Japanese and French companies will develop a new commercial aircraft capable of flying faster than the speed of sound to succeed the disused Concorde supersonic jet, according to a press release by Japan's trade ministry.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10113 times:
I wish them luck, but unless its operating expenses allow the airlines to offer comparable fares to sub-sonic flights, it would likely meet the same fate as Concorde. Hopefully new materials and technologies will allow this dream to become reality. It would be wonderful.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9592 times:
Well somebody has to research the stuff, we cannot make sonic transports Boeing style, can we? Someone has to take the risk for laying the ground work, even the tiny pieces. The reason subsonic airplanes flourish the way they do today is because there is a GIANT infrastructure for it in terms of investment in materials and design which creates what we now know as 'proven' and 'practical' technologies.
Get it in your head: More than enough people cared for subsonic aircraft, just because few care for supersonics doesn't mean it cannot work any time soon! I am sick of this cynical pathetic stance, really. With enough money anything can happen fast (to get their money, they have to believe in your product, which means you have to have convincing data, etc).
Without risk and investment there is nothing to go on, modern subsonics have a 60 year base but we got the hang of it 30 years ago, nothing has really changed since then. I don't see the point of bashing the concept and pushing it cynically out to next century.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
AlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9394 times:
The biggest problem remains... Making a supersonic aircraft that doesn't produce a supersonic boom. It is a vital requirement for the next Concorde, and so far, no one knows how we can do it, if we can do it!
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9393 times:
I understand your frustrations.
Because no government, institution, or business is willing to spend billions or trillions into supersonic research. Most people would prefer to spend only two hours on a plane from Tokyo to New York. But at what cost? Unfortunately, aeronatuical engineering has developed at the most rapid pace when there is competition and conflict (e.g. Cold War & WW2).
Barring an unusual basic research breakthroughs in energy combustion or air flow dynamics, supersonic travel will not or cannot happen in the near future.
Current environment dictates a slow pace, so Japan is now shifting gears to conduct research with the French.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9308 times:
Wasn't Dassault working on a supersonic bizjet with the Russians just a short while ago?
I do assume this is more bizjet-sized rather than a 100-seater project, which would make precious little sense. Probably a good idea for Dasasult to get its piece of those juicy Japanese aerospace subsidies too.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9164 times:
The technical issues aside, why on earth does a new supersonic aircraft have to provide seats as cheaply as subsonic aircraft? Sure, make them cheaper than Concorde's seats to generate more demand but why wouldn't First and Club travellers want to pay similar prices to get there at Mach 2? BA managed to make a profit with a handful of Concordes.
Lazyshaun From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 545 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9119 times:
I wonder if AF and BA will buy this jet? (if it ever happens...)
Its seems AF got rid of their Concorde's quickly, giving them to musiums and breaking them up etc, but BA seem to have kept a few of theirs at some airports. I think if BA broke up one of their Concorde's at LHR or MAN, there would be public uproar...
Also, which other airlines do you think are interested in supersonic jets?
If they weren't as loud as Concorde, then I wouldn't mind putting a bet on SQ, seeing they once, briefly had a Concorde or two...
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9213 posts, RR: 42 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9084 times:
Trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes would obviously be candidates. Although the boom can't be eliminated yet, its effects can be reduced. I've heard a few sonic booms from high altitude aircraft, including Concorde, and they weren't as loud as the gun that's fired in the centre of Edinburgh at 1 pm every day, or as annoying as my downstairs neighbours.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8954 times:
That report seems short on a couple of important points.
Firstly, why assume it is Airbus? It could just as easily be Dassault. It doesn't include any details either on proposed size for the study and could therefore be the high end bizjet market rather than airliner size.
The article is very vague on several areas. Somehow I also have my doubts about the Japanese being able to manufacture a high-thrust supersonic capable engine as they don't have the experience to the degree of the three biggest engine making nations.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8695 times:
I think this a ploy/method/way for France to ingratiate themselves with Japanese to pave the way for Airbus sales down the road and nothing more. Can I prove this assertion? No I cannot. However it fits the pattern of French's government's willing role as a Airbus de-facto sales agent and of their industrial policy to a tee.
If I were the Japanese government, I would insist on one condition beforehand: that any airplanes that come to existence because of this project be assembled and rolled out in Japan. Let the French firms do the sub-assemblies and fabrication. I would make this demand early in the process.
The French recently muscled Japan out of a huge nuclear fusion project. I think Japan would have some ground to stand on.
ORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8448 times:
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 8): The biggest problem remains... Making a supersonic aircraft that doesn't produce a supersonic boom. It is a vital requirement for the next Concorde, and so far, no one knows how we can do it, if we can do it!
This is absolutely impossible. The sonic boom is created because the air can not get out of the way quickly enough. AFAIK the shape of the wings etc could possibly reduce the effects but never eliminate them.
Katekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 671 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7492 times:
There actually could be a niche market for such aircraft for business travellers who can afford to pay the premium and the time advantage over conventional transport justifies the extra expense. Flying between major financial centers (Tokyo, Paris, London, New Your, Sydney, etc.). The sonic boom is not a big issue if they are routed over oceans or sparcely populated areas, and/or fly high enough. I think it is more important to maintain the take off and landing noise comparable to conventional modern airplanes.
Katekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 671 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7230 times:
1) to noisy (especially during takeoff and landing, also sonic boom can be reduced with modern aerodynamics)
2) inefficient old design (a more efficient and lighter plane can be build using modern aerodynamics, materials and engine technologies)
3) very expensive to maintain due to unique and outdated technologies
4) probably too big for a niche market, at least to some locations
Ready4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7100 times:
Quoting Cornish (Reply 22): too big a terrorist target amongst other things. If loads of people bought this potential plane and it became the norm rather than exclusive like Concorde then it would be less of a target.
