GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1810 times:
Well apart from being a miserable old sod generally, I've just heard all this stuff so many times before.
Much as I'd love to see a new SST in a reasonable amount of time, the fact is that Japan is not going to build one.
What they are doing is research so that IF a new SST project did happen, a multinational effort to be sure, they would bring a lot to this particular 'party'.
As a major lead contractor.
But, on my last bittersweet Concorde flight, OAE's delivery to retirement in BGI in November 2003, I made a point of looking and filming of the dark sky, curve of the Earth (being a LHR-BGI we made 60,000 ft and conditions were pretty clear), the speed on the cabin displays, because I knew this would almost certainly be my last ever supersonic flight.
And I'm still in my 30's.
Unless someone gives me a ton of cash, getting me on one of those Mig-25 experience flights, or the Rutan sub-orbital vehicle when it enters service, I don't expect to travel faster than sound again.
This is a source of profound regret to me, another aspect of Concorde I so miss, but I consider myself blessed by my time on this aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28617 posts, RR: 84 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Never say never, I guess, but I also am highly skeptical. The Boeing 2707-200 SST had half her gross take off weight as fuel, and even then the models said she could only get her airframe across the Atlantic, much less the 75,000 lbs of passenger and cargo she was expected to carry.
Concorde's supercruise Olympus engines gulped down something like a ton of fuel per passenger. And while P&W has supercruise experience thanks to their F119 powerplant for the F/A-22, not quite sure how well that will scale up to a 300-pax SST (and even if they can, supercruise is only good to Mach 1.5 on the Raptor airframe).
An SSBJ is a much more likely idea, using composite airframes and a civilian version of the F119.
Airfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Am I missing something? Japan does not have a company with the production capacity or experienced work force to make a commercial sized transport let alone make the giant step of a supersonic transport. The only plane I know of that Japan currently makes is the Honda biz jet, and that still is in the prototype stage. Plus they buy all their air-force jets from the US and maybe Britain
KiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2140 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Thread starter): This supersonic from Japan takes 300 pax and flies at 5954 km/h, testflights in Australia.
Not sure the speed is correct. I believe it's about Mach 2.
A lot is said about the economics of a new SST, citing the fact that Concorde was never profitable etc. However, these assessments always consider the viability within an airline market similar to now.
I think that we can all agree that in five years time the airline industry will be further consolidated as mergers occur, and various airlines go under. Therefore less carriers. Surely this will allow the fewer carriers left to juggle their high end capacity to improve efficiency/effectiveness. What sort of first class capacity is there flying the Atlantic now, and what is the load factor in that class?
And in 10 or 15 years time it would be even further consolidated. There could be just a handful of large international carriers....Oceanic Airways? North American Airlines?...and of course Singapore Airlines will still be around.
If there is currently a daily demand for 600 seats first class from JFK to LHR, surely this could be served by 2 daily SST services, in an all first config. Leave business and economy to the traditional "slower" aircraft.
Of course this assumes that the 300 seats quoted is an all first config.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
Yes, I enjoyed 7 Concorde flights, not all commercial, but I never took it for granted.
As for this story, consider if a future SST did happen, look to Japanese involvement similar to the 787 standard.
Concorde's Olympus engines were highly efficient at Mach 2, 50,000+ft, it was the other phases of flight that guzzled, I have seen nothing that changes that, certainly there is no available engine, not even a highly modified existing powerplant that the Olympus was.
Indeed, R/R reckoned as late as 6-7 years ago, any new SST engine would not beat Concorde in supercruise efficiency.
This was one of the conclusions that lead NASA/Boeing to axe the HSCT project in late 1998.
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2882 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
This is just research project. It never hurts to do research. I just wish there was more money being plugged into the aviation sector. That's another story
Japan will probably never have a large commercial jetliner production line within its boundaries because there's no land available. It will team with an European and/or US companies and be an major sub-contractor.