bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:28 am

Somebody made my day by showing me this video!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RsJqMjpFNs

That has got me thinking !! What if a mach 2 , 250PAX aircraft can be made ( bigger ofcourse) out of composite and more effeceint turbojets ? What it find enough takers to make it viable ? Would a buisness class Passenger opt instead to travel faster but with lesser comfort !!
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:34 am

I pray that it would. I miss her. I used to hear her engines every weekend, and see her gorgeous shape. It's truly sad she's gone.

I'll say this, whoever does it as a manufacturer will have my unwaivering support.

[Edited 2006-11-15 02:36:10]
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:41 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
I'll say this, whoever does it as a manufacturer will have my unwaivering support

I'll be Chirac's biggest supporter if he commits 20 billion euros to develop such a thing!! To hell with my views on launch aid if any country decides to launch a SST.


Although this is a bit interesting -

Quote:
L.A. to Tokyo in Four Hours - The Future High-Speed Civil Transport

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/FutofFlt.html


Personally I see Lockheed Martin trying something like this !! I know Sukhoi is planning a SS BJ with Lockheed's assistance but If they could team up and build a concord replacement It would be amazing not only because of the capability but also because 2 giants and former rivals came to the plate and provided a new force in the commercial sector.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:44 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 2):
Personally I see Lockheed Martin trying something like this !! I know Sukhoi is planning a SS BJ with Lockheed's assistance but If they could team up and build a concord replacement It would be amazing not only because of the capability but also because 2 giants and former rivals came to the plate and provided a new force in the commercial sector.

I wouldn't count the Russians out. Although my money would be on Boeing + Tupolev personally. That's assuming US/Russia politics settle down.

As someone who is a big fan of both Concorde and the Avro Arrow (many Avro engineers worked on Concorde after that project was scrapped) I know that we *can* do incredible things as human beings when we set our minds to it. All that seems to be lacking is the will, I doubt we aren't 'smart' enough to figure it out.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Foxy
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:54 pm

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:45 am

There is still something about Concorde which sends a shiver down my spine, As that video states it was the natural centrepiece for national celebrations and i think this one of the biggest reasons one should have been kept airworthy, but alas.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting Foxy (Reply 4):
There is still something about Concorde which sends a shiver down my spine, As that video states it was the natural centrepiece for national celebrations and i think this one of the biggest reasons one should have been kept airworthy, but alas.

I think it's a shame several weren't kept air worthy. Scratch that.. I think disgrace is more appropriate...
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
eatmybologna
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:09 am

Watching the video almost brought a tear to my eye. Oh, what the heck, it did bring one to my eye.

I hope Lockheed & the Russians can work something out

E-M-B  weeping 
Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
 
bongo
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:32 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:09 am

What a nice video, thanks. It brings good memories to me, back in 1.985, I flew on Air France´s Concorde and it was a moment I won´t forget. I went to the cockpit for a while and I remember basically every single movement from the waiting room to the landing in NY.
MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 3):
I wouldn't count the Russians out. Although my money would be on Boeing + Tupolev personally. That's assuming US/Russia politics settle down.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/ssbj/

Russians arent keeping quite !! I believe Lockheed is a advisor
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:29 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 8):
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/ssbj/

Russians arent keeping quite !! I believe Lockheed is a advisor

And Boeing and TU did work together regarding testing for the super cruiser which was a lot closer to what we are talking about IMHO.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:51 am

Great video! Thanks for posting.

Just curious: at the 1:09 mark, it shows the captain pushing the throttles hard to light the afterburners and achieve full T/O thrust. Could it be done like that because of FADEC (lucky me I did a little research before posting and found out that the Olympus 593 had the first FADEC in service)? Or am I being tricked by playback speed and you should always expect the throttles to be advanced as at the 2:03 mark?
Let's go Pens!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:08 pm

Definitely one of the greatest technological achievements of the human race, maybe behind only the Shuttle and the Saturn V/Apollo stack. It should be interesting to see where supersonic passenger flight goes from here. It would almost be a shame if it became routine in the future.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:21 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 11):
It would almost be a shame if it became routine in the future.

Well I don't know.. I think it would become less 'awesome' than it is now, but I think for those of us that frequent sites like this or love planes it will always be a miracle. Just like every time you see a Jumbo leap into the air.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:41 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 12):
Just like every time you see a Jumbo leap into the air.

I remember seeing those on approach into PIT some 12 years ago... now coming back to the topic of the SST, the closest I ever got to one was that fmr BA Concorde on top of that Aircraft Carrier in New York. It would be neat to see a bird like that take to the skies again, and look ever brilliant as ever!
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:30 pm

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 13):
BA Concorde on top of that Aircraft Carrier in New York.

