On Monday, 14 January 2019 15:42:53 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable
That was never any airline.
What has that to do with it ?
but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes.
Yes.
So the UK ones were better and actually worked.
The US versions never went into servoce not even for
5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers.
Yep, for other reasons, much to ambitious and never viable.
From the same country that has cars that gas guzzle, so surely cost of fuel wasn;t a problem, perhaps their engineering wasn;t as good.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2016...hat-never-flew
Supersonic flight is back on the agenda in the US, after more than 45 years in limbo. Lockheed recently announced a collaboration with Nasa to design a quieter supersonic jet that may, one day, carry passengers. So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival?
One company, Douglas Aircraft, produced a concept in 1961 for an airliner that could fly at three times the speed of sound (Mach 3). Douglas not only believed that such an aircraft could be flying by 1970, but that there would be a market for hundreds of aircraft.
The quest for a supersonic airliner became almost as important to the US as the race to the Moon. €śYou look back to that time and there really was a lot of technological advancements in aeronautics,€ť says Peter Coen, Nasas supersonic project manager at Langley Research Center in Virginia. €śWhether it was a consideration of the market and what type of aircraft might be needed, or whether it was a case of one-upping Russia and Europe.€ť
So the USA and Russia could get one into service but the UK/France did.
President Kennedys carrot to Lockheed and Boeing was that the government would pick up 75% of the cost of the programme if either could produce a design that could rival Concorde.
No one company had the money to invest in suchb a venture anymore than one company could go to the moon.
But still tried to build their own which were even less viable,
That sort of thing has to be tried with prototypes given
that its untried technology with something that large.
Yes and the UK/France achived it, neither the Russians or the american could.
so did russia.In fact the US thought they
could build a mach 3 plane but failed.
And thats the reason it failed, much too ambitious.
and that's a good thing is it a failure .
Both the russain and american versions failed
the UK/French versions flew for 27 years.
But was only marginally viable on just the one route
and even then.
So, no one has been to the moon since does that make the american Apollo missions a failure ?
only the stinking rich and those whose
Even the stinking rich couldnt afford to go to the moon.
employer was paying for the ticket could afford. No way
did it ever make any sense for a Labour govt to be ****ing
all that money against the wall on that sort of plane. It
was always just more stupid socialist dick waving.
People even paid for short trips on it.
People were willing to pay the money.
Only the stinking rich
so what.
But even today you can buy tickets to see it.