Concorde comeback

I hear he's planning to reinvigorate the whale oil industry.

>>1025289
Yes. Yes, Trump will bring back the Concorde. He'll bring back the Concorde. He'll make a double decker jumbo Concorde and give jobs to billions of Americans. It'll be tremendous. Absolutely tremendous. I tell you, very high energy project. Very tremendous. He'll make aviation great again.

get rid of the prohibition on super sonic flight over the continent.

though newer SST designs have reduced boom.

its gonna be yuge, we are gonna win big, i tell you this many such cases bigly tremedous

Air Force One is going to be replaced by a fleet of Blackbirds

>>1025418
It's "big league," anon. Big league. Not bigly. Big league.

Why would Trumo want an European plane back

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/experts-say-hypersonic-age-is-now.html

We can do better now.

File: b2707-100_6.jpg (15KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x375px

Even better.

>>1027967
>Better
I dunno, man. Swing-wings improve subsonic L/D but they add a LOT of weight, which means more drag and fuel consumption in supersonic cruise.

File: 1478326608158.jpg (184KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1080x1080px

>>1028441

>weight = drag

File: Spock is infallible.gif (999KB, 245x170px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 245x170px

>>1028463
>weight = lift (for 1g level flight)
>lift = drag * L/D
>drag = weight * 1/(L/D)
Get it?
More:
>thrust = drag (for level, unaccelerated flight)
>fuel consumption = TSFC * thrust
>fuel consumption = TSFC * drag

>>1027967
Tomconcgle

>>1025289
A $10,000 per ticket plane that still flies at a loss every time and can't fly over continents?


Sure, why not?

>>1028504
low energy post

He will listen to the assblasted idiots who were incredibly pissed that a Eurotrash airplane was flying over their cotton fields faster than anything with the Stars and Stripes on it.

>>1028504
I heard its ticket price was first class +20%-ish?
And aren't those flight profitable by themselves? (exclude R&D)

what a new sst needs to succeed

>using non afterburning turbofans
>able tor reach a cruise speed of mach 2
>fly from los angeles to sydney non stop
>carry at least 300 passengers in mixed class seating
>be no louder than a 747 on approach and take off.
>no distruptive boom so it can fly a super sonic over the continents.

File: Concorde in cruise.jpg (85KB, 818x960px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 818x960px

>>1028704
>using non afterburning turbofans
No. This is a large part of why the Tu-144 flopped. Turbojets are actually more efficient (sans reheat) than turbofans are at mach 2.
>fly from los angeles to sydney non stop
That'll be some feat. The Concorde already had a pretty remarkable mass ratio, and you'd have to essentially triple it just to get double the range unless you can manage to pull a bunch of L/D or ISP out of your ass.

>>1028704
>>1028775
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

File: insult_master.gif (579KB, 250x220px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 250x220px

>>1028513

>>1025289
No, they had to foot the bill for replacing entire towns worth of glass windows. It was a tremendous pain in the ass for anyone who lived near an airport with one of these things flying nearby.

>>1028881
>No, they had to foot the bill for replacing entire towns worth of glass windows

No, "they" did not have to pay anything for something that never happened.

File: Concorde inlet.jpg (82KB, 1023x728px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1023x728px

>>1028795
That's still a far cry from flying nonstop LA-Sydney.

I wonder if the "air discharge duct" could be closed. The article doesn't really say. And I also have my doubts about takeoff performance without afterburners and with the increased weight.

>>1028881
>they had to foot the bill for replacing entire towns worth of glass windows.
Uhh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project#Sonic_boom
>Between 1970 and 1972, when prototype Concorde 002 made 20 flights over the Irish Sea, the Government paid £40,000 in damages for cracked and broken windows, slates falling from roofs, panicking farm animals and frightened people.
So that's equivalent to about one hour's worth of flight expenses in damages over the course of TWO YEARS of testing.

And after testing, the Concorde only went supersonic operationally over the open ocean where nothing is there to damage.

Sonic boom damages did not directly kill the Concorde. Indirectly, maybe, since it restricted the jet to inefficient subsonic flight over land (thus greatly reducing the number of airports served), but not directly.

>>1028900
>Between 1970 and 1972, when prototype Concorde 002 made 20 flights over the Irish Sea, the Government paid £40,000 in damages for cracked and broken windows, slates falling from roofs, panicking farm animals and frightened people.

Most, if not all, of those claims were bullshit anyway. Supersonic booms from a plane flying as high as the Concorde aren't going to do shit; see the Mythbusters episode where they had to buzz a building at <100ft to even pop a window.

>>1027967

You realize they killed the 2707 fucking decades ago?

>>1028921
Exactly, fucking nimbys ruining the world again.

>>1029066
They also killed the Concorde decades ago. Both have about as much chance of ever flying.

>>1025399
That's not even the real problem. It's that they can't be run economically. Find me a supersonic passenger jet design that works out economically for the mass market, then we'll talk.

>>1029331
Tell those who buy bizjet about economy

File: ValkyriePassenger2.jpg (21KB, 960x576px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 960x576px

>>1028441
>they add a LOT of weight

Enough so you have to choose between swing mechanism and passengers.

