Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Users

User: Andy+B+123

Andy+B+123's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
2
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 2

  1. Re:Economics? on Son of Concorde · · Score: 1
    but let's never forget that British Airways and Air France lost money hand-over-fist with the whole venture
    I'm not sure Air France made money with Concorde, but for BA, Concorde was operated at a substantial profit for many years. Figures between 400 and 600 million over 15 years float around the internet. BA invested a lot of money after the Paris crash getting their flagship back in the skies. Ask yourself why they bothered, if Concorde was losing them money? BA don't get money from the UK government. Unlike Air France, BA is a private company answerable only to its shareholders, though ironically, one of the factors pushing AF to stop flying Concorde is undoubtedly that the French Government decided to privatise its stake in AF. So for BA, it looks like a case of events overtaking their plans for a return to a profitable operation of Concorde. By the way- do you know how much extra a Concorde seat uses in fuel over a 747 seat? It's about 300. That's only a small part of the ticket price on Concorde. The issue isn't fuel. It's about all the other operational costs of running an aircraft in the 21st century that was designed in the sixties. Please do not rubbish supersonic travel just because Concorde was expensive and limited. It was just a first attempt.
  2. Re:Here's a way better solution. on Son of Concorde · · Score: 1
    Besides, by limiting the plane's top speed to Mach 1.7 the level of afterburning needed to keep up this speed is smaller than what you need for Mach 2.0 operation, and that also reduces noise emissions
    I'm not sure you realise how well the 60s designers did their job with Concorde. When accelerating to Mach 2, Concorde only used the afterburners on takeoff, and then to accelerate between mach 0.95 and 1.7. For most of the journey, it would power along with only dry thrust, at Mach 2 or a little higher. Incidentally, the Concorde developers were intending to introduce a 'B' version which had more powerful engines, longer range and no need for afterburners at all. But the orders were cancelled and it never made it to production. That was decades ago now. Go to www.concordesst.com for details of this version. I think that the modern world can do a little better than Mach 1.7, 4 decades after the designers were working on the aircraft whos final flight has just landed in Filton, UK.