Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:41 am

It really astounds me how undesirable super sonic passenger travel is with airlines, and how aircraft companies like Boeing and Airbus have completely rejected pursuing this avenue of travel. The Concorde has been the only super-sonic passenger jet ever invented. It seems like nobody else is willing to step up to develop a super-sonic jet that is fuel-efficient and quiet. We certainly have the technology to do it. The Concorde was put into service over two decades ago. Now we are able to develop jets like the 777 whose engines for their power are incredibly quiet. Can anybody see Boeing or Airbus stepping up to develop a super-sonic jet incorporated with modern technology? I certainly believe the value of super-sonic travel ever since it became a real possibility has been underrated. IT surprises me how the Concorde went virtually unchallenged by Douglas, Lockheed, and Boeing for all those years.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
AAgent
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 11:41 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:44 am

Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's why. They're really cool, but they're REALLY expensive to develop, to purchase and to operate. Not to mention all of that nasty stuff about sonic booms!

AAgent  Big thumbs up

War Eagle!
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:46 am

Yeah,

A lot of countries don't allow supersonic aircraft into their airspace because of the noise-pollution. That is why only 2 airlines flew Concorde.

Dog
 
fritzi
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 2:34 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:49 am

A lot of countries don't allow supersonic aircraft into their airspace because of the noise-pollution. That is why only 2 airlines flew Concorde.


Supersonic passenger aircraft that is, unless a county´s Air Force fleet consists of only C182s.  Wink/being sarcastic
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:50 am

Expensive, yes...but with the modern technology we have...noise and pollution could be compensated...the Concorde is 30 years old! We have evolved dramatically since the introduction of the Concorde. There must be a way to solve the sound problem....
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:53 am

I meant passenger supersonic, but you are right. We can make less noisy engines and as you said concorde is 30 yrs old so a new version of concorde would possibly be more succesful but we are more into the Space flying now.

Dog
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:53 am

It is at least worth pursuing this avenue....if problems like these could be solved, it would make or break a company. Does anybody know if in fact we are capable of solving the Concorde's biggest problems? I certainly would like to able to experience a time similar to the beginning of the jet age. it's worth the cost in my opinion trying to find out if something like this is possible, a super-sonic jetliner as quiet and fuel-efficient as the Boeing 777, and as big.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
daedaeg
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:54 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:55 am

It went unchallenged because companies such as Boeing and the like saw how much of a flop it was. Personally I hope after the 7E7 and A380 programs settle down a bit that supersonic commercial transport will be revisted. As been stated previously, technology has advanced tremendously since Concorde's conception. However there is still much work to be done in making supersonic engines more fuel-efficient and quiet. Not an easy task.
Everyday you're alive is a good day.
 
Christa
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:37 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:55 am

The problem is not that they are unpopular it is the fact that supersonic commercial aircraft are unviable to operate due to the high maintenance, fuel costs and other problems and restrictions.

Take for example, your government (United States of America) banning Concorde from flying over certain areas of the USA. This PARTLY led to an end of the Concorde program.. ah JFK was an awful President!  Smile

The problem with creating a super sonic commercial/passenger jet is that it is very difficult to sustain super sonic speed especially with a large payload. This really isn't a problem for military fighter aircraft as they only need to travel super sonic at certain times during flight, for example when being attacked. At other times the aircraft will travel at subsonic speeds. Also the sonic boom that super sonic aircraft create is a problem. This is basically when aircraft is flying super sonic over an urban area, e.g. Europe.. it creates too much noise pollution and affects the people below. This of course means that routes over urban areas (Land) are very difficult to be operated.

Another thing is that many people would rather pay lower fares for a longer journey with more comfort with amenities such as PVT, Extra Leg Room and so on that make the flight more bearable. This means that aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus & Boeing do not want to risk huge amounts of money on new projects when they can create very good & efficient aircraft with very high speeds close to Mach 1. This is why although the SST got to design stage it was never manufactured as Boeing created the "JUMBO JET" the 747. This aircraft allowed airlines to carry a large number of people and cargo at high speeds and creating profit. After all, why change something that is already working..

At the end of the day, that is what it all comes down to, making MONEY!

Anyway, that is my input!

Regards,

Chris
Croeso i Faes Awyr Rhyngwladol Caerdydd - Welcome to Cardiff International Airport
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:01 am

Regardless of how expensive it may be to travel on a super-sonic jetliner, I think it is at least worth trying to find out how cheap we could make it by applying the modern technology to it. Try try again. Who knows how what we could find out after 30 years?
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
AAgent
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 11:41 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:03 am

...a super-sonic jetliner as quiet and fuel-efficient as the Boeing 777, and as big.

Well now, you're not asking for much are you? I have to laugh because I too am a huge fan of supersonic commercial air travel and desperately wish that we had a new and improved supersonic star waiting in the wings. However, it again boils down to money. Aircraft manufacturers are fighting to survive and there is little evidence to suggest that the costs of such an expensive program would be supported by potential airline customers...who ultimately must pay the price for the aircraft and the operation thereof. There just aren't enough passengers willing to fork out the massive amounts of money for the sky high air fares required to support the endeavor. I wish there were. However, as I've been told...poop in one hand and wish in the other...see which one fills up first!

AAgent
War Eagle!
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:03 am

BTW, just out of curiousity, what was the price of flying a BA Concorde JFK-LHR? yes, I know it was expensive, just trying to get a better idea of how expensive, like say, compared to flying LHR-SYD on a Boeing 744.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:05 am

I think it was about £1500 a ticket. ($2,892.39 )
 
AAgent
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 11:41 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:06 am

Just a curious piece of trivia. I've been told that it took 2,000 pounds of fuel per passenger to fly one-way transatlantic on Concorde. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I was told.

AAgent
War Eagle!
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:07 am

Guess this topic had to be discussed at some point...I just had to know what other people thought of super-sonic travel, and underlying reasons behind its unpopularity. THanks group.

--Thrust
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:09 am

The Concorde has been the only super-sonic passenger jet ever invented

Could it be that you've forgotten Concordski? The TU144 was not only also a supersonic passenger jet, but it flew before Concorde, reached Mach 1 and Mach 2 before Concorde did...

... and was taken out of service way before Concorde...

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:12 am

Considering the Concorde was so fuel-inefficient, I would not be surprised, AAagent, if it were 2000 lbs. of fuel for passengers. It certainly has the highest fuel-burn of any passenger jet in the world, and twice the speed of all other passenger jets, if I'm correct, also usually means twice the fuel burn. Eventually I am sure though that supersonic passenger travel will become an absolute necessity..just when that will be is beyond me. This problem will eventually have to be solved as the world's population continues to grow.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
cannikin
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:10 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:22 am

"BTW, just out of curiousity, what was the price of flying a BA Concorde JFK-LHR? yes, I know it was expensive, just trying to get a better idea of how expensive, like say, compared to flying LHR-SYD on a Boeing 744."

Lets see...
Looks like in '98 AF had 'companion' fares at a super low price.

"Passengers traveling together can purchase two
round-trip Concorde tickets for $12,597, saving more than $4,000 off
the regular $16,796 price for two tickets."

Then, in the lasts days of Concorde:

"British Airways is offering a sale to try to fill the plane's remaining flights. Round-trip fares range from $2,999 to $5,499, which includes one way on the Concorde and one way on a conventional jet."
 
Thrust
Topic Author
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:30 am

Christ. $12,000 per ticket pairs. I'm not surprised. There still has to be a way to reduce these costs significantly...super-sonic passenger travel potential has clearly not been fully pursued to say the least. to at least know would be nice.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
buckieboy
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:31 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 am

All,

As an engineer (by profession), with a science qualification (chemistry), & in a very unglamourous part of industry (agribusiness), I am very wary of "science for science's sake".

Having said that, it is an absolute pleasure that about every six weeks I fly into PVG and mostly I take a 430 km/hr Maglev towards Shanghai downtown. This is good fun, as other A.nutters may have expierienced.  Smile

No offence to the Chinese & the Germans (both of whom I truly love working with), however the Maglev is somewhat of a gimmick. It doesn't make money and service stops at 17:30 local time. Had it crossed the river and terminated somewhere near Nan Jing Li Rd, it's economics would have been undoubtedly better, I might add.

Concorde had similar issues. Part might have been US pride; however at the time, the sonic boom overland was unnaceptable as far as noise levels go. Currently, I believe there is research going on to try and concentrate any sonic boom on a point (one dimension), versus a plane (two), thereby reducing noise; in the meantime, we should consider Concorde (and its Soviet equivalent) as a "Stretched jet fighter that happened to carry pax & shot no bullets".

My 5 Rappen.

