Thread: New supersonic passenger jet in the works.

Originally Posted by Troy

supercruise is flying at supersonic speed without the use of reheat. Reheat is still required to pass through the transonic region into the supersonic region due to the high wave drag.

The J58 is fitted to the SR-71 and has variable bypass to allow speeds around M3. The temperature rise as you increase M was the limiting factor for concorde due to the materials used. It is also likely to be the reason for this aircraft.

This is the chief engineer of the XB-1

"if everything goes ok they might have seven planes by 2027". and a trip to london might be as little as $5000. As wonderful as this project might be , I am sure i will never be on one of them, So forgive me if I don't care.

Russia has entered the race with a sst business jet

Apparently they are serious and have been busy. A strange engine was spotted on the test bed the other day...

Cry some more neo Malthusians. "You cant do that! The economics wont work! Its too loud!"

Booms tech demonstrator is doing engine and taxiing tests.

WTF are you talking about, it was all done by France and Britain 50 years ago but screwed by Merican jealousy

Originally Posted by malmomike77

WTF are you talking about, it was all done by France and Britain 50 years ago but screwed by Merican jealousy

Most people don't know that the Concorde was banned for trade protection reasons under the guise of noise pollution. And the stupid laws on the books is what has reduced investment in supersonic flight since.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

WTF are you talking about, it was all done by France and Britain 50 years ago but screwed by Merican jealousy

Concorde would still be flying now if BA hadn't refused to sell it to Branson.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

WTF are you talking about, it was all done by France and Britain 50 years ago but screwed by Merican jealousy

Did an American once kick your ass? I dont think I have met another British person with such a hard on against Americans. Its quite amusing. Especially coming from you.

Yes. The days of supersonic fuel guzzlers are past. No western nation will allow that much pollution with current governmental attitudes to Climate change and that's before you even get to the horrendous noise pollution. Living near a flight path would be like living next door to Cape Kennedy on launch day.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Don't be so fucking stupid.

Concorde was a superb engineering achievement but a commercial and environmental disaster. Its passenger load was pitifully small, it cost a fortune to maintain and to fuel, and its environmental impact was unacceptable even in the 1970s - the noise of it alone was atrocious, those four jets ripped the air up louder than a jet fighter whenever it took off.

I watched it land at Kai Tak back in the day from a vantage point by Beacon Hill, Kowloon. It was bloody marvellous but the noise made your ears bleed.

First off, the Concorde didn't fly a 27 year career to save face. It was making operational profits. Did that money cover the development cost ? No. But the same can be said about other jets. Like the Airbus A380. More on that later. British Airways redid the interiors in their Concorde fleet in 2000. Not because they were losing money.

The Concorde was killed by the French. Airbus was not interested in the program anymore because the Concorde was a point to point jet. And they were betting big on the hub and spoke model with the A380 superjumbo. They believed big planes would fly ppl from main hubs and then smaller ones would distribute ppl to destinations. So they jacked the maintenance costs up on the Concorde to kill it. And they succeeded. Other tertiary reasons were the new cockpit regulations after 9/11, the fall in air travel after 9/11 and even the boycotts between the US and Europe over the Iraq war. And the crash of the French Concorde.

According to John Hutchinson, one of the most famous British Concorde pilots, the airframes had 10-15 more years worth of life in them.

https://apnews.com/article/fa1e281d544267a8afe77afceaf3f03f

LONDON (AP) _ Ten years after its detractors branded it an enormous white elephant, the Concorde is the fastest, most luxurious and - to many - the world’s most beautiful airliner. It makes money, too.


The Anglo-French supersonic jetliner, which made its first commercial flights on Jan. 21, 1976, is a success story even though early dreams that it would revolutionize international air travel failed to materialize.


After years of losses and a $2.8-billion government development cost that has been almost completely written off, financial winds have turned in the plane’s favor. The Concorde brought a $17.3-million profit to British Airways last year and a profit of $8.8 million to Air France in 1984, the most recent year for which figures were available.

The idea that the Concorde was an environmental disaster is way overstated. The first Concordes emitted some black smoke. It did its tour around the world like that. This is something that the neo Malthusians latched onto. The black smoke was fixed but the urban myth lives on to this very day.

You have to understand that the impact of environmental concerns on the expansion of air travel made Concorde impossible to operate.

The noise was truly remarkable and only the deaf could fail to distinguish it from other aircraft at the time it was so bloody noisy.

Those profits excluded liabilities that were written off and in fact constituted an unfair subsidy in Concorde's operation to the detriment of other airlines.

Also the NOx and CO2 emissions were triple those of other aircraft flying at the time.

It was dirty, noisy and uneconomic but it did look nice and could shuffle fat rich people over the Atlantic quite quickly.

Originally Posted by Backspin

First off, the Concorde didn't fly a 27 year career to save face. It was making operational profits. Did that money cover the development cost ? No. But the same can be said about other jets. Like the Airbus A380. More on that later. British Airways redid the interiors in their Concorde fleet in 2000. Not because they were losing money.

The Concorde was killed by the French. Airbus was not interested in the program anymore because the Concorde was a point to point jet. And they were betting big on the hub and spoke model with the A380 superjumbo. They believed big planes would fly ppl from main hubs and then smaller ones would distribute ppl to destinations. So they jacked the maintenance costs up on the Concorde to kill it. And they succeeded. Other tertiary reasons were the new cockpit regulations after 9/11, the fall in air travel after 9/11 and even the boycotts between the US and Europe over the Iraq war. And the crash of the French Concorde.

According to John Hutchinson, one of the most famous British Concorde pilots, the airframes had 10-15 more years worth of life in them.

[URL="https://apnews.com/article/fa1e281d544267a8afe77afceaf3f03f"]https://apnews.com/article/fa1e281d544267a8afe77afceaf3f03f



The idea that the Concorde was an environmental disaster is way overstated. The first Concordes emitted some black smoke. It did its tour around the world like that. This is something that the neo Malthusians latched onto. The black smoke was fixed but the urban myth lives on to this very day.

In the first of your c&p videos, the designer extols the virtues of advanced design technology.
in the second video, the chief engineer explains early on, that the first thing the real builders did, was to feedback design flaws to that gung ho design team.

Concorde was stopped mainly on the grounds of high fuel costs. The high level of environmental damage helped undermine too, and was a great excuse rolled out to explain the project death.

Airlines are the same as oil companies: They fear being overtaken by advancements. They are the ones who will continue to undermine the future of supersonic air travel using costs and environmental damage as their cudgels.
Oh the sweetest of ironies.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

it was all done by France and Britain 50 years ago but screwed by Merican jealousy

You really are as big a fucking moron as skiddy is. You two dimwits deserve this thread.

Originally Posted by aging one

Did an American once kick your ass? I dont think I have met another British person with such a hard on against Americans. Its quite amusing. Especially coming from you.

Originally Posted by bsnub

You really are as big a fucking moron as skiddy is. You two dimwits deserve this thread.

feeling so much hate from Mericans, what is it with you lot on here? Also, AO as you are i think a little more educated than Snub can you point him at a thesaurus, help him learn some new words as even he must be getting bored with moron, dimwits and twats.

You are just flinging your bile all over the forum today, Those words are used because they fit you to a "t". But I will say that an idiot such as yourself is in no place to judge someone else's intelligence.

Originally Posted by bsnub

You are just flinging your bile all over the forum today,

you mericans are such drama queens

Originally Posted by aging one

Did an American once kick your ass? I dont think I have met another British person with such a hard on against Americans. Its quite amusing. Especially coming from you.

I'm quite enjoying the Brit v US/anyone banter though AO . It's certainly more entertaining than the shitfests in the Members Room/Doghouse!

Originally Posted by hallelujah

I'm quite enjoying the Brit v US/anyone banter though AO

i'm not and quite frankly they don't seem any better than that footballer Zouma, i'd not let anyone kick my ass

Originally Posted by malmomike77

i'm not

Then take your ball, and go home, you whiny little bitch.

Anyone with a modicum of interest should watch this doc. I also own the book from one of the contributors in the doc

And here is John Hutchinson lambasting the Frogs for the Concorde crash. The jet was missing a landing gear spacer before the flight. The jet was over fueled and over loaded. And the runway wasn't cleared of debris