The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:19 am

Whether you like it or not, the Concorde is going away. The accident may or may not hasten their retirement, but the fact is BA and AF were doing away with them in a few years as it is. The Concorde, while a really cool plane, is fuel inefficient, noisy etc etc, and no one is going to build another supersonic commercial passenger aircraft like that ever again, probably. The Corcorde was a product of the post war future optimism of the 50's and 60's. The Donald Fagen song "I.G.Y" (International Geophysical Year...the year 1957) comes to mind:

"...90 minutes from New York to Paris, there'll be spandex jackets, one for everyone....What a beutiful world this will be..."

We know today that many of the optimisms of that time that thinkers and planners THOUGHT would be wonderful to our lives, actually were not....freeways, everyone in personal cars, which then spurred urban and suburban sprawl etc point is...The Concorde just isn't practical in reality. Once they were built, they were given (so I understand) for FREE to BA and AF, which were airlines that were then state owned. All the orders and interest from other airlines dried up, especially in light of the fuel crisis and the environmental issues. The Concordes time never really came...they were here for awhile, they were they are going. So did the transatlantic ocean liners...that's the way it is...
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:27 am

I don't understand the point of your post. Everyone knew that BA and AF were going to retire them in a few years...

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:32 am

Before anyone else bothers to reply. Don't. The above post has no point to it, and was created to elicit a bad reaction.

Surf:GET A LIFE!  

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:41 am

Perhaps I should have named the post, "Commerical Passenger Supersonic Transport is Going Away.", as this is really the larger point I am making.

Tailscraper, stop reacting, heed your own advice, it's my opinion.
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 1999 4:19 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:37 am

I don't think the accident will speed the demise of the Concorde. Both BA and AF have have said that the planes will be around for at least 7 more years, maybe longer. Like it or not, BA actually makes a substantial profit operating the Concorde, and they are in no hurry to get rid of them. The Concorde is the "calling card" of both airlines. They evoke a sense of pride and prestige that neither airline will ever be able to replace once the Concorde is gone. They may be noisy and inefficient, but there will always be a market for them. Personally, I hope that the Concorde is around for another 25 years.
those who have no vices have very few virtues

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 9:02 am

you know, i personally would like to see them around too, but i just dont' see it happening, unfortunately, ANY SST flight, be it the Concorde, or the Boeing 2707 or any's really too bad. :-(
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 10:03 am

well, it is a well known fact that both airlines lose money on the aircraft but they also have made it well know that they are going to be around for many years to coem and that the concorde is not going away anytime soon. The aircraft is a beautiful aircraft and it is THE pride and joy of both airlines that operate it. When the 747-400 is sitting next to the Concorde, people flock to the Concorde just to take a look at it. Whatever you guys say, the concord is not going away anytime soon and SST's are here to stay. They may not be the wave of the future like they were thought to be, but SST's are going to be around you may not like it but it is true.
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 10:43 am

Hey all:

Hey, don't you guys ever read any newspapers? In the National Post(Canadian), there was a article about the TU-244 has been given the "go-ahead", by the Company. I don't know where they got the info., but I surely hope that it is true! If the story is in fact true, than we might see the new TU-244 flying around in 8-13 years! Well, at the mean time, I'll keep my fingers cross, and pray that it is indeed a live project. 1 thing I really don't understand through, if NASA wants a SST so bad, why don't they help the Russian build one, and then I'm sure Boeing will join in and help!?!? Oh well, Concorde is a beautful plane, I hope to ride it many more times before it is going to retire! I know many people wants the Concorde dead; what's worng with you? You want the one and only remaining SST fleet to be DEAD?!?!? I mean, 30 years ago, everyone wants and SST soooo bad, and now.......

if they do infact build a new SST, I'm sure that they will feature new, quite Turbofan engines, and with today's technology, thwy might be able to reduce the sonic boom to a respectable level! And if the noise isn't so bad, the over-land routes will open up, creating a whole new market!

Oh well, I've said enough, I guess I'll just have to wait and see what will happen to our speedbirds......

Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Donald Fagen

Tue Aug 01, 2000 10:45 am

While I do not agree with your post (this topic has been rehashed who knows how many times). I would like to comment on the song I.G.Y. It was in the year 1975 (you probably meant to type 75 but instead typed 57).

