MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I'm sat here watching a really old promo film for Concorde on cable TV (film on channel) quite apart from the very groovy funk soundtrack it's apparent that supersonic travel was dead cool. Why has no nation or company decided to build something as a replacement for it? Is it really that much of a loss maker or is there some other reason?
The environment innit.
What you need is a huge crate that as many people as possible can be crammed on.
The vision for Concorde was of far more planes being built which would of reduced some of the costs.
The technology required to allow supersonic passenger jets is pretty amazing.
However, there major noise issues and it was unacceptable to fly supersonic over land. This wasn't a major problem for the UK but it caused major issues over the US. A sonic boom is ****ing loud.
Also the US put a lot of restrictions on Concorde to effectively kill it and allow 747s to dominate.
noise was ace 🙂
used to hear and see the early evening flight back from NY depending on which way the runways were running at LHR.
then moved to pretty much the end of Filton runway, which was even more ace on the few occasions that Concorde dropped by.
I appreciate that most residents of Hounslow probably didn't see it that way.
Why has no nation or company decided to build something as a replacement for it?
Too expensive. Most people don't need to shave 8 hours off their 2 week holiday, but cutting the cost of flights in half is very useful. People shop for flights on cost first, so supersonic travel would never be cost effective. Especially nowadays as the cost of fuel is getting higher all the time. Look at the two flagship planes from the two biggest makers. They are both primarily targeting reduced fuel cost, in different ways.
So the premium market then, who could afford it - most people would prefer to either fly overnight in enough comfort to sleep, or have enough space and facilities to get work done on their laptop. Concorde was pretty cramped compared to business class afaik.
With modern "multimedia" communications, why would i want to travel at only Supersonic speeds, when i can converse at the speed of light?
(ie, video conference over 'tnet etc)
If you're flying for fun / recreation, you want low cost above pretty much everything
If you're flying for business you still want low cost.
Used to love hear it climbing away over my flat in Reading at around 11am in the morning. What a phenomenal noise.
It was louder than the PA system at the Reading festival too!
1973 oil embargo and a quadrupling of the price of a barrel.
The design costs for a Mach+ plane would also be huge, was a shame they didn't keep any concordes flying just to show what is possible.
The drag forces must be huge meaning that you are burning loads of fuel per passenger
Expensive and not that environmentally friendly
I also wonder if some one worked out that flying on your own in a private jet is the way to go if you have the cash. A shorter journey isn't that much of a benefit if its not at the right time for you
Oh and finally I heard that post 911 the super rich never fly on a scheduled flights with the great unwashed
Oh and finally I heard that post 911 the super rich never fly on a scheduled flights with the great unwashed
I know plenty of people who are not super rich who won't travel by bus. Nothing to do with terrorism, they just don't like the great unwashed.
Plenty of companies are working on supersonic and hypersonic transport right now.
Here's just one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2
Plus, have you ever sat on Concorde, it's small, cramped and not very comfortable. If I was paying that much, I'd rather take longer and fly business class and be able to walk when I land.
Awesome piece of machinery though. Used to turn up at Prestwick for pilot training for a copuple of weeks a year.
Like most corps the muppets brought in to look at the of driving costs out, the CEO's rewarded/incentivised on short term gain are to blame, R&D unless its measured in a handful of months is now not prioritised and the first item on the cut list when the CEO decides that its time to drive up the share price and the only method they know is to reduce costs as they have no effing clue how to grow a business.
Ambition is being actively attacked by luddites, from investment in power generation and distribution(whatever it is from wind thru to nuclear) to anything that uses radio waves or resistance to inoculation against diseases long since almost eradicated.
What we are lacking is people with vision who are willing to and have the sanction from their investors to stick the proverbial middle finger up and forge their own path.
I used to love watching Concorde fly over Sat morning at 10:30. Never tired of seeing it in the air. Only flew on it once and that was a treat if not as comfortable as the pointy end of a 747! Would love to see it again. Most beautiful plane in the sky.