The only time i visited USS intrepid was when they were running maintaince and the concorde was cordened off  Sad
 
Curmudgeon
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:19 pm

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:02 pm

Two of my best aviation experiences were 1: Concorde flight JFK-LHR in 1981 and 2: Getting framed poster of B.A. Concorde which still hangs in my study, alongside the collection of original aeroplane fridge art.

I do hope that someone tries an SST again, but I'm pretty sure that the economics will never again work. I seem to recall that Boeing did a study about 15 years ago that projected the world would not have enough wealthy people until 2030 or so to make a market for supersonic travel.
Jets are for kids
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:49 pm

The only aircraft I'm sorry I never flew. I've only even seen her twice, but I miss her so.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:04 pm

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 15):
I seem to recall that Boeing did a study about 15 years ago that projected the world would not have enough wealthy people until 2030 or so to make a market for supersonic travel.

The concorde's Fuel requirment was about 3 times as much as a 747-100 of those times ( Gallons per Passenger (London to New York) ) If newer technology ( lighten up the airframe) , bigger aircraft ( double the PAX) and much more effeceint engines could reduce that to acceptable levels there can definately be takers !! I beleive that they should aim for Mach 1.5 - mach 1.8 speeds , 200-250PAX and fuel burns less then double of comparable subsonic aircrafts , Then I believe they could price a Cross atlantic at 4000-6000$ and sell seats !! A 3 hour concorde flight also means greater utilization interms of No. of flights per day !! If you can double PAX and still maintain a close enough Fuel burn rate ( say under 5500) then you could do very very well !! Technically challenging but not out of reach IMO !! Put in Lockheed , Sukhoi and Bae on the table and they'll deliver it !


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3203_concorde.html
 
Curmudgeon
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:19 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:58 am

The problem wasn't wealth per se, it was having enough wealthy individuals to smooth out the demand curve and provide a large enough market to offset the engineering costs. Mach drag being what it is, I don't think that less airframe mass has the same effect as on a subsonic aircraft, but I haven't looked at any numbers.

There is another small hurdle, and that is carbon footprint. I expect that any Concorde ll would attract more than its share of carbon drag. High altitude jet flight may yet be linked to accelerating environment damage too, in which case the SST will be dead.

Here's a little teaser: Boeing and NASA are test flying a telescoping sonic boom mitigator in the hope of allowing supersonic flight over land.
Jets are for kids
 
Cessna057
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:24 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 am

Wonderful video, thank you so much for sharing. Such a shame that its out of service  cry 
Hold it . . . Hold it . . . HOLD THE FREAKIN NOSE UP!!
 
gh123
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:09 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting Bringiton (Thread starter):
Would a buisness class Passenger opt instead to travel faster but with lesser comfort !!

That was Concorde - Fast with less comfort.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:29 pm

Quoting Gh123 (Reply 20):
That was Concorde - Fast with less comfort.

Yes but I was reffering to a new airframe with this gen. of technology , effeciency and lower cost!
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:38 pm

Quoting Osiris30:
All that seems to be lacking is the will,

And money. Lots and lots of money.
Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:56 am

The Boeing Museum of Flight in BFI plays this video in the little shack out by the Air Park where G-BOAG is parked. Moving video and a fine tribute to a wonderful plane who's company I was able to enjoy on a number of occasions.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:10 am

SST's are great for aircraft foamers as well as for bragging rights, but otherwise serve little-if any-practical purpose.

Until someone can figure out a way to engineer SST technology that can be made CHEAPER to build *AND* operate as opposed to subsonic, I'm afraid that it's going to remain a pipe dream.

It's not that we CAN'T do it. It's simply a matter of will and priorities. I reckon that anyone who has a few dozen billions in expendible cash can probably put it to better use than simply to appease airliner enthusiasts and shave travel times for that .0001% of the population.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:17 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 2):
To hell with my views on launch aid if any country decides to launch a SST.

Then get ready to hail Japan: Japan and NASA team up for SuperConcorde
IIRC Nasa is not in fact officially involved in the project as yet, it's all rumors.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 24):
Until someone can figure out a way to engineer SST technology that can be made CHEAPER to build *AND* operate as opposed to subsonic, I'm afraid that it's going to remain a pipe dream.

My point was I think it can be done under those criteria today if someone really worked on it. And infact I think folks probably are very quietly inside some of the bigger aerospace firms.

Do not poo-poo the usefulness of shorter trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights. Especially with the emergence of China and others.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 24):
Until someone can figure out a way to engineer SST technology that can be made CHEAPER to build *AND* operate as opposed to subsonic, I'm afraid that it's going to remain a pipe dream.

It's not that we CAN'T do it. It's simply a matter of will and priorities.

The simple principle of "can't get something for nothing" tells us that supersonic will never be cheaper. Will and priorities will not overcome this.

