Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
aviationjunky
Topic Author
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:40 pm

With a plan to return the Concord back into service underway, I wonder if there was a way for the aircraft to make a comeback? Not just the Concord, but other SuperSonic jets that were canceled due to low demand, like the Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L-2000 (which I'm sure wouldn't happen since they haven't produced an commercial aircraft in YEARS).

My other question is are airlines still looking for a faster speed, at a supersonic level? With Concord, there were really only 2 major operators, BA and AF. Now that EK is as large and popular as it is, would they possibly be interested?
LAS is Life
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:45 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
With a plan to return the Concord back into service underway



Wait...What did I miss?
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:52 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Wait...What did I miss?

Nothing. There are no plans to bring Concorde back into service. Many people would like it to happen but it's just not going to be viable to achieve.
 
aviationjunky
Topic Author
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:03 pm

speedbored wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Wait...What did I miss?

Nothing. There are no plans to bring Concorde back into service. Many people would like it to happen but it's just not going to be viable to achieve.

From what I understand, they are going full force with this Concorde back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/the-revival-of-concorde/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3239952/Concorde-set-return-skies-Supersonic-jet-used-charter-flights-2019.html
LAS is Life
 
Independence76
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:23 pm

It's unlikely, but a few market demands would have to be present:

1. Passengers who want to get somewhere faster.

The issue with this is the high-cost of maintenance and low fuel efficiency of such aircraft may cause ticket prices to be higher than businesses want to pay. In addition, teleconferencing and virtual teams was something which did not exist in 1970 when the Concorde was introduced. International businesses have adapted significantly since 2000 to electronic capabilities and being somewhere in 3 hours instead of 8 now a slim demand.

For this to work financially, a SST aircraft would need...
- Incredible fuel efficiency or another cheaper alternative energy source (not oil)
- Maintenance costs low enough to be similar to existing long-haul aircraft

2. Cargo companies that need products elsewhere ASAP.

Amazon, DHL, TNT, UPS, and FedEx have all developed massive worldwide networks of freight and the demand has only gone up exponentially with the growth of online stores and 1-day shipping perks for consumers. Getting resources from China to the US with a fleet of cargo SSTs may have interesting results, but a few things would have to be involved before it could work...

- Aircraft is large enough to hold profitable cargo
- Aircraft is cheap enough to operate
- Trade deals and production rates between nations which justify fast international cargo transport (globalism vs. protectionism is an on-going debate)


I would absolutely love to see an SST take flight again in the next 2 or 3 decades, but jets are made for market demands and customers - not prestige and bragging rights.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:26 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
From what I understand, they are going full force with this Concorde back.

If by "going full force", you mean "looking into whether it could be possible" then you'd be right.

Like I said, many people would like to see it happen, including quite a few people with plenty of money to waste. But money is not the main problem.

There are other major hurdles:
Some vital components have been removed from all of the remaining aircraft because they contain technology that is still classified (e.g. the engine intake computers, IIRC?). Without those, return to flight would be impossible.

Airbus have categorically said that they will not provide technical support for a return to flight, at any cost. Without their assistance, it will likely be impossible to persuade the authorities to give permission for the aircraft to fly again.

Then there are noise abatement and other environmental hurdles.

Insurance, if it could be obtained at all, would be prohibitively expensive.

Personally, I would love to see Concorde return to flight - it is, by far, the best aircraft I have ever flown on. But, realistically, it simply is not going to happen.
 
cpd
Posts: 6546
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:01 pm

It cannot and will not fly again.

Club Concorde can say what they like, but Airbus won't support it so it won't happen.

Surely some of the other Concorde preservation groups will lobby against this plan anyhow, given previous vitriol between some of the groups.
 
26point2
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:01 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:14 pm

It's Concorde with an "e". Always has been. Trivial but important.
 
aklrno
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:30 pm

Independence76 wrote:
It's unlikely, but a few market demands would have to be present:

1. Passengers who want to get somewhere faster.


I wonder how much of this market is left. If you have all the money you would ever want, you could fly in a first class suite on a large aircraft in much more comfort for a few hours longer.

The business need has been reduced by Skype. When I have to talk face-to-face with someone in a hurry I just use my computer. Paper goes via email or dropbox. There are more rare events when you have to go see something in person (not another human being) where speed is an issue, but I doubt that will sell many seats on a Concorde. Finally, the routes available for Concorde are so limited that the most you could save is maybe 3 hours on a trip that is door to door probably three times that long.
 
andr16b
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:53 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:56 pm

I doubt that supersonic aircraft will ever return. People have moved on from Concorde, because they view as simply NOT fast enough - which is ridiculous.

