Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will A New Concorde Ever Be Developed?  
User currently offlineeugegall From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17740 times:

Hello All.

After watching a documentory last night on Concorde. "Concorde's last flight" Uk Channel 4.

We all know that if Concorde does fly again it will only be for show. My question is this.

Why dont they develop a new Modern Concorde. 2 crew, Glass cockpit, Quieter engine, Better fuel econemy and more.
I know the airline market doesnt make much money right now but i dont think its really been looked in to. Im sure you will all correct me.

Also what will it cost? Knoing that by 1969 it cost the UK and France £1.5 Billion

Thanks

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17742 times:

Yes, it may be 50 years, but eventually technology will allow beyond Mach 1 speeds for commercial flights again. It may be suborbital, but it will happen.

User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17738 times:

There has been a supersonic plane for business use on the drawing board for the past few years.
The proposed plane is being marketed by Aerion Corporation. It's just waiting for customers.


User currently offlineeugegall From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17718 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 2):

Flight time in this aircraft from Chicago to Farnborough is 5 Hours 42 Mins. = Not impressed


User currently offlineDeltaB757TUS From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17546 times:

IMO we will never have a supersonic pax transport aircraft again. With rising fuel costs I do not see how it would be a viable option. Just my   


A/C Flown: CR1, CR2, CR7, CR9, B727, B732, B733, B735, B752, B762, B764, SF3, EM2, D95, M88
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17516 times:

Even if we have the technology to build an SST no airline would touch it unless it has specific fuel consumption consumption close to today's aircraft.

That is something for which the technology does not exist, the big fans of today's jets are not suitable for supersonic flight.

The manufactures would also have to build a bird with at least 250 seats and have comparable engine noise to the quietest a/c of today as the noise limits would only get stronger.

After solving these problems you still have an a/c that cannot fly efficiently over populated areas.

One thing that would be a bonus for an airline that operates an SST: it could fly up to twice as many passenger miles in a given year, but I still don't see this happening, personally, I think we will see sub-orbital aircraft before a new generation jet SST

Just my $0.02


User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17462 times:

What i've said before and still believe.... For a new Concorde to be created it either needs to run on a different type of fuel or jet fuel needs to take a dramatic drop in price until they are able to produce more efficient supersonic engines.

User currently offlineeugegall From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17463 times:

Could a company not just make brand new Concord's. If they had the blue prints and along with some modern developments would this not save loads of money on development and testing?

User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17435 times:

Quoting eugegall (Reply 7):
Could a company not just make brand new Concord's. If they had the blue prints and along with some modern developments would this not save loads of money on development and testing?

They couldn't sell 'em last time round!


User currently offlineeugegall From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17275 times:

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 8):




But last time they were the unknown. The whole world has since come to love them and i feel if they had another crack at it they would be so much more successful as long as they were more fuel efficiant of course which i think they could do with a little investment


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17248 times:

Quoting eugegall (Reply 9):
But last time they were the unknown. The whole world has since come to love them and i feel if they had another crack at it they would be so much more successful as long as they were more fuel efficiant of course which i think they could do with a little investment

The Concorde had aesthetic appeal and, yes, it did have its dedicated customers. But broadly speaking, the average flyer couldn't afford to try it out, except perhaps as a one time "novelty" kind of thing. As has been said before, the economics issues are going to be the biggest hurdles and I don't see them overcome in my life time. A new SST is a fascinating idea and always will be. It's just not practical for now or the foreseeable future.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17214 times:

Depends on the future fuel prices more than anything.

Subsonic planes will always be more efficient than supersonic ones, so saying "but it could be made more efficient" is not an argument because you could make the subsonic one even more efficient.

However if oil was the price of water then efficiency wouldn't matter but for business passengers at least, flight time would.

Perhaps when they crack fusion.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3685 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17209 times:

Maybe if an entirely different engine technology becomes available.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17190 times:

Quoting eugegall (Reply 7):
Could a company not just make brand new Concord's. If they had the blue prints and along with some modern developments would this not save loads of money on development and testing?

No.
It would not meet modern standards of airworthiness as a new aircraft, that's not just a comment on Concorde but all airliners of that era.

Here is the problem.
To meet modern requirements for noise and emissions, a modern type of high bypass engine allows this.
But to go supersonic a turbojet layout is needed, a completely different kind of jet engine.
Look at the config of a Concorde engine, then one say from a 777, or any modern type.

How to combine the two, supersonic flight requires high velocity and hot exhaust - which creates much of the noise.
Subsonic need the large amount of bypassed air from a fan engine, of much lower heat and velocity.

