[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


The king is returning
>>
but rules ain't what killed that bird.
>>
>>1562585
Why did it trigger the heebs so much?

https://airwaysmag.com/today-in-aviation/the-us-lifts-ban-on-concorde/
>>
>>1562615
loud as all hell. that's fine if 99% of the flight is over the English channel. but not when people live under the flight path.
>>
>>1562621
This was the same excuse used for shutting down propfans and rotodynes by pure COHENcidence.
How much decibels they produced? How did it compare with other aircraft?
>>
>>1562630
the Concord was around twice as loud as 747. and the sound from something going supersonic tends to travel further than typical aircraft noise. the Russians ended up restricting the use of their tupolev tu-144 for the same reason. loud aircraft tend to have a hard time. especially when the military can't just say "tough shit it's absolutely necessary".
>>
>>1562640
Everything I could find about it says it was as loud as any other loud airplanes of the time.
>>
File: ConcordeInterior.jpg (55 KB, 740x493)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
why bother with SST when you can get there an hour later for half the price, on a vehicle that isn't a Pringles tube with wings & zero space for luggage
>>
>>1562585
Just say BOOM!
>>
>>1562640
Even the military isn't allowed to go supersonic over populated areas in peacetime.
>>
>>1562694
Was the cruising the was louder? Because the takeoff and landing had the same levels of noise than the other airliners.
>>
>>1562640
>twice as loud
So 3 more dB? That's not much
>>
>>1562658
>on a vehicle that isn't a Pringles tube with wings & zero space for luggage
I think a lot of /n/iggers forget that fact about the Concorde. It had first class service but the cabin was cramped, I would like to know how the seat width compared to business/first on other BA aircraft
>>
>>1562655
It was louder than everything else in an era of loud jets
>>
>>1562786
If you aren't schizophrenic and look at numbers...
>>1562655
>>1562779
>>
>>1562789
>and look at numbers...
post numbers don't mean much in this context
>>
>>1562782
10dB. a whole order of magnitude.
>>
>>1562630
Concorde at takeoff with full afterburner was loud as hell.

t. Grew up & lived in East Bristol (UK) and heard Concorde takeoff regularly from Filton and fly overhead out to the Bristol Channel.

And that wasn't even with a full commercial load so they didn't even hit it *full*.
>>
>>1562782
The decibel scale is logarithmic, dumbass.

>>1562658
>an hour later
Concorde could to East-West in 3 and a half hours. Commercial jetliners can do it now in just under 8 hours.
>>
>>1562779
>takeoff...had the same levels of noise than the other airliners
Concorde took off with full afterburners. So, no, not even fucking close.
>>
>>1562658
Boom claim that they'll be operate their plane at the same price point as current business class rates. Transpacific routes would require a fuel stop in Anchorage, or Honolulu for Australia routes, but it'd be a hell of a lot quicker.
>>
>>1562779
Supersonic aircraft create a shockwave.
That shockwave can be pretty damn strong, in case of an airliner at about Mach 2 you're looking at some broken windows.
So yes, it was pretty damn loud when cruising at supersonic speed.
>>
>>1562784
Realistically speaking, if a modern SST was created one of the first things to be addressed would be the size and design of the passenger cabin.
>>
File: L-2000.jpg (154 KB, 987x1200)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>1562615
because American technology can not compete
>>
yep Concorde is gonna fly again and Canadas gonna revive the Arrow
>>
File: 351gC.jpg (155 KB, 1024x706)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>1562862
I bet the shock wave does not even reach the ground @ 60,000 ft
princess and the pea might hear it tho
>>
>>1562918
https://youtu.be/annkM6z1-FE
quite as a mouse.
>>
>>1562922
yes barely even noticeable
like a car crash over a mile away
>>
>>1562834
>>1562836
Isn't the point of having an afterburner using it after you take off in subsonic speeds?

>>1562841
I hope it succeeds but the propulsion sucks.

>>1562908
Canada had great R&D before getting brazilified. Same for France, Germany and UK. Even Shitaly has some interesting industries.