Here in the UK, the Conservative Government recently pledged their support for the research of *hypersonic* technology (ridiculous I know), capable of doing London-Sydney in a matter of hours: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/te ... c-jet.html
 
horizon360
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:48 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:41 pm

Is there a case for Concorde coming back? I don't really think so. But it seems progress is being made on smaller, quieter, more efficient supersonic business jets. Check out the Aerion AS2 for example.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3854
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:51 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
With a plan to return the Concord back into service underway, I wonder if there was a way for the aircraft to make a comeback? Not just the Concord, but other SuperSonic jets that were canceled due to low demand, like the Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L-2000 (which I'm sure wouldn't happen since they haven't produced an commercial aircraft in YEARS).

My other question is are airlines still looking for a faster speed, at a supersonic level? With Concord, there were really only 2 major operators, BA and AF. Now that EK is as large and popular as it is, would they possibly be interested?



You must be new here. Prepare to incur the wrath of the purists. They'll be sure to point out it's not "The Concord" it is quite simply "Concorde." No "the" in the front and an "e" at the end.

This topic pops up every couple months like clockwork. Not sure how well the search function works on the new design so maybe possible duplicates didn't come up
 
User avatar
LenPepperbottom
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:14 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:36 am

That sure would be neat if it fame to fruition.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:51 am

aviationjunky wrote:
With a plan to return the Concord back into service underway, I wonder if there was a way for the aircraft to make a comeback? Not just the Concord, but other SuperSonic jets that were canceled due to low demand, like the Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L-2000 (which I'm sure wouldn't happen since they haven't produced an commercial aircraft in YEARS).

My other question is are airlines still looking for a faster speed, at a supersonic level? With Concord, there were really only 2 major operators, BA and AF. Now that EK is as large and popular as it is, would they possibly be interested?


Yup, absolutely!!!!!!!!! All of these options are coming back once oil is at $10 a barrel and stay there for 20 years with no increase in sight. Plan on riding a new Concorde circa 2068!
 
LABA
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:35 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:17 am

I believe for the routes that an SST would operate on (TATL etc), the audience would rather enjoy the lap of luxury offered these days as opposed to fast travel. THis was not the case when Concorde was flying. At least I would, once I am done with a FTS flight.

On a related note, I wonder if the Tu144 comes back!
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4319
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:46 am

To all of those people who think this threat is about bringing back the Concorde, it's not. It's about developing a new supersonic jet similar to the Concorde.

Technically it would certainly be possible, but it would not be profitable and demand would be low. The time gain would only really matter on O/D flights, which most long haul flights are not.

Suppose you're flying AMS-JFK. You've got two options. One is a direct non-supersonic flight AMS-JFK. The other is to start with a non-supersonic feeder flight AMS-LHR. Then transfer at LHR (takes a few hours) to a supersonic LHR-JFK flight. Both would take more or less the same amount of time, but the supersonic option would be up to five times as expensive. What option would you pick?
 
aviationjunky
Topic Author
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:48 pm

Everyone is so touchy on certain subjects on this website. The question wasn't will Concorde make a come back, it's if a supersonic jet could make a comeback. Clearly everyone is upset about people even THINKING Concorde would even try to come back, which I'm not sure why.

You all talk about fuel and maintenance costs, but if you look at the world of aircraft today, airlines are spending hundreds of millions of dollars for fuel and maintenance now. It can't be any more expensive than fueling or doing maintenance on an A380 or 787. I think a supersonic jet could make a major comeback, if redesigned and updated to this generation's standards and technologies. If the interior was updated to a 2-class layout, I feel like it could make a serious profit. It seems like many airlines are looking for the best and most luxurious for their passengers that are willing to pay, so why not offer those passengers the option to get to a destination twice as fast? I think they would pay for it.

I was looking at some stuff online, and it said that BA ended up making just under $2.3 billion worth of profit from its use of Concorde. That's about $70 million a month. So, you cant tell me that it wouldn't be profitable if done correctly.

