Ladies and Gentlemen,
This may sound like a wind up, but I assure you it is not.
Over the past few months, I have been thinking very heavily about the key problems which prevented Concorde from selling well in the first place. Leaving aside the question of sonic booms over land, the absolute most important consideration is the fuel consumption, which is frequently quoted as being 300% of the equivalent subsonic flight.
While I recognise that this is a generalised figure, simply looking at the fuel load, range and passenger capacity of Concorde versus any of the main subsonic types demonstrates the point amply.
The key to any future SST must, therefore, be to solve this problem above all others.
This means it is essential that any future SST must use high ratio bypass engines, such as the RB211. BUT conventional wisdom states that it is not possible to use these at supersonic speeds because a) the frontal surface area of the engine creates too much drag and b) the way a high ratio engine works means it would overspeed uncontrollably in a supersonic airflow.
However, with a lot of thought and a bit of lateral thinking, I believe I may have worked out, if not a solution, then at least the start of a solution to this. For the moment, I have to ask you to trust me on this, since it would be unwise to discuss it publicly without applying for a patent on it. Suffice it to say that it really is, ultimately, rather straightforward.
Meanwhile, having thought that out, I turned to the other problems.
First of all, the use of high ratio engines would eliminate much of the noise problem which has proved so restrictive. True, there is still the question of booms, but with high ratio engines, at least the aircraft would meet normal noise profiles.
Second, the range. This is again solved in part by the use of high ratio engines by virtue of their greater economy. I do still anticipate that an SST powered in this way would probably consume 25 - 50% more fuel than a subsonic of equivalent capacity, but that is within an allowable tolerance, would you not agree? Whatever, the one key point of the next SST is that it MUST have the range to do Los Angeles to Tokyo non stop. So even with high ratio engines, it must of necessity be a larger aircraft...
... which suits the third point, capacity. I would estimate that a capacity of 250 [ 50 in a 1st class / 200 in an economy class ] would be ideal; assuming that the economy is the equivalent of the comfort and seat size and pitch within the existing Concordes.
In fact, the use of a larger aircraft actually helps my method for using high ratio engines be more practical, so this all fits together quite nicely. At least in theory!
So, the question is: How practical is this theory?
And this is where you come in. On this website there are more Concorde experts and experienced design, operations and maintenance staff than anywhere else. If you all really believe in the future of supersonic passenger transport, then are you prepared to volunteer your time to examine my theories? And if you believe they are practical, are you prepared to go the one step further and actually create the design itself?
If you are, I am prepared to put in some time myself to co-ordinate everything, though this would be a massive undertaking, almost certainly on a shoestring, and I would need a lot of help and backup in order to keep things running smoothly. So apart from the Concorde expertise, I'm also going to need some damn good administrational help as well.
My suggestion is that we create the design and then take it to a manufacturer [ probably Boeing; I doubt any of you would trust Airbus with this would you? ] once we have got to the stage where we have fully workable drawings.
This means we would be setting ourselves the challenge to end all challenges. Could we, between ourselves, create a viable and practical SST from scratch, doing everything ourselves on a voluntary basis, right up to the point at which it could be produced?
It is a tall order, but think about it for a minute: Much of the technical know-how exists already, and you know most of it, if not all of it. If we stick to a 60,000 ft ceiling and a Mach 2 cruising speed, we do not need to develop any new methodology as the stresses and temperature range would be similar to those on Concorde. We also know our specification: High ratio bypass engines for economy and noise reasons. 250 seats in two classes. Los Angeles - Tokyo non stop range.
And by doing the design development work ourselves, we would cut most of the costs out of it right from the start. Meaning that if the design proves practical, it is guaranteed to prove viable.
If enough people are interested, I will call a meeting of the interested parties and we could take it from there.
Finally, I do have a marketing name for this proposed aircraft which is simple, international, non-political, comes off the tongue easily and has exactly the right image of romance and excitement and smacks of the great days of classic aviation.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if you accept my challenge and we proceed with this, then I propose that we call the new SST the "Sapphire".
Peter Mugridge
PO Box 134
Epsom
Surrey
KT19 9WH
This may sound like a wind up, but I assure you it is not.
