The Concorde's baby - new supersonic commercial aircraft

[Vinny]

You would be gob-smacked at how very little time commercial aircraft are on the ground - long enough to disembark the passengers, clean-up things and embark the next lot is about all - refuelling, emptying the loos, loading food and water etc., etc. happens at the same time.
The hassles that passengers have prior to embarkation has nothing to do with the airlines, and does not dictate their schedules.

Radiation? UV, yes, radiation - not really. Significantly worse than current? I think not.

They are saying now that aircraft pilots are only there in case of major malfunction and this new jet will rely on imaging, not human sight, to land.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I was once told that cosmic radiation exposure from a transatlantic flight at the upper end of conventional altitudes (eg 40-44,000 feet) was equivalent to one chest X-ray. For pax this is not really an issue, even for frequent flyers, but crew may need monitoring. I suspect that exposure at 60,000 feet will be significantly greater, but offset by the shorter duration of flight.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I've been in aviation a long time.....

I'm on about the whole journey. Saving three hours isn't that much of a saving when so long is spent in wasted space.

Sue, their plan is based on business class, not first.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Ah, missed that Tony. Then I agree, flight duration time is not as significant as all the messing about. I went to Brussels via Eurostar a few weeks ago. From Manchester. It was about as quick as the usual Brussels Airline trip once you'd factored in the airport messing around, even including the 2 hour Manchester-London Pendolino. That's because the check in for Eurostar takes about 10 minutes, maybe 20-30 if the queue is long.

On long haul flights, the pre-flight ball ache is a smaller proportion of the total journey time, but this will make long haul flight durations much closer to short-to-medium haul, and the hassle-factor will undermine the time saving. I wonder whether they might end up concluding the same, and reverting to a first-only model?

 

[Tony Lockhart]

'If' this does succeed, the engine side of it will be interesting to follow. Using an old engine that, after a quick read, will be looking at a life til 2040 is a risk. It's small and light, but I'd rather be at Mach 2+ with something modern while crossing an ocean.

Anyway. After all that, it'd be great to see it succeed. Even if the engines won't have reheat. Booooooo.

 

[Wick]

'If' this does succeed, the engine side of it will be interesting to follow. Using an old engine that, after a quick read, will be looking at a life til 2040 is a risk. It's small and light, but I'd rather be at Mach 2+ with something modern while crossing an ocean.

Anyway. After all that, it'd be great to see it succeed. Even if the engines won't have reheat. Booooooo.

I don't have any difficulty with the 'old engine' tag, but even with variable inlet/exhaust technology (which Concorde also had), to use only 3 engines with no boost will be challenging. That is a very low lift wing which means a high take-off speed, so either very rapid acceleration or a very long runway, and then there is the extra oomph required to go trans-sonic. I shall watch with interest!

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I don't have any difficulty with the 'old engine' tag, but even with variable inlet/exhaust technology (which Concorde also had), to use only 3 engines with no boost will be challenging. That is a very low lift wing which means a high take-off speed, so either very rapid acceleration or a very long runway, and then there is the extra oomph required to go trans-sonic. I shall watch with interest!

Yep. The ideal shape for Mach 2 isn't ideal for transonic, so it will be interesting. The Blackburn Buccaneer is a great example of the shape required for efficient transonic flight, and it did it without reheat for fuel efficiency, but no way could the Bucc go supersonic except, maybe, in a dive. There was just a brick wall of resistance to it.

I'm no aircraft designer, so let's see!

 

[-alan-]

One factor that the aviation industry would be far better addressing would be the time spent on the ground going nowhere.

If I want to fly from LHR to anywhere at Mach 2.2, I have to brave the M11 or A12, the M25, then whatever link to the terminal. That's two hours minimum, but three to be reasonable safe. Then, how many hours at Thiefrow for security and having your baggage gone through, belt and shoes removed? Two or three? You then hopefully take off on time, but regs don't allow just going in a straight line to your flight path, more wasted time. You eventually arrive at your destination, wait an hour or so for your case to make its way through the thieves den and onto the carousel, and you can go to the rental car desk/taxi rank/train station. And wait.

Not really adding up, is it.

Fair point - but time spent somewhere other than at the headline speed never seems to be a factor in most Ferrari and Lamborghini sales

 

[davidsrsb]

The USA has never operated any aircraft at sustained Mach 2. Only Concorde, the Russian equivalent and the TU-160 Blackjack have managed that. The Blackjack is a massive swing wing design

 

[Wick]

ep. The ideal shape for Mach 2 isn't ideal for transonic, so it will be interesting. The Blackburn Buccaneer is a great example of the shape required for efficient transonic flight, and it did it without reheat for fuel efficiency, but no way could the Bucc go supersonic except, maybe, in a dive. There was just a brick wall of resistance to it.

True, but it was designed to go at max speed about 50-ish feet above the sea all the way to its target!

 

[Tony Lockhart]

The USA has never operated any aircraft at sustained Mach 2. Only Concorde, the Russian equivalent and the TU-160 Blackjack have managed that. The Blackjack is a massive swing wing design

SR-71, Mach 3, one hour.

I've chatted with an ex-SR-71 pilot, Rich Graham, who flew missions up the east coast of the USSR. It took my head a while to get round those figures.

 

[Bob McC]

The USA has never operated any aircraft at sustained Mach 2. Only Concorde, the Russian equivalent and the TU-160 Blackjack have managed that. The Blackjack is a massive swing wing design

Aurora?

 

[davidsrsb]

I should have said gas turbine powered, the Blackbird was a ramjet design

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I should have said gas turbine powered, the Blackbird was a ramjet design

Not quite true.

 

[davidsrsb]

That is a very low lift wing which means a high take-off speed, so either very rapid acceleration or a very long runway

And a high landing speed, which is awkward when the plane is in the procession over the M4 coming into Heathrow

 

[ariegur]

Regarding air pollution, if the damage that flying is causing to the air was added to the price of the tickets that we buy then the tickets were much more expensive and we were flying much less. We don't want this therefore we are all responsible to air pollution on Earth.

Arye

 

[davidsrsb]

Unusual engines flying at extreme altitude might generate far higher levels of nitrogen oxides than regular commercial jets do, on top of high CO2 production

 

[Tony Lockhart]

Unusual engines flying at extreme altitude might generate far higher levels of nitrogen oxides than regular commercial jets do, on top of high CO2 production

The engine isn't at all unusual, but the application would be.

 

[cutting42]

I should have said gas turbine powered, the Blackbird was a ramjet design

The fabulous Pratt and Whitney J58 is most definitely a turbine, a single spool turbojet with afterburner that used pressure from the compressor to aid the afterburn. I got to see one at the SanDiego Air museum

 

[Tony Lockhart]

The Blackbird at Duxford has both engines on display on the ground. Stunning beasts, especially as I've spent the last nine years on and around the tiny docks in the Apache. 35,000lb of thrust is still a huge figure.