As for the hypersonic jet, I don't think I could trust a jet going upwards of 4000 mph. That's entirely too fast and I feel like trying to build and fly a plane going that fast, it would need a NASA sized budget.
LAS is Life
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13329
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:57 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
As for the hypersonic jet, I don't think I could trust a jet going upwards of 4000 mph. That's entirely too fast

Based on what?

There's less proportional disparity between that and modern jets, then there was between early jets (circa more than half-century ago) and early props.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:47 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
Everyone is so touchy on certain subjects on this website. The question wasn't will Concorde make a come back, it's if a supersonic jet could make a comeback. Clearly everyone is upset about people even THINKING Concorde would even try to come back, which I'm not sure why.


It's not being touchy, it's simply having the same questions asked over and over, with nothing changing that would make the answer different.

You all talk about fuel and maintenance costs, but if you look at the world of aircraft today, airlines are spending hundreds of millions of dollars for fuel and maintenance now.


For an entire fleet of planes, yes. But these airlines also have hundreds of planes, so...what's your point?

It can't be any more expensive than fueling or doing maintenance on an A380 or 787.


It absolutely can. Concorde burned about 4x as much fuel, per passenger, as the 747 did (comparing designs of a similar generation). I don't know if a modern SST would still be 4x worse than a subsonic plane (it could even be more than that, given that much investment has been made into improving fuel efficiency of subsonic airliners, but relatively little into SSTs, given that supersonic planes have generated so little commercial interest).

About 15 years ago, Boeing floated the idea of the Sonic Cruiser, which would have added speed (not quite supersonic, but in the upper 0.9x range), and burned about as much fuel as a 767. Airlines said they wanted fuel efficiency above all else, and thus the 7E7 (eventually 787) was born. So, the 787 was designed to offer the best in fuel efficiency that could be offered given mid-2000s technology, and that obviously included slowing the plane down. Going faster burns more fuel.

Can't speak to the relative maintenance costs, but again, I'd be surprised if the costs of an SST were lower than a subsonic plane. Supersonic flight puts a lot of stress and heat on a plane, which I would expect would mean more frequent maintenance requirements.

I think a supersonic jet could make a major comeback, if redesigned and updated to this generation's standards and technologies. If the interior was updated to a 2-class layout, I feel like it could make a serious profit. It seems like many airlines are looking for the best and most luxurious for their passengers that are willing to pay, so why not offer those passengers the option to get to a destination twice as fast? I think they would pay for it.


Certainly there are some people that would pay for it. That was never the question. The question is, are there enough people that will consistently pay enough extra for it to enable the airlines to fly enough flights to make the whole project worthwhile.

Concorde had its fans and its successes, but in the end, only 16 were built, and no manufacturer could possibly make money pouring billions into the design of a new plane and only sell 16 of them. Boeing is struggling to show a profit on the 787 with 1,000 sold (granted, a lot of that is due to poor management, but just as it's more expensive to fly an SST than a comparable subsonic jet, I'm inclined to believe it would be much more expensive to design and build a supersonic jet than a subsonic one).

SSTs are limited in their potential routes because they cannot fly supersonic over land. That limits them to, basically, routes that cross the ocean, and serve cities on or near the edge of their continents.

So, you have a plane that has a limited set of routes it can fly, and those routes have to have enough traffic willing to pay a premium for a faster flight to sustain regular service (because no matter which way you wish it, the cost is going to be higher than a comparable subsonic flight for the foreseeable future, unless there is some great revolution in technology or new discoveries about the laws of physics). There have to be enough such routes to create a large enough demand from the airlines to buy enough planes to make it worthwhile for a manufacturer to build them.

The manufacturer has to reasonably expect to not only cover the costs of development and production, but also make a profit. This means the price tag will be quite high. An SST would almost certainly carry a price tag higher than that of an A380, while carrying maybe 1/4 the seats. This high price tag would make it more difficult for airlines to justify buying them unless they were quite certain of the demand. High prices (as with anything in economics) will lower the quantity demanded, meaning it's that much harder for the manufacturers to justify development.

And this is why, nearly 50 years after Concorde was developed, nobody has yet attempted to build another one.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:57 pm

I think supersonic private jets will be here. There are startups trying to innovate to break into the space. The real potential is through the likes of Delta Private Jets and the likes operated by other airlines.

There most certainly is a market between NYC and LON among other cities. That high value client base willing to pay $10,000+ dollars on a premium cabin most certainly has a population that would pay to be there in half the time... the same folks that flew the Concorde for example. With a larger private jet with new technology, why would this not be a possibility?