Supersonic travel is fascinating stuff. It really feels like we have gone backwards but the challenges of keeping 200 people alive at Mach 2 are expensive to solve. I've been told that we'll likely see supersonic private jets appear in the near future and airbus are now working with a small american firm to help them do just that: [url= http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/pdf/Airbus_Group_Aerion_announce_collaboration_92214.pdf ]Airbus/Aerion[/url]
Interestingly a lot of the modern climate concern was kicked off by the research that went into answering the questions about what would happen if there were several hundred supersonic liners flying at 60,000ft. I can't imagine that Greenpeace et al will be happy with the prospect of the rich and famous polluting the upper atmosphere but I bet Al Gore will be one of the first to use a supersonic bizjet 🙄
Washington - London on Concorde - 3 hours, averaged 1000mph. Worst jetlag I've ever had.
people have said things like:
bad for the environment
?
no-one cares. What do we think comes out of the back of a sub-sonic jet engine? rainbows and butterflys?
even Greanpeach don't care about the environment anymore:
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/23/greenpeace-defends-top-executive-flying-to-work ]flying's fine, say Greanpeace[/url]
Flying on a modern jumbo is on a par with travelling by car for fuel efficiency. Concorde was somewhat worse than that. As mentioned it was cost that did it. People want cheaper travel rather than faster.
B747 - 345 seats, 15000kg/hr fuel burn (average)
Concorde - 100 seats, 25000kg/hr Fuel burn (average)
Hmmm...
It wasn't that small or cramped. The BA ones had Club World seating in a time before that was flat beds (basically the current World Traveller Plus seating), it was more like a train inside in terms of size, but there was bags of leg room. Cramped it wasn't. First was more spacious, but it was also a lot more expensive than Concorde, whilst being slower. You could day trip New York on Concorde, which you can't subsonic.
I was lucky though to fly Concorde to New York, and have done numerous First and Club flights too (staff travel), Concorde was awesome.
R&D unless its measured in a handful of months is now not prioritised
What for planes, you are joking
[img] 
[/img]
And infact the process started before that and I expect that this was quick
Ambition is being actively attacked by luddites
Don't talk rubbish. The market is just much more competitive now (like most markets) which means costs have to be slashed. The harder this gets, the more stuff that has to be cut. Concorde wasn't profitable, and it's even less likely to be profitable now given higher fuel prices, and they're only going one way in the long term.
You may be sad about the end of Concorde, as I am, but hey - if you wanted it to carry on then you should've flown on it. Unless.. you couldn't afford it? 🙂
B747 - 345 seats, 15000kg/hr fuel burn (average)Concorde - 100 seats, 25000kg/hr Fuel burn (average)
So say London to Washington, that's roughly 100,000kg of fuel on a Jumbo and 75,000kg of fuel on Concorde, which makes around 300kg per person on Jumbo and 750kg per person on Concorde.
According to the internet an A380 uses around 10,000kg/hour but could be carrying 500 people, so that makes 140kg per person!
Didn't Branson want to buy it from BA? But they blocked it by keeping the design and just not flying it..?
Not really, Branson offered to buy them, they declined, Airbus withdrew maintenance support, which scuppered any plans.
No Concorde,
And no space shuttle.
Does seem a bit like we going backwards.
Not to mention the harrier jump jet.
No Concorde,
And no space shuttle.
We've done this before.
Progress isn't about blowing shitloads of money on vanity projects. It's about getting more done. We can put stuff in space more cheaply than with the Shuttle, that allows us to put more stuff up there and provide more services. Far more people can afford to fly places now than they could in 1970 - this is progress.
We still have the technology to build Concorde, but we ALSO have the technology to build the 787 and A380. This is progress.
Do rockets not leave more litter in space more than the shuttle did
The fuel burn per hour is a bit misleading since the Concorde did the trip in half the time.
The U.S. had tried, and failed, to build their own SST. Having failed themselves, there was always pressure to use any means to prevent Concorde from flying in and out of the States. Noise and environmental grounds were a good excuse, if the Boing SST had actually worked, would they have stopped their own plane from flying in and out?
I somehow doubt it...
[img] 
[/img]
The reason why Concorde did a trip in half the time was because it burned so much more fuel and forms the basis of the economics of the aircraft. Yes, Concorde crossed the Atlantic in half the time, but a B747 carried 4 times the passengers and carries a sh1t load of underbelly cargo which nets the airline more revenue than the passengers. Too expensive to run, too few passengers and payload. Its economics that killed Concorde pure and simple. The only reason why BA made loads of money from it is because they were gifted them for £1 each so didn't have to recover the huge purchase costs.
