so i was watching tv today and found a new British airways commercial and it featured the Concorde. it had the prototype livery and a clip of a working cockpit then an animation of it flying with the other aircraft that boac has used in the past and currently............ could this mean what i think it does. (could they be considering buy in some concord's back and using them or building new sst)  :D :D

That commercial showe lots of old British Airways aircraft, and is merely advertisment, showing the legacyt of BA and its predecessors. The Concordes are all in museums, the certificate of airworthiness revoked, EADS no longer will offer support for them, and they have been out of service for 8 years (November 26). These aircraft were getting old, the speed wasn't needed, and demand wasn't there for the amount of money charged for such an expensive aircraft. Supersonic flight will, in my mind, never be a major thing for commercial airlines, because you can't fly over land because of sonic booms, and there is no need to get to places that fast (for most people) and it messes up time zones and jet lag even more.

i see your point but the concorde flew at over 50,000 ft so the sonic boom would not have ben that loud on the graound to compleatly eliminate it on the ground just climb alittle higher. and any way y would u whant to fly super sonic over land. :-?

I don't see a motion to revive Concorde (regular services) for several reasons.

From the concept, this was the first aircraft development being able to sustain supersonic flight and service, which surely adds to the remarkable picture it still has.
But this 'first' also means that we're talking about a plane not only being uncommon when it comes to spare parts and operation techniques, but also one always riding the edge of its envelope.

Take any (and I mean any) limit you can imagine on an aircraft and you will then find out that Concorde always flew right at it. May it be temperatures, pressure settings, engine power and, most of all, speeds on that delta wing without flaps and slats.
With the later 50s and early 60s tech, this lead to a very cost intensive operation, which will never be able to compete with the low speed pseudo-economic operation nowadays planes offer.

That's no 2011 problem, it has been one from the very first years of Concorde, even when compared to the earlier planes of the subsonic regime. They did right at BA and AF later and placed Concorde in the customer regime where money did not matter that much, but time did.
It took them some time and some deals with their governments to get into that operation. The times when this was a subject to be discussed could have been the date where Concorde service ended by the way. Of course, it did not, it actually continued for the second part of the overall lifespan, the profitable one where the airlines took over the ownership and the responsibility.

That's it, the Condorde zone and that's the one which rendered the profits to establish and grow. 80s and 90s were extremely profitable for Concorde operators, although certain media tends to render Concorde service a loss of money in the overall view, it clearly wasn't.
So the trick in operating the lady was that placement in the market and, without any competitor even on the long run, it was rendered to be stable there. The lack of competition also rendered any upgrade aspect useless, so you get an idea why 'glass' never made it into Concorde, although some parts would have fitted nicely on the already fly by wire architecture.

Now, as we know, mid 2000 gave the world the first and last Concorde crash, severely impacting the image and, most of all, ending service for some time.
It's easy to ground fleets of few aircraft and, reasonably acting, authorities went that way, although some operations right after the crash continued until the decision was made.
The customer regime surely was disturbed, but the unique selling point of being a time saver was still there. So, re-entry into service was a clear option, despite the costs which came with modifications to e. g. the tanks.

Now, with talking about mid 2000, some time of no motion on the ground and a time until the modifications were applied to the aircraft, the service entry got closer to the other 'impact' date for commercial air services.

After the attacks in September 2001 not only a large amount if trust into aeroplanes and their operation was lost, but Concorde, with still flying the rich and famous on a regular basis, was considered as THE target for any future attack of that kind.
So the customer basis sort of broke apart, for all airlines, but especially on the Conc. It must not have been the price of the ticket alone, but the tons of factors affecting the decisions to go on this or that plane and model.

With that in mind, the not cheap Concorde service did not get rendered a preferable model for the two airlines to earn money.
At the end, you can have fans of Concorde at their heads (which you had), but if the smart guy from the financial branch then presents you some calculations, that you can make much more money with the 'slow trains', offering way more first class comfort and therefore achieving high enough ticket prices, you have to let go you fan status and be CEO again.  :D

Now with EADS being the only main spare parts and service knowledge vendor for BA and AF, some other influence came up.
They still have parts and they still have the knowledge, but running two flagships at the same time, with one even blocking some first class aspects from the other one, wasn't a nice option for them. Not to mention the engineers that are always needed but aren't there in too hight numbers.

So, maybe despite any official picture, EADS in general, namely Airbus, wasn't to keen on running Concorde with the (future) A380 setting its new flagship status and the customer basis.

Well, as the manufacturer and service vendor for Concorde, your 'pressure' can come in via two ways. You can promote the new A380 and the costs involved and you can also influence the costs on Concorde.
So we may assume that the prices on spare parts and service grew, while the smartass Airbus guys did tell AF and BA how well a large Airbus, especially the A380, may influence their outcome even in mid-terms. Therefore, the supplier's focus also changed to 'slow + volume gives you more money'.

So, after decades of service, Concorde lost the main battle, against the in-house flagship. Together with the always expensive nature of a supersonic service (even future ones won't change that, in regard to the subsonic planes), the odds did not look good for the engineering icon of commercial passenger service.


On future planes and plans, one can't stay subsonic all the time. That wouldn't fit into the picture technology in general developed and the current pseudo-economic focus is just that, a focus.
The routes involving large Atlantic and Pacific crossings will never be very sound sensitive, but offer a large potential to save time. However, 'news' on new concepts would blow this post up some more, so I'll leave them out. It's not 'just' about technology though.

Supersonic service has some tricky limits involved and while the UK and France spent a lot of money on entering service, other countries spent even more and did not receive a flyable plane or even a perspective on regular services. Yes, talking about countries there, so please don't think governmental money going into planes is something new.

