[QUOTE=evilking1;25530112]Concorde just too goddamn expensive to operate, I have been inside the one in New York, cramped too...[/QUOTE]
I'll rather be in a cramped jet for 2 hours than 10-12 hours in a normal jet. Or however long it takes for a traditional jet to go from London to New York.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25532932]Ever had a sonic boom occur over your house multiple times? I've had windows, china, and glass products crack due to low level sonic booms.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. A few fighter jets were doing some flight training over my area, and one of them accidently made a sonic boom. Everyone in the area had something like glass in their house crack.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25533945]The hell with london, I went and saw it while I was in scotland!
[img_thumb]http://i51.tinypic.com/2d9vayu.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
There's one at the National Air and Space Museum in Chantilly VA, USA. I touched it. Almost came in my pants too.
[img]http://www.camping-blogger.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/concorde_mit-tupolev.jpg[/img]
Concorde and Tu-144
I was in both. Pretty fun since they're standing there in an angle as if they're about to takeoff.
"Look children, back in the 70s and 80s this is how awesome the future could have been."
[QUOTE=SBD;25546438]"Look children, back in the 70s and 80s this is how awesome the future could have been."[/QUOTE]
Uh...Concorde was retired October 2003...
[QUOTE=faze;25546450]Uh...Concorde was retired October 2003...[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly. How awesome the future COULD have been had all the fantastic, cutting-edge things like the Concorde not been killed off prematurely. And by future, I mean the present.
One of the Concordes used to take off at an airport about 10 miles from my house (Dulles Int'l) and every time it flew over my house it would shake the whole thing. Didn't happen often, but it was enough for us to be able to say "oh, that's just the Concorde."
It's an amazing plane, and the one on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Dulles is definitely in my top 5 planes there.
[QUOTE=Watevaman;25546945]One of the Concordes used to take off at an airport about 10 miles from my house (Dulles Int'l) and every time it flew over my house it would shake the whole thing. Didn't happen often, but it was enough for us to be able to say "oh, that's just the Concorde."
It's an amazing plane, and the one on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Dulles is definitely in my top 5 planes there.[/QUOTE]
Hey you live near me! Kinda. I'm NW of Baltimore.
Number one aircraft at the Hazy center is most definately the Shuttle. Forget which one it is though.
i have ben inside one here in settle when it was parked here- shit is SOOO cramped you need to be under 5 feet
[QUOTE=Aaronn;25539406]Rofl they have "the best crash rate ever," because they weren't in service long at all. Expensive as hell too. Also to people thinking the sonic boom had any effect on noise pollution, you are now aware that no planes(military or otherwise) are allowed to breach the sound barrier while below 10,000ft. MSL[/QUOTE]
They were in service for nearly 30 years weren't they? That's a fair while I'd say.
[QUOTE=Docc;25547029]They were in service for nearly 30 years weren't they? That's a fair while I'd say.[/QUOTE]
First flight was in 1969, and it was introduced commercially in 1976. So technically it was in service for 27 years.
[QUOTE=PLing;25544828]I'll rather be in a cramped jet for 2 hours than 10-12 hours in a normal jet. Or however long it takes for a traditional jet to go from London to New York.[/QUOTE]
This man has got a point
[QUOTE=Nilrus;25535203]Scramjets. Once NASA finishes polishing the technology for their spacecraft I really hope scramjets find their place in passenger airliners.
The theoretical max speed of a scramjet is between mach 12 and mach 24, London to New York faster than you can have a wank.[/QUOTE]
Scramjet has too many factors. The biggest is that it has to piggyback, or have an subsonic (auxiliary) engine.
otherwise, it'll do nothing. Since the scram jet features no moving objects.
[editline]21st October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=PLing;25544828]I'll rather be in a cramped jet for 2 hours than 10-12 hours in a normal jet. Or however long it takes for a traditional jet to go from London to New York.[/QUOTE]
About 8hours without the assistance of the jetstream.
scramjets are definitely not viable for commercial flights. The FAA infrastructure can't handle them, so I'm sure European aviation infrastructure can't either.
[url]http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=LAX[/url]
This is Los Angeles Airport Tower communication. This is live. There is a constant stream of commands and coordination. Since Scramjets can fly around 30x faster than a jumbo jet, imagine the communication needed to coordinate them for landings, take-offs, flight following, and congestion. They would run down any slower planes too, so you would need lots of support for them to get them out of the way. Most airport coordination centers around spacing. You space the aircraft out so no one gets run over. The faster planes are asked to do maneuvers to slow them down. Most commercial traffic is assisted directly onto the runway. It's a headache. A lot of AT controllers, can't pass a flight physical. Their blood pressure is waaaay too high
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25555019]Scramjet has too many factors. The biggest is that it has to piggyback, or have an subsonic (auxiliary) engine.
otherwise, it'll do nothing. Since the scram jet features no moving objects.
[editline]21st October 2010[/editline]
About 8hours without the assistance of the jetstream.[/QUOTE]
7-7.5 actually. 8 hours gets you to Paris from Philadelphia. Done it many times.
[QUOTE=PLing;25544828]I'll rather be in a cramped jet for 2 hours than 10-12 hours in a normal jet. Or however long it takes for a traditional jet to go from London to New York.[/QUOTE]
You might think that until you have to pay roughly $10,000 USD for a ticket just to get somewhere 4-5 hours faster
I go from Minnesota to London quite often and it takes around 9-10 hours. You just have to find a way to keep your self entertained or it feels like it goes on forever
[QUOTE=Ridge;25532955]Having one of your jets on the way to Europe explode fantastically just moments after takeoff probably doesn't help, either...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkWXBTsgsA[/media][/QUOTE]
I would have been pissing myself so hard.
[QUOTE=Aaronn;25555317]scramjets are definitely not viable for commercial flights. The FAA infrastructure can't handle them, so I'm sure European aviation infrastructure can't either.
[url]http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=LAX[/url]
This is Los Angeles Airport Tower communication. This is live. There is a constant stream of commands and coordination. Since Scramjets can fly around 30x faster than a jumbo jet, imagine the communication needed to coordinate them for landings, take-offs, flight following, and congestion. They would run down any slower planes too, so you would need lots of support for them to get them out of the way. Most airport coordination centers around spacing. You space the aircraft out so no one gets run over. The faster planes are asked to do maneuvers to slow them down. Most commercial traffic is assisted directly onto the runway. It's a headache. A lot of AT controllers, can't pass a flight physical. Their blood pressure is waaaay too high[/QUOTE]
I don't think it would make much difference... Once the thing comes to an altitude that all other aircraft are flying at, it won't be going fast enough to warrant any extra attention... Now when everyone's flying Scramjets that's a whole different ball game... Finally we'll get to put all those Ritilin Kids to use
[QUOTE=TheTalon;25558402]I don't think it would make much difference... Once the thing comes to an altitude that all other aircraft are flying at, it won't be going fast enough to warrant any extra attention... Now when everyone's flying Scramjets that's a whole different ball game... Finally we'll get to put all those Ritilin Kids to use[/QUOTE]
Are you handicapped? Do you realize just how fast mach 20 is? Besides flying at FL40000, the real headache is at the airport. You would realize this if you'd understood anything of my post at all.
I remember when I was in the National Museum of Flight outside Edinburgh and when I went into the Concorde exhibition it would do one mile in 3 seconds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
