jetsetter1969 From Australia, joined Jul 2013, 62 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
Given the retirement of Concorde and the demise of the Sonic Cruiser is it viable for there to be a faster commercial aircraft even if it were lower end of supersonic speeds? I know the fuel consumption could be prohibitive but is there a possible market for such an aircraft? If so what range could it have and possible routes? If an 8 hour trip could be cut to say 6 hours would that be sufficient to justify a price premium?
Or, if like the Boeing 707 almost 60 years ago, if it's based on a successful military aircraft. One can only hope. And any super sonic/HSCT should and would be a larger plane able to haul more people as opposed to the very limited Concorde which was more an exercise of prestige and priced for the very rich and famous.
RubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
There's virtually no need for supersonic flight.
On-board mobile communications, laptop power and Wi-Fi access have provided a way for the premium business passenger (the crucial supersonic market audience) to make use of the time on board.
If anything, subsonic flight is probably more convenient because it provides a stable window of several hours in which to both work and find time to kick back, rather than a short three-hour slot which has been book-ended by the hassle of airport travel.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13447 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2001 times:
Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 4): On-board mobile communications, laptop power and Wi-Fi access have provided a way for the premium business passenger (the crucial supersonic market audience) to make use of the time on board.
Oddly enough, quite a few of the business pax on BA Concorde at least in the latter years involved in the internet.
Though the wi-fi etc wasn't developed then of course.
However many of the pax just liked to be able to leave London mid morning and be in NewYork that same mid morning, it wasn't so much working on board as pure time saving, or as the late Sir David Frost put it, 'being able to be in two places at the same time'.
Technically speaking, our RR Olympus rep told us that while producing a new and viable engine for a SST was simple enough for supercruise (and they did not expect even 30-40 years later to beat the Olympus 593 for both performance and efficiency at Mach 2), building one that was also enviormentally and in terms of fuel consumption acceptable in subsonic flight was the real show stopper.
There were ideas but they tended to be very complex affairs.
So I'm not under any illusions about seeing a SST again.
Come November, it's 10 years since my own final Concorde flight, the delivery of G-BOAE to retirement in BGI.
I knew then I'd never travel that fast, that high, in that comfort again in my lifetime.
Maybe the best comment is not from the aviation world, but in an episode of the US political drama 'The West Wing'.
The Leo McGarry character laments how the space program fizzled out after Apollo, where also were the other technical promises of his younger days in the 1960's, adding 'even Concorde is not flying now'.
One of the sharp younger staffers points to personal computers as the great new technology, to which Leo snarls, 'a more efficient way of spreading gossip and porn!'