It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Concorde Alternative

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
The Concorde was a great idea, but it ultimately failed IMHO because it was inefficient, which made it expensive, not just because it was inherently expensive and big corporate pplz wanted more money as opposed to a few opinions I have heard in RL.

I personally think that we need less of a passenger JET per se than a glider that goes to a high altitude, and drops at such an angle that a great amount of speed could be attained, like going down a massive hill. Like an Aurora being dropped off a mothership, but instead of engines it goes DOWN at an angle to get speed.

The advantages of this would be NO FUEL NEEDED once it has reached target altitude. If you used a balloon, even LESS or NO fuel would be needed. Also no engines mean there is far less noise would be produced so that's one of my pet peeves with jets gone. And (in theory) it's FASTER. faster travel times is good. I think it would also be affordable because there's no fuel or fuel tax on it.

The main disadvantage is that this is all theoretical and it may be neither FASTER nor CHEAPER nor EFFICIENT. Also it may be difficult to get the aircraft to such a level of altitude that a speed could be attained. There's also the problem of heat. High speed aircraft can use their fuel as a coolant, but as a glider it ain't GOT fuel. So you'd need a dedicated refridgerant, which actually might turn out to be an advantage if I'm lucky. Really really lucky. Another thing is the passenger and pilot discomfort and possible vertigo when the aircraft is released, and the G-Forces exerted upon drop-off. One more thing is that if you are too low or to slow landing and you stall or something you are SCREWED. You can't just "speed up" unless you have emergency jets, which dont react too fast to immediate throttle-ups.

Just thought I'd throw the idea around and see what reactions I can get.




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Well the Concord was inefficent, another alterative to the SST might be the private supersonic jet. Although it will we very expenisve at first within a decade or so the prices should drop down under that of a regular trip on a concord. I guess this will do until we make another airliner version of an SST around 2020-2040. If it could carry enough people the price might drop down to around a normal international ticket.

Link to supersonic private jet: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I dunno... maybe we just need to design a SST that incoporates the SuperCruise technology used on the F-22.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The concorde had super cruse, it only used its reheat on takeoff and for ten minutes as it breaks the sound barrier. It can cruse above mach 1 without them on.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by Nacnud]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
another thing that occured to me while reading Nacnud's post. Yeah the Concorde had supercruise like the F/A-22. But it can't break the sound barrier WHILE OVER LAND! Noise restrictions bind the use of Afterburners (Reheat in UK) anyway, so they were not a whole lot of use except places where LOTS and LOTS of thrust were needed, like take-off.

I guess another advantage is that (My apoligies to those who probably thought of this first, but I will say "my" for the designation and to avoid confusion, not to say "my invention alone") my design doesn't make very much detectable noise when cruising. Only the passengers would hear anything, and that would be the "whoosh" of air, which I actually think sounds pretty cool.

Interesting idea for the private jet thing, but when you say "the prices should drop down under that of a regular trip on a concord", concorde was still really really expensive which I wanna avoid, even to get their maybe even BEFORE I started (Heathrow to New York gets you there like an hour or two EARLIER than when you started). Which is bad.

I was also thinking that with pressure changes as altitude decreases you may need to change attitude. Which means that you need real-time autopilot and/or guidance to correct for this. Which also leads me to think that you wouldn't need pilots. An exacty GPS lock would allow the aircraft to taxi, take off, cruise, correct, approach, and land at an IFR-Equipped airport. And chances are if something can support an SST then I think its IFR-ready.

That would be cool, wouldn't it?

Even without reheat, a lot of fuel is used to sustain supersonic cruise, when gravity does the same thing as well.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
- I (as always) mean no offense...But your idea is utter crap.


It makes zero sense, but since you'll ask why I say that...I'll have to explain.

ok, I just wanted to point out that heat wouldn't be a problem if you used titanium.
But your idea is flawed right from the start, those High Altitude balloons that you see take awhile to get up to there 100,000+ ft area, especcially holding a passenger aircraft, the balloon would have to be huge. but even then this thing isn't going to go very far, since its up so high, theres less air, which means less lift on the gliders wings, but since it will be going 0 mph it will have to go into a steep drop to pick up speed, and it would continually keep on falling, even if you straighten it out a bit to try and to get it to go further, and even with air under its wings giving it a degree of lift, it still will fall. and if you planned on this thing going supersonic, then you would need to make it have a quiet sonic boom, as well as make it stronger to handle the speeds, and it you make it stronger...the weight also goes up, which is really bad for a glider.

Basically, theres just to many flaws.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
well, isnt practical to design a sst with a less top -cruiser speed, i mean arround M1.5????, there is any proyect of sst with such more practical requierements???



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well ,Murcielago, you're entitled to your opinion and you're probably exactly right and my idea is utter crap.

But I was thinking and we need not use a high-altitude balloon. And it need not be a mass transport aircraft.

