vt_hokie - 26/7/2007 9:54 PMI really hope that Boeing's next new aircraft is of the supersonic variety rather than some subsonic blended wing monstrosity.
vanilla - 26/7/2007 9:04 PMIt's not stupid to fly subsonic.
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007 10:10 PMSo, was the Concorde merely an aberration that will still be one of a kind a thousand years from now, or was it an idea ahead of its time?
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007 10:18 PMIf Boeing's Sonic Cruiser could have met its fuel consumption targets in the Mach 0.95 range, would it not be possible to achieve similar fuel consumption just beyond Mach 1? I thought the drag curve basically peaked at ~Mach 1 and then decreased dramatically.
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007 10:18 PMWhat are your thoughts on supersonic biz jets?
vanilla - 26/7/2007 11:23 PMRich people don't care about fuel costs. Poor schmucks like me who watch Travelocity fares do.
edkyle99 - 26/7/2007 11:57 PMI would also like to be able to fly from Chicago to Newark in less than seven hours, which has been the norm of late. I don't think that supersonic flight would make much difference, since far more than half of my recent "flights" were spent waiting on the ground.- Ed Kyle
vanilla - 26/7/2007 9:14 PMThe Concorde was a plane that flew on afterburners the whole time and burned fuel like there was no tomorrow. Unless we discover a few more Saudi Arabias, then yes, there won't be anymore Concordes.
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007 11:10 PMSo, was the Concorde merely an aberration that will still be one of a kind a thousand years from now, or was it an idea ahead of its time?
As far as BWB goes, I'd be surprised to see it evolve into a passenger liner. It will be a radical departure for a lot of airline customers who are used to having windows and not having to bank too drastically to make turns. I think that military applications (cargo planes and aerial tankers) are more likely applications. The majority of air travelers won't come to accept the BWB unless they can be convinced that it will reduce the cost of travel.