On Monday, 14 January 2019 17:23:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
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.
How do you work that out ?
Oh you don't do you, just talk crap.
but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes.
Yes.
So the UK ones were better
Much worse in fact than the 747
but the 747 couldn't reach mach 2 not even mach 1
the 747 took about 8 hours concorde about 3.5 hours that's less than half the time and yet we're considering spending 56 billion+ on cutting the time it take to get from Birmingham to London by 20 mins !.
and thats why
they sold thousands of those and Concorde
had to give the 14 to BOAC and Air France.
We sell far more dog **** bags.
Ford sell more cars than lamborghini,. Dell sell more PCs than Apple but apple sells more tablets than dell.
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
Does that make 747 a failure ?
and have been replaced by vastly more fuel efficient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.
Yeah sure , someone here a research student has worked on the 787 on the banks of sensors around 250 per wing segment or something similar and how to 'manage' them all in real time.
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.
only 1/3rd of the earth is covered by land and as most intercontinental flights cross the water.
Lots of countries won't let planes even military fly over their land at any speed. So why are they still designing military aircraft that can exceed the speed of sound if no one will allow them to fly over land ?, try thinking about it.
Why do most car manufactuers built cars that can go fater than most speed limits allow. ?
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.
Most countires arent as stupid as yopu, and the reason they don;t allow it is because going through the sound barrier creates a loud noise.
Then ISS is constandly traveling faster and no one has banned that.
Unlike you no one is that stupid.
So, what can be learned from the story of Americas failed Concorde rival?
That it was too ambitious at the time.
So why are they trying again ?
What makes you think that those countries that wouldn't allow concorde go faster than mach 1 will allow the new USA plane to go above mach 1 ?
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.
Yes there was a space race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race
is this yuor best attempt thinking that you can fool me by calling the space race a race to the moon.
You do know that niether concorde or the russian or american versions were in the 'race to the moon' as you prefer to call it.