It mainly breaks down to 'if there is a market, there will be a plane', and we saw that sentence introducing not only Concorde, but also some other, slower and bigger, planes.

As with all things involving big money (that's why they fly, not because they want to make you happy), the political aspect is a main influence too. If one part of the world sets up supersonic flights while another one is forced to stay subsonic, some missing/delayed landings rights and concerns may come in handy when it comes to aircraft sales, or not sales.
Even if it later turns out that e. g. takeoff noise isn't a thing where Concorde sets peak marks in regard to other jets of that time.  ;)

However, that NY Canarsie departure was a sort of standard for her and, as far as I can tell, no other passenger plane would be able to fly it at close to MTOW.

I'm pretty sure all those museums wouldn't give up their concordes anyways...

I'm planning to buy one and then build a home cockpit.  :D Could take some time though.

More seriously. A Concorde sim. http://www.concordeproject.com/simulator.html Scroll down to see some videos of a former real Concorde crew flying it in 2009.
Geez, I even recall their names. I think Mr. Banister also worked and helped on the FSX Conc, despite writing some books.

Yeah, I have been on the Concorde sim, awesome.  The ad is about BA backtracking it's history and returning it's crest to all of their planes, putting pride back.

Quote:

Yeah, I have been on the Concorde sim, awesome.

Sounds like a thrilling experience, Pete.  :)

It is so cool seeing the engines spool up on N1 qand other instruments.

701151 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2011 at 7:32am:

I'm pretty sure all those museums wouldn't give up their concordes anyways...

The museums don't own them, they have leased them I think, but they would have no say if they were needed. Which they won't be.


In the final 10-15 years Concorde was very much in demand and profitable.

(From Wikipedia, as it's what I was writing here anyway) In the early 80s new BA boss Sir John King realised that he had a premier product that was underpriced, and after carrying out a market survey, British Airways discovered that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was (because most customers' companies paid for flights). Ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions. It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit, unlike their French counterpart. British Airways's profits have been reported to be up to £50 million in the most profitable years, with a total revenue of £1.75 billion, before costs of £1 billion.


Paris to Tokyo in 2.5 hrs. EADS reveals new hypersonic Concorde sucessor. June 2011 - http://www.france24.com/en/20110620-eads-reveals-hypersonic-successor-concorde-zehst-jean-botti-eads

There's a reason the Boeing 2707 was cancelled, and that no new supersonic transport has flown after 1969; because we don't need them. A 747 going 85.5% the speed of sound over the atlantic ocean with 400 people on board isn't only more economical for the airline and the passenger, but the 747 can be used anywhere that a suitable airport exists! A Concorde, or any supersonic transport can't be flown coast to coast in the United States, the sonic boom cause great annoyances, and are loud even at 50-70,000ft. When the Concorde was delivered to the Museum of Flight in Seattle, they had to do a special trip over the Canadian wilderness, up towards the arctic circle, so they could say that Concorde's clast flight was supersonic

Although we may not need the Concorde, I would love to have had the opportunity to fly on one. If they were still flying, I would be doing my best to save up for a flight on one. Supersonic flight holds a fascination for many (me being one of them) so I doubt they would be lacking passengers regardless of the higher pricing. If a millionaire can get from London to New York in 4 hours, compared to 8 on a Jumbo, then I know if I had that kind of money I would take the fastest means to get there. After all, time IS money.

Markoz wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

...If a millionaire can get from London to New York in 4 hours, compared to 8 on a Jumbo, then I know if I had that kind of money I would take the fastest means to get there. After all, time IS money.

Oh, yes I agree...Time is money, and saving a few flight hours, costs a lot of money. :)

Of course I'm kiddind. For business people, time is more valuable than any airfare, and for the wealthy, to waste a few thousands bucks more, makes no difference.

Pinatubo.

Pinatubo wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Markoz wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:25pm: ...If a millionaire can get from London to New York in 4 hours, compared to 8 on a Jumbo, then I know if I had that kind of money I would take the fastest means to get there. After all, time IS money. Oh, yes I agree...Time is money, and saving a few flight hours, costs a lot of money. :) Of course I'm kiddind. For business people, time is more valuable than any airfare, and for the wealthy, to waste a few thousands bucks more, makes no difference. Pinatubo.

But a 4 our flight or less from New Yrok to London would mean leaving at noon an getting there at 10 at night, or leaving at 4:00 in the evening would get you there in the wee hours, where the 8-hour flight gets you there in daylight.

701151 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:40am:

But a 4 our flight or less from New Yrok to London would mean leaving at noon an getting there at 10 at night, or leaving at 4:00 in the evening would get you there in the wee hours, where the 8-hour flight gets you there in daylight.

Say what you like Peter. As a former business man, I would always choose a four hour flight over an eight hour flight IF I had the option and the money.

If you got up early and your plane left at 6 a.m., you'd arrive in London at 3 in the afternoon.

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:56am:

If you got up early and your plane left at 6 a.m., you'd arrive in London at 3 in the afternoon.

Well, you usually don't do business in far-off places the day you get there, usually you allow a day to get there, and get settled...

So what's the problem with arriving early in the morning or late at night?  :-? Whenever I've gone to Europe, I have arrived in the afternoon.

701151 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 5:00am:

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 2:56am: If you got up early and your plane left at 6 a.m., you'd arrive in London at 3 in the afternoon. Well, you usually don't do business in far-off places the day you get there, usually you allow a day to get there, and get settled...

Depends on what else you are doing, a day spent settling in can be a day wasted. That was the beauty of flying on Concorde. You could time meetings in New York for the day of travel as if you were driving there by car or taking a train to a meeting.

