Pelosi: Either be a Union Plant or be shut down

Post Reply New Topic

Back on topic, from what I understand Boeing has said that they will take this all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

As far as supersonic aircraft, there tends to be aerodynamic issues for supersonic aircraft at low speeds cause there are different aerodynamic requirements.

That alone was worth skimming this board and being up past my bedtime for.

It actually is more of a disconnect in terminology, assuming I'm reading this in the other way, he's saying like he was on a board of directors.

Seriously, DW_a_mom, visagrunt and I had just settled our argument, are you trying to set it off all over again.

I don't see that as an invitation to revisit that subject, just a comment on what went before.

(But do let me know if you spot a "new SST" thread somewhere!)

Supersonic airplanes are not gone, so they cannot be brought back. Our air force has thousands of them.

ruveyn

Sorry about that; I had second thoughts after I posted it, but it was late ... and I while I know you didn't intend to give me a smile, you did, and isn't that a good thing?

I promise, someday I'll post something that you can have fun a little laugh over. I can be naive about some terminology, or have things that have completely gone in one ear or out the other, so it shouldn't be too hard to find one. There are plenty of times I have to look up phrases before I respond to a post ...

Stop being a buzzkill! It's been almost a decade since I was last on Concorde and I want another supersonic ride!

Yes supersonic passenger airplanes are the future of civilian aviation.

The Concorde was a Looser. It cost more to run than it made in fares and freight carrying. In addition it could not be flown overland supersonic because of the shock wave. In addition to which the Concorde was relatively unsafe to fly. One of these birds went down in flames. A single nail or screw sucked into the engines could literally kill the plane.

ruveyn

Supersonic airplanes will make a comeback once nuclear power is accepted.

It depends how you do your sums. The British and French sank a fair bit of cash into R&D at a time when fuel was cheap and the prospects for sales were high, so they took a huge bath when the oil embargo happened and the order book dried up. Does that make Concorde a loser? With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps.

BA did substantially better than AF with the financial performance of Concorde. Over its service life, Condorde generated about £750 million in operating profits (£1.75 billion in revenue against £1 billion in operating costs). With a unit cost of £23 million (1977 values), the seven frames would have handsomely paid for themselves even if the BA acquisition hadn't been subsidised (five frames were bought for list price using funds borrowed from the Government, who took 80% of the profits, and the last two frames were bought for their £1 book value, plus £16.5 million for spares inventory) .

But it most certainly did not cost more to run than it make in fares. (A claim belied on the operators' decision to relaunch services after AF4590).

Given the relatively small number of rotations that each frame went through, it's almost impossible to make a meaningful statistical claim regarding relative safety. Certainly there is no evidence that ingestion of a nail or screw into the engines would take the engine out (AF4590 was brought down by a puncture of its fuel tank, not by an engine loss). I had the privilege of flying her on more than one occasion, and given the opportunity I would not hesitate to do so again.

As for relative safety, we again get into an issue of statistics. Concorde had only one loss-of-life incident and on hull loss (AF4590).

That is very true. Nobody who has ever walked on the face of the Moon thinks that the space program is a waste of money and likewise nobody who has ever flown on a supersonic plane thinks that it sucks.