Concorde Successor

Going to Australia with a 4 hour stop in Japan was like this, only
funkier. Leaving in the afternoon you get to see 2 sunsets and 2
sunrises in a 24 hour period.

It's best to stay awake all the next day as well.

 

The over-day flight back from NYC is the only way, I reckon. If you've
managed to stay up all night in NY and can stay awake for most of a flight
leaving at 6am, you're just ready for bed at UK bedtime. And your
hangover's cleared.

 

This is my experience too.

There's some evidence to suggest that the body's own clock runs to
around 25~26 hours, which is how we can cope with the lengthened
days/nights you get on east->west flights. It's also offered as an
explanation to how we go to bed later, and wake later at the weekend,
and why Monday morning is such a shock.

 

Really? I always put that down to getting shitfaced and going to bed
at 3 in the morning...

 

or, just spend the whole time on the plane drinking heavily, and then
when you get to the UK, it just feels like you've had a good night
out.

 

Mmm that's harsh ( I'm no expert but I was originally an AEA R&D
scientist in Materials Research but you didn't know that.
Don't think there are any holes in the Periodic Table so don't expect
miracle materials { Skylark? ) }, guess you could do something
interesting with a fuselage constructed as a carbon fibre cylinder or fibre
reinforced metal sheathed in ceramic plates but it isn't going to appear in
a commercial airliner in our lifetime.

Erm, come to think about it, it might in *my* lifetime if yesterday's
estimate was correct.

If the loony environmentalist fringe continues to grow there might not be
much airborne commuting in the future so expect the research of the next 20
year to focus on fuel/engine technology.

 

More to the point, if the government stops subsidizing air travel,
don't expect much airborne commuting in the future.

 

Well fair point but it wasn't doing that speed at a substantially sub
orbital altitude for several hours. Commercial airliners are unlikely to
ever fly at extreme altitude due to the rapidly increasing radiation dose.
There's no getting away from it, Concorde was spot on and someone just needs
to come up with a dual engine format so that it can whisper in and out then
let it rip over the oceans. Variable configuration engines seem a bit risky
for passenger use.

True, the SR-71 had compromises to maintain a low radar profile but look at
the Skylon project. Designed to carry a 12 tonne payload. Well that isn't
going to squeeze many 'Merkins in is it.

Different concept and application but which came first?

Back to the radiation possible. 12 inches of lead shielding on the fuselage?
I suppose you could have orbiting shields in permanent placement. Quick
flight up, duck in behind, drop back down. Oops but there is another
problem. Please fasten your seatbelts for re-entry! can't see many
insewrance companies queuing up behind that plus you are into replacing
ablative material.

Nope a nice new Concorde would be just the job. 200 seats, low fuel
consumption, couple of big turbofans in fuselage pods and two high
performance jets set into the delta wing. If it ever happens it's going to
be American now though (

 

How does it do that? AFAIK it screws unfair taxes from it already

 

Failing to tax aviation fuel.

It's kind of an un-level playing field with other transport methods.

 

No fuel or other products should be taxed other than a flat rate fund like
vat. As a mechanism it discriminates unfairly against the less well off in
societies.

 

You obvioulsy know a fair bit about the subject, as your other posts
suggest. But still, don't you think it a bit arrogant to effectively
say "they're wasting their time", when a large company, presumably
with a few engineers who know their stuff, announce such a thing.

 

I'm all for the "less well off" being kept off aeroplanes. Stick the
pikey fuckers on a bus.

Speaking of which, **** Easyjet.

 

Which ones would they be? Airlines don't pay tax on fuel, unlike train
companies, and they can often demand a straight cash payment from
airports for the privilege of letting them in.

 

<cough>

XB-70

</cough>

Stainless steel honeycomb.

Lockheed went with titanium because it was "easier". For small values
of "easier">

 

True, but then it taxes aviation in other ways. It also *does* tax
Avgas, it's only Avtur which isn't taxed (fully anyway). If you
attempted to tax aviation fuel it would be a sure bet that somewhere
(maybe Ireland) would set itself up as a tax haven and all the
airlines would fly their planes in there to fill up.

Risky from a loss of other tax revenue point of view, and dodgy on
safety grounds too ("okay, we'll go with minimum legal reserves to
save filling up with overpriced overtaxed Brit fuel. Oops, wasn't
expecting that headwind ..."

 

No YTC, the 'Twin Towers' not the 'Two Towers'.

 

Good point.

Interesting, I didn't even know that Titanium could be toughened.

I believe they are testing multiple power sources though.

 

http://www.aerospacemetals.com/titanium.html

You would need to be a complete anorak to click on that link BTW

 

The airline ticket taxes applied by UK Gov.