Look at Boeing's beautiful new aircraft!
Guest
Posts: n/a
"An all first-class 100 seat configuration might serve Concorde-type clientele on selected routes when Concordes reach the end of their operational lives." You're kidding, right? A Mach 0.95 airplane replacing a Mach 2 airplane. People who pay to be able to fly the Atlantic both ways in a day will pay a Concorde-type premium to shave 45-75 minutes off their journey time?
By the time the poor thing's struggled up to 45,000 and then back, with the climb and descent micro-managed by ATC, and not optimised for speed or fuel efficiency, it may even end up slower than a 340 whose operators have got their check-in and baggage claim systems properly streamlined.
"A successfully designed and cost-competitive sonic cruiser would seem to be a stake into the heart of the long-term A-340 market." Only if it can offer lower seat mile costs, and there's no suggestion that it will. This misbegotten aircraft (if not actually intended as a joke) represents the worst possible compromise between bold innovation and cautious conservatism. It won't be radical enough to carve a high speed niche, and it won't be cheap enough to compete - and on top of all that it looks too radical for accountants and passengers.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer. There's a good, reliable, impartial source for info on the local industry.
If the company is right in its claim to be able to produce an efficient jetliner that can cruise just under the speed of sound, they have NOT conquered a problem that has baffled airplane designers since the dawn of the jet age, they've re-invented the VC10 and the CV990, and have had to enter Dan Dare design territory to do so.
By the time the poor thing's struggled up to 45,000 and then back, with the climb and descent micro-managed by ATC, and not optimised for speed or fuel efficiency, it may even end up slower than a 340 whose operators have got their check-in and baggage claim systems properly streamlined.
"A successfully designed and cost-competitive sonic cruiser would seem to be a stake into the heart of the long-term A-340 market." Only if it can offer lower seat mile costs, and there's no suggestion that it will. This misbegotten aircraft (if not actually intended as a joke) represents the worst possible compromise between bold innovation and cautious conservatism. It won't be radical enough to carve a high speed niche, and it won't be cheap enough to compete - and on top of all that it looks too radical for accountants and passengers.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer. There's a good, reliable, impartial source for info on the local industry.
If the company is right in its claim to be able to produce an efficient jetliner that can cruise just under the speed of sound, they have NOT conquered a problem that has baffled airplane designers since the dawn of the jet age, they've re-invented the VC10 and the CV990, and have had to enter Dan Dare design territory to do so.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Something bothers me about a twin jet
delta wing. Concorde type wings don't have great lift on take-off hence higher necessary speed. Look how Air France's poor last flight struggled valiantly on 50% power...with afterburners!
Now this new Boeing will have an awful lot of fuel + ~200+ people weight for a 9000 mile dash, and no afterburner take off. Even with high-bypass power, how close to the edge will -it- be with one engine out on take-off from Paris to Hong Kong?
My only guess is that the twin engine layout is a ruse to Airbus in case they want to compete. I suspect that, along with the canards, this element of the `concept car' will never see the outside of the `motor show'.
delta wing. Concorde type wings don't have great lift on take-off hence higher necessary speed. Look how Air France's poor last flight struggled valiantly on 50% power...with afterburners!
Now this new Boeing will have an awful lot of fuel + ~200+ people weight for a 9000 mile dash, and no afterburner take off. Even with high-bypass power, how close to the edge will -it- be with one engine out on take-off from Paris to Hong Kong?
My only guess is that the twin engine layout is a ruse to Airbus in case they want to compete. I suspect that, along with the canards, this element of the `concept car' will never see the outside of the `motor show'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Engine out performance is not a player in the manner in which you are thinking.
An aircraft must be certified to make a 2.4 percent climb gradiant with the failure of its most critical engine. The concorde, 747 a340 etc are certified to lose 1 engine and make that climb gradient. They are not certified to lose 2 engines and make that. Depending on weight, a double engine failure in any 4 engine aircraft right at v1 may very well be fatal. They aren't required to be able to do it.
A twin is usally more overpowered in normal state because they have to lose 50 percent of their power (vs 25 percent for a 4 engine aircraft) and still climb.
So it will be by certification requirements no different then a 737 in the event of an engine failure...
Cheers
Bohica
An aircraft must be certified to make a 2.4 percent climb gradiant with the failure of its most critical engine. The concorde, 747 a340 etc are certified to lose 1 engine and make that climb gradient. They are not certified to lose 2 engines and make that. Depending on weight, a double engine failure in any 4 engine aircraft right at v1 may very well be fatal. They aren't required to be able to do it.
A twin is usally more overpowered in normal state because they have to lose 50 percent of their power (vs 25 percent for a 4 engine aircraft) and still climb.
So it will be by certification requirements no different then a 737 in the event of an engine failure...
Cheers
Bohica
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight Safety
When you have a look at the power to weight ratio of jets that fly above FL400 you see that the ratio goes above 30%.
Most airlines at the moment are in the high 20% range, a small comparison is below ..
Below is a quick comparison or aircraft, Power/Weight ratio (%), and Range (nm)
When you go above 30% costs for operating go through the roof. The reason for the high power to weight ratio to allow the aircraft get to the altitude (excess power=climb) and to allow a margin on the buffet boundary.
The power to weight ratio is also linked to the direct operating cost of the aircraft via fuel, oil, lube, insurance, maintenance, and depreciation.
SaturnV,
I mentioned the B757 fuse as I counted about 50 rows along the side of the aircraft, 200 seats, 50 rows, 4 across -> single isle.
The AW&ST article has a lot of good engineering sense, and some interesting quotes …
Michael B. Bair, Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice president for business strategy and development
Wino,
Climb gradients for one engine inoperative 4 engine aircraft are higher than for one engine inoperative two engine aircraft.
FAR 25.121 has the following gross climb gradients for second and third segments
The gross to net margins are
When you have a look at the power to weight ratio of jets that fly above FL400 you see that the ratio goes above 30%.
Most airlines at the moment are in the high 20% range, a small comparison is below ..
Below is a quick comparison or aircraft, Power/Weight ratio (%), and Range (nm)
- Citation X 37.47% 3250
- Gulfstearm V 32.99% 6500
- B767-400ER 28.22% 5625
- B777-300 29.70% 5720
- A330-200 26.82% 6400
- A340-500 27.84% 8500
- B747-400 27.43% 7259
- B747SP 29.49% 8315
- A380-100 27.22% 7665
When you go above 30% costs for operating go through the roof. The reason for the high power to weight ratio to allow the aircraft get to the altitude (excess power=climb) and to allow a margin on the buffet boundary.
The power to weight ratio is also linked to the direct operating cost of the aircraft via fuel, oil, lube, insurance, maintenance, and depreciation.
SaturnV,
I mentioned the B757 fuse as I counted about 50 rows along the side of the aircraft, 200 seats, 50 rows, 4 across -> single isle.
The AW&ST article has a lot of good engineering sense, and some interesting quotes …
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The public evidence that this is achievable at Mach 0.95 is sketchy at best, but by comparing improvements in technology between the 767 and 777, and applying that Mach X L/D increment to the 1970s near-sonic studies, an L/D level of 15-16 might be possible.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">And given a lull in company R&D and cuts in NASA subsonic research, "it's a very tall order to go from this into a new airplane."</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> "It burns a little more fuel but the operating cost is very competitive with today's aircraft," Bair said.</font>
Wino,
Climb gradients for one engine inoperative 4 engine aircraft are higher than for one engine inoperative two engine aircraft.
FAR 25.121 has the following gross climb gradients for second and third segments
- 2 engine 2.4% 1.2%
- 3 engine 2.7% 1.5%
- 4 engine 3.0% 1.7%
The gross to net margins are
- 2 engine 0.8%
- 3 engine 0.9%
- 4 engine 1.0%
Guest
Posts: n/a
Errrr?
