TOMASKEMPNER From Mexico, joined May 2001, 389 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2753 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.
NiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2712 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!)
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2695 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
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32789 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2679 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2596 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.