3 ms·

The Concorde didn't quite have the range for that, but even if it did, it could never do New York to Tokyo because of the sonic boom that was constantly produce

by zamnos 3y ago

The Concorde didn't quite have the range for that, but even if it did, it could never do New York to Tokyo because of the sonic boom that was constantly produced along its route while it was going faster than the speed of sound. The article doesn't mention how these four companies will avoid that issue, but the rules against the Concorde hamstrung its usefulness. That hamstringing meant that the only two airlines flying the Concorde were British Airways (BA) and Air France. After Air France stopped flying theirs, it meant that British Airways was the only carrier flying them, and BA did not want to bear the operational cost of being the only one flying that airframe. If we imagine a different history where there was no sonic boom problem, an American and an Asian carrier could both have picked up the Concorde, and then BA would not have been the only one bearing the cost of operational program, and the Concorde might still be in operation today. A modernized Concorde, using fly-by-wire, and modern electronics and materials would also be cheaper to run. That last detail may be why there's so much interest in super sonic travel again. Because, while quality (aka being comfortable) of the flight, quantity of flight (total time in airplane) is a quality all it's own. New York to Tokyo in 1 hour would be a total game changer and I don't care if there's business-class lie-flat seating. It all depends on the final price though. If it's basically the same price as a current business-class flight (which I'm doubtful it would be), then that's an easy switch. If it costs closer to $10k, then that's going to be a hard sell except for the ultra-wealthy.

ubermonkey 3y ago
That's a lot of "ifs", and none of them were very likely, right? The biggest "if" is the sonic boom problem. Postulating a world without booms puts you into science fiction; at that point, you may as well imagine FTL flight. The next idea is the whole NOTION of getting a passenger aircraft to fly at Mach 9 on the regular for something non-billionaires could pay. Serious supersonic airframes have existed for decades, but (a) they're all small; (b) they all require significant maintenance after each effort; and (c) absolutely none of them were capable of Mach 9. Even the Blackbird wasn't nearly that fast. Its record from NY to London (under 2h) was at a speed less than a third of the mach 9 we're talking about here. The Concorde's loaded range was what, about 3500nm? That's not enough to cross the Pacific. You COULD get from LAX to Hawaii, but getting from Hawaii to Tokyo or even Singapore is still a no-go. Passenger supersonic flight of any kind (let alone something 3.5x the speed of the Concorde) is a dead letter unless some serious and groundbreaking advancement in airplane propulsion happens. Nothing we've seen yet in the history of aviation suggests that's possible or practical.
- zamnos 3y ago
  If the Concorde went FTL, it would definitely still be in service, no matter the cost. Still, I've done a bit of math, and it seems to say the energy required would make it prohibitively expensive for everyone, billionaires included. So maybe it wouldn't still be in service. But hey, you never know. Anyway, given that the Concorde actually flew Heathrow to Barbados, which is further than Hawaii to Tokyo *; that says to me it had enough range to get from Hawaii to Tokyo, at least on paper. Regardless, there have been significant improvements to airplane technology since the 1970's when the Concorde was built. The four engine 747 isn't even being manufactured, in part because engines are so much better Boeing doesn't need four of em like that. (The fact that the large Airbus planes have four is not lost on me, but that doesn't change the fact that we've progressed since the 70's). If they'd managed to hang on until there was a third generation Concorde, I think they'd still be flying. The part I'm interested in is the why of super sonic travel (SST) being dead. It clearly is, no denying that. But saying people just weren't willing to pay what it costs is an oversimplification that doesn't capture any of the business-side issues, or other parts of the story that took it down. The fuel crisis in the 70's is another thing that didn't help. The airshow crash was another nail in its coffin. As far as the Blackbird, that first flew in 1964. * https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20was%20made%20possible%20due,A'%20to%20nearly%204500%20miles https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20w....
  - ubermonkey 3y ago
    I think it really was the basic economics of it, though, wasn't it? It cost a lot. Most people weren't interested in paying it. Then, as conventional aircraft became more comfortable, a longer more comfortable flight was significantly more appealing that a short uncomfortable one.

by zamnos 3y ago

ubermonkey 3y ago

That's a lot of "ifs", and none of them were very likely, right? The biggest "if" is the sonic boom problem. Postulating a world without booms puts you into science fiction; at that point, you may as well imagine FTL flight. The next idea is the whole NOTION of getting a passenger aircraft to fly at Mach 9 on the regular for something non-billionaires could pay. Serious supersonic airframes have existed for decades, but (a) they're all small; (b) they all require significant maintenance after each effort; and (c) absolutely none of them were capable of Mach 9. Even the Blackbird wasn't nearly that fast. Its record from NY to London (under 2h) was at a speed less than a third of the mach 9 we're talking about here. The Concorde's loaded range was what, about 3500nm? That's not enough to cross the Pacific. You COULD get from LAX to Hawaii, but getting from Hawaii to Tokyo or even Singapore is still a no-go. Passenger supersonic flight of any kind (let alone something 3.5x the speed of the Concorde) is a dead letter unless some serious and groundbreaking advancement in airplane propulsion happens. Nothing we've seen yet in the history of aviation suggests that's possible or practical.

zamnos 3y ago
If the Concorde went FTL, it would definitely still be in service, no matter the cost. Still, I've done a bit of math, and it seems to say the energy required would make it prohibitively expensive for everyone, billionaires included. So maybe it wouldn't still be in service. But hey, you never know. Anyway, given that the Concorde actually flew Heathrow to Barbados, which is further than Hawaii to Tokyo *; that says to me it had enough range to get from Hawaii to Tokyo, at least on paper. Regardless, there have been significant improvements to airplane technology since the 1970's when the Concorde was built. The four engine 747 isn't even being manufactured, in part because engines are so much better Boeing doesn't need four of em like that. (The fact that the large Airbus planes have four is not lost on me, but that doesn't change the fact that we've progressed since the 70's). If they'd managed to hang on until there was a third generation Concorde, I think they'd still be flying. The part I'm interested in is the why of super sonic travel (SST) being dead. It clearly is, no denying that. But saying people just weren't willing to pay what it costs is an oversimplification that doesn't capture any of the business-side issues, or other parts of the story that took it down. The fuel crisis in the 70's is another thing that didn't help. The airshow crash was another nail in its coffin. As far as the Blackbird, that first flew in 1964. * https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20was%20made%20possible%20due,A'%20to%20nearly%204500%20miles https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b#:~:text=This%20w....
- ubermonkey 3y ago
  I think it really was the basic economics of it, though, wasn't it? It cost a lot. Most people weren't interested in paying it. Then, as conventional aircraft became more comfortable, a longer more comfortable flight was significantly more appealing that a short uncomfortable one.