Same concept with Ethiad and their Residence, they do not operate it on every flight, but on the routes they do, why not capture that high paying client?

Lets use Delta/BA/AA/UA, etc. They have a massive network and have loyalty of high value clients. Offer them Supersonic flights between NYC and LON via their private jets subsidiary. They keep the revenue in house vs to another carrier. They can advertise supersonic travel and all that publicity. The airlines today operate at such a scale, why not have this additional spoke of revenue?

This space is ripe for players to come in, test the waters and innovate.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5188
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:11 pm

While the need to get from JFK to LHR in under 3.5 hours may not be that great, I suspect a number of people would like to cut down the amount of time needed to travel from the U.S. to India, China, Australia, and other routes that need 12+ hours in the air.

That said, a number of points made are quite valid, including fuel consumption, passenger load, cargo payload, and maintenance.

The other issue is that pesky sonic boom. It's fine for an SST to fly JFK-LHR, but just in the U.S., there are a number of hubs that are well inland for flights from Europe and Asia, including ORD, DFW, IAH, DTW, and MSP. There's no point of designing a new SST, if noise regulations require subsonic flight from the coastline of the U.S. or Canada to the final destination in the U.S.
 
cpd
Posts: 6546
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:59 am

airzona11 wrote:
I think supersonic private jets will be here. There are startups trying to innovate to break into the space. The real potential is through the likes of Delta Private Jets and the likes operated by other airlines.

There most certainly is a market between NYC and LON among other cities. That high value client base willing to pay $10,000+ dollars on a premium cabin most certainly has a population that would pay to be there in half the time... the same folks that flew the Concorde for example. With a larger private jet with new technology, why would this not be a possibility?

Same concept with Ethiad and their Residence, they do not operate it on every flight, but on the routes they do, why not capture that high paying client?

Lets use Delta/BA/AA/UA, etc. They have a massive network and have loyalty of high value clients. Offer them Supersonic flights between NYC and LON via their private jets subsidiary. They keep the revenue in house vs to another carrier. They can advertise supersonic travel and all that publicity. The airlines today operate at such a scale, why not have this additional spoke of revenue?

This space is ripe for players to come in, test the waters and innovate.


The problem is, that no country will allow supersonic flight over land, and that means that you only have the usual long over-water routes. And these will surely be out of reach for a small supersonic biz-jet. Is it going to be able to do YMML-KLAX or YSSY-KLAX non-stop? Or will it need to make stops in Nadi and Hawaii? And what about flying the opposite direction.

The best bet is a larger 200-250 seater M2.0 to M2.4 supersonic airliner using up to date engine, aerodynamics and construction technology. The supersonic biz-jet seems like too narrow a niche.

hOMSaR wrote:
Going faster burns more fuel.

Can't speak to the relative maintenance costs, but again, I'd be surprised if the costs of an SST were lower than a subsonic plane. Supersonic flight puts a lot of stress and heat on a plane, which I would expect would mean more frequent maintenance requirements.


Actually, going lower and slower burns more fuel. I do know what you are saying though, at least in respect to the regular bloated blobs with wings on them that we call subsonic airliners.

I suspect a new supersonic airliner will be much easier to do than the first generation, provided the developers don't get silly and try for something too-ambitious like M3.0 or more.

For one, you won't have parallel management structures overseeing everything (big cost savings just by that), you won't be developing multiple small scale research aircraft to try and discover if a delta wing will actually fly properly, let alone if it is the right shape. A lot of stuff can now be done on computers that was impossible back in the early days. And we've got the great fortune of all the learnings that came from the first generation of supersonic airliners. That's a huge base to start from. The developers of L2000, Concorde, TU-144 and Boeing 2707 didn't have any of that.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1784
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:39 am

cpd wrote:

The problem is, that no country will allow supersonic flight over land, and that means that you only have the usual long over-water routes. And these will surely be out of reach for a small supersonic biz-jet. Is it going to be able to do YMML-KLAX or YSSY-KLAX non-stop? Or will it need to make stops in Nadi and Hawaii? And what about flying the opposite direction.

The best bet is a larger 200-250 seater M2.0 to M2.4 supersonic airliner using up to date engine, aerodynamics and construction technology. The supersonic biz-jet seems like too narrow a niche.


I agree that the larger jet would add economies of scale to this. However the same tech advances that will make that available will be available to smaller jets.

