Viable SST...

[Archibald]

Ok, the supersonic passenger programs ended in failure. Concorde was never econonmically viable, and the American SST never left the drawing board.
But off course, we are in a whatiff world...

Concorde

A -B variant was planned. (http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html)
According to this website, it get ride off the reheat and could have extended the range up to 8000kms (5000 miles). There was still the problem of sonic booms, but after all, most important airways were clearly north-atlantic and trans-pacific.
with 8000 km range, more European airlines could have bought Concorde, even if it had to flew subsonically over a part of Europe (Lufthansa, Iberia, TAP, Swissair, Alitalia ?)

Boeing 2707-300

After they understood that VG was not the good way to go, Boeing wisely chose a tailed-delta.
More, after Concorde demise, airlines and constructors tried to iamgine a SST economically viable. The answer was as follow, 250 passengers at mach 2.7, 90 meters long for around 350 tons.
(why mach 2.7? because it allowed four daily trips between NY and Europe, respecting the airports restrictions (7 o'clock in the morning, 23h o'clock in the evening) )
This closely match the american SST caracteristics...maybe it could have been economically viable between Europe and NY?

What would have happen had Boeing put its SST into service?
In every case, supersonic transport would have not stop with concorde in 2003  

[Tornado]

A great what-if but the fuel price rises of the 1970s would have killed many commercial prospects compared to those ugly 747s. Even today the more modest Sonic Cruiser ended in failure.

New diagram of the Concorde B, there is another second-gen Concorde with a slightly humped fuselage too.

[Archibald]

aparently they replaced the afterburner by a kind of bypass engine (The growth potential of the Olympus was really fantastic...). This was probably the first step to the variable cycle engine which could propell the future SST... in 25 years?

[Runway ? ...]

Man, I just wish we'd just kept tweaking the design through the years, as happens with everything else, instead of waiting for it to get all messy and then washing our(governments) hands of it.

RIP (the plane, the concept, and not least the fellows that died).

It's gonna take somebody with more money than sense to resurrect the full size supersonic airliner. If the US government isn't up for it then it leaves the likes of the Saudis or certain Russians to take up the reins but I suspect the Executive SST it the only way forward.

[jcf]

A great what-if but the fuel price rises of the 1970s would have killed many commercial prospects compared to those ugly 747s.

Ugly 747?! Excuse me but she is a beautiful bird and by far the best looking of the  standard commercial jets...and it wasn't just fuel cost that led to her being the reigning "Queen of the Skies", it was capacity and efficiency. Something that none of the pointy(and pointless) supersonic jobs could or would have been able to match.
The 747 revolutionised air travel and made intercontinental travel available to the masses rather than just the wealthy...a revolution that the supersonic jobbies would not have enabled.

And yes I'm biased having worked on and around the 747 for a number of years.

The fast pointies, while somewhat pretty(personally I find deltas boring), are still economically nonviable and, barring a breakthrough in technology, will remain so for the foreseeable future. State subsidised "Show Horses" are hard too justify in this age.

Jon

[elmayerle]

I find it interesting that the V-G feature is one main reason Boeing's SST desgin was selected over Lockheed's, yet Boeing's final design bears a remarkable resemblance to Lockheed's.  Since Lockheed had chosen an afterburing turbofan for propulsion (a P&W engine, appropriate since they had the major US experience at the time with afterburning turbofans) rather than a straight turbojet, it likely would've been more fuel efficient, too.  

[jcf]

I find it interesting that the V-G feature is one main reason Boeing's SST desgin was selected over Lockheed's, yet Boeing's final design bears a remarkable resemblance to Lockheed's.  Since Lockheed had chosen an afterburing turbofan for propulsion (a P&W engine, appropriate since they had the major US experience at the time with afterburning turbofans) rather than a straight turbojet, it likely would've been more fuel efficient, too.

...and all of the M-D, Boeing, NASA HSCT and the current Japanese/US/Russian etcetera designs also look like Lockheed's tailed arrow-delta.

Funny thing about physics and fluid flow...eh, Whot?

And here's the mini-me Lockheed:




QSST

Cheers, Jon

[Archibald]

I find it interesting that the V-G feature is one main reason Boeing's SST desgin was selected over Lockheed's, yet Boeing's final design bears a remarkable resemblance to Lockheed's.  Since Lockheed had chosen an afterburing turbofan for propulsion (a P&W engine, appropriate since they had the major US experience at the time with afterburning turbofans) rather than a straight turbojet, it likely would've been more fuel efficient, too.

Here we are...a tailed delta (to improve fuel consuption and handling at low speeds) with turbofans (for subsonic flight) and afterburner (for supersonic cruise over the oceans)...  No oil crisis... Lockheed L-2000 economically viable ?

Never say never : 10 years ago, the Super-Jumbo (500+ passengers) and the SST seemed both non-starters. Now, the super-jumbo had become real...

[elmayerle]

Well, I'm one of those contrary types who think the US would've been better served if Boeing had won the C-5 competition and Lockheed the SST instead of the other way around.

