Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The New Concorde - Is There A Future?  
User currently offlineBlasphemystic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 213 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8280 times:

Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?

"300 passengers at Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound, making the run from Tokyo to Los Angeles in about four hours" That would be sweet!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/TRAVEL/





The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHZ747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Richard Branson insists that he can make the Concord work, even in its current form. I think he would be right on top of the list of any new supersonic passenger transport.

Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.



Keep on truckin'...
User currently offlineBlasphemystic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 1):
Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.

My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use. I could be wrong...and I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?



The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8189 times:

Interesting...
I look at the picture and think...expensive.
I look at the picture and think...not from Tokyo.

Then I read the article and thought... Okay they want to do this..great. If Japan can develop a train that can go superfast why not a plane. They have the money, the engineers and the capability.

The picture was a little misleading. The plane looks like the Boeing design from the 70s. But the booster looks ...well not welcome. If they can make it work with jet engines...great.

But Can they make it fuel efficient and quiet? We shall see. When I can fly over the pacific in 4 hours... I will be happy. By then I will have kids, a morgage and ready to retire.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineBlasphemystic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
The plane looks like the Boeing design from the 70s

True...






The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8072 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
I look at the picture and think...not from Tokyo.

Why not? You realize this is just a test, right? The rocket on the bottom of the plane is not going to be there in the final design, obviously...

The Japanese government would not be involved in this if the intent was not to fly out of Tokyo. Obviously, if they're saying Tokyo to LA in 4 hours, that's more than a fantasy, that's a suggestion. They are telling their homegrown airlines how they think they will be able to use this plane.

I'm not sure where Kashimo is in Japan so I don't know if you've ever flown in or out of Tokyo internationally, but Narita Airport is in the middle of nowhere. (The farmers constantly fighting against it don't see it that way, but it's a very low-density area.) Airplanes take off over farmland and they're over water in just a few minutes. Sonic booms wouldn't be an issue.

What they need to do is figure out how to do routes like Tokyo-JFK in this thing. The Concorde was not allowed to fly supersonic over the United States (Tokyo-JFK is over Canada most of the way, but I'd think similar rules would apply). It's not going to be worth developing this plane if it can only be used on over-water routes. The airlines themselves might still potentially make money on it but I don't think enough planes would be bought that the development costs would be covered.

If they can figure out a way to minimize sonic booms and get this thing flying over land, and they can make the airplane itself fairly economical (moreso than the Concorde), with 300 passengers, then I think the plane will be a big hit, especially for Asian airlines.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8055 times:

>> My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use.

Not any more than a turbofan engine is intended for military use. Scramjets are still highly experimental, so all the research and application work is being done by research labs, NASA, DoD, etc.

>> I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?

Yes, NASA successfuly flew a vehicle called Hyper-X, which after being accelerated to hypersonic speed by a booster rocket, sustained (and accelerated) to the highest velocity of any air-breathing aircraft.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/HyperX/index.html

>> Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?

Probably not...


User currently offlineBlasphemystic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8043 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):

Thanks for the info and the link.



The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineVivek0072 From India, joined Jun 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8014 times:

Quoting Blasphemystic (Thread starter):
Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?



If it flies from Tokyo to LA in 4hrs and it costs as much as flying on a 747 on the same route then I would opt for the sonic cruiser.



That life's most failures were people who did not realise how close they were to success when they gave up. - Edison.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7975 times:

My comment was just on the picture. I looked at the picture and thought it was a "artists redering of a final design". It made me think...can it even take off from any airport. My brain was not in full gear. Then I read the article and realized it was the artists rendition of the test vehicle.

My village is near Chubu International and of course I have flown in and out of NRT nothing is that far in Japan. I can get there in 4.5 hours by car, KIX in 3.5 and NGO in 1.5.

I think supersonic is great but as said above if it can't fly over land... forget it. Not worth it.

Another thing to keep in mind is Japanese Govt. Not the best at keeping money down. With the way politics are going here and many politicians getting railed for over spending and fiscal irresponisbility I would not be surpised if it eventually gets shelved.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7947 times:

I want to pay less for my long-haul international tickets, not more! Give me some extra legroom and I'll be happy. No need for SST IMO.


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wonder...

