Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 12/17/2016 11:57:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2016 11:58:29 PM EST by Butternut]
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 11:59:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 12:00:20 AM EST by costanza]
Yes. Simply because all technology is improving (even if the Concorde is old), it makes sense that air travel would improve as well.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:01:55 AM EST
I hope so
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:03:49 AM EST
I think Virgin is already building one. Advertised $5,000 trans Atlantic ticket price.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:04:31 AM EST
I doubt it.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:04:48 AM EST
Fuel is cheap right now and I forget who, but someone is working on reducing the effect of the sonic boom on the folks below the plane's flight path.

Then if that tech comes to fruition, you will need the govt to allow super sonic flight over the US.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:07:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 12:07:57 AM EST by tnriverluver]
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:08:57 AM EST
Not if the FAA has anything g to say about it. And they will.

If the FAA was a thing 80 years ago we'd all be flying in 30 seat prop planes flying at 5k feet costing 3000 dollars a ticket.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:10:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tnriverluver:
I think Virgin is already building one. Advertised $5,000 trans Atlantic ticket price.
View Quote


That's what a typical business class ticket costs anyways.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:13:49 AM EST
I posted once that the day the Concord SST ceased to fly aviation took a step backwards
got beat up for that but I still think so.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:19:22 AM EST
Engine technology, specifically reduced fuel consumption at supersonic speed has made some real progress since that state sponsored boondoggle. It could actually be viable now.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:29:46 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By flash556:
I posted once that the day the Concord SST ceased to fly aviation took a step backwards
got beat up for that but I still think so.
View Quote


Yep, it's like introducing the smartphone and then taking it out and going back to flip up phones
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:44:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Fwiw- that's a scam directed by people, and for people, who know nothing about designing, building and certifying, operating flying, or maintaining, airplanes.

For some reason, Denver is a Mecca for failed airplane manufacturers.

I would love to be wrong.....
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:48:16 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 762moose:
Not if the FAA has anything g to say about it. And they will.

If the FAA was a thing 80 years ago we'd all be flying in 30 seat prop planes flying at 5k feet costing 3000 dollars a ticket.
View Quote


The FAA was a thing 90 years ago, it traces its origins to 1926.

It was created at the request of the airline industry to promote commercial air travel by establishing safety standards, etc.

The FAA has done an immense amount to promote commercial air travel.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:56:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By Butternut:
 will there ever be a profitable niche market for something like this grand bird again? 
View Quote

again?

was the concorde ever profitable?
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 12:56:33 AM EST
Lots of incredibly rich people with lots of money to spend, so maybe.

I think the common man will see more individual transport though.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:00:20 AM EST
Maybe the Almighty E. Musk can create an all electric supersonic plane. All joking aside, it would fantastic if the Concorde like plane would return to commercial aviation.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:02:32 AM EST
Doubtful.  The economics won't work.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:23:36 AM EST
Yep, it's coming. 
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:28:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pcal765:


The FAA was a thing 90 years ago, it traces its origins to 1926.

It was created at the request of the airline industry to promote commercial air travel by establishing safety standards, etc.

The FAA has done an immense amount to promote commercial air travel.
View Quote


You crack or heroin? That is the exact opposite of what the FAA does.

Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:28:42 AM EST
"Ever" is a really long time.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:49:24 AM EST
In before the burning and crashing Concord.

I have asked the question.
Is there or why isn't there a supersonic private jet out there?

I would think someone with more money than brains would have had a company build one.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:58:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 762moose:
Not if the FAA has anything g to say about it. And they will.

If the FAA was a thing 80 years ago we'd all be flying in 30 seat prop planes flying at 5k feet costing 3000 dollars a ticket.
View Quote




So Piedmont Airlines would still be around
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:00:21 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JRCmx:
In before the burning and crashing Concord.

I have asked the question.
Is there or why isn't there a supersonic private jet out there?

I would think someone with more money than brains would have had a company build one.
View Quote
Prototypes have been built and there are privately owned supersonic aircraft, but none of them are what you'd normally consider "business jets". 
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:01:40 AM EST
A supersonic business jet is coming...

http://fortune.com/2015/11/24/supersonic-private-jet/
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:05:06 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JRCmx:

I have asked the question.
Is there or why isn't there a supersonic private jet out there?