You are right,it is a song with a optimistic future as its theme. And though there are officially no plans for a Concorde replacement. The dynamic duo who designed the original will most likely design the successor. The 747s and A3xxxs have their place in the aviation world,but so does supersonic aircraft. And what seems impossible right now (high level of noise,fuel efficiency,and pax capacity) can be solved in a few years. In the F22 Raptor,its engine have the capability of flying in Super Cruise. Which allows it fly to supersonic with afterburners,and do it with fuel efficiency (its all relative.) So don't write Concorde successor off just yet.

Good taste in music Surf. I.G.Y. is also a great traveling song when walking through airports or relaxing at 35,000 ft.

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 10:49 am

British Airways and Air France both operate Concorde at a profit. Fares higher than First Class are charged on scheduled flights, the breakeven load factor for BA is between just over 30%. When not being used in scheduled service a large charter programme keeps Concorde busy. I promise you, they make money for the airlines that fly them.
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 6:08 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 11:39 am

The Concordes will be retired eventually, I hope its at a long time though. Lets just hope that the Tu-244 is built before the Concordes leave.
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:26 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 11:56 am

Ok, even if they consider pax flights on SSTs non-profitable or/and dangerous.... why not build further supersonic planes for cargo flights?? Or even military use.

As far as I know there's no supersonic military transporter plane so far, is there? (ok, this is not a military aviation forum... sorry)
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 7:16 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 12:06 pm

HUMAN race rarely ever goes backwards
I cant picture telling my grand children, no my kids that it use to take 90 min to cross the Atlantic and now it takes 6hrs.
Don't start sh*t we know its going, its just a matter of time before someone comes out with a new one.
Think of the rich businessmen who use the concord at least once a week, where will they go?????
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am

RE: Sasha

Tue Aug 01, 2000 12:42 pm

Yea there is, or wait, it's not a transporter, but a bomber instead. The Rockwell B-1B.....  


Actually, It Might Not Be

Tue Aug 01, 2000 1:18 pm

The *CURRENT* Concorde may be going away, but as I see it, the demand will come up again. The main thing stunting the production of more SSTs is the noise they generate, and the current incapacity to find enough interest in the project. You would think that SSTs could be used on transpacific flights, but only on VERY few select routes. Like LAX-Tokyo. Or routes like, LAX or SFO to, say, Hong Kong, the planes pass over island nations. The profound sonic boom they generate would disturb the peace and cause protests to be started. Not to mention the extreme uproar it'd cause over LAND!
So the SSTs are pretty much limited to the Atlantic, Arctic Ocean, and South Pole. Well there's not many routes over the North or South pole, therefor comfining the SST to the Atlantic.
Now, the Concorde IS profitable, but not as much as the majors would like it to be. For instance, they can transport 200, 300, 400 passengers at a time in 6 hours, and make twice the profit they would flying the Concorde back and forth all day long, full plane, with three hours each flight!
It's simply more economical at the present time to keep the subsonics as the norm.
HOWEVER, what if LOCKHEED MARTIN is looking right now into building a 250-300 pax airliner, hmmm? Surely that would solve the problem. You get the same capacity as a subsonic, with the speed of a supersonic, you get more flights in each day, double or triple the profits! You can't tell me nobody's though of this, Lockheed has been looking at it for some time. (Early '90s I believe) The problem standing in their way is that the majors aren't sure that they want to provide support for such a project. After all, the L-1011 hit Lockheed hard in the pocket book. Airlines might be thinking this new airliner could be a major fuel sucker.
Solution: Talk to GE and RR and get them to design some super-efficient supersonic jet engine. BUT, that'll take interest and money to accomlish. The airlines again are not sure that they want to take that risk, when they can concentrate on the A3XX, get 500pax at a time, spend no money on devolopment studies and engine devolopment. The A3XX is a solid, low-risk deal, a new SST is not. Hence, the Concorde is IT and no others will be built for a while.
What if an airline were to get interested enough in devolopment? That's be kool.  

Tropical Skies-
Fly to new horizons


Tue Aug 01, 2000 2:12 pm

this is bullshit, she just needs a little more work nowadays, sheis a GREAT Bird

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 3:00 pm

The only thing I can say to the doomsayers is I was watching the "other" doomsayers claiming that the A3XX was never going to happen......

Roll along Tupolev.


RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Tue Aug 01, 2000 11:55 pm

I wouldn't trust any aricraft made in Russia.
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 12:03 am

I read an aviation safety book called Flying Blind; Flying Safe by Mary Schiavo on page 260 in the airplanes section of the book. There is information saying that BA and AF are planning to keep the concordes flying until the year 2010. I personally think that the concordes will be junked by that time and a much newer, faster, fuel efficient supersonic jet by Boeing or Airbus will be out to replace the concorde.
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am


Wed Aug 02, 2000 12:32 am

I wouldn't mind if Nasa has a part of it, since they'll monitor the design and structure of the Aircraft.

And also, does anybody know what happened to that TU-144LL that NASA borrowed to do testings in???
Any Info. will be fine!


Posts: 9128
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 12:56 am

To construct a Concorde replacement will cost too much, far too much money to make sense. A lot of people think the proposed 12 Billion Dollars development cost of the (really needed) A3XX is probably going to bring Airbus down. An airplane that will be flown by millions and dozens of millions of people that is, making longdistance flights even more cheaper than today!

What about a new-age SST then? The number of potential passengers will count more in thousends than in millions, but the development of such an aircraft could easily cost more than the A3XX. Who in this world will fly with it when a ticket LHR-JFK costs $20.000 or more on it? The target-group might be the average millionaire, but how many are that?

Sorry, I don´t see a "new Concorde" at all, how beautiful, technically brilliant and wonderful it might be...

William: International Geophysical Year

Wed Aug 02, 2000 3:18 am


Yeah it's a great song isn't it? Great album too. I looked it up on the internet and the International Geophysical Year was, in fact, 1957. Donald Fagen wrote the whole "New Frontier" album about the 1950's.


Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 3:28 am

This Surf is really trying hard to spoil this discussion forum.
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2000 2:47 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 4:47 am

i will bet $100 that if any concords are retired within the next 5 years that they will be bought buy another airline! i know that virgin would just LOVE to have a nice white sst under their hangers  
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

RE: It Isnt Going Away!

Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:17 am

I am not sure where people get the notion that BA and AF loose money on the Concorde, they dont give those seats away! The Concorde might be expensive, excessively so to those of us who can't ante up 5k or 10k for a ticket but to most who frequent the Concorde's scheduled Atlantic crossings the price of a ticket is a meer drop in the bucket. BA and AF charge what it costs them to operate the a/c, pay the crew, preform MX and make a profit. They arent flying these things around the world at a loss. Initially of course they did have to take a loss to put them into service and cover the cost of research, development and production. But the research and development was prety much done by 1970 and thats been 30 years! Production was over in the very early 80s.

Neither BA or AF have indicated either before or after the accident that they were going to retire the Concorde before the fatigue life of the airframe was reached. BA has indicated that they planned on 20 more years of Concorde operation with AF saying they planned at least 7 more years.

If an aircraft has ever been designed and put into production with the stipulation that if ever one example of the type were to crash, the entire fleet would be retired there would never have been any aircraft to operate more than a couple years. To have gone 31 years without an accident is something that has never happened in the world of commercial aviation. Instead of pounding the final nail in the coffin of the Concorde we should reflect on what a tremendous aircraft the Concorde is. It remains an icon, it remains one of the safest aircraft flying today and it will remain in service until the end of the airframe's useful life.
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 6:15 am

Supersonic passenger travel is history. Why is it a step backwards to cross the Atlantic in 6 hours instead of 90 minutes?

1. Ground transport is now so bad that halving flight times reduces door-to-door travel time by as little as 10% - my record for Manhattan to JFK is an hour. A friend of mine works at LHR and lives near me, about 14 miles from the airport. And she regularly takes 2 hours to get there, and sometimes books in a hotel instead of commuting cos of the traffic on the roads. Especially if you involve connecting flights - with air traffic congestion, more flights arrive late, so 'Minimum Connecting Times' must grow to allow contingency time. Therefore if you're flying from Manchester to Buffalo via LHR-JFK on an SST, you'll spend even longer in transit. So the advantage of flying fast on one sector is further reduced.

2. If you include the cost of acquisition ($15 billion R&D divided by what, 100 aircraft tops?), an SST fare will have to be a LOT higher than Concorde fares.

3. An SST can only travel over water or desert due to sonic boom, no matter how quiet the engines, so forget US transcon or western Europe to anywhere East.

4. Remember the environmental lobby, and they are not without justification - fuel burn, pollution etc which is much more damaging due to the higher operating altitude.

5. Fuel prices will rise and rise, maybe double in the next ten years? Plus jet fuel is not taxed anything like other fuels (home heating, gas for cars etc)...wait til it's taxed like gasoline, holy crap.