I worked on a Sonic Cruiser engine proposal and in no way could it be made economical enough. Supersonic is more costly. At $65/bbl, this will be a costly plane to fly. High oil prices killed the Concorde... Physical fact: aerodynamics say drag will be high during supersonic flight or even near sonic. Find me a trick for low supersonic drag and I bet I could find something similar for subsonic flight.

Will the "new Concorde" meet emissions? The US will never again issue an emissions waiver for a whole class of airframes as it did for the Concorde.

Will it meet noise? Tough, but possible.

The US spent a ton of money on the SST and eventually gave it up.

Would I like a 4 hour trans-pacific flight? Sure!

Quoting Vivek0072 (Reply 8):


If it flies from Tokyo to LA in 4hrs and it costs as much as flying on a 747 on the same route then I would opt for the sonic cruiser.

That's the problem... Boeing shelved the SST during a meeting with contractors right after asking a question: how many PAID for a 1st class flight to the meeting? No one raised their hand. A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBlasphemystic From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7927 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):

So in reality...there is no future for SST in every day airline travel. I admit I will give it a try one time just for the feel and pay the high price for a seat..and in the end im with SATX

Quoting SATX (Reply 10):
I want to pay less for my long-haul international tickets, not more! Give me some extra legroom and I'll be happy. No need for SST IMO.



The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineBohlman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7922 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
That's the problem... Boeing shelved the SST during a meeting with contractors right after asking a question: how many PAID for a 1st class flight to the meeting? No one raised their hand. A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

Uh.. no... they cancelled the project after the government pulled the funding. And besides, I wouldn't be so flippant about things like this. They can get the Raptor to supercruise, there's nothing except security clearances from putting two or three (trijet!) of those suckers on an airplane and getting it up to sustained cruise above M1.5 with comperable PSM costs. Ten years down the line when technology like the F119 becomes more mainstream, and we'll see what happens with things like this proposal.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 78
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7664 times:

What 'New Concorde?'
There is no SST project, unless you really want to believe the general media, (which a disturbing number of apparent aviation enthusiasts on here seem to do).

These Studies are low level, with not a tiny fraction of the funding to make a SST.
Japan has been doing this for years, I saw a bunch Japanese Aerospace people look over a BA Concorde in 1999.

So Branson reckoned he could make Concorde work? He told you that did he, or his friends in the media?
Oh well, must be true.

(As someone who was actually involved with this aircraft, it wasn't true, ever, and Branson knew that, he also knew the average Joe would not know this and reap a PR benefit, so again, what are alleged aviation enthusiasts doing swallowing his BS?)


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

And the Japanese will pay it.

Both major Japanese airlines (and some American ones, for that matter) sell out 747 flights sometimes months in advance. If they could increase flight frequency with fewer planes, they'd be all for it (they could basically double up on flights with the same number of planes, or fly the same number of flights with half the planes). They could charge whatever premium they wanted; the Japanese are not as frugal with their money on long trips as we are in the west. No, it wouldn't replace 747 or 777 service, but there are definitely quite a few people there who would be willing to pay a premium to have a full extra day of vacation (right now, flying to and from Japan basically means at *least* an entire night and day lost in both directions, once you factor in jet lag and time zones) or to reclaim an extra's days worth of work on a business trip.

The flight time from the US to Asia is still a major barrier to travel. It is not the same as going to Europe. You're talking 14 hours from New York to Tokyo - add in travel times to and from the airport, time spent in the airport, and time zone changes, and you have both lost an entire day *and* you will likely need to go to sleep as soon as you get to Japan. So that's really two days gone right there. Supersonic travel would cut that issue down to where it's at least no worse than flying from the US to Europe or from Japan to other Asian destinations.

You could say "well, why didn't Japan buy the Concorde, then?" Well, that's the point of designing a new plane - the Concorde obviously had some problems that they're trying to overcome. But people are acting like there's no market for supersonic travel from Asia and that is most definitely not true. There is a market, people will pay a premium, and the service would be extremely popular if it existed. Otherwise Japan would not be involved in this endeavor. The question is making it viable for both the airlines and whoever's going to build this thing.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7539 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
So Branson reckoned he could make Concorde work? He told you that did he, or his friends in the media?
Oh well, must be true.

(As someone who was actually involved with this aircraft, it wasn't true, ever, and Branson knew that, he also knew the average Joe would not know this and reap a PR benefit, so again, what are alleged aviation enthusiasts doing swallowing his BS?)

