Derek Copeland
June 11th 06, 11:36 PM
As I am English rather than French, I am not going
to defend President de Gaulle, who for years vetoed
the UK's applications to join the EEC, and who seemed
to hate the British and Americans for winning his country
back for him.
Compared with the proposed Boeing SST, Concord was
a relatively simple fixed geometry aeroplane (apart
from the nose). I believe that the biggest problem
was getting the engines to work at supersonic speeds,
and this required rather special ductings. At the time
it was designed it was a medium sized airliner, but
is rather small by today's standards. More seats might
have improved its viability. Might I suggest that Boeing's
design was maybe a bit over ambitious for that time.
Long haul travel these days means sitting for many
hours in an uncomfortably small seat, risking deep
vein thromboses in the legs, in a sub-sonic, wide bodied
jet. As for many people time equals money, there must
be a market for faster and more comfortable travel.
If you want to take a car ferry from England to Ireland,
there is now the option of a hydrofoil craft, which
halves the time of the crossing, and is quite popular
despite being more expensive. At least you get the
choice between economy and speed.
All the advances in travel technology from canals to
railways to steam powered steel hulled ocean liners
to aeroplanes to jet transports have required far-sighted
designers and shedloads of investment cash. If the
accountants had always been allowed to get their way,
we would probably still be travelling very slowly by
horse and cart, and sail driven wooden ships
Derek Copeland
At 15:54 11 June 2006, Jack wrote:
>Why doubt that Boeing would have developed a fine SST
>if the money was
>available? The money would have been available if it
>was deemed to be
>commercially viable.
>
>Sour grapes were de Gaulle's specialite, I believe.
>
to defend President de Gaulle, who for years vetoed
the UK's applications to join the EEC, and who seemed
to hate the British and Americans for winning his country
back for him.
Compared with the proposed Boeing SST, Concord was
a relatively simple fixed geometry aeroplane (apart
from the nose). I believe that the biggest problem
was getting the engines to work at supersonic speeds,
and this required rather special ductings. At the time
it was designed it was a medium sized airliner, but
is rather small by today's standards. More seats might
have improved its viability. Might I suggest that Boeing's
design was maybe a bit over ambitious for that time.
Long haul travel these days means sitting for many
hours in an uncomfortably small seat, risking deep
vein thromboses in the legs, in a sub-sonic, wide bodied
jet. As for many people time equals money, there must
be a market for faster and more comfortable travel.
If you want to take a car ferry from England to Ireland,
there is now the option of a hydrofoil craft, which
halves the time of the crossing, and is quite popular
despite being more expensive. At least you get the
choice between economy and speed.
All the advances in travel technology from canals to
railways to steam powered steel hulled ocean liners
to aeroplanes to jet transports have required far-sighted
designers and shedloads of investment cash. If the
accountants had always been allowed to get their way,
we would probably still be travelling very slowly by
horse and cart, and sail driven wooden ships
Derek Copeland
At 15:54 11 June 2006, Jack wrote:
>Why doubt that Boeing would have developed a fine SST
>if the money was
>available? The money would have been available if it
>was deemed to be
>commercially viable.
>
>Sour grapes were de Gaulle's specialite, I believe.
>