Japan and the US to develop supersonic aircraft (Passenger)

thanks kilcoo for the information. I was wrong although I still believe the airline industry is healthy even though they don't always turn a profit every quarter.

Kilcoo, tell me again why they just don't update the concorde, maybe make a superconcorde and call it quits?

Wouldn't that cost under 6 billion?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
tell me again why they just don't update the concorde, maybe make a superconcorde and call it quits?

Wouldn't that cost under 6 billion?

1. No market for it at the prices, thats why it stopped in the first place

2. Still problem with legislation limiting supersonic flight time, that would remain unless aero redesign - might as well redesign the whole lot then.

3. Despite the Olympus engines being quite old, the improvements that would be made would not be as effective as those for other airliners, for instance, it would be impossible to increase the BPR to 9 or 10 as they simply wouldn't work in high supersonics.

Under 6 billion? Dunno, costing ain't my field, but considering its costing Airbus more than that to redesign the A350, and they already have alot of initial work done...

Maybe that is the question to be had then, will this project be a better investment than the airbus 350?

And is a Supersonic Airliner Jet a better investment than a Super(Freakishly Large) Jumbo jet?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Maybe that is the question to be had then, will this project be a better investment than the airbus 350?

And is a Supersonic Airliner Jet a better investment than a Super(Freakishly Large) Jumbo jet?

No and No.

For the reasons I've outlined earlier.

1. Loosing out in propusive efficiency before you start.

2. Loosing out in L/D comparisons before you start.

3. SSTs need different considerations for heating, aerodynamics etc which are more demanding than subsonic jetliners.

All will increase fuel price dramatically, and airframe cost as well.

If people were willing to pay the higher prices for the quicker travel time, then concorde would not have flopped like it did.

Its simply a no win situation for the airlines and aircraft manufacturers, which is why they don't try and make Concorde II.



But business executives place a higher price on their flight times, which is why Dassault etc have been working on SSBJs for a while.

www.ainonline.com...

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

www.popularmechanics.com...

Even if the boom was very loud, people would get used to it. I live near Dulles airport (IAD) and most people here hardly notice when jets fly over. It's such a normal thing that we don't let it bother us.

Originally posted by XB70
Even if the boom was very loud, people would get used to it. I live near Dulles airport (IAD) and most people here hardly notice when jets fly over. It's such a normal thing that we don't let it bother us.

The concorde has a sideline noise level at take off of around 120 EPNdB.

For a 777, the same measurement is under 90 dB, thats 8 times quieter

I can't even find any flyover dB ratings, just overpressures of 2...

I've no idea how to convert that to dB, never done it before and dont have time to go and find out



Also worth a read (to show how fuel inefficient the concorde is.
ntl.bts.gov...