The shuttle was less of a technological success and certainly an economic disaster. It wasn't exactly the reusable spaceplane it was billed as, requiring months of complete strip down and re-build between missions, no individual shuttle was the same as it was on its previous mission - a bit like Triggers Broom. And then it turned out to have a serious design flaw when it started killing people.
Concorde was an amazing technological project, but unfortunately it was and always was going to be economics that wins out. We'll never see another supersonic passenger plane again. We'll see low earth orbit space planes for sure, probably in most of our lifetimes.
The fuel burn per hour is a bit misleading since the Concorde did the trip in half the time.
If you check my maths I took that into account.. assuming 3 hours London to Washington on Concorde and 7 hours on a normal plane.
We'll see low earth orbit space planes for sure, probably in most of our lifetimes.
This could be a better idea, as the real advantage I reckon as the really long haul flights are where you would get the benefit of the extra speed, and sub orbital space flights would be ideal for this. New York in 2.5 hours vs 7 - no biggie. Australia in 2 - that's a bigger deal.
Wouldn't we not be getting tons of xrays each time we flew though?
back2basics - MemberWouldn't we not be getting tons of xrays each time we flew though?
less than an astronaut.
(but they're advised to store/freeze some eggs or sperm before they launch...)
"welcome aboard BA low-orbit flight 234 to Aukland, we'll be taking off in just a few moments, do pay attention to the safety instrustions - we hope you remembered to freeze your Gametes while you had the chance"
(although it would give Ryanair another service to charge for...)
Progress isn't about blowing shitloads of money on vanity projects. It's about getting more done. We can put stuff in space more cheaply than with the Shuttle, that allows us to put more stuff up there and provide more services. Far more people can afford to fly places now than they could in 1970 - this is progress.We still have the technology to build Concorde, but we ALSO have the technology to build the 787 and A380. This is progress.
How very insightful. Thank you.
@awhiles Give new meaning to in flight entertainment ...
on a more serious note, if could mean you could live in oz and work in London
And then it turned out to have a serious design flaw when it started killing people.
That was a solid fuel booster issue involving poor checking of seals, causing high-temperature outgassing which caused an explosion, which was visible in footage of the event, IIRC. It wasn't an inherent flaw in the shuttle itself.
There's a small version of the shuttle in operation, the Boeing X-37B has just landed after two years in orbit.
Nobody's letting on as to what sort of mission it was on that required two years in orbit, but it seemed to function properly.
Smaller than the shuttle, but a similar lifting body, should be a better delivery vehicle than a plain rocket, more payload, no crew.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
[img]
[/img]
Don't talk rubbish. The market is just much more competitive now (like most markets) which means
You scoff but he is partly right, funding for blue skies science projects have been dwindling at the detriment to humanity. If you don't understand why this is a detriment then I cannot help you.
back2basics - MemberWouldn't we not be getting tons of xrays each time we flew though?
No problem. Some low tech lead shielding will take care of that! 😉
back2basics - Member
on a more serious note, if could mean you could live in oz and work in London
At the point when you can get London to Sydney in 2hrs a) you have enough money to do this you wont need the job in London or b) it's cheap enough to do this being somewhere specific for a job will probably be considered as something your grandparents did.
As nice as it would be to cut journey times that much the cost would have to be inline with current fares, the comfort would need to be there and the need would be required. As technology has proved there is very little need for most of the population to be on the other side of the world in that short a time frame.
I can get from heathrow to sydney in 22hrs, concorde did it in 17 http://www.concorde-art-world.com/html/record_breaker.html
I'm guessing the price would be a bit different. (I can be back in the UK next week for £750 RTN)
I'd rather pay for the lay down bed, stand up bar and the private room I think.
we'll likely see supersonic private jets appear in the near future
I think you'll find we won't - there's currently no market for them.
I think you'll find we won't - there's currently no market for them.
Whilst preparing for this thread I'm sure I read that they were in development...
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/24/travel/airbus-supersonic-jet/
http://www.gizmag.com/aerion-as2-supersonic-business-jet/32149/
If mach 1.4 isn't enough, try mach 4:
I don't remember any talk of withdrawing Concorde until the Paris crash. My memory. May be faulty.
I do remember my class being herded down to the school hall to watch the first commercial Concorde flights on the telly.
