The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Concorde ?....a replacement ?  (Read 24775 times)

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« on: 27/01/2007 14:11:53 »
Hi non supersonic flying Peeps,

I was upset when Concorde flew it's last flight a few years ago.....I know it was economically non viable but when we strive for progress the last flight dawned regress. It was the end of Supersonic commercial flight !!...one could leave London by 10am and arrive in Washington before you left !!

I was very lucky to have flown on Concorde four times **

So, are there any plans for a replacement ?...










** A blatant lie !!





« Last Edit: 24/03/2009 02:17:03 by neilep »


 

Offline ukmicky

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #1 on: 27/01/2007 16:19:07 »
Welcome back son.

You lucky bastard ,or should i say you lucky rich bastard:)  you flew on Concorde 4 times.

Did you watched that program on Concorde last night. I think there have been designs but believe it would not be cost effective in this day and age

 

Offline Karen W.

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #2 on: 27/01/2007 18:31:31 »
This was a cool Link, I hope it works, Lots of history and whats happening..   

http://www.concordesst.com/
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #3 on: 27/01/2007 20:26:21 »
Welcome back son.

You lucky bastard ,or should i say you lucky rich bastard:)  you flew on Concorde 4 times.

Did you watched that program on Concorde last night. I think there have been designs but believe it would not be cost effective in this day and age



LOL !!..Hi dad !!..did you not see my note below the rest of my note ?!!..I was lying about flying on Concorde !!....Yes..I saw the program...but I caught the one that finsihed 5:30am this morning..*le sigh*...it's what made me think about this thread.

Hugs the UKMicky......YAYYYYYYYYYYY !!!
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #4 on: 27/01/2007 20:27:57 »
This was a cool Link, I hope it works, Lots of history and whats happening..   

http://www.concordesst.com/

YAYYYYYYYYY !!..hugs the karen...thank ewe Karen mam...what a great link...
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #5 on: 27/01/2007 20:32:16 »
 There is also one there somewhere where you can go visit the cocorde take tours, I believe it is close to you and prices were resonable a museum I believe..It was cool...Kids would love it.. They had a map to get there you should go do it!!

www.brooklandsconcorde.com

It was on that page also but there it is..
« Last Edit: 27/01/2007 20:37:15 by Karen W. »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #6 on: 27/01/2007 20:59:40 »
Thank ewe Karen mam.

In the early days of Concorde's development my daddy ran an engineering agency who supplied some of the engineers who worked on this fine plane.

This is another great website thak you Karen
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #7 on: 27/01/2007 21:12:59 »
 Your welcome..Well no wonder me friend is such a smart cookie.. he comes by it naturally...  ;) ;D
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #8 on: 30/01/2007 18:26:09 »
The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [:(!]
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #9 on: 30/01/2007 22:23:41 »
The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [:(!]

Excellent Point !!....Bravo !!..Hugs the Beaver.

Are ewe sure it wasn't because it had the volume of a zillion sticks of TNT that it was banned from all those airports ?...hmm....nope...ewe're right !!
 

Offline eric l

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #10 on: 31/01/2007 18:23:15 »
The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [:(!]

I'm afraid the Concorde came at the wrong moment.  The concept behind it was that almost everything was sacrificed to have that extra speed, hence a low number of seats (and from what I hear not very comfortable seats at that) and engines that consumed hellish amounts of fuel.
Concorde started to fly commercially right at the time of an energy crisis, when prices went up for good.  And about the same time, environmental issues were getting more and more important. 
The next generation of planes got bigger rather than faster, and that evolution is still going on.
To speak in evolutionary terms :  Concorde was at the end of a line that was no longer adapted to the changing environment.
But it sure was a splendid bird to watch !
« Last Edit: 31/01/2007 18:25:33 by eric l »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #11 on: 31/01/2007 18:33:40 »
The only reason Concorde was economically unviable is because it wasn't American. If it had been then the major U.S. airlines would have bought some & it wouldn't have been shut out of a squillion American airports.

Rant over  [:(!]

I'm afraid the Concorde came at the wrong moment.  The concept behind it was that almost everything was sacrificed to have that extra speed, hence a low number of seats (and from what I hear not very comfortable seats at that) and engines that consumed hellish amounts of fuel.
Concorde started to fly commercially right at the time of an energy crisis, when prices went up for good.  And about the same time, environmental issues were getting more and more important. 
The next generation of planes got bigger rather than faster, and that evolution is still going on.
To speak in evolutionary terms :  Concorde was at the end of a line that was no longer adapted to the changing environment.
But it sure was a splendid bird to watch !

THANK EWE as always Eric..Hugs Eric.

Concorde was ahead of it's time.....

Could it be made today do you think...from scratch ?...or do we still not have the engineering know how to ' make it so ' ?...viable ?..feasible ?...
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #12 on: 31/01/2007 18:38:02 »
 You would think we could wouldn't you.. Things have a come along ways..
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #13 on: 24/03/2009 02:07:05 »
Concorde made BA a tonne of money. They made 1.75 billion on 1 billion costs over the 25+ years it flew. That's a LOT of money.

