Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:20 am

Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?

"300 passengers at Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound, making the run from Tokyo to Los Angeles in about four hours" That would be sweet!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/TRAVEL/


The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
hz747300
Posts: 1908
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:30 am

Richard Branson insists that he can make the Concord work, even in its current form. I think he would be right on top of the list of any new supersonic passenger transport.

Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.
Keep on truckin'...
 
Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:51 am

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 1):
Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.

My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use. I could be wrong...and I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:57 am

Interesting...
I look at the picture and think...expensive.
I look at the picture and think...not from Tokyo.

Then I read the article and thought... Okay they want to do this..great. If Japan can develop a train that can go superfast why not a plane. They have the money, the engineers and the capability.

The picture was a little misleading. The plane looks like the Boeing design from the 70s. But the booster looks ...well not welcome. If they can make it work with jet engines...great.

But Can they make it fuel efficient and quiet? We shall see. When I can fly over the pacific in 4 hours... I will be happy. By then I will have kids, a morgage and ready to retire.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:05 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
The plane looks like the Boeing design from the 70s

True...



The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2789
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:11 pm

Quoting Centrair (Reply 3):
I look at the picture and think...not from Tokyo.

Why not? You realize this is just a test, right? The rocket on the bottom of the plane is not going to be there in the final design, obviously...

The Japanese government would not be involved in this if the intent was not to fly out of Tokyo. Obviously, if they're saying Tokyo to LA in 4 hours, that's more than a fantasy, that's a suggestion. They are telling their homegrown airlines how they think they will be able to use this plane.

I'm not sure where Kashimo is in Japan so I don't know if you've ever flown in or out of Tokyo internationally, but Narita Airport is in the middle of nowhere. (The farmers constantly fighting against it don't see it that way, but it's a very low-density area.) Airplanes take off over farmland and they're over water in just a few minutes. Sonic booms wouldn't be an issue.

What they need to do is figure out how to do routes like Tokyo-JFK in this thing. The Concorde was not allowed to fly supersonic over the United States (Tokyo-JFK is over Canada most of the way, but I'd think similar rules would apply). It's not going to be worth developing this plane if it can only be used on over-water routes. The airlines themselves might still potentially make money on it but I don't think enough planes would be bought that the development costs would be covered.

If they can figure out a way to minimize sonic booms and get this thing flying over land, and they can make the airplane itself fairly economical (moreso than the Concorde), with 300 passengers, then I think the plane will be a big hit, especially for Asian airlines.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:17 pm

>> My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use.

Not any more than a turbofan engine is intended for military use. Scramjets are still highly experimental, so all the research and application work is being done by research labs, NASA, DoD, etc.

>> I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?

Yes, NASA successfuly flew a vehicle called Hyper-X, which after being accelerated to hypersonic speed by a booster rocket, sustained (and accelerated) to the highest velocity of any air-breathing aircraft.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/HyperX/index.html

>> Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?

Probably not...
 
Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:19 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):

Thanks for the info and the link.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
vivek0072
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:43 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:38 pm

Quoting Blasphemystic (Thread starter):
Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?



If it flies from Tokyo to LA in 4hrs and it costs as much as flying on a 747 on the same route then I would opt for the sonic cruiser.
That life's most failures were people who did not realise how close they were to success when they gave up. - Edison.
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:52 pm

My comment was just on the picture. I looked at the picture and thought it was a "artists redering of a final design". It made me think...can it even take off from any airport. My brain was not in full gear. Then I read the article and realized it was the artists rendition of the test vehicle.

My village is near Chubu International and of course I have flown in and out of NRT nothing is that far in Japan. I can get there in 4.5 hours by car, KIX in 3.5 and NGO in 1.5.

I think supersonic is great but as said above if it can't fly over land... forget it. Not worth it.

Another thing to keep in mind is Japanese Govt. Not the best at keeping money down. With the way politics are going here and many politicians getting railed for over spending and fiscal irresponisbility I would not be surpised if it eventually gets shelved.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:03 pm

I want to pay less for my long-haul international tickets, not more! Give me some extra legroom and I'll be happy. No need for SST IMO.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11817
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:05 pm

I wonder...

I worked on a Sonic Cruiser engine proposal and in no way could it be made economical enough. Supersonic is more costly. At $65/bbl, this will be a costly plane to fly. High oil prices killed the Concorde... Physical fact: aerodynamics say drag will be high during supersonic flight or even near sonic. Find me a trick for low supersonic drag and I bet I could find something similar for subsonic flight.

