chris
12-28-2004, 11:08 PM
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/olmedia/cta/events2000/tp_forums/hutchinson26jul.ram
----------------------------
The BBC did a nice interview with John Hutchinson, one of the pilots of the Concorde. He explains some of the peculiarities of this special plane. Perhaps interesting if you like flying any of the 3 FS2004 versions of the Concorde (Altitude, Pheonix Simulation Software, and the French Project Mach 2).
Some of his comments bring me to wonder if it might actually be very important for the preservation of Concordes that they be returned to flying status, and taken on supersonic flights regularly, just in order to prevent them deteriorating. The supersonic flight heats up the airframe to almost boiling point, and that is actually very good for the plane, for its longevity. Any dampness that might build up just evaporates/boils away.
It also seems that BA had very serious plans to spend a huge amount of money updating the avionics of their Concorde fleet to the currently widely used "glass cockpit" technology, and high tech flight computers. But that said, it's worth noting that it already does just about everything the modern systems do, with the exception that it needs a 3rd person as a flight engineer.
Also read another article related to the Americans testing the only supersonic airliner they could get their hands on (Concorde being strictly off-limits to the "competition"), the Tupolev TU-144LL. Rather surprising to read about the NASA pilots actually reckoning that it was a great plane to fly, and no more difficult to handle than a 747.
I say this, given much of the negative publicity surrounding the infamous "Konkordski", as it was dubbed by many, and how it was reckoned by some to be a plane with some nasty flight characteristics.. Funny how the opinions change when your former rival becomes your friend.. ;)
I would imagine that with the technology we have today, it wouldn't be very difficult to make another, new supersonic airliner around the same size as the old Concorde. The "sonic cruiser" idea from Boeing was never going to work, because it just wouldn't go fast enough to make it worth anyones effort to purchase it. Hardly surprising interest was reserved.
The talk of the development hypersonic long-range aircraft is somewhat fanciful, and the studies probably a waste of money at the moment, given that the technologies involved still need lots of refining.
First, we should concentrate on building something now that we know can be done, improve it with modern technology, materials and concepts, and then learn from that, and apply that knowledge to more radical concepts, as we learn more.
If we could build one of the most efficient jet engines in the world for operating at constant Mach 2.0+ speeds (Olympus 593 mk.610, offering a range of over 7000km), then with the knowledge and technology we have now, surely we can build something offering the same performance characteristics, with quiet operation, and good low-altitude fuel economy.
Perhaps we could also use thrust vectoring technology to improve low speed flight performance of such a plane.
With all the knowledge we have now, and the knowledge we gained from the Concorde, what could be so difficult about making a 2nd generation SST that has the required performance, and is cheap to run?
I'm being so persistant about this, because it's no fun being jammed into an 885km/hr "cattle-truck" for more than 10 hours, and because it would bring an improvement to the quality of life for many people, while also bringing a great sense of pride and achievement to many in those countries who built such a product.
Spend less on in flight entertainment and communications systems, and more on making sure that people spend less time on the plane in the first place.
Airlines are just like any other consumer, if you serve them a good product, they will buy it.
----------------------------
The BBC did a nice interview with John Hutchinson, one of the pilots of the Concorde. He explains some of the peculiarities of this special plane. Perhaps interesting if you like flying any of the 3 FS2004 versions of the Concorde (Altitude, Pheonix Simulation Software, and the French Project Mach 2).
Some of his comments bring me to wonder if it might actually be very important for the preservation of Concordes that they be returned to flying status, and taken on supersonic flights regularly, just in order to prevent them deteriorating. The supersonic flight heats up the airframe to almost boiling point, and that is actually very good for the plane, for its longevity. Any dampness that might build up just evaporates/boils away.
It also seems that BA had very serious plans to spend a huge amount of money updating the avionics of their Concorde fleet to the currently widely used "glass cockpit" technology, and high tech flight computers. But that said, it's worth noting that it already does just about everything the modern systems do, with the exception that it needs a 3rd person as a flight engineer.
Also read another article related to the Americans testing the only supersonic airliner they could get their hands on (Concorde being strictly off-limits to the "competition"), the Tupolev TU-144LL. Rather surprising to read about the NASA pilots actually reckoning that it was a great plane to fly, and no more difficult to handle than a 747.
I say this, given much of the negative publicity surrounding the infamous "Konkordski", as it was dubbed by many, and how it was reckoned by some to be a plane with some nasty flight characteristics.. Funny how the opinions change when your former rival becomes your friend.. ;)
I would imagine that with the technology we have today, it wouldn't be very difficult to make another, new supersonic airliner around the same size as the old Concorde. The "sonic cruiser" idea from Boeing was never going to work, because it just wouldn't go fast enough to make it worth anyones effort to purchase it. Hardly surprising interest was reserved.
The talk of the development hypersonic long-range aircraft is somewhat fanciful, and the studies probably a waste of money at the moment, given that the technologies involved still need lots of refining.
First, we should concentrate on building something now that we know can be done, improve it with modern technology, materials and concepts, and then learn from that, and apply that knowledge to more radical concepts, as we learn more.
If we could build one of the most efficient jet engines in the world for operating at constant Mach 2.0+ speeds (Olympus 593 mk.610, offering a range of over 7000km), then with the knowledge and technology we have now, surely we can build something offering the same performance characteristics, with quiet operation, and good low-altitude fuel economy.
Perhaps we could also use thrust vectoring technology to improve low speed flight performance of such a plane.
With all the knowledge we have now, and the knowledge we gained from the Concorde, what could be so difficult about making a 2nd generation SST that has the required performance, and is cheap to run?
I'm being so persistant about this, because it's no fun being jammed into an 885km/hr "cattle-truck" for more than 10 hours, and because it would bring an improvement to the quality of life for many people, while also bringing a great sense of pride and achievement to many in those countries who built such a product.
Spend less on in flight entertainment and communications systems, and more on making sure that people spend less time on the plane in the first place.
Airlines are just like any other consumer, if you serve them a good product, they will buy it.