West Coast to Asia is a huge market as well. Trans Pac/Atlantic is a massive market and where are the long haul dollars are.

I think we will see a smaller jet for the top "1% so to speak" then this boutique niche will prove the viability to larger scale commercial operation.

Look at SFO-SIN, first UA now SQ are going nonstop shave a few hours of the trip time. These are people flying with immense luxury and no hassle but still want to shave a few hours.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13329
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:53 am

cpd wrote:
A lot of stuff can now be done on computers that was impossible back in the early days. And we've got the great fortune of all the learnings that came from the first generation of supersonic airliners. That's a huge base to start from. The developers of L2000, Concorde, TU-144 and Boeing 2707 didn't have any of that.

Neither of the above really addresses one of root "problems" concerning SST pax travel though:
Other technologies have moved in, to make the concept essentially obsolete.

Concorde was fast, but even its speed is dwarfed by that of an electronic signal:
Now that FaceTime and PDFs are available, face2face meetings or contract signings can be done instantly instead of in 4hrs.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
cpd
Posts: 6546
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:56 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Other technologies have moved in, to make the concept essentially obsolete.


The electronic signal can't do everything. I would love it if the electronic signal could instantly get me to my holiday destination so I don't have to spend 13-14 hours on a plane.

And if people don't care about fast journey times, then try doubling the time of their journeys and see what kind of protest you get. People have become quite pampered by the jet age.

Eventually planes will start getting quicker, and it won't just be a few who will have access to it. Someone will innovate eventually. And either everyone else will rush to compete, or the opposing countries will ban it.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:50 am

Well, Richard Branson is interested in a new SST.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ness-class





Just sayin'.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:16 pm

I have to remember not to come to A.net for any discussion of promoting innovation. Very conservative thinking here, ignorant or ignoring the innovations in both technology and economy that are pursuing supersonic flight.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:51 pm

26point2 wrote:
It's Concorde with an "e". Always has been. Trivial but important.

Not so trivial.

Although I was very young, I do recall the controversy over that e. The name, was to show the joint Anglo/French collaboration. But ... the "e" meant it was more French than English, and that stirred a lot of ill feelings.

While a lot thought just speed was Concorde's greatest achievement, I don't agree. Anyone can fire a dart through the air at M2.0. In my opinion, the greatest achievement was that speed, combined with a very hostile environment .... while 100 passengers were sipping champagne and reading a book with no idea!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:58 pm

I think we will see a civilian supersonic jet again, but it WON'T be a commercial airliner capable of flying as fast as Mach 2.2 like the Concorde was.

I see something more like a business jet carrying 18-21 passengers with a range around 5,500 to 6,000 nautical miles. Such a plane will have the following features:

1. Variable-cycle engines that offer subsonic jet engine fuel-efficiency and noise levels but can switch to running in supersonic mode. GE Aero Engines successfully tested such an engine design for the Advanced Tactical Fighter project in the 1990's, so the idea is not that far-fetched.

2. The plane will be shaped to minimize the pressure wave buildup that causes the sonic boom in the first place. As such, the plane could cruise well above Mach 1 at a cruising altitude of 52,000 feet with no audible sonic boom on the ground.

3. They will limit the top speed of the plane to Mach 1.6. That way, the engines need to run very little reheat (afterburner) operation, which dramatically reduces fuel consumption and generates a lot less noise in supersonic flight. Also, limiting the top speed to Mach 1.6 allows the use of a lot more composite materials and less need for expensive aerospace-quality stainless steel and titanium structural parts, which in turn reduces fuel consumption even further.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4407
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:01 pm

I suspect that a more likely ULH flights will fly people is taking advantage of a characteristic of most Mammalia, they like to sleep at night. It will be cheaper to provide comfortable sleeping than SST times, and red eyes will rule. LOL More seriously very efficient VLAs could do this at acceptable prices on both ends of the cabin.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13329
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:15 pm

cpd wrote:
I would love it if the electronic signal could instantly get me to my holiday destination so I don't have to spend 13-14 hours on a plane.

And when you, and most others, are willing to pay 5-figure airfares for a vacation destination... then that'll probably come about.

Until then, not likely.



cpd wrote:
Eventually planes will start getting quicker, and it won't just be a few who will have access to it. Someone will innovate eventually.

History paints a different story: aircraft have actually gotten SLOWER over the last few decades.

