Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5279974/

Topic: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: LGWflyer
Posted 2011-10-14 12:44:37 and read 16576 times.

When in the future do you think we will see an aircraft like Concorde again? In fact could there ever be a very small chance that it could fly again if given the chance...

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Semaex
Posted 2011-10-14 12:53:14 and read 16576 times.

If Concorde is going to fly again, I'd bet real money on a no.
If there is going to be a plane like Concorde, meaning super-sonic passenger service, sure. Some day there will be a need for even faster travel. Whether that will be by gas-powered technologies or for that matter anything we nowadays consider the standard, I doubt.

That's my opinion. I leave the fighting over the subject and the ever-so-smart pro/con arguments to various people posting below. Just one thing: Never say never, cause never is time frame one will hardly ever witness.

Quoting LGWflyer (Thread starter):

Btw, I like the way you phrased your question. Not if, but when.

[Edited 2011-10-14 12:54:42]

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-14 12:55:26 and read 16562 times.

The only way supersonic travel will ever be commercially viable is if real energy prices fall by at least a factor of 10. There is the possibility of a supersonic private jet, but the money to develop it is probably not available, and there are also likely not enough customers willing to pay what it will cost. Think of paying two or three times the cost of a private A380 for a plane that will carry maybe 6-10 people, and will not cross the Pacific without refueling. It will also only be able to travel supersonically over water. At least that is my estimate as to what is technologically feasible at this stage.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: flyby519
Posted 2011-10-14 13:01:54 and read 16524 times.

I think the Virgin Galactic aircraft is the most likely thing for future travel. Something to get into the sub-orbital range and do a NYC to Tokyo in a few hours.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 13:09:46 and read 16484 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
The only way supersonic travel will ever be commercially viable is if real energy prices fall by at least a factor of 10.

Using traditional fuels sure, but what makes you think some other form of propulsion won't become available in, hypothetically 20 years that's just as efficient as today's turbine engines but capable of powering a plane at supersonic speeds? It really wasn't that long ago where we were putting comparatively inefficient engines on airliners. The technology has gone a long way in the past 40-50 years.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 1):
Some day there will be a need for even faster travel. Whether that will be by gas-powered technologies or for that matter anything we nowadays consider the standard, I doubt.

As you say, engine technology is the key.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-14 13:16:46 and read 16447 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 4):

Using traditional fuels sure, but what makes you think some other form of propulsion won't become available in, hypothetically 20 years that's just as efficient as today's turbine engines but capable of powering a plane at supersonic speeds? It really wasn't that long ago where we were putting comparatively inefficient engines on airliners. The technology has gone a long way in the past 40-50 years.

Of course it is possible that a new fuel will emerge; and if one does appear that offers better energy density than Jet A it will make the prospect much more likely, as you will be able to go farther while carrying the same weight of fuel. But it will have to be much cheaper as well to be economically viable, as the energy required to fly supersonically will not change.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 13:28:12 and read 16391 times.

IMO, operating a Concorde type aircraft today would raise a range of issues;

1. Cost of fuel. Concorde was conceived when fuel was almost free.

2. Size/capacity. The Concorde 130 people, a Boeing B747-400 up to about 500. Even if the costs were the same then it is split 4 x on the B747-400. Assuming the Concorde flies twice the number of trips, the cost per passenger is still double.

3. Noise. Concorde was latterly the noisiest aircraft around. Noise limits are lower now. This trend is likely to continue.

4. Concorde required "specialist" crew. This involves extra cost. A new Concorde will need to be flyable by line pilots.

For a new aircraft to fly, (Virgin Gallactic seems to be priced for millionaires only) all of these issies would need to be resolved.

I do not see it happening in my lifetime.

I would love to be proved wrong.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Semaex
Posted 2011-10-14 13:30:13 and read 16385 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
But it will have to be much cheaper as well to be economically viable, as the energy required to fly supersonically will not change.

One sentence, and I disagree with two things you mention.
First, call me nuts but I believe we don't yet consider energy to be as precious as it is. If humanity is to take the earth seriously, we should learn how to not exploit resources for the best price. The only way we can appreciate what we have is to make sure it gains in value. Long preach short: Energy is not yet expensive enough, and it will get more expensive surely, but that doesn't mean that people won't want to fly anymore (It's an attitude issue and actually has nothing to do with the topic, so let's skip the bashing)
Point two; who says that the energy required to fly supersonically will not change? Sure it's probably always (and I use that word carefully) going to be higher than travelling sub-sonic, but it would be foolish to bluntly state that the energy required to go M1+ will always be as high as what Concorde used to consume.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 13:39:29 and read 16342 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
2. Size/capacity. The Concorde 130 people, a Boeing B747-400 up to about 500. Even if the costs were the same then it is split 4 x on the B747-400. Assuming the Concorde flies twice the number of trips, the cost per passenger is still double.

Who knows what they'll look like, assuming they actually come to fruition. I've seen a few designs for a future supersonic airliner that look more like a flying wing. Or, at the very least have a wider fuselage than today's designs. That adds capacity.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
3. Noise. Concorde was latterly the noisiest aircraft around. Noise limits are lower now. This trend is likely to continue.

When I'd stay at JFK Ramada every car alarm in the parking lot would go off almost on cue sometime between 8 and 9 am when the Concorde left. That plane was really loud, at least in the civilian aviation realm.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
4. Concorde required "specialist" crew. This involves extra cost. A new Concorde will need to be flyable by line pilots.

It was specialist because of the limited number of airframes. You could probably say the same thing about the Global Express business jet. If you can get supersonic speed with the same or less amount of fuel with a new engine, a design will be produced that could be just as popular as a 777. Training costs go down, and no more specialist crew needed.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: trigged
Posted 2011-10-14 13:43:52 and read 16322 times.

The cost will never come down to a level where most people could afford a ticket. Supersonic travel will be expensive regardless of next week or 30 years from now. If you build a supersonic airliner with the benefits of CAD, CFD, CNC machining, etc and use modern engines such as the F119/PW5000, it will still be a fuel hog. There is no path toward cheap fuel in the future and the airlines are looking to carry more passengers at standard subsonic speeds rather than a few passengers really fast.

Now, not to be a complete buzzkill, I will say that the general aviation market for a 10-15 pax supersonic biz-jet would probably be out there. You can build one and sell it for a price that some of the mega-rich could afford. Some of your Hollywood/music types would probably jump on the chance to have the first supersonic private jet. I would say the supersonic biz-jet will appear long before a commercial passenger version does again.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 13:51:24 and read 16274 times.

Quoting trigged (Reply 9):
The cost will never come down to a level where most people could afford a ticket.

Never? Ask that question to people in 1930 they'd probably have answered the same way you just did. I'm maybe just a little more of an optimist looking back at aviation history.

Quoting trigged (Reply 9):
Now, not to be a complete buzzkill, I will say that the general aviation market for a 10-15 pax supersonic biz-jet would probably be out there.

It already is. Although I'm not sure whether or not it will ever get built the Aerion Supersonic Business Jet is spec'd to Mach 1.6 with windtunnel tests to Mach 2.0.



Looks a little like a Starfighter...

[Edited 2011-10-14 13:54:16]

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 13:54:10 and read 16249 times.

My understanding is that the need for "specialist" crew related to complexity rather than fleet size.

IMO, a supersonic airliner will continue to be more complex.

Also will "standard" airframe materials be sufficient. Iirc, the SR71 required some relatively exotic materials. I thought Concorde did too.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-14 13:57:16 and read 16239 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 7):
Point two; who says that the energy required to fly supersonically will not change? Sure it's probably always (and I use that word carefully) going to be higher than travelling sub-sonic, but it would be foolish to bluntly state that the energy required to go M1+ will always be as high as what Concorde used to consume.

The physics of supersonic flight is not going to change, but you do have a point in that aerodynamic advances may make it less. But the energy differential between subsonic flight and supersonic will not change, which is what I meant to say. As to your point about energy, I completely disagree; but it is based on my conviction that we were placed on this earth by God, and the first commandment He gave was to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. Obviously you do not share that view, so there is no point in arguing about it, and I do understand where you are coming from.

