News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Revival of Concorde. Parent comment

Re:The Revival of Concorde by masklinn on Friday September 18, 2015 @07:31PM (#10242648)
Concorde didn't have the range for trans-pacific flights. If you compare its times on very long-range flights with today's flights they're much less impressive than shorter flights: its best JFK-Heathrow is under 3h (2:52:59) to a subsonic ~7h, but its best Heathrow-Sydney is 17h (17:03:45) to a subsonic ~24h.

Concorde had a range of 3900nmi (7200km/4500mi), a 777-200LR has a range of 8500nmi, an A340-500 HGW has a range of 9000nmi

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Revival of Concorde by ggreer on Friday September 18, 2015 @08:22PM (#10242802)
The comment I replied to discussed supersonic transport in general, not the obsolete Concorde. That's why my comparison used a hypothetical SST with longer range and higher cruising speed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Revival of Concorde by mseebach on Saturday September 19, 2015 @06:36AM (#10243881)
Range aside, wasn't the problem with London-Sydney that most of the route is over land, and can't be supersonic for noise reasons? At least, IIRC, that's what killed the Concorde in the potentially very lucrative US east-west coast market.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Revival of Concorde by caf on Sunday September 20, 2015 @09:40PM (#10249967)
Heathrow-Sydney required a lot of subsonic sectors though (eg over India).

In theory Concorde could perform a one-stop Sydney to LA service (stopping at Cassidy International, Kiribati), supersonic the whole way.

[ Parent | on HN ]