Will the "new Concorde" meet emissions? The US will never again issue an emissions waiver for a whole class of airframes as it did for the Concorde.

Will it meet noise? Tough, but possible.

The US spent a ton of money on the SST and eventually gave it up.

Would I like a 4 hour trans-pacific flight? Sure!

Quoting Vivek0072 (Reply 8):


If it flies from Tokyo to LA in 4hrs and it costs as much as flying on a 747 on the same route then I would opt for the sonic cruiser.

That's the problem... Boeing shelved the SST during a meeting with contractors right after asking a question: how many PAID for a 1st class flight to the meeting? No one raised their hand. A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:11 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):

So in reality...there is no future for SST in every day airline travel. I admit I will give it a try one time just for the feel and pay the high price for a seat..and in the end im with SATX

Quoting SATX (Reply 10):
I want to pay less for my long-haul international tickets, not more! Give me some extra legroom and I'll be happy. No need for SST IMO.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
Bohlman
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:18 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
That's the problem... Boeing shelved the SST during a meeting with contractors right after asking a question: how many PAID for a 1st class flight to the meeting? No one raised their hand. A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

Uh.. no... they cancelled the project after the government pulled the funding. And besides, I wouldn't be so flippant about things like this. They can get the Raptor to supercruise, there's nothing except security clearances from putting two or three (trijet!) of those suckers on an airplane and getting it up to sustained cruise above M1.5 with comperable PSM costs. Ten years down the line when technology like the F119 becomes more mainstream, and we'll see what happens with things like this proposal.
I'm not pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, I'm pro-crew all the way.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:15 am

What 'New Concorde?'
There is no SST project, unless you really want to believe the general media, (which a disturbing number of apparent aviation enthusiasts on here seem to do).

These Studies are low level, with not a tiny fraction of the funding to make a SST.
Japan has been doing this for years, I saw a bunch Japanese Aerospace people look over a BA Concorde in 1999.

So Branson reckoned he could make Concorde work? He told you that did he, or his friends in the media?
Oh well, must be true.

(As someone who was actually involved with this aircraft, it wasn't true, ever, and Branson knew that, he also knew the average Joe would not know this and reap a PR benefit, so again, what are alleged aviation enthusiasts doing swallowing his BS?)
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2789
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:01 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
A seat will cost multiples more than a seat in a 747.

And the Japanese will pay it.

Both major Japanese airlines (and some American ones, for that matter) sell out 747 flights sometimes months in advance. If they could increase flight frequency with fewer planes, they'd be all for it (they could basically double up on flights with the same number of planes, or fly the same number of flights with half the planes). They could charge whatever premium they wanted; the Japanese are not as frugal with their money on long trips as we are in the west. No, it wouldn't replace 747 or 777 service, but there are definitely quite a few people there who would be willing to pay a premium to have a full extra day of vacation (right now, flying to and from Japan basically means at *least* an entire night and day lost in both directions, once you factor in jet lag and time zones) or to reclaim an extra's days worth of work on a business trip.

The flight time from the US to Asia is still a major barrier to travel. It is not the same as going to Europe. You're talking 14 hours from New York to Tokyo - add in travel times to and from the airport, time spent in the airport, and time zone changes, and you have both lost an entire day *and* you will likely need to go to sleep as soon as you get to Japan. So that's really two days gone right there. Supersonic travel would cut that issue down to where it's at least no worse than flying from the US to Europe or from Japan to other Asian destinations.

You could say "well, why didn't Japan buy the Concorde, then?" Well, that's the point of designing a new plane - the Concorde obviously had some problems that they're trying to overcome. But people are acting like there's no market for supersonic travel from Asia and that is most definitely not true. There is a market, people will pay a premium, and the service would be extremely popular if it existed. Otherwise Japan would not be involved in this endeavor. The question is making it viable for both the airlines and whoever's going to build this thing.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:37 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 14):
So Branson reckoned he could make Concorde work? He told you that did he, or his friends in the media?
Oh well, must be true.

(As someone who was actually involved with this aircraft, it wasn't true, ever, and Branson knew that, he also knew the average Joe would not know this and reap a PR benefit, so again, what are alleged aviation enthusiasts doing swallowing his BS?)

I prefer to trust Sir Rod on this, his comments were to the point. Branson couldn't afford it, couldn't afford the staff to run it and couldn't sell the tickets if he did.

