New Airbus supersonic commercial jet in the works

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by webber f1 racer, Sep 23, 2014.

  1. #1 webber f1 racer, Sep 23, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  2. I hope they managed to take care of takeoff sound issue
  3. cool , my grandmother would always fly Concorde when she traveled and would bring me back the model planes... would love to fly at supersonic speed to Asia
  4. Richgrandma
  5. "the world's first supersonic jet in 2021"

  6. The first one in 2021!
  7. They better release on January 1st so they don't get beat!
  8. Takeoff sound was never the issue. You never take off that fast, and people who buy homes next to airports shouldn't be surprised that its noisy. Cruise sound was always the issue, which is why Concorde never went supersonic unless it was over water (where nobody but Kevin Costner lives).

    But even noise wasn't the thing that killed Concorde. The thing that killed Concorde was its fuel burn: five times that of a 747 per seat-mile, for a 747 of the same era (fuel burn versus a modern 748 say, or worse a B787 or A350, would be laughable). Which meant five times the ticket price, and first-class ticket prices for business-class seats. Unfortunately, what people say they want and what people want aren't the same; people don't want complimentary meals and checked bags, and they certainly don't want complimentary booze. People want to pay as little as possible to get where they're going (outside of low-cost carriers, several 'full-service' international airlines, including Air Canada and Delta, don't even offer first class because they make no money off of it). Well, fuel burn and the fact that Concorde never left the prototyping stage.

    I suppose that's why the only proposals for supersonic civilian aircraft are all business jets.
  9. Really thought it was the noise, but fuel price makes so much sense.

    Agree on the airport thing... I'm 6.6km from a regional airport that serves also P&W's testing grounds for new engines. Its kind of annoying only at night when Pascan comes in (they fp is right above my haus)

    glad its only small jets though!
  10. Maribel would actually be surprisingly bad (or good if you're a nerd, 'cause P&WC is one of the only 747SP operators left in the world). Final assembly for Bombardier/Bell, P&WC testing, who cares. They operate on daytime hours. But cargo airlines? Who all use Maribel? They love operating in the middle of the night.
  11. yeah but Mirabel is the best airport WITHOUT a way to get to it (train/bus/subway). Just a shitty secondary highway. Montreal failed so hard at this, I still can't understand why they did this.

    Its indeed quite isolated. They actually got the contract sent out to get it destroyed and keep only the runways and couples hangars for the cargo airlines
  12. When Mirabel was planned and built Montreal was Canada's largest city and financial centre (BMO and RBC only moved to Toronto in the late 70s), and scheduled flights from Europe were required to land at Montreal, and so YUL had explosive growth and was going to be outgrown. Mirabel was therefore built with capacity for 50M annual pax, with plans for two autoroutes and a rail link straight to Gare Centrale. As landing requirements were relaxed, and as Montreal experienced a decline relative to Toronto, Mirabel no longer filled a need. I'm not sure that's a failure on Montreal's part, just bad circumstances (unlike Olympic Stadium, which is actually a failure on Montreal's part).

    What's worse is that Trudeau has had a train station in its basement for five years with all the track laid connecting to the AMT VH-line, but they can't get a rail link in place because ADM, AMT, CP, and CN can't decide how to operate it together (and both STM and VIA don't want to honor transfers).
  13. This is now a Montreal thread. Where are you, Jean Marie?
  14. yeah lol @ Trudeau's underground train station - useless.. they spoke about it on the news lately, somehow Coderre has plans to use it "soon".

    Bad circumstances and a clear lack of vision. Its easy to see that there would have been a shortage of land on the island for development and that the airport was taking way too much land. Imagine all the possible development with such a land now? Mirabel is in the middle of no where on the other hand - Indeed use the train that goes under Mont-Royal and its done.

    Happy citizens and travellers.

  15. How did Concorde never leave the prototyping stage? It was in service for almost 30 years.

    BA used to turn a profit on the Concorde towards the end of its life, so it did fill a niche. Bums on seats works for the majority of people, but there are a hell of a lot of people who also want to fly at the front of the plane.
  16. In today's money, the British and French taxpayers put down about £10 billion to get Concorde flying (which Air France and BA did not absorb). When BA bought it's 7 examples of Concorde from the British government, the UK was willing to put down a loss of £100 million per airframe in today's money just to get rid of them - BA got a 75% discount. For the 7 British Concordes, BA covered about 5-10% of the total capital cost, with the British taxpayer on the hook for the remaining 95%. Despite that, it's debatable if they ever covered their capital costs.

    If you want an idea of the type of margins the airline industry works with, Delta Airlines (the second-largest airline in the world, and one of the more profitable) made an after-tax profit of approximately $2,000 USD per flight. Mind you, today BA remains the only airline willing to attempt an all-business class flight from London to New York - on a super-economical A318.

    And when I say that it never left the prototype stage, I mean it had a production run of 14 (with the last two "official" prototypes in the same batch as all "production" aircraft), and because it never reached volume production it never used volume production techniques. Most of the faults in the prototype aircraft were also in the production aircraft; they had to be fixed 'on-line' instead of at the design level. This contributed to the enormous maintenance costs.
  17. Whilst we're on the topic of engineering, it's pretty damn impressive that India has gotten it's spacecraft into orbit around Mars for US$75million... about a tenth of the cost of the NASA mission. I know the United States development of the Orion rocket is already well underway, but damn... if the will to send a crew to Mars falls through you'd be brave to doubt that India couldn't carry on with their own progress.
  18. #18 nappyjb37, Sep 24, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I definitely agree; India has been making huge steps in an field long dominated by a small club. But comparing MOM and MAVEN on a one-to-one basis isn't entirely correct. It's not like a supermarket where every bottle of ketchup is pretty much the same; every mission attempts something wildly different and so even within one agency costs can vary wildly. For example, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor mapped the surface of Mars at a cost $200M. A decade later they decided they wanted to do the exact same mission at a much higher resolution and as such the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter had a 65kg primary camera as opposed to Surveyor's 10kg unit. The cost of a 55kg upgrade? $1 billion USD.

    Edit: this is the resolution difference we're talking about:
  19. I'm fairly sure Airbus just wants access to their IP in their laminar flow patents. This is a company that has never brought any product to market, saying they're going to bring a fully-functional transonic jetliner out in seven years? Yeah, right.
  20. We woke up NB
  21. I work for a company that makes all of a particular safety product for airbus - so far we haven't gotten an RFQ from the regarding this program nor are any code named programs like this product.
  22. Sounds like she's breaking up with you ;_;

Share This Page