profitable.
I have some other ideas that address your question that I might add in another response later... thanx.
eerescan e3d3fd1842 https://pogsof.com/maunicallay