Over the past few months, I have been thinking very heavily about the key problems which prevented Concorde from selling well in the first place. Leaving aside the question of sonic booms over land, the absolute most important consideration is the fuel consumption, which is frequently quoted as being 300% of the equivalent subsonic flight.
While I recognise that this is a generalised figure, simply looking at the fuel load, range and passenger capacity of Concorde versus any of the main subsonic types demonstrates the point amply.
The key to any future SST must, therefore, be to solve this problem above all others.
This means it is essential that any future SST must use high ratio bypass engines, such as the RB211. BUT conventional wisdom states that it is not possible to use these at supersonic speeds because a) the frontal surface area of the engine creates too much drag and b) the way a high ratio engine works means it would overspeed uncontrollably in a supersonic airflow.
However, with a lot of thought and a bit of lateral thinking, I believe I may have worked out, if not a solution, then at least the start of a solution to this. For the moment, I have to ask you to trust me on this, since it would be unwise to discuss it publicly without applying for a patent on it. Suffice it to say that it really is, ultimately, rather straightforward.
Meanwhile, having thought that out, I turned to the other problems.
First of all, the use of high ratio engines would eliminate much of the noise problem which has proved so restrictive. True, there is still the question of booms, but with high ratio engines, at least the aircraft would meet normal noise profiles.
Second, the range. This is again solved in part by the use of high ratio engines by virtue of their greater economy. I do still anticipate that an SST powered in this way would probably consume 25 - 50% more fuel than a subsonic of equivalent capacity, but that is within an allowable tolerance, would you not agree? Whatever, the one key point of the next SST is that it MUST have the range to do Los Angeles to Tokyo non stop. So even with high ratio engines, it must of necessity be a larger aircraft...
... which suits the third point, capacity. I would estimate that a capacity of 250 [ 50 in a 1st class / 200 in an economy class ] would be ideal; assuming that the economy is the equivalent of the comfort and seat size and pitch within the existing Concordes.
In fact, the use of a larger aircraft actually helps my method for using high ratio engines be more practical, so this all fits together quite nicely. At least in theory!
So, the question is: How practical is this theory?
And this is where you come in. On this website there are more Concorde experts and experienced design, operations and maintenance staff than anywhere else. If you all really believe in the future of supersonic passenger transport, then are you prepared to volunteer your time to examine my theories? And if you believe they are practical, are you prepared to go the one step further and actually create the design itself?
If you are, I am prepared to put in some time myself to co-ordinate everything, though this would be a massive undertaking, almost certainly on a shoestring, and I would need a lot of help and backup in order to keep things running smoothly. So apart from the Concorde expertise, I'm also going to need some damn good administrational help as well.
My suggestion is that we create the design and then take it to a manufacturer [ probably Boeing; I doubt any of you would trust Airbus with this would you? ] once we have got to the stage where we have fully workable drawings.
This means we would be setting ourselves the challenge to end all challenges. Could we, between ourselves, create a viable and practical SST from scratch, doing everything ourselves on a voluntary basis, right up to the point at which it could be produced?
It is a tall order, but think about it for a minute: Much of the technical know-how exists already, and you know most of it, if not all of it. If we stick to a 60,000 ft ceiling and a Mach 2 cruising speed, we do not need to develop any new methodology as the stresses and temperature range would be similar to those on Concorde. We also know our specification: High ratio bypass engines for economy and noise reasons. 250 seats in two classes. Los Angeles - Tokyo non stop range.
And by doing the design development work ourselves, we would cut most of the costs out of it right from the start. Meaning that if the design proves practical, it is guaranteed to prove viable.
If enough people are interested, I will call a meeting of the interested parties and we could take it from there.
Finally, I do have a marketing name for this proposed aircraft which is simple, international, non-political, comes off the tongue easily and has exactly the right image of romance and excitement and smacks of the great days of classic aviation.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if you accept my challenge and we proceed with this, then I propose that we call the new SST the "Sapphire".
Peter Mugridge
PO Box 134
Epsom
Surrey
KT19 9WH