>>1562925
Takeoff and landing was as loud as a trijet.
>>
>>1562841
It wouldn't even even twice as fast. You have to add in the extra distance and all the time on the ground for a refueling stop.
>>
>>1562922
I can see how that's a fair bit more noise pollution than your average jet but it's still fucking awesome
>>
>>1562900
durrrrr why didnt they think of that? white-coated scientists popping champagne corks at the R&D labs, just make the cabin wider!!, bing bong so simple
>>
>>1562971
>Isn't the point of having an afterburner using it after you take off in subsonic speeds?
They were used during takeoff for the Concorde
>>
>>1563043
shouda had a swing wing
>>1563041
so easy
>>
>droop snoot
>swang wang
Concorde woulda been the king of the Transformers.
>>
File: Concorde3.jpg (25 KB, 450x290)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>1563052
Con wing unleash ultimate attack !!!
>>
>>1562669
>BOOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kraWrYS6CsE
>>
>>1562900
It's way smaller on the 3 current proposed prototypes. But it uses the same propulsion technology as Concorde and not those intermediaries between turbines and rockets you hear about (SABRE?, detonation engines, ...).
>>
>>1562585
I know we probably won’t get the original Concorde, but this made me hype as fuck.
>>
>>1562585
Please OP, this is just because of the new supersonic private startups giving cash and stimulating the economy. If the foreign concordes were still running that ban would still be in effect. for a long time.
>>
>>1562694
OPERATION BONGO 2 INTENSIFIES.
>>
>>1562971
Concorde used afterburner for takeoff, turned it off for ascent then back on for transonic acceleration, then supercruised at mach 2 without them.
>>
>>1562658
>half the price
If only.

>>1563381
This is also how really really really obvious that the Concorde was Cold War-era tech: designed in the late 50s/early 60s, first flew in the 60s, went into factory production just in time for the 70s oil crisis. And we learned nothing, other than airlines are yet another business 'too big to fail' without state bailouts
>>
>>1562835
Private jet will deliver your faster as you don't tied to schedule, no humiliating tsa checks, masks wearing, can smoke on plane etc. Cattle wagons btfo.
>>
>>1563505
It's >Wikipedia, so I expect no less, but it's pretty disingenuous to compare a business class-only SST ticket to an economy ticket on a regular airplane. Even today, business class tickets on regular planes for trans-oceanic flights can get close to that price difference.
>>
File: file.jpg (263 KB, 1677x608)
263 KB
263 KB JPG
>>1563588
It's right there in the source link, see my screenshot. "New Design Concepts for High Speed Air Transport", published 1997.

Still, the fact remains that the price difference is there; halving the flight time for 10x the cost may be fine for the Patrick Bateman class, for whom the bill is paid by the company account, but somewhat less appealing to everyone else.
>>
>>1563591
Your own link says that business class on regular airlines was still more than half of the cost of a Concorde ticket, for double the flight time, and first class about the same price. Economy class can't be factored in to the comparison for the Concorde's economics specifically, because that's a different class of service entirely and is priced accordingly. Had SSTs continued to develop instead of being cancelled by fear mongering, political grandstanding, and NIMBYism, the increases in efficiency that go hand in hand with new engines and new fuselage and wing designs would see prices driven down in the same way that we've seen with airfare today getting cheaper and cheaper and becoming far more accessible. Likewise, you'd undoubtedly have started seeing larger SST designs that were configured with an economy class or premium economy class in mind, making it more accessible to middle-class vacationers in addition to the bread and butter of business travelers that make it possible for long-haul airlines to make a profit to begin with.
>>
>>1563612
>NIMBYism
>it's bad when people don't want their windows broken and eardrums ripped every morning
Yet more evidence that NIMBY is actually a good thing contrary to what antisocial ancap idiots advocate
>>
>>1563525
Not true. The Jets are usually slower, you will have to wait for takeoff slots longer since you are lower priority. It's just a exclusivity and flexing on poorfag thing
>>
>>1563076
>they actually built a plane
Color me impressed.
>>
>>1563648
A the demonstrator that has been delayed for years. Why exactly is that impressive?
>>
>>1563612
Uh yeah. You literally can't have a full service airline be profitable or even really sustainable as a business without economy passengers.
>>
>>1563673
Yes you can, it just needs to focus on specific city pairs. Many airlines have done this.
>>
>>1563678
Name some
>>
>>1563678
>>1563673
For the record, I'm not the concorde fan. I think supersonic business travel is vaporware. I'm just responding to the point about all business class airlines
>>
>>1563673
>>1563680
That's wrong though. Business class is what makes or breaks an airline for long-haul. And for the record, I was not talking about all-biz airlines, I meant long-haul airlines in general operating multi-class planes. Broadly speaking, on multi-class airlines flying long-haul routes, about 1/3 of revenue per flight comes from Economy class. PE, biz, and first make up the remaining 2/3, and a full biz class alone makes more than a full econ class despite only having 1/3 to 1/4 the seats. The econ-only market does not provide the revenue necessary for an airline to survive on long-haul routes, while all-biz long-haul airlines can be successful in some markets, like La Compagnie.

And my point >>1563612 was that as SSTs get larger and more efficient, it would get to the point where the airlines are no longer able to reliably fill the flights in a business-only configuration. Then, PE or econ mixed class configurations would be set up to fill the plane and help cover the cost of operating the flight. But at the time, biz-only absolutely made sense on the Concorde because it didn't have many seats, and the low seat count meant the airline could reliably fill those seats with business passengers without having to resort to configuring it for economy seats.
>>
concorde cannot fail, it can only be failed
>>
>>1563672
Are you retarded? Projects with no physical prototype are a dime a dozen. Actually constructing a (we'll see when it gets tested) working prototype is a massive step and something almost all startups fail to do. It's one thing to dream and design. It's a totally different endeavor to actually build.
>>
>>1563679
L'Avion, La Compagnie, Privatair, etc
>>1563685
>that's wrong, for example (names reasons why I'm right)
....
>>
>>1563711
I don't know how you can spin hundreds of econ passengers making the airline less money than 30 business passengers per flight as supporting your position that airlines are unsustainable without economy class, but whatever. You do you bud. There's a reason airlines added PE and are cutting first class to add more business seats. Business makes money, econ barely breaks even.
>>
>>1563701
It's not a prototype, it's a demonstrator. They haven't even prototyped their product yet.
>>
>>1563711
None of those are even profitable and many similarly modelled airlines have gone under.
>>
>>1563630
>>1563673
Technology tends to improve without fucking sandniggers and normies ruining it.
SSTs were supposed to have new propulsion systems since late 70's if it wasn't for the typical problems with the hivemind.
>>
>>1562621
We used to turn the telly down to listen to it. Everybody loved concorde who lived under it
>>
>>1562925

now imagine hundreds, possibly thousands of those a day over heavily trafficked regions. I love aviation and Concorde, no thank you.
>>
>>1562658
I've been on a Concorde at RAF Duxford and it's bloody claustrophobic
>>
>>1563846
Like over London and it was fine?
>>
>>1562585
>waaaah i want sst fuck spending a 8hours to fly across the pond
>but i don't want to pay for it
stop acting like fucking brats
>>
i get that its difficult to hear things from all the way up on your high horse, but we *were* talking about the economics of sst
>>
>>1563381
It's astonishing how loud Concorde is. Full afterburner at takeoff, then a gigantic BOOM BOOM as it hits mach speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MCETiKCLhc

>>1563918
For real. 0:58 shows how cramped the cabin is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb31KeYWuwQ - if you're 6ft+ prepare for a long, uncomfortable flight lol
>>
And another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ShTUVIzCI. It sets peoples' car alarms off lol

Also
>goku(?) shirt
>poppers
>ski-jump hair gel
Ladies and gentlemen, the turn of the millennium lol
>>
>>1564053
>Full afterburner at takeoff
Yeah this is loud, but had SSTs continued to develop instead of essentially ending for multiple decades with the Concorde, you'd undoubtedly be seeing designs where afterburner is not required for takeoff, bringing noise levels close to the airport in line with regular jets.

