'Next Concorde' takes off

[n_kitson]

I think the journalist made an error. Given the "half the time from New York to Tokyo" statement, this is a Mach 2 aircraft design.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It wasn't the crash that killed Concorde; it was the enormous operating expense<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I partially agree with that. Concorde was an old plane that required a complete maintenance and operating structure for 11 planes. A complexity that was a liability when airlines were streamlining operations.<br /><br />The development costs were never recovered on Concorde because so few were ever sold. Often people will point out that the plane was operating at a loss. This is not the case. Pre-2000 the plane was operating at a profit. <br /><br />There is no reason a next-generation SST cannot be profitable. The question is, can the development costs ever be overcome?<br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I partially agree with that. Concorde was an old plane that required a complete maintenance and operating structure for 11 planes. A complexity that was a liability when airlines were streamlining operations.<br /><br />The development costs were never recovered on Concorde because so few were ever sold. Often people will point out that the plane was operating at a loss. This is not the case. Pre-2000 the plane was operating at a profit.<br /><br />There is no reason a next-generation SST cannot be profitable. The question is, can the development costs ever be overcome?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I wasn't thinking about the maintenance problems, although yes, it was definitely a problem that the per-aircraft cost of maintaining the parts manufacture infrastructure is a lot higher when there aren't very many birds. (This is one of the reasons the Space Shuttle is so expensive per flight as well. There are fewer Shuttles and far fewer flights per year than were originally planned.) I was thinking more of the fuel costs, which would've just kept on going up faster than the rising ticket prices could support. Part of the trouble is that the visionaries behind Concorde had greatly overestimated the public's willingness to pay extra to get there a few hours quicker. One trend being reflected throughout the airline industry right now is towards cheap tickets. People are increasingly forgoing luxuries in favor of cheaper flights, including folks who can actually afford to fly first class.<br /><br />SST can be profitable, but I think the biggest problems to overcome are a) the political unpopularity of overland supersonic travel, and b) fuel economy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

My grandparents actually won a flight on the Concorde in some contest! I thought about flying on it before it was retired, but it was just too expensive. I miss seeing them flying over the Jersey Shore, past Sandy Hook on the approach to JFK.

 

[spayss]

"The fuel costs are going to be a nightmare. Are there really 300 people on this planet who have to cross the pacific in 4 hours?'<br /><br /> Excellent post. A voice of sanity among the salivating.<br /><br /> Our planet needs technology that helps put environmental integrity first.<br /><br /> Maybe supersonic passenger planes won't be gas pigs....and maybe they don't impact the ozone layer, etc. If not, then I'll join the cheering but I don't want my children's ecology further degraded so a bunch of wealthy businessmen and pop stars can zoom across the world quicker.<br /><br /> Hopefully one day we won't worship at the altar of technology.<br /><br /> <br />

 

[n_kitson]

Concorde was certainly more sensitive to rising fuel prices than the majority of jet aircraft, but this was not the primary reason for the doom of the airliner. In fact, not one clear reason stands out - it was a combination of factors (one of which was the energy crisis). Many airlines though they could operate Concorde profitably and placed orders. However these were canceled due to a collection of factors that worked together, including:<br /><br />- Lobbying by activist groups to ban overland flights due to noise pollution, which eliminated all the most rofitable outs<br />- Those rising energy costs of the 70's<br />- Attempts by a small group of representatives in congress to ban Concorde from landing on US soil after the cancellation of the 2707 program<br />- The small passenger capacity of the aircraft<br /><br />Even today numerous routes - both domestic and international - exist that have the passenger demand for profitable supersonic flight. The stumbling blocks are twofold: (i) astronomical development costs which will never be recovered, thus requiring government funding (ii) the NIMBY problem that prevents supersonic flight over land.

 

[siarad]

Funny you should say that fuelless flight

 

[nacnud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> that’s one complicated perpetual motion machine lol!

 

[larper]

I love how they use pneumatic motors to compress air. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The actual result would be a net loss of compressed air, opposite of what they claim. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"As with Boeing and the Sonic Cruiser. A lot of those ideas are going into the 787."</i><br /><br />But the 787 is so boring! That's the problem with the world today...it's run by bean counters, not visionaries!<br /><br />Speaking of the Sonic Cruiser, isn't the Cessna Citation X business jet capable of cruising at the speeds envisioned for the SC?

 

[propforce]

<i>"....But the 787 is so boring! That's the problem with the world today...it's run by bean counters, not visionaries! ..."</i><br /><br /><br />Visionaries? You wanna see visionaries you'd go to the movies !!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[davf]

It is close. The Citation X has an Mmo of 0.92 Mach and a maximum cruise of 0.91 M. Wasn't the Sonic Cruiser being designed to fly at 0.95 Mach? Might not sound like much but the drag reduction challenges (ensuring moderately economic flight) increase dramatically the closer you get to Mach 1.<br /><br />While the 787 may not be as 'sexy' as the Sonic Cruiser but it does do something special: it makes money. Capitalism rears it's ugly head. On the other hand, the 787 does have an interesting tail and big windows.

 

[gsuschrist]

"Capitalism rears it's ugly head. "<br /><br /> Why is making a profit and providing a service that real people will use in the real world ugly?" If it's ugly then bring on the super ugly. Hopefully this 'ugly head' will someday also spearhead the movement in meaningful spaceflight.

 

[davf]

That was sarcasm.