Results 101 to 125 of 192
Thread: Concorde is Back!
-
06-07-2021, 07:41 AM #101
Divorce lawyers of America smile and order a second martini.
-
06-07-2021, 08:17 AM #102
-
06-07-2021, 08:24 AM #103Aim for the chopping block. If you aim for the wood, you will have nothing. Aim past the wood, aim through the wood.
http://tim-kirchoff.pixels.com/
-
06-07-2021, 08:27 AM #104Aim for the chopping block. If you aim for the wood, you will have nothing. Aim past the wood, aim through the wood.
http://tim-kirchoff.pixels.com/
-
06-07-2021, 09:02 AM #105
-
06-07-2021, 09:58 AM #106
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 $$$?
Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp
-
06-07-2021, 10:08 AM #107
-
06-07-2021, 10:27 AM #108
-
06-07-2021, 10:35 AM #109
Take a picture of your model, tweet to Elon and ask him for some $.
"timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang
-
06-07-2021, 10:50 AM #110
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.
-
06-07-2021, 11:07 AM #111
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.Originally Posted by blurred
-
06-07-2021, 11:11 AM #112
-
06-07-2021, 11:12 AM #113
Yeah, $100 is typical startup airline bullshit.
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.
-
06-07-2021, 11:27 AM #114
Perhaps there's another way?
https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist...-for-over-18k/"timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang
-
06-07-2021, 11:53 AM #115
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. . .
-
06-07-2021, 12:02 PM #116
-
06-07-2021, 12:28 PM #117
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.
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.
-
06-07-2021, 12:34 PM #118
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
-
06-07-2021, 12:42 PM #119
-
06-07-2021, 12:47 PM #120
Yeah, the longer you can be at 60 thousand, the better.
Well, except for the radiation.
-
06-07-2021, 12:56 PM #121
Are you guys REALLY up for a good laugh? Read this page of theirs touting how "eco-friendly" they'll be. They have all the modern corporate eco-jargon BS in there, perhaps to help assuage the guilt of their investors. Downright comical:
https://boomsupersonic.com/sustainability
Having at least an elementary grasp on physics, something tells me that the terms "supersonic" and "sustainable" don't quite go together. Perhaps they'll fuel it with the fumes of the bullshit flowing from their website and VC pitches?
HA!
-
06-07-2021, 01:02 PM #122
It’ll be fueled by Bitcoin
-
06-07-2021, 01:12 PM #123
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.Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp
-
06-07-2021, 01:13 PM #124
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.
-
06-07-2021, 01:13 PM #125
Bookmarks