Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
The future of air travel 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187520/London-New-York-hour-Radical-new-aircraft-reach-Mach-6-set-tested.html
|
JordyCarter
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 10
User status: Offline
|
That looks.. awesomeee
|
SetH
Member
Registered: 15th Jul 01
User status: Offline
|
How far away will that be from practical application though?
They need to find a more efficient way of launching it or are we all going for rides under the wing of a B52 from gatwick 
|
3CorsaMeal
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 02
User status: Offline
|
Thought this was going to be a thread about a ford puma with lots of wings tbh
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Were not even allowed concord because of a couple of little crashes. Whats the change of 4500mhp travel 
|
SetH
Member
Registered: 15th Jul 01
User status: Offline
|
I am no aviation expert but I would think that they need to build a craft with convential jet turbines for taking off/landing with and the scramjet for its high altitude cruising.
I doubt we will see that in our life time. Everythign takes forever, look how slow space programs are going for example.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
There's talks of Boeing and co drafting ideas and designs for a hypersonic plane but it's going to be at least 50 years before it's commercially viable.
Gary - Directly it wasn't the crashes that caused the Concorde to be scraped (it was flying after the repairs), rather the costs involved and BA/Air France losing passengers.
Still unsure why BA rejected Virgin's offer of £5m for planes though; they might still be flying today if they did 
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Dom]
|
sc0ott
Member
Registered: 16th Feb 09
User status: Offline
|
Was probably built and tested in the 50s.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
There's talks of Boeing and co drafting ideas and designs for a hypersonic plane but it's going to be at least 50 years before it's commercially viable.
Gary - Directly it wasn't the crashes that caused the Concorde to be scraped (it was flying after the repairs), rather the costs involved and BA/Air France losing passengers.
Still unsure why BA rejected Virgin's offer of £5m for planes though; they might still be flying today if they did
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Dom]
You are?
What about the loss of passengers on their conventional flights as they would all be sitting on Virgin concorde?
|
SetH
Member
Registered: 15th Jul 01
User status: Offline
|
Virgin concorde would have been the tits.
Maybe BA were too proud as an institution to allow their main rival to become a Concorde operator? Bit of a bitter pill to swallow?
|
whitter45
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 02
Location: Norton
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by SetH
I am no aviation expert but I would think that they need to build a craft with convential jet turbines for taking off/landing with and the scramjet for its high altitude cruising.
I doubt we will see that in our life time. Everythign takes forever, look how slow space programs are going for example.
agree
Scram jets are not new technology - We studied them at Uni years and years ago
The problem is getting the engines to self turn to given speed to enable scram jets to operate
|
whitter45
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 02
Location: Norton
User status: Offline
|
probably more of a reality is ground effect flghts which will lower fuel usage, emissions but again its application will be limited
|
SetH
Member
Registered: 15th Jul 01
User status: Offline
|
I think we should develop transporter technology.
Jim can test it and end up a gooey mess like the dude in Star Trek the motion picture.
|
simonATR
Member
Registered: 5th Aug 12
Location: Gloucester Drives: Vectra SRi 140
User status: Offline
|
I would love to see scramjets working on fullsized planes in my lifetime.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hammer
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
There's talks of Boeing and co drafting ideas and designs for a hypersonic plane but it's going to be at least 50 years before it's commercially viable.
Gary - Directly it wasn't the crashes that caused the Concorde to be scraped (it was flying after the repairs), rather the costs involved and BA/Air France losing passengers.
Still unsure why BA rejected Virgin's offer of £5m for planes though; they might still be flying today if they did
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Dom]
You are?
What about the loss of passengers on their conventional flights as they would all be sitting on Virgin concorde?
Why would there be a loss in passengers to BA?
BA were losing Concorde passengers even before the crashes due to ticket costs (in 03 they were £4k each way unless you managed to get a deal) and the twin tower attacks. And BA were pouring millions into maintenance and fuel (the thing fucking ate it like it was going out of fashion, more so during subsonic flight which was majority of the flights due to not being able to do sonic flights over land) to keep them flying.
There's a good chance Virgin couldn't have sustained flying them for long anyway as i doubt they could have got the passengers to make it viable. BA could have made £5m, got rid of the burden and then watched Virgin suffer with the fleet.
Seth - Probably, certainly can't think of a technical reason why they couldn't have sold them.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Technology caught up with Concorde. It just wasn't needed anymore. Massive shame.
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
Virgins offer was nothing more than PR, there was no way they could have operated them and they knew it.
|
Sam
Moderator
Premium Member
Registered: 24th Dec 99
Location: West Midlands
User status: Offline
|
That would be quite funny if it was quicker to fly from London to New York then it was to drive or train up about 100 odd miles to Birmingham 
|
AndyKent
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 05
User status: Offline
|
TBF, Branson would have bought one to put in his garden. £5mil is nothing in the scheme of things.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
I'd buy one for £5m if I won the Lotto on Friday!
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Nath]
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
Seth - Probably, certainly can't think of a technical reason why they couldn't have sold them.
I believe the fleet were getting close to the limit of 8500 cycles and with the questions over its commercial viability, no company was prepared to take on the maintenance.
Might also be that BA considered the air frames to be worth more than Virgin were offering.
But yeah, probably wouldn't have looked too good for them.
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Ian]
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
quote:
Originally posted by Hammer
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
There's talks of Boeing and co drafting ideas and designs for a hypersonic plane but it's going to be at least 50 years before it's commercially viable.
Gary - Directly it wasn't the crashes that caused the Concorde to be scraped (it was flying after the repairs), rather the costs involved and BA/Air France losing passengers.
Still unsure why BA rejected Virgin's offer of £5m for planes though; they might still be flying today if they did
[Edited on 15-08-2012 by Dom]
You are?
What about the loss of passengers on their conventional flights as they would all be sitting on Virgin concorde?
Why would there be a loss in passengers to BA?
BA were losing Concorde passengers even before the crashes due to ticket costs (in 03 they were £4k each way unless you managed to get a deal) and the twin tower attacks. And BA were pouring millions into maintenance and fuel (the thing fucking ate it like it was going out of fashion, more so during subsonic flight which was majority of the flights due to not being able to do sonic flights over land) to keep them flying.
There's a good chance Virgin couldn't have sustained flying them for long anyway as i doubt they could have got the passengers to make it viable. BA could have made £5m, got rid of the burden and then watched Virgin suffer with the fleet.
Seth - Probably, certainly can't think of a technical reason why they couldn't have sold them.
You are assuming Richard Branson is an idiot, which we both know is not the case.
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
Iirc it had nothing to do with passenger numbers or ticket price, you simply cannot continue to fly a plane if there are no spare parts for it. Virgin knew that, so did BA.
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam
That would be quite funny if it was quicker to fly from London to New York then it was to drive or train up about 100 odd miles to Birmingham
an hour doesn't include the 5 million hours you need to wait in the airport before the flight.
|
Jambo
Member
Registered: 8th Sep 01
Location: Maidenhead, Drives: VXR Arctic
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Iirc it had nothing to do with passenger numbers or ticket price, you simply cannot continue to fly a plane if there are no spare parts for it. Virgin knew that, so did BA.
THIS
|