There was not the technology to have both of these features in Concorde, there is not now either.
Concorde concentrated on being highly efficient at Mach 2 50,000+ feet, where it spent much of their time, of course at lower speeds/altitudes it was very inefficient.
Our R/R rep in BA Concorde Engineering reckoned his company saw no chance of improving the efficiency of Concorde at Mach 2 - still unrivalled - but that wasn't the issue or the problem, it's the rest of the flight envelope.

This is before we get into airframe and other technology issues, including the sonic boom and high altitude emissions.

Boeing and NASA did the last serious SST study, they found that even optimistic projections of advances in the key technologies still would fall short of the likely environmental requirements of the future.
The latter kept overtaking the former.

Then they had severe reservations about the business case.
The study ended in late 1998, since then just look at the industry since, much more expensive fuel, much more environmental based hostility, a much tougher business environment.
And all these factors are going just one way.
It would be like trying to sell highly refined and expensive cuisine in a fast food dominated world.


User currently offlinerolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 17174 times:

My guess is no.
1. Oil reserves appear to be diminishing.
2. No fuel technology on the horizon with oil's energy density and relatively low production cost.
3. We know where today's consumers stand on the "cheap, fast, or good" triad.

And call me jaded, but the great strides in science and technology that we saw in the early 20th century seem to be mostly gone; all we're doing is increasing the efficiency of old technology (e.g. in 20 years we went from the P&W Wasp to the P&W J58, yet after 50 years we're still seeing the same old JT3Ds and JT8Ds all over the place). I'm not counting on ever seeing Earl Grey, Hot materializing in my kitchen in this life, much less ever flying Mach 2 across the pond.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 17107 times:

The Concorde was a complete flop and no business wants to put itself into a position of making something that no one wants, so no a new one will not be made.

Quoting eugegall (Reply 7):
Could a company not just make brand new Concord's. If they had the blue prints and along with some modern developments would this not save loads of money on development and testing?

Again the first Concorde was a total failure so there is really no reason to look into doing that again.

Quoting eugegall (Reply 9):
But last time they were the unknown. The whole world has since come to love them and i feel if they had another crack at it they would be so much more successful as long as they were more fuel efficiant of course which i think they could do with a little investment

You seem to be confused! The first time around Concorde got lots of orders from airlines all around the world but it just didn't meet any of its specs which made it a plane that no one wanted to pay for. As far as people loving it, well sure there were some people who might have loved it but Concorde was not anywhere near a comfortable as the aircraft we have flying around today. I would compare it to flying in a CRJ and the speed is just not worth the tiny cramped up cabin when you can fly in an open spacious aircraft.

The fact is that the Concorde was not a success. It failed miserably and was actually one of if not the worst mistakes in aircraft manufacture history. Although we enthusiasts love the thing because of its uniqueness it just is a horrible business case.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineRaffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16989 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15):
Again the first Concorde was a total failure so there is really no reason to look into doing that again

That is a bit harsh. Concorde gave British Airways a profit of between £35.m - £50m ($55m - $76m) per year.

Total estimate profits for the duration of operation amounts to £1.80 BILLION ( $2.7 BILLION) with 2.5 million passengers flown.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16977 times:

Quoting Raffik (Reply 16):
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15):
Again the first Concorde was a total failure so there is really no reason to look into doing that again

That is a bit harsh. Concorde gave British Airways a profit of between £35.m - £50m ($55m - $76m) per year.

Total estimate profits for the duration of operation amounts to £1.80 BILLION ( $2.7 BILLION) with 2.5 million passengers flown.

You're overlooking the billions in development costs the British and French governments wrote off, meaning that millions of taxpayers who would never fly on Concorde had to pay those costs. It's easy to make money with an asset when someone else pays for most of the costs.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16888 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 15):
it just didn't meet any of its specs which made it a plane that no one wanted to pay for.

That is simply not true. Concorde exceeded contractual specifications for BA and AF.

It is very easy with hindsight to say that Concorde was a horrible business case but you have completely ignored many of the key worldwide events which lead to its demise.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 16744 times:

Is it not possible to design a delta winged aircraft with two turbofans for overland subsonic operation and two turbojets for long-range supersonic flight (as opposed to Concorde's medium range)? There would have to be some way to move the turbofan engines into the fuselage during supersonic overwater flight.

If it seated similar numbers to a premium-configured 788 (say 80 business class and 80 premium economy) it would be attractive if it could fly

Lhr-jfk in 4 hours
Lax-syd in 7 hours
Nrt-lax in 6 hours
Lhr-jnb in 6 hours

Wouldn't the double engine model be the only way to balance overland noise requirements with overwater supersonic speed?