Quoting trigged (Reply 9):
You can build one and sell it for a price that some of the mega-rich could afford

But you have to develop it before you can sell it, and the cost to do that will be in the same order of magnitude as it would be for a supersonic airliner. The price you would have to sell it at would approach a billion dollars, and at that price you might sell a couple of dozen, certainly not enough to pay for the development.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 14:00:01 and read 16233 times.

I'm playing a little devils advocate here. So bear with me. Just looking back at aircraft designs 50 years ago they were made almost completely from aluminum.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11):
Also will "standard" airframe materials be sufficient. Iirc, the SR71 required some relatively exotic materials. I thought Concorde did too.

So, now we've advanced to the 21st Century and Airbus/Boeing are using a whole lot of composite materials to put together the 787 and A350. Materials not imagined even 30 years ago.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11):
My understanding is that the need for "specialist" crew related to complexity rather than fleet size.

Military aircraft are just as complex if not more than the Concorde. Yet some types have 100's of frames operating in the USAF alone. Granted budgets for the military are much different than that of a commercial airline. But, with fleet size comes efficiencies.

The point I'm making is that can you 100% say there won't be a supersonic airliner in the future? I don't think so.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-14 14:11:14 and read 16186 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 13):
Materials not imagined even 30 years ago.

Yes, they were. They are basically fiberglass with stronger and lighter fibers, and improved resins. I do not know when carbon fibers started being used, but I suspect it was a lot more than 30 years ago. What has happened is that exotic (but known) materials have become more commonplace due to advances in technology to produce and utilize them, and their characteristics have become much better understood. Nobody is going to incorporate a structural material in a civilian airliner that is not thoroughly understood, and that takes time. Airbus was incorporating CFRP (granted, it was probably quite a bit different than what is being used now) in the A300-600; and that was 30 years ago. I am sure there are new developments with CFRP that are being developed now that will improve things in the future; but I have not heard of any radically new materials that will make a significant difference. There may be some, but I have not heard of them. And if they do appear, it will take decades before they become accepted as structural material for airliners.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 14:23:31 and read 16133 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):

Yes, they were. They are basically fiberglass with stronger and lighter fibers, and improved resins.

Fiberglass was first used in the 707 in the 1950s, where it comprised about two percent of the structure. For comparison:

787
- 50 percent composites
- 20 percent aluminum

777
- 12 percent composites
- 50 percent aluminum

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html

So, we went from 2 percent to 50 percent from the 50's to the 2000's. I'm just saying new materials and technologies will be found to make this economically practical. When I don't know, but it will happen.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: 747400sp
Posted 2011-10-14 14:24:52 and read 16122 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
3. Noise. Concorde was latterly the noisiest aircraft around. Noise limits are lower now. This trend is likely to continue.



I guess you have not herd of a B-1b Lancer.



In 2001, Airbus planed to design a wide body SST, to compete with the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Sadly 9-11 happened and that was that.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 14:32:53 and read 16084 times.

http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Aerion

http://aerioncorp.com/media#news

Well this Nevada corporation has been generating press releases since 2005, but it is unclear when they will start to cut metal, let alone first flight or EIS

Clearly, I am aware of at least some of the advances still 1970. However, the issues that I raised are essntially in addition to those faced by as normal sub sonic aircraft.

I remain to be convinced that this is more than a paper project.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-14 14:37:00 and read 16066 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
Concorde was latterly the noisiest aircraft around.
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
I guess you have not herd of a B-1b Lancer.

I've heard both perform takeoff rolls from the same position (Air Show) and I think Concorde was louder.   

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 14:40:52 and read 16046 times.

747400sp

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I was referring to commercial aircraft.

Are military aircraft subject to noise limits?.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-10-14 14:45:43 and read 16032 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 19):
Are military aircraft subject to noise limits?.

In a word... NO 

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 14:51:35 and read 15992 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):

http://aerioncorp.com/media#news

Boy don't they have an awesome website  
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
I remain to be convinced that this is more than a paper project.

No doubt they all are. But, the group above isn't the only one that's working on it. EADS has it's own paper plane that they want to enter into service around 2050. We all know that's way out there and could never happen, but they think it would go Mach 3.6 and burn 30% less fuel than Concorde.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/inn...e.hyper.sonic/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

This quote sums it up for me, "The science exists, we know planes can fly at supersonic speeds: Fighter aircraft do it, Concorde did it -- the technology is there, but the problem is making it work commercially"

It's not the can we do it, it's the can it pencil out that's the catch. Also, a quick look at the range of these planes shows none of them have the legs that the 777 or A340 have. Granted not everyone needs to fly from Johannesburg to JFK, but having a supersonic aircraft capable of point to point service anywhere in the world (at least in the biz jet world) would be a huge selling point for Fortune 500 companies.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 15:11:19 and read 15926 times.

Still 2050 is a long way off, even assuming that they acheive that.

hopefully it will happen in your lifetime.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-14 15:28:05 and read 15870 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 4):
Using traditional fuels sure, but what makes you think some other form of propulsion won't become available in, hypothetically 20 years that's just as efficient as today's turbine engines but capable of powering a plane at supersonic speeds?

If such a propulsion system comes to be, it doesn't do anything to reduce the amount of energy required. As was stated, you need the price of energy to drop a *lot* (regardless of where the energy comes from) in order for supersonic commercial travel to be viable.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 7):
Point two; who says that the energy required to fly supersonically will not change?

Physics. Drag scales with speed squared over all speed ranges of relevance. For any level of technology, it always takes more energy to go supersonic than sub, and it's not a linear dependance. Going from M0.9 to M2 is, at absolute minimum, going to require 5 times as much energy and that's pretending you don't have any shock losses (also physically impossible).

Quoting Semaex (Reply 7):
Sure it's probably always (and I use that word carefully) going to be higher than travelling sub-sonic

I would pretty firmly stamp that one as "always".

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 13):

So, now we've advanced to the 21st Century and Airbus/Boeing are using a whole lot of composite materials to put together the 787 and A350. Materials not imagined even 30 years ago.

Supersonic economics have nothing to do with materials. The overwhelming driver is how drag, and hence energy required, goes up with speed. The only way to make an economical supersonic transport is either have a huge drop in energy cost, or discover a technology that causes energy to get cheaper as you go faster.

Tom.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2011-10-14 16:21:57 and read 15753 times.

Supersonic air travel will never happen again. There are two reasons for that:

1. It is environmentally unacceptable

2. There is no market for it, and there has never been one.

Apart from that, air travel is constantly getting slower and slower when we count the true travel time from check-in to baggage retrieval. On average we travelled a lot faster 25 years ago.

On the most popular routes today we travel at roughly the same true travel speed as 60 years ago when a dominating plane type was DC-6. We spent more time sitting in the plane back then, but much less time standing in queues in the airports. Various sorts of congestion is another issue. In 20 years time it will probably only be even slower.

If speed really means a thing (and I very much doubt that) then we would pick the low hanging fruits first.

I often fly with airlines which brag about being among the most punctual airlines in the statistics. And they may be right seen from their window.

But when was it last time that we actually took off when we were ready to go? Often the captain comes on the horn to tell us when he intends to light the engines as there seems to happen to be a simultaneous take off slot and air space slot on our route. The airline is punctual, but the plane is late.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: trent1000
Posted 2011-10-14 16:37:39 and read 16094 times.

What does "latterly" mean?

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
latterly the noisiest aircraft around

What is a "line pilot"?

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 6):
need to be flyable by line pilots.

I heard the Concorde take off on more than one occasion, but have to say the Tupelovs can roar like rockets, too!

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-14 16:44:52 and read 16046 times.

By "latterly", my understanding is that the difference in volume was more evident in 2003 than in 1969.

By "line pilot", I mean that I understand that AF/BA only selected experienced crews for Concorde. Less experienced/skilled pilots I refer to as "line pilot".

