When will they start flying again? Or something similar?

>>1049224
First question: Never
Second question: Probably never as well.

>>1049224
>When will they start flying again?
Never
>Or something similar?
Aerion *might* fly by the mid 2020s. Pretty much everyone else in this space (Boom, Spike, SAI) is pure wishful thinking.

>>1049224
When they become actually profitable, given their inability to perform over populated areas.
>ie. never

If some billionaire willing to.pour infinite amount of money into the project then surely it can be made to fly again a few times ...

>>1049317
That's not the reason it's unprofitable. It's a contributing factor, but fuel consumption is the biggest reason.

>>1049347
That and the fact that they had to have two planes to serve one route in the event that one broke down.

You can't exactly say "Well, sorry folks, here's a 757 for you to cram into and spend 8 hours in instead"

>>1049379
>implying that the 757 is more cramped than a Concorde

>>1049383
Did you just imply on an implying?

double the passenger capacity and halve the fuel consumption.

while producing no discernible boom at cruising speed and altitude. Be as quiet as a 737 when landing or taking off. Not being a fucking maintenance queen.

>>1049224
They'll probably make a ram-jet/suborbital craft. Paris-New York in 35 mins.

>>1049224
The concorde will probably never fly again, but you can be absolutely sure that there will be something similar, smaller in the future.

>>1049317
which populated area would they fly through in TATL?
>>1049347
Implying airlines weren't actively extending their life before 9-11?
>>1049379
And as if they were using only two concorde?

>>1049398
What're the noise they made at takeoff/landing compare to other aircrafts of same era like DC-10?

>>1049545
Concorde uses afterburners ("reheat") at takeoff.

I live in Bristol; I've heard Concorde take off from Filton enough times to tell you: it's fucking LOUD. And the rumble from the engines can last for a good 5 minutes after the aircraft has passed directly overhead.

>>1049544
That's not a counter argument.

>>1049564
ah

>>1049572
That is not a counter argument

>>1049224
The product has so many flaws. Unless you can bring the price, efficiency and comfort on the level of a full business class 777/A350 never.

>>1049683
not to mention that the internet and the proliferation of small business jets, has made airliner travel speed irrelevant.

>>1049610
Airlines "extending their lives" has fucking NOTHING to do with fuel efficiency.

>>1049710
They won't be doing so if the benefit it provide does not ofdset its higher fuel burn rate

>>1049690
>small business jets [have] made airliner travel speed irrelevant.

Not even close. Both you and >>1049683 make the erroneous assumption everyone is happy to go at the speed of a sub-sonic airliner, just as long as they are comfortable doing it. The fact that so many people *did* pay extra for the speed of Concorde shows that you are wrong. *Yes* it was a small, niche, market, but it was a profitable one: even if British Airways & Air France had purchased their Concordes at full market rate, they would have turned a healthy profit from them by the end of life of the aircraft.

If Concorde B had ever got off the drawing board it would have been quieter with increased range, and would have been suitable for overland flights to the middle & far east; with a refueling stop it would have been capable of reaching Australia. Don't tell me there aren't people out there who'd pay the big bucks to fly Singapore - Europe in 6 hours, or Dubai - Europe in 3.

>>1049383
Concorde is actually pretty comfy, friendo. Narrow seats but lots of legroom, and both the seat and seatback recline which feels WAY better than just the seatback. Great place to take a nap, you just have to be careful when you wake up because the overhead bins are fucking low and it's easy to crack your head on them- I've drawn blood that way.
>>1049742
BA, for sure, but the most anyone at AF has been willing to say is that their Concorde service was profitable "in some years," and all of the BA Concorde crew I've met say that a disproportionate amount of AF's profits came from charter flights, and the aircraft were unprofitable considered across their entire service life. Grain of salt, I guess, given they're BA crew.

No one factor killed Concorde. Route limitation, fuel and maintenance costs, and the general post-9/11 downturn all played a part.

>>1049742
The profitability "argument" is a fucking myth based on a massive number of technicalities and caveats. They were not economically competitive. Period.

>>1049288
Aerion will never fly.

>>1049990
>Math is a myth

Okay.

>>1050163
i would be any amount you can't do math

>>1050163
Guaran-fucking-tee you can't actually back up your claims with any verifiable numbers.

>>1049990
>They were not economically competitive. Period.

Which is why you were the CEO of British Airways, Air France, Braniff, Singapore Airlines.