There's actually a new design out called Reaction Engines A2 that looks like it would fly at Mach 5, and be able to about triple the range of Concorde (Concorde's range was pretty poor, and lots of pacific routes were infeasible- the A2 has a range of 20,000 km and could fly London-sydney non stop in about 4.5 hours... compared to about 24 hours and 3 stops flying normally.)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #14 on: 24/03/2009 20:11:03 »
"Concorde made BA a tonne of money. They made 1.75 billion on 1 billion costs over the 25+ years it flew. That's a LOT of money."
It's not nearly as much as they would have made if they had just put a billion in the bank for those 25 years.
Concorde was beautiful, it was an excellent advert for BA. It did a reasonable job of proving that the UK and the French could cooperate (which is probably more of an achievement than supersonic flight).
But it wasn't really a commercial success.
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #15 on: 24/03/2009 20:21:59 »
Nah. You're not getting this.

Any time you spend 100 and get 175 back, that's pretty damn good business, and that's the kind of business Concorde did for BA year in, year out.

BA didn't spend the 1 billion upfront, that was all the costs including maintenance etc. They spent a few tens of millions for the aircraft.

BA made a very tidy profit flying rich bankers between London and New York thanks very much. I mean, why the heck do you think they flew the plane for 25 years! It sure as heck wasn't run at a loss!

It was BAC and Aerospatial (the manufacturers) and the French and British governments that funded building the planes that lost their shirts on it. The planes just didn't sell.

The seats on the planes sold very well.

At one point early on, Concorde was making a loss, and BA sent a survey around their market asking their customers how much they thought a seat cost. They all didn't know (their secretaries did all that menial stuff), and they guessed low by a factor 2 or 3. So BA raised prices accordingly and started making lots of money.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2009 20:27:11 by wolfekeeper »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #16 on: 24/03/2009 21:12:55 »
Why was/is it referred to simply as Concorde? No other plane is. We don't say "Look, there's jumbo jet", we say "A jumbo jet". Why didn't anyone say "A concorde"? It was as if there was only 1.
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #17 on: 24/03/2009 21:30:05 »
It's just something done by the manufacturers and BA to make it sound truly epoch making; also you're sort of referring to the project, rather than the particular aircraft.

There's also the point that it was the only Concorde type, so it has stuck around. If there had been a Concorde B, C, D, E (and there was plans for Concorde B but they never lead to anything) then they would have had trouble sticking with it.

Also, it got picked up and used by the BBC, and they've often been the final arbiters of taste and grammar.

Similar things are done with other things in other cases. In America it's 'The astronaut is aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour'. In the UK the Notting Hill Carnival is often just "Carnival" or "Notting Hill Carnival" without the the.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #18 on: 24/03/2009 23:55:25 »
It's the same with 'Father Christmas', when it's someone dressed up - but we have 'A Father Christmas' on the cake, when it's a model. That's the beauty of Language.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #19 on: 25/03/2009 04:55:30 »
Quote
Similar things are done with other things in other cases. In America it's 'The astronaut is aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour'. In the UK the Notting Hill Carnival is often just "Carnival" or "Notting Hill Carnival" without the the.

That's not the same thing. There is only 1 space shuttle called Endeavour" and only 1 Notting Hill Carnival. You don't say "Look, there's Space Shuttle". Referring to "Space Shuttle Endeavour" would be like referring to "Concorde Britannia" which would identify 1 particular plane, a unique item.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #20 on: 25/03/2009 09:56:44 »
Should we have a forum titled "Usage"?
We could really stretch our grumpy old pedant muscles there. (I'd be second in the queue)
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #21 on: 25/03/2009 10:10:55 »
Whose going to be first?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #22 on: 25/03/2009 10:34:37 »
ME!
 

Offline survivalist13

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #23 on: 25/03/2009 22:10:07 »
I have also thought about this subject and with a little research the best answer seems to be the Lapcat A2, already mentioned ( newbielink:http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html [nonactive]). In short, it is a concept plane which could fly at mack 5 (5 times the speed of sound, over twice as fast as Concorde), it would have to be really big (to make it economical and fly really high up, 25Km. The project is 50% EU funded but is very expensive at 22,600 million. However estimations of ticket prices are relatively low (about the normal price of business class). The reason for all of these amazing figures is the scimitar engines. They are hydrogen fueled, so potentially zero carbon emissions. Hydrogen is one of the lightest fuels which is an obvious advantage, furthermore the liquid hydrogen used means the engines can be substantially more efficient. It is the temperature which is crucial. This is because the engine can be lighter because it doesn't have to withstand so much heat and the low temperature can be used to cool the air down, meaning more power (like an intercooler, the air becomes more dense). The engines also have the ability to run as a turbo prop to cut down on noise pollution when landing and taking off.

All in all this seems amazing and what's more the company is British.   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Concorde ?....a replacement ?
« Reply #23 on: 25/03/2009 22:10:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums