Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Supersonic Flight A Future A/B Over Hyped Battle  
User currently offlineThegregster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 100 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

Now concord has gone does this mean supersonic flights gone for good or could there be
a demand for this, bearing in mind that most people (who are not Plane Mad) would like to get on and off planes as quick as possible.

Would boeing or airbus invest in developing a way supersonic flight is possible without sky high fuel bill which will bump up ticket prices (i.e. Concord)

MAN to LAX can take about 16 hours even I would get a bit bored with sitting in the same chair staring out of the same window.

Im sure it will happen but how long??



9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Do you insist on spelling Concorde that way?  Wink/being sarcastic

There are many parts to this equation; ignorance and this obsession with short-term quarterly earnings are the major ones, IMO. They are not doing it deliberately, they just do not believe [they have the option].

Let me tell you a story. Let us say you are selling a new kind of IT device, in principle it is far better than what is available. It happens to be expensive, bulky, difficult to understand, etc. You also happen to be the only one selling it and there are not many buyers for a product that has not existed before. Eventually your company caves. Years have passed; you have supposedly learned from your experiences and have ideas for another IT device that may trump the first one by trying to fix most of the problems. Nobody is interested, whether they are potential buyers or investors.

The fact is that your first device was the only one and was hailed as the "it machine", something to change the world. There were too many sacrifices and not many examples were made, even if you might have had good sales at one point, your company still caved -- no one trusts you, they still remember your first product, they think you are going to suck them into your black hole again. They are actually judging you new product that might be better than anything, on the older product, which was worse than anything was. Unfair yes, but they are your market!

Concorde was the first impression on the commercial aviation world; it is going to take a while to burn that off and to move on.

IMO, you would have to teach/inform people that it would be in their best interest to invest their time/money -- you have to make them believe in you/your product. Of those potential investors (they could be your company's bosses as if you were some designer/engineer with an idea) that are interested, they will watch your progress as you demonstrate why and how this is supposed to work, something that you may have to do out of your own pocket and time. Hell, to even get their attention, you have to stand out, again out of your own pocket. In addition, you would have to withstand criticism, there are many folks who fear change, they unconsciously think you will take away what they known and slam you until they coerce your withdraw. If you get a break and someone sponsors you, treat it as if it was still out of your own damn pocket. If you fail, you make them look bad; you also kill your reputation.

The biggest deal is to sell this to the final end user, w.r.t an SST IMO, the pax. I have read a lot in here that the audience of newer planes is the airlines and not the pax. An SST in not a normal airplane, people are the ones that ride these things, airlines purchase planes because of them. We have to sell an SST to the passengers, make it part of their life and worth their money -- that is what is important. Once you make them believe they will invest, it is that simple; making them believe is the hard part.

That is done by making sure the concept/experiment/theory/prototype works first, again likely out of your own pocket.

We cannot wait for an SST market, it will not ever exist, and we have to make it. We have to make people believe that it can work; right now, they do not because Concorde did not. Seriously, if you did not believe in something, why would you buy into it? We have to keep people informed. An SST may be the only plane in history that is marketed straight at those who may fly it, this advertising should take place during the R&D stage so that when the plane shows up, and a market exists. If pax asks for the option via their airlines and the airline determines the market based is enough for a profit, they will make a purchase or many.

I would say 22-25 years from now for a service date of a practical/economical sonic airliner; it takes 15 years to make a new airliner so we have to start within a decade's time.



The above is what I plan to do. Hi, my name is Pavan Biliyar and I am an aerospace engineering student and Embry-Riddle, c/o 2006. I am majoring in the aeronautical field to specialize in aerodynamics and propulsion. My main interests are in low-boom Sonics and non-space hypersonic flight transport vehicles. My goal in life is to make one or the other in time for people my age to enjoy it. Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Welcome to Airliners.net, Thegregster!  Big grin  Big thumbs up






The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5486 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

I've said this before somewhere on "A-Net." Chances are, that any HSCT will be the spawn of a successful military bird or, an expansion of a super sonic "Biz Jet.". This follows the model of Boeing making commercial jet travel available to the masses. The 707 started life as a military bird and morphed into one of the most successful airliners of all time. BTW, Lockheed's venerable Connie also started life as a military bird. At least for now it would be prohibitive at best to start with a clean sheet of paper and design a commercial hyper-sonic airplane. Boeing already is bogged down due to the encroachment of Airbus and getting the shark tailed 7E7 rolled out. There were some really cool looking hyper-sonic designs including the swinging 60's Boeing 2707 SST. And, Lockheed and Mac Donnel Douglass also had designs and those really looked hot with swept wings instead of the delta wing. Only one can hope that human ingenuity will prevail and we can develop a commercial hypersonic transport instead of more weapons of mass destruction.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8451 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Sonic Cruiser anyone?