If we, say, fit like 10 of these LITTLE high speed gliders (1 person thing. And it may be more or less I have never seen a really big aircraft next to a mock-up one of these) on like an Antonov 224 (I think this is the really big one with 6 engines, could be wrong) or a B-52, and drop the off that, they have Airspeed, and therefore lift. It also negates the need for a really really slow ascent to a monster altitude. If we could get these aircraft to the maximum operable altitude for a B-52 is apparently 50,000 feet. Which is high. If you made a high-altitude carrier like the B-52 made to carry 2 or 3 person-seater gliders that were high speed things driven only by autopilot then I think it could work.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
If we, say, fit like 10 of these LITTLE high speed gliders (1 person thing. And it may be more or less I have never seen a really big aircraft next to a mock-up one of these) on like an Antonov 224 (I think this is the really big one with 6 engines, could be wrong) or a B-52, and drop the off that, they have Airspeed, and therefore lift. It also negates the need for a really really slow ascent to a monster altitude. If we could get these aircraft to the maximum operable altitude for a B-52 is apparently 50,000 feet. Which is high. If you made a high-altitude carrier like the B-52 made to carry 2 or 3 person-seater gliders that were high speed things driven only by autopilot then I think it could work.



I've said it before...so I wont say it again.


First of all...what are you planning for this vehicle to accomplish?

It would be cheaper to get on an airliner to get to your destination, then to strap your self into a craft that needs a B-52 to get tou to an good altitude and speed. But at first you say its a glider, but then go on saying its high-speed?????? that doesn't make sense.

and whats the point of doing all the maintainence on the B-52, and get it up there at 500 mph at 50,000 feet, only to drop a few people? These ticket prices would have to be very high, It would be cheaper to sit in first class on your average airliner.

again...to many flaws...you get one more try...then your out. (3 strikes)



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
You are thinking glider in the context of:




This is NOT what I am thinking of. I am thinking of a far more streamlined platform that can attain higher speed, which means that less lift must be produced by the wings, and since more speed=more lift, carrying capacity is therefore directly related to speed, which we intend to have a good deal of. This shape is more suitable for my thought:





posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I know I wouldn't pay to ride in a paper airplane.


But you seem to be ignoring the thrust factor, and the maor "streamline" your plane is the lest lift it will get. A delta wing glider isn't at all practical, you should google X-24(a/b/c)...I think thats kind of what your thinking of. But with no thrust (prop or jet) all you will do is go slower and lower from when ou were released from the mothership.

Heres the X-24B



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Precisely the shape I was thinking of =) Ty for the pic.

I understand your reasoning, but if a balance could be achieved between the amount of streamline and the amount of lift produced I imagine something could work. Perhaps the subject title ismisleading considering my idea here was originally to provide a high-speed aircraft, butnow its more no-fuel kind of thing.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Thie whole supersonic passenger thing is inherently forever doomed to fail.

BAE and Aerospatiale figured this out in the 60's, no overland SST flights,
no service. Anyone thinking abvout discussing 'quiet SST' projects isnt really in
full understanding of the bigger problem.

When Concorde was developed, heavens knows how much the price of a barrel of
oil was, either way, I bet it was a fraction of the current cost. Can you imagine
the cost now....Wowzers! how much! The numbers never added up then, and they
certainly don't now 40 years on...

A 13 year old math student could calculate that an SST project wont make it off
the back of a scribble pad for economics...

Fuel burn cost per passenger is the problem, and we'll never see a 100+ pax SST ever
ever, ever again....

All the research on quiet sonic booms and suchlike is all well for academics to play
with but they are not addressing the real problem, it alone proves that they have
would rather harvest useless tax $$$'s funding for that than a feasible project into
a proper successor to Concorde....

Pity, I'd have loved to see the Boeing SST enter service, a lovely beast...



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
What really killed the Concorde was the sonic boom. The only solution to that problem is to travel very high (80,000+f) more or less in order that the boom when it reaches the ground is so dissipated that it produces the same noise as a regular plane. then there is the fuel part... the solution travel very high and very fast...

The solution to the supersonic dilemma comes from 3 technologies. 1. Use a combination of super-cruiser engines and scram-jets. The first just like the one on the F-22 can prove to be highly efficient. Since the plane must travel that high it can travel above mach 5.

2. Try to use hydrogen/methane from corn or other replacement for fossil fuels.

The problem is that the eventual plane would be a combination of the Aurora and the F-22 X-43A, all experimental and or secret military technologies. Until these tech remain in their current state, we are not going to see supersonic travel for the average Joe anytime soon (except if you're a military pilot)



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I think we'll see supersonic business jets before we'll see another supersonic airliner fly. In my current work I deal with a lot of people who travel by business jet, for a lot of them time=money and speed=money saved. I'd bet many of them would be more than willing to pay the premium in fuel costs to cut their trip times in half.

I do suspect the Japanese are serious about their SST project, for the long trans-Pacific flights it could be an economic success. Remember, Concorde may have never paid for it's develoment costs, but it did pay for it's operational costs, in fact turning a very tidy profit in that sense. Yes, it cost more to fly in, but they never seemed to have problems selling tickets...

