Discussion on:
Just
In
In
No, Concorde was a money-loser from day one.
Edited by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 20th Mar 2012
Show:
0
Votes
Economy travel
In this current world I find it difficult to believe anyone but the very rich could travel in it for quite sometime. Day to day folk don't travel literally but by internet. Could this just be a metaphor for faster web programs linking banking and publishing and property ownerships disguised by the green movement. To much money is thrown to environmental projects without investing in actual people. It is like ordinary people are already dead to the to think tank experts online and if you do try to engage they knock you down before you even open your mouth. I have found my mouth and courage and that is my say.
Posted by wokeap
19th Mar 2012
0
Votes
If they could develop the technology.
The supercruise technology in the F22 Raptor allows it to attain supersonic speeds without the need for afterburners. I have yet to see a proposed commercial SST designs use this technology.
The poor fuel economy of afterburners has always been a major hurdle for commercial SSTs.
The poor fuel economy of afterburners has always been a major hurdle for commercial SSTs.
Posted by Hates Idiots
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
Supercruise doesn't solve all the problems
Supercruise won't solve all the problems. After all, the Concorde achieved supercruise, and it was still a fuel hog.
Posted by zackers
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
Not quite right on Concorde.
The Concorde achieved supersonic speeds using afterburners.
Supercruise is the ability of a standard jet engine to achieve supersonic speeds without fuel gulping afterburners.
The F-22 was the first non X-plane to make supersonic speeds without afterburners.
Supercruise is a compromise in design that uses more fuel than subsonic flight to cover the same distance in less time, but less fuel than afterburners used to make the same speed over the same distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Supercruise is the ability of a standard jet engine to achieve supersonic speeds without fuel gulping afterburners.
The F-22 was the first non X-plane to make supersonic speeds without afterburners.
Supercruise is a compromise in design that uses more fuel than subsonic flight to cover the same distance in less time, but less fuel than afterburners used to make the same speed over the same distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Posted by Hates Idiots
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
It all comes down to the cost of a seat-mile
The question is can such a design be scaled up to carry enough passengers to be worthwhile, and can it be built and maintained economically. The Concorde was a commercial failure not just because the its fuel burn and sonic boom that limited it to exclusively overseas routes, but because the cost of building them was astronomical, and it carried too few people.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
Concorde
Actually Concorde was quite profitable, at least for British Airways if not for Air France. (There was an agreement that both would continue flying them until both mutually agreed not to.) There was a big enough market willing to pay the premium for the time saving of crossing NYC (or earlier Washington) to London for them to always run at capacity. There were some people who did day trips to London and back! An expensive way to avoid jet lag...
In fact after the accident when BA finally acceded to Air France's desire to stop flying them, Richard Branson wanted to take over BA's Concorde fleet and run them under the Virgin flag.
In fact after the accident when BA finally acceded to Air France's desire to stop flying them, Richard Branson wanted to take over BA's Concorde fleet and run them under the Virgin flag.
Posted by rhodez
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
No, Concorde was a money-loser from day one.
The governments of Britain & France literally gave the airplanes to British Airways and Air France. The airlines did not have to pay for them; just the cost of operating and maintaining them, which even still did not result in a worthwhile profit. Basically, it was cold-war nationalistic prestige purchase. The net result was average British & French taxpayers made to pay for wealthy celebrities, businesspeople and other 1%-ers to fly trans-Atlantic at great speed. (It didn't have the range to fly any other worthwhile route)
If all airlines didn't have to finance hundreds-of-millions of dollars it cost to buy each plane they operate, they'd all be fabulously profitable.
If all airlines didn't have to finance hundreds-of-millions of dollars it cost to buy each plane they operate, they'd all be fabulously profitable.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
Supersonic land transport?
If you fly from Edinburgh to Dusseldorf most of your journey time will be spent on the ground. With high speed rail, you would spend more time actually traveling and get there sooner. Anyway, air travel is doomed. When fossil fuels run out, how are you going to run an airliner on electricity?
Posted by Shadeburst
20th Mar 2012
0
Votes
supersonic flight
It will someday become viable and necessary....there is a lot of work to be done on power plant and fuel....but it will be done....there is a huge market for supersonic business and freight travel, just not at the cost of present technology.....but we always push forward...
Posted by dwhite0849
20th Mar 2012