Well obviously there wasn't the demand, it was a money-losing venture for Air France and British Airways, and the Tu-144 was only used by Aeroflot because the Soviet government forced the to use it. If there had been demand for supersonic travel, we would still have it, and we would have a third-generation SST by now.

The carbon emissions also became a big problem as people became more aware of harming the environment.

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

The carbon emissions also became a big problem as people became more aware of harming the environment.

And the price of fuel!

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

The carbon emissions also became a big problem as people became more aware of harming the environment.

Well that volcanic eruption in iceland kinda put out more CO2 and other $#!t than man has in the last 10 years...

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

people became more aware of harming the environment.

Is there any reference that backs up this newly discovered 'awareness' you mention there?  :-?
I mean, I would be happy to see people or even companies acting aware in regard to the environment, but it could well be that you are following a naive assessment of the situation.

Mark names it. That's the 'awareness' which really is present. The costs involved.

CoolP wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:58pm: people became more aware of harming the environment. Is there any reference that backs up this newly discovered 'awareness' you mention there?  :-? I mean, I would be happy to see people or even companies acting aware in regard to the environment, but it could well be that you are following a naive assessment of the situation. Mark names it. That's the 'awareness' which really is present. The costs involved.

I in no way said that carbon emissions were the main cause of the Concorde's removal from service. However, most things I have read on the Concorde do mention environmental concerns as a reason that SST's are not practical and why the Concorde is no longer in service. There are a lot of climate change and environmental rallies today, so you can imagine the kinds of protests the Concorde could stir up.

And Mark should know that, the Prime Minister of Australia passed a carbon emissions bill a few months ago!  ;D

I didn't take your statement as being Concorde related, it looked more like a general one to me. However, do you have any reference on this one?

Quote:

most things I have read on the Concorde do mention environmental concerns as a reason that SST's are not practical and why the Concorde is no longer in service.

Quote:

so you can imagine the kinds of protests the Concorde could stir up.

Well, lets say I know pretty much about the 'protests' and their topics within the Concorde era, maybe that's why your new fact base now raises questions. Maybe I was missing some vital data until now though.
I could name some environmental concerns regarding that old plane, but I'm mainly surprised about the context you are using them so far, which is a new one for me.  Hence the question regarding references.

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

The carbon emissions also became a big problem as people became more aware of harming the environment.

IMO thinking about the carbon emission from airliners is a great joke. It's just a way of airlines and/or government agencies to get more money from users adding carbon emissions taxes to airfares. Who cares about the ammount of carbon emissions from all others sources? Nowadays, there is an estimated amount of over 750 million motor vehicles in the world (Source: How many cars are in the world?). And about manufaturing, refining, chemical and mining processes? And even about households carbon dioxide emissions? Please, let's think about the whole thing and not only about an insignificant portion.

Pinatubo.

CoolP wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

I didn't take your statement as being Concorde related, it looked more like a general one to me. However, do you have any reference on this one? Quote: most things I have read on the Concorde do mention environmental concerns as a reason that SST's are not practical and why the Concorde is no longer in service. [quote] so you can imagine the kinds of protests the Concorde could stir up.

Well, lets say I know pretty much about the 'protests' and their topics within the Concorde era, maybe that's why your new fact base now raises questions. Maybe I was missing some vital data until now though.
I could name some environmental concerns regarding that old plane, but I'm mainly surprised about the context you are using them so far, which is a new one for me.  Hence the question regarding references.[/quote]


I agree with CoolP. Plus, since barely 1% of the world's carbon emissions are a result of all commercial aviation from around the world, I'd doubt even 200 SST's would budge anything.

In the 80's they thought the world was going to freeze over, now its melting. Our weather models (five of them here in the U.S) can't accurately predict the weather for a week from now half the time; how on earth are we supposed to be able to predict what the earth will do in 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years? Its absurd. Politicians are making it like a religion, to get money, followers, and start a 'cause' that will lead them towards the office they seek. In 2009, when Britain's parliment approved the first major act that helps the environment to combat global warming, it snowed in London, in October, for the first time since like 1896. Yeah, global warming, a load of B.S I think.

Pinatubo wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

boeing247 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:58pm: The carbon emissions also became a big problem as people became more aware of harming the environment. IMO thinking about the carbon emission from airliners is a great joke. It's just a way of airlines and/or government agencies to get more money from users adding carbon emissions taxes to airfares. Who cares about the ammount of carbon emissions from all others sources? Nowadays, there is an estimated amount of over 750 million motor vehicles in the world (Source: How many cars are in the world?). And about manufaturing, refining, chemical and mining processes? And even about households carbon dioxide emissions? Please, let's think about the whole thing and not only about an insignificant portion. Pinatubo.

Here's the carbon emissions of Seattle:
http://hugeasscity.com/images/Seattle_2008_GHG_Transpo_Pie_Chart-2.jpg

Look at this:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/plane-train-automobile-travel.html


Quote:

I didn't take your statement as being Concorde related, it looked more like a general one to me. However, do you have any reference on this one?

Joe Sutter, head engineer of the 747 project, stated in his book 747 that the Boeing SST was not put into production due to lack of funding and unfeasibility concerns, such as the amount of emissions produced by supersonic jetliners, namely the Concorde.

Well Seattle is one of the most aviation-oriented cities in the world, with the second largest maker of commercial aircraft being based there, plus a quite large international airport. However thats just a city, a small space, whose metropolitan area including and surrounding the city consists of less than 8200 sq mi. So on a massive planet the size of ours, with massive amounts of cars, factories, boats, and homes, the emissions of the airliners is minimal.

I wonder how a Seattle diagram justifys a statement in the general meaning of 'people became more aware of harming the environment'. Really? I also wonder how 2011 concerns influenced a 1960+ plane. However, thanks for the information on 'most things I have read'.

