Comments by "" (@ronjon7942) on "The OTHER American Concorde SST no one remembers - Lockheed L-2000" video.

  1. More accurately, it’s reliability and crash history made famous by trial by media and misrepresentation on accidents caused by pilot and maintenance error. After all was said and done it’s record on both was as good and mostly better than contemporary craft. I’m no DC-10 fanboy, opining the market failure of the L-1011, but slandering a design due to bad press, incorrect perceptions, and because it’s popular speaks poorly of the integrity and competence of the slanderer.
    1
  2. Slow down, take a breath, and remember there was a time we rode horses across the country. You’re proposing ecomentalists invest a trillion pick-your-denomination in tech and infrastructure to save a couple hours to cross the Atlantic. Your comment about noise indicates your about 19 - too young to remember how deafening the average turbojet was. The Europeans unlucky to be in the flight path of a Concorde didn’t miss it. Noise is terrible, especially when you’re forced to listen to the exhaust of the entitled who like to think for others their time is so much more precious.
    1
  3. Easy, Dave. The Convair 58-9 SST proposal was to use four J58s to push it at Mach 2.4, and published thrust specs for non-afterburning. No need for the attitude, friend.
    1
  4. Concoing’s good, I was trying to think of a way to merge the two. All of Russia’s designs are similar to other nation’s, and not because form follows follows function. More like Tupolev follows blueprints. For example, it wasn’t functional coincidence the Tu-4 could be mistaken for a B-29 - even down to some sheet metal patch repairs.
    1
  5. Different versions, maybe, like every other airliner series?
    1
  6. Sigh.
    1
  7. You’re correct, it was a turbojet, not a turbofan.
    1
  8. This American is agreeing with you.
    1