Half the speed of Concorde, half the pax of an 747, only an hour off the transatlantic time and most of that spent in the buffet zone. Yipeeekayay! who’s impressed? All this Delta and SST stuff was covered with in the 1960s and 70s and Boeing got cancelled after spending vast cash to produce nothing solid. Lets face it, Concorde was first passenger delta and did it right. The A380 is whipping Boeing with their own stick and the only response is some pretty artist impression dragged out of a dusty cupboard. Yawn.
And another minor point. Developing a new wing is HUGELY expensive whereas stretching an existing tube and doing a spot of engine development is not - something Boeing has been good at in the past. If big cash is being spent, lets see something that is truly radical. Where’s that stainless steel Mach 3, 250 seat machine that was promised? And whatever happened to the North American B70 Valkyrie? Stuff that full of passengers instead of warheads and it would have been a real head-turner!!!!
Half the speed of Concorde, half the pax of an 747, only an hour off the transatlantic time and most of that spent in the buffet zone. Yipeeekayay! who’s impressed? All this Delta and SST stuff was covered with in the 1960s and 70s and Boeing got cancelled after spending vast cash to produce nothing solid. Lets face it, Concorde was first passenger delta and did it right. The A380 is whipping Boeing with their own stick and the only response is some pretty artist impression dragged out of a dusty cupboard. Yawn.
And another minor point. Developing a new wing is HUGELY expensive whereas stretching an existing tube and doing a spot of engine development is not - something Boeing has been good at in the past. If big cash is being spent, lets see something that is truly radical. Where’s that stainless steel Mach 3, 250 seat machine that was promised? And whatever happened to the North American B70 Valkyrie? Stuff that full of passengers instead of warheads and it would have been a real head-turner!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I tend to agree with Roadtrip's comments on page 1. If this new Boeing sees the light of day - (and I I suspect something relatively radical will eventually surface) - IMHO it will bear little resemblance to the cute pikky we've all been treated to at the start of this thread. My guess would be something a tad closer to a flying wing, but of course, I could be way off beam. I'll wait and see.
We're all witness here to commercial oneupmanship being practised by the real experts in this coming battle for market share. Each player will do anything they can to throw a spanner in the commercial workings of the competitor, right up to using government to government confrontations in other trade areas as part of the gameplan.
I suspect there's more than an element of truth in Roadtrip's comment that Boeing will wait until Airbus is committed to the A380, (a relatively small step forward from what's out there already, in perception, if not in reality), before they unveil something as ground-breaking as the 747 was in its day. I say this because when it comes to sheer thuggery and no-holds-barred infighting in the commercial field, (and I'm not trying to insult anyone with the use of that word), all the rest of us have to get up very very early in the morning to beat those from the good ole US of A. Since WW2, they've even manufactured a succession of wars to keep their economy rollin' right along.
I also can't help but observe that many proponents of the A380 might be letting this develop into something more of a "Europe can p-eye-ss further up a wall than America can" contest rather than looking at the true merits of the 380 and just how much of an advance it really is.
We're all witness here to commercial oneupmanship being practised by the real experts in this coming battle for market share. Each player will do anything they can to throw a spanner in the commercial workings of the competitor, right up to using government to government confrontations in other trade areas as part of the gameplan.
I suspect there's more than an element of truth in Roadtrip's comment that Boeing will wait until Airbus is committed to the A380, (a relatively small step forward from what's out there already, in perception, if not in reality), before they unveil something as ground-breaking as the 747 was in its day. I say this because when it comes to sheer thuggery and no-holds-barred infighting in the commercial field, (and I'm not trying to insult anyone with the use of that word), all the rest of us have to get up very very early in the morning to beat those from the good ole US of A. Since WW2, they've even manufactured a succession of wars to keep their economy rollin' right along.