[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
The Concorde was a great idea, but it ultimately failed IMHO because it was inefficient, which made it expensive, not just because it was inherently expensive and big corporate pplz wanted more money as opposed to a few opinions I have heard in RL.


What makes you say that it failed ? its operational costs were covered and it gave decades of extremely safe service up until its retirement.


Originally posted by Darkpr0Yeah the Concorde had supercruise like the F/A-22. But it can't break the sound barrier WHILE OVER LAND! Noise restrictions bind the use of Afterburners (Reheat in UK) anyway, so they were not a whole lot of use except places where LOTS and LOTS of thrust were needed, like take-off.


I am not sure aboiut that either, though I may be wrong. It was my impression that it wasnt the noise from the engines that was the problem, more the creation of the sonic boom that was not allowed. If you think about it, the route froim Heathrow to London is what made Concorde so well designed as I would estimate that a good 80% of the journey was done over the Atlantic thus negating the worries over sonic booms



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Concorde was that strange combination of being both a stunning success and an abject failure at the same time.


It was a stunning success in the sense that no other manufacturer in the world outside BAC and Aerospatiale ever produced an aircraft that not only carried a hundred passengers and all there luggage at a sustained speed of mach 2, which even the worlds greatest fighter planes could only fly at very briefly (that is worth thinking about to register the enormity of the acheivement), but it did so routinely, profitably and without accident for nearly 30 years, even the one accident it did suffer was not the fault of the aircraft in any way as it was caused by FOD from ther runway.

But while the technical achievement was way ahead of anything accomplished by anyone else it must ultimately be judged a failure in the sense that it was supposed to bring about a revolution in air transport in the same way as the DH Comet did in the 1950's.

Just as in those day everyone suddenly HAD to have jet airliners, the dream with concorde was that by 1980 there would be 400 SST's in service, hopefully nearly all of them Concordes.

The economics of the project were borderline even in the sixties when the latest 707's were carrying more passengers than Concorde was to accomodate, it was hoped that the lure of crossing great distances in such short times would be enough to tempt passengers into paying the higher fares need to fund such operations.

For a time it looked as if the gamble would pay off with cheap travel taken care of by the 747 'cattle trucks' while the aristo's would be catered for by Concordes with plenty of demand for both.

Then came the 1973 fuel crisis and the price of fuel rose so catestrophically that the Concorde suddenly made no economic sense whatsoever, the ordes and options held by Pan Am, Iran Air, CAAC et all disappeared like snowflakes in july and only complusion at Govt level left Air France and BA to grudgingly take it into service.

The fact that it operated successfully, and profitably in the case of BA, for so long is testament to the brilliance of the design but those who say that we will never see the like again are quite right.

PS, don't be fooled by the 'sonic boom' argument. this was NEVER anything more than a US political argument after the cancellation of the Boeing SST (before which event the sonic boom problem was strangely unheard of) which was designed to remove the one big advantage that Concorde offered and make it unsaleable after it was realised that the US wasn't going to have its own competitor. The fuel crisis eventually made this argument redundant anyway but the myth of it has persisted.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
There was this article in the paper on the weekend, so obviously some are thinking about it, but mainly for business jets and the like. Until they get those Hypersonic ramjet things working well enough for passenger flights (wont be for a loooong time) SST is out of the reach of most ordinary folk.


BARELY two years since the last Concordes were retired, Airbus, the European aircraft consortium, is looking at plans for a new generation of supersonic passenger jets.

The manufacturer, in which Britain’s BAE Systems is a partner, is drawing up designs for a 250-seat plane with a range of up to 6,000 miles that could reach speeds approaching 1,500mph.

It believes that rapid growth in the aviation market means that by 2050 there could be demand for supersonic travel on hundreds of long-haul routes. Corinne Marizy, an Airbus researcher, told a conference at Cambridge University last week that by 2050 supersonic travel could account for 10% to 20% of flights.

Airbus’s design is one of a number of blueprints being drawn up around the world for supersonic jets, the first of which Marizy said could be in service by 2015. By 2025 the market would be growing fast, she added.


rest of article technology.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
There is a big difference between thinking about it, and actually trying to do it. For a matter of perspective the British first started thinking in terms of a possible supersonic transport, when do you think? 1962? 1952 after the Comet entered service even? No, the first committee on what eventually led to Concorde being built was held in 1944!

I really don't believe there is any commercial organisation today that would be willing to do anything more than theorise about a supersonic transport. The enormity of the undertaking is just too much, and the likliehood of commercial return just too remote.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
About the discussion whether the Concorde had super-cruiser engines, that info is wrong.

The Concorde used 4 Rolls-Royce/ Snecma Olympus 593 engines. The engine is derived from an engine made by Bristol Aero Engines for the Avro Vulcan bomber.

The engine later was transferred to RR (when they bought Bristol Aero Engines) to be installed on the Concorde.

The engine is a common axial flow turbojet. Here are its specs:

593 - Original version designed for Concorde
Thrust : 20,000 lbf (89 kN) dry / 30,610 lbf (136 kN) reheat

The Concorde achieved Supersonic speed through the use of afterburners, lie any regular fighter plane.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join