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 13):
They can get the Raptor to supercruise, there's nothing except security clearances from putting two or three (trijet!) of those suckers on an airplane and getting it up to sustained cruise above M1.5 with comperable PSM costs.

If only life were as simple as that. Concorde could supercruise after all. Engines are only a small part of the whole package. If newer engines were able to bust the problems then there might have been an airliner derivative of the Rockwell B-1 flying today. It's still about large structures flying hot and high. Even composites can be troublesome at those speeds and temperatures.

I still think the USA made a grave error giving Boeing the contract to develop the 2707 in the first place. If anyone could have made it work it would have been Kelly Johnson and Lockheed, the other contender.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
avek00
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:42 am

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 15):
And the Japanese will pay it.

The Brits, Americans, and French were unwilling to pay it in Concorde's later years, and the USA-UK/France air markets are FAR larger than the USA-Japan market.
Live life to the fullest.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:00 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
I worked on a Sonic Cruiser engine proposal and in no way could it be made economical enough. Supersonic is more costly. At $65/bbl, this will be a costly plane to fly. High oil prices killed the Concorde... Physical fact: aerodynamics say drag will be high during supersonic flight or even near sonic. Find me a trick for low supersonic drag and I bet I could find something similar for subsonic flight.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The usual measure of aerodynamic productivity is ML/D, or speed times lift divided by drag. Speed is obvious, while the lift/drag part represents how much thrust (=fuel burn) is required to maintain cruise (where lift=weight).

The worst possible place to be, in terms of ML/D, is Mach 1. This is why I was skeptical of the Sonic Cruiser from the start. Above Mach 2, the fact that you can fly twice as many flights with the same plane and crew starts to compensate for increased fuel costs. The CASM will certainly be higher, but not necessarily by the gross margins people expect.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 11):
Will it meet noise? Tough, but possible.

This is the big issue. Sonic boom regulations kill the aircraft, since it can't be optimized to fly supersonic and subsonic.

mrocktor
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:25 am

This is not the development of a "new Concorde." It is the type of low-level supersonic research that has been going on for the last 50 years: necessary and commendable, but certainly not worth getting too excited about.

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 1):
Besides, I thought that the scramjet was supposed to be the answer for all of this.

Scramjets (supersonic combustion ramjets) are only really efficient above about Mach 5 and cannot be used at all at subsonic or transonic speeds, since the engine depends on supersonic flow through the inlet and combustion chamber. HyperX was launched on a Pegasus rocket and boosted to Mach 3; not a viable concept for an airliner.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 16):
I still think the USA made a grave error giving Boeing the contract to develop the 2707 in the first place. If anyone could have made it work it would have been Kelly Johnson and Lockheed, the other contender.

During the SST competition Boeing had never built a supersonic airplane, but Lockheed had never built a jet airliner and its last commercial product, the Electra, was not especially successful; by then, Lockheed was more focused on military products. Both firms had their weaknesses.

There is a case to be made that Boeing didn't know what it was getting into. On paper, the 2707 was a superior if more complicated design than the L-2000, with higher L/Ds throughout the speed range, greater payload-range capability, lower takeoff and landing speeds, and less noise. Of course, as Boeing found out, assumptions made on the drawing board do not always hold true in the real world.

That said, Lockheed in the late 1960s/early 1970s was not in great shape either. Cost overruns on the C-5 and the L-1011/RB.211 disaster would have pushed Lockheed into bankruptcy if not for emergency federal loan guarantees, although it's possible that the L-1011 would have been shelved if the L-2000 had gone ahead.

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 15):
But people are acting like there's no market for supersonic travel from Asia and that is most definitely not true. There is a market, people will pay a premium, and the service would be extremely popular if it existed. Otherwise Japan would not be involved in this endeavor. The question is making it viable for both the airlines and whoever's going to build this thing.

Your last sentence is the problem, and it's currently an insoluble one. There is a market for the end product -- I'm sure a 25% surcharge for Mach 2-2.4 transpacific service would sell itself quite easily. However, whether an SST could be operated economically at these fare levels remains to be seen; fuel burn and CASM will undoubtedly be higher, and there are real concerns about cannibalizing premium traffic from the subsonic fleet.

The real problem, though, is that a new SST will be so much more costly and take so much longer to develop than a comparable subsonic that viable fare premiums don't come anywhere near justifying the whole project.

