Gregviperrt From Canada, joined May 2004, 71 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4193 times:
Does anyone think there might still be a market for supersonic aircraft if another manufacturer designs and builds one? Maybe one that could carry more passengers further and cheaper then the Concorde did?
Zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5601 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4178 times:
I'm an optimist and feel almost anything is possible. Up till "911," the industry, Boeing with NASA were researching and in the early stages of supersonic transport development. Of course the tragic events of "911" followed by a world economic downturn has put these projects on indefinite hold. Boeing almost green lighted the Sonic Cruiser which was a revolutionary design and, took jet travel to the brink of breaking the sound barrier. This design was to be a spring board to going beyond the threshold of Mach 1 and beyond. Alas, Boeing reading signals from the airline industry went the more conservative route and evolutionized (7E7) instead of revolutionized (Sonic Cruiser/HSCT). I feel, if economic fortunes improve and a demand develops, then there could be a race between Airbus and Boeing and maybe even smaller aerospace companies to develop the successor to the Concorde.
However, if I had to make an educated guess, a supersonic airliner will be the spawn of a successful military aircraft. The Boeing 707 was a mutation of Boeing's military jet.
The other likely scenario would be the development of hypersonic business jets. There was talk about this ten years ago. Buzz in the various aviation magazines. I'm 48 years young and feel I have still have a 50% chance of realizing a successful hypersonic airliner in my lifetime. The Red Sox convincingly won 8 games in a row and became the World Champions, and if Nixon could rise from the ashes (after losing the 1962 California governors race and making that infamous Won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore! and become President than anything is possible. So, never say never in regards to the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series or flying a Boeing 2707 or Airbus A-500! (my fictitious names for these two hypersonic birds.)
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13385 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4071 times:
Any major work Boeing/NASA were doing in this respect ended in late 1998, well before Sept 11th.
It ended as they were not at all sure if the many environmental and technical hurdles could be beaten and then produce an affordable aircraft.
Worse still for the environmental aspects, they thought that current standards could be met, but what about by the time in would enter service, at that time, around the 2010-15 period, by which time standards would only be tougher.
Personally, I really cannot see that the world is anywhere near ready for a 250-300 seat, 7-8000 mile range, Mach 2.0-2.6 SST.
However, I note the Aerion design for a Mach 1.6 biz-jet, it looks simple, elegant and practical, maybe even a bit stretchable, 18 in a high density biz config could maybe then increase to around 30 pax.
OK, it would be limited to Mach 0.99 overland, but though encouraging work has been done in sonic boom suppression, legislation actually allowing it would take much longer probably, with lots of legal challenges.
I like the use of a modified but existing powerplant, reminds me of the adoption of the Olympus for Concorde, but the Aerion could do Paris-New York in 4 hours, 15 mins.
Later boom suppressive biz-jets could pave the way for full size SST's, that still leaves emissions at high altitude and making something affordable, that if it worked would still be a niche, a large niche, but one that would drain First/Business pax from subsonics on it's routes, making them less viable.
Which could be a problem.
BA Concorde was a niche that complemented the majority subsonics on it's routes, a new SST fleet for BA would not be limited to 7 aircraft.
But we probably won't see a SST before 2020 at the very soonest.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
I wouldn't say that at all.... in fact, if you disregard the tail-mounts, trailing edges, and horizontal stabilizer-- it basically looks like Concorde did!
I don't think I can be persuaded to your side on that one. Because it has a horizontal stabilizer and straight wing, the airframe does not have the same fluidity and continuity of Concorde. Just my opinion, I'm a bit of a minimalist when it comes to aerodynamics.
More relevant to the discussion however is that a parity of specific operating costs between supersonic and subsonic commercial airliner operation is a completely impractical proposition. The drag curve increases so steeply beyond .95M - 1.7M that the required energy to get through that threshold to the lower drag 2.0-2.6M range destroys any gains in efficiency you could make up on either side of that.
Take Concorde as the existing example. It has a cruise fuel burn of 43,900lb/h at 2.02M. That is nearly twice the burn of a 747-400 per hr and the 747 can carry 400 people against the 100 of the concorde. So you have doubled the fuel burn for 4x fewer pax. Now the concorde flies more than twice as fast but still needs to load nearly the same amount of fuel as that 744 to get transatlantic because of the greater rate of fuel use. So you have an aircraft that burns the same amount of fuel for 4x fewer pax than a 747. That's 4 times the cost on a fuel/seat specific basis. Now even with the seemingly magical engine technology of the 21st century, the best you could hope for is to cut that fuel use in half over the distance or extend the range for a given fuel load. That still makes the new SST twice as expensive to operate on a fuel/seat specific basis. Scaling the aircraft to a larger cross-section will increase efficiency to a nearly linear proportion of the scaling but you can't make a practical SST twice the dimensions of Concorde.
So now we are stuck here a bit. In order to build and sell a commercial SST the operator is going to have to accept some kind of dramatically higher specific operating costs. There is no escaping that. But no operator will accept it and that's is the primary reason why none of the commercial design studies ever resulted in an actual passenger carrying aircraft. Hell, Boeing could not even get the Sonic Cruiser built with it's proposed 20% higher specific operating costs over comparable capacity aircraft.
The best thing that could have happened is that Aerospatiale/BAC embarked on a continuous development of Concorde akin to what Boeing has done with 747. If they developed the aircraft to any appreciable degree I think it would be still flying today and be a remarkably more efficient and economical "comprimise".
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do