6. BA and AF don't make much money with their Concordes - I know for an absolute fact that more than half of BA's Conc profits come from charters for the likes of us, and one of the reasons they are kept in scheduled service is to entice premium pax to book BA first class with the possibility of an upgrade to Conc.

The technology exists to fly a planeload of pax from London to Sydney in an hour, but I'm an Oz living in London, and what do I care? I go home once every two years and 19 hours is fine. The other day it took me two hours to cover 11 miles in London, and that wasn't even in the centre of town (Epsom to Acton). And that's the kind of journey I do every week, and millions of people do every single day. See my point?

I would love airliners to go supersonic and let us all see the curvature of the earth and go to NY for lunch and be home for tea, but it ain't gonna happen.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Wed Aug 02, 2000 6:23 am

And what's all this crap about Concorde's "outstanding" safety record? How many sectors has it flown in commercial service? 150,000? That's NOTHING. If the fleet flies another ten years without an accident it's still one of the worst in modern history. Imagine a 737 crashing every three months. There is nothing like enough flights or aircraft to say anything about it's statistical record. If there were 14 747s in the world and they had 53 man hours of maintenence for every hour in the air, and one had a design related accident every 100,000 hours, the thing would be ancient history, and deservedly so.

Beautiful aircraft and all, but there is no way to comment on it's safety record. The statistical data simply doesn't exist to prove that one way or another.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz

Calm Down!

Wed Aug 02, 2000 6:34 am


regards, and CALM DOWN!!
Catch The Spirit

Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Thu Aug 03, 2000 11:04 am

Woooo, now, you settle down a little....

For the matter of fact, I know that everyone in this forum knows that the concorde is going to go away, like everything else in the World..., nobody said it wouldn't, it's just the matter of time.


I have to agree with you that ground transit can be a devil. But otherwise, I consider your post BULLSH*T!
The Technology has improve dramaticlly over the last 3 decades. There are technologys now that can allow aircrafts to travel supersonicily, with no, you heard me right!, no sonic boom! The engines are going to be the latest gen. Tubrofans, with low fuel consimption, and is quiet. One more thing... there was no evendience what so ever, that high flying SSTs do more damage to the atmosphere, then low flying Tubro-props!

While you maybe able to allow a slow, sub-sonic plane to carry you accross the ocean, many bussiness man, and high-paying customers will like the new SSTs, simplly because they are more expansive, and flys faster than everyone!

Once the Market has open it's doors on the whole new kind of SST, orders of major airlines will come pouring in! Then, fares will be lowered due to mass production!

Just some of My 2 $0.00s
I can't wait until the TU-244 rolls out, if it doesn't, I'll buy a concorde, fly it over to Russia, and personally kick Tupolev's @$$!!!!!!!!!!!   !!!

Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:34 am

Concorde Vs Military Supersonics

Fri Aug 04, 2000 12:49 am

Why is there so much concern with the Concorde making too much noise and pollution because it's an SST. There are thousands of military supersonic jets flying all over the place and I don't hear any complaints about them.


Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 4:37 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 1:13 am

>B767-400er wrote:
>There are technologys now that can allow >aircrafts to travel supersonicily, with no, >you heard me right!, no sonic boom! The >engines are going to be the latest gen. >Tubrofans, with low fuel consimption, >and is quiet.

The sonic boom is caused not by the engine, but the aircraft moving too fast through the atmosphere. If you want to have NO sonic boom, you would need to get the aircraft above the atmosphere, where turbofans will not do the job - the only thing from the existing engines that can do that is the rocket engine. And we all know how much fuel it needs for that!
If we want a new generation SST with no sonic boom, we need a new type of engine, not a modern turbofan.
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 1:21 am

Military aircraft generally don't fly supersonic over populated areas, and in fact, most military supersonic capable aircraft use alot more fuel at supersonic speeds than subsonic speeds, and so normally do not fly supersonic.

Could you name your source for the no sonic boom? As far as I know this is not possible, although research into reducing the sonic boom created by aircraft is underway, still a long way from being practical

Posts: 6408
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 2:41 am

Supersonic flight in the atmosphere without a sonic boom is not possible. The boom can be increased or reduced a little by different aerodynamic shapes, that's all.

A high bypass ratio turbofan engine - the only engine type which satisfies current noise rules - cannot fly supersonic without constant afterburner, which means prohibitive fuel consumption.