The base case for a Mach 2.4, 300-pax, 5,000nm SST (NASA's HSCT Technology Concept Aircraft) is a 15-year development program costing around $30 billion with sales projected at 500 frames. Given this much money and time, Boeing and Airbus could easily turn over their entire subsonic fleets which much greater return on investment and much lower risk. No sane investor would take on such a project, and government subsidization simply shifts the insanity onto the taxpayer.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:41 am

Whitehatter, it wasn't even Eddington that could stop Branson's mythical Concorde dream, (apart from not letting him have any BA aircraft, truth is, BA were forced into retiring Concorde as AF pulling out doubled costs, though BA may have stopped 18 months to 2 years later, as Eddington indicated it was, for BA, being retired that amount of time sooner than expected), but more to the point, both Airbus and the CAA told Branson it was not going to happen, CAA knew you needed a workforce experienced in depth on the type, Airbus knew Branson could not afford it, so who pays them for supporting it?

Concorde did demonstrate a market, it would not have operated for anything 27 years it if hadn't, would not have survived BA being privatized either in 1987, though ironically it's limited capacity helped this, the surcharge was 1st class + 20%
Maybe not as easy to fill a 300 seater, which would not be all 1st class, might not even be 1st and Business only.

Who wants to strip much of the 1st/Business cabins pax from all those subsonics on any SST served routes, making all them suddenly unviable?
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:04 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Who wants to strip much of the 1st/Business cabins pax from all those subsonics on any SST served routes, making all them suddenly unviable?

I would. If I could get more profit out of flying the 1st/Biz pax on a SST, I certainly would. Whether they are flying on the same plane or not, the "high yield" pax are subsidizing the economy fares.

mrocktor
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:19 am

I was thinking more of the massive investment, over decades, of long haul subsonics, now largely unviable with a new SST, rather than the airlines themselves.
They couldn't all become cargo planes, or jam packed for a long range LCC.

So Boeing and/or Airbus would rather make a highly risky, controversial, limited market SST, rather than the far more familiar, conventional airliners?
Maybe one day, decades from now, not soon.

Personally I think eventually high speed flight might happen for pax in some kind of sub orbital vehicle, rather than a SST.
Such a vehicle is a long way off, but then so is an environmentally acceptable, economically viable SST.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:28 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Whitehatter, it wasn't even Eddington that could stop Branson's mythical Concorde dream, (apart from not letting him have any BA aircraft, truth is, BA were forced into retiring Concorde as AF pulling out doubled costs, though BA may have stopped 18 months to 2 years later, as Eddington indicated it was, for BA, being retired that amount of time sooner than expected), but more to the point, both Airbus and the CAA told Branson it was not going to happen, CAA knew you needed a workforce experienced in depth on the type, Airbus knew Branson could not afford it, so who pays them for supporting it?

Rod Eddington's comments were taken from Piers Morgan's book and were as precise a summation of the situation as possible. It was all a Virgin PR exercise at the expense of British Airways. Most of the technical people who could have supported the operation were longtime BA staff and would never have left their benefits and pensions just to work for Sir Beard, and that's even before getting into infrastructure and spares.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Concorde did demonstrate a market, it would not have operated for anything 27 years it if hadn't, would not have survived BA being privatized either in 1987, though ironically it's limited capacity helped this, the surcharge was 1st class + 20%

Except that the market had evaporated by the time BA pulled the aircraft. It just was not generating sufficient interest any more, and many account clients (the backbone of the BA service) had either gone to first class tickets on the 747 or 777 or, regrettably, had perished on September the 11th.

Again, direct quotes from Rod Eddington. September the 11th took out a large number of Concorde regulars.

Unless you can get over the cost hump of supersonic services then anything more than a supersonic corporate shuttle is going to be hard to sell anywhere in the world. Even the transpacific supersonic would be burdened by the same economics as the 777LR and A345 have, which is carrying fuel for that last hundred miles.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:42 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
>> My understanding is that the SCRAMJET is intended for military use.

Not any more than a turbofan engine is intended for military use. Scramjets are still highly experimental, so all the research and application work is being done by research labs, NASA, DoD, etc.

>> I dont hear much news from NASA regarding it. I know they were supposed to do some testings in 2004. Anyone know how it went?

Yes, NASA successfuly flew a vehicle called Hyper-X, which after being accelerated to hypersonic speed by a booster rocket, sustained (and accelerated) to the highest velocity of any air-breathing aircraft.

Just to set the record straight, NASA followed-up on work done in Australia. The sucess of the Australian test resulted in NASA getting better backing for a local US project.

