What about building them from titanium, which gets stronger under pressure? Would it be just horrifically expensive?
What about building them from titanium, which gets stronger under pressure? Would it be just horrifically expensive?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Titanium was ridiculously expensive during the Cold War because most reserves were in the Soviet Union. One of the few 'capitalist' sources of tintanium was South Africa. South African apartheid politics forced the USA to play awkward political games .... pretending to condemn apartheid while quietly buy rare metals from South African mining companies. While the US Army assisted the South African Army in upgrading their long-range artillery (to kill communists in Angola) they were forced to drop that project when journalists revealed the role of Canadian-born engineer Gerald Bull. Bull was eventually assassinated (by Israelis????). We will never hear the whole truth of USA-South African relations during the Cod War.
BA already run a daily A319 all First / Business flight (34 seats / beds) London City to JFK return so there is a market.Exactly.
If there's a hundred of them in service before oil prices jump, they're likely to stay in service. With only 2 airlines iOTL, running essentially the same kind of service, there was little innovation in marketing and service. If several other airlines jump in, someone might find a formula/market that can survive the rise in oil prices that will eventually happen.
If the oil price rise is more gradual, that might help, too.
If there are more sold, the idea of putting a Concorde B into service becomes more practical, and that opens up a lot more Pacific routes.
OTL, there's now a handful of companies planning on making supersonic business jets, for instance. Repurposing a Concorde from a 100 passenger all first class machine to an executive shuttle with, say 40 spaces, might be a plausible market for London/NYC and/or London/DC, even if nowhere else.
Flying over land's going to be a distinct problem.
Titanium is still ridiculously expensive. It's fifteen times more expensive than steel at least, and it's weaker than some of the high grade stuff.Titanium was ridiculously expensive during the Cold War
I wonder if Japan never came into World War II there could be a commercial market for transpacific dashes. Assuming their infrastructure didn't get bombed out and shredded and a lot of their people didn't die they'd presumably be richer and able to sponsor a vanity project that might actually be useful for them.
10 reasons that explain why the Boeing-Lockheed SST was build
- John Magruder activism
- Ataka proposal of March 1971
- Lockheed bribery of Japanese officials by CEO Karl Kotchian
- President Nixon humiliation when French President Pompidou flew a Concorde to the Azores summit in December 1971
- President Ford dream of a SST Air Force One.
- Cancellation of the Space Shuttle.
- Cancellation of Lifting bodies, NF-104A, X-15 and XB-70 flight test programs (1969-71)
- Research on SST, SSTO, and TSTO titanium airframes
- Concorde breakthrough on the trans-atlantic airway
- Soviet embracing large titanium airframes and manufacturing – notably the Sukhoi T-4 and the Alfa submarines. The Tu-144 also made large scale use of titanium.
I highly doubt it. Even Tokyo-Honolulu is just barely at the edge of OTL SSTs' max range.I wonder if Japan never came into World War II there could be a commercial market for transpacific dashes.
Well there was the 'Model B' which was being looked at around the time of Concorde's launch. The idea was that by upgrading the engines, modifying the air intakes and exhausts, making some changes to the wings, use of composite materials to reduce weight, and other improvements would have reduced it's noise levels and fuel consumption which combined with the extra fuel carried have increased its range by roughly ten per cent. If those estimates were correct that could make Tokyo to San Francisco or Los Angeles in two stages via Honolulu a possibility.I highly doubt it. Even Tokyo-Honolulu is just barely at the edge of OTL SSTs' max range.
I think I should note, from a few seconds work with my fingers as a geometric compass on a small globe, that if a two stage flight from Tokyo to the US Pacific Coast is possible, just from distances alone two stage via Anchorage Alaska is just as possible; winds might throw this off one way or the other I suppose. I suspect that except for the factor of bad landing and takeoff weather being more probable along the cold Pacific NW coast being somewhat more likely, the coast-hugging route might be more favorable, in that optional diversion landing fields, with an emergency field on the Aleutians (terrible weather much of the time, I know) and backup/emergency diversion to Fairbanks, Juneau or Whitehorse Yukon, Vancouver BC/Seattle WA, or Portland Oregon are all pretty close to the most direct Great Circle route, whereas the great circle route from Japan to Hawaii has essentially nothing to divert to in that stage except possible emergency strips newly built along the tiny northwest islands between the main islands and Midway--Midway itself being quite tiny though of course moderately developed already. Between the main inhabited Hawaiian islands and CONUS is essentially nothing. The total airmiles going via Hawaii would be greater than going via Alaska and either Anchorage or a strip at Kodiak would be closer to the halfway point, so a range marginal for direct to Honolulu would have more margin via Alaska.Well there was the 'Model B' which was being looked at around the time of Concorde's launch. The idea was that by upgrading the engines, modifying the air intakes and exhausts, making some changes to the wings, use of composite materials to reduce weight, and other improvements would have reduced it's noise levels and fuel consumption which combined with the extra fuel carried have increased its range by roughly ten per cent. If those estimates were correct that could make Tokyo to San Francisco or Los Angeles in two stages via Honolulu a possibility.
ITT: Me throwing my hands in the air and groaning as the reasons why SST can't be in my TLs piles up.
This https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87708main_H-361.pdf is a 1964 NASA study of LH2 vs liquid methane vs hydrocarbon for hypersonic aircraft. It is old, so there may advances on this. WRT liquid methane, it states on page 3Ahh, but you're the "Author" so 'reasons' can and should be found to get what you want as well as inform you why it didn't happen OTL
As Archibald notes there were in fact "good" reasons why the US SST project picked the goals it did. Those goals drove it out of happening but they were 'good' for the time period.
Having noted that oil prices, (AvGas) was one of those factors I'm curios as to why it took so long for Liquid Methane to become a 'thing' in aerospace despite the rather obvious benefits. A good chunk of money was spent in the late '70s on the idea of LH2 as an aviation fuel but relatively little on LHC even though LNG was actually being advanced as a "future fuel" for industry and motor travel. Between intake pre-cooling, (discovered during the late 50s Aerospaceplane program and then forgotten till HOTOL/Skylon) and density compared to hydrogen it really SHOULD have had more impact. But it doesn't get much mention until the early 90s in regard to military programs.
Randy
At first glance, liquid methane appears to be attractive. However, the last three colums indicate that the small increase in available heat sink over the hydrocarbons would not warrant the loss in performance or the increase in tank volume
This https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87708main_H-361.pdf is a 1964 NASA study of LH2 vs liquid methane vs hydrocarbon for hypersonic aircraft. It is old, so there may advances on this. WRT liquid methane, it states on page 3
At first glance, liquid methane appears to be attractive. However, the last three columns indicate that the small increase in available heat sink over the hydrocarbons would not warrant the loss in performance or the increase in tank volume
Oh. Yeah.Ahh, but you're the "Author" so 'reasons' can and should be found to get what you want as well as inform you why it didn't happen OTL
As Archibald notes there were in fact "good" reasons why the US SST project picked the goals it did. Those goals drove it out of happening but they were 'good' for the time period.
Having noted that oil prices, (AvGas) was one of those factors I'm curios as to why it took so long for Liquid Methane to become a 'thing' in aerospace despite the rather obvious benefits. A good chunk of money was spent in the late '70s on the idea of LH2 as an aviation fuel but relatively little on LHC even though LNG was actually being advanced as a "future fuel" for industry and motor travel. Between intake pre-cooling, (discovered during the late 50s Aerospaceplane program and then forgotten till HOTOL/Skylon) and density compared to hydrogen it really SHOULD have had more impact. But it doesn't get much mention until the early 90s in regard to military programs.
Randy