Cheers

CTA (Switzerland)">BB
I'm taking orders from bottles of wine
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 am

Considering the Concorde was so fuel-inefficient

it was only inefficuent in subsonic flight, in supersonic flight it was quite the opposite.

But by todays standards, if there was a newer supersonic passenger aircraft in service saying it was inefficient would probably be correct.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4010
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:27 am

Has anyone here ever heard a sonic boom? I can't say that I have, though I've heard quite a bit of thunder in my time. Is a sonic boom that much more "powerful" (i.e. rattling windows and knick-knacks on the mantle) than thunder?

I certainly wouldn't mind if a few times a day I heard a clap of thunder, uh, I mean sonic boom.
 
aidan
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:40 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:10 am

Saw in a Discovery channels once that the scientist is developing and exploring a certain shape of a/c that can actually reduce significantly the sonic boom. They tested it by altering the shape of a jet fighter (F-5 if not mistaken). Did not get any news after that though.

Anyhow, back to the topic, why not developing a super sonic business jet instead? I'm sure there is market for that, Citation X is nearly the speed of sound, shouldn't be to difficult to make it say Mach 1.5, should it?

Cheers!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:46 am


I read an item on the Ceefax today about sonic booms.

Apparently the locals thought that it was an earthquake.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:51 am

The 73 oil crisis, a hardening of US attitudes after the B2707 SST was axed, a general recession even before the oil crisis (which was why the highly influential Pan AM pulled out), led to just BOAC and AF buying Concorde.

At first, AF were probably more enthusiastic than BA, but both airlines found that given the aircraft they had, the early production Concorde, the only route they could attempt to make money on was to JFK.
Business people would pay for the speed.

Things changed when the UK government told BA in 1981, that the maze of contracts, support etc for Concorde, would end.
Everyone expected that BA would call time on Concorde, with AF then paying the full support costs, they wouldn't be that far behind in terminating too.
But, though new BA CEO, Lord King, was a balance sheet man, he knew that BA (and AF) had an asset no one else did.

From March 1984, BA, after paying a nominal sum for spares and new support contracts, ran Concorde to make money, unlike before, they'd keep all of it now, not give 80% of any profit to the UK government.
What followed was over 15 years of profits for BA Concorde, big profits, investment in the product, additional services, a big charter programme.

Now BA, for most of Concorde's life, could support a double daily between London and New York, the only time it could not be was after Sept 11th.
Let be clear on this, that was the biggest nail in Concorde's coffin, BA spent a lot of time and money keeping regular customers in the loop, even inviting them to see the mods to return to flight being done in spring/early summer 2001.
But, even if things had been different in this period, we were still looking at a 2005/7 retirement.

Had the Concorde B been built, the increased range (and less noise as no reheat) of this version would have made Frankfurt-New York non stop viable, to give an example of two major business centers up to 4000 miles apart with mostly water in between.

The reason no successor to Concorde has been built is that Concorde's very small numbers allowed some waiving of environmental regs, no one is going to build an aircraft that is not going sell in large numbers, but, both manufacturers and research agencies have determined that even big improvements in these issues, are still not enough to make a mass market airliner.

Aside from those issues, well the trick is to have a aircraft with the low noise and low emissions, low fuel burn of a modern widebody, for take off, subsonic flight and landing, that can somehow turn into what is needed for sustained supercruise, the propulsion requirements to do both are almost diametrically opposed.

What is not a target to beat was Concorde's speed (a major reason for B2707's failure-going for Mach 3, later Mach 2.7, needing exotic materials and bigger challenges for cooling), or to try to beat Concorde's efficiency in supercruise.

Funny to see that old myth on here still, sorry doubters, but Concorde was very efficient in supercruise, Concorde cruised at Mach 2 for a couple of hours without reheat and engines at around 10,000lb of thrust each, (reheated take off was 38,000lb per engine), show me any military aircraft that can do that!

Concorde to a point proved that an SST could work, (something the TU-144 never got close to doing), however, the operators got them in circumstances unlikely to be repeated today, in a totally different airline environment.
BA at least, did in time run it on a fully commercial basis, however they were not shy on promoting Concorde's exclusiveness, so charged accordingly.

This would not be the same for a more mass market SST (let's say 200-300 seats, 6-7000 mile range), even if such a machine were environmentally acceptable.
In late 1998, Boeing and NASA concluded that even if they could greatly reduce the environmental impact, by the time this SST entered service, environmental regs would have tightened further, not to mention the sonic boom overland problem.
This, along with the very high development costs and uncertain market, was why they took their studies no further, which concurred with smaller scale Studies in Europe.


 
AAgent
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 11:41 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:20 am

N62NA,

Has anyone here ever heard a sonic boom?

Yes, I've experienced a number of sonic booms. Those that I've experienced were in Florida, generated by the Space Shuttle upon re-entry. Also having lived most of my life in Florida, I'm also quite familiar with thunder and lightning as well. Thunder, although loud and somewhat alarming, rarely has the tremendous compressive bone-jarring force that one experiences with a sonic boom. As some have mentioned, supersonic aircraft actually create two sonic booms, one immediately following the other. It is a rapid sequence of two terribly jolting explosive blasts, almost as if someone set off an explosive charge beneath your home. Everything rattles fiercely for an instant and then it's over. It's unlike any other experience, and you do not grow accustomed to the phenomena. For instance, I've lived in Coppell, Texas, (practically in the shadow of DFW airport) and I actually enjoyed the near constant roar of jets passing overhead. You get so used to the sound that you practically tune it out altogether. It is not the same with the sonic booms. You do not become immune to them. They cause you to jump out of your skin each and every time. You don't expect them and they are instantaneous and explosive. I find it doubtful that any community would welcome daily sonic booms. However, I highly recommend that you experience at least one in your lifetime.

Cheers,
AAgent
War Eagle!
 
LeanOfPeak
Posts: 496
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:21 am

There are supersonic business jets in development, with the focus of the development being boom reduction. I have experienced a sonic boom (I believe it was an F-16 that inadvertently busted the sound barrier in the late-'90's), and it is, when produced by an aircraft not specifically designed for boom reduction, considerably worse than all but the largest and nearest thunderclaps.

The fact of the matter is that when you spend three hours sitting in airports, it begins to make considerably less difference to the average pax whether the flight time is two hours or three. Of course, the equation gets different at longer stage lengths, but the technical challenges become greater there too.

While certainly technically an intriguing proposition, I suspect that, given the fuel burn of a supersonic cruise, the boom-suppression demands (Which would likely increase the fuel burn some more, as what's good for boom reduction is not likely good for aerodynamics), and the high price of fuel, combined with the FCC's new ruling that wireless communications can be allowed in-flight (Allowing people to accomplish things while riding the cushions), the demand is not likely there to justify the expenditures to tackle the technical hurdles involved.

Once the bizjets crack some of the codes, you might see the major civil manufacturers get a little more interested. Particularly one Lockheed Corporation... Smile
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:25 am

"Try try again. Who knows how what we could find out after 30 years?" - but they tried, last one was abandoned not long ago, in late 90's. Meaning, in short, we didn't advance enough in 30 years. "what was the price of flying a BA Concorde JFK-LHR?" - regular round-trip was just under $13000.

"Has anyone here ever heard a sonic boom?" - yes. In Soviet Union it was all right for military jets to fly supersonically above populated areas (not big cities, of course). Not that it is more loud than thunder, but it is a real boom, shake, like one of very powerful explosion. It just hits your ears.

"why not developing a super sonic business jet instead?" - but they do. At least, have some ideas of what they are going to build, and even claim that wind tunnel tests confirmed they solved the sonic boom problem. If at least one of these things is successful, we might see it in regular airline service - it is always easier to sell 16-18 seats than 100...
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:31 am

This topic came up not long ago; see http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1858801 for that discussion.

The reason the airlines and the manufacturers aren't interested is because the cost of supersonic flight greatly exceeds the benefits. The flying public is not willing to pay the fare surchages needed to make SSTs economically viable. There is no good reason to spend $30 or $40 billion on a new SST when its only benefit -- the value of the time saved -- is lower than the cost of producing and operating the aircraft.

I think a lot of people would be surprised how little progress has been made in the supersonic area. The last large aircraft designed to spend most of its life above Mach 1 was Concorde; there have only been a handful of others (the XB-70, SR-71, and TU-144). Military aircraft are capable of brief sprints above Mach 1 and a few can supercruise around Mach 1.5, but they are generally optimized for high subsonic cruise.

The cost savings realized on subsonic airliners over the past 40 years has been achieved in four main areas: aerodynamic discoveries, like supercritical wings and winglets; lighter materials and structures; more advanced propulsion, specifically high-bypass engines; and larger aircraft that automatically have lower costs per seat mile.

None of these improvements can be easily transferred from the 7E7 or A380 to an SST. To a considerable extent, the laws of aerodynamics actually reverse beyond Mach 1. SST materials must endure higher stresses and far higher cruise temperatures -- between 250 and 500 degrees (F) higher than on a subsonic. Subsonic engines are, as GDB notes, diametrically different from the optimal supersonic powerplant. Larger SSTs would certainly have lower seat-mile costs than Concorde, but going much beyond 300 seats would require takeoff weights close to 1 million pounds, creating a whole new set of problems.

In short, the problems are much more formidable than the first appear. The US, Europe, and the Soviet Union found this out the hard way.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:32 am

Two words: fuel cost.

That's the reason why a little publicity stunt from Boeing called Sonic Cruiser didn't work.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:38 pm

It's by far not only fuel cost. At least, jets consume more fuel than turboprops, but because of higher speed have higher utilization, and overall are cheaper to operate on all but very short routes. Not to say that this would make SST overall cheaper to operate than subsonic aircraft (again, be it only fuel cost) but would definitely make SST much more viable. As for Sonic Cruiser - it was no more "publicity stunt" than 7E7. The design had advanced way too far to be just a marketing trick. See "Flightpath", vol. 1, by AIRtime Publishing...
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:04 pm

Regardless of how expensive it may be to travel on a super-sonic jetliner, I think it is at least worth trying to find out how cheap we could make it by applying the modern technology to it. Try try again. Who knows how what we could find out after 30 years?
--------

You might have a different attitude if you had to pay for such a second attempt yourself. It would be fun to watch a second attempt at a viable SST but no one wants to take the market risk and I don't blame them. New military supercruising aircraft are a beter bet, and they could reduce the risk for civilian supersonic planes. The F22 is the first supercruising plane we have seen in a long time (almost every other supersonic military jet can sustain supersonic flight only with afterburners, which hog fuel. They cannot stay supersonic for long.)

Thanks to GDB for the good info.

It is possible that balistic travel may be a better bet than SST's in the long run. Eventually, if Spaceship One type craft make space tourism viable, the next generation of space tourist craft could be used for very high speed intercontinental travel. This would require a massive change in the current regulatory environment, but it could happen if demand was high enough. Package freight would be another market, and such a vehicle would have military applications as well. The sonic boom would not be as intrusive and widespread as that of an SST. DARPA is currently interested in balistic and hypersonic craft for high speed military transport as well as strike missions.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:56 pm

Considering the Concorde was so fuel-inefficient

...bet you'd be interested to know that even the 7E7 and proposed A350 will not be able to match (nor come anywhere near) Concorde's efficiency during supercruise  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopula

Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:44 am

As far as noise -- in flight, when you are on the ground, it's the boom pattern, and not the aircraft engines that you hear.

I had the good fortune to be at Edwards AFB in the mid-90's during one of NASA's more extensive boom testing series using the SR-71. And on the ground, during takeoff, that thing is LOUD. But during the runs, you never heard the engines -- but you'd hear the boom rattle the buildings, even if you were in an interior room!

Edwards was once described to me as "the place where everyone always looks to see what just took off."  Smile

Steve
 
cloudboy
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:48 am

It has more to do with accepted risk and how willing to take a chance on technology a company is. The corporate world, particulalry big companies, are too nervous today about investing in any kind of risk, therefor they are not willing to pour a lot of money into something that does not sound like a sure thing. We simply base our information on something that happened thirty years ago, long before any current planes were developed, as our final information.

There are a few companies investigating super sonic buisiness jets. This may very well be the wave of the future - airlines are biginning to like more frequent flights with smaller aircraft already, and the smaller planes mean fewer seats to fill to be profitable, the ability to offer more flights, they gernerate less noise relatively speaking, and they can be tailored to a more upscale market.

If you look at the major city pairs where they would likely ind a market, they are mostly on the water. First, you aren't going to use a SST to shave off a few hours from a 4 hour flight. But if the flight time itself is 10 hours, and you can shave that down to 6, then you still have gained four hours. Even if check in and getting to the airport still take time, that amount of time doesn't change. So you still gain those 4 hours.

Where would be the commono city-pairs for an SST? New York to London - transatlantic. LA to London - can go over northern canada. Same with New York to Tokyo.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Why Super-sonic Passenger Jets Are So Unpopular

Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:56 am

Only way to get another SST going would be to give Tupolev a lot of money,
the Tu-244 was an interesting idea, I think even some parts where built.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...