The good news is that the cost of operation is not the main consideration - it's net revenue. If people will pay enough to cover the added cost, then an SST is viable. Concorde demonstrated that the demand was not sufficient at that time, but the future may be different.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:02 am

Also depends upon what the COST aspect is . If the Cost can be brought down by 30-40% through effeciencies etc then such an aircraft can be very profitable although the only area where we'll see it used is cross atlantic or cross pacific as i doubt that it would be able to go over land at speeds of mach 2 .
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:47 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 28):
Also depends upon what the COST aspect is . If the Cost can be brought down by 30-40% through effeciencies etc then such an aircraft can be very profitable although the only area where we'll see it used is cross atlantic or cross pacific as i doubt that it would be able to go over land at speeds of mach 2 .

There are two kinds of cost that need to be kept in mind. The first is operating cost, and on this front, a 30-40% reduction is probably at the very limit of what is technically possible, if not beyond that point. Heavy use of composites should reduce substantially structural weight, but SSTs also have to contend with heat and rigidity issues as well as structural strength, and it's unknown whether 787 composites could withstand a airframe lifetime worth of heat-soak at 100+ degrees C.

Engine technology has also advanced, but the design compromises that will be needed to meet modern pollution and noise standards, such as higher bypass ratios for lower noise, advanced combustor design to suppress NOx emissions, and better subsonic performance, will probably wipe out a lot of the gains when compared to a pure turbojet like Concorde's Olympus. There are also aerodynamic improvements that can be exploited, but again, this would be an incremental improvement in L/D ratios from about 8 to about 10, as opposed to the 18-20 that subsonic aircraft regularly achieve.

The second kind of cost is aircraft purchase cost, and this is inversely related to operating cost. The technology that will be needed to make an SST operationally viable, like high-temperature composites and variable-bypass engines, is very expensive to develop and has limited application in other areas. The airframers and engine developers will have to pass on these costs to the airlines in order to make a reasonable return on a very risky and very large investment.


I disagree with some other posters that government funding is appropriate for an SST. If anything, it is less appropriate for such a costly and risky project with a limited potential clientele. As I have said before, the one and only benefit of an SST is speed, and it is very easy to capture the value of this benefit to the market through fare premiums. If these premiums are not enough to pay for the development of an SST, that means the benefits of building one are less than the costs, and so it would be a waste of resources to go ahead anyway. If a private enterprise tries to build an SST and fails, it and its shareholders are held responsible for the consequences; in a government operation, the taxpayers are left to cover the difference.

I understand and share the desire to see a new SST to succeed Concorde, but we as aviation enthusiasts have no right to ask the taxpaying public, most of whom will never ride on or benefit from an SST, to subsidize our aesthetic tastes.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2006-11-17 21:50:45]
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 29):
but we as aviation enthusiasts have no right to ask the taxpaying public, most of whom will never ride on or benefit from an SST, to subsidize our aesthetic tastes.

But I am asking Chirac to do it not GWB !!!  Wink  Wink
 
Jammin
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:56 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:17 am

That was a beautiful video. I still can't believe that Concorde was before my time (aware of aviation stuff). Our current jets will probably be in the same form for another 40 years, I'm thinking. There's definitely research going on regarding super sonic carriers... I just hope it'll be as awe-inspiring as the Concorde was...

And practicality-wise, it certainly has its place even in today's market. Some people don't want to spend 15 hours getting to Hong Kong. With the world becoming ever flatter, the need to be in places around the world quicker is defintely there.
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our mind.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:26 am

Quoting Foxy (Reply 4):
There is still something about Concorde which sends a shiver down my spine, As that video states it was the natural centrepiece for national celebrations and i think this one of the biggest reasons one should have been kept airworthy, but alas.

I think Richard Branson would have found a way, had he been allowed to buy some of them. Was it BA pride that prevented that? Yes, I would think that they would keep at least one airworthy and flying occasionally for special events. Is it perhaps not practical to keep the infrastructure in place to support just one A/C?

Meanwhile, my member name speaks to my personal romance with this subject.

I suspect that, beyond the sonic boom issue, that the challenges are mostly economic and environmental, rather than technological.

By the way, a "hypersonic", next-generation A/C that would be suborbital - would be one way to solve the sonic boom issue...

However, questions that linger in my mind are issues which are difficult to predict:

1) Global warming is a sobering reality, so what would fuel burning emissions of a global fleet of SSTs do to the atmosphere at those much higher altitudes, where the ozone layer is?

2) With communication technology growing even faster than aviation technology, for example; the reality of the "virtual boardroom" where anyone can attend the meeting without leaving their own city, what will the demand for business travel be in the future? What will the Blackberry people think of next?

3) The new world order: the modern world at adds with the Fundamentalist world, seems to be getting increasingly polarized and violent. Will this dampen the demand for business travel?

