Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B oeing_2707</a> Wow...never heard of this one before...how neat! A WIDE-BODY Concorde (essentially). Funny how the supersonic era never quite materialized...I really wish it had! *sigh* My personal take on the issue is that we WOULD have gone totally supersonic (and this prototype from Boeing sort of reinforces that) if the dang booms hadn't been so loud. (I realize there are cost issues and all, but I'm fairly convinced they would have been addressed and fixed if not for the sonic boom problem) Always wanted to somehow save up enough cash to fly Concorde, but those dreams were dashed in 2003.
Originally Posted By Mr X Although I could be wrong on my theory that all the cost issues could have been resolved. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C oncorde</a> ***Due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel taxiing to the runway. To conserve fuel only the two outer engines were run after landing. The thrust from two engines was sufficient for taxiing to the ramp due to low aircraft weight upon landing at its destination. A Concorde once ran out of fuel taxiing to the terminal after a flight; the pilot was dismissed.*** Wow...talk about a gas guzzler! SUV owners take heart!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I have a feint recollection of the American SST program. The booms are what they are and I suppose there was not enough political will to overcome that. The fuel problems could have been handled then (and much conservation could take place now) if they would have towed the plane out to the runway and towed it back in on landing. I don't recall the numbers but I've read somewhere about how much fuel could be saved if we went back to that practice.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's an incredibly geeky (but cool) fact I found...it IS possible to see the sun rise in the west! "Excluding travel near the poles, the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 were the only passenger airplanes able to overtake the terminator. On certain early evening transatlantic flights departing from Heathrow or Paris, it was possible to take off at night and catch up with the sunset — from the cockpit you could see the sun rise in the west."
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I too wish I had a chance to ride the Concorde (though I'm too cheap to ever pay for a ticket). I did see it a few times in airshows and at the airport in Miami and Ft Lauderdale. In fact, I have a picture of the one that crashed.
Originally Posted By Mr X Wahoo...that's an interesting point, I wonder how the logistics would have worked though (it'd have to be a very different system than we have today, where airplanes are just pushed back and then move around on their own).
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I want to say, don't quote me, that Richard Branson was proposing that all aircraft be towed to and from the runway which would save 10% of the fuel planes use today. In addition, he proposes that aircrafts land and wait on the tarmac for an available gate rather than circle in the sky...saving even more fuel. I believe Virgin may already be doing this. (The towing vehicles run on electric instead of diesel.)
Originally Posted By Mr X I only saw it once on the ground and once in the air (don't know which airline in each case)... The once on the ground was at JFK, where I saw it (looked really tiny!) while taxiing in another jet. The once in the air was over my very own house near Boston...I couldn't believe my eyes (but I knew right away what I was looking at). RAN inside to tell everyone to come and look, and they came and told me I must have been imagining things because it was a "regular" plane. Later, on the news, I heard that a Concorde had made an unscheduled landing in Boston.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It landed in Miami on a regular schedule for a number of years and once in a while they would have an "around-the-world" flight that would make a stop in Ft. Lauderdale. I agree, I was disappointed by how "small" it appeared. But, what a great looking piece of machinery. All the ingenuity these days is being put into chips and processors but that was one fine looking airplane.
Originally Posted By Mr X Branson has some interesting proposals, but I imagine that would involve some serious logistic and safety issues beyond cost (particularly...do you want a "semi-qualified" driver wheeling around on the runways with planes coming and going as they do?).
Originally Posted By Mr X Yup...I LOVED the way Concorde looked. Plus I'm a speed buff anyway (my biggest hype on moving to Japan was to ride the FASTEST bullet train I could, and I paid a lot extra to do it). The cockpit, on the other hand...if you check out the wiki article you can see that poor, awsome plane did NOT get the proper upgrades over the years (no competition to improve). Yikes! Looks like something out of a 1960's "airport" movie! lol.
Originally Posted By Mr X About the size, Wahoo, I don't think "disappointed" was the correct terminology in my case...more like shocked. But, when I thought about it...the whole idea of that plane was to be a high speed needle (just like the bullet trains of late)...so it made a lot of sense BUT that Boeing widebody looked AWSOME, which is why I brought up the topic!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper My wife had similar feelings when she first saw my Concorde...but what it lack's in capacity it makes up for in range. I've always wanted to ride the bullet train. Was it as exciting as you hoped it would be? I rode that Eurostar while in Italy but it wasn't necessarily high speed.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In addition, he proposes that aircrafts land and wait on the tarmac for an available gate rather than circle in the sky...saving even more fuel. I believe Virgin may already be doing this.>> That would be OK except it seems that aircraft air-conditioning doesn't work worth a darn when you are on the ground. Until they can change that I would probably prefer circling in the sky. As for SST's... I'm still hopeful that someday the problems will be overcome and we will all be able to experience supersonic flight at a semi-reasonable cost.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I was very excited about the SST program, another one of those cool projects that was fueled by competition with foreign powers. I can't remember if I had the model kit of the proposed swing-wing version of the plane, but I look at them on eBay from time to time. Original kits used to get upwards of $200.00, but it was re-issued so you can get a "new" one for about $40.00.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I've always wanted to ride the bullet train. Was it as exciting as you hoped it would be?** It was............although it's such a "ho hum" thing in Japan that the hype certainly wasn't shared by anyone on the train but me, lol. And, on purpose, it was the Nozomi 500...the absolute fastest one (AND I was dumb enough to pay for first class too!). They didn't make many, cause they're not cost effective (gee...sound familiar?). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/500_Series_Shinkansen" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5 00_Series_Shinkansen</a> I've been on a bunch more rides since then (always the cheaper, slower versions...though still bullet quick), and sadly, it DOES tend to become "just another train ride" after a while. But the first time, I was definitely a little kid on Christmas morning.
Originally Posted By Mr X Doesn't that 500 just look like something out of Star Wars though? LOVE it...(same as I love the Concorde for pretty much the same reasons).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Wow...it looks like a toothpick.>> It's not the size.. it's how you use it... ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X Oh, come on guys... Airbrush out the track and the wheels, and that would fit right into a George Lucas landscape WOULD IT NOT? Skip...a "toothpick"?? lol. Well, anyway *I* thought it looked pretty cool.