The 707s and DC8s of 50yrs ago, and L1011s and 742s of 30yrs ago-- were absolute speed demons compared to the A330s, A340s, 777s, 787s, etc of today.

COULD we go faster? Of course.
But travelers generally value PRICE above all else, thus causing airlines to value EFFICIENCY above speed.
So long as fossil fuels remain the primary source of propulsion, then that's not going to change.


OA940 wrote:
Well, Richard Branson is interested in a new SST.

The same bloke whose last SST-related business model proposal, included acquiring multi-million dollar assets for $1GBP each?

Yeahhhh, let's wait to see some ducats exchange hands, before we buy into his media-grabbing propaganda yet again, shall we?


rampart wrote:
I have to remember not to come to A.net for any discussion of promoting innovation. Very conservative thinking here, ignorant or ignoring the innovations in both technology and economy that are pursuing supersonic flight.

You confuse realism with ignorance.

"Supersonic flight for the masses" has been a pursuit for the better part of 70yrs, but no one, even entire governments, have been able to figure out how to make the economics of such work in a compelling way. No one.

So ya gotta forgive there being just a weeeee bit of skepticism whenever the umpteenth new proposal comes out, claiming to have such.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Clipper101
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:15 pm

I would imagine supersonic will get a comeback in the form of hyperloop travel & not in the form of jets. If the technology get developed by early 2020’s away from the current concept proving gestures then the lure of building supersonic jets could subside slowly in favour of hyperloop travel. If hyperloop gets successful, I would imagine it to develop itself into its own industry (Hyperloop Industry as opposed to Aerospace Industry) & who knows by 2100 the globe could be filled with hyper connectivity lines which could include trans-oceanic lines.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13329
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:33 pm

RayChuang wrote:
They will limit the top speed of the plane to Mach 1.6. That way, the engines need to run very little reheat (afterburner) operation, which dramatically reduces fuel consumption and generates a lot less noise in supersonic flight.

Yeah, but the two don't really correlate.

If the aircraft is capable of supercruise, then it wouldn't need reheat in supersonic flight anyway. The only time Concorde had them after takeoff, was the transonic acceleration through the high drag zone... of which M1.6 sits relatively close to.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Roadcruiser1
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:05 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:57 pm

This plane here will be the closest you will ever get to seeing supersonic commercial flight however it will probably cost you a lot of money.

Introducing the Aerion AS2. For 14 people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5opnLqanUvE

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2
Roadcruiser1
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21888
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:43 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Yup, absolutely!!!!!!!!! All of these options are coming back once oil is at $10 a barrel and stay there for 20 years with no increase in sight. Plan on riding a new Concorde circa 2068!


Well done, sir. You win one internet.

Here are a fewthings to remember:

1) Whether the airplane is made out of lead, steel, aluminum, titanium, CFRP, NTRP, or Magic Spider Silk-Reinforced Unicorn Horn (MSSRUH), it requires about four times the structure to do the same as a subsonic aircraft. This is because the aerodynamic stresses are so much higher. There are also some limitations on materials because compression along leading surfaces causes a lot of heating of the air, so the leading surfaces must be heat-resistant.

2) Whether the airplane is fueled by coal, Jet A, or angel farts, it needs 3-4x the fuel (energy expenditure) to fly the same payload the same distance. At cruise Concorde burned about as much fuel per mile as the 747-100/200 of the day, but it carried about 1/3 of the passengers. But during climb and acceleration, Concorde burned much more than the 747-100/200. Total fuel burn was about four times that of the 747.

3) There is a point of diminishing returns. If you can make my 5 hour flight from SFO to OGG take 2.5 hours, I'm definitely listening. But if you tell me that it will make my $500 ticket into a $2,000 ticket, you're going to lose my interest. If you are going to make my SFO-SYD flight take 4 hours instead of 14, now I'm REALLY listening. Until you tell me than my $1,000 fare just went up to $16,000. No, thanks. Are there rich people who would do that? Yes, but not enough to justify an entire new airplane development program involving multiple groundbreaking technologies.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:13 pm

DocLightning wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:

3) There is a point of diminishing returns. If you can make my 5 hour flight from SFO to OGG take 2.5 hours, I'm definitely listening. But if you tell me that it will make my $500 ticket into a $2,000 ticket, you're going to lose my interest. If you are going to make my SFO-SYD flight take 4 hours instead of 14, now I'm REALLY listening. Until you tell me than my $1,000 fare just went up to $16,000. No, thanks. Are there rich people who would do that? Yes, but not enough to justify an entire new airplane development program involving multiple groundbreaking technologies.