On a side note, I think one has to be aware of what the term 'emissions' really means as it can be used in different ways, some are more technical. Another interesting one is the actual funding that went into SST projects around the world. You may find out that the Concorde one wasn't the highest, but the only one producing a plane that went into service.

I've read some of Sutter's work. It's really interesting stuff, but I've also read what actual engineers of a working SST thought about the 'unfeasibility concerns' of his. I can tell you that this had nothing to do with carbon emissions, but much with 'how the h... is this thing going to fly?'.
When looking at the target values of the planned SST, nobody was really surprised to see a lot of money going into it, but being held back by technology limits of that time.

As said, Concorde flew and operated right on the edge of things. This does mean that planning a Mach3+ passenger transportation plane with more than two guys in space suits was as ambitious as leaving the Moon out and flying directly to Mars. At least, a lot of tax payer money was lost to find out about the limits of 1960/70s tech in that regard.


Now with the environmental aspects, which sometimes become oh so 'important', I think the threads from Pina and Peter are the ones to look for.
On a large scale, Earth and the environment as we call it does not care if you harm her with a plane or a car using 'much less fuel than others'. It does care for the overall value of harmful things and this one actually grew and grew because, thanks to lower ticket prices, nowadays a vast of amount of people can afford flying and the advertisement of course stresses this 'need' to do spend money it. Depending on the actual country, this 'need' may already be established as common thing to do, regardless of the actual reasons in place.
Shopping trips, cheap holidays in the warm weather, visiting foreign countries to enjoy the tourism industry setup there, giving you a 'typical' impression? Nice! And also a large portion of nowadays passenger volume. In fact, the largest one.
So it's not about doctors trying to reach their patients or certain goods for feeding hungry people, it's about selling tickets for all other sorts of travel interests. Money business. The rest is insignificant when it comes to volume, costs and environmental effects.
Strange matter of fact, this insignificant amount of useful things often gets used as the justification for all the rest. Evil to whom evil thinks.  :)

Environmental awareness? We may remind ourselves about the difference between 'being aware' and 'acting aware' to catch some drift. Only the last part helps the environment, while the first one just calms the conscience and is a major factor with advertising by the way.


So, on the overall numbers, more fuel efficient planes never lead to weaker environmental footprint, but to a much larger one. That's by design since the planes don't get designed fuel efficient to 'take care of the environment', but to counteract higher fuel prices, which prevent selling cheap tickets, which blocks the new markets and the growth of them.
So whenever a company introduces a new 'green' thing, it wants you to look just to the tip of your nose and not beyond. Yes, that one product harms us less (they don't use those words, the turn it into 'it's friendly'), but they plan to build a lot of them. Much more than from its predecessor. So far, a new 'environmental friendly' technology in transportation always had this effect. And, with always I mean .. always.
With air transport markets easily growing in the ranges of 10% per year (much higher in Asia for example), this plan will get fulfilled for some time to go.
Who takes care of the environment when looking at it in that way?  ::)

You can make a lot of money with selling tickets. So much that even expensive new planes justify themselves. This has nothing to do with concerns about Mother Earth, but more with a rather common human character trait. Still, who would want to look at this mess?  ::)

Approx 1 billion people travelling by plane in 1990 and, 20 years later, 2.3 billion are flying. No current technology in the world can counteract that environmental impact. Think they are all flying to their patients or transporting vital goods? Well ..


And what about a SST? Well, it's not blocked by anything else than its market value. So as soon as some clever financial guy comes up and can explain that even the nice values of business and first class subsonic tickets can be beaten by a supersonic service, you will see them starting to work on it right away. Environmental concerns? Well, we couldn't care less, do we?

701151 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:01pm:

Well obviously there wasn't the demand, it was a money-losing venture for Air France and British Airways, and the Tu-144 was only used by Aeroflot because the Soviet government forced the to use it. If there had been demand for supersonic travel, we would still have it, and we would have a third-generation SST by now.

There was a demand for it and it was not a money losing venture for BA, they made an operating profit of between £30-50million per year when is use, AF made slightly less.

Concorde was only retired because the cost of upgrading, safety modifications post Paris and further costs on the life extension programme were more than the expected profits to be made in the extra few years life that was going to be given to the airframes which were already 21-27 years old at retirement.

And please read my previous post with regards future SST.

CoolP, if you got that information from a quote from a statistician I apologize, but I'm not sure about it. There was a great graphic Boeing made that would show what I mean, though I can't seem to find it on the 787 page on newairplane.com anymore--I'll post it if I find it. Anyway, it showed how new jets, particularly ones such as the 787 and A320neo (though the Airbus ones were of course not mentioned by name for advertisement purposes  ;D) have a far lower fuel consumption rate than the first-gen jets like the 707 and anything else prior. In addition, they carry more passengers. Do they fly more often? Yes. Are their more of them to account for the growing amount of passengers? Yes, but if more passengers are being transported with less fuel, there must be some improvement--and just imagine if we were still using fuel-guzzling 707's. Also, you seem to be skeptical that companies were actually concerned with environmental impact. This is true, but you also have to look at it from a PR standpoint. As more people become aware of the ecological impact of aircraft and other vehicles, they would not look kindly upon SST's.  ;) And if anybody can find a graph of the main sources of carbon emissions in the world, please post it.

If you replace 1 old aircraft, that emit 100 units of pollution into the atmosphere, with 5 modern aircraft, that emit 30 units of pollution into the atmosphere, then you are still releasing more pollution into the atmosphere than you were back when you were using that single aircraft (5 x 30 = 150). So the point that CoolP makes is still valid. More pollution IS being emitted into the atmosphere today, than it was many years ago. The only difference is that it takes more aircraft to do it.

I'm not using exact figures because I don't know what they really are.

Markoz wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 1:10am:

If you replace 1 old aircraft, that emit 100 units of pollution into the atmosphere, with 5 modern aircraft, that emit 30 units of pollution into the atmosphere, then you are still releasing more pollution into the atmosphere than you were back when you were using that single aircraft (5 x 30 = 150). So the point that CoolP makes is still valid. More pollution IS being emitted into the atmosphere today, than it was many years ago. The only difference is that it takes more aircraft to do it. I'm not using exact figures because I don't know what they really are.

Well it depends. Its like the car vs. motorcycle story.

See, yes a Motorcycle might 75mpg (per-say) but the car gets 35mpg, yes, the motorcycle might burn less gas than teh car, but the car has more emissions standards.SO the motorcycle may be emitting more toxic gases and carcinogens than the car, but less CO2 than the car. So would you rather has less CO2 or less ozone, sulphur, and other things?

So yes, you're replaced 1 plane with 5, the original made 100, the new five make 130. But you get to take 1,000 passengers (each plane holds 200) with the new five, and only burn 130. But with the old, you only carry 200 for 100. So that equates to a 2:1 (two passengers to each until of pollution) with the old, and 7.69:1 with the new five. Thats how a 747 going from LAX to JFK can be more effecient than a single person in a car. You get 467 people to new york over a shorter distance than 1 person over a longer (ditance & time).

Markoz wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 1:10am:

If you replace 1 old aircraft, that emit 100 units of pollution into the atmosphere, with 5 modern aircraft, that emit 30 units of pollution into the atmosphere, then you are still releasing more pollution into the atmosphere than you were back when you were using that single aircraft (5 x 30 = 150). So the point that CoolP makes is still valid. More pollution IS being emitted into the atmosphere today, than it was many years ago. The only difference is that it takes more aircraft to do it. I'm not using exact figures because I don't know what they really are.

It's true that there are more pollutants being released now, but if you look at the ratio of passengers to planes, just as Peter pointed out, we're doing well (not that there isn't room for improvement, though). However, my original point, at its simplest, was that in the development of SST's and other aircraft in the future, environmental concerns are something which needs to be taken into account.

And Peter, I don't know about you, but I think we need more ozone in the atmosphere (at least in the stratosphere).  ;D

The consideration for SST's won't be so much environmental concerns as economics. The airlines chose the 787 over the Sonic Cruiser; the Sonic Cruiser would go at Mach .92 for the same cost as the 767, but airlines wanted to cut cost, since the demand for ultra-high speed wasn't great. With 787 technology, we don't need to worry about emissions when going that fast, its all operating costs, seat revenue, and effeciency. Delta has the biggest gas bill this year, over $2.5 Billion. If passengers don't really demand for supersonic travel, Delta, or any airlines, won't go for an SST and raise the gas bill to $3 Billion, they'd rather have it at $1 Billion.

Was the Sonic Cruiser a Boeing concept plane? I've never heard of it. Sounds like an interesting idea. :-?

Mark points it out correctly. The overall value counts for the environment.

Since the beginning of the jet age, big passenger planes made overall efficiency improvements or approx 50%. That's from the very first jet planes up to the most current ones like 787 and A380.
So please tell me how the 1990 technology, which already includes the modern things like 777 and A330 planes, should ever be able to counteract that impact happening in just 20 years.

Maybe it helps to see that e. g. New York grew from 7.8 million to 8.2 million people, while, within the same time span, the amount if people over New York went up x2.3!
Mother Earth still does not care if you've improved efficiency on a single plane (while the passenger count goes up as shown), that's pure company and advertisement thinking, guys. Well done, PR branches!

I might add, as a side note, that it may not be too clever to ask the guys actually selling planes about the environmental impact they might have while expecting useful/valid answers. However, that may add to the 'awareness' people aim for.  :(


The problem with some environmental awareness isn't the data basis. The data is there, no one can really hide it and rather simple maths show numbers like the ones above.

Now, an industry isn't interested in that awareness taking place in people's minds. The bias is 'earn money!' and any passenger in doubt about the environmental impact of his not so important journey has to be avoided. So, nowadays, everything comes with a friendly green image plus promoting the 'right' data, while leaving out the more obvious one. As if trees would start growing when you park (and run) a modern plane in front of them.  ;D
And, at the same time, people aren't really interested to care about this and that when they can have an industry that tells them that 'everything is fine'. Qui bono?  ::)
Lobbyists and PR work are vital parts of a big money business, so it's not only about the products. You may guess why.

I don't blame people in general, that would be unfair and too cross-the-board alike. But I'm really surprised when some guys (with access to data) fail to realize or even defend some naive fallacy of theirs. However, maybe I can learn something from that behaviour.  :)

As Peter shows, there is hope.

Quote:

The consideration for SST's won't be so much environmental concerns as economics.

boeing247 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:

Was the Sonic Cruiser a Boeing concept plane? I've never heard of it. Sounds like an interesting idea. :-?

The Sonic Cruiser was a Boeing concept from 2001, it could cruise up to Mach .98. The idea was that it would fly just below the speed of sound, but be muh faster than any other airliner, without the downsides of supersonic flight (i.e. no sonic booms). Boeing cancelled the Sonic Cruiser in 2002, in favor of the 7E7, which would later become the 787 Dreamliner.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/sonic_cruiser/sonic_cruiser_01.jpg

http://youcantouchthestars.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sonic-cruiser.jpg

Ah, thanks, Peter. I've seen pictures of that before. It's a shame it wasn't developed, as it seems like a pretty good idea.

And CoolP, you have provided copious information, but all I really said was that environmental concerns play a role in the development of SST's (which is what I read in 747 and a history of flight book I own), and nothing more.  :)

boeing247 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 11:55pm:

Ah, thanks, Peter. I've seen pictures of that before. It's a shame it wasn't developed, as it seems like a pretty good idea.

Well, from the history look, the industry wasn't impressed at all, which may arise from the fact that the time savings are negligible, while the development costs are huge for operating in that speed regime. So this not only looks like a 'concept only', but maybe was never intended nor able to leave that state.

For example, the promoted fuel savings (or the too simple 'equal to common normal designs' statement) alone are a thing to raise questions as anyone involved in aircraft design may tell you that the 'cruise' that deep in the transonic regime is the worst thing to happen for a plane when it comes to economics.
Concorde used the reheats to get through and out of it fast by the way. So designing a fuel efficient plane operating in that high drag regime is a technological oxymoron and the concept never provided any signs of the magic bullet in that aspect.

Future SST concepts and ideas (there isn't more than that) are well worth a look, although, as shown, the economical side of all those efforts will render them being a thing of the far future. Maybe one where fuel on board isn't needed anymore.


Quote:

all I really said was that environmental concerns play a role in the development of SST's (which is what I read in 747 and a history of flight book I own), and nothing more.  :)

Sorry, I still don't see either strong environmental concerns or even the more naive fallacy of 'aware' people getting a backup from your facts. Economics, that's the thing you should take a look at. Feel free to run a research on all 'green' painted items if you like.

If a guy generally states that 'people became more aware of harming the environment' while using that kind of sources, what could we suggest?
Maybe to look up some facts before writing or just add some more sources and viewpoints before coming to a final opinion and posting it? Yeah, that sounds best and a part of me still is 'impressed' about how some intelligent people make up their mind about things.

I mean it's not like data on environmental impacts or traffic volumes are confidential in a way. But maybe there are not as nice and shiny as some of us expect them to be. Would that be a reason to stay naive and think that current transportation matters are anywhere close to 'acting aware' or even that overall environmental footprints were reduced?

I would keep in mind that there are always two sides of the same coin, whereas the more profitable one ('everything is fine, just buy and fly new stuff') tends to be spread more often, hence the large PR and lobbyist branches of money making industries. You don't earn money with aware people.

With your current way of gaining 'insights' (single source leads to general statements and opinions), you are a media and industry victim by design. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I think you're not alone in that role, so I hope you'll find a way out. But thanks for being honest.  :)

Now back to the commercial.  :D

         They didn't have environmental concerns like they do today, during the 1960's and 1970's. For awhile, they were worried the world would freeze-over!

         SST concepts are there, but as NASA states, the only way to make them viable, which includes over-continental flying rather than over-water, the sonic boom must be either done away completely, or quiter than a baseball bat hitting a fastball. The sonic booms done over Oklahoma City proved that long-term sonic booms over a city cause complaints, and airliners flying over large cities daily (with a boom equal to that of any fighter jet or Concorde) would surely entail complaints. NASA's concepts for technology that would enable an SST to produce a negligable sonic boom outline an airliner with capacity of 50-85, which is no greater than a Bombardier CRJ700. The Concorde didn't hold many passengers either, 92-120 passengers. However, the problem is gettign it effecient. The inherint design is effecient, per-say, but to get the massive gain that widebodies got over narrowbodies, was range and capacity. If a supersonic airliner were to only hold 80 passengers, it would have to be both incredibly effecient, and fly very far. Ticket prices would be astronomical, and it wouldn't make much sense business-wise. I can see business jets like the Aerion SBJ possibly taking wealthy people and weel-to-do businesses to far places supersonic, but that still is stretching it.

Quote:

They didn't have environmental concerns like they do today, during the 1960's and 1970's. For awhile, they were worried the world would freeze-over!

Yeah, funny. Nowadays they think promote that terrorists are the greatest threat. So every time has it's .. specials. The simple 'qui bono?' always remained though.


As long as then don't build cities on water, the Pacific and Atlantic would make a great place to fly even with a sonic boom. Wait, didn't they have such routes already?  ::) The sonic boom did not end anything there.  8-)
As not only Mr. Branson shows these days, every technology needs a demand and a basis to make money with. The rest then follows, including popular concerns (as valid as they might be).

I'm sorry, Peter, I can't follow you on those 'NASA talks' you mention. I can't relate the passenger size of a plane to the actual supersonic boom appearance and/or avoidance. Please explain that in more detail if you like. Me is interested.  :)

Yeah, I can see why the Sonic Cruiser wasn't developed, but making an aircraft that cruises just below the speed of sound is an interesting idea.

CoolP, you are right, and I never disagreed that big companies don't really care about their affect on the environment. I can see that the 787 was made to be 20% more efficient so that airlines will spend less money on fuel. However, it is also true that people have become more aware of what we're doing to the environment--I didn't say who, and I certainly did not say large companies, but some people are. Recall how I mentioned the new Australian restriction on carbon emissions. Almost everything I said about the Concorde was based off of this line:

"Attacks from the ecological lobby (responding to the threat of high levels of pollution and noise) mean that the Concorde was banned from many of the world's airports."

-In an excerpt on the Concorde in Flight: The Complete History, produced by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum

Quote:

Recall how I mentioned the new Australian restriction on carbon emissions.

Trust me. This is very unpopular here. Personally, I think it is great. But there are many, especially the multi-million/billion dollar businesses, that want it abolished!

The Concorde, from memory, was banned from flying in Australia due to the sonic boom. Noise pollution. Nothing to do with fuel economy.

Air travel is very popular. PLUS. It is faster to travel by plane than by bus or train, so most people want to use it (ergo budget airlines). Who was it that said speed wasn't important? Two and a half hours to get from Melbourne to Brisbane by airplane, versus about twenty four hours by car or train. And if I could get there sooner by flying supersonic, I would. IF I could afford it.

Mark

Well, if you look closer into that history of concerns, you may find out that the peaks surprisingly happened as one part of the world tried to sell their supersonic plane, while another part was stuck at subsonic tech. Especially the vital US landing rights came in late, being held back by .. I don't know.

A quote from that time.

Quote:

Much of the official opposition to giving BA and AF landings rights was based on pure jealousy of their commercial lead rather than environmental concerns.

As history goes, it gets written by the winners, but, in their hubris, they sometimes speak out things clearly after everything is going in the planned way.
Who was the speaker? Lloyd Goodmanson, Boeing Design Director, in The Times.

As it later turned out, Concorde wasn't the loudest thing flying, but the 707 for example was. So they even showed, scientifically = not promotion based, that concerns in that aspect had no basis. However, they've influenced the business with Concorde significantly, while the 'quieter' but slower tech could grew.
Coincidence? Well, maybe.

With the current traffic density of 2011 in mind, I think that some of the concerned people would be better off if ticket prices had remained high and the industry therefore small. Mother Earth would be more happy too. That's naive, but also very true I think. But it's not the direction in which money business is turning the world.


Quote:

I can see that the 787 was made to be 20% more efficient so that airlines will spend less money on fuel.

20%, compared to what? And, another one. Real value or advertising one?



Quote:

However, it is also true that people have become more aware of what we're doing to the environment--I didn't say who, and I certainly did not say large companies, but some people are.

Yeah.  ;D Name those three, I know the other approx 7 billion ones already.
Seriously, and without wanting to sound too rude. The 'awareness' in this thread alone showed that intelligent people like you and me don't seem to realize how e. g. the aviation business grew. Remember the x2.3 in just 20 years? In 2010 2.3 billion 'aware' people flew around the world. And that helps the planet or do we just use that 'aware' thingy to calm something?

Sorry, but we're still not flying mainly vital goods or doctors to their patients, but tons of holiday people. While I wouldn't blame nice folks of doing bad things, I can at least point out that some of them may be very happy about not knowing. I hope not by design.  ::)

As said, 'being aware' doesn't help anyone, 'acting aware' does and we (yes, me too) fail miserably on the last part, while some of us pretend that everything is fine. That's the tenor here.


Mark, the Concorde ban time was a short period and had a character that would take a while to explain, but is lot of fun and use to discover. It shows a vital aspect of global business, where countries compete in the first place, not products.
That still is a character trait of modern business, it has even gained strength and official 'concerns' only aim at calming the readers. The US tanker deal was one of the last peaks of 'global friendship' for example.

Concorde flew to Australia and over it. It remained subsonic over populated landmass, but went fast over water and sparsely populated one. There was no constant ban, same goes for other countries. It visited Oz until the last years of service.

[quote author=CoolP link=1321136482/30#43 date=1321716238
I'm sorry, Peter, I can't follow you on those 'NASA talks' you mention. I can't relate the passenger size of a plane to the actual supersonic boom appearance and/or avoidance. Please explain that in more detail if you like. Me is interested.  :)[/quote]

NASA's design for a quiet supersonic transport entails an aircraft that is designed around reducing the sonic boom footprint, requires a very special airframe. Therefore, its going to be small, and have little room for passengers:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/576607main_supersonic_full.jpg

I read in aviation week that NASA's design may reduce sonic booms, but the whole ideas of having an SST requires low sonic booms, because airlines are going to want to use their planes over-land too, and it can't be done. If there had been demand for an SST, we'd have a third-generation SST by now, like we have a third-generation 747. But there isn't demand. They've had concepts over the years, ideas, plans, they've all gone with the wind. Fact is, as cool as supersonic flight is, there isn't demand for SST's to spend the millions of research, development, and buying those sort of planes. Look at this site: http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=3103 There were 18 airlines who had orders for the Concorde, and only two decided to use them. The 2707 was cancelled because the U.S government saw it wasn't going to be economical for both airlines, and the government's subsidies, to make an SST. Don't say the technology isn't there, we haven't surpassed a 1967 record set by the SR-71 for fastest airplane in sustained level flight. We know how to build these things, but nobody has needed to, and that why we haven't.

That picture is way too big! :(

CoolP wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Well, Quote: I can see that the 787 was made to be 20% more efficient so that airlines will spend less money on fuel. 20%, compared to what? And, another one. Real value or advertising one?

The Boeing 787, which fulfilled the Yellowstone Project's Y2 spot, was to be a direct replacement to the Boeing 767. Yes, the 767; the Dreamliner is meant to be a replacment for the 767-300ER and 767-400ER (the -9 variant). It is 20% more effecient, can fly farther, carry more people, so airlines can serve destinations that would otherwise seem uneconomical.

Quote:

Concorde flew to Australia and over it. It remained subsonic over populated landmass, but went fast over water and sparsely populated one. There was no constant ban, same goes for other countries. It visited Oz until the last years of service.

I know the Concorde came out here. I have no idea how many. It was not a concern of mine for the supersonic speed. I would have loved to heard the sonic boom as flew overhead. In truth, I never even got to see the plane in real life, I only ever saw it on the news when it came here. When it actually landed in Australia, it was always in a city that I was not in at the time. :(

Quote:

20%, compared to what?

Quote:

The Boeing 787

Well, at least the 20% reference is correct. It's not on the overall volume, but only in regard to the predecessor, which, from the maths, is of course nicer to promote for a company. ::)
But I doubt that they will reach that margin in service. This isn't a Boeing special though, but a sort of habit when new planes come up.
So far, I can't recall a plane not failing to match the 'savings'.


Sorry, Peter, but the other statements assume wrong things.
First of, the development on the US SST not only ate more money than the entire (two country!) Concorde program, it also lead to unsolved problems.
So, after around 1.5 billion Dollar were spent (at that time), no usable outcome could be reported. You can be sure that this outcome was watched closely by other countries, so I'm not talking about the nice 'yes, sure, it will fly, we just need more money' statements from the guys receiving the 1.5 billion, but from the other and competing side which later ran a SST.

On the simple comparison of the military thingy with the space suits and the in-flight refuelling, the liquid cooled skin and the too expensive materials being necessary to achieve that speed, I think some basic knowledge update may help you.
Building that one and an efficient supersonic plane which still sets the record for the supercruise while allowing very normal passenger transport is two worlds apart. But, as said, I wouldn't ask a Boeing technician about this aspect, but maybe some guys that actually build Concorde and had it running for nearly three decades.

Since they have experience in building supersonic military planes too, maybe it helps that they state that not much of that military knowledge and methodical approach was of use for Concorde.
As said, the one planes have two guys and feed them with oxygen, the other thing has 100 high profile people on board, paying for a Mach2+ trip.

I, for example, doubt that they will like the dripping fuel when the thing is parked at the gate. Such things are acceptable for the very tight and limited military usage, but a no-go on any commercial passenger transport plane. And that's just one example which has to be considered.

They did not relate or even prioritize the Concorde program complexity over the Moon landing for fun, Peter.


The US SST concept mainly broke up on the own targets. Mach3+ stuff is far away from any aluminium based plane and incorporates temperatures which, by design, can't be avoid but have to be evenly spread and kept in limits.
The two man speed record masterpiece could handle that at costs which exceeded even the expensive SST program, while offering .. still a two man plane. You can't simply blow them up to carry 100 or even those 250 people that were projected at Boeing. Well, at least they've tried and .. you know the outcome. The model is made of wood and represents those 1.5 billion tax payer's money.
Still, 1.5 billion at that time, not 2011.  8-)

'Insulting' assumption of mine. We wouldn't have seen any big supersonic concerns if that plane had made it into production.  ::) Remember? The PR stuff at big companies?

And, of course, the project didn't fail. Who would tell that to the tax payers?! No, it, of course, had a major use and the money wasn't lost. Oops, did I just assume some political statements of that time? Well, they took place and the only noticeable outcome always was promoted to be the wing design, which was there before they've started the SST plans and derived from post-WWII fighter concepts, some of them even being 'captured'. Up for history lessons?


And, third one, NASA isn't the only concept basis for transportation, as you may know. Also, the simple focus on the boom alone is a bit near-sighted. But, to be fair, I don't know what the article you refer to featured. Maybe it was just some thinking on the boom stuff, not so much a working concept of a future SST plane.

Other concepts for example leave the boom thingy out and alter the way the thing travels, and especially the heights. But, all of those, including the NASA ones, are concepts, mind experiments and also a way of showing the creativity in place.
So I would welcome any of them, while I clearly state that any size limit in the spheres of 80 passengers is nothing anybody every projected in the regard of being a vital SST limit, in any country's development centres.

I'd say that it would be nice to see a global work on not only transportation issues. But I have doubts that the economical background will really allow for that. Growing patent applications and lawsuits actually show that the main resource people care about is called differently in every country, but mostly gets printed on paper.  ;)

Markoz wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 3:59pm:

That picture is way too big! :(

No, it's HUGE! Although Peter spoke of the plane being too small.  ;D

The Boeing 2707 was a failure. How can you say it was a success? The idea was to build a large supersonic transport, and nothing was built except a wooden model. yeah they had lots of research, but the government thought that there would be demand for 500 SST's by 1990, and there were never more than 36 SST's ever built, and there was never a new SST design past the year 1971. As cool as an SST is, the imaginations of people from the 1950's and 1960's, that SST's would rule the world, won't come true. Plus, teh Boeing 2707 was designed to hold 250 people, to be a useful plane, rather than a cramped RJ-sized jet of the Concorde or Tu-144. Yeah, the Concorde cost less, but the 2707 was to be faster, land slower, carry more people, fly farther, and be an all-around better and more useful airplane; it proved to cost too much, and the 767 that came 12 years later held the same amount of people, was as fast as the 707's, it was more comfortable, and took over to become the most used transatlantic airliner. The Concorde and 2707 were incomprable airplanes, aside from the label SST.

A Boeing 747-100 and a Concorde used almost the same amount of fuel, and the 747 could carry three times as many passengers over a New York to London route. I'm sorry if you think otherwise, but you're thinking like there's demand for another SST, there really isn't. Maybe the SSBJ's will be somewhat popular, but as the Sonic Cruiser proved, airlines want profitability, seating capacity, and effeciency over speed. A 747 is pretty fast anyways.

I don't know who you are answering too, Peter. I never promoted any SST demand, I've just held a small history lesson on e. g. costs, 'awareness', some funny arguments and some not so funny facts.

I was glad that you've been there, but I have doubts that you've read all this.  :)

CoolP wrote on Nov 19^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

I don't know who you are answering too, Peter. I never promoted any SST demand, I've just held a small history lesson on e. g. costs, 'awareness', some funny arguments and some not so funny facts. I was glad that you've been there, but I have doubts that you've read all this.  :)

others here were saying like there was demand...

Aviation history has a supersonic chapter (ended on the passenger side) and, as avid fans as we are, we develop our own demand of course.
Maybe you've mixed that up on some statements and read a general one into it.