Should have given the SST contract to someone that knew how to meet requirements with something that can fly.

>>1028921
>Most, if not all, of those claims were bullshit anyway.

This.

The USA did some supersonic testing over Oklahoma City back in 1964. The public was largely OK with it until a few people tried to collect for cracked windows and plaster (which were never proven to have been caused by the booms). When the FAA didn't pay up, people got upset and started complaining.

Sonic booms (at SST operating altitudes) are no worse then thunder. We used to hear them a lot, as SR-71 flights used to come in over my house. But yeah, give someone the chance to make a few bucks off the airlines for bogus damages and the floodgates will open. And if they don't pay up, it'll be "Muh cows! Muh PTSD!"

>>1029428
then concorde will just be a plaything for the elite as opposed to a regular service for upper-middle classes who need to cross the atlantic real quick for whatever reason, in which case you might as well build a supersonic private jet

File: airplane-1.jpg (604KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 3840x2160px

http://boomsupersonic.com/

So apparently this is happening. The scale demonstrator has already been built and will be flying soon. The full-sized airliner will likely follow a few years after.

Also, Aerion's jet already has 20 orders.

>>1030706
That is what people are making

>>1031215
It won't work. There's literally no evidence to support the assertion that it will.

>>1029428
Good work. You just supported the argument that it can't work for the mass market.

>>1031259
Since when did super sonic transport become an idea for mass market?

>>1031258
I guess we'll have a better idea once the demonstrator flies.

>>1031345
The mass market is only able to pay for a cramped seat between a screaming kid and a drunk football fan on a lousy commuter airplane.

Supersonic flight is and was always for the elite. Nobody owes your economy class ass a 3 hour Atlantic crossing.

>>1031373
That is what I was saying, you drunk?

>>1031350
No we won't. That does nothing to change the economic calculation. This has never been a technological challenge.

>>1031345
An all business class configuration is still mass market and still requires a large number of people to be willing to pay multiple times what they pay now for the same tier of comfort and service.

>>1031444
That's why Concorde charge more than that and offer less than that

>>1031444
>>1031450
And a consideration being ignored here is the fact that a large proportion of the people in business or first class are there because they got a comped upgrade or used miles, not because they paid outright for a ticket at that level. That makes it much, much harder to sell the idea of an all business class configuration on a platform like Boom. Because effectively everyone on board would have had to pay full price to be there. You aren't going to get a situation where someone upgrades their service once they are at the airport and then have to transfer to a totally different aircraft because of it.

>>1031495
But various other airlines have been doing that already on a number of routes.

>>1031442
>economic calculation

Even if they had a perfect, iron clad, business plan that was right on track: the economics can change. That's what did for Concorde; the oil crisis made them too expensive to run. There was no way anybody could have seen that coming when Concorde was conceived.

tl;dr: Let 'em try. There are plenty of companies with bad business plans, and people poor money into them.

>>1031594
Not really the percentage of people who upgrade their tickets at the airport and have to take a different flight because of it is negligible.

>>1031633
yes, and that shows ticket upgrading is insignificant for what we are talking about

>>1031612
That's same for every aircraft development plan. See all the recent aircraft design

>>1031643
That's the point. People would have to pay full price to fly and it would already be significantly more expensive than paying full price for business class on existing aircraft.

>>1031649
yes, such people already exist although you are looking at 1% of the population. Remember that 1% population = tens of million

>>1031654
That model failed before and there's no evidence to support the idea that it would work now.

Just for reference and the sake of argument, this is how the passenger cost benefit looks.

From JFK to Heathrow, a trip on Boom would cost $5000 (their proposed theoretical price) and save you ~3.5 hours each way for a total of ~7 hours.

Flying business class on a regular plane in the same timeframe would cost you ~$4000 dollars.

Flying Premium economy would cost ~$1100.

Flying economy would cost ~$600.

Round trip you'd be paying ~$143/hr, $557/hr, or $629/hr more than subsonic aircraft business class, premium economy, and economy, respectively.

>>1031643
>That's same for every aircraft development plan. See all the recent aircraft design

Right, so why are we bitching about it? The business plan for the A380 looked pretty solid, too. The plan for the 777E looked shaky. Go figure.

>>1031708
Those were more about the capacity and nature of routes w/ some unit/fuel economics thrown in. The question surrounding Boom and other supersonic proposals is mostly centered on unit/fuel economics -- i.e. how do you make a low capacity aircraft that burns 3x the fuel per seat-mile work?

>>1031713
You charge 3x the price and hope there's enough people & routes out there to make it work.

It's not the most ridiculous proposition ever, even in aviation.

>>1031691
Failed? it did not

>>1031742
>>1031691
I mean, airlines did have the ability to generate profits from it, although manufacturers can't

>>1031738
Then their stated business model has already blown up in their faces if that's the case. That would mean $12,000 transatlantic flights, which is how much Concorde flights went for back in the '90s. And those carried 2-3x more passengers.