4) What will fuel prices and fuel availability be 20 or 30 years into the future?

Yet - before I die - I surrrrre would like to fly in one of them...  bouncy  I had almost saved up my 200,000 Delta miles to fly AF Concorde, and then... the unthinkable happened. To ground her seemed like a horrible step backwards.

Maybe I am not thinking practically, of course. But... Sir Richard is somewhat of a romantic and visionary and he seems to be doing pretty well...
I come in peace
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:43 am

That video was a puff piece about an aircraft that was both a bad idea, and badly executed. By that I mean a supersonic transport that was not needed, and when built nonetheless, for reasons of hubris, was so noisy, polluting, and expensive to fuel and service, that it could not function as a viabe form of mass transportation.

Today, technology has not solved those problems. Supersonic flight for the mass air transport system will not happen. Any technology to mitigate weight and fuel consumption issues on an SST, can be applied to subsonic aircraft as well, maintaining the huge gulf between the economics of subsonic vs. supersonic transportation. Breaking the sound barrier for any portion of a flight, requires a new set of materials be used on the aircraft just as if it was always flying at that speed, for relatively little gain in overall velocity, and even less a gain in time - gate to gate, which, ultimately, is how flight times are measured.

It just makes no economic sense to push a commercial airliner over the sound barrier and into the heat that awaits on the other side, unless you are going to go many, many times the speed of sound. But even then, such an aircraft would only be useful on long haul, over water flights, and would become an expensive white elephant for any other route.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:16 am

Re: Time saving.

The whole idea of "saving time" seems to be self defeating.

Consider this:

It stands to reason that these proposed SST's would be used to traverse a person to antipodal points on the planet. So explain to me a possible set of time slots anywhere on the globe where a person taking a 4 or 5 hour SST flight across 12 times zones does not either depart or arrive in the late hours of the night or arrive at some point midday where the travellers circadian rhythm is still on the originating time zone.

More to the point: A West Coast traveller who takes a 4 hour flight from LAX to Tokyo and arrives at 7AM "in time for a full day of business" is going to be more in the mood for a nap as opposed to dealing with a bunch of alert penny pinching, sly Japanese businessmen, what having been awake for some 24 hours.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:28 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 32):
I think Richard Branson would have found a way, had he been allowed to buy some of them. Was it BA pride that prevented that?

- oh, please... not again! PLEASE!!! (Will we ever be able to talk about the marvelous bird without Dick the Jerk PR BS stuff?)  Smile

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 33):
bad idea, and badly executed.

- nope. What is bad in idea to travel 2.5 times faster? And what were the examples executed better?

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 33):
noisy, polluting

- no more than any other jet of that era.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 33):
expensive to fuel and service

- who cares, it was profitable to operate.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting RIX (Reply 35):
it was profitable to operate

It was profitable to operate a bare handful of fully-amortized aircraft. Unless it becomes profitable to operate many hundreds of SST's there's no justification to build them.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting RIX (Reply 35):
- oh, please... not again! PLEASE!!! (Will we ever be able to talk about the marvelous bird without Dick the Jerk PR BS stuff?)

Okay... your feelings are clear but I don't have any information about the underlying content that brings you to such a strong opinion. I will do some searches to educate myself.

But I understood that he had offered to buy them for 1 British pound each and had intended to operate them, and one would espect, he intended to do so profitably. Or was that just PR? I will research it more for my own edification.

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 33):
was so noisy, polluting, and expensive to fuel and service, that it could not function as a viable form of mass transportation.

I understand it operated profitably prior to the turn-down in traffic after 9/11, and the huge surge in fuel prices. Those events made the looming 200 million dollar safety upgrade unpalatable, and so the two operating airlines discontinued Concorde operations instead.

Also, I think the intention with future SSTs is perhaps to be a transporter of the high-end business and first class passengers, and perhaps economy plus with a premium for the speed...? - not of the "masses."
I come in peace
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:09 am

SSTSomeday, (and anyone with an interest in this, or pre-conceptions about Concorde), I refer you to replies 60, 62 and 64 to this thread; RE: Concorde "French Keep Concorde Hopes Alive" (by GDB Nov 1 2006 in Civil Aviation)
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:52 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 38):
I refer you to replies 60, 62 and 64 to this thread; RE: Concorde "French Keep Concorde Hopes Alive" (by GDB Nov 1 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Excellent reading. Thank you.
I come in peace
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: What If! (Supersonic Transports)

Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:52 am

really nice video, hope some company invests in something similar
Work Hard/Fly Right.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, A330NZ, AsiaTravel, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], dk44, Ducari, flipdewaf, Google [Bot], KarelXWB, LazarosK, LeCoqFrancais, OMP777X, qf789, starbucks, UltraAmps, VirginFlyer and 241 guests