Yeah, the Concord flew up to 60,000 feet.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Show replies
-
-
-
Also: don't cancel impressive and successful programmes before knowledge transfer to next project, as happened with Concorde, Saturn V F1 engines, Apollo missions etc. All man is doing right know with these pursuits is learning to recreate previous ability without the slide rule.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
has the economy side been solved? It's still more expensive than sub-sonic so doomed for the same fate as Concorde?
-
It is also my understanding that most of the Concorde issues were not technical, but more so economics, specifically high maintenance costs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And the secret weapon they fear talking about is that they have
@bscholl and team to build it rather than a program driven by 2 slow governments.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really cool project, but deceptive article. (1) CFD does not exonerate from wind tunnel; design cycles with CFD still take months (from experience) (2) Composites can't be molded "in any dynamic shape" but are anisotropic (3) Supersonic flight cannot achieve "fuel-burn parity"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’m sure this has been asked before but what about the sonic boom?
-
Laminar flow wing and similar computational airframe innovation I'd guess
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Make something that uses
#SSTO engines and goes to space. Don't just outdo Concord, do 10x better. SFO to DEL in 45 mins.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.