Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was done before. Or was the Concorde a fake, like the Apollo spacecraft... Bumblebees...
the concord was real enough, and it lasted thirty years in flight, but the reality is that it never made money, and was heavily subsidized by the governments of the countries that flew them. in addition, the concord was an expensive aircraft to purchase as well. so please stop talking out of your backside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas
We have to be bold guys!!!
We can't let these MBA maniacs to halt progress in aviation
if the concord made money, i would be one of the first to suggest building more of them. and you can bet that airlines around the world would be using them regularly. but as noted, they never made any money, and they were expensive to purchase. so why would anyone want to operate them?
For any craft to go at least supersonic or faster would need a redesign of a lot of things that would be expensive.
No matter how aerodynamic the structure would be, the craft will still be subjected to heavy drag and resistance that would make it burn fuel to compensate for said resistance. Tickets would cost much more.
Take the space shuttle example and the rate of burn (granted it has to penetrate the atmosphere but still same type of reasoning.
The concord was very aerodynamic but still burned through tons of kerosene.
Less resistance would be encountered at higher altitudes but the craft will have to get there. Unless they master anti gravity propulsion.
At some point we'll need an anti gravity solution.
Can you imagine efficiency!!
But i don't know is there even a theoretical work based on that??
And now you're in to science fiction
The only "antigravity" in existence today would be two magnets. Since it only works in a very controlled environment with a magnetic floor, it is impractical outside of lab-settings.
The only "antigravity" in existence today would be two magnets. Since it only works in a very controlled environment with a magnetic floor, it is impractical outside of lab-settings.
Of course i know.
But i'm hopeful about this.
We'll need to cover great distances in space.
Sure we're not gonna have these technologies next year but who knows??
the concord was real enough, and it lasted thirty years in flight, but the reality is that it never made money, and was heavily subsidized by the governments of the countries that flew them. in addition, the concord was an expensive aircraft to purchase as well. so please stop talking out of your backside.
What the h*** do you care whether the Concorde made any money or not? They flew the things for 30 years with four engines sucking down however many thousands of pounds of fuel per minute without your help. I can think of a half dozen things that don't make any money but exist. And you are glad they do. City-Data conservatives all think everything hangs on profit. Like I said earlier, prop jobs are far easier on fuel than jets, so why did jets ever become the status quo? If the shareholders of the 1950's were as powerful as shareholders of the 2000's, we indeed would never have made the transition to jet aircraft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