I also can't help but observe that many proponents of the A380 might be letting this develop into something more of a "Europe can p-eye-ss further up a wall than America can" contest rather than looking at the true merits of the 380 and just how much of an advance it really is.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One thing A380 isn't is a pi$$ing contest. It's a sensible, evolutionary response to a requirement to replace now ageing 747s with a more modern, higher-capacity aircraft which fits in the same 80m box, and which can use existing airport infrastructure, and (and I'll write this slowly so the Boeing-is-best boys can understand) with lower-seat mile costs than any extant airliner, and with the ability to turn a profit for its owners when operating with a typical 747-load of pax.
Those are "the true merits of the 380" we don't have to wait to see "just how much of an advance it really is". Technologically, it's not much of an advance. Commercially, however, it's a winner.
It's not all that ground-breaking, except arguably in terms of size - but even there, the big 'leap' came with the 747. That's why it's so sad that Boeing missed the boat in designing a competitor. It's not a case of Boeing waiting and throwing spanners - they've already missed the boat. Short of a world recession and catastrophic collapse in capacity demand, the A380's here already.
Those are "the true merits of the 380" we don't have to wait to see "just how much of an advance it really is". Technologically, it's not much of an advance. Commercially, however, it's a winner.
It's not all that ground-breaking, except arguably in terms of size - but even there, the big 'leap' came with the 747. That's why it's so sad that Boeing missed the boat in designing a competitor. It's not a case of Boeing waiting and throwing spanners - they've already missed the boat. Short of a world recession and catastrophic collapse in capacity demand, the A380's here already.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Zeke
You stated, “I have heard rumors that the A380 will be constructed in the main by robots, and little if any use of rivets as fasteners. I understand a laser welding technique has been developed with save tones in fasteners alone”.
This may be true and if it is, it will cut the cost of manufacture by cutting down on the salaries of the construction workers as well as eliminating the cost and weight of the fasteners replaced by the laser welding of structural panels and structural elements within the airframe.
It will vastly improve the reliability of the airframe due to the elimination of the fastening devices and rivets. All of this can be used as a selling point.
Here is an example of the application of the above selling points in the marketing of an aircraft.
One of the major selling points to the US Congress in the promotion of the V-22 was that it was mainly made of composite material which has proven to have a “paper” reliability much superior to the metal structure it replaces. Here is the reality of the V-22. If it suffers major damage to the rear end of the aircraft it must be repaired in the same manner as it was constructed. This means that the entire structure from the wings back must be removed and sent back to the factory and be repaired and placed in an autoclave. For skin repairs the US Navy specified the methodology and the design requirements dictated that the repair be X-rayed to verify the integrity of the repair but they found out that the material specified by the Navy was opaque to X-rays.
In order to get the A-380 certificated Airbus must create a repair scheme for every conceivable type of skin repair or the repair to major structure. What happens if a repair of the skin spans across a laser weld? What is the down time on the aircraft when a repair must be effected?
I worked as a senior Reliability Engineer on the A-310, A-300-600 and the A-320 wing and I personally saw how lax the consortia companies were when it came to Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety. I don’t think much has changed in the last ten years.
One other point and this is the same point that went through the collective minds of Boeing management relative to the 747 and that is what happens if the aircraft crashes. The Warsaw and Montreal conventions both indicate that if a crash results from an intentional error on the part of the builder the damages claimed by the survivors is unlimited.
If this is upheld in court it could wipe out Airbus and their insurers.
------------------
The Cat
You stated, “I have heard rumors that the A380 will be constructed in the main by robots, and little if any use of rivets as fasteners. I understand a laser welding technique has been developed with save tones in fasteners alone”.
This may be true and if it is, it will cut the cost of manufacture by cutting down on the salaries of the construction workers as well as eliminating the cost and weight of the fasteners replaced by the laser welding of structural panels and structural elements within the airframe.
It will vastly improve the reliability of the airframe due to the elimination of the fastening devices and rivets. All of this can be used as a selling point.