I prefer to trust Sir Rod on this, his comments were to the point. Branson couldn't afford it, couldn't afford the staff to run it and couldn't sell the tickets if he did.

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 13):
They can get the Raptor to supercruise, there's nothing except security clearances from putting two or three (trijet!) of those suckers on an airplane and getting it up to sustained cruise above M1.5 with comperable PSM costs.

If only life were as simple as that. Concorde could supercruise after all. Engines are only a small part of the whole package. If newer engines were able to bust the problems then there might have been an airliner derivative of the Rockwell B-1 flying today. It's still about large structures flying hot and high. Even composites can be troublesome at those speeds and temperatures.

I still think the USA made a grave error giving Boeing the contract to develop the 2707 in the first place. If anyone could have made it work it would have been Kelly Johnson and Lockheed, the other contender.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7513 times:

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 15):
And the Japanese will pay it.

The Brits, Americans, and French were unwilling to pay it in Concorde's later years, and the USA-UK/France air markets are FAR larger than the USA-Japan market.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
I worked on a Sonic Cruiser engine proposal and in no way could it be made economical enough. Supersonic is more costly. At $65/bbl, this will be a costly plane to fly. High oil prices killed the Concorde... Physical fact: aerodynamics say drag will be high during supersonic flight or even near sonic. Find me a trick for low supersonic drag and I bet I could find something similar for subsonic flight.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The usual measure of aerodynamic productivity is ML/D, or speed times lift divided by drag. Speed is obvious, while the lift/drag part represents how much thrust (=fuel burn) is required to maintain cruise (where lift=weight).

The worst possible place to be, in terms of ML/D, is Mach 1. This is why I was skeptical of the Sonic Cruiser from the start. Above Mach 2, the fact that you can fly twice as many flights with the same plane and crew starts to compensate for increased fuel costs. The CASM will certainly be higher, but not necessarily by the gross margins people expect.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
Will it meet noise? Tough, but possible.

This is the big issue. Sonic boom regulations kill the aircraft, since it can't be optimized to fly supersonic and subsonic.

mrocktor


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7444 times:

This is not the development of a "new Concorde." It is the type of low-level supersonic research that has been going on for the last 50 years: necessary and commendable, but certainly not worth getting too excited about.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 1):
Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.

Scramjets (supersonic combustion ramjets) are only really efficient above about Mach 5 and cannot be used at all at subsonic or transonic speeds, since the engine depends on supersonic flow through the inlet and combustion chamber. HyperX was launched on a Pegasus rocket and boosted to Mach 3; not a viable concept for an airliner.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 16):
I still think the USA made a grave error giving Boeing the contract to develop the 2707 in the first place. If anyone could have made it work it would have been Kelly Johnson and Lockheed, the other contender.

During the SST competition Boeing had never built a supersonic airplane, but Lockheed had never built a jet airliner and its last commercial product, the Electra, was not especially successful; by then, Lockheed was more focused on military products. Both firms had their weaknesses.

There is a case to be made that Boeing didn't know what it was getting into. On paper, the 2707 was a superior if more complicated design than the L-2000, with higher L/Ds throughout the speed range, greater payload-range capability, lower takeoff and landing speeds, and less noise. Of course, as Boeing found out, assumptions made on the drawing board do not always hold true in the real world.

That said, Lockheed in the late 1960s/early 1970s was not in great shape either. Cost overruns on the C-5 and the L-1011/RB.211 disaster would have pushed Lockheed into bankruptcy if not for emergency federal loan guarantees, although it's possible that the L-1011 would have been shelved if the L-2000 had gone ahead.

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 15):
But people are acting like there's no market for supersonic travel from Asia and that is most definitely not true. There is a market, people will pay a premium, and the service would be extremely popular if it existed. Otherwise Japan would not be involved in this endeavor. The question is making it viable for both the airlines and whoever's going to build this thing.

Your last sentence is the problem, and it's currently an insoluble one. There is a market for the end product -- I'm sure a 25% surcharge for Mach 2-2.4 transpacific service would sell itself quite easily. However, whether an SST could be operated economically at these fare levels remains to be seen; fuel burn and CASM will undoubtedly be higher, and there are real concerns about cannibalizing premium traffic from the subsonic fleet.