User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

The current Flight International with the Cessna Sovereign as its cover story has an article on page 23 about a U.S. start-up company called Aerion who will unveil plans for a new supersonic business jet at next week's National Business Aviation Association convention in Las Vegas, NV. This new company is linked to another called Reno Aeronautical, a research firm working on drag-reducing supersonic laminar flow. Their concept aircraft, the ASSET (for affordable supersonic executive transport) was and probably still is a 10-seat, 100,000 lb slim-design with Mach 1.5 cruise speed and 6000 nm range. That fairly modest speed avoids costly high-temperature construction and can use existing engines, 2 modified P&W JT8D-219 low-bypass turbofans capable of operating continuously at Mach 1.5 without complex noise suppression and without reducing their overhaul life. The author finds it crucial that this aircraft was designed to cruise efficiently at high subsonic and transonic speeds over land, eliminating the need for sonic boom reducing technology being used in other manufacturers' SSBJ research. The article concludes by stating that supersonic natural laminar flow can reduce drag by 50% and increase lift to drag ratio by 30%, compared to a conventional delta wing, according to Reno Aeronautical and was demonstrated in subscale flight tests of a NASA F-15 approaching Mach 2. Sorry I can't upload the magazine photo (STILL don't own a scanner!) but the FI caption photo with the article shows a lean, very sleek fuselage with a long, sharply-pointed nose and an exceedingly slim cross-section with short, somewhat elliptical wings, very slim aft-fuselage mounted engines and a sharply canted-back T-tail, the horizontal stabilizers of which having the same short, rather elliptical look as the wings. The aura it exudes is somewhat that of a long-bodied, short-winged dragon or damselfly, a rather dainty-looking airplane, as its highly low-drag nature dictates.

My point in discussing this new development here is in wondering if such a concept could be scaled up to airliner-size. I don't see why the basic principles of supersonic laminar flow couldn't be applied to a similarly slim-bodied airliner but I suspect it would look significantly different than this jet; the wings might have to be proportionately larger, the fuselage proportionately wider, perhaps. Maybe the cruise speed would be less than Mach 1.5, as well, given the likely need for even better economics than the biz-jet. It would still be a niche aircraft, like Concorde, though hopefully a significantly larger niche, owing to much better economics that that SST. Ticket prices would be necessarily higher than subsonics though not so
dramatically so. SHEER speculation on my part, of course, and Aerion has not even hinted at the prospect of applying these design principles to a larger airplane. But I wonder...

Could someone with a PC of THIS century and a scanner kindly upload that SSBJ concept illustration from the magazine? Thanks!


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

>> "There were some really cool looking hyper-sonic designs including the swinging 60's Boeing 2707 SST. And, Lockheed and Mac Donnel Douglass also had designs and those really looked hot with swept wings instead of the delta wing" <<

I'm sure you meant supersonic. Hyper-sonic is a region determined not by Mach number (generally); but by a sudden, exponential increase in external effects such as drag and friction temps. In fact shape affects when it classifies as hypersonic, a blunt shape will make Mach 3 the barrier and a sharp shape will make Mach 7 the edge. That's why the average is in all dictionaries, Mach 5 or 1 miles-per-second velocity is hypersonic.

Those types of airliners, according to an Airbus executive in an 1998 Aviation Week article commenting on Hypersoar, are at least 50 years away.

Besided, the reason that Boeing had to cut the 2707-100 short was that the engineers didn't realize that the mockup couldn't take both the swing-wing pivot AND the pax cabin, there was no room; they simply convinced themselves it would work until they saw it could -- of course that was the late 1960's.

But then the payload of a B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber is about 80,000 lbs, what kind of pax/cargo load is that? 100-seater?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17055 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

But then the payload of a B-1 Lancer supersonic bomber is about 80,000 lbs, what kind of pax/cargo load is that? 100-seater?

Sure, if you can put them in coffins in the rotary launchers  Big grin Honestly, the B-1B has a lot of fuel flying around inside. It's heavy but not really that large.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Interesting you folks are talking about future supersonic civilian jets because the new issue of Popular Mechanics has a long article on a project Lockheed Martin is researching through its Skunk Works division that could result in a Mach 1.8 business jet with effectively NO sonic boom capable of flying from JFK to any destination in most of Europe easily.

And you know what? There is a surprisingly huge demand for such flights, since flying from JFK to Europe with today's 747-400's and 777-200ER's is still a seven-hour experience; cutting the flight time by 40-45% with a quiet supersonic business jet would result in a big line of people wanting to buy the plane either outright or through fractional shares.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

JUst out of curiousity, what was the time separation between the first commercial bizjet (I'm guessing it was a Learjet) and the 747? 5 years? Not that it'll point towards something, they had nothing to do with each other, right? Now that I think about it, the 747 probably reduced fares and people probably wanted to simply get somewhere quick without airport hassle: bizjet.

I have more faith Lockeed Martin or Northop can do it since they were involved in the Quiet Supersonic Platform program via a Pentagon contract to research a bomber/recon plane capable of those very same stats. I think when they say 'quiet' they mean sonic-boom wise, military aircraft are not typically regulated by the FAA for noise on the ground. I think current technology is limited by lack of research in engines that are commercially quiet that can take you past the speed of sound regularly.

I get the impression that these new companies trying to tackle the SSBJ product are not for reducing the boom, it would make the project easier than dealing with funny and untested shapes. They just concentrate on the engines and keep the profile conservative, like a Concorde crossed with a fighter jet.

>>"Sure, if you can put them in coffins in the rotary launchers.  Wink/being sarcastic Honestly, the B-1B has a lot of fuel flying around inside. It's heavy but not really that large."<<

Well it was just a thought of maybe modifying the fuselage, though it would give new meaning to sleepers in the cabin...:D

>>"There is a surprisingly huge demand for such flights"<<

Be specific, who'd you talk to and what'd you tell'em?  Smile Don't neglect that it may cost them extra. Personally I don't think it should, it's not worth the screaming.  Laugh out loud




The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17055 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

MAN to LAX can take about 16 hours even I would get a bit bored with sitting in the same chair staring out of the same window.

16 hours? That seems a bit long no? LHR to LAX is only around 12.

Interesting you folks are talking about future supersonic civilian jets because the new issue of Popular Mechanics has a long article on a project Lockheed Martin is researching through its Skunk Works division that could result in a Mach 1.8 business jet with effectively NO sonic boom capable of flying from JFK to any destination in most of Europe easily.

IMHO any future SST will need transPacific range. Europe to the Eastern US is "only" about 7-8½ hours so SST advantage would "only" be 2-3 hours or so. While this sounds like a lot it is not enough to warrant the development costs.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Future Of Supersonic Flight posted Sat Dec 11 2004 01:21:23 by Bigphilnyc
Engine Sound Onboard A Supersonic Flight posted Sun Nov 12 2006 07:01:39 by Kwcarolma
Cheapest Flight Possible Over Christmas posted Mon Oct 30 2006 16:51:05 by Captaintim
Flight Restrictions Over The East River posted Sat Oct 14 2006 00:33:29 by Dampfnudel
Report: El-Al Flight Dived Over London (1/10/06) posted Wed Sep 27 2006 22:24:04 by JFK69
Chances Of Flight Being Over Sold posted Sun Jul 16 2006 21:34:36 by EI A330-200
Flight Routes Over GLA posted Sun Jun 18 2006 00:31:06 by Ba757gla
Flight Paths Over The North Pole posted Sat May 27 2006 15:37:39 by Deaphen
Flight Path Over Vorarlberg/Austria? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 21:44:30 by CrazyHorse
Flight Path Over SEA? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 04:41:02 by Alexinwa