What you wrote wasn't even close to that. When you mentioned the F-22 and supercruise as a new technology you implied Concorde was not able to do it. Concorde could accelerate to Mach 1 without reheat, but it was more economic to use it than not. Similarly I suspect it could take off without reheat, but maybe not with a full load.

 

The F-22 wasn't even the first military aircraft that could supercruise. The first was the English Electric Lightning and there have been a few others since.

 

Kevin, you and I have discussed this before and I have referenced this issue in at least one other post: the forum is over-polarized enough, which both of us have recognized, yet my posts are still polarized for some reason, and not by me. I don't understand it. My exact quote was: "[w]ith F-22s being able to supercruise without afterburner, among other advances in the 36 years since it first flew, we could certainly make a more efficient one."

 

I never said Concorde couldn't. I never said the F-22 was the first, or the only. I essentially said "with the technology that is present today, among the other advances over the 36 years, the aircraft could be made more efficient." The F-22 was mentioned simply because it was a significant jump ahead in the abilities related to supercruise. The engine itself is somewhat of a jump ahead as Pratt and Whitney were able to pull of more thrust with fewer working parts than other engines currently in use. Even without all of that knowledge, knowing the poor Olympus has been around since the 50s would lead to the inference that they're not the most efficient out there.

 

Tagging on to the end of my sentence, part of the inference was that technology would simply make it more efficient. You could dump the flight engineer position and save some of the crew cost. Heck, [another developer] automated the engineer position in a Flight Sim product, and we all know modern (airline) aircraft are a two person job, so it's not too far fetched. I'm not sure the economic viability of doing it to Concorde (similar to what the MD-10 upgrade did to DC-10s), but that's also why my post referenced other future concepts.

 

I'm really not sure why my posts are generally made into a polar opposite view, but it's getting old. Disagreeing simply for the point of disagreeing is helpful sometimes, but not all the time, and to be honest, I feel like the former is the case lately.

 

Branson didn't take it to court. Your own link describes what he actually did. BA wanted to keep Concorde flying until it's was out of hours, they had a profitable operation. AF had little appetite to keep it going after the Paris crash. That accident had required expensive modifications to the aircraft which hurt both operators. There had also been a long period while the aircraft were grounded which meant much of the business market had drifted away. The post 9/11 aviation recession didn't help things either. Airbus withdrawing technical support was the final straw for BA. It's highly unlikely Virgin could have maintained the aircraft without the design authority's assistance.

 

I'm sure that if Richard Branson had been able to buy the aircraft he would have tried to use them, but the general view this side of the pond was that it was primarily a publicity stunt to get at BA.

 

This one could be attributed to differences in American versus British terms, perhaps. When you take issues of legality (contracts, clauses or other agreements) before the government in the States, you're addressing the judicial branch of our government, which we lump together as "the courts" or "court." In any case, he took it to a governmental power for action, which lends its hand a little more towards seriousness instead of a political stunt, in my opinion.

Kevin, you and I have discussed this before and I have referenced this issue in at least one other post: the forum is over-polarized enough, which both of us have recognized, yet my posts are still polarized for some reason, and not by me. I don't understand it. My exact quote was: "[w]ith F-22s being able to supercruise without afterburner, among other advances in the 36 years since it first flew, we could certainly make a more efficient one."

 

I never said Concorde couldn't. I never said the F-22 was the first, or the only. I essentially said "with the technology that is present today, among the other advances over the 36 years, the aircraft could be made more efficient." The F-22 was mentioned simply because it was a significant jump ahead in the abilities related to supercruise. The engine itself is somewhat of a jump ahead as Pratt and Whitney were able to pull of more thrust with fewer working parts than other engines currently in use. Even without all of that knowledge, knowing the poor Olympus has been around since the 50s would lead to the inference that they're not the most efficient out there.

 

Tagging on to the end of my sentence, part of the inference was that technology would simply make it more efficient. You could dump the flight engineer position and save some of the crew cost. Heck, [another developer] automated the engineer position in a Flight Sim product, and we all know modern (airline) aircraft are a two person job, so it's not too far fetched. I'm not sure the economic viability of doing it to Concorde (similar to what the MD-10 upgrade did to DC-10s), but that's also why my post referenced other future concepts.

 

I'm really not sure why my posts are generally made into a polar opposite view, but it's getting old. Disagreeing simply for the point of disagreeing is helpful sometimes, but not all the time, and to be honest, I feel like the former is the case lately.

