In the late 1950s and early 1960s France, the UK, the US and Russia

>because people don't want to pay more than 500€ to get to the other side

What’s business class? What’s first class? There are actually millions of people who are willing to pay top dollars for being “better” when travelling. Much more so now then 20yrs ago with Concorde.

The real problem is the sonic boom. No sonic boom? This shit could take off and land on all airports and fly over all land.

Very few people are willing to pay the price of tickets on SST. 9/11 killed enough regular Concorde passengers that New York-London/Paris routes became unprofitable.

Attached: 16836967811_7dd04638b7_o.jpg (1000x804, 129K)

Regular supersonic flights are very expensive (for both, passengers and the company), prone to mechanical failures due to constant stress and thus need to have maintenance much more often, and people don't like endless sonic booms. It's the opposite of what everyone now working at - making planes more economical, more foolproof and more silent.

Basically this, Concorde was a playground of opulence, not a viable transportation system. Convenient, low-cost air travel is the logical choice given that both airlines and passengers are trying to fly from A to B as cheaply and efficiently as possible. SST was the wrong idea at the worst possible place and time.

Yep. We can't spend that money because we have to give africa trillions every year.

In the us entire cities filled with negros refuse to pay their water bill. They are oblivious to the amount of work and what ot costs to maintain a functional modern society. That's why in Africa they have no running water outside of cities and live like animals. They are infact animals heres the proof.
There are on Gedmatch Genesis (genesis.gedmatch.com)

Macaque (Monkey)

kit number: NX1666301
Eurogenes K15

# Population Percent
1 Sub-Saharan 68.07
2 Northeast_African 22.94
3 Oceanian 3.38
4 North_Sea 2.44
5 Siberian 1.5
6 Southeast_Asian 1.36
7 Amerindian 0.3

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Mbuti_Pygmy 9.17
2 Bantu_N.E. 9.25
3 Luhya 10.43
4 Biaka_Pygmy 17.31
5 San 20.59
6 Bantu_S.E. 24.23
7 Bantu_S.W. 26.7
8 Mandenka 32.21
9 Sudanese 34.97
10 Yoruban 39.97
11 Ethiopian_Anuak 42.12
12 Sandawe 48.08
13 Maasai 54.39
14 Hadza 58.32
15 Ethiopian_Gumuz 64.54
16 Mozabite_Berber 76.71
17 Algerian 78.03
18 Tunisian 78.29
19 Moroccan 80.01
20 Ethiopian_Oromo 84.04

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 93.6% Bantu_N.E. + 6.4% NAN_Melanesian @ 3.59
2 92.9% Luhya + 7.1% NAN_Melanesian @ 4.42
3 94.9% Bantu_N.E. + 5.1% Papuan @ 4.63
4 92.2% Bantu_N.E. + 7.8% La_Brana-1 @ 4.99
5 92.3% Bantu_N.E. + 7.7% Uygur @ 5.15
6 92.2% Bantu_N.E. + 7.8% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.17
7 92.3% Bantu_N.E. + 7.7% Uzbeki @ 5.19
8 92.3% Bantu_N.E. + 7.7% Afghan_Hazara @ 5.2
9 91.1% Luhya + 8.9% La_Brana-1 @ 5.2
10 92.4% Bantu_N.E. + 7.6% Hazara @ 5.23
11 92.2% Bantu_N.E. + 7.8% Tatar @ 5.25
12 92.5% Bantu_N.E. + 7.5% North_Swedish @ 5.28
13 92.5% Bantu_N.E. + 7.5% Finnish @ 5.3
14 91.1% Luhya + 8.9% Uygur @ 5.3
15 92.4% Bantu_N.E. + 7.6% West_German @ 5.32
16 91% Luhya + 9% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.33
17 92.6% Bantu_N.E. + 7.4% Swedish @ 5.34
18 92.6% Bantu_N.E. + 7.4% Norwegian @ 5.35
19 91.1% Luhya + 8.9% Uzbeki @ 5.35
20 92.5% Bantu_N.E. + 7.5% East_Finnish @ 5.35

Is the a380 double decker allowed to fly over the continental US with the non-us carriers?

Yes

Not allowed over most land masses any more is it? (Unless for an emergency)

No, US bans non-American carriers from crossing to continent, for example JFK to LAX cannot be operated by Lufthansa but can be operated by United. Unless it's a nonstop flight from the Atlantic like CDG to LAX, then it's fine and anyone can operate it.

youtube.com/watch?v=R43gKMWAPco&t=551s

fuel consumption exponentially increases at supersonic speeds

Because developing a new aircraft to modern requirements from scratch is fuck-you expensive. You want to be able to keep as much old stuff as possible to limit the cost of the certification process. Also, airlines do not want new planes as they then would have to pay for their pilots to get new licenses (see 737MAX).

Because the costs outweigh the benefits. Also environment.

Supersonic flight was banned over land before the Concorde entered service I believe. Just the test flights caused too many problems.

