Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of Supersonic Flight  
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6065 times:

I am curious about your thoughts on the future of supersonic flight.

It seems that it's understood that commercial companies are not itnerested in creating another SST right now, so I'm more curious about the other areas of the industry, and how they might affect the commercial company's decisions.

I understand that some private aircraft companies are looking into perhaps creating a supersonic private aircraft. Anyone know specifics?

What would be the benefits to business execs and private jet users if they go supersonic ?

Would the supersonic privtate jets boost the demand for commercial aircraft to go supersonic?

What effect would a supersonic cargo aircraft have on the world, realistically?

-Phil






Phil Derner Jr.
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6009 times:

Bigphilnyc,

look here:

http://flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRAerion.htm

and here:

http://flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRQSST.htm

plus, simply search for "Aerion" and "QSST". It looks like instead of "new generation SST" ("Concorde successor") we may get supersonic business jets that, not unlikely, may also enter regular service with airlines, either "airline versions" of them, or their derivatives, (like Canadair RJ based on Canadair business jet) - at least, Aerion already talks about "50-seater high density version" (apparently, with "Concorde-like" seat configuration) while SAI - "30-seater stretch". Interestingly, Aerion design is pretty "ordinary", even with no need for new engines, but still no overland supersonic flight (well, M1.1 at best). While SAI QSST is more advanced, new engines to be designed (they claim, however, that all three major manufacturers have something to offer, based on existing models), but it is a bit faster and, yes, almost no sonic boom - they claim wind tunnel tests show they (actually, their contractor Lockheed) solved this problem. BTW, as you can see, they both will be slower than Concorde but with greater range. Will any of them be built? We don't know, but this looks the only way to bring supersonic travel back.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5971 times:

the future of supersonic flight

Easy.

There ISN'T one.

Not at least in passenger carrying applications. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason to expect one. The $$$ is just too high, which is why Concorde never sold more than 14 units.

The days of SST are over. Concorde was only a novelty item. The only way you'll ever see a return of SST is if the technology could somehow be developed to make SST CHEAPER to operate than subsonic. That is a task tantamount to figuring out how to develop an engine that consumes less gas at 70 mph than at 40 mph under otherwise identical conditions.

707's half a century ago flew along right around 450kts. Todays state of the art a/c such as the 744, 777, and A340 fly at exactly the same speed: around 450 kts.

Guess what speed the commercial a/c of the middle and later 21st century will fly at?

yep...around 450 kts



User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5416 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; what goes around comes around. 40 years ago in the swinging 60's America wanted to go faster, higher and further. Ingenuity made some great strides. But along comes the malignancy of Viet Nam, Watergate and OPEC. Goodbye speedy frontiers except for Concorde which was a frivolous extravagance from a bygone era of cheap oils and high hopes. If we could go from econo-car imports to oversized decadent SUV's in taste and desire then the need for super/hyper sonic speed will again return to the forefront. At least for now with a flat at best economy it won't be in the short term but, if these small companies can develop speedy sound barrier blasting birds for business use then, the next step will be passenger airliners. Hypersonic cargo planes could be a great money maker. Imagine getting that liver for emergency transplant from Tim Buck Two to Chicago in the time it takes to watch an overpriced blockbuster cinematic tour de force!
I'll take a wild guess and say that even Air Force One could be a HSCT by 2020!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

Not at least in passenger carrying applications. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason to expect one. The $$$ is just too high, which is why Concorde never sold more than 14 units.
Not at least in passenger carrying applications. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason to expect one. The $$$ is just too high, which is why Concorde never sold more than 14 units.

Yes there is. Let's face it, the "speed of business" just keeps going up. In early 1990, when fax was really the only means of instantaneous communication, business could only move as fast as the office memo could circulate. In other words, really bitchin slow by today's standards.

Now days, with the internet, email, integrated supply chain networking, ect. the speed of business is as fast as the slowest link in the chain. Even from two years ago, the dissemination of information over computer based mediums allows business to be done faster, so long as the physical world can keep up. Transportation will increasingly become that weakest link, the stumbling block between the speed business is thinking and the speed at which it can physically move.

Ground transport is restricted to the traffic and speed limits on roads. Sea shipping can't provide overnight speed, leaving air transport. A supersonic transport is a proven concept, hell one flew for three decades. As the speed of business becomes faster and faster, a SST will not only be a desire but a necessity. Future cargo operations alone could justify the use of an SST in many industries.

Business travel/passenger demand will also begin to stretch beyond today's B-market in the future. It is inevitable that C-market routes will be common place in the next decade or two as the techincal aspects of long-range flight become less of a challenge. 20+ hours in an aircraft will not fly for long.

It won't happen this decade, but by 2015 I think it is perfectly plausible that the demand for an SST would be tangible.

The only way you'll ever see a return of SST is if the technology could somehow be developed to make SST CHEAPER to operate than subsonic.

Bull... jet transports are hardly more efficent than turboprops, yet the higher utilization and quicker flight time thoroughly supplanted the turboprop. Fuel burn might not be cheaper, but a faster aircraft can make more money over slower aircraft.

As much of a joke as the Sonic Cruiser is commonly seen as... it has put the writing on the wall. If Boeing in 2001 could project a Mach .98 aircraft with 767 economics, 2 decades of aerodynamic progress will make an SST possible. A fast transport, i.e. Mach 1+, is enevitable in the next 2 decades. My bet is 2015 for a long-term 777 replacement.


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5891 times:

there is a piece in this month's FLYING magazine about two seperate efforts to make a supersonic corprate aircraft. sorry, but i'm too tired to post a link right now.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5890 times:

there is a piece in this month's FLYING magazine about two seperate efforts to make a supersonic corprate aircraft.

I'm talkin about a 300-pax, widebody, 8,500nm range at Mach 1.8. Yes, it will happen.

Just look at the progression in engines and materials technology over the last 2 decades. In 1984, there was no Ge90, no Trent 1000, no swept fanblades. In 1984, there was no large-scale use of composite material in heavy commercial airplanes. In 2024... we will inevitably look back on the days when the 7E7 were developed as old news. And an SST isn't probable? Yeah right.....

[Edited 2004-12-11 06:22:46]

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Not only would the airlines moan and groan about the cost per seat per mile cost but they'll be crying out for more cargo capacity. No way in my lifetime, but I'm 60 . . .

User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

IMO I hope that it never happens. Also all this pilotless AC. That would just ruin the airlines, being the fact the economy would tank if you eliminate that size of sector of jobs, second, sorry, no matter what happens a computer could never take the place of the human brain, a Computer can never be smarter then a human.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

IMO I hope that it never happens

Uhh... why? Affraid you might miss those exciting tube-wing designs?

Also all this pilotless AC. That would just ruin the airlines, being the fact the economy would tank if you eliminate that size of sector of jobs, second, sorry, no matter what happens a computer could never take the place of the human brain, a Computer can never be smarter then a human.

Uhh... you're point? We're talkin about an SST, and 90% of your post was about pilotless aircraft. This isn't a general discussion on the future of avation... just SST


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Burnsie28:

Why, sentimental? The Air Force already has pilotless aircraft (the Global Hawk) that can create and file flight plans with the FAA without human intervention. You tell it It figures out where it's at and that you want it to go to this other spot, and it does the rest. The technology is there to completely automate piloting of civil airliners. It's just a matter of human confidence.

[Edited 2004-12-11 06:49:52]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5416 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

I'm happy to see likewise optimists regarding SST travel. The human appetite always wants faster, sleeker, cheaper. Its a matter of time. The points about cargo high profit yields is right on the money. As I said earlier; time can be the difference between life and death; meaning that rare body organ that can make it across the pond in under three hours as opposed to the 5 plus of today's subsonics can be one heck of a difference. In earlier threads about super/hypersonic air travel, I stated and I still feel that the next wave of HSCT commercial air travel will be quanity and efficiency. Instead of winning and dining 80 or so business and artistic prima donnas with caviar and canapes the next HSCT will haul 200 plus souls and be a lean mean flying machine. I'm hoping and dreaming that my company FL will be the launch customer of the Boeing Hypersonic Cruiser 2717! The new 2707 will be the longer range bird that would handle the ultra long range luxury niche. Whereas the 2717 will be the bread and butter Hypersonic bird for most of us who want to take flights of fancy at hypersonic speeds. The 2717 would be the type of bird that would handle BWI-LAX, BWI-SEA, ATL-SEA, MIA-MDW, YYZ-MCO. And I bet we could pack em full! The 2707 would be the airliner of choice when you are flying say JFK-BKK, FAI - MIA. On the 2707 you could fly from JFK to BKK, for a special massage and a cocker spaniel lunch and be back in Manhattan for dinner at Tavern On The Green. As I said earlier, look for say the 2707 to fly passengers in 2018 or 2019 and our President will have one built for him/her and make the globe that much smaller in say 2020! Look for the people moving grooving Boeing 2717 around 2023/2024.
A successful HSCT program may just be what the doctor ordered to restore Boeing to the number one plane maker. Or, should Airbus be the one, then they will fly ahead of the competition. But, I feel Airbus will perfect the big hippo subsonic passenger luxury flying yacht and Boeing with maybe the absorption of these smaller companies will be the one to make flying faster than the speed of sound a reality for many instead of a dream for the elite few.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineBa777-236 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 673 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

I don't have any 'technical knowledge' about the workings of planes, but if planes are sooo much more economical today than they were 30 years ago, why can't those cost reducing measures be done for a supersonic aircraft?

To carry 250-300 pax across the ocean takes less fuel than it used to, as engines are more efficient and planes are more lighter - as they are made with composition materials. So why can't these just be done in a way to make a light and fast Concorde II??

It won't be as efficient as say.. a 7E7.. but really, with the time it will save passengers, I'm sure airlines would love the thought of having certain "express routes" in their networks.



I like British Airways! I'm not sure why, but I do! ;-)
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

A supersonic private aircraft is nothing other than a matter of time. I think that is the next thing we'll out within the next ten years or so. I don't care about costs or anything, because rich people, pardon, the pun, have money to burn. There are many people out there who have no problem coughing up the extra money just to be the person with the better and faster aircraft. Even in the down economy, expensive car dealerships are never hurt becuase the rich will always be rich.

However, I think SS cargo is what we NEED right now for business. Again, people would be willing to pay for ultra-speed cargo, the smae way someone pays $15 for a regular envelope to go across the country overnight, companies would pay the bucks for supersonic transport of their goods, especially perishables, to other parts ofthe world. This would be a smart project for Boeing.

-Phil




Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineFrugalqxnwa From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5682 times:

The future of SSTs you say?

Enter SpaceShip One. It is only the first step towards a new breed of SST that travel above the atmosphere to reduce costs. They will have a boost phase where most if not all their fuel is burnt, coast above the atmosphere, reenter and land. New York to Tokyo in 30 minutes. Thats the future, traveling supersonic through the atmosphere the whole way is just too expensive for mass commercial transit (which is why only 2 SSTs have ever flown, and only one in continuous commercial service with only F class so passengers can be charged an arm and a leg).


User currently offlineJA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5591 times:

The future of supersonic flight will probably be two planes. Let's face it, the American and European domestic market demand one type of supersonic plane, while the international long distance market asks for another. I envision two planes fulfilling this role:

1) A Mach 1.3-1.5 blunt nosed plane that has Concorde's range, but 2.5-3.5 the capacity. No afterburners would be necessary for this plane. Mid-air refueling capabilities.

2) A Mach 2.4 spaceplane utilizing some SpaceShipOne technology with 300 passengers in a one class hybrid setup that will be a premium economy class.

The Mach 2.4 craft will probably not sell very well, but I could see the Mach 1.5 craft outselling lots of other types of planes. Many of the older aircraft will be converted to fuel tankers to extend the range of these planes so they can "hop" across the globe without racking up those landing fees.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5578 times:

RIX,

I was just reading about that, I am seriously hoping BOTH airframes come out, as they will be interesting to follow and see what happens. I havent been this excited since the A318 rollout! (Don;t forget the CTA (Switzerland)">BB A380 hasnt rolled out YET).



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5575 times:

umm...CTA (Switzerland)">BB is actually Big Bertha...DUH!


Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5555 times:

By the end of the century, aircraft have to be completely different. They will be forced to.
Less or cost prohibitive fuel in the decades to come could trigger completely different aircraft design. Maybe these new designs would allow cost efficient supersonic flights.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineCRPilot From Costa Rica, joined Nov 2004, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

I think the majority of aviation enthusiasts have been waiting for the sequel to the Concorde. Personally, I can't wait to see the first supersonic airliner or business jet of the new era. However, the problem remains....it's just simply not affordable to average person to fly in a supersonic, thus no demand for the product. Granted, there is a market for the supersonic business jet, but certainly not in the triple digits. Until day when technology allows the common man to fly supersonic, there probably won't be much of a market.


Flying is a privilege!
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5468 times:

"I think the majority of aviation enthusiasts have been waiting for the sequel to the Concorde. "

Sequel? What happened to the TU-144? Wouldnt that make it a trilogy?  Big thumbs up Jk.

I personally cant wait to see a new SST, I dont care who flys it, be it airlines, or bizjets!



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

Commercial supersonic flight will not return in the foreseeable future because the costs simply exceed the benefits. Every study made in the past 20 years indicates that airline passengers are not willing to pay the fare premiums that would support development (probably a $30 billion, 20-year project) and sale (at close to a half-billion dollars per aircraft) of a commercial SST.

Boeing, Douglas, NASA, and Airbus have all concluded, at least somewhat independently, that a 300 passenger SST with 5,000-6,000 nautical mile range is the most promising candidate. Boeing and Lockheed proposed such aircraft as early as the 1960s, although ranges then were lower as transpacific travel wasn't as important. Boeing and NASA tried again several years ago on the HSCT. Douglas was an early participant. Airbus has floated its "Alliance" concept. None of them have gone anywhere.

On the propulsion side, supersonic engine technology has not advanced as much as subsonic, for two reasons. First, there hasn't been any demand on the commercial side since the Olympus 593. Military turbofans, the only supersonic engines currently being built, typically run in the high-Mach range for a just few minutes at a time. Even "supercruisers" usually operate below Mach 1.5, which requires relatively simple engine intakes and modest modifications. Building an engine that cruises continuously at Mach 2 or 2.4 for 4-5 hours is a very different challenge.

Second, a lot of the efficiency gains on the subsonic side in the past 40 years have come from simply upping the bypass ratio on each successive engine generation. On subsonic turbofans, raising the bypass ratio lowers fuel consumption and decreases noise. The JT8Ds that powered the 727 ran at 2:1, CF6 is the 5:1 range, the GE90 is at about 9:1, and the GENX will probably have 10-11:1.

Manipulating the bypass ratio isn't an option for sustained supersonic flight, which by its nature requires very high exhaust velocities and therefore very low bypass ratios (zero, or a perfect turbojet, is optimum for supersonic flight but is terribly noisy and inefficient in the subsonic regime). Engine noise remains an extremely difficult challenge and was NASA's main stumbling block on the HSCT. The silencers needed for each HSCT engine were the size of RVs and weighed several tons, but still could not clear the proposed Phase IV rules.

There have been attempts to develop a variable-cycle engine that can change its bypass ratio in flight, but current designs are heavy, complex, and expensive, and so far haven't shown enough promise to make the concept feasible.

Even if all these problems are resolved, specific fuel consumption still will not drop very much. GDB can tell you that Rolls-Royce engineers still do not expect to beat the Olympus 593's efficiency on a next-generation SST engine, especially with all the design compromises needed to meet noise regulations. We all know how fuel-thirsty Concorde was, so this does not bode well.

Aerodynamic developments would provide some efficiency gains compared to Concorde, but again, not enough to radically change the picture. Wing designs that deliver quiet takeoffs (relatively low sweep with blunt, rounded leading edges and thick, high-camber cross-sections) are not ideal for supersonic cruise; delta wings that do well at Mach 2 are notoriously inefficient at 160 knots. Flaps and slats require a horizontal tail or large canards to offset the pitch effects. Boom-reducing aerodynamic modifications also tend to degrade aerodynamic performance. It's a constant tradeoff.

IMHO, the most promising area for research is weight reduction. Concorde could fly 100 pax about 4,000 miles. A 767-300 with the same takeoff weight can carry almost twice as many people almost twice as far. Composites and other new materials could substantially increase structural efficiency, but skin panels and many structural components also have to be able to withstand 250 degree heat soak for several hours. Any faster than Mach 2.2 and aluminum and most composites become unsuitable; then you have to go to titanium.

