Why does that seem so implausible? The ‘high density’ configuration of concorde ran with 128 seats - I think transatlantic 747s run 300-400 seats so even if the airframe and fuel costs were identical, you’d be looking at around triple the cost per rpk or whatever they call it. Factor in the costs to keep those super-rare airframes flying, ouch. And that’s if you totally ignore the cost of the multinational government sponsored development programme at the bleeding edge of technology spread over a mere 20 airframes
Just for comparison:
747 - over 1,500 built
concorde - 20 built, total of 67 engines built
Space Shuttle - 5 built
Of course, if they built 1500 concordes they would be a hell of a lot cheaper to own and run, but that was never going to work out in the real world.
On the noise issue, everyone talks about the sonic boom but don’t forget Concorde had a power pack consisting of four afterburning turbojets derived from a 1950 (not 1950s, 1950) bomber engine. They weren’t particularly out of the ordinary for the seventies but relative to modern civilian engines they were crazy loud. So in addition to all the extra costs for a ‘modern’ SST/SSJBJ you can add in a squillion dollars for the engines to be supersonic capable and meet modern noise regs.
This thread reminded me… There’s a MIG parked in a parking lot off U.S. 80 east of Dallas, TX. I could never tell if it was a MIG 15 or a MIG 17. If it’s any help with identifying it, the rudder is split so it doesn’t interfere with the elevators.
The -17 has rounded wingtips and three wing… strakes? Ribs? … instead of two. See here. The -15 has flat wingtips and doesn’t have the small extra rib furthest to the outside on each wing. If the rudder is split I think it’s a -15 because the elevators on the -17 don’t go all the way back.
When I was a kid in northeastern Wisconsin in the 1980’s, a BA Concorde visited the EAA Fly-In in Oshkosh. As I recall, they did at least one excursion trip during the visit north to Hudson Bay where they opened her up and scared some polar bears.
Actually, I just heard on the news tonight that Boeing won the contract for the next Air Force One, scheduled for delivery during the next administration.
Was there ever even the slightest doubt they wouldn’t? I thought the US government had to preferentially buy US for these kind of purchases and no one else makes a plane of that capacity.
I would be surprised if AirBus even bothered to bid, would they be allowed to?
In a practical sense, the Air Force One contract is a one and done kind of thing. Once the US has possession of the jets it does not matter if in the future, relations sour with Airbus. (so long as the parts for the jets are readily available on the world market, which they would be). That means that if they offered the same level of quality at a lower price, the U.S. government is theoretically required by law to buy from them. Obviously, in practice it does not work that way and Boeing seems to usually win the contracts.
EADS was allowed to bid but failed to submit one on time. After the KC-135 debacle I’m not surprised. The only submissions were the Boeing 747-800 and… 787.
This is exactly what happened. When Britain & France wrote the contract in the 60s to jointly build an SST they included a clause which stated that if either side pulled out they would still be responsible for their share of costs! Even when it became undeniably clear from independent reviewers that an SST would never be profitable neither side wanted to be the one to suggest quitting. IANAL but I don’t see why they couldn’t have simply *both *agreed to null & void the agreement if they wanted to.
Back when it was still running I looked up the cost of a flight on the Concorde on Travelocity.com just for laughs. A NYC-to-London ticket on the Concorde cost about $10,000 each way, but, a first class ticket on a 747 on the same route cost $9,000. If you had that kind of money the Concorde would certainly be a bargain, relatively speaking. But again, it was subsidized by the govts so to be profitable the fares should have been much higher.
I would imagine that, even the regulations of flying with a sonic boom notwithstanding, the high cost of such a supersonic private jet wouldn’t make it worth it to billionaires who could buy a cheaper airplane that would be slower - it’s only a few hours of difference per flight.
Such “slow” current existing private jets are already decked out in luxury and style anyway, so it’s not like they are suffering on those plane flights - the rich folks are still having a super-comfortable flight.
$80 million for a “slow” private jet that can take you to a destination in six hours versus $170 million for a “fast” supersonic private jet that can take you to a destination in three hours - it wouldn’t be worth it to spend the extra tens of millions of dollars just to shave a few hours off the flight.
Right, and the faster business jets (Gulfstream G650) have cruising speeds in the mach 0.85-0.90 range (562-595 knots). Going mach 1.1 wouldn’t shave much time off (~150 knots faster), which is a bit more than an hour off a Dallas to London flight. Anything shorter, and we’re talking trivial time saved.