>then a gigantic BOOM BOOM as it hits mach speed
This doesn't happen anywhere near the takeoff period though. The video you posted clips to a point out over the ocean where it actually breaks the sound barrier. It's not like they're going supersonic once they hit 10k AGL over Long Island, and limiting them to going supersonic at 50k-60k would have pretty much eliminated the boom for anyone on the ground for overland routes.

>0:58 shows how cramped the cabin is
I dunno boss, that's a lot more spacious than a modern 737, which routinely does 5-7 hour flights. Similar to a 1-2 layout or 2-2 layout regional jet. Technically smaller fuselage area, but the seat layout gives much more personal space per passenger than you'd have on a larger jet. Also, it's not like these seats were the 30" pitch you'd get on modern Delta, American, or LCCs.
>>
>>1564060
>I dunno boss, that's a lot more spacious than a modern 737
A 737 fuselage is over a meter wider than the Concorde's
>>
>>1564054
>that little punk kid is now banging stacies
>>
>>1564063
With a 3-3 layout instead of a 2-2, and less pitch than the Concorde as well. Concorde gave 38" of pitch to the entire cabin, about equivalent to modern long-haul premium economy seats. Width was about 18" according to flyertalk, which is completely fine unless you're badly obese and also about the same as modern long-haul PE. A passenger on a Concorde has more seat space than anyone except first class in today's 737s.
>>
>>1564071
You're comparing 737 coach to Concorde which was all first class iirc.

Should be comparing Concorde seats to first class on another BA transatlantic a/c
>>
File: BA Concorde 1995.jpg (24 KB, 400x300)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>1564071
Forgot my image

>>1564074
>You're comparing 737 coach to Concorde which was all first class iirc.
Because anon claimed it was cramped just because the cabin itself was narrow and had a low ceiling, despite each individual passenger having a large amount of personal space equivalent to today's long-haul premium econ products, on a shorter flight than many of the routes operated by 737s and regional jets today.

>Should be comparing Concorde seats to first class on another BA transatlantic a/c
Concorde doesn't really fit into the standard long-haul dichotomy, because it made a long-haul flight a short-haul. The food and bev service was the equivalent of First class on a long-haul jet, and arguably better than what BA serves in first class today. Seats were equivalent to modern day premium economy, then-business class of the 1980s-90s, though narrower and less pitch (but still more than economy, and PE as a product did not exist yet). It never made sense to put the pull-out bed business class seats of the early 2000s, or the first class cradle recliners of the '80s, on the Concorde because a Concorde flight was usually around 3.5 hours while a normal TATL flight would be at least double that.
>>
>>1564098
>Because anon claimed it was cramped just because the cabin itself was narrow and had a low ceiling
So yes, it was cramped

>Concorde doesn't really fit into the standard long-haul dichotomy
God shut up
>>
File: Club-World-cradle-4.jpg (811 KB, 3402x2354)
811 KB
811 KB JPG
>>1564098
Meanwhile, pic-related is 1990s BA business class cradle seat. The pitch is necessary to give enough room to extend the seat for sleeping, which wasn't a concern for the Concorde due to the much shorter flight times. Concorde was not operating 8-14 hour flights, so no reason to install sleeper seats and most passengers would be eating and drinking rather than sleeping during the flight.
>>
>>1564100
Thank you for conceding your defeat :^)
>>
>>1564101
So the seats were shittier on the Concorde. Thanks

>>1564102
Nope :^)
>>
>>1564103
The eternal cluster B retard:
> I can flight at supersonic speeds
> But hey, where is the mobile gay sauna and massage chair? Worthless.
>>
>>1564117
*can fly