Here is an example of the application of the above selling points in the marketing of an aircraft.
One of the major selling points to the US Congress in the promotion of the V-22 was that it was mainly made of composite material which has proven to have a “paper” reliability much superior to the metal structure it replaces. Here is the reality of the V-22. If it suffers major damage to the rear end of the aircraft it must be repaired in the same manner as it was constructed. This means that the entire structure from the wings back must be removed and sent back to the factory and be repaired and placed in an autoclave. For skin repairs the US Navy specified the methodology and the design requirements dictated that the repair be X-rayed to verify the integrity of the repair but they found out that the material specified by the Navy was opaque to X-rays.
In order to get the A-380 certificated Airbus must create a repair scheme for every conceivable type of skin repair or the repair to major structure. What happens if a repair of the skin spans across a laser weld? What is the down time on the aircraft when a repair must be effected?
I worked as a senior Reliability Engineer on the A-310, A-300-600 and the A-320 wing and I personally saw how lax the consortia companies were when it came to Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety. I don’t think much has changed in the last ten years.
One other point and this is the same point that went through the collective minds of Boeing management relative to the 747 and that is what happens if the aircraft crashes. The Warsaw and Montreal conventions both indicate that if a crash results from an intentional error on the part of the builder the damages claimed by the survivors is unlimited.
If this is upheld in court it could wipe out Airbus and their insurers.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
amazing,
all i have read on this board is how boeing has lost it and airbus has beaten them. boeing cant come up with anything new. airbus is "lightyears" ahead and is setting the standards while boeing just recycles old airframes.
boeing comes up with a revolutionary new design and all you guys do is rip it apart. what do you want boeing to do? granted, this is in the very earlier stages, but all i have read is how they will never pull it off yet no one here really questions some of the dubious claims of the A380.
the other complaint is that this airplane is not a revolutionary step in aviation. how would you improve on the 757/767/A320/A330 size of aircraft? i want to hear what all of you would propose for the "next generation". this airplane, if they can make it work, will be faster, fly much farther with very comparable operating costs.
i am not trying to start a boeing vs airbus war because both are fine manufacturers. but lets point out a couple of things. it is obvious from this thread as someone earlier pointed out that nationalism has a lot to do with peoples comments. everyone was ripping the americans, but how about the europeans? boeing is damned if they do and damned if they dont in your eyes.
all i am saying is lets try to keep things in perspective. everyone loved to point out that airbus outsold boeing in 1999. yet i didnt see alot of threads here pointing out that boeing beat airbus last year. they are two major airframe manufacturers and i think we will see a 50/50 split for the forseeable future. think about it, what new design has airbus come up with in the last 15 years? the 380 is just a double decker 340. everyhing over the last 10 years has been a variant of their late 80's work. at least boeing developed an all new airliner during the 1990's that is still the most advanced airliner around. everyone loves to point out that the A330 is so much better than the 767. does anyone want to compare the 330 to the 777? i didnt think so.
sorry for the rant gents, but i think we all need to remember that america and europe are friends and both have alot to offer to the world of aviation.
all i have read on this board is how boeing has lost it and airbus has beaten them. boeing cant come up with anything new. airbus is "lightyears" ahead and is setting the standards while boeing just recycles old airframes.
boeing comes up with a revolutionary new design and all you guys do is rip it apart. what do you want boeing to do? granted, this is in the very earlier stages, but all i have read is how they will never pull it off yet no one here really questions some of the dubious claims of the A380.
the other complaint is that this airplane is not a revolutionary step in aviation. how would you improve on the 757/767/A320/A330 size of aircraft? i want to hear what all of you would propose for the "next generation". this airplane, if they can make it work, will be faster, fly much farther with very comparable operating costs.
