3 ms·
The Concorde and what I understand to be it's lack of viability was exactly what I was thinking about - it motivated my question. What's different now?
by erikerikson 1y ago
The Concorde and what I understand to be it's lack of viability was exactly what I was thinking about - it motivated my question. What's different now?
- pests 1y agoI remember seeing something from Boom (now renamed?) which was an YN company years ago. I recall them developing some technology to solve the noise problem - somehow bouncing the sound off the atmosphere or similar IIRC? I do think its viability has increased over the years, just everyone has this default "it wont work" mindset because of the failure that was Concorde.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agothe biggest difference is that composites and better computers probably make designing and manufacturing a good design a lot more feasible
- hermitcrab 1y agoIIRC the big issue was cooling the air into the engines. I think that is still a big issue.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoThe engines remain really tough, but using a properly tapering fusalage does let you increase capacity/thrust by 10-20% (and a lighter airframe helps here too)
- bawolff 1y agoThey did fly them for 33 years. Even if it didn't work out in the end its not exactly an abject failure. I could imagine slightly better business plan, etc could make all the difference. After all, concorde design started almost 75 years ago, surely we've learned a thing or two on how to design aircrafts with lower maintenance & operating costs in that time.
- lazide 1y agoIt lost money consistently all the time. The only reason it kept flying for 33 years is a vanity project for national airlines. Which it was excellent at. Actually viable business? Not so much.
- wat10000 1y agoConcorde made an operating profit. Not a huge one (how could it, with fourteen planes flying), and it didn’t recoup development costs, but it was in the green once that initial cost was paid.
- lazide 1y agoConcorde never paid those initial costs, and had massive subsidies [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending...]. It was able to coast, eventually, but that’s some very fancy accounting. “French Transport Minister Daniel Hoeffel, saying France ''will not and cannot abandon Concorde,'' signed a new agreement with Air France this week. The French Government, which with Britain had spent more than $2 billion developing the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, will pay 90 percent of the plane's estimated operating losses for the next three years, compared with 70 percent in the past. Under the new pact, the French taxpayer will contribute $66 million this year to the cost of Air France's champagne-and-caviar service linking Paris with New York, Washington, Caracas and Rio de Janeiro. In 1982, when losses are expected to decline slightly, the subsidy will be about $64 million, and in 1983, $59 million.”