Found 6th May 2011
Hi guys,

In this day and age where technology is constantly advancing.

Is there an alternative to the concorde that is more cost efficient/less pollution etc being produced?


E.g.

London to New York

Concorde = 3 hrs 30minutes.

normal aeroplane now = 7hr/8hrs?

It seems we have gone a huge step back.

Anyone shed any light on this, I'm intrigued..

  1. Misc
Groups
  1. Misc
33 Comments

Faster doesn't necessarily mean better... the new A380's are a step forward in terms of fuel efficiency which is the industry's primary concern.

The Luddites were responsible for Concorde's and the Harrier's demise.

Banned

Concorde was very expensive to travel on too

lol, I think the biggest issue is the safest commerciall plane in the world is retired..............(bar new planes since then)

Banned

Concorde made a huge loss on the developement cost with the limited sells they had, Would you spend billions building a replacement in the knowledge you'd never recoup it

Alfonse

lol, I think the biggest issue is the safest commerciall plane in the … lol, I think the biggest issue is the safest commerciall plane in the world is retired..............(bar new planes since then)



I wouldn't say it was the safest at all.

This :

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/_44376374_ss2_wk2_416.jpg

loulou11

I wouldn't say it was the safest at all.



1 crash ever, if its not barring new planes since then ie A380, then what is?

Banned

I'm often disappointed at the slow pace in which we seem to be developing in most technological areas.

Banned

Alfonse

1 crash ever, if its not barring new planes since then ie A380, then what … 1 crash ever, if its not barring new planes since then ie A380, then what is?



One crash because it rarely flew, bit like saying i rarely have a day off sick from work because i never work


Alberto Medici, Lambrusco Bianco is a good alternative, very similar

whatsThePoint

One crash because it rarely flew, bit like saying i rarely have a day off … One crash because it rarely flew, bit like saying i rarely have a day off sick from work because i never work



yes compared to all those other supersonic commercial flights available, compare with apples with apples

ninny

pretty much guarantee you this to be one of the "safest" planes going ... lol

http://publicdomainpictures.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/u-s-air-force-ac-130h-spectre-gunship-jettisons-decoy-flares.jpg

master_chief

I'm often disappointed at the slow pace in which we seem to be developing … I'm often disappointed at the slow pace in which we seem to be developing in most technological areas.



Money. Put simply Concorde cost too much and carried only 100 passengers. The engines were extremely powerful and so likely used a lot of fuel anyway.

Great plane. Limited use and numbers and costs were just too great.

To an airline carrying 100 passengers every 3 or 4 hours instead of 300+ every or 8 seems less appealling.

Didn't Concorde have limited airports it could use too?

Banned

Alfonse

yes compared to all those other supersonic commercial flights available, … yes compared to all those other supersonic commercial flights available, compare with apples with apples ninny



Oh so you want me to compare it with other supersonic passenger aircraft, not other subsonic ones
Umm that would be the Tupolev Tu-144 which never crashed in service, 2 did crash but thats not comparing apples with apples

London Heathrow, Paris, JFK

allowed to stop in Leed/bradford on special occasions

whatsThePoint

Oh so you want me to compare it with other supersonic passenger aircraft, … Oh so you want me to compare it with other supersonic passenger aircraft, not other subsonic onesUmm that would be the Tupolev Tu-144 which never crashed in service, 2 did crash but thats not comparing apples with apples



fail

Original Poster

Is anything in the pipeline to create a faster alternative?

arcangel111

London Heathrow, Paris, JFKallowed to stop in Leed/bradford on special … London Heathrow, Paris, JFKallowed to stop in Leed/bradford on special occasions



to pick up Bin Laden when he wanted to travel?



Edited by: "numptyj" 6th May 2011

Banned

Alfonse

fail



Your limited reply when proven to be wrong (yet again) is getting boring, but then again if i was wrong as often as you, I expect even i would of ran out of words to say by now as well

arcangel111

London Heathrow, Paris, JFKallowed to stop in Leed/bradford on special … London Heathrow, Paris, JFKallowed to stop in Leed/bradford on special occasions


What were such special occassions? ISTR hearing Concorde overhead occasionally near Leeds. Must have been around 1997/98.

Oh and Richard Branson wanted to take them on and BA refused. Wonder why!
Edited by: "anewman" 6th May 2011

The same could be said about the Tupolev Tu-144.

http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/Archive/144-68.jpg

Didn't the Americans try to develop a hypersonic upper atmosphere plane that would travel from LA to Sydney in just a couple of hours. I think the idea was to accelerate into a very low orbit and then drop back to land as a glider, same as the shuttle.
I seem to recall a presentation at the Farnborough Air Show in the mid 80's.
I wonder whatever happened to that ?

I seen something similar a couple of years ago. Was it not Virgin developing it ?

http://www.broadlandballoons.co.uk/images/balloons/hot-air-balloon-flights-east-anglia.jpg

Banned

master_chief

I'm often disappointed at the slow pace in which we seem to be developing … I'm often disappointed at the slow pace in which we seem to be developing in most technological areas.


I disagree:-

Concorde passenger miles per imperial gallon = 17

A380-800 passenger miles per imperial gallon = 82

After seeing the Concorde and SR-71 at Duxford then reading a book on Skunkworks, it's hard not to feel a bit depressed looking at the current passenger planes particularly stepping off a particularly dumpy looking Airbus A330 after a transatlantic flight.

The problem is the general market wants economy and planes like Concorde are not only expensive to design and maintain but also difficult to fit in with noise and other regulations. An SR-71 based airliner would be rather nippy but sadly ever so slightly impractical in about a hundred different ways.

John

If a wealthy person managed to buy a Concorde as a business jet, would he be allowed to use it?

Civic EG6

If a wealthy person managed to buy a Concorde as a business jet, would he … If a wealthy person managed to buy a Concorde as a business jet, would he be allowed to use it?



Unlikely, apparently Branson tried to buy the fleet but aside from economic issues apparently the French wouldn't sign off the Concorde as air worthy. Concorde had various problems as to where it could fly due to its range and noise, I suspect the latter would be a bigger problem now as some of the Russian passenger jets are no longer allowed in European airspace due to noise.

John

arcangel111

pretty much guarantee you this to be one of the "safest" planes going ... … pretty much guarantee you this to be one of the "safest" planes going ... lol



With at least 12 of that type having been destroyed and over 350 of the general C-130x sharing a similar fate, I wouldn't quite say it's safe even though that's not bad for a military plane.

John
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. Trade in/Sell value for Nintendo SNES mini at CEX??22
    2. Black friday mobile deals44
    3. Help! In need of a PS4 Headset33
    4. Tesco Mobile, sims11

    See more discussions