A replacement for Concorcde one day?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A replacement for Concorcde one day?
Hi
Just saw this on the BBC. As someone who would dearly love to see a Concorde take flight once more, and was sad at the loss of supersonic flight (not that I ever got the chance to go on it), it was interesting to read that work is still being done in this field. It's interesting that although the previous test run 'failed', that it actually reached Mach5.
BBC News - WaveRider hypersonic jet targets Mach 6
PiperArcher
Just saw this on the BBC. As someone who would dearly love to see a Concorde take flight once more, and was sad at the loss of supersonic flight (not that I ever got the chance to go on it), it was interesting to read that work is still being done in this field. It's interesting that although the previous test run 'failed', that it actually reached Mach5.
BBC News - WaveRider hypersonic jet targets Mach 6
PiperArcher
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
There are two practical options to replace Concorde in reality. One is a Gulfstream 5 sized biz-jet such as Aerion. The other would need to be about 777 capacity with trans-Pacific range to begin to make the economics viable. We may see the first one relatively soon if they find suitable investment. Don't hold your breath for the second one. 
I doubt a waverider will be viable for that although I should think the military will find a use for it.
I doubt a waverider will be viable for that although I should think the military will find a use for it.
Last edited by Tay Cough; 14th Aug 2012 at 22:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, I enjoyed watching the Aerion video on the website. I had seen some programs on the TV suggesting the next SST would be a bizjet. Concorde's traveller numbers declined for a number of reasons, but it would seem to me that only the very rich could really justify the cost of flying supersonically, and it was only be in small numbers now.
Maybe if I start saving now, I might be able to afford a ticker on an Aerion aircraft in 10 years time
PiperArcher
Maybe if I start saving now, I might be able to afford a ticker on an Aerion aircraft in 10 years time
PiperArcher
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylon
Hi piperarcher,
I suggest you also take a look at the Skylon being developed here in the UK by Reaction Engines Ltd.
Reaction Engines Limited
BP.
I suggest you also take a look at the Skylon being developed here in the UK by Reaction Engines Ltd.
Reaction Engines Limited
BP.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde was magnificent, but it was a product of a different era. An era of confidence and belief in doing smart things for their own sake, not just because some bean counter says it will provide a financial return.
So we sent men to the moon and safely brought them back. And we built a superonic airliner that several times a day for 27 years flew the Atlantic at mach 2. It was a technical marvel - Russia and the US both attempted an SST, and failed. Of the 3, only Concorde was successful.
But they only built 14, so the cost per airframe was astronomical with no chance of ever being, overall, a commercial success.
But consider that no other aeroplane has ever crossed the Atlantic supersonic without in flight refuelling; Concorde did it many times a day for nearly 3 decades. G-BOAC even crossed the Atlantic 4 times in 24 hours. 1,350 mph with 100 pampered passengers drinking Champagne. Faster than a military fast jet, for up to 4 and a half hours, on the edge of space.
What an aeroplane! What an era!
So we sent men to the moon and safely brought them back. And we built a superonic airliner that several times a day for 27 years flew the Atlantic at mach 2. It was a technical marvel - Russia and the US both attempted an SST, and failed. Of the 3, only Concorde was successful.
But they only built 14, so the cost per airframe was astronomical with no chance of ever being, overall, a commercial success.
But consider that no other aeroplane has ever crossed the Atlantic supersonic without in flight refuelling; Concorde did it many times a day for nearly 3 decades. G-BOAC even crossed the Atlantic 4 times in 24 hours. 1,350 mph with 100 pampered passengers drinking Champagne. Faster than a military fast jet, for up to 4 and a half hours, on the edge of space.
What an aeroplane! What an era!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 16th Aug 2012 at 14:08.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SR71 did it nonstop, surely?
The USAF flew it to LHR once. I remember it.
That was another amazing machine
There is a definite market for a supersonic business jet, where fuel economy is not an issue, and a number of people around the world are seriously working on it.
The USAF flew it to LHR once. I remember it.
That was another amazing machine
There is a definite market for a supersonic business jet, where fuel economy is not an issue, and a number of people around the world are seriously working on it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR71 didn't. It was refuelled. It was a rather crude aeroplane, though it has to be realised that Kelly Johnson had to throw something together quickly for the US spy plane program so not really comparable to the long development programme Concorde got. Many SR71s were lost, all through technical problems. Did you know it even had to dive to go supersonic? It couldn't overcome transonic drag in level flight! Concorde climbed through that phase of flight!
The US really should have used some Concordes to do the job the SR71 did. Sure, it was a Mach 2 aeroplane rather than Mach 3, but Mach 2 was fast enough not to get shot down (ask any Lighning pilot who tried to get a bead on it!). And it didn't need special fuels or have a leaky titanium airframe with unstart-prone engines (which caused mny of the SR71's losses).
The US really should have used some Concordes to do the job the SR71 did. Sure, it was a Mach 2 aeroplane rather than Mach 3, but Mach 2 was fast enough not to get shot down (ask any Lighning pilot who tried to get a bead on it!). And it didn't need special fuels or have a leaky titanium airframe with unstart-prone engines (which caused mny of the SR71's losses).
Tabs please !
The SR-71 required hundreds of man-hours of maintenance between flights. Concorde required fuel, food, booze and the loos emptying.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one else notice the similarity between the Nose section of the X51 and the Zero-X? Derek Meddings was either able to visit the future or a lot of NASA boffins are Thunderbirds fans.
There's another similarity between them they both tend to crash, still being unmanned the X51 doesn't require the services of International rescue.
piperarcher if you do look at the Reaction Engines web site have a look at LAPCAT the hypersonic stratospheric airliner study using SCIMITAR a derivative of the SABRE engines they are developing for SKYLON.
There's another similarity between them they both tend to crash, still being unmanned the X51 doesn't require the services of International rescue.
piperarcher if you do look at the Reaction Engines web site have a look at LAPCAT the hypersonic stratospheric airliner study using SCIMITAR a derivative of the SABRE engines they are developing for SKYLON.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
PeterH337. I think you may be mistaken about SR71 at LHR. Don't think it ever did.Certainly it went to Greenham Common, Farnborough, Fairford and Mildenhall. Why would it have gone to Heathrow when there are all these Military bases with appropriate facilities. Anyone know different?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR 71 at Farnborough
JEM60,
The SR 71 did indeed appear at Farnborough, but to the best of my recall, it didn't land there.
I saw it and it was the WOW! of the day. It crossed the Atlantic in about 1 hr 15 minutes and commenced its let down somewhere over Cornwall in the extreme West of England!
Presumably, after its appearance, it will have proceeded on to some US air base that would have had the necessary security and support facilities.
Regards,
BP.
The SR 71 did indeed appear at Farnborough, but to the best of my recall, it didn't land there.
I saw it and it was the WOW! of the day. It crossed the Atlantic in about 1 hr 15 minutes and commenced its let down somewhere over Cornwall in the extreme West of England!
Presumably, after its appearance, it will have proceeded on to some US air base that would have had the necessary security and support facilities.
Regards,
BP.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unrefuelled across the pond
Not with 100 plus pax in the back it didn't.!! The SR71 carried 2 pilots plus a squeeze bottle for in flight catering. And as for loos.......luxury.!
So it is chalk and cheese.
So it is chalk and cheese.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broomstick
I've never really been convinced by Skylon, the engines are fiendishly complicated to build and maintain, whilst having them on the wingtips seems to invoke all sorts of problems.
The name is piched from the Skylon at the 1951 Festival of Britain.
I've never really been convinced by Skylon, the engines are fiendishly complicated to build and maintain, whilst having them on the wingtips seems to invoke all sorts of problems.
The name is piched from the Skylon at the 1951 Festival of Britain.