These were some numbers I ran in a discussion of the Aerion comparing how much time it might save vs the Gulfstream G650, which is faster than all airliners in service at high speed cruise (although it's long range cruise is the same as most large widebodies).

However, some playing around GC mapper says you'll save about an hour (3:15 vs 4:10) flying JFK-LAX at 1.15M vs .9 However, that difference grows dramatically for TATL. for JFK-LTN, you go from 5:45 at .9M to only 3:30 at 1.5M. It can work going to Asia as well even with a fuel stop. LAX-ANC-NRT is 6:15 flight time while LAX-NRT non stop at .9M is 9:10. LAX-PKC-HKG shows as 7:52 flight time at 1.4M vs 12:13 at .9M non stop. LAX-HNL-SYD @1.4M vs LAX-SYD @.85M (you'll have to slow that G650 down to make it non stop) is 8:14 (flight time) vs 13:20. All would allow time to do a quick turn fuel stop and stay ahead.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=598229
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:33 pm

Evolution of technology would suggest it's not only possible but inevitable.

The question is when the technology will make it economically feasible. Probably not in our life time.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:24 am

Instead of a supersonic jet, could we at least get TSA lines in the USA to move at something faster than glacial speed? Say....under 15 minutes? Now THAT would make my life easier!
 
cpd
Posts: 6546
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:22 am

LAX772LR wrote:
cpd wrote:
I would love it if the electronic signal could instantly get me to my holiday destination so I don't have to spend 13-14 hours on a plane.

And when you, and most others, are willing to pay 5-figure airfares for a vacation destination... then that'll probably come about.

Until then, not likely.

cpd wrote:
Eventually planes will start getting quicker, and it won't just be a few who will have access to it. Someone will innovate eventually.

History paints a different story: aircraft have actually gotten SLOWER over the last few decades.

The 707s and DC8s of 50yrs ago, and L1011s and 742s of 30yrs ago-- were absolute speed demons compared to the A330s, A340s, 777s, 787s, etc of today.

COULD we go faster? Of course.


How do you know I'm not willing to pay more? You've made an assumption, without knowing.

I agree, aircraft are getting slower. Perhaps it is time for the next step, from M0.84 down to M0.50.

The only reason we really got those jets in the first place was due to military development. If it weren't for them, you'd never be flying on jet aircraft, because it wouldn't be financially viable to take the risk to develop a jet aircraft.
Roadcruiser1 wrote:
This plane here will be the closest you will ever get to seeing supersonic commercial flight however it will probably cost you a lot of money.

Introducing the Aerion AS2. For 14 people.


I'll believe it when it is taking off for the first time. They are unacceptable for corporations to operate as it is, let alone operating a supersonic one.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21888
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:24 am

tjh8402 wrote:
These were some numbers I ran in a discussion of the Aerion comparing how much time it might save vs the Gulfstream G650, which is faster than all airliners in service at high speed cruise (although it's long range cruise is the same as most large widebodies).

However, some playing around GC mapper says you'll save about an hour (3:15 vs 4:10) flying JFK-LAX at 1.15M vs .9 However, that difference grows dramatically for TATL. for JFK-LTN, you go from 5:45 at .9M to only 3:30 at 1.5M. It can work going to Asia as well even with a fuel stop. LAX-ANC-NRT is 6:15 flight time while LAX-NRT non stop at .9M is 9:10. LAX-PKC-HKG shows as 7:52 flight time at 1.4M vs 12:13 at .9M non stop. LAX-HNL-SYD @1.4M vs LAX-SYD @.85M (you'll have to slow that G650 down to make it non stop) is 8:14 (flight time) vs 13:20. All would allow time to do a quick turn fuel stop and stay ahead.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=598229


And how much more will the supersonic business jet cost to operate per mile than the Gulstream? I'm guessing AT LEAST three times.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13329
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:36 am

cpd wrote:
How do you know I'm not willing to pay more? You've made an assumption, without knowing.

You either missed the three words that immediately followed that, or your sense of self-importance is MASSIVELY over-inflated. Which is it?


cpd wrote:
I agree, aircraft are getting slower. Perhaps it is time for the next step, from M0.84 down to M0.50

Both your agreement and dim attempt at sarcasm, are immaterial to that fact.


cpd wrote:
The only reason we really got those jets in the first place was due to military development.

