posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:36 PM
Concorde's Successor needs to do three things:
1. Have TOL and pattern behaviors significantly under 200 knots. Paris happened because the jet is a veritable beer can on a rocket sled in it's
skin thickness' versus rotation requirements (and it's just as bad coming in as going out as numerous tail scrapes and 'hard over' rudder
fatigue/gear problems under crosswinds have shown).
2. Be able to double the distance at the same costs. Since the Atlantic is a broken sewer between two ghettos compared to where the money is
'really flowing' over the twice-a$-broad Pacific.
3. Be able to carry a minimum of 250 passengers at Mach 3/3.5. This last is the obvious leg breaker on the engineering side since you are almost
certainly talking about an exotic fuel (methane or hydrogen, I doubt if even a boron additive would do) to get the energy levels and that will mean an
entirely new ramp cryo support system, even if an Asian megaconglomerate decided to put the money in to doing it right.
Would it work? IMO, yes. Because 6-8 hours over the Atlantic is nothing compared to 12-15+ over the Pac in terms of being disgusted with high
altitude body reactions and cramped conditions. And because there will always be a snob-cum-glitz factor inherent to saying "Once a day, bring all
your hub liners to our port of convenience and we will fly at a profit."
Particularly if 'luxury is our business' comes as a part of a classless high-comfort flying environment (i.e. a _very_ big airframe volume).
Unfortunately, there are political and environmental conditions as well as commercial ones at work which, IMO, will stand on the necks of any Kuala
Lumpurian type mega financial (consortium) effort to pull the trigger out of Asia.
Sure be a good lesson to both Airbust and Boing though.