In the same way, the RAF has many pilots, but only a few would be accepted by the Red Arrows.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Semaex
Posted 2011-10-14 17:02:17 and read 16207 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24):
Supersonic air travel will never happen again. There are two reasons for that:

1. It is environmentally unacceptable

2. There is no market for it, and there has never been one.

Okay, seriously this is getting rediculous at some point. Never is a friggin long time, did I mention that before?

Here's my shot at the opposite: Supersonic air travel is at some point in time going to happen. There are two reasons for that:

1. Humankind will find a source of energy which is overall environmentally acceptable

2. With ever-growing world population, sooner or later there will be a sufficient number of people which form a market that is dependent on travel far faster than common aeroplanes can fly.

Wow did I convince you now?

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2011-10-14 17:15:24 and read 16152 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24):
will never happen again

"Never" is a mighty long time..  

[Edited 2011-10-14 17:15:37]

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2011-10-14 17:17:37 and read 16138 times.

I don't really know why, but I've always heard that something around mach 1.6 to 1.7 makes the energy needed to go faster go up dramatically, and one Concorde's main problems was being designed to go that last 20%. A lot of folks seem to think that a craft designed for 1.6 or so would be a lot easier and practical to build and operate. It would still take four times the fuel per hour, but don't forget, only for half as long. And, just doubling the portion of the ticket that covers fuel expense wouldn't really be that much of an increase. Also, if by some miracle the maintenance was comparable to today's airliners, it could fly a lot more revenue miles each day.
If the technology comes around to make it as reliable and useable as other planes I think a lot of people are being too pessimistic.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 17:39:48 and read 16118 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 28):
"Never" is a mighty long time..  

The OP asked whether we'll ever see it again. 100 years ago the main source of transportation was the horse and in some places the camel, elephant or llama. As Jacobin says, "never" is a very long time. I'm not saying we'll see it tomorrow, 10 years from now or even 100 years from now. But, we (as in humanity not me) will see it. Now I'm going to watch the next Star Trek episode I have on Netflix  

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: CXfirst
Posted 2011-10-14 18:10:26 and read 16024 times.

There seems to be so many pessimistic views about supersonic air travel on this board!

When it comes to supersonic, I don't think it will happen with technology like todays, it cannot be based on fuel that we use now and engines that we have seen before.

Think hydrogen fuel cells, or something different. Not ready for production today due to weight and cost, but eventually, it like everything else will become more efficient. This is just one route to go down.

There are enough people on this planet with innovative minds that will be and are tackling this problem, as soon as a fuel solution is sorted, where the cost of fuel becomes relatively small (ie. almost limitless fuel source), planes will start to be built to go faster rather than efficiently.

-CXfirst

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2011-10-14 18:22:25 and read 15996 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 27):
With ever-growing world population, sooner or later there will be a sufficient number of people which form a market that is dependent on travel far faster than common aeroplanes can fly.

Wow did I convince you now?

No, you didn't convince me.

Fifty years ago there was a small market. Not nearly enough to make development of an SST viable, but still "some" market. Since then that market has shrunk to a tiny fraction due to optical fibres, com satellites, video conferencing, internet etc. People, who would benefit from an SST fifty years ago, haven't got the time to fly for doing their duties today, and it doesn't matter whether the speed is Mach 2, 3, 4 or 5.

If we are in a hurry, let's pick the low hanging fruits. Example:

Last month when leaving from my home airport CPH I queued up in the security line. There are 16 security gates, 12 of them were closed, but the screen on the wall showed estimated waiting time = 7 minutes. So far so good.

I chose what seemed like the shortest of the 4 queues. A while later a security official came up to us and said that maybe we should choose another line since they had a "difficult situation" with one passenger which might take "some time". At least those of us who understood his Danish language went to one of the other 3 queues.

Then after a while another officer came up to us in my new queue and shouted "closing, closing, please find another line". Maybe time for coffee break? At least he talked English and was therefore more widely understood.

Finally I passed, and stood then there with a pile of trays with handbag, computer, wallet, Phone, car key, belt, jacket (no shoes, wonder why CPH never is interested in shoes) with practically no means to get organized again because any space for that is occupied by ten million bottles of tax free booze. But after 35 minutes I was ready to find my gate. and enjoy an 80 minutes flight to ZRH.

No problem. We all know it is like that. Therefore we always plan for it, even if we sometimes are more lucky.

But had it been a Chinese zipper factory, which had organized their work flow in the same primitive way, then the fault would be corrected immediately.

There are airports out there which are better than CPH. Agreed! But certainly not nearly all of them.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2011-10-14 18:38:13 and read 15949 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24):
2. There is no market for it, and there has never been one.

This is actually a huge point.

While everyone on here seems to focus on the physical part, namely the aircraft, or the economic part, namely what fares would be ... but the big point is, is there really a market? And I don't just mean, do people want to go faster.

There was a very interesting book a few years ago entitled "The SST Myth" (or something like that), and the author had a few points I had never considered.

For example. Other than North America to Europe, there really isn't a market that works aircraft scheduling well. For North America across the Pacific, (a route system everyone seems to think would be the panacea), but in fact, departure times, and arrival times, because of the aircraft speed, would never be convenient. You would either be leaving or arriving in the middle of the night.

And ... because of these odd arrival and departure times, connections would be almost impossible. You would be waiting around at the connection point for 6 hours or so, at either end, for the next connection bank, thus losing your speed advantage.

So this author felt that other than few exceptions, an SST would only work on point to point traffic. And there are very few city pairs that could support such a premium market. And that would preclude R&D costs, as very few airframes would be sold.

I forget the exact number, but I think his final conclusion was that one would have to reach M8.0+ to make scheduling work again.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: dfambro
Posted 2011-10-14 18:53:00 and read 15902 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 32):
People, who would benefit from an SST fifty years ago, haven't got the time to fly for doing their duties today

Video conferencing is great, but it doesn't completely replace face-to-face. My company does a lot of work with Japanese partners and I could not do my job properly if I didn't show up there in person on a regular basis, so I'm making a BOS-NRT journey every couple of months (can't wait for JAL direct service on 787!). Video-conferencing? It's great, we're doing it with Japan at least once a week, it's big improvement over conference calls. But until there's a way to do dinner and sake over videoconference, it isn't the whole solution.

I think there quite a few folks like me who'd love a supersonic transpac and would pay a substantial premium for it. I think you could fill a Concorde-sized plane ORD or JFK-NRT a few times a week, maybe daily, at profitable fares. As for me, I kinda like 12+ hrs in J or F, but I'm a little weird that way.

That said, I don't see it happening in the forseeable future. Very high develoment cost plus a small total market framecount creates per-frame cost which is just too high for an airframer to ever get comfortable with. Obviously the Concorde was a commercial disaster from the airframers point of view, even if it was very good for BA, AF & passengers. So, we actually agree in the end.

Some unforseen technical revolution could change everything, but I don't expect to see anything in my lifetime.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: canoecarrier
Posted 2011-10-14 18:55:59 and read 15933 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 32):
No problem. We all know it is like that. Therefore we always plan for it, even if we sometimes are more lucky.

You must not fly F or on a shuttle much. If I wanted to fly SEA to PDX I could show up 45 min or less before the flight left and go through the express lane. Same with DL/AS/ F class anywhere out of SEA. When the Concorde flew the same express pass security rules applied.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 33):
This is actually a huge point.

Originally I thought the business jet market would be the first to pick this idea up, but even the longest haul business jets don't have the legs commercial jets have. What you gain on the biz jet end is flexibility, so it's still possible there's a market there for a SST.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: 2175301
Posted 2011-10-14 19:34:24 and read 15823 times.

I actually think that once a SS business jet is built; that it will be used in routine fare service between select cities using smaller airports. It may only have 5-10 passengers per flight; but, I believe that is really the level of routine market willing to pay the cost of such service.

The key is getting the SS business jet built first.

A comment regarding future newer fuel sources. Hydrogen fuel cells will not power aircraft as the most dense way to package hydrogen is to pair it with some carbons and make liquid hydrocarbons (look up the volume it takes to store 1 lb or kg of hydrogen by various methods - gasoline/diesel fuel cannot be beat by any reasonable form of hydrogen storage).

