A Serious question

There seem to be 2 facitons here.

One set thinks we have the techology to create a new SST and one set thinks we do not.

I think we don’t have that technology yet. Can anyone seriously tell me that they think a new SST can be developed, which has the non-speed capabilities (range, fuel burn, capacity, noise) of a 767 or A330 whilst still costing no more to develop than any other new aircraft? If we had, why has no one developed it? They’d be trillionnaires over night!

I dont think it can.

KabirT u put it could do it direct.Or were you being sarcastic ?

no way it can do LHR-SYD directly. Its max. range is 6580km.

I may be wrong, but I was sure that Concorde wasn’t allowed to at supersonic speeds over land. Even if it did fly LHR-SYD, it wouldn’t really be a great deal quicker with the land which is flown over.

No way Concorde can do LHR-SYD direct.Im sure it cant.Do you all remember when Qantas got their first B747-400 they ripped all the seats out and everything else that was not needed and flew it direct from LHR-SYD and it only just made it.Ill go with EGNM on this one,it would need to stop at least once if not a second time.Correct me if im wrong guys.

just a thought – wasn’t sure of the range, cheers

Originally posted by EGNM
just a thought – if for example Concorde did do London-Sydney, would it be able to fly it with just the one stop in for example Singapore, or would it need 2 stops to do the journey?

And also on the long haul theory, Singapore had a trial with G-BOAC and they ditched the idea of the a/c on long haul as it wasn’t economic enough

no it can do it directly.

just a thought – if for example Concorde did do London-Sydney, would it be able to fly it with just the one stop in for example Singapore, or would it need 2 stops to do the journey?

And also on the long haul theory, Singapore had a trial with G-BOAC and they ditched the idea of the a/c on long haul as it wasn’t economic enough

Originally posted by Ja Worsley
I always thought that it was silly having Concord running the NY-Uk run, it’s only a short trip for it, now if you do Sydney-London, you get a more ecconomic flight in terms of fuel cost, and this is where the SST would also gain its ground. LONG HAUL is the answer.

Long haul is the key, but to take advanatge of concorde or its succesors speed, you would have to go south off the coast of africa then curl round at the bottom and head in a straight line for Oz, then skirt round Oz to Sydney.

By the time that is done, it will probally cheaper to fly non-super sonic as you cant go SS over land.

Nikumba

Well it seems like I opened a can of worms on this one!

I agree, we do have the Tech at the moment, the problem is the Bums on seats cost. The QSR will solve all the Noise print problems and soon we’ll have an SST that is Irrisistable to every major A/L in the world.

I always thought that it was silly having Concord running the NY-Uk run, it’s only a short trip for it, now if you do Sydney-London, you get a more ecconomic flight in terms of fuel cost, and this is where the SST would also gain its ground. LONG HAUL is the answer.

EGNM: Thanks mate, it’s been a while but I’m back and ready to kick it again 😀

I was for the Orient Project…..definately would have brought nothing but shame to the A380.

Good post SOC.

Boeing and Lockheed’s SST designs would have seated close to 300 I believe, definitely a far cry from a smaller jet such as Concorde (around 100 usually) or the Tu-144 (140). The market for an SST is there I believe, provided it can be made economical enough so that less-than-1st-class passengers could afford tickets. This would mean more aircraft could be employed on more routes, as there would be a big enough passenger base to supprot them. As Tupolev has been studying the next-gen SST actively since the mid-80’s, any future designer that didn’t avail themselves of Tupolev’s experience would be less than intelligent.

This could be the next big technological race in the aerospace arena, say around the 2030 timeframe. By then the fruits of the NASA/USAF QSP (not QSR) program will have been made available to the designers, and a possible propulsion system in the form of a refined JSF or F-22 powerplant could be made available. I bet this is the next big civil project to emerge from both Boeing and Airbus, and maybe Tupolev provided they can get the funding to build a Tu-244. Definitely a project with a huge potential, provided it can be made economical. With the growing Asian market and the ever-present need for Transatlantic travel, the “too noisy” argument could even be put aside. Of course, this means you’d need an SST with legs to get across the Pacific, but bigger technological leaps have been made.

Part of me still wishes that more people would have been bigger supporters of Reagan’s Orient Express project. This would certainly have borne at least the fruit of a flying demonstrator by now, and with the scientific advances being made all the time in spaceflight technology, could even have been made nearly economical. Besides, a NASP-type craft would certainly put an A380 to shame on the ramp at the Paris Airshow 😎

Definately i agree the Sonic Cruiser was pointless. But SST is definately NOT pointless. And why do you say we dont have technology yet for SST…..they built Concorde over 32 years ago. I am not saying make something faster than Concorde, but maybe a little bigger on the lines of SST. When one will be ablew to travel faster….there wont be a need of bigger jets.

can i just say hi Ja – nice to see you bak in AW!

Absolutely right Mongu…..can’t add anything to that. Except that I would dearly like to see Concorde go on for a while yet-whoever flies it.

I disagree with the notion that we have the tecnology to develop a new SST. We quite clearly are not that advanced just yet.

The aim is not to develop an airliner that flies fast. Whoopie doo – what’s the point of that? The aim is to combine speed with range, capacity, noise print and fuel efficiency in an aeroplane which can be manufactured for a similar cost to a 767 or A330.

In other words – same range, capacity and fuel burn as an A330 with hardly much more noise and for the same cost, maybe 10 or 15% more but that’s it. That is beyond aeronautical engineering as we know it.

Merely developing an SST, as Kabir asks, is pointless.

Also, the Sonic Cruiser is pointless. That’s why Boeing dropped it.

BA and AF have done the aircraft proud; they have offered an impeccable service on such a fantastic piece of technology. Now the aircraft is a real cash cow with the costs of maintaining and running the aircraft sky high for the two airlines. BA and AF can’t afford it and would probably make much more cash putting a 777 or A340 on the JFK Concorde route. Makes sense to stop flying it.

no body is saying to copy the Concorde……Concorde is old tech. A new SST must be built in the near future…otherwise IMO the aviation industry will stay dormant.

I agree with Kabir,and everyone else. Its abouyt time that planes got faster, especiaally in attracting business men or whatever, otherwise the indusrty will slow down in modernisation