"On July 30, 2002 the University of Queensland (Australia) HyShot team culminated many years of work when they sent their second scramjet payload up into the atmosphere on the back of a Terrior Orion rocket in a test flight. They made history - it turned out to be the first successful launch of a scramjet in the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:59 am

Whitehatter, yes that's all true, the very poor premium market in early 2003 caused to BA001 to move to 18.30, to try and capture a more leisure market in the hope of tiding us over until the business market would recover properly, (which now it has ironically).
Allowing by then the usual morning departure to return, importantly supplemented by the return of the evening service BA003 too, at least for some of the week (could fill them Friday/Sunday and Monday probably)

This is why we stopped work on G-BOAB's full cabin upgrade/return to flight in late 2002, OAB was justified by returning BA003/BA004's, with those deferred again into at least 2004, the business case could not be made at that time.

Truth is, for operational robustness, OAB should have come back in service in 2002 anyway, but BA had to justify every penny spent then, still we could have done more in the 6 months after retirement was announced with Bravo n the pack, including round the bay charters.

More irony, after the retirement was announced, filling them was easy, but we had painted ourselves into an operational corner by then, so could not expand, the AF intention to pull out came as a bolt from the blue, hence us not having the time to account for a surge in demand, had BA known just how much the demand would surge after April 10 2003, we'd have prepared better and probably run to Late March 2004.
 
soylentgreen
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:33 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 am

With the number of millionaires doubling each year, and the fact that the Concorde did fill most of its seats at $8,000 roundtrip between NY and London, I believe there is a market for SST travel in the future. Assuming it's priced at twice first class, rather than four times, it can work. My opinion only.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:35 am

>> Just to set the record straight

The record wasn't un-straight  Wink

>> With the number of millionaires doubling each year, and the fact that the Concorde did fill most of its seats at $8,000 roundtrip between NY and London, I believe there is a market for SST travel in the future.

Does this mean a market for SST travel or super-premium travel? "Elite" may just have to settle for the latter, in which case, Primaris would be good to go...
 
Blasphemystic
Topic Author
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:48 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:45 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
With the number of millionaires doubling each year, and the fact that the Concorde did fill most of its seats at $8,000

Concorde carried about 90 passengers. The one they are planning on building is to seat 300...I dont think (atleast from my circle of friends) there are that many millionaires willing to spent 8K on a ticket. To be honest like I said earlier give me some leg room and a comfortable seat and I can handle the time it takes in a 747..and I would enjoy it.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good. -- Samuel Johnson
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:57 am

GDB - I've got to give you credit, your knowledge of Concorde and BA ops. is pretty darn good! I hope you have got a permanent record of all your contributions over the years as combined together it would probably make a good read!

T.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:13 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 25):
More irony, after the retirement was announced, filling them was easy, but we had painted ourselves into an operational corner by then, so could not expand, the AF intention to pull out came as a bolt from the blue, hence us not having the time to account for a surge in demand, had BA known just how much the demand would surge after April 10 2003, we'd have prepared better and probably run to Late March 2004.

I enjoy your posts on the subject as you are obviously someone who knows Concorde ops inside out. So at a slight tangent...

What are your opinions on the limited use proposal? Where one would have been kept flying for airshows and publicity? Or was that always going to be a non-starter due to the extreme cost? Or one idea that did the rounds which was to transfer at least two to the Royal Air Force?

I do think that although AC makes a great exhibit at MAN it does look forlorn in that it won't move again under its own power. So maybe semi-preservation for a number of years might have been an idea, but was that always going to be hopelessly expensive for BA? On a marketing basis it was always a brilliant tool.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:48 am

Whitehatter (and G-CIVP), sadly a limited use proposal was seen as a non starter, for cost reasons, Concorde's expensive, unique support network, needed a full airline operation (both BA and AF) running to fund it.
Hence the more limited post Sept 11th BA operation not being sufficient to account for the inevitable rise in maint costs, the coup de grace being AF's need to exit the type, they if anything were under far more pressure, having a much smaller scheduled service base to start with.

The MoD would have recoiled in horror at taking on the costs for what is, lets face it, a limited VIP aircraft with VERY little general military transport application, they cannot justify a 2nd hand A340-200, much less Concorde.