i am not trying to start a boeing vs airbus war because both are fine manufacturers. but lets point out a couple of things. it is obvious from this thread as someone earlier pointed out that nationalism has a lot to do with peoples comments. everyone was ripping the americans, but how about the europeans? boeing is damned if they do and damned if they dont in your eyes.
all i am saying is lets try to keep things in perspective. everyone loved to point out that airbus outsold boeing in 1999. yet i didnt see alot of threads here pointing out that boeing beat airbus last year. they are two major airframe manufacturers and i think we will see a 50/50 split for the forseeable future. think about it, what new design has airbus come up with in the last 15 years? the 380 is just a double decker 340. everyhing over the last 10 years has been a variant of their late 80's work. at least boeing developed an all new airliner during the 1990's that is still the most advanced airliner around. everyone loves to point out that the A330 is so much better than the 767. does anyone want to compare the 330 to the 777? i didnt think so.
sorry for the rant gents, but i think we all need to remember that america and europe are friends and both have alot to offer to the world of aviation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bring it on Boeing, hope it is a success. Time for a new era of airliners. There is space for the A380 and the sonic cruiser. Top end Biz Travellers will like Boeings aircraft, why would biz peeps want to be in a plane with 500 mere economy pax when they can get to there destination faster, eg long haul routes London-Hong Kong/Sinagpore,OZ. And also cut out the need of a stop on some routes such as West Coast USA to Asia. Airlines can still use A380 for high Density routes. BA is focusing more on top end pax so why shouldn't the Sonic Cruiser work if you fill it with Biz Pax mainly to cater for their needs. Hope I make sense
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone looked at where the A-380 will land? I understand that there is a question of gross weight and pavement load and that parts of runways will have to be rebuilt to take the loads. There is also the small matter of the dimensions of taxiways, ramps and gates.
Someone asked where the XB-70 is? There were 2, one crashed at Edwards AFB after a midair, the other is parked at Dayton Ohio at the Air Frce Museum. Looks like it is doing Mach 5 while parked.
Someone asked where the XB-70 is? There were 2, one crashed at Edwards AFB after a midair, the other is parked at Dayton Ohio at the Air Frce Museum. Looks like it is doing Mach 5 while parked.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The new Boeing does look quite sporty although it's still not as fast as the rocket (smiles smugly and wishes he was senior enough!). However I think the true replacements for Concorde will be supersonic bizjets a la Sukhoi-Gulfstream! Anyone any ideas if and when one will be built?
Guest
Posts: n/a
the reason that the boeing SST was not built was not because they couldnt build it but because it was not financially feasible at the time (incidently, neither was the concorde). you can build airplanes for the technology advances or you can build airplanes that make money, both are needed.
numerous posts on this thread have implied that this aircraft is a joke because it is not supersonic. well if it were then it would be subjected to the same limited routes as the concorde.
one more point regarding how "revolutionary" this aircraft would be. let me ask a question; which would be a greater step forward (assuming that they bulid it):
a)737-400 to the A320 or b)A320 to the sonic-cruiser?
[This message has been edited by LMD (edited 03 April 2001).]
numerous posts on this thread have implied that this aircraft is a joke because it is not supersonic. well if it were then it would be subjected to the same limited routes as the concorde.
one more point regarding how "revolutionary" this aircraft would be. let me ask a question; which would be a greater step forward (assuming that they bulid it):
a)737-400 to the A320 or b)A320 to the sonic-cruiser?
[This message has been edited by LMD (edited 03 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Forget this plane. Its what they call 'Tossing the dogs a bone'. Boeing loses the Mega jet contest and cancels the ultimate 747 stretch, but how do they tell the shareholders? Heres an idea.. get a concept out of the vault and throw it at the media and tell them it'll take, oh, maybe ten years to get flying. Lets see..
Boeing is going to spend ten years financing an entirely new fuselage/ wing combination out of spite? How many airlines have been clamouring for 'just this kind of aircraft'? How much would a passenger be prepared to spend for less legroom and two hours off a transpacific flight? Not enough I imagine. They are going to go through the entire certification process for a slightly faster 777 with no advance orders?