[Archibald]

That's seem quite logical. On one hand,The 747 had much less problems than the C-5 (87 C-5 were produced Vs 1400 747... ok, this analysis is a bit biased)
And, as you said, it seemed that Lockheed project was more viable that Boeing monster...
In every case, the cancellation of the SST in 1971 would have been the end for Lockheed (after the Cheyenne, C-5, D-21 and Tristar disasters or cancellations...)  
But thanks to the vital Trident ICBM , Lockheed was saved...

[elmayerle]

Ah, but the Tristar was not a technical disaster, it was, and is, IMHO, a better aircraft that the DC-10 and was ready ahead of the DC-10, except for the engines.  If it hadn't been for the problems RR had with the engines, they'd've drastically outsold the DC-10.  As it was, they were about to change to the CF6 when the US government gave them a loan and the British government "restructured" RR.

[jcf]

But only as a directly state subsidised show horse and we have yet to see how it will pan out in service. Hopefully all will go well.

BTW the 747 has been flying with more than 500 hundred passengers for years.
The ANA 747-481 config seats 550 and the -481D seats 569. JAL 747-446D config seats 568.

The first 747-8 is line number 1411 and rollout is set for Septemeber 4, 2008.

Cheers, Jon

[Archibald]

But only as a directly state subsidised show horse and we have yet to see how it will pan out in service. Hopefully all will go well.

BTW the 747 has been flying with more than 500 hundred passengers for years.
The ANA 747-481 config seats 550 and the -481D seats 569. JAL 747-446D config seats 568.

The first 747-8 is line number 1411 and rollout is set for Septemeber 4, 2008.

Cheers, Jon

What the hell with horses today ?  ^_^
550 passengers, that's sure, but what range? 8000km max. These planes only fly on the Japanese internal lines.
Quite normal, the 747 being little than the A380, you can reach the same number of passengers but you have to cut the range

In every case, a 747 will never carry 850 passengers. The 747-8 is smaller, but nevertheless confirm the rightness of  Airbus approach on super-jumbo (simply because its a Boeing answer, this mean that boeing is worried. )  
Just like the A350 confirm the rightness of the 787 concept (this mean that Airbus is worried, too)

As Boeing and airbus are alone on the market, the question is not "who will won the battle". Quite simply, if one of the two go bankrupt... well, its unbearable for the Airlines...they couldn't stand a monopolistic constructor.

[jcf]

But only as a directly state subsidised show horse and we have yet to see how it will pan out in service. Hopefully all will go well.

BTW the 747 has been flying with more than 500 hundred passengers for years.
The ANA 747-481 config seats 550 and the -481D seats 569. JAL 747-446D config seats 568.

The first 747-8 is line number 1411 and rollout is set for Septemeber 4, 2008.

Cheers, Jon

What the hell with horses today ?  ^_^
550 passengers, that's sure, but what range? 8000km max. These planes only fly on the Japanese internal lines.
Quite normal, the 747 being little than the A380, you can reach the same number of passengers but you have to cut the range

In every case, a 747 will never carry 850 passengers. The 747-8 is smaller, but nevertheless confirm the rightness of  Airbus approach on super-jumbo (simply because its a Boeing answer, this mean that boeing is worried. )  
Just like the A350 confirm the rightness of the 787 concept (this mean that Airbus is worried, too)

As Boeing and airbus are alone on the market, the question is not "who will won the battle". Quite simply, if one of the two go bankrupt... well, its unbearable for the Airlines...they couldn't stand a monopolistic constructor.

No Boeing is not worried as they, along with MC-D, studied double-decker super-jumbos for years before the A380 was even a glimmer in Airbus' eye. The numbers didn't add up and they still don't for anything other than a very small number of high density routes...routes that are dominated by a few state carriers. I doubt very much if any US airlines will buy the A380 in the near future for the simple reason that their current route structures don't have the required density to support a Super-Jumbo.

The -8 configuration is being driven by what customers want and in the case of the fuselage stretch that is something that British Airways wanted on the -400 when it was being developed in the late eighties. I assure you that continued 747 development is not being driven by fear of the A380 or the "rightness" of its form...its being driven by the 747's continued profitability.

I wouldn't hold my breath on 850 seat versions for the 380 any time soon, probably the only customers for that config would be China for domestic flights or Emirates for a hajj special...that's provided they don't go for the 1,000 passenger prayer rug only model.  

[Archibald]

This old theoria... more aircrafts with less passengers (787) Vs one aircraft with a high number of passengers (A380) ... two points of view which are definitely opposed
simle mathematics... the A380 need 250 orders to permit Airbus earning money with it. Now, even Boeing (which is pessimistic over the A380, quite normal!) said that the market is for 400 aircrafts (Airbus says 800 to 1100 or something like that).
But thanks Boeing having left the Super Jumbo market to Airbus. This doubled the number of orders the A380 could expect and made the program less risky
aparently 159 customers also know what is good for us, and be sure this number will growth on the following weeks and months...Even Singapore Airlines didn't cancelled its order after the serious trouble Airbus fought those last weeks...

Hope this thread won't end in fierce battle a la "Key publishing aviation forum" (god I HATE this forum so much for that!)