>>1031742
Economically, yes it did fail. That is not a point of debate. That's factually and mathematically what happened.

>>1031753
>>1031743

>>1031756
And yet they nixed it because it was too expensive to operate, too expensive to maintain, and there wasn't enough demand.

Hypothetical ability to generate profit sustainably does not outweigh the actual stated and observed economic and financial reasons that Concorde was taken out of service.

>>1031758
They are too expensive to operate and maintain only after 25+ years which is longer than regular age of regular airframe.

>>1031764
They were losing money being operated well before they were retired. The British and French governments knew that there wasn't an operational economic case for the aircraft before they had even finished developing it.

>>1031787
Actually, they weren't really losing money, but British Airways and Air France realized they could make bigger profits flying Concorde passengers in first class on regular airliners. They were able to operating them profitably, but only at extremely high ticket costs, which created a totally unsustainable business model.

>>1031787
Why do you think they extended their life?

>>1031788
That's why new carriers would be better positioned than existing carrier to offer this service ...

>>1031815
Explain your reasoning. Because there is a lot of evidence based on business-only class flights to suggest you're wrong.

>>1031814
Because the governments subsidized the everloving fuck out of the program.

>>1031815
And by the way, Boom just intends to be a manufacturer, not an operator/airline. Branson/VA is the only airline known to have stated any interest (in 10 airframes), and it is 100% non-binding at that.

>>1031828
Why do you think BA buy those Concorde from government, pther than to keep all the profits they gain by operating it to themselves?

And what do you mean by lots of evidence based on business only flights to suggest you're wrong?

>>1031829
I am indifferent to boom's hyperbole marketing

>>1031831
Numerous airlines have attempted to operate flights in business class only configurations and it hasn't worked well at all. Trying to do the same thing while charging a sizeable premium to save a few hours doesn't lend itself to making financial sense.

The only way it might make sense is as a charter subscription model.

>>1031831
And BA only started running them profitably after they jacked up the cost of tickets, which in turn shrunk the market. It was essentially a Venn diagram with no overlap: either operate profitably with diminishing demand or operate at a loss to expand the market.

>>1031832
LH, SAS, BA, NH and Delta seems to be running thay find?

>>1031833
You mean during recession? That is the same even to regular airline products

>>1031836
Nothing you've said in this post is correct.

>>1031745
Right, and? $12,000 now is less than $12,000 in the 90's (by quite a bit; inflation has been pretty high the past few decades) and modern engines & materials will make it far more economical to fly than Concorde, so it may not matter anywhere near as much that it can only carry half the number of passengers.

You seem absolutely determined that this will be a failure. How about we all just shut up and let them try? It'll either be a success or it won't. It's not my money, I don't mind 'em giving it a go.

>>1031828
>Because the governments subsidized the everloving fuck out of the program.

Neither Air France nor British Airways were being subsidised to run the aircraft for the majority of their lives. The design and construction was subsidised, but >>1031743 is talking about the airlines, not the manufacturers.

>>1031861
Good job intentionally missing the entire point if the thread dipshit.

>>1031861
They themselves claim it will be 30% more fuel efficient than Concorde. That's still less than half as efficient as modern airliners and is undercut by small capacity. If you don't understand the basic business principles of how airlines operate aircraft, which you don't, then stop commenting.

>>1031215
Aerion's jet is just a business jet with 8-12 seats. Who cares if it has orders?

That Boom jet would be good for a JetSuite type company. Doubt a mainline carrier would purchase it.

>>1029331
modern engines that are super cruise non afterburning capable of mach 2 flight.

carbon fiber

modern computer aided design

>>1031999
Interesting how that doesn't even exist and has never been demonstrated. And even if that's what Boom achieves, they've already themselves claimed that it'll still be less than half as fuel efficient and subsonic aircraft, which fucking spoiler: are also built with cutting edge engines, carbon fiber and composites, and computer-aided design.

Don't know why in the world you thought those things were differentiators.

>>1032047
CRJ 200 are half as effective as Q300 yet airlines still use CR2 all over the place

>>1028881

>supersonic near an airport

You think they made their approach at sanic speeds?

>>1031917
>>1031918
>All this buttpain

Do you work for Boeing by any chance? If they fail, they fail. They clearly seem to think their business plan is solid *otherwise they wouldn't be fucking building it*

But no, a couple of posters on a North Korean Recipe Board think they know better, so they're doomed to failure.

>>1032086
>Do you work for Boeing by any chance? If they fail, they fail.

Boeing never fails. At least, they figure out a way to get someone else to pay for it when they do.

>>1031691
>that model failed
>what is Emirates and other luxury airliners.

Just because you're stuck riding in coach on United with the other unwashed peasants doesn't mean the business model is flawed, only less inclusive.

>>1032150
"they" in the sentence is not Boeing

>>1032047
Concorde was basically 1960s technology.

A 747-8 is huge improvement over a 747-100.

>>1032188
>Concorde was basically 1960s technology.
It was pretty cutting-edge for 1960s technology.
>A 747-8 is huge improvement over a 747-100.
I really wouldn't say that.