Check Out Our Shop
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 192

Thread: Concorde is Back!

  1. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    12,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    Better question for those real aeronautical folks here: if the Concorde and other big birds (747's, A380's etc) burn so much fuel moving their fat asses around the tarmack, why don't they just tow them to the stop bar on the active? The connect the tug for pushback anyway. Saving 1500 Kg of Jet A per trip would pay for a tug and a tug driver really quickly.
    There are multiple reasons. For one, they're slow as balls compared to a jet putting around under its own power, thus increased congestion for busy airports they couldn't handle. Another thing I can think of is that when there are engine issues, it's better to find out at the terminal than clogging up the taxiway a mile down the road, and having to get a long, slow tow back to the parking spot so mechanics can take a look at things. Something else to think about is that unless it's a specialized tug (which do exist), something like a loaded 777 will burn out a tug in short order. At least if they try to do it with any sort of "speed." Trying to think of who did it, but I'm pretty sure there was a big airport somewhere that tried exactly what you suggested. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure it worked out for them. Perhaps Ted can fill us in on things.

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    23,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    Bring back the days of airships so that true transatlantic luxury travel can be re-experienced.

    @1:57

    "Airships combine the pampering of a cruise ship with the speed of-"
    "What? Some slightly faster ship? Uh Hello? Airplanes? Ya, it's blimps! You Win! Bye!"
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    17,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Of course it's not realistic at this time, the picture in the article is an illustration since the X-59 itself doesn't exist yet and won't fly for at least another year. However, the stated goal of the X-59 program is to enable future commercial supersonic travel over land. NASA wouldn't be building the X-59 if they didn't think it was possible to scale it up to a commercial-size aircraft.
    the prototype X-59 isn't 100% complete yet, but it's damn close. they are already working on the next two as well, X-60 and X-61. Like I said on page 1 or 2 of this thread, it's the one to watch, not really the one Bmills linked too, although that's very cool too.
    Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    19,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush View Post
    the prototype X-59 isn't 100% complete yet, but it's damn close. they are already working on the next two as well, X-60 and X-61. Like I said on page 1 or 2 of this thread, it's the one to watch, not really the one Bmills linked too, although that's very cool too.
    The X-59 Wiki page says first flight is planned for 2022. There will inevitably be some kind of delay, so first flight mid-2022 seems realistic trending towards optimistic. Regardless, the goal of the program is low-boom supersonic commercial flights over populated areas. There would not be a X-59 program if there wasn't a realistic chance it could work for commercial use.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post

    @1:57

    "Airships combine the pampering of a cruise ship with the speed of-"
    "What? Some slightly faster ship? Uh Hello? Airplanes? Ya, it's blimps! You Win! Bye!"
    "JESUS! THE HELIUM!"

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    28,544
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    the navy just demonstrated midair refueling from a drone, could you do that cheap enough to make commercial sense?
    Of course the Navy already has ships at sea to launch the drones from, so it makes sense for them. Also for military operations you want aircraft "on station." You don't care about that for commercial flights, you just want to get planes from point A to point B.

    I think it's possible, but there are lots of challenges to overcome, not the least of which would be getting something like this certified by the FAA and other agencies.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    14,082
    Quote Originally Posted by bennymac View Post
    It’ll be fueled by Bitcoin
    Ha!

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    9,945
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Of course the Navy already has ships at sea to launch the drones from, so it makes sense for them. Also for military operations you want aircraft "on station." You don't care about that for commercial flights, you just want to get planes from point A to point B.
    Refuel in the air from a drone based at Henderson Field

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    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.

    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.


    Long way of saying that you can't say fuel flow per hour times hours on that airplane.
    I always wondered why they didn't just get a tow out to the runway, fire up the engines, and then go throttle up to save some gas. This also begs the question of why no catapult to get things started. I mean it doesn't need to be USN carrier G force type catapult thrust. I guess old biz jet fliers would probably end up dying of heart attacks at take off.
    "We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully." - Randy Pausch

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by MontuckyFried View Post
    There are multiple reasons. For one, they're slow as balls compared to a jet putting around under its own power, thus increased congestion for busy airports they couldn't handle. Another thing I can think of is that when there are engine issues, it's better to find out at the terminal than clogging up the taxiway a mile down the road, and having to get a long, slow tow back to the parking spot so mechanics can take a look at things. Something else to think about is that unless it's a specialized tug (which do exist), something like a loaded 777 will burn out a tug in short order. At least if they try to do it with any sort of "speed." Trying to think of who did it, but I'm pretty sure there was a big airport somewhere that tried exactly what you suggested. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure it worked out for them. Perhaps Ted can fill us in on things.
    I feel like developing a larger, faster, heavier, higher HP & torque truck that can drag an airplane around behind it is the most American problem we could ever be asked to solve.
    Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,751
    We sorta have already...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	plane-shuttle-995x559.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	63.8 KB 
ID:	376607
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post

    @1:57

    "Airships combine the pampering of a cruise ship with the speed of-"
    "What? Some slightly faster ship? Uh Hello? Airplanes? Ya, it's blimps! You Win! Bye!"
    Classic stuff...

