Concorde successor - Page 2

BritishAirwaysIan · 06-29-2012, 08:18 PM

I agree with Fly Delta Jets... no one is going to buy the plane if it does look like that. Operating costs for that thing will be sky-high (no pun intended), so it just won't be profitable.

LOT 737-300 · 06-29-2012, 08:55 PM

Tupolev had tried to do a design scheme similar to this in the 1980s-early 1990s. It was supposed to carry loads that would make it more economical (i.e. 311 seats, and a range of 10000 km), it was known as the Tu-244. Boeing too had looked, and almost built (they got a full scale mock up done I believe) back in the late 1960s when everyone was racing to build the first SST. That one was known as the Boeing B-2707. That one was discontinued after congress cut funding for it (and around that time, Boeing had larger issues such as getting the B747 project off the ground before they were broke completely.)
B2707:

Note Boeing's solution for increasing visibility:

Tu-244:

With that said, I believe it could be economically feasible to do supersonic commercial flight, especially considering our current technological standards. The problems really come down to environmental issues (sonic booms being the largest) and if the price for the airframes is right. The issue Concorde had was the fact that it was simply too small to economically fly the routes they wanted her to fly (without having to charge outrageous fares compared with their subsonic counterparts).

jwalters692005 · 06-29-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishAirwaysIan

I agree with Fly Delta Jets... no one is going to buy the plane if it does look like that. Operating costs for that thing will be sky-high (no pun intended), so it just won't be profitable.

Us collectors buy airplanes based on looks, the companies that use them could care less about looks and more about efficiency and operating cost, maybe even brand loyalty, but certainly not what the aircraft looks like.

jwalters692005 · 06-29-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

Tupolev had tried to do a design scheme similar to this in the 1980s-early 1990s. It was supposed to carry loads that would make it more economical (i.e. 311 seats, and a range of 10000 km), it was known as the Tu-244. Boeing too had looked, and almost built (they got a full scale mock up done I believe) back in the late 1960s when everyone was racing to build the first SST. That one was known as the Boeing B-2707. That one was discontinued after congress cut funding for it (and around that time, Boeing had larger issues such as getting the B747 project off the ground before they were broke completely.)
B2707:

Note Boeing's solution for increasing visibility:

Tu-244:

With that said, I believe it could be economically feasible to do supersonic commercial flight, especially considering our current technological standards. The problems really come down to environmental issues (sonic booms being the largest) and if the price for the airframes is right. The issue Concorde had was the fact that it was simply too small to economically fly the routes they wanted her to fly (without having to charge outrageous fares compared with their subsonic counterparts).

While you bring some great information to the discussion, you must note the aircraft in question only accommodates 12 passengers with a price tag of $80 million. It would in no way be economical to operate this aircraft in an airline, unless the ticket price was the same as a brand new luxury car. Even for corporate use, I can't really see this being a smart investment.

BritishAirwaysIan · 06-30-2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwalters692005

Us collectors buy airplanes based on looks, the companies that use them could care less about looks and more about efficiency and operating cost, maybe even brand loyalty, but certainly not what the aircraft looks like.

I guess I didn't phrase that right. I mean like how their livery looks on the plane. A plane is essentially a billboard for an airline, so you have to be able to get your livery on it AND still make it look nice!

jwalters692005 · 06-30-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishAirwaysIan

I guess I didn't phrase that right. I mean like how their livery looks on the plane. A plane is essentially a billboard for an airline, so you have to be able to get your livery on it AND still make it look nice!

Be it as it may, I now point you to my last post above.

How can anyone see it feasible for an airline to operate an aircraft that accommodates 12 passengers? This is ludicrous to think an airline would operate this internationally, the aircraft would bring nothing but red to the spreadsheets.

BritishAirwaysIan, I am not trying to offend you, let alone anyone else that's posted on this topic so don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, but all in all I call BS on the article entirely just because of the amount of pax it holds vs. the economics of operating this plane. Maybe if it was larger carrying 150-200 or so it might make more sense.

MYT DC-10 · 06-30-2012, 02:27 AM

Why does everyone moan about new designs and concepts? Got help if you were Roy Chadwick's assistant, you'd probably go into shock.

MiniRyan · 06-30-2012, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwalters692005

Be it as it may, I now point you to my last post above.

How can anyone see it feasible for an airline to operate an aircraft that accommodates 12 passengers? This is ludicrous to think an airline would operate this internationally, the aircraft would bring nothing but red to the spreadsheets.

BritishAirwaysIan, I am not trying to offend you, let alone anyone else that's posted on this topic so don't take what I'm saying the wrong way, but all in all I call BS on the article entirely just because of the amount of pax it holds vs. the economics of operating this plane. Maybe if it was larger carrying 150-200 or so it might make more sense.

