What are your country's "if-only" aeroplanes?

TheMann

TheMann

roastpuff said:
Damn straight. Canadian MiG-31, twenty years ahead of the MiG-31's introduction.

Heck, it'd still be flying today, I bet you. A MkV Arrow, anyone? :eek:
Click to expand...

I can imagine that. Taking the original Arrow, and just upping its performance. I doubt Stealth would be along by the MkV in this case (assuming the MkV is made in the 1980s/early 1990s) but it could conceivably be able to roar along at Mach 3 or better by then. Boy, could that make an impact......:eek: :cool:

The Boeing 2707 was a plane that could changed the face of aviation. Boeing had envisioned the plane being able to carry 310 passengers (Concorde's max is 100 passengers) with maybe 1.5 times the fuel comsumption it would be much more economical to operate. Make it quiet enough to fly over land and all of a sudden the 747 would be relegated to freight status, I think.
 

Michael B

TheMann said:
The Boeing 2707 was a plane that could changed the face of aviation. Boeing had envisioned the plane being able to carry 310 passengers (Concorde's max is 100 passengers) with maybe 1.5 times the fuel comsumption it would be much more economical to operate. Make it quiet enough to fly over land and all of a sudden the 747 would be relegated to freight status, I think.
Click to expand...
That is what Boeing expected. Then again they did not expect the First and Second Oil Crises which by putting the cost of aviation fuel suddenly up did not help supersonic airliner sales.
 

The Dean

Oh I nearly forgot, if only they had gone ahead with the Mk 2 Concorde or Concorde B

baircraft.jpg


bengine.jpg


btanks.jpg



This increased the payload by five tons which meant it could carry a full load of passengers and stuff the baggage hold to capacity without reducing the fuel capacity. Range was increased from 3,690 to 4,079 miles and fuel consumption reduced by 2-3%
 
Ramp-Rat

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Dear Dean, as someone who has stuffed the hold on the rocket to capacity on many an occasion, let me point out one small mater. The biggest problem with Concorde in this respect was the size of the holds; you wouldn’t believe how small they were. This meant that with baggage, we tended to max out volumetrically, before we went over the weight limit.

In fact most passengers A/C’s will do this; bags just aren’t that heavy, unlike some fright. Last night was a good example, the BA083 to ABV went late, this was because we had to take off 3 AKE’s of cargo at 1500kg each, to replace them with AKE’s of bags at 850kg each. The bins were full to the brim with bags, but the bins we took of still had space in them, they had maxed out by weight.

Better to have built a bigger and better son of Concorde than the mark II, you needed about 250 to 300 pax to really make it work, and a minimum range of 6000nm. Plus it needed to be quieter and less thirsty.

Regards RR.:)
 

PMN1

Ramp-Rat said:
Better to have built a bigger and better son of Concorde than the mark II, you needed about 250 to 300 pax to really make it work, and a minimum range of 6000nm. Plus it needed to be quieter and less thirsty.

Regards RR.:)
Click to expand...

Is the key thing here the ability for supersonic speeds without afterburner and the costs that involves.

Even if Concorde B proves to be too small, the reduction in operating costs are going to be a factor in its continued operation.
 

The Dean

PMN1 said:
Is the key thing here the ability for supersonic speeds without afterburner and the costs that involves.

Even if Concorde B proves to be too small, the reduction in operating costs are going to be a factor in its continued operation.
Click to expand...

It would definitely have been a viable interim SST but the most significant factor as PMN 1 has pointed out would have been the ability to cruise supersonic without afterburners. The F-22 is I think the first machine in service to manage that.
 

Alexius

The Dean said:
It would definitely have been a viable interim SST but the most significant factor as PMN 1 has pointed out would have been the ability to cruise supersonic without afterburners. The F-22 is I think the first machine in service to manage that.
Click to expand...
Couldn't the BAC Lightning do so?
If not, the Typhoon can.
 

Alexius

The F-22 may have flown first, but you said "first in service". The official in-service dates are 2003 for the Typhoon and 2005 for the F-22- although they should be taken with a large grain of salt!
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

The Dean said:
It would definitely have been a viable interim SST but the most significant factor as PMN 1 has pointed out would have been the ability to cruise supersonic without afterburners. The F-22 is I think the first machine in service to manage that.
Click to expand...

False. The Concorde could cruise at Mach 2 without afterburners. It did, however, require afterburners to accelerate to cruising speed effectively, apparently.
 
TheMann

TheMann

Michael B said:
That is what Boeing expected. Then again they did not expect the First and Second Oil Crises which by putting the cost of aviation fuel suddenly up did not help supersonic airliner sales.
Click to expand...

The plane was not flying by 1973, and even post-oil crisis the supersonics would have still been much cheaper to operate than the Concorde, and people then and now would have paid to be able to blast from New York to Chicago in half the time of other airliners. Imagine NY to LA in three hours - yikes! :eek:

I figure the 2707, due to the expensive tickets, would have been used for cross-country fast flights between the biggest cities - New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami, Dallas, Houston - and for highly-booked longer-distance flights such as LA to Tokyo, Sydney, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Seoul, et cetera. The speed advantage would be enough to make the extra cost worth it. The size advantage was what made the 747 work, so unless you use it for highly-used communter flights in places such as Europe and Japan (and maybe the US Eastern Seaboard) it would likely be a freight hog, but a good one mind you. You could also see the 747 be used for very long range flights, because Concorde couldn't go much more than 3800 nm on its fuel capacity. If you could make it go 6000 nm, you make an even better case for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top