There is at present no realistic proposal for a modern SST engine which:
1. is safe,
2. is payable,
3. is reasonably fuel efficient in relevant flight modes,
4. and satisfies current noise regulations at low speed and low altitude.

Such an engine has during the last 30 years been refered to as a so called "compound engine", which in plain English just means a "two-in-one" engine. But how things really should be combined has never been realistically proposed.
Therefore there will be no SST any more when the Concorde retires. The plane could be built, in many respects far better than the Concorde. But there will be no power source.

The only real "compound" engines made so far are the J-58 and J-93 engines for the SR-71 Blackbird recce plane and the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber of the late sixties. But they were compounded of an afterburning turbojet and a ram-jet engine - an entirely different story. They never fulfilled even one of the four criteria mentioned above.

Other parallels to military supersonic planes: The only military plane in the world, which cruises supersonic without constant afterburner, is the (Y)F-22 fighter. It has a noisy low bypass turbofan engine, and it doesn't get anywhere near Mach 2.0 without afterburner.

In fact there hasn't been much realistic engine development for SSTs since the design of the Olympus engine for the Concorde almost 40 years ago. Sorry to tell you that, but that's how it is. And before real development can begin, then somebody must come up with some really bright ideas to work on.

Face it this way: Go on a Concorde trip soon, or you will never fly on a SST. Maybe your grandchildren will, I wouldn't make a bet on that.

Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 3:27 am

On the Special coverages of the concorde crash: National Post. There was an articial, that explans how an upwards cruved delta wing, simular to a winglet, will reduce the sonic the sonic boom of the WOHLE aircraft to a higher feq. To a point where the boom cannot be heard, or felt. e.g. compress the air even more. A variable pitch blade in a modern generation Tubro-fan, high-bypass, together with a light re-heat, will get the aircraft through the sound barrier, after going supersonic, the re-heat will be turned off,(as with the concorde. The proposed speed of this Aircraft is MACH 1.5-3.0, depending on engine thrust.

normally, supersonic flight doesn't require a afterburner, only time it is needed, is to get through the sound barrier, and to climb to the speed.


you don't need a rocket engine for high-atmosphere oparations, a Ramjet will be fine. And who doesn't know that sonicboom isn't created by the engines... Please respect my knowage of aircrafts...Just joking...hehe

Speaking of Ramjet, I don't see a problem of appaication on an civil aircraft, most heilcoptors, have booster ramjet, on the tip of their rotors. They are much quiter then you think, and because use trans-ramjet, will only occure at the edge of the atmosphere, i really don't see Y there is a problem....

Althrough I don't expect the new, non-sonicbooming SST for the next 10 years, I surely hope that it is in the works.


RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 4:10 am

We do not move backwards in the world today. we would not give up our cars for horses again and we will not let SST die. There will be another SST that will be able to compete for the time demands of the flying public. It may not be for all of us to experience but there is and always be a nitch for the SST.

As I understand it, the Russians are moving forward with the plans for the updated version of their original SST that dies after a crash at the Paris Airshow.

Long live the SST

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 4:23 am

Very interesting and entertaining, sometimes informative, reading - all the posts. Thanks guys.
I simply want to say that I hope they don't retire Concorde within the next year or so. I am saving to fly it.
what's best : BA or AF ?

Read This! Two SSTs In Development!

Fri Aug 04, 2000 7:08 am

Hate to burst your bubble, SST non-sayers. But there are currently TWO, yes TWO SSTs in development.  Of course most of you know about the TU-244. IF they are able to increase the TU-244s range to about 6,500nm, THEN we WILL see trans-Pacific flights from Russia, Japan, China, etc, to the U.S. west coast, on routes that DO NOT pass over island nations. IF they DO NOT increase the range, you will see this SST stopping in Honolulu half way. IF they can put BOTH Cat. 4 turbofans AND Trubojets on the aircraft, that will solve the problem of subsonic noise regs.  If they put like four turbojets, and two turbofans on it, PROBLEM SOLVED. Switch off the turbojets on takeoff, and use turbofans on takeoff. Turn the tubojets on at high altitude over ocean. However, the turbofans used at takoff will need to be very powerful, since they will be carrying dead weight from four inactive turbojets. I'd suggest a possible Trent 600, if they make one. There, no "compound" engine required.  
This is the formula that LOCKHEED MARTIN INC. is using for the development of THEIR AMERICAN SST COMPETITOR! You might check their site. I read about this project 6 months ago in AIR & SPACE magazine! the aircraft is supposed to have 6, yes SIX engines, four turbojets/ramjet, two high-powered tubofans that have yet to be created. It's a great concept. the aircraft will have a "clean wing". There will be sort of an airfoil platform that will support the engines, all six in one place. I believe that the platfor is attached to the vertical stablilizer, kinda like an MD-80s engines are slightly below. It's been a while, I'm trying to decribe the drawing as best I can.
It holds between 250 and 300 passengers, and houses 5 gear units. (the same as a 747).  
Lockheed is looking for international interest in the project, both from airlines and the Airbus Consortium.

