Welcome!

We're glad you are here. This is the place to ask for bag advice, help other people out, post reviews, and share photos and videos.

TOM BIHN Forums Statistics

Collapse

Topics: 14,582   Posts: 188,368   Members: 6,552   Active Members: 301
Welcome to our newest member, LucaDebenh.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a slender Aeronaut....an Aeronette?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • flitcraft
    replied
    Hope this is in the works real soon. I have a month long trip coming up later this year where the Western Flyer would be not quite enough bag...

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    No one has posted since my previous post, but many have viewed the thread. The number of views has climbed by almost 1,000.

    I do hope Tom was not insulted with my name suggestion making a play on Bihn. Many apologies if it came through as anything other than admiration for well-designed bags.

    Though I like my name suggestions, the name Starlite combined with the Tom Bihn aeroplane--more romantic than plain "airplane"--logo just brings out a dreamy sigh, thoughts of flying to meet the Orient Express, etc., for which I need a smallish, easy to carry bag.


    I have had some think time regarding the lowest common denominator 19" x 13" x 8" size. I started a spreadsheet with all the airlines listed at seatguru.com, looking up their carry-on baggage information. I did not go too far before realizing the more restrictive sizes were listed as 41" or added up to that (ex.: Quantas Dash, 19" x 13" x 9"). Some airlines use different size combinations (ex.: Air China, 21" x 15" x 7", 43"), so I think the 19" x 13" x 8" (40") came from taking the smaller numbers. (Air China lists 20 cm (7.87") as 7" instead of the 8" that is only 0.13" away.)

    Can the absolutely perfect carry-on size be decided. Probably not. I do think staying down near a linear 41" has a good chance for common acceptance.

    Re-reading the thread from page 1 before posting and acknowledgment to cpau for noting all that, already!



    There is a rule, something about form following function? I am looking for a leisure trip bag and just want a bit more space than I get from the Western Flyer. Big question is, how many people would want a similar bag. I saw links to bags of about 2,000 cubic inches but they are not available anymore. Maybe no one purchased enough. Airlines enforcing smaller carry on sizes could change the picture, but no one really knows.

    Well, I think I would like one; so, can 1050 denier ballistic do this case suggestion?

    Picture a cube, 19" x 13.5" x 8" (2052 cu. in., 40.5" linear). A zipper, set in 2" on the 8" side runs around three sides for a hinge opening. You set it on the bed and put in 5 packing cubes, Aeronaut end or convertible packing cubes: 13.5" x 8" x 3.25" (will that show a bit of bold? I hope). If the cubes are stuffed rounded, they will probably fill the space (5 x 3.25" is 16.25; 5 x 3.8" is 19). Bring up the cover and zip shut. (couple of outside slip pockets would be nice, too :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    The stars were especially bright and beautiful last night when the doggy got me up and out twice (2am and 4am), so Starlite brings good thoughts to mind. Another "star" connection, for me, is Wind, Sand and Stars by Antoine de Saint Exupéry, an early aviator (he also wrote The Little Prince).

    My own first thought was International Flyer, but more than just flyers will find potential, here, from this bag, so I surfed the web for a few more possibilities and/or inspiration:

    Bihndonian
    Meridian
    Travel Express
    Overlander

    Leave a comment:


  • timothy
    replied
    I volunteer to help you test a 19x13x8, with full pictures and review

    timothy

    Leave a comment:


  • timothy
    replied
    "Starlite" is a great name, btw

    As long as the Amtrak copyright folks don't fool themselves into thinking that someone could mistake his wife for a hat -- I mean, a bag for a train.

    timothy

    Leave a comment:


  • backlasher
    replied
    I've heard of people on business trips having to gate check even regular carry on bags because the overhead bins were full by the time only half the passengers were on the plane. Sooner rather than later I think a smaller carry on size and enforcement will be the order of the day. A 19X13X8 bag ought to be good for a long time. I'd buy one!

    Leave a comment:


  • flitcraft
    replied
    I didn't measure it precisely, but when I took my Western Flyer along as my suitcase for a week long trip, I pushed the envelope packing-wise and definitely exceeded nominal depth, probably by an inch. The Western Flyer is a good bit more rigid in shape than the Aeronaut, so it doesn't bulge dramatically, but it doesn't take much to provoke the eagle eyed Baggage Police on some airlines.

    I'm already thinking of the new bag as the Goldilocks==not too big, not too small, but just right. (Of course, if Aeronette is too femme, then I guess Goldilocks is a complete non-starter. OK, my vote is still for Starlite.)

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    I think you are right, flitcraft, to think narrower rather than thicker. How thick can you get the Western Flyer with stuffing?

    As of this typing Ryanair is 55cm x 40cm x 20cm for carry on .. 21.6 x 15.7 x 7.87 in inches.

    I think I would like the 19x13x8, but more voices' insight would be interesting to read. Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • flitcraft
    replied
    I may be a minority voice on this one, but here's a plea for 7 inches deep rather than 8 or more. Some airlines are getting particularly strict on carry-on size these days, and I suspect strongly we'll be seeing even more of this in the future, particularly as checked bag fees become an important revenue generator. And some of those sizers are very unforgiving. It doesn't take much overpacking to push a bag an inch or so over its nominal depth. I know because I've done it with my Western Flyer. Doing it with an 8 or 9 inch bag and it's hello, checked bag.

    There are lots of options for one bag travelers who want thicker bags, but not much for those of us trying to go with carry on only but who are traveling on the airlines with tight restrictions like Ryan Air. It's an unserved market, and as I said, one that is likely to grow.

