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.
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.
1) I'm not a conservative, but whether or not an airline - which exists solely to turn a profit - purchases an aircraft is indeed based on profitability.
2) Jet engines are generally cheaper than piston engines in many respects. They're more reliable and somewhat easier to maintain. Also, jet engines are more efficient at cruising altitude than piston engines. Oh -- avgas for piston engines is more expensive to produce that jet fuel. Simply put, there was every reason to transit from piston engines to jet engines for airliners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
A crash is what killed the Concorde. The sonic boom thing was a non-issue. It never flew supersonic over land.
It never flew supersonic over land because it couldn't because it caused sonic booms. This prevented lucrative routes - such as east coast U.S. to west coast U.S., or Chicago to anywhere - from even being considered. It helped scrap the Bahrain-Singapore route because India wouldn't allow supersonic flyovers. So, yes, the sonic booms were most certainly an issue.
The crash wasn't helpful, but it was more the ramifications from the 9/11 attacks (fewer air travelers) that was the final nail in the Concorde's coffin.
I'm not a conservative, but whether or not an airline - which exists solely to turn a profit - purchases an aircraft is indeed based on profitability.
If you were correct there would never have been a Concorde
Jet engines are generally cheaper than piston engines in many respects. They're more reliable and somewhat easier to maintain. Also, jet engines are more efficient at cruising altitude than piston engines. Oh -- avgas for piston engines is more expensive to produce that jet fuel. Simply put, there was every reason to transit from piston engines to jet engines for airliners.
After decades of improvement, and also the fact that they are the default powerplant of general aviation, yes jet engines are generally cheaper than piston engines. Economies of scale only! Aviation kerosene is highly refined, and if it is cheaper than avgas that is also due to economy of scale.
Gasoline is more refined than diesel and there is no reason for diesel being as expensive as, and in many markets, more expensive than gasoline save for the explosion of gas trucks and SUV's. Not even the established fleet of diesel tractor trailers, diesel locomotives and container ships influence the price of diesel as much as 200 million new gasoline powered big trucks and SUV's.
60 years ago there were no compelling reasons to transition from piston engines to jet engines except that jets were faster. Lots faster. Like supersonic aircraft would be (were) faster. Lots faster. The only thing that is different now is greed. At the time of the migration to jet power, the executive branch of the airlines represented ~11% of gross receipts. A similar paradigm would have existed in Britain and France when they proposed the SST program. Presently the Executive Branch of U.S. corporations represent ~52% of gross receipts and that is before the shareholders are considered. I don't know about you, but I don't see much innovation or technological advance coming out of a bottom line focused company culture as exists at the present time.
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.
Actually they're not ubiquitously easier on fuel.
Altitude is easier on fuel, less air, less air resistance, less fuel burned per hour. Above a certain limit even supercharged props can't function, and at higher altitudes they generate less thrust from the prop blades and have to spin at increasing speeds for reducing thrust produced, increasing the engine speed increases fuel consumption per hour.
Here's a for instance, suppose you have two aircraft, a turbofan and a traditional ICE prop. Both fly a distance of 1500 miles. The prop flies at say FL150, and speed of 250 KIAS. It's flying significantly slower relative to ground than a jet flying at FL320 and a speed of 250 KIAS. Using to 2%/1000 ft rule. the Prop is flying at a TAS of ~325 kt (250 x 1.3, and 373mph) and the jet at a TAS of 410kt (250 x 1.64 ~471mph).
If both aircraft consume the same rate of fuel per hour then the Jet is the most efficient because it has a shorter flight time, clearly it needs some time to get to FL320 and from FL320 to runway altitude (but that's going to lower fuel cost using reduced power), but overall the cost in fuel is lower than the prop. However we could expect the jet to arrive at its destination in 4 hours (including take off climb to cruising altitude and landing), and the prop to arrive at its destination in 4.5 hours, that's a saving of 30 minutes of fuel, and a relatively low flight level for the jet and a relatively short haul, typically like La Guardia to Dallas (1,380 miles, but flight path is 1,423 miles [77 miles short]) is at FL400. Here's a track log for SWA1670 Flight Track Log, it's not dissimilar to my jet calcs, but the time of mine is a little more conservative than actual.
I'm not a conservative, but whether or not an airline - which exists solely to turn a profit - purchases an aircraft is indeed based on profitability.
If you were correct there would never have been a Concorde
Originally, there was a lot of interest from other carriers, including carriers in the US. But the Oil embargo happened. France and GB were the ones developing the plane, and were the only two operating the aircraft.