The real problem, though, is that a new SST will be so much more costly and take so much longer to develop than a comparable subsonic that viable fare premiums don't come anywhere near justifying the whole project.

The base case for a Mach 2.4, 300-pax, 5,000nm SST (NASA's HSCT Technology Concept Aircraft) is a 15-year development program costing around $30 billion with sales projected at 500 frames. Given this much money and time, Boeing and Airbus could easily turn over their entire subsonic fleets which much greater return on investment and much lower risk. No sane investor would take on such a project, and government subsidization simply shifts the insanity onto the taxpayer.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 78
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

Whitehatter, it wasn't even Eddington that could stop Branson's mythical Concorde dream, (apart from not letting him have any BA aircraft, truth is, BA were forced into retiring Concorde as AF pulling out doubled costs, though BA may have stopped 18 months to 2 years later, as Eddington indicated it was, for BA, being retired that amount of time sooner than expected), but more to the point, both Airbus and the CAA told Branson it was not going to happen, CAA knew you needed a workforce experienced in depth on the type, Airbus knew Branson could not afford it, so who pays them for supporting it?

Concorde did demonstrate a market, it would not have operated for anything 27 years it if hadn't, would not have survived BA being privatized either in 1987, though ironically it's limited capacity helped this, the surcharge was 1st class + 20%
Maybe not as easy to fill a 300 seater, which would not be all 1st class, might not even be 1st and Business only.

Who wants to strip much of the 1st/Business cabins pax from all those subsonics on any SST served routes, making all them suddenly unviable?


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7346 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Who wants to strip much of the 1st/Business cabins pax from all those subsonics on any SST served routes, making all them suddenly unviable?

I would. If I could get more profit out of flying the 1st/Biz pax on a SST, I certainly would. Whether they are flying on the same plane or not, the "high yield" pax are subsidizing the economy fares.

mrocktor


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 78
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7319 times:

I was thinking more of the massive investment, over decades, of long haul subsonics, now largely unviable with a new SST, rather than the airlines themselves.
They couldn't all become cargo planes, or jam packed for a long range LCC.

So Boeing and/or Airbus would rather make a highly risky, controversial, limited market SST, rather than the far more familiar, conventional airliners?
Maybe one day, decades from now, not soon.

Personally I think eventually high speed flight might happen for pax in some kind of sub orbital vehicle, rather than a SST.
Such a vehicle is a long way off, but then so is an environmentally acceptable, economically viable SST.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7295 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Whitehatter, it wasn't even Eddington that could stop Branson's mythical Concorde dream, (apart from not letting him have any BA aircraft, truth is, BA were forced into retiring Concorde as AF pulling out doubled costs, though BA may have stopped 18 months to 2 years later, as Eddington indicated it was, for BA, being retired that amount of time sooner than expected), but more to the point, both Airbus and the CAA told Branson it was not going to happen, CAA knew you needed a workforce experienced in depth on the type, Airbus knew Branson could not afford it, so who pays them for supporting it?

Rod Eddington's comments were taken from Piers Morgan's book and were as precise a summation of the situation as possible. It was all a Virgin PR exercise at the expense of British Airways. Most of the technical people who could have supported the operation were longtime BA staff and would never have left their benefits and pensions just to work for Sir Beard, and that's even before getting into infrastructure and spares.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Concorde did demonstrate a market, it would not have operated for anything 27 years it if hadn't, would not have survived BA being privatized either in 1987, though ironically it's limited capacity helped this, the surcharge was 1st class + 20%

Except that the market had evaporated by the time BA pulled the aircraft. It just was not generating sufficient interest any more, and many account clients (the backbone of the BA service) had either gone to first class tickets on the 747 or 777 or, regrettably, had perished on September the 11th.

Again, direct quotes from Rod Eddington. September the 11th took out a large number of Concorde regulars.

Unless you can get over the cost hump of supersonic services then anything more than a supersonic corporate shuttle is going to be hard to sell anywhere in the world. Even the transpacific supersonic would be burdened by the same economics as the 777LR and A345 have, which is carrying fuel for that last hundred miles.


User currently offlineOzglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7154 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
>> My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use.

Not any more than a turbofan engine is intended for military use. Scramjets are still highly experimental, so all the research and application work is being done by research labs, NASA, DoD, etc.

>> I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?