I should add that these arguments don't apply to a small corporate SST. I think it's quite possible that a 10-passenger SSBJ could fly within 10 or 20 years. An SSBJ can milk the super-premium end of the aircraft market -- business travelers and the mega-rich who will pay whatever it takes to be there yesterday.

On the other hand, airlines that introduce SSTs risk diverting high-margin subsonic first-class passengers onto lower-margin SSTs. There's no economic case there. Otherwise, the airlines would be clamoring for an SST from Boeing or Airbus. They're not. As I've said before, that's probably the most conclusive evidence that a next-generation SST will not appear for a long time.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

There are two main technical challenges right now to a commercial SST. One is inventing an engine that can work economically at supersonic velocities and economically at subsonic velocities. Only high bypass engines are economical enough to work commercially and quiet enough to be accepted socially, yet only small low-bypass turbofans and turbojets have frontal areas small enough not to induce huge parasitic drag and, unfortunately, turbojets, like the engines on the Concorde however, require augmentation from afterburners which consume fuel at prodigious rates. As of yet, nobody has cracked this engine enigma as it would apply to a large commercial airliner.

The other challenge is inventing a wing and fuselage shape that can hold several hundred passengers, that fits into the standard 80 M x 80 meter box, that will not create a sonic boom. That becomes a problem because studies demonstrated that propensity to create sonic booms is directly proportional to size, but inversely proportional to length. So that means that to get away from the boom problem, the SST would have to extremely thin and very long. Which rules out a practical design, not to mentioned the 80 x 80 meter requirement of all major airports. So far, nobody has cracked that one, either.

Contrary to some sentiments, it's going to take more than just the passage of time before we see a commercial SST. It will take several fundamental breakthroughs in propulsion and materials technology, along with a revolutionary new shape that is commercially viable - and time alone does not provide those. No fundamental breakthroughs have taken place in these areas for the airline industry since the early '50s. We have just refined those previous breakthroughs for 50 years while changing none of the fundamentals. The flight envelope of today's latest airliners is the same flight envelope of the Comet. An economically viable commercial SST flight envelope is not a mere advancement from what we know today, it would be a paradigm shift.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5416 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5403 times:

"The other challenge is inventing a wing and fuselage shape that can hold several hundred passengers, that fits into the standard 80 M x 80 meter box, that will not create a sonic boom. That becomes a problem because studies demonstrated that propensity to create sonic booms is directly proportional to size, but inversely proportional to length. So that means that to get away from the boom problem, the SST would have to extremely thin and very long. Which rules out a practical design, not to mentioned the 80 x 80 meter requirement of all major airports. So far, nobody has cracked that one, either."

I'm no engineering whiz but how about this bird being a double decker? It could still be fashion model skinny and long.

And I heard of some experiment where the plane is like a swing motion therefore requiring less heft and beefy engines?



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineB741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

I would say that in another 20 years we will see another SST in operation and not before. I predict it will be a US-lead venture.


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
25 Bigphilnyc : As for supersonic bizjets, I understand that planes like the Concorde were not allowed to fly over US soil because of the noise, right? What challenge
26 RIX : It's not just noise, it's sonic boom. Aerion says their design will allow to fly overland at M1.1, while SAI claims sonic boom 100 times weaker than o
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 Flight Attendants posted Thu Nov 11 2004 06:10:22 by JetSOUTHEAST
Business Jets - The Future Of Flight Takes Off posted Mon Dec 3 2001 06:15:28 by 777XI
ADS-B The Future Of Radar? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 19:58:42 by Mpdpilot
The Future Of Alliances (post Merger Frenzy) posted Fri Nov 17 2006 12:09:40 by B777A340Fan
Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
The Future Of CWL-BRU? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 01:31:41 by Cwldude
Braniff's View Of The Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 10 2006 15:52:30 by OPNLguy
AA: The Future Of American Airlines posted Sun Oct 1 2006 19:52:50 by CHIFLYGUY
The Future Of Travel: Fascinating Article posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:03:59 by Cedarjet
The Future Of IFE Post-8/11 posted Sun Aug 13 2006 03:25:52 by Airbear