Operationally, the flights were profitable, but cost accounting wise, they were not, once you take in to account the purchase price, maintenance, support, etc.
A crash is what killed the Concorde. The sonic boom thing was a non-issue. It never flew supersonic over land.
sorry to disagree bit i was around when the concorde first came out, everyone thought it was the future even boeing thought the 747 was going to be used only as a cargo plane.but everywhere the plane came to there were protestors waiting for it.it was the sonic boom that killed it, in the end they couldnt sell not one plane to any airline, they few they built were practically given to BOAC and air france.the only route they could have is over the ocean where the sonic boom didnt bother anybody.in the end it was the worlds fastest plane that had nowhere to go.
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.
since we are talking about a business here, of course everything is based on profitability. for a business to stay in business, they need to make a profit. that being said, and particular aircraft in a fleet of aircraft does not have to make a profit, but it does have to have enough economic return to at least approach profitability to remain in service.
for instance if an aircraft costs $30,000,000 to buy, and lets say $1,000,000 per year to operate, does it make sense to fly that aircraft, or one that might also cost $30,000,000 to buy, but only costs $750,000 per year to operate? even though the more expensive, operationally, aircraft is faster, but you cant use it on many possible routes. it jut doesnt make economic sense. its no good to cross the atlantic ocean in 4 hours, when it still requires another 5 hours to fly to LA because you have to fly the same speed as everyone else.
it also makes no economic sense when you can board a 747 in paris, and fly to LA, and have the ticket cost $5,000 as compared to boarding the concord and flying from paris to LA and have the ticket cost $15,000. which ticket would you, in reality buy? and be honest here. unless you are wealthy, to the point where you buy a $500,000 car out of petty cash wealthy, you are going to buy the cheaper ticket just about every time.
now just because YOU think that everyone should do everything for everyone else for basically nothing, doesnt mean the rest of the world thinks the way you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
2) Jet engines are generally cheaper than piston engines in many respects. They're more reliable and somewhat easier to maintain. Also, jet engines are more efficient at cruising altitude than piston engines. Oh -- avgas for piston engines is more expensive to produce that jet fuel. Simply put, there was every reason to transit from piston engines to jet engines for airliners.
true to a point. since jet engined aircraft can fly higher and faster than piston engined aircraft, then yes they can be more fuel efficient.
but fuel efficiency isnt the only reason for the switch over from piston engines, to jet engines. the higher you fly, the smoother the air, the better the ride. also the faster you can go. also jet engines are actually quieter than piston engines, as well as the fact that jet aircraft can haul more into the air than piston engines can.
and before you say anything Leisesturm, there is a point of diminishing returns. for instance you can load up a 747 to a weight off weight of very nearly 1,000,000lbs. compare that to the concords maximum take off weight of just over 400,000lbs, and then you wonder why people would board the 747 instead of the concord.
Today we have much better engineering, computing, material science, marketing and cheaper fuel
I admit for it's time Concorde was very complicated but if built today i'm sure it'll be a lot easier to pilot, maintain and operate.
We have better modeling, yes, but the fundamentals of the design nor materials would change much. A large portion of the aircraft was titanium - A material found in all aircraft today. Composite materials wouldn't be able to withstand the high temps.
Could a new one be built? Sure. Would any company be stupid enough to waste the $$$ Billions to do so? No way in hell.
We have better modeling, yes, but the fundamentals of the design nor materials would change much. A large portion of the aircraft was titanium - A material found in all aircraft today. Composite materials wouldn't be able to withstand the high temps.
Could a new one be built? Sure. Would any company be stupid enough to waste the $$$ Billions to do so? No way in hell.
caverunner17 do you think a flying wing/blended wing body aircraft would be suitable for a passenger aircraft??
I'm thinking about this but couldn't come up with anything.
caverunner17 do you think a flying wing/blended wing body aircraft would be suitable for a passenger aircraft??
I'm thinking about this but couldn't come up with anything.
Middle passengers would be literally in the dark
Maybe they could see outside via screens
Definitely would be interesting.
The flight dynamics of a flying wing platform are closer to a helicopter than normal fixed wing aircraft. The military uses computer controlled fly by wire technology to keep the "kind of" flying wing military aircraft, under the control of very high aptitude military pilots. Distributing passenger/baggage weight outside of the roll center of an aircraft would make for a very cumbersome, probably unflyable, aircraft. Flying wings are cool, but they are not practical. They are also, of necessity very high aspect ratio. No supersonic flying wings...
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.