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
You're overlooking the billions in development costs the British and French governments wrote off, meaning that millions of taxpayers who would never fly on Concorde had to pay those costs. It's easy to make money with an asset when someone else pays for most of the costs.

That may be so, but an airline is not responsible for development costs... British Airways made money with Concorde especially in the later years, it was BAC/Aerospatiale that paid for the development and manufacture of the aircraft.

Quoting koruman (Reply 19):
Is it not possible to design a delta winged aircraft with two turbofans for overland subsonic operation and two turbojets for long-range supersonic flight (as opposed to Concorde's medium range)? There would have to be some way to move the turbofan engines into the fuselage during supersonic overwater flight.

Technically there's nothing to say it couldn't be achieved, however the cost would be rediculously high, think of the extra weight penalty of having 2 out of 4 engines effectively doing nothing for the entire flight, be it the subsonic 2 or supersonic 2. Also the weight penalty of the engineering and the mechanism needed to extend/retract the engines during flight? What if the system failed? Left with 4 engines all not performing? I like the thinking outside of the box aspect but I'm sorry to say I don't think so...



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 16262 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 20):
That may be so, but an airline is not responsible for development costs... British Airways made money with Concorde especially in the later years, it was BAC/Aerospatiale that paid for the development and manufacture of the aircraft.

Well actually, the UK and French govs funded the program. And the British gov at least took 80% of Concorde's profits for a good while in the first decade or so.


User currently offlinerottenray From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15405 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 11):
Perhaps when they crack fusion.

Getting closer all the time...

Mark Suppes


I think another valid question is this:

Leaving engineering and economics aside, would a Concorde-type experience even fit into the modern air travel landscape?

I know there are some frequent flyers who pay attention to the aircraft they are to fly in, and there are certainly a lot of enthusiasts.

But, the general flying public..?


RR


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20241 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15358 times:

Here's the problem in a nutshell:

In order to stand the supersonic forces, the airframe has to be about four times as strong as a subsonic airframe.

So, leaving aside the engines (the Concorde burnt less fuel per mile than a 741), it doesn't matter what you build the plane out of. Lead, steel, Al-Li, CFRP, or frozen angels' tears. You need four times as much of it to make a supersonic airframe of a given size as you do to make the subsonic aircraft.

Thus, the aircraft will weigh significantly more per passenger than the subsonic counterpart and so it can never be as efficient. When we finally do find a cheap and clean source of energy, then maybe we can have supersonic service again. But not until then.

Quoting rottenray (Reply 22):

Leaving engineering and economics aside, would a Concorde-type experience even fit into the modern air travel landscape?

Of course!

This flight takes you 14 hours to get to Austalia. This other one takes you 8. You don't need to know anything about planes to get that 8 hours in a Y-class seat (or even F-class seat) beats 14 hands-down every day.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6844 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 15084 times:

Think of this. There are mighty billionaires out there, some have private 747s and A340s, and A380s on order. Some have entire fleets of aircraft (and fleets of yachts, too). Yet, not one of them ever tried to get a Concorde.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 18):
That is simply not true. Concorde exceeded contractual specifications for BA and AF.

It is very easy with hindsight to say that Concorde was a horrible business case but you have completely ignored many of the key worldwide events which lead to its demise.

