whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable
That was never any airline.
What has that to do with it ?
Thats what determines if you ever sell any of them.
but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes.
Yes.
So the UK ones were better
Much worse in fact than the 747 and thats why
they sold thousands of those and Concorde
had to give the 14 to BOAC and Air France.
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,
Corse it is. Thats why so few of the 747s are still flying
and have been replaced by vastly more fuel efficient
replacements now. And it really is vastly more fuel
efficient too. The 747 did about 10KG of fuel per
pax mile. The A750 now manages less than 2.
Forget the units now, but the numbers are accurate.
perhaps their engineering wasn;t as good.
In the case of the yank one they were too ambitious trying for Mach 3
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.
And it remains to be seen if they can ever get any airline to
buy any given the massive problem of no country actually
being stupid enough to allow them to fly supersonic over
their country with so much of the pax volume flying over land.
Lockheed recently announced a collaboration with Nasa to design
a quieter supersonic jet that may, one day, carry passengers.
Unlikely given the problem that no country is actually stupid
enough to allow them to fly supersonic over their country.
So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival?
That it was too ambitious at the time.
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.
And even you should have noticed that they have gone bust.
And that Boeing that isnt stupid, hasnt.
The quest for a supersonic airliner became almost
as important to the US as the race to the Moon.
Thats bull**** and there was never any race to the moon either.
You look back to that time and there really was a lot of
technological advancements in aeronautics, says Peter
Coen, Nasas supersonic project manager at Langley
Research Center in Virginia. Whether 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.
So the USA and Russia could get one
into service but the UK/France did.
Only by giving them to BOAC and Air France for free
and having the general taxpayer pay the immense
cost of what only ever got used to cart the stinking
rich and those whose employer was stupid enough
to pay for the ticket.
Absolutely classic terminal stupidity that
only a socialist govt could come up with.
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.
Absolutely classic terminal stupidity that
only a socialist govt could come up with.
No one company had the money to invest in suchb a venture
And no US plane manufacturer was stupid enough to do
that. Boeing had enough of a clue to realise that the 747
made a lot more sense and ended up doing very well
out of that decision while BAC went bust.
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.
But it was such a complete dud that it had to
be given to BOAC and Air France for just £1 and
no airline was actually stupid enough to buy it.
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 .
Try that again in english when not blotto,
even Chrome doesnt do gobbledegook yet.
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. only the stinking rich and those whose
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.
Not trips to anywhere, just joy rides.
Makes no sense to be ****ing all that money
against the wall so some could have a supersonic
joyride. Again, someone only a terminal ****wit
Labour govt could do.
People were willing to pay the money.
Only the stinking rich
so what.
So it makes no sense what so ever to be taxing the
general public and ****ing all that money against
the wall on something that only the stinking rich
flew anywhere on.