People really don't get what the tickets cost on Concorde. In early 2000's ticket prices were around 10k one direction ticket. Adjusted it for inflation it is suddenly 13k. Make both directions, add spouse and kids or maybe secretary and couple others in case business trip. Not many people are willing to drop over 100k for a vacation or short business trip.

Yes. Plenty of direct flights from Europe to western coast and from Asia to eastern coast.

Yanks aren't interested in tech they're interested in profit.

>Anyway, how come everyone believed technology was the future 50yrs ago and today we just reshape the same old designs and try to get 1.6% more fuel economy.

Neoliberal corporatism. Things that benefit the consumer need to be shitcanned, lest squeezing him for the last penny becomes less effective.

Brits aren't interested in tech or profit. Since you make nothing significant and MG is owned by chinks and Jaguars are owned by Poos.

"Great" Britain everyone.

Didn't your country close down a whole industry of mines leaving half of the country out of work in the 80s due to it not being profitable enough?

Because Physics? Going faster is less fuel efficient than going slower. Most flights are only a few hours which is fine for most commuters.

Supersonic flight is an engineering barrier. Either a thing is made to do it or its not and flies apart. So making anything supersonic is way more expensive than not.

Fuel burn increases exponentially with speed so going faster blows through fuel. No amount of engineering will change this.

Large, supersonic things are expensive.

Even with an unlimited amount of the public's money to spend the Pentagon chose to cancel the XB70 program - because of the fuel costs.

(GE and their need for a shiny photo for their shareholders accelerated this decision.)

Same with cars since the late 60's, cellphones/computers since 2009, healthcare since the late 90's, civil engineering since the 70's,...
Humanity went full retard and peaked, now it's over.

>Anyway, how come everyone believed technology was the future 50yrs ago and today we just reshape the same old designs and try to get 1.6% more fuel economy.
basic economics

Because exactly what you said - it was too expensive. Saying "well just make supersonic flights cheaper" is like saying "well just make spaceflight cheaper" - some things are just inherently going to be more expensive because of the engineering requirements involved in accomplishing them. Making supersonic flights cheap enough to be even remotely close to as profitable as subsonic flights would require major technological breakthroughs.

>People loved the Concorde. Truly loved it.
Concorde offered horrible comfort for the passangers and the only practical route it could've been used for were trans-atlantic flights.

Read Warhammer 40k; Empires always collapse from the middle outwards.

The decline of innovation, and inability to maintain the innovations of the past are the first sign of a dying civilization.

Thank you stormweenie. We need off-topic race based stats in every thread.

>Fuel burn increases exponentially with speed so going faster blows through fuel. No amount of engineering will change this.

Concorde has high fuel consumption per passenger, true. The question is if at 5000 dollar one way ticket prices (current first and/or business class blended price for cross-Atlantic trips) the fuel costs are that relevant. Concorde used up 60-70 tons of jet fuel for a cross Atlantic flight. A ton of jet fuel costs 300-400 USD, so 20-30k for fuel. That’s 4 to 6 passengers.

Under the assumption a modern Concorde type plane would be more fuel economic PER PaSSENGER (either more passengers per plane or less fuel used), I don’t see the fuel economy to be the major issue.

Technology is a balance.
>gold is the best electrical conductor and yet hoarded away in vaults.
More people fly now than they ever have, so no need to push the envelope. Plane crashes are rare, flites are cheap, and reliability trumps Oshkosh tier tech, especially when safety is paramount.

>gold is the best electrical conductor
not even as good as copper, but it's corrosion proof.

The jet age had a lot of high concept designs and engineering. Nowadays it's about efficiency and being small. Europe with their cuckcars (for domestic use) are a prime example.

>Even with an unlimited amount of the public's money to spend the Pentagon chose to cancel the XB70 program - because of the fuel costs.
They killed the program because B-70 became vulnerable to SAM's before it even entered service. After that program continued with two prototypes in support of mostly SST research and development. Sonic booms and structural testing.
>(GE and their need for a shiny photo for their shareholders accelerated this decision.)
If anything it prolonged the testing program because they had only one prototype to work with.
>Same with cars since the late 60's, cellphones/computers since 2009
Not true at all.

Attached: day of the F-104.png (960x720, 707K)

You're an idiot, Ahmed

We accomplished so much in that era then it just ... stopped.

>The question is if at 5000 dollar one way ticket prices (current first and/or business class blended price for cross-Atlantic trips) the fuel costs are that relevant.
They absolutely are still relevant.
The Concorde was fist class only. The entire trip (and it's high fuel burn) had to be funded just by first class fares.. and a small amount of cargo.

While a 767 burns about the same fuel as a Concorde, it carries much more payload.. including more first class seats, plus cabin class, plus a shit load of cargo.

If you tried to make the economics of that 767 work just off it's first/business fares it still wouldn't make money.

You under estimate costs of developing, building and maintaining the aircraft. Concorde tickets weren't usually sold at 5k. Adjusted for inflation early 2000's regular tickets for Concorde were around 13k for one way ticket.