One of which was the US boycotting the thing.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
25 ThirtyEcho : We are likely to see a resurgence of passenger ocean liners before we see another SST.
26 tdscanuck : Possible, but not economically viable with any current technology. There are other ways; the major noise problem is the boom, not the engines, and th
27 paulinbna : One thing that was not discussed is that in the late 60's and early 70's if you needed to be in JFK from LHR for an important meeting, the concord was
28 Post contains images antoniemey : Well, since all you have to do is convince Carnival and Royal Caribbean to re-route their cruises from circles around the islands to NYC-Europe runs.
29 GDB : Not for us it wasn't, not after we were allowed to run it on a proper commercial basis. Otherwise it never would have survived BA Privatisation. Pion
30 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : I just dont see this. With fuel price trends going up it will be even harder to make such a plane profitable. The airlines cant even make money as is
31 Raffik : - I think there is a huge amount that was learnt from the building of Concorde, and whilst it didn't sell to the many airlines that did order it, it w
32 Post contains images ediCHC : Concorde was a huge commercial failure for it's investors...namely the UK and French taxpayers. The fact that BA (effectively a state monopoly at the
33 mikey72 : Concorde was never about making money. At the time there was huge political impetus behind the development of Concorde and Britain and France were tr
34 antoniemey : I liked the Concorde... would have loved to have had the chance to take a ride in one... That said, I'm not going to pay twice or three times as much
35 ediCHC : Ahh where did I say Concorde was a complete failure? I didn't and I certainly wasn't slagging off the aircraft. I was correcting the previous poster
36 ThirtyEcho : Considering that, in the late 1960s, I felt certain that we would have suborbital hypersonic flight in routine transoceanic service by the year 2000,
37 Raffik : Please refer to my post above which cross references figures provided by British Airways. Concorde made the British government over £750m and Britis
38 Post contains images ediCHC : It's called progress! On a more serious note I have been thinking that in some respects we are starting to stagnate when it come to transportation te
39 mikey72 : It's like I said..Concorde was a ''one off'' It never really should of been created in the first place so it's a paradox. The human race at the time
40 mikey72 : Just one more thing. Let's not forget that it took the worlds worst terrorism attrocity (an event that for want of a better expression destroyed 40% o
41 BMI727 : Yes they are. A good portion of the price of every airliner sold goes towards recouping the cost of developing the aircraft, which for a modern subso
42 Post contains images MadameConcorde : We had Concorde until 2003 and my idea is that they could have kept them flying a lot longer, maybe 10 more years or longer. The hickup was spare part
43 Norlander : Well you include Cell Phones as modern options... The landline phone system worked fine in the late 60's, as well as telefax & teleconferencing.
44 foxbravo03 : Is it really accurate to say this? Okay-from a sales point of view Concorde was a dissapointment-only two operators. However, from a technological po
45 BMI727 : It depends entirely on your point of view. From a business standpoint, the Concorde was undoubtedly a failure for many reasons, some of which were ce
46 Norlander : My prediction is that we'll first see a supersonic business jet (akin to the Aerion), after which we'll see scaled up models (following the same devel
47 TheSonntag : Not really. Just think on communications, Internet, Cell Phones. Technology is MUCH farther in this way. Today we have more efficient planes doing wh
48 ediCHC : This what I am driving at, not so much gone backwards technologically, of course looking at the bigger picture that is nonsense obviously. I think yo
49 Burkhard : Never is a damned long time, so I would use never only in the context "never say never". But even with sensational engine technology, a sub sonic will
50 BD338 : ...developed economies have changed their vision, the almighty dollar/euro/pound etc. rule, even more than ever. Can't make a dollar today on somethi
51 mikey72 : I don't agree at all. These things had to be done. Right or wrong it's part of what makes us human. You have to 'do' things and then move on. Isn't t
52 HiJazzey : Here's a question. Could you mitigate the noise pollution issue by raising the cruise altitude?
53 GDB : But it was the ending of BA as a state carrier that saved Concorde. Lord King was charged with making the airline private, the usual stuff was done,
54 morrisond : Would Carbon Construction change the whole economics of Supersonic construction? Could you not make a Carbon Framed Supersonic jet significantly light
55 tdscanuck : No. The core economic issue is fuel burn (drag), which isn't influenced (much) by material at supersonic speeds. Induced drag coefficient drops off a
56 Post contains links BD338 : thought I'd post this link as an update to this debate, from the Independent Newspaper. Seems like there is some activity and interest in developing a
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...
Will The Concorde Ever Return To Service? posted Wed Jun 11 2008 19:24:24 by Airbuske
Will The 77W Ever Be In A US Colour Scheme? posted Sun May 13 2007 22:19:56 by Albird87
Will Faremeasure.com Ever Be Updated Again? posted Sun Feb 11 2007 02:52:59 by Jmc1975
MX: Will This Pic Ever Be Possible? posted Wed May 12 2004 02:09:04 by Henpol747
Will Luton Airport Ever Be Expanded posted Thu Sep 11 2003 20:20:47 by EZYAirbus
Will FedEX IND Ever Be As Big As MEM? posted Tue Jul 15 2003 02:26:41 by Atcboy73
Will Plane Spotting Ever Be The Same? posted Sat Sep 15 2001 08:39:38 by Boeing757fan
Will America West Ever Be Bad-weather Certified? posted Mon Jan 22 2001 19:52:28 by Jmc1975
Concorde - Will Anything Ever Be Similar? posted Thu Oct 29 2009 06:30:51 by TIKTOKJAKE
Will There Ever Be A New 19/20 Seat Airplane? posted Wed Aug 15 2007 17:17:00 by ERAUgrad02