Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by steveox, Aug 27, 2007.
I wonder could they rebuild the Concorde and fly faster then the newly 787?
I'll ask my father who is a recently retired BA pilot. I doubt it though.
I am sure a few of them could be put back into working order and it would still be the fastest commercial airliner. There is no doubt about that. But when one looks at the benefits of one type of plane versus another type to the airline that is using it, is how much profit does it generate. The Concorde was always a money losing endeavour. Whereas the B787 is designed to be highly profitable. Concorde burned to much fuel and didnt have the passenger capacity to make it worthwhile. The 787 on the otherhand, has a lighter weight fuselage, with enough passenger/cargo capacity and has much more efficient engines that make it worth while. While the novelty of supersonic flight is romantic in a way, it is not necessary, and what it ultimately boils down to is profitability.
But she was a beautiful bird to behold landing.
Dead from the start
You may not be aware, but the Concord never made a profit. It was subsidized from the beginning. The income from the tickets sold never paid for the fuel, crew, and the cost of the aircraft. It was just a convenience for persons who had to get to and from Europe in the shortest time. Most airports in the U.S. would not allow the Concord to travel to and land there because of the louder than usual noise from it. It was a bad idea from the start.
Dahermit, while I agree with most of the points you make. Mentioning concorde was a bad idea from the start isnt quite fair. If one goes back to the time during its development there was serious hope that SST(super-sonic transport) would be the wave of the future. The idea, work and development was noble. Just high costs and regulations killed the longevity of it.
do the math
They could have done the math; the cost of fuel, the cost of operation, the cost of developing a SST. Then they could have figured out what a ticket would have to cost to make a profit. If they had bothered, they would have known what they were getting into.
Nevertheless, there just as bad dead end technologies. For instance, the era of Zeppelins. They were to be the wave of the future with many countries attempting to develop those ships of the air, Italy, Russia, England, USA.
Contrary to popular belief, the burning of the Hindenburg is not what caused the end of Zepplins...it was just the straw that broke The camel's back...there were many and frequent airship disasters before the Hindenburg.
It was a dead end technology from the start. The huge ground crews could have been eliminated, but they could not handle the wind. Also, the altitude was limited...as the airship rose, the gas bags would expand and excess gas would have to be vented, then sand or water ballast would have to be jettisoned as they came down. With a few up and down cycles they could run out of ballast.
Ive seen it at the airport, but I once saw it in flight while in another plane. friggin' awesome cool
it will never fly again---commercially
Thought those were all tucked away in museums.
Another brilliant example of government doing "what the market can't do", or actually, doing what nobody wants.
actually, it started out as a good thing. do you mock the space program too
the environmentalists of the day helped kill it. i remember hearing about this as i was a kid who grew up next to a major airport...
being a conservative reactionary you would've been for it before you were against it.
Separate names with a comma.