>>1050240
Interesting how British airways and Air France both stopped the service because the economics didn't work. Read a fucking book.

>>1050271
Airbus made the decision to discontinue maintenance support past October 2003. Kinda hard to maintain a supersonic airliner if its builders don't offer maintenance support

>>1050240
>Braniff
Wouldn't have thought a twelve-year-old would have heard of them.

For real though if you're citing them to back up your argument you're either a troll or a retard.

>>1050240
Braniff only operated the Concorde subsonically and only carrying flight and cabin crews between Dallas and DC. French and British crews manned the trans-Atlantic flights operated by Braniff. Braniff never came close to profiting from the service.

Get your facts straight.

>>1050271
>Interesting how British airways and Air France both stopped the service because the economics didn't work.

That is the opposite of correct.

>Read a fucking book.

Quite.

File: airbos_f7_p5_0.jpg (1MB, 4307x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4307x2400px

>>1049224
Concorde will never fly commercially again. Fantastic piece of engineering, but sadly I doubt it'll ever leave the ground again.

Several companies are exploring the concept of a SST, but we won't see them in the near future. Maybe 2025 or 2030.
Aerodynamically they're a challenge because the lift equation changes as you pass Mach 1.0, and the exponential drag rise around the sound barrier requires a lot of power to overcome.

The other big issue is the powerplant. A turbofan is fantastic for subsonic operation, offering high efficiency and power with reasonable fuel economy, but those benefits disappear quickly around Mach 1 due to the inability of the fan to cope with aerodynamic compression. A turbojet is loud and thirsty in the subsonic range, but engine efficiency and fuel economy increases greatly above Mach 1.0 due to ram effect, making them ideal for supersonic operation. They must be powerful enough to overcome the drag of supersonic operation but quiet enough for regulatory purposes, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, I suppose.

tldr: keep waiting.

>>1050438
They fucking stated the reasons for stopping the service. You are factually wrong and nothing you can say changes that.

>>1050441
so, have it run a turbofan up to mach 1, fire up the ramjet approaching mach 1 and then kill the turbofan.

as long as the engines can be engineered to run on the same fuel, it could work, right?

>>1050491
Got a headache just reading this.

>>1050491
No. The key to a turbofan is the fan, which has a large cross-sectional area. As you pass through the sound barrier parasite drag increases exponentially, so all that thrust-producing fan area that works so great in the subsonic range becomes a large ball and chain in the >M1.0 range. Turbofans are large engines, and if they're not producing thrust they are worse than dead weight.

>>1050454
>They fucking stated the reasons for stopping the service.

Yes, they did. It was primarily "rising maintenance costs". At that point Concorde was a 30 year old airframe, and Airbus & Rolls Royce had declared they would no longer provide spares: so yes, as you can imagine, maintenance costs become "a bit high".

Up until the point that spares support was withdrawn, Concorde was profitable for both British Airways & Air France.

>>1050672
I can't believe you're still running with this despite it only being true for a very short period of time and only after lots of caveats.

Never ever fucking reproduce. The world doesn't need any more dipshits.

It's impractical, noisy(so it can only fly fast above ocean), and fuel hungry. People 're still trying to find efficient ways to do this but it's just on paper for now.

>>1050677
>it only being true for a very short period of time

You mean the period of time after Airbus & Rolls Royce announced they would no longer supply spares?

>>1050687
>noisy
>so it can only fly fast above ocean

Only if you're American and sponsored by Boeing.

>>1050695
>Only if you're American and sponsored by Boeing

Didn't know Malaysia, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, West Germany, Switzerland, and Ireland were American and sponsored by Boeing

oh wait

>>1050695
>what are sonic booms

Concorde flew at FL500 and produced a sizable bang when it flew overhead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE

>>1050714
Add to that India, Saudi Arabia, and a whole bunch of others.

>>1051356
>never went supersonic

>>1051360
The propeller was supersonic you dumbass.

>>1051370
The goal of the program was to design a prop-driven aircraft capable of speeds >M1.0, which it did not achieve. Lots of planes have props capable of tip speeds greater than Mach 1.

>>1051356

Wasn't that so loud that people whould shit themselves and pass out?

>>1050073
sauce?

>>1051371
Right, but *noise* was from the insane supersonic propeller. You could reportedly hear it taking off from 25 miles away. It was one of (the?) loudest planes ever built & flown.

>>1051465
That and the fact it was a contra-rotating jet prop, so the constructive interference between the two propellers produced even more noise.

File: 422172.jpg (513KB, 1280x872px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1280x872px

>>1051356
A mere hum compared to this.

>>1051373

Yes.

Also, during engine run-ups on the ground you could hear it from 60 miles away.

>>1051541

Eat shit. XF-84h is louder by a huge margin.

File: IMG_4357.jpg (123KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x533px

>>1051530
No, the thunderscreetch was not contra-rotating. It only had a single prop.

>>1050723
>sizable bang

Not really that bad. People must shit themselves during thunderstorms.

>>1050672
Tupolev declared they were willing to provide the spares. Virgin Atlantic wanted to run Concorde if BA ceased, but BA was unwilling to sell it to them - partly because they were afraid of the competition, but mainly because they wanted to get the noise contours down to help their case for another Heathrow runway.

>>1054126
You overestimate the general public's tolerance for aircraft noise.

>>1050271
yes, that's also why 757 production stoped and now everyone is looking for a new version of that

>>1054155
> that's also why 757 production stoped
That's simply untrue, but keep on believing that dumb shit.

>>1054160
?

>>1054155
>>1054169
The A321neo is the replacement. But the plane airlines are demanding isn't that, it's a MOM aircraft, which has higher range and capacity than a 757 or A321, but less than a 787. Sort of a 767 but with the operating economics of a 737 MAX or A320neo.

>>1054181
yes, back then the economy make airlines want to downscale and thus 757 seems too capable

>>1054181
Mark my words: A322. The airframe is even designed to accept double-axle main landing gear

>>1054386
There is zero indication that Airbus is even remotely considering it. They are having enough problems with the A380 line and the switch to the A330neo. The 797 (presumably what a Boeing twin-aisle MOM aircraft will be called) will beat whatever Airbus does in that space (if anything) to market by several years.

>>1054397
A twin aisle MOM aircraft would have a high proportion of floorspace devoted to aisles (which won't bring in any money). It may find some success on routes with high freight demand, but I'd expect the single aisle alternative to be much more commercially successful overall. Once the new engines are standard, if the A321 sells as well as it has recently, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they tried stretching it more.

And Boeing took a long time to get the 787 to market. What makes you think their next entirely new design would beat to market a superstretched version of an existing Airbus design?

>>1054146
>general public's tolerance for aircraft noise

I lived under a supersonic flight path when I was a kid. No big deal.

You underestimate the general public's getting pissed because the FAA offered to pay residents of Oklahoma City for damages during sonic boom testing. And then tossed out claims for broken windows and cracked plaster due to thunderstorm damage.

Black people aren't the only ones pissed about cancellations of GibMeDats.

>>1049392
Are you implying that shouldn't be done?

>>1054432
Oh look, airlines are pushing Boeing for a twin-aisle MOM aircraft in the past week.

>>1054397
>>enough problem with the A380 line
>and the line is actually closing soon
>>switch to the A330neo
>just waiting for engine
>>797 will bear whatever airbus does in that space to market by several year
>when 797 is a brand new clean sheet design whereas whatever airbus will do would just be a modification of existing design

>>1055701
1) You're shit at greentexting. It's not difficult.
2) Airbus already explicitly stated that they consider the A321neo and A330neo to be their MOM offering. There is no other option for them. Either stick to the statements they've repeatedly made or do a clean sheet design.

>>1049742
Concorde business was pre-911.
Now, the whole selling point of the Concorde is gone, cause you spend hours getting a prostate massage by the TSA whenever you fly internationally, so a private jet will be just as fast for those who can afford the flight in the Concorde.

>>1050504
Just add a radial decoupler and drop the turbofans before you go supersonic.

t. Jebediah Kerman

>>1055765
>drop the turbofans before you go supersonic

It's the cross-sectional area of the fan that will kill you, drag-wise. Decoupling will do nothing.

Turbofan and turbojet engines only work with subsonic airflow anyway. Supersonic planes (excepting SCRAM-jet) use a diffuser inlet to slow the intake air down.

Interesting note: About 70% of the Concorde's thrust at Mach 2 was produced by the pressure increase in the intake diffuser.

>>1055764
>a private jet will be just as fast for those who can afford the flight in the Concorde

A private supersonic business jet will be even faster. That's where I think the smart money will go.

>>1056077
You can't possibly be serious.

>>1049545
Good God, Concorde was loud as fuck. By far the loudest passenger aircraft I ever heard (I live near IAD).