Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again?  
User currently offlineLGWflyer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15074 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...


3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 806 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15074 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]


// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15060 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.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1082 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15021 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.


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14981 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.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14944 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.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14888 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.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 806 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14882 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.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14840 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.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14820 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.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14772 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]


The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14747 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.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14737 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.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14730 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.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14683 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.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14631 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.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14620 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.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14582 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.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.   


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14544 times:

747400sp

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I was referring to commercial aircraft.

Are military aircraft subject to noise limits?.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14530 times:

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

In a word... NO 



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14490 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.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7210 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14424 times:

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

hopefully it will happen in your lifetime.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14368 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.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6291 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 14251 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.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
25 trent1000 : What does "latterly" mean? What is a "line pilot"? I heard the Concorde take off on more than one occasion, but have to say the Tupelovs can roar like
26 bennett123 : 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
27 Semaex : 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: Su
28 Post contains images Jacobin777 : "Never" is a mighty long time.. [Edited 2011-10-14 17:15:37]
29 nomadd22 : 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
30 Post contains images canoecarrier : 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
31 CXfirst : 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
32 prebennorholm : 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
33 longhauler : 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 far
34 dfambro : 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
35 canoecarrier : 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 expre
36 2175301 : 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 m
37 dfambro : 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 BO
38 B2707SST : 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 i
39 Post contains images zippyjet : I too am an optimist. But as others stated: supersonic travel will be trickle up technology wise. Supposedly it's easier, cheaper and environmentally
40 EGTESkyGod : Kinda contradicting yourself there aren't ya... Between 1976 and 2003 there WAS a market for supersonic travel, primarily between London and New York
41 tdscanuck : 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..
42 comorin : Does this include the effect of of flying at higher cruise altitude? - thanks.
43 nomadd22 : 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 acceler
44 tdscanuck : 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 mean
45 Post contains images VC10er : 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
46 SEPilot : 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
47 Post contains images Semaex : 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 als
48 Post contains links and images zippyjet : When AF and BA terminated Concorde service, Sir Richard Branson wanted to mount the Scarlet Lady and continue Concorde service/flights. If there was
49 frmrCapCadet : Wikipedia in its main article shows the Concorde getting 14 passenger miles per US gallon, and the roughly comparable technology 747 getting 91 passen
50 VC10er : 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 jus
51 Post contains links and images planemaker : If there is a commercial SST produced in the future.... it won't need pilots. At the moment... but it will be. Unless you expect to pass away in the
52 Post contains links RubberJungle : This is pretty much the closest EADS has come to discussing supersonic transport of late: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...personic-transport-co
53 Post contains links LimaNiner : 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
54 XXXX10 : 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:
55 bennett123 : 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 gr
56 prebennorholm : 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 re
57 Semaex : 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 t
58 Post contains images EGTESkyGod : 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
59 trigged : 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 chea
60 SEPilot : 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" train
61 longhauler : 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
62 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : It certainly is... 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 pric
63 longhauler : 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.
64 AvObserver : 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
65 EGTESkyGod : 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 Gord
66 zippyjet : 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 e
67 Post contains images MadameConcorde : 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
68 longhauler : 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 und
69 EGTESkyGod : 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
70 Post contains images zippyjet : Thank You: If you have a link to their website please share.
71 hohd : 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
72 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : http://www.brooklandsconcorde.com Brooklands Museum is in Weybridge, Surrey... UK.
73 frmrCapCadet : 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.
74 mirrodie : 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 cu
75 tdscanuck : You don't want Steve Jobs...Steve Jobs did what he did by flawlessly leveraging existing technologies to provide innovative designs that people want.
76 gasman : It depends, of course, what you mean by "like Concorde". If you mean a massively expensive, uneconomical, noisy, cramped and arguably unsafe white-el
77 Superfly : The environmentalist and bean-counters wont allow such a unique passenger aircraft to ever fly again.
78 Post contains links and images planemaker : 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 L
79 coolum : 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 bea
80 flipdewaf : 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 oth
81 tdscanuck : 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 mainte
82 nomadd22 : 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 min
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...
When Will We See A Song Plane? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 19:09:00 by Captcjmac
When Will We See A Delta A330-200 posted Sat Aug 22 2009 09:36:01 by Blueman87
When Will We See PR's 777-300ER? posted Fri Jul 31 2009 19:32:10 by JetBlue777
When Will We See A320s In Delta Colors posted Sun Jul 13 2008 21:29:21 by Rwex414
When Will We See Europe - HNL Non-stop Service? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 12:03:50 by HNL-Jack
When Will We See Pics From 2007 posted Wed Jan 3 2007 10:39:44 by An225
When Will We See A B787 "In The Flesh"? posted Thu May 25 2006 17:39:35 by Speedmarque
Spring '06 Schedules, When Will We See Them? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 05:59:46 by KBUF737
When Will We See E-Jets At LAX? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:23:53 by PPVRA
When Will We See Consolidation? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 16:54:02 by 7E72004
When Will We See A Song Plane? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 19:09:00 by Captcjmac
When Will We See A Delta A330-200 posted Sat Aug 22 2009 09:36:01 by Blueman87
When Will We See PR's 777-300ER? posted Fri Jul 31 2009 19:32:10 by JetBlue777
When Will We See A320s In Delta Colors posted Sun Jul 13 2008 21:29:21 by Rwex414
When Will We See Europe - HNL Non-stop Service? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 12:03:50 by HNL-Jack
When Will We See Pics From 2007 posted Wed Jan 3 2007 10:39:44 by An225
When Will We See A B787 "In The Flesh"? posted Thu May 25 2006 17:39:35 by Speedmarque
Spring '06 Schedules, When Will We See Them? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 05:59:46 by KBUF737
When Will We See E-Jets At LAX? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:23:53 by PPVRA