Understood, but I think I was trying to say is why didn't Concorde become the norm if the restriction of it flying over the oceans was acceptable (which Katekebo was saying in his original message).
Point taken though - a much more efficient version might do better, but I think they would have to do something about the sonic boom. And what about the design of the wings - it would have to be more efficient at landing speeds as well as up there travelling at mach 5 so they can reduce the noise near airports. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.
[Edited 2005-06-15 18:09:44]
25 NA: Good luck. I don´t think it´ll work, though. No way a brandnew supersonic commercial jet won´t still eat considerably more fuel and doesn´t need c
26 David L: There were some Concorde test flights done over the length of the UK in the early 70s and there were reports of broken windows but there were a simil
27 GDB: The amount of money being put aside for this paper (or CAD screen) exercise is tiny, compare to how much is required to develop a new conventional air
28 B2707SST: There is certainly a market for supersonic travel even at exorbitant fares, as Concorde showed. However, when the SSTs were being designed, no one en
29 JoyA380B747: Sorry to say this, but with all due respect, it is useless to Open a Thread on A topic about something that will take Decades to happen. Remember The
30 AirlineAddict: Here's an article with more details. 300 passenger jet that can travel from Tokyo to New York in six hours... Sign me up! Japan, France to Jointly Dev
31 EnviroTO: Maybe a passenger airliner with the entire fuselage decked out with big honking speakers pumping out anti-noise could pass the speed of sound without
32 GDB: Sorry AirlineAddict, but there have been press reports like the one you quoted, for as long as I can remember, change the nations/contractors involved
33 Glideslope: Ok, Mr. Leahy should be out next week with his PR release. Let's hope he gets it right for once.
34 EBJ1248650: Will the airplane run into the same obstacles from U.S. environmentalists as Concorde did? Bear in mind what happened to the Boeing SST many years ago
35 David L: Which is a lot less than the surcharge on Concorde's flights, given that there was no Economy class. There's such a huge difference in price between
36 DCrawley: You have predicted the future my friend! The plans for having supersonic business jets were revealed last year by two companies. I remembered reading
37 Joni: The Cadarache site is supported by the whole EU, as well as Russia and the other ITER partners, except Japan, the US and South Korea. Unless this pla
38 AirlineAddict: GDB, Oddly enough, my father actually worked on the project with McDonnell Douglas around 20 years ago. It never hurts to dream.
39 B2707SST: There WILL be a premium no matter what, as supersonic aircraft will always be more expensive to buy and operate. The 15-25% surcharge figure comes fr
40 Skymileman: I would say that supersonic travel costing more shouldn't be a problem to anyone. After all, you are getting more than if you are taking the 747 acros
41 David L: My apologies - I thought you were arguing with me!
42 B2707SST: Not a problem, always great to see these sorts of threads. --B2707SST
43 David L: OK, but what's the highest that, say, 10% of passengers would be willing to pay? I'm not disputing those figures, just curious (and not expecting an
44 FlyMeToTheMoon: Storm in a teacup. With a $1.84 m budget every year for three years they will at most accomplish some meetings and computer drawn artist concepts. The
45 Mir: The two are, unforunately, mutually exclusive. The wing of Concorde was the best compromise that they could do at the time, and from what I've read,
46 David L: Yes, it's just a 3 year research project. It's not spectacular to we widened the discussion to something more interesting.
47 Starlionblue: The most logical thing to do is make it slower than Concorde, with a cruise speed between Mach 1.2 and 1.5. Staying under M1.5 spares the design a lo
48 Vivek0072: Japan has successfully tested an engine that can theoretically reach speeds of up to mach 5.5, or more than five times the speed of sound, the ministr
49 David L: I assume the engine is real and has been tested to some degree but could theoretically be used at Mach 5.5.
50 RIX: A good summary: http://188.8.131.52/Articles/2005/...on/241/198917/On+their++Machs.html The most interesting thing about Aerion design is that it i
51 B2707SST: A researcher named Yorgos Saounatsos posted several very detailed web pages on the commercial viability of a High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) as par
52 Cloudboy: Stop thinkin in 1970 terms. Why did the Concorde not succeed? The design came from teh 60's - that's almost 50 years ago. We are talking when the 747
53 Joni: At least some Soviet-designed (possibly other nations as well) supersonic bombers had wings that could change shape for landing. In any case, I'm sti
54 RayChuang: Folks, I think airplane technology has come a long way since the days of the Concorde. Remember, during the 1990's Boeing worked with NASA on the High
55 B2707SST: Actually, one of the HSCT program's biggest obstacles was the noise issue. The NASA/Boeing team could meet Stage 3 limitations with a very complex an
56 GDB: I have to admit I liked the Aerion design as soon as details were revealed. Maybe I'm suffering from looking at this through the prism of operational
57 Backfire: Only because it didn't have to pay the purchase costs or pay back the development costs. Any fool can make a profit if they don't need to make the ca
58 Starlionblue: Tu-160 among others. And of course the US examples F-111 and B-1B. But swing wings are complex, heavy and maintenance intensive. Much better to make
59 GDB: BA (BOAC as it was then) paid for the 5 Concorde aircraft ordered originally, in 1972 each cost about 30% more than a 747. This was not a reflection u
60 David L: I think you've taken my comment out of context - probably my fault. The point I was making was that there were people prepared to pay the premium req