    My vote on the name, in keeping with the Amtrak route theme, is the Starlite. And a bit of a play on the "lite" idea too.

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    Now I see I contradicted myself .. 19x13x9 vs. 19x13x8 .. how about 19x13x8.5 (2100 cu in) :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    renewed Desire for 19x13x8

    My Western Flyer arrived on Thursday. I do love it; however ...

    Last spring I used an Eagle Creek Sport Companion duffel for a week's trip to Scotland. With my new Western Flyer I bundled packed 2 pants and 4 shirts around my pj top/bottom in the undivided side. On one divided side I put shoes (stuffed with undies) and 2 prs socks, the divided side behind the front pockets got 2 more prs socks, 2 bras, a washcloth, and a scarf. Putting soft stuff behind the pockets meant I know I could put the 3-1-1 bag in the upper, deep front pocket by smooshing in the soft stuff.

    I had some more room for little stuff, but I also put in a fleece vest, hat, and travel umbrella into the duffel. So, I put in about 90% of what I took in the larger duffel. You can consider this a pre-order for a 19x13x8 bag, lol!

    If it is not ready by my next April vacation trip I have already decided to use the Western Flyer and leave the shoes at home. I lugged those 2 lbs of dead weight, wearing them only 1 day out of 8, and I am not doing that again.

    My personal preference at this time for design is to make it like the Western Flyer with the slide pocket and 2 front zippered pockets, but make two compartments, each without a divider. Those clips can go in (I suppose some need them), but in the now divided section I would instead put a zippered mesh pocket against the inner wall. (My duffel had those and I miss them.)

    I love the slide pocket on the front. I use it to stuff the Absolute Strap and not leave it on the floor for anyone to trip over.

    Can we have a contest for a name for the new bag? :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • scotlib
    replied
    Originally posted by cpau View Post
    You also get more increase in volume by going up to 9" from 8 rather than to 20 from 19. A touch fatter is easier to disguise than a touch too long. It does depend on how it's made - TB bags seem good at looking more compact than they actually are.

    I'm being a bit picky I know, but I'd still prefer 19x13x9 (or 8", but 9 is really much more common). The "most common small cabin baggage size" would be a better marketing point than "fits in between these two products, one of which isn't based on anyone's rules".
    Hi cpau,

    Thanks for your insight. Crunching the numbers on the calculator I see how right you are about the increased 8 to 9 in width rather than length:
    20 x 13 x 8 = 2080
    19 x 13 x 9 = 2223

    I clicked on the blog instead of forum by mistake yesterday and noticed this thread was a link as an example of the conversations in the forum! Perhaps it is an indication that this in-between bag is a serious consideration.

    Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • cpau
    replied
    Originally posted by scotlib View Post
    Hi,

    I have been wondering about the possible new bag, too, and also reconsidering my "perfect" size. Looking at the Western Flyer and Aeronaut, this size bag would create a neat, orderly progression:

    18 x 12 x 7 .. Western Flyer
    20 x 13 x 8 .. suggestion for new bag
    22 x 14 x 9 .. Aeronaut

    Any chance of one of these by the beginning of April? :-) Cheers.
    Scotlib: From my perspective, a major impetus for wishing for a new bag is so that it fits in with common small cabin baggage rules. This is usually 19x13x9. 20" is a touch long (and yes, that 1" can make the difference between it fitting in the frame and not). You also get more increase in volume by going up to 9" from 8 rather than to 20 from 19. A touch fatter is easier to disguise than a touch too long. It does depend on how it's made - TB bags seem good at looking more compact than they actually are.

    I'm being a bit picky I know, but I'd still prefer 19x13x9 (or 8", but 9 is really much more common). The "most common small cabin baggage size" would be a better marketing point than "fits in between these two products, one of which isn't based on anyone's rules".

    Pity the AUD has tanked

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenne
    replied
    My guess is they'll come up with a very cool name that doesn't have gender connotations-- I'm just using it here because I'm lazy. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • timothy
    replied
    btw, though this sounds like a great bag, I have a suggestion, if it should come to fruition: please don't call it an "Aeronette."

    Tangential but I think instructive example: Smith & Wesson sells a series of guns branded "Ladysmith," intended to appeal to women. (It's light, fairly compact, I think mostly imagined as a gun that a woman might carry in her purse, though with increasing CCW, they're probably fairly well suited for that.)

    Thing is, they're pretty high quality guns from what I've heard, no matter the anatomy of the user -- but the name is offputting, because for many possible buyers, the name is just cognitive dissonance in solid form. (Maybe it's still overall a win for Smith & Wesson -- maybe they lose some male buyers but pick up more female buyers. To that extent at least, I realize this analogy is broken.) Sort of like a big pickup truck in what is conventionally considered a feminine pink -- it might not change the function one iota, but it would (sadly, you might think, or just predictably) limit the audience. Yes, I've seen some soft-pink pick-up trucks, and I'm sure they haul just as much as ones in Darth Vader black, so long as the paint's the only thing different.

    Maybe I'm dwelling on this too much Maybe the "-ette" ending would stick out to others less than it does to me; I realize that in England, people say "Laundrette" rather than Laundromat, and I've used a pipette in high-school science class.

    I'm just one of those crazy guys who likes luggage (and most everything else man-made that's not silk, or related to safety indicators) to be black, grey, white, or maybe (when I'm wild and crazy) a conservative blue, and for things other than color, some sort of aesthetically analogous set of possibilities.

    Cheers,

    timothy
    Last edited by timothy; 10-14-2008, 02:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X