I've always wanted someone to bring back the Avro Arrow to use the Iroquois engine for freight, but I don't think anyone has the knowledge to even pull it off anymore.
A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
51–60 of 196 posts
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of the Concorde failure is tied to its status as a British-French project. Trans-Pacific flights are much longer and there's a lot of money in PEK -> LAX than in JFK -> LHR. Qantas wanted to offer London to Sydney, but they couldn't fly supersonic over land. Mainland China or Japan to Australia is a feasible route for high-margin, low-capacity supersonic flights. If you could make the flight from Beijin…
> Dubai to SFO is also a possible route Is there really that much premium traffic between Dubai and the Bay Area?
Honestly not so much in my experience. It was busy, but mostly because of Emirates longhauls. Dubai to NYC and back is extremely busy though.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#53Cool science. But the article fails to take even a cursory stab at contextualising the plan against the economic, environmental and political backdrop - doesn’t even mention that there’s already been one failed supersonic commercial flight programme. This is as pie-in-the-sky as it gets.
I think the SpaceX plan for point to point travel might be even more pie in the sky. Or maybe a tie.
I think it's more practical. They've already got humans flying.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vastly more favorable today than it was when Concorde flew. 1) Rich people are WAY richer, and time is even more valuable 2) Businesses have some very important employees and "2 day trip" vs "3-4 day trip" is worth $50-100k 3) Larger population of people able to pay $20-30k for a flight than ever before. The biggest practical impact is there's probably going to be a private jet version instead of just a commercial on…
What are some examples of employees so important you would pay $100k to get them somewhere immediately?
[deleted]
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of the Concorde failure is tied to its status as a British-French project. Trans-Pacific flights are much longer and there's a lot of money in PEK -> LAX than in JFK -> LHR. Qantas wanted to offer London to Sydney, but they couldn't fly supersonic over land. Mainland China or Japan to Australia is a feasible route for high-margin, low-capacity supersonic flights. If you could make the flight from Beijin…
> Dubai to SFO is also a possible route Is there really that much premium traffic between Dubai and the Bay Area?
A couple of searches suggests only Emirates operate a direct route between SFO and Dubain, so it wouldn't seem so.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#56[flagged]
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#57Cool science. But the article fails to take even a cursory stab at contextualising the plan against the economic, environmental and political backdrop - doesn’t even mention that there’s already been one failed supersonic commercial flight programme. This is as pie-in-the-sky as it gets.
I think a lot of the Concorde failure is tied to its status as a British-French project. Trans-Pacific flights are much longer and there's a lot of money in PEK -> LAX than in JFK -> LHR. Qantas wanted to offer London to Sydney, but they couldn't fly supersonic over land. Mainland China or Japan to Australia is a feasible route for high-margin, low-capacity supersonic flights. If you could make the flight from Beijin…
I was pretty sure the whole Concorde thing failed because people don't like it when you sonic boom an entire city dozens of times a day. And that all attempts to reduce the sonic booms necessarily resulted in flight times that aren't significantly faster than traditional subsonic flights, rendering the entire thing moot.
It was impractical due to physics, not some weird racism. You simply can't push a supersonic shockwave over inhabited areas, and the only way to not do that is to fly subsonic over land. Even if the oversea leg is supersonic, the tickets were much more expensive for not very much shorter flights. It wasn't a valuable proposition for most people.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are agreeing with you re: the range. There is money in NYC-LHR (it brings BA alone $1B in revenue annually) but the market for supersonic basically vanished. In the 70s when Concorde started flying, it was certainly a step up. However, the market niche basically disappeared when the lie flat seat was developed; for a lot cheaper, you could have a sleep for six hours in a really cushy lie flat, or you cou…
You can also essentially work remotely in an airplane now. I haven’t tried videoconferencing, but I easily do all my other software work on trips. So a couple extra hours might even be a benefit: more time with no distractions to wrap up that slide deck, maybe a 1:1 or two, get your free drinks from premium/business class, doze off to a movie, wake up for an early start at your destination.
12 hours on a plane is 12 hours on a plane. And there's currently no amount of ticket money that can make that shorter.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#59Cool science. But the article fails to take even a cursory stab at contextualising the plan against the economic, environmental and political backdrop - doesn’t even mention that there’s already been one failed supersonic commercial flight programme. This is as pie-in-the-sky as it gets.
I think a lot of the Concorde failure is tied to its status as a British-French project. Trans-Pacific flights are much longer and there's a lot of money in PEK -> LAX than in JFK -> LHR. Qantas wanted to offer London to Sydney, but they couldn't fly supersonic over land. Mainland China or Japan to Australia is a feasible route for high-margin, low-capacity supersonic flights. If you could make the flight from Beijin…
It's not tied to anything other than there not being enough people who care enough to spend the sort of money required.
The people who have that kind of money are going to be more interested in flying in a jet share doing mach .96 leaving when they want to leave, going where they want to go, when they want to go, how they want to go, with who they want to go with.
You get treated like a criminal for forgetting your shampoo bottle is 2 ounces too big for some dipshit TSA agent's liking, and meanwhile the ultrawealthy are shuttling around physical assets worth millions of dollars in their private jets and customs barely does more than stamp their passport.
Re: A successful Japanese trial of a ramjet engine designed for Mach‑5 aircraft
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of the Concorde failure is tied to its status as a British-French project. Trans-Pacific flights are much longer and there's a lot of money in PEK -> LAX than in JFK -> LHR. Qantas wanted to offer London to Sydney, but they couldn't fly supersonic over land. Mainland China or Japan to Australia is a feasible route for high-margin, low-capacity supersonic flights. If you could make the flight from Beijin…
I was pretty sure the whole Concorde thing failed because people don't like it when you sonic boom an entire city dozens of times a day. And that all attempts to reduce the sonic booms necessarily resulted in flight times that aren't significantly faster than traditional subsonic flights, rendering the entire thing moot. It was impractical due to physics, not some weird racism. You simply can't push a supersonic shoc…
It failed because the market dried up due to economic reasons, and they couldn't fill seats.