One of my colleagues then (ex RAF, Ex-BAC, worked on Concorde intakes since 1973), reckoned a dual use VIP/Canberra PR.9 replacement could have worked.
Huh? I said, where do you put the PR.9's sensor suite?
His reply was in the forward cargo hold, not used much anyway, the under-fuselage door modded with windows for the sensors.
What about ECM/ESM was my next question, his reply, in the tailcone, weren't BAC going to shoe-horn an APU in there if Pan Am kept on insisting on one?
(Which they did, I've seen the correspondence going back to 1964, and BAC drawings of such an installation from 1970, but PA cancelled anyway), so room was there.

Again, money, or lack of it, was the stumbling block, even if such an idea had been entertained.
 
Worldliner
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:23 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:52 am

is there any chance of a design from bea. surely they have the most info as they made the best flying machine ever. the concorde

worldliner
@777Worldliner
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:11 am

BAE are not in the game of building airliners now, except as an Airbus partner.
Any new SST would be a multi-national effort, beyond Airbus or Boeing, likely a combination of both with Japan.

This is why, despite no prospect of a SST, Japan is carrying out this basic research, if things should change they'd have plenty to bring to the SST party.
But this work has other applications, Japan is keen on developing a probably unmanned, mini-reuseable Space Shuttle type vehicle, for servicing ISS and/or satellite launching.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:44 am

GDB, I agree, your knowledge is outstanding. So here's a question (or two).

What is stopping another company buying the blueprints for Concorde, modifying the plans (ie putting more up to date cockpits, developing more efficient quieter engines, etc) and building a load of other Concordes that would be that much "better", if you like, than the previous models.

Also, what is stopping two or more countries, for example USA/UK/France/Japan etc from teaming up in the way the UK and France did, and developing a new Concorde? Or even two or more aircraft manufacturers, eg Airbus/Boeing/Lockheed etc, teaming up to design such an aircraft? If any country teams up with UK/France, they have the experience of Concorde behind them, or even Russia's background with the (flawed) Tu144?

One more, what is your take on the Welsh MP who claims Concorde can be returned to the sky for "just" £14million?

I heard someones idea of preserving her without complex systems such as afterburner, but she required them to take off so that made me laugh a bit, although it is probably do-able...

[Edited 2005-08-25 19:54:53]
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
RAMPRAT980
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:06 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:04 am

Quoting HZ747300 (Reply 1):
Richard Branson insists that he can make the Concord work, even in its current form. I think he would be right on top of the list of any new supersonic passenger transport.

Didn't Branson offer to purchase one or two Concorde planes ?
With gun control there can be no democracy.. With gun control there can be no Freedom
 
cun757
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 12:27 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:16 am

Quoting RAMPRAT980 (Reply 35):
Didn't Branson offer to purchase one or two Concorde planes ?

I think he can made them... His very rich, and he loves planes... so why don't start to build them...?
Can any one tell him to invite me to work with him... Can you imagine his factory in Cancun...? great isn't is...
757 forever
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:35 am

for a business aspect, see my post in thread regarding Boeing/Airbus loosing a market: http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eral_aviation/read.main/2293978/6/

Quoting Blasphemystic (Thread starter):
Will there REALLY be a future for this type of aircraft?

"300 passengers at Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound, making the run from Tokyo to Los Angeles in about four hours" That would be sweet!!!

It would be sweet. If people thought they couldn't afford it, as long as they <>precieve it out of their reach especially with oil costsing what it does, it aint happening. Note the word in bold. Once you give people the option they will take it if they never got to just to try it out the first few times.

From what I read about the japanese plane's engines, are they dual engines conbinations like next-gen versions of SR-71's airturboramjets? A ramjet is more fuel efficient between Mach 1.7 and Mach 5, where a turbine sucks@ss after Mach 1.7 despite Concorde flying without reheat slightly beyond that speed. IMO, the next sonic should not have a turbine-based engine for it's sonic corridor otherwise its a fuel guzzler.

Perhaps this is a question for techies: Has anyone noticed the low-boom tech on the plane? I'm impressed (Hint: it's in the arearule)
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:52 am

Branson? No, no and no again!
As I said, neither the UK airworthiness regulatory people, nor Airbus, would allow it.
And they told him as much in May 2003, I'll yet you consider why he carried on with his PR effort after that, knowing it was a sham.

A couple of times in the 1990's he asked to lease an AF Concorde, the times they actually bothered to reply to him, the answer was always 'non'.
Why was his 2003 PR effort aimed at BA when he knew full well AF had effectively caused the retirement?

That MP (Lembit Opik) is out for PR too, £14M? Add a zero to that and you might be close, he's been in touch with 'Save-Concorde' a bunch of malcontents who have not a clue about the aircraft, I've met some of them and I'm like BA and Airbus, I don't take them seriously.

