A simple question: is there a way to keep supersonic Trans-Atlantic flight alive into the present?
A simple question: is there a way to keep supersonic Trans-Atlantic flight alive into the present?
I'm thinking it needs a vanity project. Concorde came about because the British and French governments threw a lot of money at its development which was written off, and their national flag carriers flew it.A simple question: is there a way to keep supersonic Trans-Atlantic flight alive into the present?
Something else that would have helped overcome Concorde's noise and economy problems would have been different engines. I read an article about Concorde in my University library years ago that in the early 1960's BAC told the British Government that if Concorde used turbofan engines itwould be quieter and more economical but this would mean reducing the maximum speed to Mach 1.3. However the Government insisted on the Mach 2 requirement which could only be reached with Olympus turbojets.
On the aeronautical engineering side, though, a new SST would really benefit from having the range to do a lot of PacRim routes - which a European governmental project behind Airbus might not really want to pay for all that much.
But it depended a lot of regular repeat passengers, a surprisingly large proportion of whom died in the WTC.
Crash in Paris? The concorde did not crash in paris but in the small town of Gonesse.Avoiding the Concorde crash in Paris might also help.
Huh, that's pretty intriguing. I thought 9/11's damage to the airline industries in general had something to do with the growing unprofitability of the Concorde, but I had no idea there was a hit to BA revenue as immediate as that.
Crash in Paris? The concorde did not crash in paris but in the small town of Gonesse.
Can Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore cooperate in on this? "London to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney overnight!"
It's not the same place at least Ixelles is inside Brussels. Gonesse has like 10km separting it from Paris. And Ougrée is not even in Liege but Seraing. It is maybe pedentic but I like exactitude in geography.Don't be so pedantic Xgentis, it would be like telling to someone from abroad that you are from Ixelles instead of Brussels or from Ougrée when you are from Liège.
Actually, anything under m1.8 would be a waste of fuel, thanks to transsonic turbulence and drag affecting the fuselage. But something capable of M2.0+ with Supercruise would be much more efficient. Hell, something the size of the 2707 with seating for 200 passengers would be much better in terms of efficiency and cost per seat-mile.A lower speed might save Concorde indeed, but overall and unless fuel costs are a lot lower than what they became post oil crisis I doubt that the plane has any chance of selling by the hundreds.
Can Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore cooperate in on this? "London to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney overnight!"