Concorde was killed by first generation widebodies being way cheaper. Modern Concorde would probably be killed narrowbody airliners gaining range.

>t. Rabbi Ben-David Auschwitz.
Silver is best, then copper, then gold.Gold is second to copper, but if copper insulator is nicked, or exposed to elements, it will in short order, turn green, then turn to powder.

The Concorde was too big. If you want supersonic flight to be economically viable you need to start with a crj size plane. Going to be tough to recoup the r&d costs tho.

You’d need to do routes that are longer than London to JFK. Pacific routes could rreally shine with the reduction in flight time. Imagine a flight from LAX to ICN in 5 hours instead of 12

>They killed the program because B-70 became vulnerable to SAM's before it even entered service
More basic even than that. Fast planes need go-fast juice, and the Valkyrie was going to be fueled with dodecaborane (that was one variant they were working with, anyway). The problem was to create a system capable of refining, shipping, and storing enough dodecaborane to run the full fleet of planes *was going to cost more than the entire rest of the program*.

I suppose discussing the death of Mach3+ planes is like arguing which knife blow killed Caesar.

But even had nothing else gone wrong, Valkyrie was doomed by its operating, i.e. fuel, costs.

(Personal communication years ago from someone in the program.)

Attached: Sinclair station.jpg (800x500, 86K)

ICBMs killed the XB70.

Imagine a world where Supersonic craft designed by minorities and pajeets are flying the skies.

This was back when white men controlled science and not women and diversity hires.

Concorde ended because of 9/11. It was due to return to service after the refit following the Paris crash on September 11th 2001...needless to say it didn't. Then Airbus pulled out of the maintenance side...so unable to continue flying.

The problem with fuel consumption was more to do with the fact that the Olympus was essentially a military engine with reheat. I suspect a much more fuel efficient version could be designed now without the need for reheat either.

Christ, every square inch of the ground would end up looking like the crater stewn surface of the moon.
Oh, wait.

A quiet world free of aircraft.

Materials, CFD, CAD, CAM, manufacturing methods, engines,... used to evolved until the 60's and this reduces overall costs.
Playing Pong in the late 60's costed near 125000 dollars (without including inflation).

>Concorde was killed by first generation widebodies being way cheaper.

Concorde didn't even compete with subsonic planes. It was a different business entirely. It was in the business of fast access to another continent (within 2.5 hrs). There was no alternative to it.

The question just was, what the price people were willing to pay to fill the Concorde up. It is kind of the "do you want to be an astronaut" business. Millions want to go to space, the question is just at what price.

/thread

Wrong

concorde would be more viable today as a luxury item / status symbol. It was just that they'd had those accidents and they couldn't afford to redevelop the plane at the time.

>dodecaborane

I thought its fuel was a cocktail of jet A and Boron?

looks like a squid with wings and a rainbow attached to it

>Materials, CFD, CAD, CAM, manufacturing methods, engines,... used to evolved until the 60's and this reduces overall costs.
In your first post you kinda claimed that nothing has developed much since 60's. The advances in aircraft and cars have made both of those safer, cheaper to operate and require far less maintenance. Performance has remained pretty much same because going faster doesn't make economic sense or isn't worth the risks. Manufacturing might be bit more expensive, but savings on fuel and maintenance are massive. There is massive difference how much less work modern cars and aircraft require when compared to equivalents from late 60's.
>Playing Pong in the late 60's costed near 125000 dollars (without including inflation).
That would be bit under million today. To get into how much computers have advanced in last few decades. A Finnish company got a new super computer in early 90's. For few months it was the fastest computer in the world outside of US military and intelligence organizations. In an interview reporter asked how it performance compares to PC's from a computer scientists. Guy told rough specs of the system in terms of 32-bit PC. Decade later my gaming PC had about those specs, fast forward another decade and my fucking phone had roughly same specs.
>Concorde didn't even compete with subsonic planes.
It was meant to, hell in early 70's they claimed it was more cost effective for airlines than 747. Then the Oil Crisis hit the fan.
>It was a different business entirely. It was in the business of fast access to another continent (within 2.5 hrs). There was no alternative to it.
They managed to find profitable market niche after they sold the planes to national carriers at symbolic price. Transatlantic flights for super rich. Basically NYC-London and NYC-London via Paris for bankers.

Attached: really makes you think big MT.png (398x464, 85K)

This

Western civilization exists today only to feed and prop up as many niggers as it can, domestically and abroad. I wish more people would realize this. All the taxes, all the efforts of our combined races are all directed towards this end, creating infinity niggers

I suspect there were a bunch of different cocktails tried, it was a research program. What I was told was at the time they killed the program they were planning on dodecaborane to fuel the fleet, but that doesn't mean any of the development mules ever even used it.

I just find it an entertaining anecdote, like having an exotic car in the garage but being unable to afford the gas.

And flood lazy (((wiggers))) with billions in gibs.

On that note
youtu.be/y2NM6CFmOJ4