BA looked hard at a 'Heritage Flight' (probably OAG), for airshows, but even if some systems were removed, the main cost of support is still there, but with no airline revenues, dependent on a network that no longer exists, (all those spares auctioned off too), BA couldn't make it work, if they couldn't, who in all seriousness could, who knew enough about it?
No bad thing, what is the point of a denuded, subsonic, empty Concorde?
Maybe my experience drives this, but to me, and many others, Concorde was an operational SST, or nothing.

You are not going to make a 707NG, a DC-8NG, a VC-10NG, so you won't make a ConcordeNG either.
Simple as that, the design was frozen in 1965.
No engine exists with the supercruise performance of the Oly 593, military or civil, and Concordes engines are totally unacceptable for noise, emissions by today's standards, illegal if you were making them now, Concorde only got away with it back 30 years ago because there were so few of them.

'Better' than Concorde is just nowhere near enough, much more modern proposals like the late 1990's NASA/Boeing HSCT, never happened as even they
could not meet future environmental regs, even if they could meet current ones, that and no solid business case to do it anyway.

So yet again;
Concorde is not coming back, deal with it, I had to and I was directly affected by it going.
There is no viable new SST on the horizon.

Put it another way (god knows putting the facts directly is not sinking in is it?), see Concorde as the UK/French equivalent of the Apollo programme (which some NASA people who visited us in 1997 thought of it).
Both were politically motivated high tech programmes.
Both were controversial.
Both requiring a technological and manpower effort from the industries concerned.
Both have gone with no replacement.

Now NASA might be back on the Moon in just over a decade from now, but not by replicating Apollo/Saturn.
After what will then be some 45 years since Apollo 17 in Dec 1972.
I would not be at all surprised at a similar gap between Concorde and some form of high speed pax vehicle, be it a new SST or more likely some sort of sub-orbital vehicle.

I'm not counting even the more realistic SSBJ proposals, not being airliners as such and not even being as fast as Concorde, they could come sooner, they might, just might, speed a new SST up allowing around 20-25 year gap from Concorde retirement, then again they are just, if not more likely, to take the very market the far more difficult SST would need, the latter is more likely.

If there is a new supersonic transport, it will be a SSBJ, the Aerion design looks do-able, but if it and others happen, the already remote SST prospects will be further away than ever.
Sub-orbital is the eventual way to go.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:54 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 38):
the Aerion design looks do-able

- it's much more than just doable. Somehow, with Aerion being revealed, all these "no suitable engine... no way to meet environmental regs... forget about business case... nobody has a faintest idea how to make it efficient on both subsonic and supersonic speeds, ..., ..., ..." disappeared. Even if this particular one never flies, the way to build it is there. Who could believe it just a year ago that we were going to have a viable SST idea that soon? And I don't know why it's "not not an airliner as such". Both Aerion and SAI talk about airline versions of their designs (BTW, I won't write-off SAI QSST right away: more complicated/expensive it is, but it offers supersonic cruise overland - I know, it may take years at best to have it permitted but, again, as they claim 19 tests confirmed almost zero sonic boom, the proven and viable idea of it is there too). Much smaller than Concorde (easier to fill, more schedule flexibility), much less unique (infrastructure network to be much less "special"), even if ticket price is comparable to First - still looks pretty viable (there are plenty of First class seats on airliners worldwide, I would expect enough of those who take them to trade space for speed), and it is not unlikely that the price will be not that high. Time will tell, but we are not in "not going to happen in my lifetime" situation anymore.

As for suborbital - I don't think average person can take a seat in one without medical exam (that was a requirement not only for tourist flights on Soyuz spacecraft, but also for flights on MiG29/31), while SST is, well, just a plane...
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:31 pm

Yes but Aerion would still be a SSBJ, a (20-30 seat) 'Airline' version is not a full size airliner, we don't call the Canadair Challenger derived CRJ a full size airliner, and that has been stretched rather more than an Aerion might be possible to do.

At Mach 1.4-1.5 it's not as fast as Concorde, with much lower capacity this does not make it a direct replacement.
It will get around the SST pitfalls by that speed limitation, no need for a variable intake (Concordes started working at Mach 1.7), the small size allowing an existing (JT8D-200) engine without reheat.

I'd like to see it, would love to fly on it, but if any new vehicle cannot carry anywhere near as many pax as Concorde, at a rather lower speed with around the same range, it is not a proper replacement.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8004
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:59 pm

I think a new SST is not as far away as some people think.

