In a heartbeat. I've always wanted to travel at supersonic speeds! Subsonic is so 20th century!
Concorde could fly again
- Thread starter MacLeod
- Start date
In a heartbeat. I've always wanted to travel at supersonic speeds! Subsonic is so 20th century!
It might be easier/cheaper to resurrect the TU-144:
The Tu-144DA could carry 130 passengers 7,500 km (4042 nm) versus the 120 seat 3900 nm range Concorde's record longest commercial flight, flown 11 September 1984 Washington to Nice with just 54 passengers, 3965 nm....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
Retro--and loving it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tu-144-cockpit2.jpg
In 2003, after the retirement of Concorde, there was renewed interest from several wealthy individuals who wanted to use the Tu-144LL for a transatlantic record attempt, despite the high cost of a flight readiness overhaul even if military authorities would authorize the use of NK-321 engines outside Russian Federation airspace.
The Russians are hurting for cash now--so it might be easier to pry Concordski lose.
The US has never fielded anything close to their heavy lift choppers--or their AN-225.
I loved their Bartini A-57 concept http://www.sergib.holm.ru/russia/bartini/a/57/images/300/a57_3.gif
Russian PAK-DA concept
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hDqnNNu-E...SiqK0/s1600/Russian+PAK-DA+Stealth+Bomber.png
Airbreather http://www.buran.ru/htm/raks.htm
More
http://www.buran.ru/htm/3d-model.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/foto14.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/family.htm
Horus http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/horus_10.jpg
The Tu-144DA could carry 130 passengers 7,500 km (4042 nm) versus the 120 seat 3900 nm range Concorde's record longest commercial flight, flown 11 September 1984 Washington to Nice with just 54 passengers, 3965 nm....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
Retro--and loving it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#/media/File:Tu-144-cockpit2.jpg
In 2003, after the retirement of Concorde, there was renewed interest from several wealthy individuals who wanted to use the Tu-144LL for a transatlantic record attempt, despite the high cost of a flight readiness overhaul even if military authorities would authorize the use of NK-321 engines outside Russian Federation airspace.
The Russians are hurting for cash now--so it might be easier to pry Concordski lose.
The US has never fielded anything close to their heavy lift choppers--or their AN-225.
I loved their Bartini A-57 concept http://www.sergib.holm.ru/russia/bartini/a/57/images/300/a57_3.gif
Russian PAK-DA concept
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hDqnNNu-E...SiqK0/s1600/Russian+PAK-DA+Stealth+Bomber.png
Airbreather http://www.buran.ru/htm/raks.htm
More
http://www.buran.ru/htm/3d-model.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/foto14.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/family.htm
Horus http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/horus_10.jpg
Last edited:
As neat as it looks, people knew Concorde was a bad idea very early on, but national prestige made it too big to fail and no one would back down. Getting one flying again will be a money sink of unheard-of dimensions, just like it was when it was in service. 120 million GBP will be a drop in the bucket.
Supersonic at 17 passenger-miles per gallon is 20th century. Mach .85 at 100 passenger-miles per gallon is 21st century.
In a heartbeat. I've always wanted to travel at supersonic speeds! Subsonic is so 20th century!
Supersonic at 17 passenger-miles per gallon is 20th century. Mach .85 at 100 passenger-miles per gallon is 21st century.
^Perhaps but I suspect many people would jump at the chance to fly supersonic on Concorde if they got the chance.
But lets remember Concorde was 1960's technology, modern subsonic jets are far more fuel efficent than subsonic jets from the 1960's. So would a modern 21st supersonic jet be more fuel efficent than Concorde was?
But lets remember Concorde was 1960's technology, modern subsonic jets are far more fuel efficent than subsonic jets from the 1960's. So would a modern 21st supersonic jet be more fuel efficent than Concorde was?
A 21st century supersonic should be electric/hybrid. Think flying Prius [shudder].
a 21st century airliner should be atomic powered and hyper-sonic, as God and Gerry Anderson meant it to be..
http://unusualsuspex.deviantart.com/art/Fireflash-hypersonic-airliner-ortho-428227302
http://unusualsuspex.deviantart.com/art/Fireflash-hypersonic-airliner-ortho-428227302
^ That sounds like the plot for the next Airport movie.
I don't know if it's true or not, but I've always heard that most of the people who regularly flew the Concorde died on 9/11.
Not to Derail the thread..
I do think that you could get Concorde to fly again..in the US with an experimental certificate.. that's how they kept those cold war fighters flying..but passengers ..no..
Btw, that's a Vulcan bomber...
I never saw a Vulcan flying but I did see tanker Victors. They were like something from Thunderbirds but real. Or maybe Flash Gordon. Even on the ramp they looked fast.
Weren't the Vulcans' only-ever combat missions the super-long-range bomb sorties to the Falklands?
Weren't the Vulcans' only-ever combat missions the super-long-range bomb sorties to the Falklands?
I think so.
I've seen more of the Victors in the air than Vulcans (Saw the Vulcan at an airshow in 1985 if I recall correctly)
I never got to see the other one of the V series (Valiant) in the air though
As for Concorde, I've only seen that in the air the once too.
As neat as it looks, people knew Concorde was a bad idea very early on, but national prestige made it too big to fail and no one would back down. Getting one flying again will be a money sink of unheard-of dimensions, just like it was when it was in service. 120 million GBP will be a drop in the bucket.
In a heartbeat. I've always wanted to travel at supersonic speeds! Subsonic is so 20th century!
Supersonic at 17 passenger-miles per gallon is 20th century. Mach .85 at 100 passenger-miles per gallon is 21st century.
With all the work put into making jets more fuel efficient, I'm sure supersonic jets would also benefit.
I wonder what the fuel economy of an F-22 at supercruise is, and if that would be a good baseline for a supersonic liner. I'm not asking for much, maybe just mach 1 or 2. At least for now.
Then again, this is just all the more reason to stop using fossil fuels, and find something cleaner and more fuel efficient as soon as possible. At least that way, the aircraft companies won't have an excuse any more.
If it works though... And hey, at least the Prius looks sleek!
Yes that's correct, and it was just the one sortie at that but a phenomenal achievement all the same.
The last flying Vulcan is retiring shortly. It isn't the cost of keeping it airworthy (which is considerable and its amazing they've kept it going so long) so much as the increasing lack of expertise in maintaining the plane. I'm glad I got to see it fly, blimey that thing makes a noise.
I think you're on the nose with the Flash Gordon comments, people at air shows seeing the V Bombers in the 50s must have thought they'd been transported into the future all of a sudden.
Sure, a new SST would be more fuel-efficient than Concorde, but it would still be much more expensive than standard subsonic commercial air. Even people who could afford it often didn't find the couple saved hours worth the Concorde premium over the standard first class fare, and if anything that market (rich people) is even softer today because of the rise of the long-range private jet.
Remember, Concorde was developed with public money, billions that the British and French taxpayers never got back. That will not happen again. A future SST developed by Boeing or Airbus would be so expensive it would literally be gambling the entire corporation, which, without airline market demand, also will not happen. The near-Mach 1, 250 pax Boeing Sonic Cruiser proposal in the '90s attracted about zero airline interest.
Indeed. Considering that the Vulcan's original raison d'etre was to deliver "cans of instant sunshine," I'm OK with it almost-never having been used in anger. Likewise the B-36 and B-47 (as a bomber, the reconnaissance variants did see action).
Similar threads
