https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd...
force_of_drag = .5 * mass_density * (velocity^2) * coefficient_drag * area.
As that coefficient starts tapering off after transonic drag decreases velocity squared is there to ramp up the drag.
In practice it might be a bit more complicated.
EDIT: indeed here we can see that Concorde had lift to drag ratio of only 7.5 at Mach 2, while Boeing 747 has 17.7 at Mach 0.9 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio
"BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000".
Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.
EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....
Why is that?
After fusion becomes commercially viable, and the entire world concerts, we'll still be about as far as neutron-less fusion as we are from fusion right now.
RTGs are designed to survive uncontrolled reentry. I am aware that they are much simpler devices, but we are talking about containment.
There's no way to get the public to accept that though.
A typical commercial jet engine (on a SUBSONIC aircraft) is on the order of 50MW.
Might as well try to power an ocean-going freighter with a hand-held sterling engine.
While increased speed is nice if it can be done efficiently, innovation in aviation needs to remain focused on improving efficiency.
We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5x what it current is?
If emitting CO2 causes unknown massive harm, then it seems sane to figure out a CO2 neutral method to create these liquid fuels that jets require. That would seem very expensive, with current technology.
But I'd suggest putting a bunch of scientists in a room for a while to figure out the environmental impact and define some acceptable limit of yearly pollution. Then raise taxes until we're under the limit. Or something similar.
Of course, then you have a de facto regulatory body, which everyone hates, and thus a new problem.
Airlines have been very successful at getting special treatment by scaremongering "no more connections for you". Which is certainly a mostly empty threat, because connections will only go down by as much as demand elasticity reacts to the price difference.
In theory you set the tax rate to counteract the net negative externalities. It's estimating those externalities that's the source of contention (as you hint at re: feedback loops). So assign ten teams to estimate it and take the median?
There were instances of U2s being asked to change course to stay out of the way of a Concorde.
I can't answer that specific case, but in general it's pretty simple, especially if you're comparing cars and planes: when you drive yourself in a car, you're not only transporting yourself and luggage, you're also taking a 3000-pound hunk of steel. On a plane, it's just you and some bags. You can pack a bunch of people and their crap into an aluminum tube when you give them sardine-sized seats. You get big economies of scale when you do things at larger sizes. And with an airplane, you don't have to take windy, indirect routes and stop at stoplights.
With trains, it's not so clear-cut: trains are generally more efficient than road-going vehicles, because they have lower friction (steel on steel rather than rubber on asphalt), less acceleration/deceleration (no stoplights), and economies of scale (lots of people can fit into a train). One possible problem is the tracks don't go the best route, as they have to conform to both local geography and also history, and tracks are expensive to build (airplanes go directly between airports and the only infrastructure they need is the airports, nothing in between).
Google Maps is ridiculously slow where I am so I'm not going to try finding the driving time between Berlin and Munich, but I'm guessing it's around 3-4 hours? Why a plane might be cheaper (I'm taking your word for it) probably comes down to differences in regulation between airlines and trains in Germany. I agree, it shouldn't be that way; trains should generally be cheaper. Here in the US, trains are generally terrible. Amtrak is actually OK in the northeast corridor, but outside that it mostly sucks: it's very slow, and typically very expensive compared to airfare. The trains frequently don't even have WiFi (outside the NE). They're really comfortable, though, I'll give them that. The coach seats are like 1st-class seats on airlines. But there's probably a bunch of reasons for all this: airlines are largely deregulated here in the US, and there's a ton of competition driving prices down. There's only one Amtrak, with zero competition. Amtrak has to rent space on the tracks from freight companies that own the tracks, and their trains take last place on the tracks (yep, freight gets priority here over passenger rail!). And their trains are generally horribly slow, since we don't have anything resembling high-speed rail, so they're not too attractive to anyone that values their time: no one really wants to spend 3 days (not exaggerating) on a train trip that they can do in 4 hours by airplane.
The competition thing alone is probably one big reason you're seeing that different in Germany. Government-owned agencies just cannot compete against private industry in most cases. When there's no competition and it's nearly impossible to get fired, that leads to an organizational culture which is bloated, ineffective, and overly expensive. I don't know if it's this bad in Germany, but here in the US, if you work at a government agency and need to just buy an office chair, it can take almost a year. Private companies don't work that way because they'd go out of business if they did.
You really think modern aircraft manufacturers are surprised by the fuel consumption (or any other performance characteristic) of their aircraft prior to them actually being built?
NASA is working on this - both the sound and the fuel use.
Truss-braced wing configuration, hybrid-electric and all-electric are among the other contenders.
Concorde used to serve a lot more than just the NYC-London/Paris route. It used to serve Bahrain, Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Caracas, Washington DC, Miami, and Mexico City. Those faded away due to a lack of demand. (Ignoring Dallas and Singapore, as those failed due to restrictions on supersonic flight.)
I'm sure a new design could be a lot more economical. Of course, regular airliners have become a lot more economical as well, so it's a tougher bar to clear.
Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF).
I'm genuinly interested.
Thank you very much.