3 ms·
the Concorde used about triple the fuel per passenger of other aircraft of its era (like the 747). Even with relatively cheap oil, that added fairly substantia
by lotharbot 12y ago
the Concorde used about triple the fuel per passenger of other aircraft of its era (like the 747). Even with relatively cheap oil, that added fairly substantial cost.
Additional factors that led to its demise:
- it was a very loud aircraft, and couldn't go supersonic over populated areas due to sonic booms. This led to significant limitations on viable routes.
- it didn't have the fuel capacity to make trans-pacific flights. This also led to limitations on viable routes.
- Concorde required specialized pilot training, specialized maintenance, and even a flight engineer (which more modern jets don't require).
- supersonic flight wears out airframes. I worked in a museum with Concorde G-BOAG, and could see several spots where the airframe had been patched in more substantial ways than our other similarly-aged or older airliners (Eisenhower's 707-based Air Force One and the prototype 727, 737, and 747's.) Airbus didn't want to keep maintaining the airframes given the condition they were already in.
- iwwr 12y agoThe Kennedy administration funded a Mach-3 airliner that was supposed to be an answer to the European Concorde project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 The Soviets also had a design that supposedly incorporated stolen Concorde blueprints. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
- lotharbot 12y ago> "The Soviets also had a design that supposedly incorporated stolen Concorde blueprints" From what I understand, the Tu-144 didn't really incorporate anything of significance from Concorde -- the plans they had access to were more like sketches than fully fleshed out blueprints, and they only had usable details on a few minor components. The Tu-144 shares mostly superficial similarities with Concorde, with only a couple of similarities that might possibly have been the result of espionage.
- Animats 12y agoThe Concorde used about triple the fuel per passenger of other aircraft of its era. As a rule of thumb, going supersonic triples fuel consumption. There's some research on improving that, and also reducing the sonic boom, but nothing flying yet. The aircraft geometries proposed are exotic. Angled flying wings, aircraft that transition from long/narrow to short/wide, and double inline wings have been considered. http://www6.miami.edu/acfdlab/projects/AIAA2010-1013_slides_pdf.pdf http://www6.miami.edu/acfdlab/projects/AIAA2010-1013_slides_... http://aero.stanford.edu/reports/vki_kroo_supersonics.pdf http://aero.stanford.edu/reports/vki_kroo_supersonics.pdf Meanwhile, there's a startup proposing to build a supersonic bizjet. http://www.aerionsupersonic.com http://www.aerionsupersonic.com If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. It's only Mach 1.4 to Mach 1.6, though. The Concorde cruised just above Mach 2.
- kansface 12y agoTriple is an odd figure. I know that air resistance at low speeds is typically modeled as a power between 1 and 2. How do we wind up with the factor of 3?
- marcosdumay 12y agoIf you keep the geometry constant, air drag is normaly a power of 3 of the speed. But one exception of that rule is when you go supersonic.
- outworlder 12y ago> - supersonic flight wears out airframes. Given conventional materials. The SR-71's skin is reported to get harder with all those heating cycles.