That was a solid fuel booster issue involving poor checking of seals, causing high-temperature outgassing which caused an explosion, which was visible in footage of the event, IIRC. It wasn't an inherent flaw in the shuttle itself.
Inherent saftey flaws in the shuttle design included an exposed heat shield, vunerable to damage on launch (which did for the second shuttle disasater) and lack of a realistic escape mechanism for the crew post launch and pre-orbit.
Current spacecraft designs being worked on by SpaceX and Lockheed Martin will be way better than the shuttle, if they ever fly. They just don't look like sci-fi space planes.
Whilst preparing for this thread I'm sure I read that they were in development..
So, a couple of small companies with nothing beyond the design stage talking about first flight in six years.
Meanwhile, from a company that has been actually making bizjets for some time:
But the reality remains starkly different says Gulfstream senior VP marketing and sales Scott Neal. “In order to make the market viable for supersonics you have to make it feasible to fly overland faster than sound – which is currently against the law. We don’t think there is a viable market until you change that.”
Jury's out obviously. But TBH I'd believe Gulfstream over a handful of as yet unproven startups.
I never said it was going to happen or the companies were great. Just that some people are working on it 🙂
^ fair point!
I thought they had thought of various methods of crew escape for the shuttle but were too costly to incorporate, then after the first disaster when the crew are actually still alive in the cockpit after it broke up, they looked at them again and still said it was to much to retrofit...Then the second disaster was impossible to survive anyway. ..
ended up having to have the second shuttle ready at all times instead. .
which was just being a PR stunt because in reality both disasters were just management failures in ignoring everything they were told on the basis of costs and deadlines
reality both disasters were just management failures in ignoring everything they were told on the basis of costs and deadlines
Yes. The Columbia disaster, where the heat shield was damaged on the leading edge of the wing. Apparently several previous shuttle flights suffered worse heat shield damage on launch, but just in less critical areas. So they didn't think it would be a problem 🙄
Still doesn't mean its not a flawed design though.
Progress isn't about blowing shitloads of money on vanity projects. It's about getting more done. We can put stuff in space more cheaply than with the Shuttle, that allows us to put more stuff up there and provide more services. Far more people can afford to fly places now than they could in 1970 - this is progress.
We still have the technology to build Concorde, but we ALSO have the technology to build the 787 and A380. This is progress.
Indeed everything up to now has been a learning exercise and humanity's knowledge of science and engineering is richer for it, but is it true [i]Progress[/i] or is it Blindly marching on having not really thought about how progress should be measured?
Concorde died off because it was becoming an old aircraft and the Market didn't really support renewal or developing a direct replacement, Airlines are more interested in shifting "volume" rather than selling speed, they're also keen to control their costs and aviation fuel isn't cheap, Concorde would not be commercially viable today (it could be argued it wasn't when it was developed)...
That's not a [i]Bad[/i] thing necessarily, The fact that Concorde was built and operated successfully for many years tells us just what is possible, by the same token the A380 is a massive leap in it's own right, it's capacity and relative fuel efficiency would have been unthinkable when Concorde was built, it may not seem as sexy but in it's own way it is, and it actually caters to modern commercial aviation needs...
But, without coming over all Buckminster Fuller, I think we're definitely at the point where humanity need to start learning how to [i]do more with less[/i].
We probably understand just how finite our resources are better than ever before, we have several centuries of Scientific and Engineering achievements to look back on and learn from now, it's really time to take stock and question how sustainable our general affinity for High speed, hydrocarbon fuelled transport, inefficient use of energy and widespread wasting of natural resources really is, in the age of the internet and with booming populations how do we proceed? More of the same? engineering Bigger, Faster, cheaper solutions to first-world problems? Or should we really be rationalizing stuff like Air travel back to a bare minimum?
is it true Progress or is it Blindly marching on having not really thought about how progress should be measured?
Well that's a good question. How should progress be measured?
I think we're definitely at the point where humanity need to start learning how to do more with less.
And that's exactly what Boeing and Airbus are doing.
i'm surprised this hasn't popped up yet, on a thread about supersonic travel...
[url= http://www.cnet.com/news/is-a-hyperloop-prototype-really-possible-by-2015/ ]hyperloop_2015[/url]
it's bonkers, but if anyone can do it...