Simviation Forums

Hiya guys.

Im was just wondering. I know that Boeing did have a plan for the sonic cruiser, but why has the aviation world advanced more in the direction of size over speed. I understand that Airbus and Boeing are designing on the 'limits' of the tried and tested design structure, and that a near super-sonic aircraft would require a start, almost from scratch but surely there is a market for an aircraft that can cross the atlantic in 4 hours other than 6. I also understand that Concorde lost money, but surely with the advances in technology they can produce a money making aircraft that can carry out faster cruising speeds? I know all of my family would shell out more money to get to thier destinations quicker. Why is the aviation business blind to this fact?
Thanks in advance for your replies.

Born_2_fly  ;D

my suggestion is that the new airbus will probally cram everyone into it an make much much more money back than they would in a normal aircraft, an if an aircraft company make a faster aircraft, it would cost more, e.g fuel, going faster means consuming more fuel, so the airlines reduce size and weight and whilst doing this they loose money from valuable places,

only a suggestion, im open to be defeated LOL.

thanks. james

Two problems with speed...

1) Engine design - requires more complicated intake technology, and will burn more fuel...

2) Supersonic flight would be limited to over the sea only, as with Concorde...

Charlie

Like charlie said about the engine design.  Fuel is definately a factor... going supersonic usually means burning more fuel which means more money which means higher ticket costs which means less passengers.... Thats my thought of it...  Well theres a lot of factors im sure.

You chaps have to remember that BA was flying Concorde at a profit right up to her retirement. The reason she's no more is because Air France wanted out and Airbus stopped making spares. Concorde never lost money because what ever the price people still wanted to fly on her.

You chaps have to remember that BA was flying Concorde at a profit right up to her retirement. The reason she's no more is because Air France wanted out and Airbus stopped making spares. Concorde never lost money because what ever the price people still wanted to fly on her.

But what was the average LHR - JFK Concorde price compared to your average economy/business class ticket on the same route...

But what was the average LHR - JFK Concorde price compared to your average economy/business class ticket on the same route...

Extortionately more. However people still chose Concorde over those average economy/business class flights. The price has nothing to do with it. The fact is Concorde was generating a profit right up to it's last flight.

The problem would be is that Concorde was unique, with very few ever being operated, and people would be prepared to pay for that status/exclusivity.

However, if in future a transonic/supersonic airliner was to be developed, and take a large proportion of the market, it would presumably be produced in such numbers that any novelty or exclusivity would soon be lost, and people would want to be paying the normal fares again.

Oh, and the other thing about engines on transonic/supersonic aircraft... They're generally very noisy, as the residents around JFK kept saying over the years...

Charlie

why not have standard turbo fans to bring the aircraft up to very high altitude, and then switch over to ramjet/scramjet engines up high enough that it wouldnt be very loud on the ground?

Cause ramjets wouldn't take you fast enough while you wouldn't be fast enough for scramjets.

and by this point the aeroplane would be so heavy as to need a 20000ft runway and have a max ceiling of 15.47ft...

surely there is a market for an aircraft that can cross the atlantic in 4 hours other than 6

I believe that Heathrow to JFK took an average 3 hours on Concorde. I still don't see the point of crossing the Atlantic in 3 - 4 hours without reducing delays & travelling times on the ground at either end. In the UK at least - this is getting longer, not shorter. This might not have affected the average wealthy passenger on Concorde as all seats were first class, with the convenience of special departure lounges with their own fast-track customs/immigration facilities. The small capacity of the aircraft (100 passengers I believe) would also help in that respect.

Unless they make special provisions for it by increasing the capaciity of passenger terminals I'm not sure how airports will cope with even larger numbers of passengers on one flight.

The fact is Concorde was generating a profit right up to it's last flight.

I was never totally convinced of that. Any airline should be capable of making a decent profit if the initial cost of the aircraft is written off.

Cause ramjets wouldn't take you fast enough while you wouldn't be fast enough for scramjets.

and by this point the aeroplane would be so heavy as to need a 20000ft runway and have a max ceiling of 15.47ft...

fair enough  ;D