    "Captain LAMMERS!!!"
    "Nice read, Velma."

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    28,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    I feel like developing a larger, faster, heavier, higher HP & torque truck that can drag an airplane around behind it is the most American problem we could ever be asked to solve.
    Make it electric and semi-autonomous (can find and hookup to the plane, but once attached can be controlled by the pilot) and we've got a winner.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    891
    Nah, you guys aren't speaking Montucky's language. He wants to get to the runway fast

    Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    I get all of that, I was trying to keep it simple and consider average fuel consumption rates just to show how wildly off the mark these yahoos are.

    Better question for those real aeronautical folks here: if the Concorde and other big birds (747's, A380's etc) burn so much fuel moving their fat asses around the tarmack, why don't they just tow them to the stop bar on the active? The connect the tug for pushback anyway. Saving 1500 Kg of Jet A per trip would pay for a tug and a tug driver really quickly.
    They need treadmills


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
    I always wondered why they didn't just get a tow out to the runway, fire up the engines, and then go throttle up to save some gas. This also begs the question of why no catapult to get things started. I mean it doesn't need to be USN carrier G force type catapult thrust. I guess old biz jet fliers would probably end up dying of heart attacks at take off.
    I like this idea. With a big long runway, you wouldn’t need it to be as high G as a carrier launch. Design it to accelerate gently the first two hundred yards or so and then ramp it up quick.

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    12,554
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    They need treadmills
    NOW we're talking!

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    19,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
    This also begs the question of why no catapult to get things started. I mean it doesn't need to be USN carrier G force type catapult thrust. I guess old biz jet fliers would probably end up dying of heart attacks at take off.
    A fully-loaded F-18 weighs 37,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight for a 737 Max 8 (just for example) is 181,000 lbs. That would have to be a monstrous catapult system.

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,431
    If you catapult a supersonic jet onto a treadmill, will it take off?

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    A fully-loaded F-18 weighs 37,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight for a 737 Max 8 (just for example) is 181,000 lbs. That would have to be a monstrous catapult system.
    Economies of scale. If all else fails, slap a really big solid fuel rocket to the SST to get things up, up and away! I'm sure those things aren't that noisy.
    "We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully." - Randy Pausch

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    General Sherman's Favorite City
    Posts
    37,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    We sorta have already...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	plane-shuttle-995x559.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	63.8 KB 
ID:	376607
    Put Hartsfield-Jackson down for 200 of those stat.
    I still call it The Jake.

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,751
    Cha-ching!! Bobby, check your inbox.

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    12,554
    Quote Originally Posted by bennymac View Post
    It’ll be fueled by Bitcoin
    HA! Classic.

    I was going to make some comment that we could get some of that sweet VC $$$ by taking Boom's idea but adding some more BS jargon into our sales pitch like "and it's like, totally powered by BLOCKCHAIN TEKNOLOGY!" to woo the idiot VC investors who are consistently duped by all the usual technobabble nonsense. But then I learned that the dorks at Boom already did that. LMAO:
    https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post...climate-pledge
    Quote Originally Posted by Boom
    The company is focused on increasing environmental protections and promoting renewable energies...using solutions like blockchain technology for carbon offsetting.
    /FACEPALM

    Does making a pitch to investors really just involve using all the right trendy jargon du jour? These guys have already raised over 1/4 billion in investments, so clearly they've pulled off a pretty good heist if you ask me. Seriously. They can go "poof" tomorrow and all the guys and gals up top walk away filthy rich. They already are I'm sure.

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    14,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    ...why don't they just tow them to the stop bar on the active? The connect the tug for pushback anyway. Saving 1500 Kg of Jet A per trip would pay for a tug and a tug driver really quickly.
    Quote Originally Posted by MontuckyFried View Post
    ...but I'm pretty sure there was a big airport somewhere that tried exactly what you suggested. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure it worked out for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
    I always wondered why they didn't just get a tow out to the runway
    One company that tried that was Spice Jet with their 737 fleet (I only know this because a friend worked there) but I don't know which airport(s).

    IMO the main reason it isn't done is that it creates the problem it's trying to solve. During a low traffic period, it's a lot faster to just taxi out. A tow would slow you down significantly. If you only did it when the departures were lined up, what do you do with the tugs and drivers when they aren't needed? Pay them to sit around? I can't see airline management going for that.

    The second thing is who's responsible? You've got a multi-million dollar airplane filled with hundreds of passengers being towed by a guy with a weekend's worth of training.

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    7,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
    Economies of scale. If all else fails, slap a really big solid fuel rocket to the SST to get things up, up and away! I'm sure those things aren't that noisy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •