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