Over Chicago right now, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by huckbucket
Attachment 376398
But over Seattle you'd be around 40200 above sea level, and where the ND, SD and MN borders meet you'd only be around 39700 .
Printable View
Over Chicago right now, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by huckbucket
Attachment 376398
But over Seattle you'd be around 40200 above sea level, and where the ND, SD and MN borders meet you'd only be around 39700 .
There’s a Concorde at the USS Intrepid museum in NYC. They are indeed tiny inside. The only other time I was close to one was when I was paddling on the middle bay on LI and one taking off from JFK went overhead at low altitude. They were loud as hell.
That was to NY surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
Yeah that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Then the subsonic one from Rio.
The article I posted earlier in this thread is an interesting breakdown of what went wrong when that Concorde took off from Paris - media zoomed in on the runway debris but there is so much more to the story than that - spoiler alert: the plane should not have crashed
This is the one about the South America back to France flight - this is an excellent and sobering read about how fucked up and scary those last few minutes in the cockpit were - it's a must read article for anyone who is interested in this stuff
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/busi...ight-447-crash
I watched the Concorde land at Boeing field after this flight. It's much quieter during landing. I passed on an opportunity to fly on it before they moth balled them. I had a stupid amount of FF miles on BA at the time. But instead of cashing in the miles for a flt on the Concorde decided to go FC on a BA 747 from SEA to Lisbon with the wife. Used up a lot of FF points but gained a ton of bonus points with the wife.
Quote:
The Museum's aircraft, registration code G-BOAG, is referred to as Alpha Golf. It was first flown in April of 1978 and delivered to British Airways in 1980. It was the eighth British-built production Concorde. Equipped with four powerful Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk. 610 turbojet engines, Alpha Golf logged more than 5,600 takeoffs and over 16,200 flight hours while in service. It flew the last British Airways commercial Concorde flight, from New York to London, on October 24, 2003. On its retirement flight to The Museum of Flight on November 5, 2003, Alpha Golf set a New York City-to-Seattle speed record of 3 hours, 55 minutes, and 2 seconds. Much of the flight was over northern Canada, where it flew supersonic for 1 hour, 34 minutes, and 4 seconds
I'm just here for the Hamptons gossip. Soaking up tr tidbits is my keyhole into the 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
Did your dad really care if the mistress came or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
Never seen a concord other than TV, did take my kids up to Ellsworth AFB years ago to watch the B1's take off from outside base. Was there for silo tour next day and guide said to come outside for something big. They were doing practice emergency departure or what ever it is called, full afterburners, one right after the other. I think it was 4 or 5 that took off and shook the world.
FUCKING IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!!
I remember watching B52s out of Loring AFB in Maine - those things are huge. Got to go inside one as well. What a beast. Loring woulda been a prime target of the Russians if nukes ever came over.
Growing up near Pease AFB in NH some air force jock got a little spicy one night and went supersonic somewhere over Stratham. Blew out three windows in my house at like 3 in the morning.
Apparently happened again over Keene a few years back as well, this time they were flying out of Westfield.
I can see why that is illegal to do. No way this company gets around the physics of the matter.
NASA seems to think it's possible: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...final-assemblyQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I think one can clearly state that if it's possible, it's a game changer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I've heard the space shuttle double sonic boom once while I was in SoCal and it came in to land at Edwards AFB.
The reason we don't have supersonic airliners is because:
1. NOISE you cannot fly supersonic unless you are over 10,000ft and at least 15 miles from shore (limits useful routes)
2. ECONOMICS the Concorde sucked at fuel economy at a time when fuel became pricey.
Lockheed and Boeing were developing SST in the 1960s and even building airports from them (look at MCI Kansas City International). TWA was very interested. US Government was interested and funding R&D. Then in the early 70s it was all cancelled after the cascade of sonic boom ban, OPEC oil embargo, and US government termination of R&D support.
I have models of the Boeing 2707 and the Lockheed L2000 in TWA livery as my Grandfather was TWA and involved in US SST development.
You have a market for sure if you can make a SST with the follow:
1. Quiet the sonic boom (fly anywhere)
2. Good fuel economy with 2 engines that do not need reheat to supercruise (economic operational and maint costs)
3. No swing-wing (lowers weight plus maintenance and manufacturing costs)
This may be technically feasible as we have spent decades researching how to quiet booms which allows transcontinental supersonic flight. Engine technology has come lightyears since 1950 when Bristol first spun up the turbine on the Olympus engine that would make the Concorde the first non-experimental aircraft to supercruise without reheat. You can optimize aircraft and engines to supercruise.
Same, was living at Manhattan Beach at the time. So fucking loud, shook the apartment and set ever car alarm off for miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
I thought it was a mini earthquake at first. Was standing outside an office building on the 2nd floor deck. Shook the deck and the windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not DJSapp
Well, more specifically, B-1B needed to be fast on the deck because high flying supersonic penetrators go BOOM when hit by Soviet SAMs, so goodbye B-1A. Otherwise, we would be flying B-70s which had their max efficiency at Mach 3 at 70K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker
Two more modern SST projects than 2707 and L2000 worth reading about are the Boeing Sonic Cruiser and the Lockheed QueSST
I come from a line of pilots who each all worked for the military, the airlines, and NASA/DARPA, so I'm full of useless aerospace info. One day I'll get my license.
Amusing that the last SST startup, Aerion, shuttered two weeks ago.
The beauty of a mistress is not having to careQuote:
Originally Posted by riser3
Divorce lawyers of America smile and order a second martini.