Thanks for your sociopathic kind for this brain damage by the way.
>>
>>1564117
Well, it was cramped on board, especially considering it was first class service
>>
>>1564119
That was the point, you can't understand how gay you are.
>>
>>1564119
If you read flyertalk reports from people who flew it, even self-described fat bastards and 6ft+ people were fine.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles-pre-worldperks-merger/58094-af-concorde-trip-report.html
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/32896-concorde-seat-size.html
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/31567-width-pitch-concorde-seats.html
>I can't understand why some people say the Concorde in a cramped and uncomfortable plane in which to fly. I found the seats quite fine for a trip of under four hours, and the cabin and seating doesn't feel any more cramped than domestic F in the USA
>From reading some of the negative comments before flying BA2, I was almost expecting the feel of a CRJ. I suspect much of this comes from the fact most here are so spoiled having flown wide bodies, they forget what DC8s and 707s were like, and what we endured in the good old days of jet travel.
>The seats are absolutely fine for a <4 hour flight. I found them more comfortable than AA's terrible domestic F blue seats. Pitch is fine except for the exposed bump on the floor from the seat cross bar

You're judging it as cramped by a characteristic that only matters during the 30 minutes spent embarking and debarking, not the butt-in-seat time.
>>
>>1564146
No I did a cursory google search and found some accounts from Concorde passengers who described it as being cramped
>>
>>1564147
Then by all means post them. I gave you threads to peruse here >>1564146. The first google results are clickbait news articles, and a Quora thread where only a handful of the posts call it cramped. The general attitude between Quora and Flyertalk comes out as "average seat comfort, amazing service", and this is coming from mostly upper-crust travelers used to flying in comfort.
>>
>>1564159
So as I've been saying, it was cramped flying on one. Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
>>
>majority of passengers think its fine
>OMG ITS FUCKING CRAMPED t.1564161

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
>>
>>1564165
>majority of passengers think its fine
Source?
>>
>>1562694
Yeh i remember the shitstorm when 2 jets went supersonic near a city center here in Italy because apparently that tends to ruin mosaics and affreschi
>>
>>1562694
Well...
https://www.france24.com/en/20200930-sonic-boom-from-fighter-jet-rattles-paris
>>
>>1564064
That little punk kid is 30 and battling depression
>>
>>1562630
Dude noise abatement is a thing all airports have to deal with. Depending on where they are located, they can straight up shut down after like 9.

And that's not even going into how the Concorde was a non-economic moneypit.
>>
>>1562585
And somehow Elon Musk will be the sole person involved and charge whatever price he feels like charging per flight that day.
>>
>>1562585
>the Irish and Spanish will stop being mas about Concordes fucking up their windows
No, no they wont.
>>
>>1562971
Wdym by "Brazilified"? What does Brazil have to do with Canada (yes I am dumb, please dont be mean I am curious and want to know more)
>>
>>1563041
what is ~70 years of R&D?
>>
>>1566025
I don't know. What is it?
>>
>>1566026
An air plane that doesn't have a cramped and unprofitable cabin layout.
>>
>>1566028
>doesn't have a cramped cabin layout
When?
>>
>>1562585
Hella loud and fuel swallowing. It's better that those things are gone.
>>
>>1566211
see original comment you spud
>>
>>1566246
So, in another 70 years then.
>>
>>1566253
why are you so retarded anon? Are you for play plays or for real reals?
>>
>>1562908
Those specs for the Arrow are with P&W engines. The original plan was to switch to Orenda Iroquois.
>>
>>1562922
Video is a lot lower than 60k ft.
>>
>>1563076
Why are they using an Air Force experimental bomber designation? Imagine the panic in some foreign air defense HQ when a B-1 approaches at Mach 2.
>>
File: ValkyriePassenger2.jpg (26 KB, 960x576)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>1562904
Shoulda hired someone with a track record in building these things.
>>
File: lockheed L-2000.jpg (111 KB, 1493x453)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>1568761
the L-2000 was a non meme proposal that should have been selected. this was at the same time the SR-71 was just built, so they had more than enough experience.
>>
>>1562585
The Sonic Swan returns.
>>
>>1563588
Buying a business-class seat on a regular plane does not get you there faster. Concorde seats were LESS roomy, and less luxurious in every way except time/speed. So for everyone who is not a CEO with a company Platinum Card, that comparison is perfectly apt.
>>
>>1562585
Concorde sucked
>>
>>1562658
look how excited they all are
>>
>>1562908
Arrow would be a good way to get around the fighter jet replacement debate
let's just onshore that tech



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.