Kyle, your exact quote, which you repeated above, specifically mentioned supercruise in a sentence talking about how improvements over the past 36 years could make a more efficient replacement. Now you claim this does not imply supercruise was something Concorde could not achieve. Why mention supercruise at all if you knew Concorde had the ability to do it? This is nothing to do with polarising views. It's you shifting your ground. If you make a mistake, why not just admit it instead of trying to claim you really meant something else?

 

I know you didn't say the F-22 was the first but many people link the F-22 and supercruise as if it was.

 

I'm not disagreeing for disagreement's sake. You made a vague comment which appeared to me to be factually incorrect and then later you attribute all kinds of additional inferences to it which weren't even hinted at originally. You expect me to accept you meant all of that all along. On that basis whatever you say can be taken to mean anything you later choose.

 

This one could be attributed to differences in American versus British terms, perhaps. When you take issues of legality (contracts, clauses or other agreements) before the government in the States, you're addressing the judicial branch of our government, which we lump together as "the courts" or "court." In any case, he took it to a governmental power for action, which lends its hand a little more towards seriousness instead of a political stunt, in my opinion.

Even in the USA there's a difference between a court action, which involves the judiciary, and lobbying the government. Taking the matter to court has a specific meaning. Richard Branson didn't go down any official paths in the way you suggest, with the government let alone the courts. It wasn't a political stunt, it was a publicity stunt. Richard Branson is well known for them, they've made him millions.

Kyle, your exact quote, which you repeated above, specifically mentioned supercruise in a sentence talking about how improvements over the past 36 years could make a more efficient replacement. Now you claim this does not imply supercruise was something Concorde could not achieve. Why mention supercruise at all if you knew Concorde had the ability to do it? This is nothing to do with polarising views. It's you shifting your ground. If you make a mistake, why not just admit it instead of trying to claim you really meant something else?

 

No, it really isn't me shifting my ground. It's me trying to resist being polarized in any direction. You are correct. I did mention supercruise in a sentence talking about improvements over the past 36 years. Namely because supercruise has been vastly improved upon in that time. As an example, the F-22 can supercruise at a higher speed than the Lightning's max speed, both as a result of aerodynamics, and engine improvements.

 

I'm not disagreeing for disagreement's sake. You made a vague comment which appeared to me to be factually incorrect and then later you attribute all kinds of additional inferences to it which weren't even hinted at originally. You expect me to accept you meant all of that all along. On that basis whatever you say can be taken to mean anything you later choose.

 

So you're not disagreeing for disagreement's sake, but you just said that you wouldn't accept it simply at face value, simply because of an idea that a vague statement seemed factually incorrect. Sounds a lot like disagreement simply to disagree.

 

Even in the USA there's a difference between a court action, which involves the judiciary, and lobbying the government. Taking the matter to court has a specific meaning. Richard Branson didn't go down any official paths in the way you suggest, with the government let alone the courts. It wasn't a political stunt, it was a publicity stunt. Richard Branson is well known for them, they've made him millions.

 

No, there really isn't. In order to move the judiciary branch in the United States, you must escalate an issue through the judiciary system, or through "the courts." No one can simply show up on the steps of the Supreme Court and expect to be heard. Lobbying the government would be a completely different avenue where you'd be trying to have them strike a law down through simply repealing it, or enact a new law.

 

if I found a clause in a contract that merited review for enforcement, I'd have to take it to the courts here in the States. Even if I tried to lobby the government (in the US, likely Congress) and they passed something or repealed it, they would still be dependent on the judiciary system for enforcement or action in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...but you're right. I was wrong.

I clearly thought Concorde used reheat across the Atlantic, and couldn't supercruise, though I flew the FSLabs Concorde across the Atlantic back in 2011 just fine, using reheat through the transonic phase, cutting it off at M1.7, and a fall-off-the-wall descent on the other side at least moderately accurately: http://vataware.com/....cfm?id=7675239. To that end, I must clearly think the F-22 was the first to supercruise. So I'm wrong there, too. And, regardless of how it went down, Concorde isn't flying, so publicity stunt or not, several people denied it the opportunity to do so.

 

A little benefit of the doubt goes a long way.

kevin .

why take this all so seriously.

Kyle does a lot of good things on this forum,helping people all the time.how about cutting him some slack.

anybody think it was life or death instead of a hobby.

 

 

steve-0

Good topic to start with, now it just got boring.

Good topic to start with, now it just got boring.

+1

 

CLOSE IT NOW !!!!

Chill pills all round, I was bounced for going off topic by a moderator and all I asked was what scenery the OP was using!

The F15E can supercruise at very light weights...that's all I got.

 

Oh and I can see the vortices coming off the flaps just fine.