I would think someone with more money than brains would have had a company build one.
View Quote

Because you couldn't fly it over the continental US (or any populated area) at least not supersonic.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:16:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Because you couldn't fly it over the continental US (or any populated area) at least not supersonic.
View Quote


NASA and the USAF have been working together for years on reducing the boom. We are at the point now where all that remains is convincing the FAA.

Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:32:29 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Oiparhon:


Yep, it's like introducing the smartphone and then taking it out and going back to flip up phones
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Oiparhon:
Originally Posted By flash556:
I posted once that the day the Concord SST ceased to fly aviation took a step backwards
got beat up for that but I still think so.


Yep, it's like introducing the smartphone and then taking it out and going back to flip up phones


That would actually be an improvement to society!








Link Posted: 12/18/2016 3:32:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By costanza:
Yes. Simply because all technology is improving (even if the Concorde is old), it makes sense that air travel would improve as well.
View Quote


It isn't about technology. It's been 40 years since the Concorde was introduced, and technology, engineering, manufacturing, materials have come a LONG way since then.

What it's all about is fuel costs and market share.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 4:08:07 AM EST
Yes, when it becomes economically feasible. The airfare on the Concorde was outrageous and operating costs were high. For many is was one of those flight of a lifetime deals.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 9:11:43 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By costanza:
Yes. Simply because all technology is improving (even if the Concorde is old), it makes sense that air travel would improve as well.
View Quote

No, we won't see another SST in my lifetime simply due to regulatory and budgetary constraints.

Pay attention to his comments on the technology plateau.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 11:11:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


NASA and the USAF have been working together for years on reducing the boom. We are at the point now where all that remains is convincing the FAA.
View Quote


Good fucking luck.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:50:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Silence:

again?

was the concorde ever profitable?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Butternut:
 will there ever be a profitable niche market for something like this grand bird again? 

again?

was the concorde ever profitable?

No. It was a flagship that made BOAC and Air France look cutting edge. It lost money every flight.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:21:05 PM EST
NASA and Boeing are working on ways to minimize sonic boom at ground level.

They are making some progress, and there will definitely be a return to supersonic travel, as soon as noise levels on the ground can be reduced enough.



Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:30:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 2:46:26 PM EST by Radiolax]
Boom is the latest to jump into the SST fray with this Mach 2.2 beauty:



Boom is HQ's at Centennial Airport outside Denver. Their hope is that the advances in materials, aerodynamics and engine technologies achieved since Concord was designed (Early 1960's) will permit them to keep the aircraft's per seat operating costs low enough to turn a profit.  The airframe is sized to accommodate 45 to 50 seats to keep the load factor high.  On key business city pairs (JFK-LHR, LAX-NRT, etc.) there's probably enough demand for a few dozen aircraft.  Add a few more for corporate, private and nation/state travel and they might be able to make a go of it.

As was noted several posts above, Richard Branson's Spaceship Company will be handling the construction and flight test of the XB-1, a smaller proof of concept vehicle which is expected to be fly late in 2017.   More info is available at www.boomsupersonic.com
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:31:03 PM EST
Probably not. It has to be economically successful and the concorde never made money.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:34:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pcal765:


The FAA was a thing 90 years ago, it traces its origins to 1926.

It was created at the request of the airline industry to promote commercial air travel by establishing safety standards, etc.

The FAA has done an immense amount to promote commercial air travel.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pcal765:
Originally Posted By 762moose:
Not if the FAA has anything g to say about it. And they will.

If the FAA was a thing 80 years ago we'd all be flying in 30 seat prop planes flying at 5k feet costing 3000 dollars a ticket.


The FAA was a thing 90 years ago, it traces its origins to 1926.

It was created at the request of the airline industry to promote commercial air travel by establishing safety standards, etc.

The FAA has done an immense amount to promote commercial air travel.


While simultaneously killing general aviation.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:38:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 2:48:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradders:
The only picture ever taken of #Concorde flying at Mach 2 (1,350 mph). Taken from an RAF Tornado fighter jet, which flew side-by-side with the Concorde for 4 minutes over the Irish Sea. The Tornado was rapidly running out of fuel, struggling to keep up with it
Mach 2.2 actually, at 60k feet I believe

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1569/25088910183_cbe7d5cb91_b.jpg
View Quote
Man, that is a cool photo.  Thanks for posting. 
Top Top