Yes, NASA successfuly flew a vehicle called Hyper-X, which after being accelerated to hypersonic speed by a booster rocket, sustained (and accelerated) to the highest velocity of any air-breathing aircraft.

Just to set the record straight, NASA followed-up on work done in Australia. The sucess of the Australian test resulted in NASA getting better backing for a local US project.

"On July 30, 2002 the University of Queensland (Australia) HyShot team culminated many years of work when they sent their second scramjet payload up into the atmosphere on the back of a Terrior Orion rocket in a test flight. They made history - it turned out to be the first successful launch of a scramjet in the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
25 GDB : Whitehatter, yes that's all true, the very poor premium market in early 2003 caused to BA001 to move to 18.30, to try and capture a more leisure marke
26 Soylentgreen : With the number of millionaires doubling each year, and the fact that the Concorde did fill most of its seats at $8,000 roundtrip between NY and Londo
27 Post contains images DfwRevolution : >> Just to set the record straight The record wasn't un-straight >> With the number of millionaires doubling each year, and the fact that the Concord
28 Blasphemystic : Concorde carried about 90 passengers. The one they are planning on building is to seat 300...I dont think (atleast from my circle of friends) there a
29 G-CIVP : GDB - I've got to give you credit, your knowledge of Concorde and BA ops. is pretty darn good! I hope you have got a permanent record of all your cont
30 WhiteHatter : I enjoy your posts on the subject as you are obviously someone who knows Concorde ops inside out. So at a slight tangent... What are your opinions on
31 GDB : Whitehatter (and G-CIVP), sadly a limited use proposal was seen as a non starter, for cost reasons, Concorde's expensive, unique support network, need
32 Worldliner : is there any chance of a design from bea. surely they have the most info as they made the best flying machine ever. the concorde worldliner
33 GDB : BAE are not in the game of building airliners now, except as an Airbus partner. Any new SST would be a multi-national effort, beyond Airbus or Boeing,
34 EGTESkyGod : GDB, I agree, your knowledge is outstanding. So here's a question (or two). What is stopping another company buying the blueprints for Concorde, modif
35 RAMPRAT980 : Didn't Branson offer to purchase one or two Concorde planes ?
36 Cun757 : I think he can made them... His very rich, and he loves planes... so why don't start to build them...? Can any one tell him to invite me to work with
37 Post contains links Lehpron : for a business aspect, see my post in thread regarding Boeing/Airbus loosing a market: http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eral_aviation/read.main/
38 GDB : Branson? No, no and no again! As I said, neither the UK airworthiness regulatory people, nor Airbus, would allow it. And they told him as much in May
39 RIX : - it's much more than just doable. Somehow, with Aerion being revealed, all these "no suitable engine... no way to meet environmental regs... forget
40 GDB : Yes but Aerion would still be a SSBJ, a (20-30 seat) 'Airline' version is not a full size airliner, we don't call the Canadair Challenger derived CRJ
41 Post contains images RayChuang : I think a new SST is not as far away as some people think. Consider how aerospace technology has evolved since the days of the Concorde. We are within
42 Post contains images RIX : GDB, Of course, I didn't talk about Concorde direct replacement. Proposed SBBJs will be neither as fast and have comparable capacity, nor are they goi
43 B2707SST : AFAIK, there is no feasible variable-cycle engine design on the drawing board anywhere in the world. The F-22's engines are low-bypass afterburning t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is There A Future For Bombardier Jetliners? posted Thu Oct 21 2004 23:35:24 by WGW2707
Is There A Future For Friendship One? posted Fri Apr 4 2003 09:41:15 by Kramri
BWIA's New Colors: Is There A Purpose? posted Mon Jun 24 2002 03:26:22 by JBLUA320
SWA At HOU After The New Terminal Is Built posted Sun May 12 2002 06:11:03 by Atcboy73
767-400: Is There A Future? posted Wed Jan 16 2002 00:02:33 by Rj777
Is There Still An Air France Concorde In New York? posted Wed Aug 16 2000 22:04:39 by G-BEAK
Why Is There A Gate In The Parking Lot At SXM? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 07:03:16 by SkyHigh777
LAS Is The New Southwest Airlines Crew Base posted Fri Nov 3 2006 04:14:15 by Mjlhou
Is There A Drop-Dead Date For The 747-8 Pax? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 20:16:09 by Bmacleod
Where Is The New Cessna? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 02:33:34 by 2H4