That's actually pretty neat but I suspect that design won't carry over to the commercial passenger carrying world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Competing with Boom and when they didn't get a "contract", they folded?Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Agreed. That is a REALLY long airplane carrying only one person. Scaling that up to a commercially viable size is likely not realistic at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I believe Aerion was planning to make a bizjet, so not really a direct competitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by From_the_NEK
Jesus, I need to start my own pie in the sky company. These guys are idiots selling dreams and some schmuck is giving them money.
http://edition.cnn.com/travel/articl...cks/index.html
Trans-Atlantic for $100. It's about 3500 miles New York to London. What's a gallon of Jet A go for? $8/gallon? A 737 Max 8 burns about 750 gallons per hour. Probably need to multiply that by 5 to go 3 times faster (that's probably very, very low), so 3,750 gal/hour. For reference Concorde burned 5650 gal/hour. Assuming the lower fuel burn rate at $8/gal for 4.5 hours and... that's a $135,000 fuel bill alone. Divide that by what, 50-100 passengers and yeah... this doesn't even come close to the $100 per person working out.
I mean, I built a plastic snaptite model of one of these in the 80's. Does that make me an expert on SST's? I can start my own company and get that VC $$$?
https://www.scalemates.com/products/...8-pristine.jpg
You people need to calm down. It's not your money. Go buy some bitcoin and GME and leave this SST stuff to others. Elon is going to space then onto Mars. What the hell does he know about Mars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not DJSapp
No, that's just it. It's not my money and I'm as stupid as these folks at Boom. How do I get onto this gravy train?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
Take a picture of your model, tweet to Elon and ask him for some $.
Remember that $1,000 juicer that worked as well as squeezing the packets with your hands? Make it a $2,000 juicer and it will sell. Bigly.
Jet-A is 7x $ now vs what it cost when the first Concorde prototype flew in 1969. Then again, that is a perfect match for inflation... airline buy a lot of fuel futures and those bets can really change the calculus. I'm sure the OPEC shenanigans were the number one issue for the airlines 1973-1978. It was a hard hit on SST plans. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 is the #1 thing of all things that shaped the industry between 1978 and 2001 (and really up through 2020).
737 Max carries twice the passengers with half the engines to service vs a Concorde.
Concorde actually had really efficient engines, at cruise, for the time. The problem with your 5650gal/hr fuel consumption number is that Concorde uses 7500gal of Jet A just to taxi, takeoff, climb and accelerate to cruising speed of Mach 2. Reheat is a bitch for efficiency.
Still, using your numbers, Concorde was about 6x the fuel consumption of 737Max gal per passenger mile on a NY-London flight. Maint and acquisition cost for the Concorde was significantly higher.
And probably a whole lot more cargo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Yeah, $100 is typical startup airline bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not DJSapp
73/8 is not a great comparison because they wouldn't typically be used on the same city pairs as the Concorde. A better comparison would be the 787. (fast vs cheap)
Nobody can make money without repeat business, so the question there is would people pay the high ticket on a regular basis? And/or if they had that kind of money to burn would they want to be squeezed in with 49 to 99 strangers, or would they want to be in a biz jet like a Gulfstream or a Global? (fast vs luxury) Add in the time wasted dealing with all of the airport terminal hassle, and limo to limo time starts to look the same.
It was really the development of ETOPs stand-up cabin sized biz jets that killed the supersonic airliner idea.
Perhaps there's another way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not DJSapp
https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist...-for-over-18k/
Sadly or ironically
These rich fucks that need to be in Europe in three hours are the same ones driving Tesla’s and telling you to eat more bugs and less meat
Bring back the days of airships so that true transatlantic luxury travel can be re-experienced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d90U6Y4PrbY
To add to what summit said, you can't really do the math that way because the Concorde's fuel burn was constantly changing. Taxiing from the terminal burned ~1000-1500 Kg (pilots measure fuel by weight and time, not gallons or liters). That's a huge number for so few passengers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not DJSapp
The fuel consumption at take-off power was something like 80,000 kg/hr, and would increase to around 100,000 kg/hr by V2 (speed) -- to put that into perspective, if at that point the pilots decided not to bother climbing any more, and just joy-rided around at that altitude instead, they'd run out of fuel in about one hour. As summit said, reheat is a bitch for efficiency. It gave them ~20% more thrust for take-off with an ~80% fuel hit.
Once the airplane is in the clean climb configuration, the fuel flow drops to something much lower (don't know the number) but the important part is that it continues to drop with altitude while the true airspeed continues to increase.
At around .9 mach they re-lit the reheat and accelerated to 1.7 (while still climbing!) Back then, no other civilian jets went above FL410 so at FL430 they'd shut the reheat off and cruise climb up to 60 thousand feet, while accelerating to Mach 2. Depending on temperature and wind, they might not even make 60 before the descent point, so they'd start down, and the entire flight was an arc.
Long way of saying that you can't say fuel flow per hour times hours on that airplane.
not sure if video exists, but you could see the walk aisle floor flex during takeoff
that plane was a beast of a vehicle
sort of surprised there weren't heart attacks from takeoff, either from the force or the view of the plane bending
Perhaps even longer flights--like trans-Pacific routes--would actually make economic sense with an SST, assuming you can get that kind of range with a modern design. Problem is the Atlantic routes are still the bread and butter of international travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker
Yeah, the longer you can be at 60 thousand, the better.
Well, except for the radiation.