Now, let me tell you WHY this would be successful, if they get the funds to do such a project. FIRST mass-production will lower the costs of buying the aircraft, and essentially lower seat-mile costs for pax. SECOND, the aircraft will carry nearly the SAME AMOUNT of pax normally found on an A340-300 or 777. THIRD, the aircraft will be able to make a flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 4 hours. Consider that most 777s take about 16 hours to make that flight.
Airlines can send 300 pax at a time overseas in 4 hours, return full in 4 hours, and send another plane out in 4 hours, and return in another four hours. WHAT AM I SAYING? If you give each stop a 1-hour layover time, in about 20 hours, airlines can transport 1,200 passengers, suing one plane! In 15 hours, they can transport 900 passengers! In effect, if they buy a 777 for LAX-Tokyo, they transport about 300-500 pax a day. If they buy JUST ONE Lockheed SST, they can transport THREE OR FOUR TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME!  
Now before people bite my head off and tell me it'll never work, really look at it. Tell me, why are airlines dumping their A340s for 777s? Because the 777 is faster, giving them more pax to carry in the same amount of time. Same concept with Lockheed's SST.
THE ONLY things I see standing as obstacles here is that-
1. They need funding  
2. This SST will be limited to over-water-only routes, which means North Pacific and North Atlantic.
HOWEVER, with the advent of two tubofans, the aircraft and fly subsonic over land, and once clear, fly supersonic, making a flight from New York to Sydney possible. Fly subsonic over the U.S., fly super over the Pacific, switch to subsonic over Hawaii and the South Pacific Nations, and fly super for a little while, and arrive in Sydney flying subsonic. Works for me and the airlines!    

Any objections to the project?  

Tropical Skies-
Fly to new horizons
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Fri Aug 04, 2000 10:58 am

Wow, how do you ever get that many info?!?!? Anyway, I'm almost done saving up for my trip on the concorde, I'm only short $200!> Hopefully, I can get the amount in the next few months. 



RE: B767-400er

Sat Aug 05, 2000 8:02 am

You aksed how I got that much info on the new LOCKHEED SST. Well Air & Space Magazine had a nice little article on it about 6 months ago. It described possible route flight times, how many engines it'd use, possible design specs, etc, etc.
What I went through above was how *SMART* it is, WHY it would succeed, and I described EXACTLY how Lockheed must be thinking. Re-read what I wrote and tell me if it sounds economical to you, because it sure as hell does to me.
If they get the funds to do this, I challenge all of you, and I mean THE ENTIRE FORUM, to tell me WHY it won't work. Give me ONE good reason!    

Tropical Skies-
Fly to new horizons

RE: The Concorde Is Going Away

Sat Aug 05, 2000 8:16 am

Becuase the world can get along without supersonic passenger travel. It's not needed. Those businessmen who take it commercially will get along just fine without it. Business isn't going to stop. *shrug* Most people who get emotional about the concorde or supersonic commercial passenger travel going away do so just because they are aviation enthusiasts, and they like the plane and the idea. I think it's cool too just isn't a nessescity. For the average person it just isn't a nesscesity. In fact, except maybe for the military, supersonic flight just isn't a nessescity. Hey if it happens great. Cool. But I doubt it. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Just my opinion folks, just my opninion....
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:07 am


Sat Aug 05, 2000 10:16 am

unnesscery does not translate to un-profitable. And in this world, everything that makes a profit, is loved by people. A whole new Gen. of SST will vreat a whole new market.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 9vswr, AABB777, alfa164, askme, cabochris, Cipango, cornishsimon, GCT64, Google Adsense [Bot], HELyes, ikolkyo, keesje, lostsound, piedmont762, Polot, SANFan, sbworcs, SCQ83, seat1a, SFOA380, Sylus, TK105, Ty134A, Yahoo [Bot] and 361 guests