Aerion Corp. of Reno, NV is developing an SST business jet which hopefully can fly by 2012. It will have no sonic boom as it will fly at only M 1.6. It will only hold a maximum of 12 passengers and has a newly-developed wing, unlike the Concorde's Delta Wing. It's 2 PW JT8D-219 engines are supposed to be quieter,too. This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this technology could one day be used to build a passenger jet like the Concorde.
saw a few articles about this in AOPA and FLYING magazines, it's really a cool idea and i hope it works out.
it is mathematically impossible for either hummingbirds, or helicopters to fly. fortunately, neither are aware of this.
Any mach 2 plane can fly at mach 1.6, Concorde could easily do that but it chose to fly at mach 2 and hence it got JFK faster.Originally Posted by Speedbird1
On my flight the afterburners where lit before mach 1 when we broke the sound barrier the afterburners stayed on until mach 1.7 then we flew on supercruise (some thing which the F22 and Eurofighter have only just got, but Concorde had for 27 years).
If my pilots wanted to Concorde could have easily cruised at mach 1.6 on i guess super cruise.
Yep a plane for the Yuppies (like the ones who got the world in to the financial mess it is now in).It will only hold a maximum of 12 passengers
Concorde held 100, if the boeing Sonic cruiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser had been made it would have cruised at around mach0.99, It could have been developed in to go faster and become "son of Concorde".
If the UK and French government had kept developing Concorde believe me she would have looked different by now, been greener, carried more people, longer range, quiter and more fuel efficient than ever.and has a newly-developed wing, unlike the Concorde's Delta Wing, It's 2 PW JT8D-219 engines are supposed to be quieter,too.
It won't happen in my life time........as the tree huggers and bean counters won't let it happen.Hopefully, this technology could one day be used to build a passenger jet like the Concorde.
On both sides of the Atlantic we still have brains and now how to make "son of Concorde" now........ we just don't have leaders and VIPS who want to make it happen. But in the 1960's we had leaders in UK and France who made Concorde happen and despite what people say she was a success as apart from the Paris crash she flew safely for 27 years.
If you look it from an airline point of view, BA never had a crash so BA Concordes are the safest and fastest airliners ever made........ nothing not even the "new" A380 or 787 can ever touch nor match Concorde as these "new" planes will still take 7-8 hrs to fly LHR-JFK, Concorde did in 3 1/2 hrs.......she could have got their faster if ATC in the UK had allowed her fly supersonic just after take off at heathrow.
The possibilities with Concorde where endless but people "in power" didnt know how to fully utilise this resource and technology.
We were capable of producing the SR-71 several decades ago, so there's no reason why we can't produce something bigger and better nowadays for passenger transport.
It all boils down to the basic economic principle of supply vs. demand. If enough people demand a SST and are willing to pay whatever it costs to fly on them, the capability is definitely there to produce such a machine. At this point in time though, a demand for this doesn't exist - at least from enough people willing to put money down for it.
The SR-71 is a brilliant plane, never saw one fly in real life but from what i read and heard about her ............. wow what plane :)
I fully agree with you, but with the greatest of respect when the 1960s US government gave the American SST project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 to Boeing they really shot them selfs in the foot.so there's no reason why we can't produce something bigger and better nowadays for passenger transport.
Boeing had big ideas but had no experience of SSTs and in the end spent as much money on Wooden model as UK and France spent on developing and making 14 real Concordes.
If the US government had given the project to Lockheed (who made the SR-71), then I am very sure the US would have had a very successful SST and by now instead of having a 747-400 or 787 they would have an the latest generation of SSTs, Concorde would have also evolved in to 2nd or 3rd generation version.
I have to disagree the demand for an SST-learjet exists and i feel 12 people flying at mach 1.6 costs more per mile than the cost of 100 flying people at mach 2 per mile.It all boils down to the basic economic principle of supply vs. demand. If enough people demand a SST and are willing to pay whatever it costs to fly on them, the capability is definitely there to produce such a machine. At this point in time though, a demand for this doesn't exist - at least from enough people willing to put money down for it.
When the 707 came out only the rich could afford it so demand wasnt really there due to cost, but when the 747 came out then demand went up (as seats where cheaper per mile than on 707.)
Recently when the low cost airlines started they used 737s (same ones as used by other bigger airlines), but low cost airlines cut prices of seats from $200 to $60 so even more people can afford to fly.
Same principle would apply to Concorde.
With Concorde the demand was always there and from what i heard every BA Concorde flight either broke even or made a profit, The French never marketed their Concordes the way BA did so Air France made a loss but to BA Concorde was some thing to be very proud of.
A Concorde ticket was only 20% more than a 1st class on a 747, but on Concorde you got there in 1/2 of the time of 747 so 20% more was a bargain as logically they could have charged 150% more for getting from A to B in 50% of the time but BA didnt.
BA could have lowered their seat prices to sell more tickets and hence make more money but instead their managment pushed up prices and hence shot them selfs in the foot as demand dropped off.
If BA and Air France had $1000 - $2000 Concorde seats believe me people would have been fighting tooth and nail to fly on her (as who wants to pay the same for a 747 seat when you can fly on Concorde for same amount and get there in 1/2 the time) ?
The demand is there, but its convincing airline bosses to listen and make it happen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks