# Concorde replacement?



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 22, 2011)

Race to be first with 'son of supersonic'

Two designs were proposed and both are vastly superior to the original supersonic Concorde passenger jet.


----------



## 1freedude (Jun 29, 2011)

I wanna work for Hyper Mach!  My wife turned me on...to this plane...


----------



## micropage7 (Jun 29, 2011)

fastest airplane just offers prestige and sensation that only paid with bunch of money


----------



## assaulter_99 (Jun 29, 2011)

Well in these times of economical hardships nearly everywhere, one wonders if these "toys" still have their place, especially the way the first one panned out. The first one was a great plane though! Bit on the noisy side outside, but a sleek looking plane!


----------



## Zyon (Jun 29, 2011)

Wow, 11 hour journeys cut to 2.5 hours from Paris to Tokyo, if they manage to make the tickets economical then you can go somewhere on the other side of Earth just for a lunch break :O

Only question is how hard will it be to pilot something that fast.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2011)

Most likely computers do it all except take off and landing.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Jun 29, 2011)

Yeah if tail-less stuff like the B2 and the SR71 can be tamed, a civilian jet will be easier to do! Will be a challenge to land these designs though, since stalling speeds due to the models you've displayed must surely be high due to the design/placement of the wings. Landings must surely be done at very high speeds. Tbh these designs must be on their infancy though, so design changes along the way will surely be done.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 29, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Race to be first with 'son of supersonic'
> 
> Two designs were proposed and both are vastly superior to the original supersonic Concorde passenger jet.



It's about frigging time don't ya think ?..  And one of the main issue's is running it at a profit.

Was it not the french who helped to kill off the Concorde as that crap was left on the runway ?.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 29, 2011)

The concorde was such an impressive jet.
A shame it was no longer in use.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2011)

If they really pull it off with those specs an intercontinental flight will take no longer than a slightly longer trip with a car. Crazy!


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 29, 2011)

The current passenger jets are old and slow no matter how recently they were designed.  If ALL jets in the world were replaced with one of these designs, I imagine the price would come down.  As long as it remains niche, it will be massively expensive.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2011)

i seriously doubt the economics will work out.

maybe $10b development cost + $1b per plane @ 20 passengers per trip, someone do the math


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2011)

But you also have to remember that maintenance of Concorde jet was incredibly expensive. Materials wear down much faster and with constantly increasing passenger capacities, you just can't cut corners unless you want to have 500 ppl on your conciseness.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 29, 2011)

I think there would have to be a revolution in propulsion as well as aerodynamics in order for them to be economically viable.  This is probably why they gave the year 2050 as a target.  I don't know what they plan to happen in the next 40 years but I think their estimates are probably correct.

The Concorde was only successful because of the customers it attracted.  Seats cost tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.  There was no faster way for a civilian to cross the Atlanic and likely, nothing short of Air Force one approaches its luxary.  They could pay it off pretty quick but, truth be told, their clientel were vanishing so the aircraft did as well.  Corporations own (or lease) private jets to get their executives around so they can't justify spending so much for seats on a Concorde.  I'm sure these two designers are banking on the return of those high-class customers.  If they aren't, then their focus is economics: can they make the per-seat cost cheap enough to compete with traditional commercial airlines to the point the commercial airlines want to buy them.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 29, 2011)

Flying via space is the future.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 29, 2011)

Why does anyone REALLY need to get somewhere so fast?

Time is money right? Well just make broadband communications fast and seamless in conventional airliners and those people can work from their seat on the conventional long-haul flights. Somewhat negates the 'lost-time' argument.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think there would have to be a revolution in propulsion as well as aerodynamics in order for them to be economically viable.  This is probably why they gave the year 2050 as a target.  I don't know what they plan to happen in the next 40 years but I think their estimates are probably correct.
> 
> The Concorde was only successful because of the customers it attracted.  Seats cost tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.  There was no faster way for a civilian to cross the Atlanic and likely, nothing short of Air Force one approaches its luxary.  They could pay it off pretty quick but, truth be told, their clientel were vanishing so the aircraft did as well.  Corporations own (or lease) private jets to get their executives around so they can't justify spending so much for seats on a Concorde.  I'm sure these two designers are banking on the return of those high-class customers.  If they aren't, then their focus is economics: can they make the per-seat cost cheap enough to compete with traditional commercial airlines to the point the commercial airlines want to buy them.



The cost was not that high per seat on a Concorde really. A friend of mine flew to New York with it years ago. And even though they were abit better financially positioned, they aren't exactly rich, especially not in numbers where they'd pay 100k for a flight on Concorde for 1 person. I reckon it was slightly more expensive than classic flight but certainly not in the 5 or 6 digit numbers...


----------



## qubit (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm unable to read the article while at work, but the idea sounds great. I really miss Concorde, so a replacement is very welcome.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Why does anyone REALLY need to get somewhere so fast?
> 
> Time is money right? Well just make broadband communications fast and seamless in conventional airliners and those people can work from their seat on the conventional long-haul flights. Somewhat negates the 'lost-time' argument.



I've often wondered this. Same goes for the country officials that fly to other countries for conventions...why not just use a webcam?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 29, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> I've often wondered this. Same goes for the country officials that fly to other countries for conventions...why not just use a webcam?



100 people connected to eachother via webcam. Not going to work. If you look at those officials being bored when they are physically present, imagine how much interestthey will show when staring at a small screen.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

but then they can just make a video, play that then fuck off and play solitaire or what ever they want to do. And maybe they might even get some work done quicker because it'll be mind numbingly boring for them.


----------



## CJCerny (Jun 29, 2011)

I guess no one was paying attention in physics class. The main reason that passenger jets haven't increased in speed is because we haven't figured out any way to beat the sonic boom problem. Creating sonic booms over populated areas is a real bad idea. Concorde was only allowed to do so over open water. It was not allowed to break the sound barrier over land. Until we figure out the sonic boom thing, hypersonic travel will never catch on except between coastal cities.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jun 29, 2011)

pretty hot presenter...
didn't really see too many futuristic jets there


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

CJCerny said:


> I guess no one was paying attention in physics class. The main reason that passenger jets haven't increased in speed is because we haven't figured out any way to beat the sonic boom problem. Creating sonic booms over populated areas is a real bad idea. Concorde was only allowed to do so over open water. It was not allowed to break the sound barrier over land. Until we figure out the sonic boom thing, hypersonic travel will never catch on except between coastal cities.



Thank you.  I was thinking about writing something like that, but couldn't get motivated.

There's also the issue of fuel.  Even when it was cheap by comparison, Concorde still never made much money IIRC.  I could be wrong, but I think if you included development costs, it operated at a loss until they had to shut them down.

Check this out



> Why is Concorde being retired?
> 
> It is all down to cost: the Airlines are not making back the money spent on the safety modifications and other upgrades. With some other big costs coming up (tens of millions, before any life extension programme), BA need to write off £84M now, rather than £150M in 3 or 4 years. Air France will write off a large sum of money too.
> 
> ...



The only way it becomes profitable is with volume and scale and that, as boss pointed out, means being able to fly more than a handful of routes which are exclusively over water.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 29, 2011)

twilyth said:


> The only way it becomes profitable is with volume and scale and that, as boss pointed out, means being able to fly more than a handful of routes which are exclusively over water.



That's what I said.  As long as it remains niche, it will never come down in price.  If they had decided to mass-produce Concordes and replace most, if not all, trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific conventional airliners with them then it would have worked out as a lot cheaper.  More of them around = more customers, more customers = cheaper ticket prices.

These things need to be produced on a scale that will effectively flood the industry with them, less choice for customers/airlines means that they'd have used Concorde more often.


----------



## HossHuge (Jun 29, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> I've often wondered this. Same goes for the country officials that fly to other countries for conventions...why not just use a webcam?



True.  In the next few years, Tele-Immersion hopefully will be ready for the masses.



Bo$$ said:


> pretty hot presenter...



Hoss and Bo$$ think alike....


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 29, 2011)

sadly, you all missed the point. if nobody ever bothers to create fantastic products such as these then we will live in constant stagnation. Even if they become a financial failure the point is they are a mechanical and aeronautical breakthrough. What engineers learn from this jet will dictate how the industry moves forward with air transportation. nuff said.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> sadly, you all missed the point. if nobody ever bothers to create fantastic products such as these then we will live in constant stagnation. Even if they become a financial failure the point is they are a mechanical and aeronautical breakthrough. What engineers learn from this jet will dictate how the industry moves forward with air transportation. nuff said.



But right now, no company or country is going to pour money into a product that wont make money. There is no incentive into building a supersonic passenger jet. If there was then fine. But no one is going to do it for the fun of it. These are all concept idea... nothing will materialise out of them.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 29, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> But right now, no company or country is going to pour money into a product that wont make money. There is no incentive into building a supersonic passenger jet. If there was then fine. But no one is going to do it for the fun of it. These are all concept idea... nothing will materialise out of them.





> He added: "The costs of designing something like this from scratch are astronomical, and even if they can get it to the prototype stage, that's not even half the battle, it's maybe 10%. Aerospace is littered with companies that went bust once they went into production.
> 
> "The science exists, we know planes can fly at supersonic speeds: Fighter aircraft do it, Concorde did it -- the technology is there, but the problem is making it work commercially.
> 
> "If it was easy, if it was possible, one of the big manufacturers would have done it already."



i didnt say people would do it for fun. it may not be financially viable right now. that isnt the point of the article and that isnt the point of creating it anyway. the point is learning and moving the air industry forward.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 29, 2011)

These big companies have enough money to take the financial hit for something like this.  Like Microsoft was able to brush of the failure of ME back in 2000.  Trouble is, no matter how much money they have they'll never do it because they love their money too much.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 29, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> Trouble is, no matter how much money they have they'll never do it because they love their money too much.



so what you are saying is 'profit be damned' if it is something YOU want then the companies should make it regardless!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> These big companies have enough money to take the financial hit for something like this.



But then the rich wont get richer! OH NOES!


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 29, 2011)

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that when a company has more than enough money for a project like this then they should just do it instead of hoarding the cash.  It could be put to much better use than just accruing interest.

Microsoft is taking the initiative now and is buying up companies and investing in new projects left right and centre because they've been sitting on a huge pile of cash for the last 10 or 15 years and done nothing with it.  They want to try new things.  I think that more companies should be like that.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> when a company has more than enough money for a project



if i had a significant number of stocks of some company and they started doing obviously unprofitable projects i'd quickly pick up my phone, call the ceo and tell him to start making me more money or find another job


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that when a company has more than enough money for a project like this then they should just do it instead of hoarding the cash.  It could be put to much better use than just accruing interest.
> 
> Microsoft is taking the initiative now and is buying up companies and investing in new projects left right and centre because they've been sitting on a huge pile of cash for the last 10 or 15 years and done nothing with it.  They want to try new things.  I think that more companies should be like that.




Don't worry I was being sarcy and stating exactly why they WONT do it. Yes I agree, I mean innovation drives things forward, but the people in charge will bury it simply because the shareholders wont get as much at the end of the year.

And as for Microsoft, they are so big them investing millions in other R+D is like them losing 50p. It's pocket change to them.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 29, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> the point is learning and moving the air industry forward.



not what id consider progress these. not at all

they have ridiculasly low passenger capacity even compared to the ancient concorde(not much anyway and not being improved on here) 
they may need a fuel we might have all burned up by then or BIOfuel(effin gr8 fammin on the way then due to some fat cat trying to save the world with fields of rape n shit, B***$X driving his ECO(my arse car etc))
and if i cant go disney land in a ufo by 2050 maglev style, im not gona go

 enigines is where they want to be focusing and not of the babboon burn something fassion us chimps prefer but something revolutionary, do i have to get my spanners out


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 29, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that when a company has more than enough money for a project like this then they should just do it instead of hoarding the cash.  It could be put to much better use than just accruing interest.
> 
> Microsoft is taking the initiative now and is buying up companies and investing in new projects left right and centre because they've been sitting on a huge pile of cash for the last 10 or 15 years and done nothing with it.  They want to try new things.  I think that more companies should be like that.



there are many reasons why companies are cash heavy. they see an economic downturn in the future and they want to hedge any potential losses to weather the storm. they could be hoarding cash to buy back some of their stock to increase its value. they could planning a big project down the line and want to make a significant early investment in it. rarely do companies just hoard cash to hoard it. every industry is different.


----------



## qubit (Jun 29, 2011)

Just watched that video and OMG she is hot!  _<qubit tries to regain self control>_


----------



## AsRock (Jun 30, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Why does anyone REALLY need to get somewhere so fast?
> 
> Time is money right? Well just make broadband communications fast and seamless in conventional airliners and those people can work from their seat on the conventional long-haul flights. Somewhat negates the 'lost-time' argument.



Well if like me and you live in a different country as the rest of your family and one of them are in hospital with some thing bad you might want to get there asap. 

Plane from PA is a pain in the ass last time it took 3 planes to get to the UK.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Jun 30, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Well if like me and you live in a different country as the rest of your family and one of them are in hospital with some thing bad you might want to get there asap.
> 
> Plane from PA is a pain in the ass last time it took 3 planes to get to the UK.



Enter instant teleportation! Oh well, as long as accidents like "The Fly" don't happen! ROFL.


----------



## gumpty (Jun 30, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Well if like me and you live in a different country as the rest of your family and one of them are in hospital with some thing bad you might want to get there asap.
> 
> Plane from PA is a pain in the ass last time it took 3 planes to get to the UK.



I know exactly what you mean. I'm a Kiwi living in the UK so I know that if I got 'that call' right now it would be a minimum 30 hours to get home: 1hr to Heathrow + 2hrs check-in + 25hr flight + 2hrs transfer to hometown. The reality is it would be more like 36 hours considering flight schedules and packing.

Such is the choice we make when living away from family, but it could be worse; when my aunty spent some time studying in the UK when she was young, she traveled over here by boat!


Where is PA? Pennsylvania?


----------

