Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Concorde: LAX-LHR Or LAX-JFK-LHR  
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Can the Concorde go LAX-LHR nonstop?

If not how about LAX-JFK-LHR?

It seems to me there will be enough pax on these flights with movie stars etc., or maybe even people who want to cross the USA quickly.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBacardi182 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1088 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

no sonic booms alowed over land so no point in a flight over land in concord if it can only fly at mach .98.

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Does Canada have that law too?

I know it'll be a long/expensive route.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineTOMASKEMPNER From Mexico, joined May 2001, 389 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

Concorde´s max range is of 3560 nm

LAX-LHR 5455 nm

Then it will be like this.
LAX-JFK 2474 mi
JFK-LHR 3451 mi

I think that it will be a great success, specially if they are granted with 5th. freedom rights to operate the LAX-JFK leg. Lots of businessmen will take the 2 hour LAX-JFK flight instead of the 5 hour one.

But it´s no likely to happen.






User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

If you don't fly supersonic over land, and you stop at JFK (or somewhere else), it becomes LONGER than just flying LAX-LHR nonstop on a subsonic airliner.

User currently offlineJT8D From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 170 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

I believe that Concorde's fuel consumption is less efficient at lower speeds also.


Graham Hitchen, KMIA
User currently offlineNiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

No, we will never see a US overflight using a Concorde. The fuel economics of flying a Concorde over land at subsonic speeds is just hogwild. I recall an airline attempting something similar to that many years ago... flying from JFK to either Dallas or Houston (can't remember which), and it was extremely unsuccessful. That's why they don't do it now, and why it'll never happen (unless they find a way to eliminate the sonic boom!)

NiteRider30


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

JT8D, you are right, it's not likely that the Concorde can even make it LAX-JFK non-stop at subsonic speed, and it will never be allowed to go supersonic.

The Concorde normally lands with 15 tons fuel on board for eventual holds or diversion at subsonic speed. If we make a little calculations, then it indicated that a four and a half hours subsonic (Mach 0.90) flight requires a fuel load including reserves well over a hundred tons. That's more than it can lift off the ground.

With a lot of tailwind it may probably make it LAX-JFK without a fuel stop in Chicago.

Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Niterider30 is right

Braniff lease concordes from both BA & AF and operated them subsonicly IAD-DFW the route did not last long.

Concorde uses over 20 tonnes of fuel per hour at supersonic speed the consuption is the same but the distance covered doubles-effectively halving the consumption.

Apart form anything else LAX & SFO have banned even subsonic Concorde operations


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Not happening, but I want to see BA re-start thier thrice daily LHR-IAD-MIA route, which ran between 1984 and 1991. The route did not make much sense to Miamians, because for the premium you pay over flying a BA 747, you save less than two hours of flying time, because of the stop in IAD and the sub-sonic flying on MIA-IAD. It was pretty popular though, though traffic was dwindleing (on the average, about 30 passengers originated in Miami each flight), and it was cut, with IAD-LHR cut not long after.


a.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13218 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2613 times:

The reason BA started the Miami route was to breathe some life into the IAD service, it was only marginally successful, and once it stopped it sealed the IAD route's fate, (it ended in 1994).
Minimum fuel for landing is 9 tonnes.
Highly fuel-efficient in supercruise, Concorde is the opposite at subsonic speeds.
Oakland has been visited on round-the-world charters, LAX may have been too.
Don't expect them before 2003, well that's the official version, we've heard that BA marketing want the expensive charters back sooner.



User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Hello,

IAD-MIA was supersonic, wasn't it?


Best regards,
Alain Mengus


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32877 posts, RR: 71
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2560 times:

AFA340, no, it was not. Though it did go over water.

Also, side note, but I know you were asking this about Air France, but they will be using the 744 to MIA for all of the winter schedule after all.



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...
Concorde Alpha Bravo Moved At LHR posted Mon May 29 2006 10:09:39 by UAL777UK
Concorde BA97 LHR-YYZ-JFK. 1 Year Ago Today posted Fri Oct 1 2004 13:42:20 by MartinairYYZ
LAX/SFO-JFK/EWR Redeye Load Factors posted Tue Aug 31 2004 14:54:30 by COEWR2587
Why Is The Concorde Next To A Runway At LHR? posted Tue Jul 20 2004 16:11:17 by 22right
SQ To LAX And JFK, What Direction? posted Mon Nov 3 2003 00:56:38 by Sjoerd
Concorde Aborted Takeoff Again Today @ LHR...? posted Tue Aug 5 2003 21:50:57 by Star_world
UA's LAX/SFO-JFK Planes Historically? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 17:21:11 by RayChuang
Qantas Formula One On Its Way To LAX And JFK posted Thu Aug 9 2001 09:02:49 by N178UA
Concorde Incident Near Hit At JFK? posted Tue Jun 22 2004 15:15:50 by Mirrodie
Recent Concorde Schedules In/out Of Jfk? posted Sun Dec 16 2001 18:10:27 by Mirrodie