Consider how aerospace technology has evolved since the days of the Concorde. We are within reach of building a technologically advanced Mach 1.6-1.7 very long range SST for the following reasons:

1. By limiting the top speed to Mach 1.6-1.7, that means less structural heating (meaning more use of very light weight composite materials). As such, that means more payload, range and vastly lower fuel burn compared to the Concorde.

2. Engine technology has evolved tremendously since the days of Concorde. With variable-cycle engines and the experience learned from the engines used on the F-22A Raptor, we can build a jet engine that will 1) meet the strict standards for exhaust emissions, 2) meet the strict ICAO Stage IV noise emissions standard and 3) run with far less reheat (afterburning) at high power settings. It also means lower fuel burn, which means flights as far as SIN to LHR with most of its flight at supersonic speeds are well within reach.

3. Thanks to modern computational fluid dynamics simulations and better understanding of sonic boom generation, we now know how to shape the entire airplane design so the pressure wave buildup that causes the sonic boom is dramatically reduced or the sonic boom energy directed away from the ground. That makes it possible to fly at Mach 1.6 at high altitudes over land with people on the ground not hearing the sonic boom anymore!  bigthumbsup 

I can envision a Mach 1.6-1.7 SST seating 250 passengers that will be just as quiet as a 747-400 on takeoff and landing but can fly SIN-LHR non-stop.  Smile
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:10 am

GDB,

Of course, I didn't talk about Concorde direct replacement. Proposed SBBJs will be neither as fast and have comparable capacity, nor are they going to be same magnificent "rocket" as Concorde was (I saw the last commercial departure of G-BOAG from LHR on Oct 23rd 2003, a white bird with reheat flames in the dark sky! Will never be "replaced"...). But they still are supersonic aircraft with passengers onboard, even if a 50-seat version is never built (don't remember, which one of Aerion and SAI talked about 30 seats and which one about 50... well, so far original 8-12 pax thing is not built either  Smile). Full size or not, it is not unlikely that if either of them ever flies, some airlines will get them. Ironically, "smaller", "not as fast" makes it way more realistic to be built - especially as it is going to be with more range and same efficient on subsonic speed that will allow to fly overland with no range penalty - or, if SAI idea is a success, even to fly overland on M1.6
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: The New Concorde - Is There A Future?

Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:25 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 41):
2. Engine technology has evolved tremendously since the days of Concorde. With variable-cycle engines and the experience learned from the engines used on the F-22A Raptor, we can build a jet engine that will 1) meet the strict standards for exhaust emissions, 2) meet the strict ICAO Stage IV noise emissions standard and 3) run with far less reheat (afterburning) at high power settings. It also means lower fuel burn, which means flights as far as SIN to LHR with most of its flight at supersonic speeds are well within reach.

AFAIK, there is no feasible variable-cycle engine design on the drawing board anywhere in the world. The F-22's engines are low-bypass afterburning turbofans (not truly variable-cycle) that have been optimized for supersonic rather than subsonic cruise. Aerion's engines will also be turbofans with a fixed intake system. For small engines with low-Mach cruising speeds, you can get away with this, but not on a large, long-range aircraft.

During the last SST go-around in the late 1990s, the High-Speed Civil Transport program, NASA, Boeing, and (for a while) McDonnell-Douglas poured over a billion dollars into technology development. Despite this, they still could not develop an engine both powerful enough to get a 740,000-pound aircraft off the runway and through the sound barrier and quiet enough to meet Stage IV standards. The HSCT's mixer/ejector silencing nozzles were each the size of an RV and must have weighed thousands of pounds, yet were still not enough to reach Stage IV.

If there has been a breakthrough since the HSCT program, the situation may change, but I have not heard of one. For effective supersonic propulsion, exhaust velocity must be high and mass flow low, while for efficient and quiet subsonic propulsion, mass flow should be high and velocity as low as possible.

Until we find a way to change bypass ratios in flight without a lot of added weight and complexity, an airliner-size SST faces an uphill battle to match, let alone keep up with, the rapidly improving performance of high-bypass subsonic turbofans.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AV8AJET, Baidu [Spider], blockski, BobPatterson, brandnsn, crazyplane1234, DC1979, doulasc, flyer1225, Focker, gcskye, intotheair, jetmatt777, LAX772LR, log0008, PlanesNTrains, qf789, sagechan, Yahoo [Bot] and 316 guests