We're lucky they didnt show an airship by mistake when dusting off the concept de jour.
Boeing is going to spend ten years financing an entirely new fuselage/ wing combination out of spite? How many airlines have been clamouring for 'just this kind of aircraft'? How much would a passenger be prepared to spend for less legroom and two hours off a transpacific flight? Not enough I imagine. They are going to go through the entire certification process for a slightly faster 777 with no advance orders?
We're lucky they didnt show an airship by mistake when dusting off the concept de jour.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LMD,
There are a couple of threads going on this one. I have answered your point in 'Airbus A380 Rules' but I shall reiterate: A revolutionary aircraft today would use sub orbital technology and would achieve London to Sydney in one hour.
Concorde and the 747 were started well over 30 years ago. This new aircraft from Boeing is just more of the same. Even sub orbital technology has been investigated many years ago (Hotol), but went the same way as many other projects.
This new Boeing would achieve an extra 50 knots groundspeed over the existing 747-400. Not really a quantum leap after over 30 years is it?
There are a couple of threads going on this one. I have answered your point in 'Airbus A380 Rules' but I shall reiterate: A revolutionary aircraft today would use sub orbital technology and would achieve London to Sydney in one hour.
Concorde and the 747 were started well over 30 years ago. This new aircraft from Boeing is just more of the same. Even sub orbital technology has been investigated many years ago (Hotol), but went the same way as many other projects.
This new Boeing would achieve an extra 50 knots groundspeed over the existing 747-400. Not really a quantum leap after over 30 years is it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
LMD
Concorde was ‘operationally’ commercially viable when conceived and later proved to be very much so for BA. The funding of the build was expensive at the time due to the European reccesion and other factors, however both countries were in a no break clause to finish the project. Concorde could have had a healthy return much earlier if two things had happened.
One was if overland supersonic flying had got approval it would have opened many more airports to Concorde. Changing the rules after so much money had been spent was way out of order. Of the main approved airports, as we all know, one was fraught with severe political delays that were costly and unfounded!
The second reason was a major withdrawing of options to buy, led by several US airlines, leaving the two manufacturing countries picking up the tab. What happened behind the scenes is anyones guess but not very hard to imagine.
A considerably larger tab was picked up by the US government (several times over) with no aircraft to show for it. The government withdrew its funding from Boeing and other SST projects because they felt that there wasn’t room for two SST airframes in the existing climate, especially when Boeing’s version was two years behind Concorde.
With a large home market the new aircraft, if it arrives, should be a success, proving all sceptical people wrong, but that’s ten years off. Concorde’s been there and done that nearly thirty years ago. Don’t knock it.
Thanks Ratboy for the B70 note. That WAS an aircraft!
Concorde was ‘operationally’ commercially viable when conceived and later proved to be very much so for BA. The funding of the build was expensive at the time due to the European reccesion and other factors, however both countries were in a no break clause to finish the project. Concorde could have had a healthy return much earlier if two things had happened.
One was if overland supersonic flying had got approval it would have opened many more airports to Concorde. Changing the rules after so much money had been spent was way out of order. Of the main approved airports, as we all know, one was fraught with severe political delays that were costly and unfounded!
The second reason was a major withdrawing of options to buy, led by several US airlines, leaving the two manufacturing countries picking up the tab. What happened behind the scenes is anyones guess but not very hard to imagine.
A considerably larger tab was picked up by the US government (several times over) with no aircraft to show for it. The government withdrew its funding from Boeing and other SST projects because they felt that there wasn’t room for two SST airframes in the existing climate, especially when Boeing’s version was two years behind Concorde.
With a large home market the new aircraft, if it arrives, should be a success, proving all sceptical people wrong, but that’s ten years off. Concorde’s been there and done that nearly thirty years ago. Don’t knock it.
Thanks Ratboy for the B70 note. That WAS an aircraft!