wow thats huge!

refreshing news indeed.

Like it or not, Kabir, the business of the aviation industry is to provide robust, safe reliable and economically sound products to meet the needs of a whole range of customers – not to produce shiny exciting new toys to awe and amaze the gawking masses.

You may wish that it were otherwise, but the world can be like that sometimes.

I know that….. its just something i am debating. Most models were shiny exciting new toys at some point.

I dont think i would be up for it.

The same was said for the Concorde. In the 70s we should be looking at speed, not size! Even Boeing agreed, that’s why the 747 was designed from the onset with freight in mind. Boeing figured that airlines would move passengers with the B2707 (and perhaps a few Concordes for good measure 😉 ).

Well then we see more backing out from programmes such as Concorde. Concorde might have been more succesful if at that time American beurocracy wouldnt have come into play. Plus the way the 14 Concordes served i was phenominal..one crash in more than 28 yrs of service!

The Concorde did not succeed at it’s goals. The goal was to make a safe plane to fly across the atlantic that would make a profit for the airlines and manufacturers involved.

You cant really blame Concorde for one crash in 28 years now can you? Well, i do agree on the profits part. But the image it gave Air France and BA should be profitable enough.

Some of these goals where met. It was a safe plane. It could cross the Atlantic, but only just. If there was a strong headwind over the Atlantic than Air France’s CDG -> JFK service had to divert to take up fuel.

AF and BA Concordes did Paris-DEL or LHR-DEL!

It did make a profit for the airlines, but what if BA and AF had paid the full price instead of the token price they had to pay? Would that still have generated a profit? If so, would that profit have been large enough to warrant buying it? If the same money had gone to a few more 747s, would BA/AF have made more money? It’s easy to make a profit if something is just given to you. And still it took BA years to get the Concorde profitable!

I think BA and AF could have made something of it post-Sept. 11 when there positions were relativly strong. Otherwise they would have decomisioned the Concorde then and there before finding a reasong being Sept. 11 of taking it out.

Considering how the oil prices are rising and rising I think any airline bean-counter will think twice before taking a very fast plane that is likely to be very thirsty. It will definately be more thirsty than the B747 and A380. Unless there is a revolution on jet technology, but if there is it will probably be just a matter of time before it is added on the B747 and A380 rendering them even more competitive over the SST.

Thats what i just said for the sake of discussion..leave economics aside for a bit.

[/quote=tenthije]I would not say that. The shape of the plane may not be changing a lot, but that does not mean a lot. The B777 is widely regarded as a plane that was cuttin edge incorporating lot’s of new technology. But set it next to a 767 and people outside the aviation industry will have trouble telling which is which.[/quote]

its still nothing MAJOR in the 777. That can really excite a person. Having a few different tools in the cockpit cant really compare with having an SST. You can see the face expression of a person who sees a 777 land and a Concorde land and you’ll see what i mean.

The A380 will bring new advances, in particular in the field of composites the A380 is making great leaps. “Glare” is a new material that is light yet very strong that will be used for many parts of the fuselage. Airbus will offer loads of innovative luxuries for the cabin (whether airlines opt for it remains to be seen of course, probably not).

For the 7E7 the engines will be state of the art. And if the plane looks like the artist impressions (remains to be seen as well) then aerodynamicly it will be an evolution as well. I would not say revolution as the basic fuselage with a wing and tail is still the same.

For both planes the environmentally friendlyness (emissions, noise, fuel consumption) will be second to none. In todays world that is more important than speed! Officially Concorde was not allowed to fly anywhere because it broke almost every environmental rule in the book. Not to mention the sonic boom. Yes a modern SST will be more environmentally friendly, but it will not compete with a 7E7 or the A380. Again, not even mentioning the sonic boom!

Speaking of revolutions in the air industry, SRB as announced Virgin Galactic or something offering flights to space performed by Space Ship 1.

The A380 is no where what “modern design and technology” should be. Carrying 500 people at the same speed as aircrafts did 15 years ago is no big achivments. And advancements like new materials, less pollution will happpen…if they also stop! The spaceship you are talking about..if its like what happened on the first flight i dont think many ppl will be up for it. 😮

It depends on how you define “development”.

Today’s aviation industry moves vast numbers of people and massive tonnages of freight further, more quickly and far more cheaply than ever before.

It does this safely and routinely, to such an extent that air travel isn’t really regarded as “special” any more and people of all ages and most income groups travel between continents as readily as they travel between cities within their own lands.

I would put it to you that this is far more marvellous, much more worthwhile, and a greater achievement than any silvery dart carrying a small number of the cramped and well-heeled through the upper atmosphere, and towards the next traffic jam, at breakneck speed.

This is the true miracle of flight.

The airline has been taking huge number of people and freight in quick time for decades…. the only thing fast right now are the turn around times. Thats exactly i am pointing at…. the “technology” is not steadfast at the moment, not being implemeneted even when in many cases it exists. No plans for future ambitious projects like the Concorde was for its time by either Boeing or Airbus.

best of luck martin. 🙂

Interesting ideas Kabir, could you elaborate more on your view the technologies and reasons behind the two aircraft?

Thanks

people might think i am stupid or simply unconventional…but here goes..

By “technologies” i simply mean the evolution of technology and nothing else. During the times of the Comet, B707 etc. technology was moving at a great pace, It was the time where the achievment of a SST was actually made first by the Russians by the TU 144, and then prooved safe in carrying passengers by the Europeans after the Paris TU 144 disaster. The last major evolution in technology i saw was the 747, and just at that time because nothing so big was ever created.

In the 21st century we should be looking at speed not size. Concorde was an achievment which now seems was tried, tested, succeeded and then left as if SST had been “conqured”. Indeed it was, but if it was succesfully conqured why not more of those examples instead of flying ugly monstors like A380 which will look like a crowded bus from India? We would not need the A380 if there were faster aircraft avilable on the market. Why would a business traveler pay for a bed on the A380 when there can be an aircraft avilable that can cut time by hours and get the business traveler to his destination as quick as possible. Thats what the Concorde. Engineers thoughts in my opinion should be on a fast, economical aviation technology, enough of making big aircrafts, thats absolutely senseless! Imagine having a 15 hour flight in the cattle class of an A380 with that many passengers!

I know, airlines today are run by accountants more than the CEOs, but we have to remember this is a period, which ultimately will pass. No hurricane dissapears without casualties, post 9/11 has taken the aviation industry to take a step back not only directly, but indirrectly as well due to the affects on the oil industries.

Coming to the 7e7, it is just a replacement aircraft for the 757/767 vacume, only incooperating the best comforts of today. It is nothing special from the Boeing camp, now if they had increased the speed of the Boeing ST that would have been a wonderful project, and i am glad Boeing even gave a thought towards that direction. But ultimately agreed this is not the perfect time to launch such an aircraft. But now i dont see any such projects on the horizon unless Boeing decides out of the blues to bring back the ST project WITH major overhalls, mainly saying speed. The thing that interested me in the 7e7 was the shark like looks, but now taken that away too, swanky interiors is the only good thing looking for both A380 and 7e7 models. But remember,I am not saying both will not succeed. Atleast it is good to know engine technologies is going somewhere, that some part of aviation is actually moving. The only exciting thing it seems in the 7e7 is both engine types will have a standard interface with the aircraft, allowing any 7E7 to be fitted with either a GE or RR engine at any point in time.

The last major technology marvel was the Concorde and probably you can say the 747 for its time, economics rule an airline agreed, but humans have a tendancy and itch to surpass many levels of difficulties and technologies. Unfortunately aviation right now is lagging the farthest in “technological evolution