Now this does not mean that other forms of dense energy utilization devices may not appear. Nuclear is most likely the best option looking long term (nuclear in this sense includes fusion). Please don't tell me how much problems current generation nuclear technology is (I work in the field - current reactors are not suitable). The question is what about far future advanced reactor designs and theoretical fusion reactor designs that are nowhere near any level of commercialization at this stage. There might be very real possibilities in 50-100 years.

If you want some interesting reading - look up "energy density" on Wiki

Have a great day,

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: dfambro
Posted 2011-10-14 19:48:01 and read 15819 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 33):
For North America across the Pacific, (a route system everyone seems to think would be the panacea), but in fact, departure times, and arrival times, because of the aircraft speed, would never be convenient.

Umm, I don't see that. At least headed west, you could depart JFK or ORD at ~9pm, and a 6 hr flight gets you into NRT at 4-5pm. I can connect from BOS (and probably about anywhere else in the eastern half of the US) for a 9pm departure without a long layover. I don't know about NRT connections, but that's about my normal arrival time in NRT anyway (but I have to depart ~7-8 hours earlier!). That's a great schedule - leave later in day, arrive for dinner and a night in the hotel, and off to business the next morning. If you need to be in Tokyo for Monday morning, that's the difference between leaving Saturday night instead of Saturday morning, which is a very big difference.

Haven't thought through the return.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2011-10-14 22:13:27 and read 15653 times.

Another major issue not often considered is that many airlines generate a very disproportionate share of their revenue in the J and F cabins. If you introduce even a limited SST fleet, you may end up cannibalizing a lot of your own premium traffic and shifting these pax from low-cost subsonics to high-cost supersonics. This is exactly why Boeing designed the 747 - it was supposed to be the low-cost tourist and cargo hauler when all the premium traffic decamped for Concordes or B2707s. Even in the highly regulated air travel environment of the 1960s, Boeing needed to deliver a sharp reduction in operating costs to keep economy passengers profitable.

Concorde worked because the tiny fleet size meant BA and AF could keep fares high enough to make the operations reasonably profitable, although reportedly AF had more difficulty than BA on economics. Certainly the "halo" effect on branding, e.g. satisfying loyal clients with Concorde upgrades, also had a lot of intangible value, but I doubt this could be sustained with several hundred aircraft in service all over the world.

Consider that the greatest selling point of an SST to the airlines is higher utilization. In other words, one 250-seat Mach 2+ SST is "worth" one 500-seat jumbo in seat-miles per day, since it can make twice as many trips in a given period. It's not encouraging that only one city pair, LON-NYC, was able to sustain even 200 daily supersonic seats each way with a near-total lack of competition (again, if one believes that AF's Concorde operation was less commercially successful). BA had the aircraft to go to 3x daily or higher, and did so on a few one-off occasions; obviously they did not find it profitable to do so routinely.

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2011-10-15 02:46:18 and read 15463 times.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 1):
Btw, I like the way you phrased your question. Not if, but when.

  

I too am an optimist. But as others stated: supersonic travel will be trickle up technology wise. Supposedly it's easier, cheaper and environmentally friendlier for smaller sized super/hypersonic passenger planes. The uber rich and clebrties will be the first to board the supersonic biz jet bandwagon. Imagine the cast of Jersey Shore tooling around at Mach 1.5! More time to preen less time to schtupp each other.

Trickle down: Just as commercial aviation did from the 1960's onward more and more folks from different economic strattas took to the friendly skies. Such will be the case when super/hypersonic commercial travel returns. Hopefully I'll still be around and not pushing up the daisies as a Boeing 2707/808 and or Airbus A3000 or A 400 streaks through the sky.

And whereas the Concorde was chichi luxo travel the next generation of supersonic/hypersonic planes will eventually be mega people haulers and fly even faster negating a lot of the over the top luxury. Eventually one will be able to travel from say JFK to Pango Pango in less than 2 hours making that 7 course meal from soup to nuts impractical. I feel down the line it will be an airline such as WNthat will roll out that Boeing 2707, 808 or 7707 that holds 600 pax in one class and can zip from BWI to HNL in a quick 2 hours!

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-15 04:13:58 and read 15403 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24):
2. There is no market for it, and there has never been one.
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 32):
Fifty years ago there was a small market

Kinda contradicting yourself there aren't ya...

Between 1976 and 2003 there WAS a market for supersonic travel, primarily between London and New York, two of the biggest financial capitals in the world. Also between Paris and New York. Concorde was designed as a business tool, she was designed to get 100 people over 3,000 miles of ocean in a short space of time. The very fact she was in service for 27 years shows that not only was there a market, but there was demand. There was still huge demand (certainly for the BA fleet) when she was retired, the spiralling costs of maintenance were what ultimately forced BA's hand. AF since the accident were not making any money with Concorde, whereas BA was.

There was also a market that BA exploited very well outside of the main London to New York business route, and that was the charter market. BA regularly sent Concorde out to various airports around the world as a charter tool, so people could experience supersonic travel. Manchester, Liverpool, Exeter, Bournemouth, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Leeds are just a few examples in the UK. Also a scheduled route was London to Barbados for the holiday makers.

So to say that a) "there is no market for supersonic travel" and b) "there never was" is completely wrong.

There are several businessmen and women around the world (especially in London and New York) that have expressed a desire to have Concorde back or to have an alternative method of waking up in London, doing a days business in New York and returning home to London that evening. Should an alternative become available, I am certain that there would be a way to make a success of it.

As for Concorde returning to the skies...? Forget it.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-15 11:55:28 and read 12645 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 29):
It would still take four times the fuel per hour, but don't forget, only for half as long.

On a per-hour basis, it will burn eight times as much fuel.

The energy required to go from A to B is the force required (thrust) times the distance...speed doesn't enter directly into it.

Thanks to the physics of drag, the thrust requires goes up by a factor of about 4-5 for Concorde speeds over a subsonic equivalent. The distance does change, hence energy required (fuel) goes up by about 4-5.

Speed comes in when you switch from energy required to power required...since you're going twice as fast and expending 4-5 times the energy, the power required is 8-10 times higher.

Tom.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: comorin
Posted 2011-10-15 13:27:22 and read 12165 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Thanks to the physics of drag, the thrust requires goes up by a factor of about 4-5 for Concorde speeds over a subsonic equivalent.

Does this include the effect of of flying at higher cruise altitude? - thanks.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2011-10-15 13:28:31 and read 12173 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 29):
It would still take four times the fuel per hour, but don't forget, only for half as long.

On a per-hour basis, it will burn eight times as much fuel.

The energy required to go from A to B is the force required (thrust) times the distance...speed doesn't enter directly into it.

Thanks to the physics of drag, the thrust requires goes up by a factor of about 4-5 for Concorde speeds over a subsonic equivalent. The distance does change, hence energy required (fuel) goes up by about 4-5.

Speed comes in when you switch from energy required to power required...since you're going twice as fast and expending 4-5 times the energy, the power required is 8-10 times higher.

Tom.

I'm more than a tad confused there. It takes 8 times the fuel for 4 times the thrust? Granted, all my numbers are from rockets in vacuum, and accelerating projectiles, and I get confused about reality and physics from Bugs Bunny cartoons on occasion. Maybe I'm just clueless on the nature of jet engines and what it takes to accelerate incoming air for thrust.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-15 14:24:50 and read 12098 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 42):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Thanks to the physics of drag, the thrust requires goes up by a factor of about 4-5 for Concorde speeds over a subsonic equivalent.

Does this include the effect of of flying at higher cruise altitude? - thanks.

Not really, but it's also not much of an effect up that high. Altitude comes in through the density term in the dynamic pressure...lower density means lower drag for a given speed and drag coefficient. At very high altitudes the density doesn't change very fast so the change isn't huge. Drag is also linear in density, so the altitude change is not big enough to overcome the increase in drag due to increased speed.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 43):
I'm more than a tad confused there. It takes 8 times the fuel for 4 times the thrust?

I don't blame you for being confused...this:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):

On a per-hour basis, it will burn eight times as much fuel.

Was a complete brain fart. I let velocity get in there one too many times.

For a particular motor, to first order, thrust is proportional to fuel burn. Here's what's going on:
-For a given technology level, the drag coefficient you can achieve is essentially fixed.
-For a given aircraft mission, the frontal area is essentially fixed.
-Drag is drag coefficient x area x 1/2 x air density x true airspeed^2

So, if you double your speed (and don't change anything else), your drag goes up by 4 (2^2).
In level accelerated flight (i.e. cruise), thrust equals drag so your engines have to put out 4 times the thrust, so they burn 4 times as much fuel.

However, you're going twice as fast so they only run that 4x fuel burn for half as long. Fuel burn per unit time is 4x, fuel burn per flight is 2x. But keep in mind how hard the OEM's work to get a 2% reduction in burn and here we're talking a 100% increase...that's why the economics don't work with current energy prices.

Tom.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: VC10er
Posted 2011-10-15 14:55:11 and read 12075 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24):

You really believe that mankind, should we survive a few hundred years or more hopefully, will never have a mode of airtravel that is faster than the speed of sound? Never?

I can only guess..but when my grandmother was born in 1898 there were no cars or airplanes. Jessy Kelt also watched the Empire State Building built along with flying back to Scotland to see family on a 707 a few decades later. For those who believe it..my granny saw man land on the moon and a tiny calculator. She also was around to see Concorde and my first car: a Camaro  
So using the past 113 years as a precedence, "logic would dictate" (Mr Spock) that it is just time standing in the way. Unless mankind looses it's passion for progress, I think we will see commercially available SS air travel. And "if" Boeing builds it, it would be just in time to be a Boeing 878!

No?

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-15 15:14:28 and read 12024 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 45):

I can only guess..but when my grandmother was born in 1898 there were no cars or airplanes. Jessy Kelt also watched the Empire State Building built along with flying back to Scotland to see family on a 707 a few decades later. For those who believe it..my granny saw man land on the moon and a tiny calculator. She also was around to see Concorde and my first car: a Camaro

You are quite correct in terms of the amazing advances we have seen in the last century +. Still, we have in many areas reached a plateau. Autos, for example, in the last 60 years have gotten better in terms of safety, efficiency, reliability, comfort, and durability, but they haven't gotten any faster. There are problems other than just technology in going much faster than 65MPH/120KMH on the ground, and we are probably never going to see ground travel faster than that (except by rail, and that has so far not proved economically viable.) As mentioned previously, the problem with going faster than sound is really one of economics, not technology. The energy requirement differential is a matter of physics, not technology, and the cost of developing an aircraft to go faster than sound and then operating it is the main barrier. It is a matter of diverting the necessary resources (engineering time, raw materials, manufacturing resources, and then energy to operate it) from other competing projects to a SST that must be made, and there must be a segment of society willing to divert those resources to this project in order for it to come about. In the foreseeable future I do not see that happening; there are too many other needs that are competing for those resources that offer far more benefit for the people putting up the resources. If we come to the place where there is far more excess resources available it may come, but I do not see it anytime soon (as in the lifetimes of anyone living today.)

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Semaex
Posted 2011-10-16 01:32:30 and read 11823 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 45):
I can only guess..but when my grandmother was born in 1898 there were no cars or airplanes. Jessy Kelt also watched the Empire State Building built along with flying back to Scotland to see family on a 707 a few decades later. For those who believe it..my granny saw man land on the moon and a tiny calculator. She also was around to see Concorde and my first car: a Camaro

        

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 46):
You are quite correct in terms of the amazing advances we have seen in the last century +. Still, we have in many areas reached a plateau. Autos, for example, in the last 60 years have gotten better in terms of safety, efficiency, reliability, comfort, and durability, but they haven't gotten any faster.

I'm not quite sure if you've ever heard of the Bugatti Veyron. It's something like a Corvette, just roughly 150km/h faster. Rumour has it you can also go shopping with it - tell me something about cars not going faster without drawbacks!


The first powered, manned, fixed-wing flight was in 1903. The first manned moon landing was in 1969. That's 63 years. Only.
Now let's just presume that mankind is still going to be around in the year 3000 C.E. (you see, I think positive). Take a minute to visualize this future.
Now do you really think that we already hit the "plateau" of our skills, knowledge, engeneering, ideas and technology in terms of aviation?
The most sensitive word I can use to discribe this attitude, which by no means I accredite to you in person, but to a whole systems of belief, is "arrogant".


/edit/
Now this bit has got me really shivering after the second read:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 46):
There are problems other than just technology in going much faster than 65MPH/120KMH on the ground, and we are probably never going to see ground travel faster than that (except by rail, and that has so far not proved economically viable.)

You may not be living in a country where railroad service is neither popular nor economically viable. But I assume you've never taken a train anywhere in Europe, India or Japan, because these folks would disagree in a split second with what you just said.
There are multiple reasons why railroad lines are economically preferable to other transport on ground. Just think of the amount of cargo you can place on a train vs. trucks on a road. Clogged roads are a HUGE economical factor.
As for going faster than 120km/h by car, I have the privillege of living in Germany, being able to freely use the Autobahn. I don't think there is a way "other than just technology" how going 120+ causes more problems than going 'just' 100. I'm sure you'll have arguments, but I've read them all before and most of them can be debunked with statistics [65% of fatal accidents occur on overland streets, 5% on highways.....] and common sense, once you get to go 200 for the first time.



For a person having to deal with highly advanced technology on a daily basis, you do not seem to have a real trust in it. I just find it very hard to understand why that is so.

[Edited 2011-10-16 01:53:02]

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2011-10-16 04:02:38 and read 11731 times.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 40):
As for Concorde returning to the skies...? Forget it.

When AF and BA terminated Concorde service, Sir Richard Branson wanted to mount the Scarlet Lady and continue Concorde service/flights. If there was anyone who could do it, Branson was the one. However BA put the kabosh on that idea in a supersonic minute. Maybe if an airline such as Emirates would have gotten hold of AF Concordes then maybe the Scarlet Lady would be breaking the sound barrier with Virgin Atlantic Concorde flights. Just my 2 cents.


Aviation-Design.Net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © jonathan francis
Template © jonathan francis

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2011-10-16 09:43:02 and read 11476 times.

Wikipedia in its main article shows the Concorde getting 14 passenger miles per US gallon, and the roughly comparable technology 747 getting 91 passenger miles. This is roughly a factor of 6, although the article does have asterisks because citations were not provided for the statistics. I suspect those ratios may persevere.

Another serious issue was flying at 60,000 feet, loss of pressurization required different safety features, current oxygen masks were/are not sufficient. A special procedure of rapidly descending was instituted.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: VC10er
Posted 2011-10-16 10:46:41 and read 11339 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 46):

I agree we may not solve all the issues of SS commercial flight in my lifetime. Maybe not even in the lifetime of a baby born today. But NEVER is just not predictable or acceptable to me. Today we cannot even concieve of inter-stellar travel, except for the movies. But if we are still here in 1000 years- who knows? I swear that my grandmother and my mother who in the 1930's needed to take the Queen Mary back to Liverpool (in 5/6days) would have NEVER imagined flying a Pan Am 747 or a BOAC "VC-10" 40 years later to Glasgow in 5/6 hours.

I believe man hates obstacles and even though we all die one day, we will spend our lives outdoing what we did before. I just wish I would be alive to see it. For me, at 50, I am so bummed I won't live to see a flying car. But I believe an Embraer Phenom 100 is sort of a start!

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2011-10-16 12:16:35 and read 11266 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 8):
It was specialist because of the limited number of airframes. You could probably say the same thing about the Global Express business jet. If you can get supersonic speed with the same or less amount of fuel with a new engine, a design will be produced that could be just as popular as a 777. Training costs go down, and no more specialist crew needed.

If there is a commercial SST produced in the future.... it won't need pilots.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 34):
But until there's a way to do dinner and sake over videoconference, it isn't the whole solution.

At the moment... but it will be.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 50):
For me, at 50, I am so bummed I won't live to see a flying car.

Unless you expect to pass away in the next couple of years you'll be able to see this...

http://www.terrafugia.com/images/photogallery/2010GraphicRenders/house-mid.jpg

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: RubberJungle
Posted 2011-10-16 12:41:22 and read 11174 times.

This is pretty much the closest EADS has come to discussing supersonic transport of late:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...personic-transport-concept-358271/

But you'd have to be willing to burn money to place a bet on this happening any time soon. If ever.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: LimaNiner
Posted 2011-10-16 13:04:17 and read 11108 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 35):
Originally I thought the business jet market would be the first to pick this idea up, but even the longest haul business jets don't have the legs commercial jets have. What you gain on the biz jet end is flexibility, so it's still possible there's a market there for a SST.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Gulfstream's efforts in this area. Gulfstream sees a market of 200-400 units at $70MM - $100MM a pop, at least as recently as 2006. Do a web search for "Gulfstream QSJ".

Here's a presentation that summarizes their take on the market.

http://www.aiaa.org/events/aners/Presentations/ANERS-Henne.pdf

The key seems to be the ability to fly over land, which means dealing with the sonic boom. Gulfstream has been working with NASA on this, under the Quiet Spike project. Apparently, they're working on a technology demonstrator called the "X-54", although Gulfstream is being coy about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_X-54

"Although Gulfstream has made little comment about the X-54A project,[5] at the 2008 National Business Aviation Association convention a Gulfstream executive stated that Gulfstream's work on advanced technologies for supersonic flight had been ongoing "for some time" and that a "complete airplane designed for low [sonic] boom" would possibly "have X-54 painted on the side of it."[6]"

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/01nbaa2/airfrm20.htm

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/081006gulfstream.html

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 38):
Another major issue not often considered is that many airlines generate a very disproportionate share of their revenue in the J and F cabins. If you introduce even a limited SST fleet, you may end up cannibalizing a lot of your own premium traffic and shifting these pax from low-cost subsonics to high-cost supersonics.

So this could be a threat to the traditional airlines, and an opportunity for competitive upstarts to "cherry-pick" profitable routes, e.g., NYC-LON, etc. MAXJet / SilverJet's all-business-class seating may not have been enough differentiation, but "we'll get you there in half the time" might just be...

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: XXXX10
Posted 2011-10-16 14:04:04 and read 11025 times.

IMHO the problem is that we do not have the technology to build a viable SST. I am sure all major longhaul airlines would buy an SST that could offer:

8,000 nm range
250 seats in 3 classes
Specific fuel economy, crew, maintanence and unit prices comparable to todays wide-bodies.

There is no way such an aircraft could be built with todays technology and no manufacturer would gamble the development costs.

As for there being no market I disagree, airlines would love any a/c than can fly twice as many revenue miles per year if the costs where similar to current aircraft.

I would imagine that we are more likely to see sub-orbital flights than SSTs but again, not any time soon.

[Edited 2011-10-16 14:14:45]

[Edited 2011-10-16 14:31:32]

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2011-10-16 14:44:28 and read 10970 times.

SEpilot

"There are problems other than just technology in going much faster than 65MPH/120KMH on the ground, and we are probably never going to see ground travel faster than that (except by rail, and that has so far not proved economically viable.)"

You are joking ?.

Even a railbus routinely does 90 MPH, a "real" train will normally not exceed 80 MPH in a built up area, but 115-125 MPH is normal elsewhere.

I understand that in Europe and Japan, that they have some seriously fast trains.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2011-10-16 16:07:19 and read 10895 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 38):
It's not encouraging that only one city pair, LON-NYC, was able to sustain even 200 daily supersonic seats each way with a near-total lack of competition (again, if one believes that AF's Concorde operation was less commercially successful). BA had the aircraft to go to 3x daily or higher, and did so on a few one-off occasions; obviously they did not find it profitable to do so routinely.

This is exactly my point when I stated that "there is no market".

With exceptions BA could sustain 2x LON-NYC / day. If the Concorde had had an MX record comparable to modern subsonic planes, then they could have made that schedule with one single plane 12 hours in the air and 12 hours on the ground. They had 5 to 7 planes, AF also, but less passengers.

When I state there is no market, then it is because no aircraft manufacturer can design a plane, then sell 100, 200 or 300 copies to make a profit, and then the airlines can fly those hundreds of planes and make profit.

Some part of the "market" there was in the 80'es and 90'es was based on the halo effect. The charter market was fully based on halo effect. With the CDG accident the halo effect evaporated overnight. That's the reason for AF to shut down so soon after the planes were modified and reentered service.

There may still be some sort of market for half a dozen, or a dozen planes world wide. But such a plane can only be operated profitably in case fares become at least 10 times Concorde fares, or if we once again find taxpayers who are willing to pay 90% of the R&D costs.

There may be a few hundred people out there ready to shell $10k for a fast trip across the pond. Make that more $100k-ish, and the number of pax shrinks to very near zero.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Semaex
Posted 2011-10-16 21:43:34 and read 10732 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56):
There may still be some sort of market for half a dozen, or a dozen planes world wide. But such a plane can only be operated profitably in case fares become at least 10 times Concorde fares, or if we once again find taxpayers who are willing to pay 90% of the R&D costs.

You have a good point there. I do not have numbers on how much the French and British taxpayers had to shoulder for this project, but I am thankful that I did not have to contribute to it.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56):
find taxpayers who are willing to pay 90% of the R&D costs.

... or an airline that can afford to dump the prices to a level where passengers could afford to fly again. On that thought, it does make me think whether EK/The Emirates would've jumped on the SST fantasy if they would have been in the right place at the right time. I guess we'll never find out, but my personal belief is; yes, they would have.
(If anybody is willing to make an EK sketch of Concorde and post it here, I'd be mightily thankful!)

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-17 01:51:52 and read 10610 times.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 48):
When AF and BA terminated Concorde service, Sir Richard Branson wanted to mount the Scarlet Lady and continue Concorde service/flights. If there was anyone who could do it, Branson was the one

OK now I'm going to rant.

This is EXACTLY why I hate Richard Branson for his role in Concorde's retirement. Because it was complete bullshit.

Branson and Virgin Atlantic could not operate Concorde, they simply were not allowed to because they had no experience with the type by 2003, a requirement the CAA and the holders of the Type Certificate (Airbus) had. Richard Branson offered BA £1 per aircraft for their fleet of Concordes which quite rightly was rejected. He then upped it to £1 million, which again was rightly rejected. BA paid normal price for 5 of their Concordes (around £27million) and the myth about them costing £1 comes from G-BOAG, which was not sold to any airline and was given to BA for a token £1 sum.

Now then, back to Branson. He KNEW that BA would say no. He KNEW that by making them say no to him publicly, they would look like the bad guys in Concorde's retirement, like they were grounding the aircraft out of choice. The fact of the matter is that BA could no longer afford to operate Concorde once Air France pulled out because the cost of maintenance doubled. Maintenance costs were split 50-50 between AF and BA and once AF pulled out, BA's costs would have doubled and this is what forced them into retiring Concorde.

Now put yourself in BA's position... why would you give your national rival your prime asset? Your prime customers? Your prime crews? And for a total of £7?! or £7million?! That's assuming that the CAA and Airbus would have allowed Virgin to operate them. Airbus refusing to maintain put the 'kibosh' on anyone flying Concorde again, whether it was BA, AF, VS, EK or SQ. If BA had been stupid enough to sell to Branson, all he would have been able to do is paint Concorde in that God-awful VS livery before they went to museums, resulting in a big advertising board for his airline.

If he was serious about Concorde, why did he not make a more vigorous approach to Air France for their Concordes? Their aircraft were much much younger in terms of hours/cycles, were further away from major checks (costly ones that BA's fleet were coming right up to) and most importantly, Air France were not in direct competition with Virgin Atlantic and therefore would have been more likely (still unlikely) to sell to Branson. The fact is that Branson wrote an initial approach to Air France for their Concordes but got no reply. If he was serious about Concorde he would have followed up and followed up until he got an answer, because the AF fleet was a much better option. But no, he channeled his efforts towards BA. Let's face it, he's had something against BA for years for being bigger and better than his airline (yes I have flown VS from London to Australia). He knew the reaction he'd get from BA, he knew that he'd look like the saviour, he knew he'd look like the saint trying to save the day when BA would look like the devil. In reality, BA were the saints. They operated Concorde as long as they possibly could after retirement was announced, showcased the aircraft with final tours around Britain and the US, and made sure EVERY single airframe was sent to a museum to be kept and shown for future generations.

I have a lot of respect for Richard Branson making what he has out of nothing. However I lose all that respect when I think about what he did with Concordes retirement. It was basically point-scoring with the British public. And the worst part of that is that here we are 8 years down the line and people STILL believe his rubbish and believe he should have got them. No way.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 56):
Some part of the "market" there was in the 80'es and 90'es was based on the halo effect. The charter market was fully based on halo effect. With the CDG accident the halo effect evaporated overnight. That's the reason for AF to shut down so soon after the planes were modified and reentered service.

Not quite. The "halo" effect never evaporated, certainly not in the UK anyway. The Paris accident was a very unfortunate turn of events, and it affected Air France very badly. If you want to know the real reason Air France pulled the plug, it was because of more than just the accident. For example, there was 9/11, which not only triggered a downturn in aviation confidence, but over half the regular Concorde business passengers (both British and French) were killed in the World Trade Center tragedy. In Air France's case, there was also backlash from the Americans over President Chirac's stance on the War in Iraq resulting in sometimes taking silly loads, sometimes less than 10, over the Atlantic. Air France after the accident were not making any money with Concorde and they found willing ears within Airbus to stop Concorde.

On the other side of the Channel, things were a lot different. Yes there was the drop in passenger numbers after 9/11 but BA were still JUST about making money with one return flight a day from LHR to JFK, forced by only having 5 of their fleet modified. They were just in the middle of refitting G-BOAB when the retirement was announced and BA fully planned to get back up to a full fleet of 7 Concordes which would have allowed them the double-daily return flights, which were at better times for the business passengers and would have undoubtedly allowed a more profitable service. When BA and Airbus forced their hand, BA did everything they could to fight it but it fell on deaf ears.

I see what you mean about there not really being a market with the airlines... So I'll agree with you on that. However... I do believe there to be a market for the passengers for supersonic travel. My previous post was more pointing out that you contradicted yourself majorly by saying "There was NO market and never was" followed by "There was a small market." A small market is still a market...  

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: trigged
Posted 2011-10-17 08:43:22 and read 10404 times.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 10):
Never? Ask that question to people in 1930 they'd probably have answered the same way you just did. I'm maybe just a little more of an optimist looking back at aviation history.

The objective in 1930 was to get as many people from Point A to Point B as possible. The same holds true today. The price of a flight has gotten cheaper through the quantity of tickets available. This held true for train travel in the 1930's. The speed of the trains did not increase significantly, but the number of passengers did.

Two aircraft manufacturers have spent billions in the past 10 years developing, testing, and producing aircraft that can carry more passengers farther than ever before. They did NOT spend any appreciable amount to try to get them there faster. The more affluent people also set alot of the trends you see in travel. The majority of them seem to have a "green" outlook on travel so the airports, travelling public, and airlines will not be supersonic-friendly. As much as I want to see supersonic travel, it doesn't mean that it will happen again in the near future. Maybe in 40-50 years when the paradigms change and we see the sense of exploration come back to the general public.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 10):
It already is. Although I'm not sure whether or not it will ever get built the Aerion Supersonic Business Jet is spec'd to Mach 1.6 with windtunnel tests to Mach 2.0.

The cost of development, prototyping, testing, and production will be way more than anticipated. Not to mention, where are they going to fly? IIRC, there is a prohibition of flying supersonic CONUS due to sonic boom. I would assume they would fly TATL/TPAC?

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-17 08:49:19 and read 10398 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 55):

You are joking ?.

Even a railbus routinely does 90 MPH, a "real" train will normally not exceed 80 MPH in a built up area, but 115-125 MPH is normal elsewhere.

I had forgotten that Europe has much faster highway and rail speeds than the US, but not by an order of magnitude. As to "seriously high speed" trains, from what I have read they are all able to exist only with substantial subsidies, which is not a viable long-term model IMHO. My main point (my numbers were wrong) is that ground speeds are not likely to increase much beyond what they are today I still stand on.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2011-10-17 10:19:48 and read 10288 times.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 58):
BA paid normal price for 5 of their Concordes (around £27million) and the myth about them costing £1 comes from G-BOAG, which was not sold to any airline and was given to BA for a token £1 sum.

Is this correct? I only ask, as I recall a quote when British Airways was taking initial delivery of Concorde. (Yes, I am that old!)

The then head of BA said, "One pound for the whole fleet is a fair price, certainly one pound each would have been overcharging".

After looking, I can not find reference to that quote. Perhaps just an urban legend.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-17 15:05:37 and read 10126 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 61):
Is this correct?

It certainly is...

Quoting longhauler (Reply 61):
The then head of BA said, "One pound for the whole fleet is a fair price, certainly one pound each would have been overcharging".

After looking, I can not find reference to that quote. Perhaps just an urban legend

Not that I wish to be questioning your memory, but yes I know for a fact that British Airways and Air France paid full market price for their first 5 Concordes. They then received the unsold airframes for the token £1 and 1 Franc respectively.

If you ever need to know more about Concorde, go to Gordon Roxburgh's www.concordesst.com and spend some time there. It is this website and through talking and meeting with those involved with Concorde (including Gordon) that I have come to learn what I have posted in this thread. The most knowledgable would be an Anet member called GDB. His experience on Concorde, particularly over the retirement, is a source of great knowledge and I have learnt much from him.

There are/were many myths about Concorde that simply weren't true. Things like the sonic boom decimating New York when she comes into land (false, but yes there were some that believed this would be the case), every Concorde being sold for a pound (false), and most annoyingly of all; the myth that Richard Branson could and should have been given Concorde. FALSE.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2011-10-17 17:21:01 and read 10018 times.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 62):
They then received the unsold airframes for the token £1 and 1 Franc respectively.

Thanks for the info, perhaps that is what I recall.

Having had the pleasure of flying on her three times, I am a huge Concorde fan.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2011-10-17 20:37:31 and read 9911 times.

EGTESkyGod, your posts on Concorde are most insightful, nearly worthy of the great GDB who has espoused mightily on Concorde over the years, based on his insider status at British Airways. Guess I don't need to tell you or anyone else that. I don't think we'll see another such airplane in MY lifetime (I'm 56) unless we find a cheap non-petro aviation fuel in the next 25 years or so to make such fast flight economically viable. I did take one great ride on Concorde only 3 months before BA ended service in '03 so I also feel privileged to have been able to do so. The new BA commercial running on U.S. TV shows her (and other classic airplanes flown by BA) off beautifully through the magic of special effects. It's sad we couldn't progress with speed any further than that and had to retire her over high fuel costs but someday, maybe 30 to 50 years from now, the flying public will go supersonic again.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-18 01:05:02 and read 9801 times.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 64):
EGTESkyGod, your posts on Concorde are most insightful, nearly worthy of the great GDB

Well, I'm nowhere near as worthy as GDB, because he had hands-on experience with the aircraft for many years. It's through his posts on here and Gordon Roxburgh, Neil Walker and the team at Brooklands museum that I was lucky enough to go and help with the restoration of G-BBDG in 2006 on a few occasions. I have now seen every Concorde that remains in the UK and 3 of the Concordes in Paris last year.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 64):
I did take one great ride on Concorde only
Quoting longhauler (Reply 63):
Having had the pleasure of flying on her three times, I am a huge Concorde fan

I am insanely jealous of you both. Back in 1998 when I first went to see her at Exeter, it was £400 for a 90 minute supersonic jaunt around the Bay of Biscay and we didn't do it. I really wish we'd done it, we missed our chance. But being 12 years old in 1998 I was never likely to get my way!

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2011-10-18 01:26:23 and read 9784 times.

Though nothing beats the real thing I wish someone would create a mockup simulator of a BA of AF Concorde cabin verbatim and recreate the supersonic experience. With today's technology we may not yet be able to have commercial Supersonic travel but at least we could experience it via a simulator. For those lucky few that had the chance to fly the real thing how did it feel as compared to subsonic conventional jet travel?

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2011-10-18 06:46:31 and read 9678 times.

When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?

My answer is No. Not a chance.

Will there be another new aircraft type that can reach the same speeds if not higher? Most probably so. EADS can come up with one maybe in conjunction with British Aerospace or maybe with Japan. I heard they are working on something.

It will never be Concorde.

 

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2011-10-18 07:19:16 and read 9651 times.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 65):
I am insanely jealous of you both. Back in 1998 when I first went to see her at Exeter, it was £400 for a 90 minute supersonic jaunt around the Bay of Biscay and we didn't do it. I really wish we'd done it, we missed our chance. But being 12 years old in 1998 I was never likely to get my way!

I feel for you. It makes sense, there is no way a 12 year old is going to scrape together 400 quid (legally) and lets face it, parents just don't understand.

I am a generation older, and went through the same thing when I was 15. There was an L049 flying around the Caribbean carrying passengers. Try as I did, there was no way I could convince my parents that I NEEDED to fly on that aircraft before it retired.

But I did learn one thing as I grew older, if the airplane is flying ... fly on it NOW, don't wait ... it wont be there next year!

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-18 14:10:55 and read 9485 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 68):
But I did learn one thing as I grew older, if the airplane is flying ... fly on it NOW, don't wait ... it wont be there next year!

Correct. And to that end, I have made sure I have flown on the A380. Qantas, 4 times (so 8 flights). Not Concorde, but still enjoyable. Especially as it first flew on my 19th birthday.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 66):
I wish someone would create a mockup simulator of a BA of AF Concorde cabin verbatim and recreate the supersonic experience

Well, funny you should say that. The Concorde Experience at Brooklands aims to do just that. G-BBDG simulates a flight, just without any of the G-forces involved. I recommend a visit.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2011-10-19 02:14:14 and read 9316 times.

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 69):
Well, funny you should say that. The Concorde Experience at Brooklands aims to do just that. G-BBDG simulates a flight, just without any of the G-forces involved. I recommend a visit.

  

Thank You: If you have a link to their website please share.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: hohd
Posted 2011-10-19 07:30:37 and read 9235 times.

When the concorde was discontinued, it was still profitable or at least break even for BA and may be for AF. So Concorde was still commercially viable, atleast in the few markets it served. The problem is that no one is developing a successor to the Concorde which will be better in fuel efficiency, range and noise.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2011-10-19 09:53:17 and read 9139 times.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 70):
If you have a link to their website please share.
http://www.brooklandsconcorde.com

Brooklands Museum is in Weybridge, Surrey... UK.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2011-10-19 10:13:54 and read 9125 times.

Quoting hohd (Reply 71):
When the concorde was discontinued, it was still profitable or at least break even for BA and may be for AF.

Profitable is a word that covers a variety of scenarios. I suspect the it was producing a positive or at least neutral cash flow, not quite the same.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: mirrodie
Posted 2011-10-24 20:32:06 and read 8709 times.

When?....When the next Steve Jobs of Aviation steps up to the plate.

We need a person of great vision and sales to make it happen and jibe with the current climate of economics.




The last Concorde revenue flights took place today, October 24. Great memories with some here and many new friendships forged.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-24 21:24:08 and read 8665 times.

Quoting mirrodie (Reply 74):
When?....When the next Steve Jobs of Aviation steps up to the plate.

You don't want Steve Jobs...Steve Jobs did what he did by flawlessly leveraging existing technologies to provide innovative designs that people want. He'd run screaming like a banshee from a supersonic airliner...you can't do it with existing technologies, design appeal has nothing to do with sales, and people don't want the product.

Quoting mirrodie (Reply 74):
We need a person of great vision and sales to make it happen and jibe with the current climate of economics.

It's not a problem of vision or sales, it's a problem of physics and energy costs. Unless you have a step change in one or the other, you don't have a viable product.

Tom.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: gasman
Posted 2011-10-24 23:47:03 and read 8587 times.

Quoting LGWflyer (Thread starter):
When in the future do you think we will see an aircraft like Concorde again? In fact could there ever be a very small chance that it could fly again if given the chance...

It depends, of course, what you mean by "like Concorde". If you mean a massively expensive, uneconomical, noisy, cramped and arguably unsafe white-elephant, well - hopefully never. If you simply mean a beautiful aircraft that travels at speeds of Mach 2 - well, again, probably never - as substratospheric physics are what they are; and you'd simply end up building another Concorde with better engines and avionics.

The only glimmer of hope lies in "low altitude" (ie around 100,000 ft) long haul spaceflight. Atmosphere thin enough to allow multiple Mach values without compromising everything else; it will only require a hybrid of turbine and rocket technology that doesn't exist yet. My guess is 30-50 years.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: Superfly
Posted 2011-10-25 00:37:04 and read 8544 times.

The environmentalist and bean-counters wont allow such a unique passenger aircraft to ever fly again.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: planemaker
Posted 2011-10-25 01:33:48 and read 8508 times.

Here are two pics of the supersonic concepts from NASA's N+3 studies of a year ago...


Team Lockheed:
GE Global Research, Purdue University, and Wyle Laboratories




Team Boeing:
GE Global Research, Georgia Institute of Technology, M4 Engineering Inc., Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce and Wyle Labs




From NASA's submission brief...

Quote:
3. Supersonics Advanced Concepts

This portion of the solicitation is intended to identify advanced vehicle and propulsion concepts, as well as corresponding technologies, for a new generation of supersonic airliners entering into service in the 2030-35 period (“N+3”). These concepts represent a new generation of supersonic aircraft that extend the benefits of supersonic travel to a broader segment of the population while keeping pace with the improvements to efficiency and environmental impact being incorporated in subsonic aircraft. The results of these studies may be used to direct follow-on technology programs.


AW&ST's Graham Warwick has a couple of articles in his blog about supersonic flight including the Boeing and Lockheed: Airliners in 2030: Supersonic Dreams

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: coolum
Posted 2011-10-25 03:11:10 and read 8438 times.

I personally think we will see another commercial aircraft like Concorde going supersonic and even quicker.

I do think it will be a very different beast though, with supersonic being quickly bypassed in favour of hypersonic.

On the argument of times and connections, as an example, London to Sydney in 3 - 4 hours means this will be mute point.
The argument for there not being any market requirement, is probably based on it not being currently available.
If there were as many hypersonic commercial aircraft in the B757 / B767 sort of size, I can bet the public would be screaming for everything to be going just as quick.

This sort of technology is a long way off being commercially/financially ready admittedly, but give it another 30 - 40 years and we may be looking at it being the everyday norm.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2011-10-25 03:38:23 and read 8407 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 23):
Going from M0.9 to M2 is, at absolute minimum, going to require 5 times as much energy
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 29):
but don't forget, only for half as long
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):
However, you're going twice as fast so they only run that 4x fuel burn for half as long. Fuel burn per unit time is 4x, fuel burn per flight is 2x

It is worth remembering that its not only the fuel that is burned for half as long, IF the maintainance requirements were the same then then many other overheads would also be halved (probably not enough to make the difference though).

Fred

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-25 06:31:17 and read 8336 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 80):
It is worth remembering that its not only the fuel that is burned for half as long, IF the maintainance requirements were the same then then many other overheads would also be halved

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the increase in systems complexity and loading to support M2.0 flight is going to jack up the maintenance cost more than you'll save by the shorter trip.

Tom.

Topic: RE: When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2011-10-25 07:44:10 and read 8286 times.

Maintenance time might be the big factor. If going twice the speed lets you double the frequency, you can double the revenue form the plane. Not a minor consideration. Neither is being able to replace 2 long haul aircraft with a single one. New York to Tokyo using a single $400 million SST instead of two $200 million 787s would go a ways in balancing the books. Particularly since the ticket prices would be much higher on the fast plane. Double the fuel bill might not look so bad.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/