Unsubstantiated, but interesting perspective nonetheless.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:38 am

DocLightning wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
These were some numbers I ran in a discussion of the Aerion comparing how much time it might save vs the Gulfstream G650, which is faster than all airliners in service at high speed cruise (although it's long range cruise is the same as most large widebodies).

However, some playing around GC mapper says you'll save about an hour (3:15 vs 4:10) flying JFK-LAX at 1.15M vs .9 However, that difference grows dramatically for TATL. for JFK-LTN, you go from 5:45 at .9M to only 3:30 at 1.5M. It can work going to Asia as well even with a fuel stop. LAX-ANC-NRT is 6:15 flight time while LAX-NRT non stop at .9M is 9:10. LAX-PKC-HKG shows as 7:52 flight time at 1.4M vs 12:13 at .9M non stop. LAX-HNL-SYD @1.4M vs LAX-SYD @.85M (you'll have to slow that G650 down to make it non stop) is 8:14 (flight time) vs 13:20. All would allow time to do a quick turn fuel stop and stay ahead.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=598229


And how much more will the supersonic business jet cost to operate per mile than the Gulstream? I'm guessing AT LEAST three times.


It will clearly cost more than the Gulfstream to operate as well as purchase. I never said or suggested otherwise. I was just providing an idea of how much time could be saved with a SSBJ. I didn't and can't say whether or not those time savings are worth the cost.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21888
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:39 am

tjh8402 wrote:
It will clearly cost more than the Gulfstream to operate as well as purchase. I never said or suggested otherwise. I was just providing an idea of how much time could be saved with a SSBJ. I didn't and can't say whether or not those time savings are worth the cost.


The other thing is that while the renderings of the AS2 are stunning, my guess is that the actual cabin will feel very cramped. The Gulfstream cabin looks positively palatial by comparison.

I can see a market but not a huge one.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2110
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:35 am

thekorean wrote:
Evolution of technology would suggest it's not only possible but inevitable.

The question is when the technology will make it economically feasible. Probably not in our life time.


Precisely. Too many short sighted comments in this thread. Sure if only restrict yourselves to today's ("Concorde") technology / fuel prices
then sure it is not economically viable. But let's say 30-40-50 years from now, who knows what kind of technology we will have access to.
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:45 pm

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Precisely. Too many short sighted comments in this thread. Sure if only restrict yourselves to today's ("Concorde") technology / fuel prices
then sure it is not economically viable. But let's say 30-40-50 years from now, who knows what kind of technology we will have access to.


I'm still waiting for all of the flying cars we were told we would have 40 years ago.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:31 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

Precisely. Too many short sighted comments in this thread. Sure if only restrict yourselves to today's ("Concorde") technology / fuel prices
then sure it is not economically viable. But let's say 30-40-50 years from now, who knows what kind of technology we will have access to.


I'm still waiting for all of the flying cars we were told we would have 40 years ago.


Oh, but we do have it now. Well, sort of.
https://www.gizmag.com/ehang-184-aav-pa ... one/41213/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbeoTnuo2-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iyCgy1juHc
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: Could "SuperSonic" Jets make a comeback?

Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:32 am

DocLightning wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
It will clearly cost more than the Gulfstream to operate as well as purchase. I never said or suggested otherwise. I was just providing an idea of how much time could be saved with a SSBJ. I didn't and can't say whether or not those time savings are worth the cost.


The other thing is that while the renderings of the AS2 are stunning, my guess is that the actual cabin will feel very cramped. The Gulfstream cabin looks positively palatial by comparison.

I can see a market but not a huge one.


It will certainly be more cramped than the G650, but then again, pretty much all bizjets are. Plus, the G650 is designed for 15 hour flights, whereas the AS2 will only have about 6 hours of endurance at its M1.4 high speed cruise, so it would make sense that its cabin is smaller. The Aerion is not any more cramped than other airplanes regularly doing similar flight times. According to Aerion's stated dimensions, the planes cabin lxwxh is virtually identical to a Falcon 900, an airplane with longer endurance than the Aerion. That 6 hour flight the AS2 does at high speed cruise is the same time a typical bizjet does TATL, with many of those being models (Challengers, Falcon 2000s, G200s/G280s, Citation Xs, ) that have smaller cabins than the AS2.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos