Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

A replacement for Concorcde one day?

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Private Flying The forum for discussion and questions about any form of flying where you are doing it for the sheer pleasure of flight, rather than being paid!

A replacement for Concorcde one day?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 14th August 2012 | 14:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: South-East, United Kingdom
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
piperarcher is offline  
Reply
Old 14th August 2012 | 22:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 409
Likes: 3
From: The Home of the Gnomes
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.

Last edited by Tay Cough; 14th August 2012 at 22:39.
Tay Cough is offline  
Reply
Old 15th August 2012 | 08:38
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: South-East, United Kingdom
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
piperarcher is offline  
Reply
Old 15th August 2012 | 17:24
  #4 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, England
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.
BroomstickPilot is offline  
Reply
Old 15th August 2012 | 17:48
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
From: n/a
The whole Wave Rider media froth is just silly. It will never spawn a "London to New York in an hour" aircraft... It's a weapon development program, nothing else.
Daysleeper is offline  
Reply
Old 16th August 2012 | 14:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
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!

Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 16th August 2012 at 14:08.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Reply
Old 16th August 2012 | 14:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
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.
peterh337 is offline  
Reply
Old 16th August 2012 | 15:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
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).
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Reply
Old 16th August 2012 | 22:21
  #9 (permalink)  
Tabs please!
Community Builder
Community Influencer
40 Countries Visited
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,098
From: Biffins Bridge
The SR-71 required hundreds of man-hours of maintenance between flights. Concorde required fuel, food, booze and the loos emptying.
B Fraser is offline  
Reply
Old 16th August 2012 | 22:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
From: Swindon, Wilts,UK
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.
Windy Militant is offline  
Reply
Old 17th August 2012 | 06:25
  #11 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 66
From: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
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?
JEM60 is offline  
Reply
Old 17th August 2012 | 08:04
  #12 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, England
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.
BroomstickPilot is offline  
Reply
Old 17th August 2012 | 08:42
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,479
Likes: 0
From: Surrey Hills
The SR 71 did land at Farnborough [1974]. I and others were allowed to stand near it by the Black Sheds istr. Then it was put on display.

aviate1138 is offline  
Reply
Old 25th August 2012 | 22:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
From: Twyford, UK
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.
Taildragger is offline  
Reply
Old 25th August 2012 | 23:21
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
From: on the beach
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.
mike-wsm is offline  
Reply
Old 25th August 2012 | 23:43
  #16 (permalink)  
UV
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 665
Likes: 8
From: Essex
Err.. didnt the test fail last Tuesday? Mach 5 was last year.

Hypersonic flight X51A Waverider crash probed by military

Last edited by UV; 25th August 2012 at 23:46.
UV is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.