I think you may not have done your homework here. Firstly, the article while referring to the Concorde, made no claims that an airline is interested in a supersonic jet. Perhaps that was just ambiguous enough to lead you down the wrong path. Secondly, the company that is investing in the supersonic jet is building a plane that is in fact targeted at the executive jet travelers. Lastly, when you look at the current costs of executive jets (e.g. Gulfstream G550 for $50M+), an $80M supersonic jet of equal passenger capacity is seen as price competitive. There's no doubt that the executive jet travel has seen steady growth. Fractional jet ownership is now the accepted model. NetJets has been a successful pioneer and is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet invests in and believes in companies that have long term success prospects. So it stands to reason the idea is faster than sound (pun intended).

jwalters692005 · 06-30-2012, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniRyan

I think you may not have done your homework here. Firstly, the article while referring to the Concorde, made no claims that an airline is interested in a supersonic jet. Perhaps that was just ambiguous enough to lead you down the wrong path. Secondly, the company that is investing in the supersonic jet is building a plane that is in fact targeted at the executive jet travelers. Lastly, when you look at the current costs of executive jets (e.g. Gulfstream G550 for $50M+), an $80M supersonic jet of equal passenger capacity is seen as price competitive. There's no doubt that the executive jet travel has seen steady growth. Fractional jet ownership is now the accepted model. NetJets has been a successful pioneer and is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffet invests in and believes in companies that have long term success prospects. So it stands to reason the idea is faster than sound (pun intended).

I know it didn't refer to airlines purchasing the aircraft, I'm talking about everyone mentioning airline liveries....It clearly says it is marketing for corporate users.
Also the article was not referring to the Concorde, but had comparisons to it.

MiniRyan · 06-30-2012, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwalters692005

I know it didn't refer to airlines purchasing the aircraft, I'm talking about everyone mentioning airline liveries....It clearly says it is marketing for corporate users.
Also the article was not referring to the Concorde, but had comparisons to it.

Well like I said, the article is ambiguous. Anyone can misread it. It doesn't help that the title says 'successor to concorde...' When you read more closely it does say 'business jet market' aka executive jets, as opposed to 'business travelers'. The article also directly mentions the Gulfstream G650. That was another clue.

I just wanted to defend the veracity of the claim of a salable supersonic jet. And I like the idea of having it back in whatever commercial form it takes. No hurt feelings I hope.

jwalters692005 · 06-30-2012, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniRyan

Well like I said, the article is ambiguous. Anyone can misread it. It doesn't help that the title says 'successor to concorde...' When you read more closely it does say 'business jet market' aka executive jets, as opposed to 'business travelers'. The article also directly mentions the Gulfstream G650. That was another clue.

I just wanted to defend the veracity of the claim of a salable supersonic jet. And I like the idea of having it back in whatever commercial form it takes. No hurt feelings I hope.

I apologize, when I've been saying corporate users, I've meant it as in businesses using them to transport their employees.
I do agree with you though, bringing back these supersonic aircraft would be great, though I'm leaning more toward hoping airlines get back in that game.

LOT 737-300 · 06-30-2012, 12:46 PM

With that said, I also see issues of this one attracting many buyers (if any). In the last 30 years, many of the design bureaus (mostly Russian) have tried to bring out Private Jet designs that can go supersonic, and I think there was not much success with any of them (though the most promising one was likely the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21, which Gulfstream backed out of eventually.) Don't think any of them made it out of the "Paper airplane" stage.

Charter · 06-30-2012, 07:06 PM

Yes, in 2060...

We're not able to come back to Moon after 43 years;
we're not able to build a replacement of the Space Shuttle;
we're not able to build more "futuristic"airplanes (if you have a look to the "future" of commercial aviation - B787 and A350 - they are very similar to the airplanes of last 20 years);
and we want to build a supersonic airplane able to fly from London to Sydney in 4 hours???

DeltaDude · 06-30-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charter

Yes, in 2060...

We're not able to come back to Moon after 43 years;
we're not able to build a replacement of the Space Shuttle;
we're not able to build more "futuristic"airplanes (if you have a look to the "future" of commercial aviation - B787 and A350 - they are very similar to the airplanes of last 20 years);
and we want to build a supersonic airplane able to fly from London to Sydney in 4 hours???

Couldn't agree more, this seems fairly unrealistic. How would they make any money carrying just 12 passengers? The fuel and maintenance costs would far exceed the revenue they would make on any flights. The design alone seems a little strange. If they could make a more realistic design that could carry a few hundred passengers from London to Sydney in four hours, then that would be impressive. Just my opinion

.

Charter · 06-30-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaDude

Couldn't agree more, this seems fairly unrealistic. How would they make any money carrying just 12 passengers? The fuel and maintenance costs would far exceed the revenue they would make on any flights. The design alone seems a little strange. If they could make a more realistic design that could carry a few hundred passengers from London to Sydney in four hours, then that would be impressive. Just my opinion

.

Many news make me nervous because they are absoultely unrealistic! We had to go to Mars in 2015 ( the first man on Mars...

), while we are trying to understand how to find something of different respect the great, glorious Shuttle!
I think that these news are written to sell magazines and newspapers, by reference to purely "academic" and "thinking games" of the engineers of the various manufacturers.