lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:56 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 47):
To me the market for SST today is the super rich and them only.

You know, 65 years ago, people said that about flying. And Oceanliners were still built - the fastest, most luxurious ones the world has ever seen.
They were out of business soon.
Much the same happened to sailing ships 150 years ago. In the about 50 years in that steam and sail co-existed, sailing ships were improved more than in the previous 300 years. But the fat Lady has sung for the sail.

Presently, supersonic flight still seems to be too expensive to be economically viable. "Too expensive" can (and will!) be tackled from 2 sides:
- costs coming down (a roundtrip ticket Europe-USA costs rather less now than 20 years ago, when it also cost less than 20 years ago)
- incomes going up (50 years ago, trips from Europe to the USA were not affordable unless you were rich)
The only question is where the threshold is.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12164
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:24 pm

Flying instead of sailing makes you gain days or weeks. Here we're talking about hours, the benefit isn't the same.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 51):
Flying instead of sailing makes you gain days or weeks. Here we're talking about hours, the benefit isn't the same.

True, but in the beginning of passenger flights over the Atlantic (with piston engines) the difference was not that much, and flying much more cumbersome and causing jetlag.
Also, you could make the roundtrip to NYC including a couple of hours for a meeting in one business day. In relative terms, the advantage would be in the same ballpark.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
1) At the altitude that an SST flies (50-70,000 feet), the pressure differential from the cabin to the exterior is much higher than it would be down at 30-40,000 feet.

No. In 40.000 ft., air pressure is about 20% of sea level. In vacuum it is obviously 0%, resulting in only 25% higher inside pressure as load.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
2) Fluid drag increases quadratically with speed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation) So the engines must be producing around four times the force and the airframe is pushing back on the engines with around four times the force. Now, they're at a higher altitude, which helps, but that doesn't even take shock formation into account.

True, but this affects a minority of parts.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
After Concorde, there have been no supercruise engines produced. Thus, I assume R&D has been pretty limited.

Military jets use supercruise.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:43 pm

The Concorde was mainly built on technology known from fast military aircraft, supersonic bombers. No new aircraft of this species has been built since long, so not much progress to inherit. Stealth technology does not help an airliner.

So this would need to be constructed from scratch with civil techology. If the more or less standard 787 already cost 38bio , we speak about costs far north of 100bio here, completely new technologies - neither A nor B want to set their future onto such a niche aircraft.

Of course, Russia or China could decide to go this way and waste the 100bio tax money - similar to what the UK and France did on the Concorde, to built up a competitive aerospace industry. I doubt more than 20 of such birds would ever fly.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:09 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 52):

True, but this affects a minority of parts.

A minority of parts other than the entire structure. The only parts it doesn't affect are those purely system parts or internal fittings that carry no structural loads.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 52):

Military jets use supercruise.

Which?
-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
BaconButty
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:11 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 44):
Which gains them _____?

From the horses mouth:
Quote:
“This is Aerion’s jet and Aerion’s program, with substantial benefits accruing to Airbus Group,” said McKenzie. “We gain new technology and tools, and through our collaboration will be expanding engineering knowledge and refining processes such as digital manufacturing. The AS2 program will be an incubator for innovation in design, engineering, and manufacturing.”

[McKenzie being Ken McKenzie, Senior Vice President for Strategy and Corporate Development at Airbus Group, Inc. (The North American arm)]
Others have suggested that the real win is some proprietary technology related to NLF wings, which Airbus are soon to fly on an A340 testbed to evaluate different manufacturing/maintenance methods with a view to incorporating on the next gen single aisle (c2030).

I could add that if the aircraft makes it to market, "Airbus Group will provide major components and Aerion will conduct final assembly in the U.S."

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 44):

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 43):
Of course it's not a massive commitment

....ya think?

Now then, darling, lowest form of wit and all that. It is what it is, but "Airbus may have just agreed to browse over Aerion's proposals, with arm's-length interaction. " is evidently far from the case.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 44):
as it involves no specifics, no outlined goals

The Composite News article linked previously contains loads of specifics from an Engineering Progress Report attended by the Airbus North America CEO Allan McCartor and the Ken McKenzie referred to above.
http://www.jeccomposites.com/news/co...anded-collaboration-supersonic-as2

I know I sound like I'm championing this project - there's a good chance it will all go pear shaped in the next 9 months if they fail to get an engine manufacturer on board, but if they get over that hurdle there's a better than even chance they'll make it.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1787
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:17 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):

Eventually that will be overcome just because of the time allowed to be saved by supersonic planes.

Maybe not in our lifetime but some day.
 
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:36 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...evelopment-Skylon-space-craft.html

Quote:
The design – known as an air-breathing rocket engine and named Sabre – could power a new generation of Mach 5 passenger jets, called the Lapcat, dramatically cutting flying times.

While normal long-haul passenger jets cruise at around 35,000ft, the Lapcat could fly as high as 92,000ft at speeds of up to 4,000mph.

From FL92, are sonic booms even still audible?

Also, who says the military isn't developing new supersonic aircraft: Lockheed confirmed it's developing a Mach 6 version of a spy plane they're calling the SR-72:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...personic-mach-6-scramjet-spy-plane

Supersonic doesn't really provide such a huge quantum leap in time savings. Hypersonic is the way to go. Imagine New York to London in an hour and a half.

[Edited 2016-04-03 16:40:14]
 
cpd
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:39 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58):

Supersonic doesn't really provide such a huge quantum leap in time savings

2 hours 52 minutes from New York to London versus 7 hours or more? Seems like a pretty massive time saving to me.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58):

Also, who says the military isn't developing new supersonic aircraft:

Nothing to see here, move along. Military has chosen slow speed and stealth technology.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58):
Hypersonic is the way to go. Imagine New York to London in an hour and a half.

From the conference I attended last year on hypersonic flight, it is very far away for civil use.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 53):
The Concorde was mainly built on technology known from fast military aircraft, supersonic bombers. No new aircraft of this species has been built since long, so not much progress to inherit. Stealth technology does not help an airliner.

Concorde was not built from technology known from fast military aircraft. It was built as its own thing, which was part of the reason why it was so expensive and took so long to do. They had to develop everything from scratch just about.

The fast military aircraft/bombers you hint at did not get built because missiles were developed that could shoot them down, even at 60,000ft and mach 2.0. So everyone went to ballistic missiles instead. The TSR2 got cancelled, the F111K never entered service. And then eventually, the Tornado finally was finally developed and flew to address the need for a tactical strike aircraft, long after Concorde was already flying.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7020
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:39 am

My grandfather subscribed to a weekly journal which included some science related articles much like Popular Science these days. He kept those magazines, and when visiting the we kids were allowed to read them on rainy days.

I remember one article from 1929 which told about a new airliner being designed. It would carry 10 passengers at 1400 km/h (875 mph), and it would be ready for service somewhere between 1940 and 1945.

It was of course a biplane. Up front it had a massive engine with 48 cylinders and 2500 HP.

It would cruise 7 km up in the air where the air pressure is very thin, therefore it could fly faster. Since it is very cold up there the cabin would be equipped with heating taken from the engine.

It had an extremely long legged landing gear because the propeller diameter was identical to the wing span. But those long legs could be folded backwards during flight so they induced less drag.

It may have been the world's first SST project, but the word "supersonic" wasn't mentioned. The sound barrier hadn't been invented yet.

Reading this thread, little has changed over the last 87 years. We keep on feeding each other with pure fantasy solutions to the same issue, fast flight.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12780
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:59 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 46):
What is it about supersonic flight that is presently unknown that would require such cost

It's not what's "unknown," it's just (as mentioned above) the pesky fact that anything you can do to make an SST more efficient and lower cost.... you can probably do to a subsonic design too. And that's what airlines want.


Quoting Aesma (Reply 47):
Well today Concorde's safety level wouldn't be acceptable.

  


Quoting Aesma (Reply 47):
To me the market for SST today is the super rich and them only.

When was it ever anything else??


Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
After Concorde, there have been no supercruise engines produced.

Not entirely true. For passenger purposes no, but there have definitely been supercruise engines developed and produced.


Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 50):
You know, 65 years ago, people said that about flying

Fallacious comparison, as other forms of technology have eclipsed flight, such that the concept is supersonic travel is all but obsolete.

No aircraft could ever challenge the speed of light, and in the days of PDFs and videoconferencing, supersonic travel is a mere pittance.


Quoting BaconButty (Reply 55):
Now then, darling, lowest form of wit and all that.

Well "darling," what else would you expect, when talking to you?  


Quoting BaconButty (Reply 55):
is evidently far from the case.

Perhaps a review of the word "evidently" is in order.
Again, nothing but talk, not in the forefront (totally not Airbus' style), no results therefrom.


Quoting BaconButty (Reply 55):
I know I sound like I'm championing this project

True

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 55):
there's a good chance it will all go pear shaped

Even more true.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:15 am

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 57):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supercruise_ability

Three in service. The F22 being the newest. None designed for efficiency.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cpd
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:41 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 61):
and in the days of PDFs and videoconferencing,

Argh, PDFs and video conferencing. I hate that. I need to be at the table in person.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
After Concorde, there have been no supercruise engines produced. Thus, I assume R&D has been pretty limited. While turbofan core design has improved, those improvements are not necessarily easily translated to turbojet engines

Quite a bit of design and research has been done to make more efficient engines for an SST. Afterburners are a thing of the past, and were certainly not to be used on future Concordes after 216 as far I know. That was the first step. After that Rolls Royce was doing quite a lot of research into a post Olympus design.
 
ThReaTeN
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Three in service. The F22 being the newest. None designed for efficiency.

You asked for examples of supercruising aircraft designed after the Concorde, you got them.

Why exactly would there be new engines designed primarily for efficient supercruise when all engines, post-Concorde, used on supersonic aircraft have been designed for military applications? How would that make any sense?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:07 am

Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 64):

Why exactly would there be new engines designed primarily for efficient supercruise when all engines, post-Concorde, used on supersonic aircraft have been designed for military applications? How would that make any sense?

It wouldn't, which is exactly my point.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cpd
Posts: 6116
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Three in service. The F22 being the newest. None designed for efficiency.

I'd say efficiency for the type of engine that it is would have been a fairly high priority. The more efficient it is, the more operating range it has.
 
User avatar
ordell
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:33 am

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:11 am

My understanding is that supersonic travel by non-military planes is not allowed over the U.S. It's a holdover from the Cold War era. Am I incorrect?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12780
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 63):
Argh, PDFs and video conferencing. I hate that. I need to be at the table in person.

Then you, or whomever you represent, have two choices if you want that done at supersonic speed:
  • You can help front the tens of billions needed for the creation/certification/production/sustenance of a new SST, or
  • You can pay the tens of millions needed to acquire one, if/when someone else does the above

    ....either that, or enjoy 0.90-0.98Mach, because you'll be there for quite some time yet.  
  • I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
     
    User avatar
    DocLightning
    Posts: 21633
    Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:28 am

    Quoting ordell (Reply 67):
    My understanding is that supersonic travel by non-military planes is not allowed over the U.S. It's a holdover from the Cold War era. Am I incorrect?

    Well that and the fact that sonic booms are unpleasant.
    -Doc Lightning-

    "The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
    -Carl Sagan
     
    lancelot07
    Posts: 1084
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:41 am

    Quoting ordell (Reply 67):
    My understanding is that supersonic travel by non-military planes is not allowed over the U.S. It's a holdover from the Cold War era. Am I incorrect?

    Yes and No.
    Supersonic civilian travel was outlawed during the cold war, but it was related to Concorde (and TU-144) and the cancellation of the SST-Project, and not to the cold war itself.

    Quoting cpd (Reply 66):
    I'd say efficiency for the type of engine that it is would have been a fairly high priority. The more efficient it is, the more operating range it has.

      
    Even if not the primary objective it will be an important consideration, not only because of range but because of total weight of the plane.
    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 61):
    No aircraft could ever challenge the speed of light, and in the days of PDFs and videoconferencing, supersonic travel is a mere pittance.

    PDF replaces postal services, and video is an extension to the phone.
    Very useful, but no replacement to travel - as long as you can't put yourself in a PDF and email yourself to Hawaii.
     
    dare100em
    Posts: 278
    Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:34 am

    Quoting GatorClark (Reply 27):
    Personally, I think it is obsolete technology. Why spend upwards of $9k (cheapest I've heard and in US dollars) for a one way trip to London from JFK for an important business meeting that, with the advent of skype, facetime, and other programs like that, can allow you to have instantaneous, real time, face to face conference calls spanning the globe?

    This is the main point IMO. With todays It-data-capabilities, internet and so on ther's no longer the same pressure as 20 or 30 years ago for CEO's and others to meet personally all the time carrying paper around. Yes, personal contact is still important and time is money but with Skype you safe nearly all the time and a lot money.

    It would be limited to "physical" present people like VIP's, politicans, musicans.

    All the rest, 90% of business and 99% of holiday/ student travel is ALL ABOUT cheap tickets. It's not that you're in a ship for 5 days to cross the Atlantic.
     
    vc10
    Posts: 1414
    Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:52 am

    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 70):
    Yes and No.
    Supersonic civilian travel was outlawed during the cold war, but it was related to Concorde (and TU-144) and the cancellation of the SST-Project, and not to the cold war itself.


    Now was the space shuttle a military or civilian project , because when on re-entry and slowing up for approach it surely flew supersonic over the USA .
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:56 am

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 68):

    You really despise SSTs or anyone who supports the idea, don't you? And yes, I'm happy to pay the higher prices to use one or to support the creation of one however I can.

    Quoting vc10 (Reply 72):

    The shuttle is a special case. And a prestige project if ever there were one.



    If the USA hadn't stuffed up their own SST project with grandiose bigger and better designs, I suspect we would have had more SST aircraft.

    [Edited 2016-04-04 01:08:40]
     
    User avatar
    LAX772LR
    Posts: 12780
    Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:00 am

    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 70):
    PDF replaces postal services, and video is an extension to the phone.

    So what? Some of the most functional technologies are just derivatives of prior platforms.


    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 70):
    Very useful, but no replacement to travel

    Says who? It's a replacement for travel by a significant percentage of both self-loading and crew-loaded cargo.


    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 70):
    as long as you can't put yourself in a PDF and email yourself to Hawaii.

    ....Hawaii isn't a business destination, and also who is going to pay 10x the lowest available fare, to get to Hawaii 2hrs faster, as per the context of the thread?
    I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
     
    kurtverbose
    Posts: 568
    Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:29 am

    In some ways supersonic aeroplanes are simpler than subsonic. If you strip out all the noise and takeoff problems you have quite a simple engine and an aircraft flying in very thin air. When you also factor in the increased number of journies possible you have your capital working a lot harder for you.

    Now suppose you have a launch carraige that has all the landing gear, quiet engines optimised for take-off, and even an electric launch and landing, and it took the aeroplane to a height where the noisy engines aren't a problem?

    I guess infrastructure would be a problem, and also mating the launch aircraft and the liner on landing. Ok, a bit blue sky, but that's what we're talking about, right?
     
    User avatar
    LAX772LR
    Posts: 12780
    Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:01 am

    Quoting cpd (Reply 73):
    You really despise SSTs

    Concorde rides on both airlines would suggest otherwise.



    Quoting cpd (Reply 73):
    or anyone who supports the idea, don't you?

    Nah, just those who can't let go of an ideal in the face of abject reality.... the "Club Concorde/Save Concorde" types would be a perfect example. Or Bernie Sanders supporters (but I digress).  

    Building a fossil-fuel powered SST in the late 2010s/2020s is basically like trying to make the most awesome new Encyclopedia set, in the era of Google:
    It can be done. But it'll always be niche, particularly hard hit by market shocks, and have incredibly limited appeal-- no matter how incredible its performance may be.
    Apparently some people just can't accept that reality.

    I guess their hopes are up?
    ......ya know, considering all the SonOfConcordes, Skreemrs, QSSTs, Skylons, JAXA SSTs, SonicStars, and Spike S512s that have been successfully produced after all the talk/hype, and are now flying around today.  

    [Edited 2016-04-04 02:13:54]
    I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
     
    lancelot07
    Posts: 1084
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:27 am

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 74):
    Says who? It's a replacement for travel by a significant percentage of both self-loading and crew-loaded cargo.

    Crew loaded yes, but not for human beings.

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 74):
    Hawaii isn't a business destination, and also who is going to pay 10x the lowest available fare, to get to Hawaii 2hrs faster,

    If i wanted the cheapest possible holiday, i wouldn't go to Hawaii in the first place. And for me, it would be far more than a 2 hours gain.
    Hawaii may not be a business destination, but Japan and China and Singapore are. So is Australia.

    Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
    Well that and the fact that sonic booms are unpleasant.

    Of course, nobody cares about this slight unpleasantness when the military is involved.
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:22 pm

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):

    And you think I'm one of those SCG types? I don't like that group any more than I didn't like the petty politics in the Concorde post retirement communities... And these power-up efforts which IMO should never have been done.

    Just because you flew on Concorde means very little. Some people flew on it many times every year.

    Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 75):

    The launch carriage idea sounds a lot like HOTOL in some respects.

    Any future SST has to takeoff and land normally just as any other planes do.

    [Edited 2016-04-04 05:27:07]
     
    WarrenPlatts
    Posts: 517
    Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:40 pm

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):
    Building a fossil-fuel powered SST in the late 2010s/2020s is basically like trying to make the most awesome new Encyclopedia set, in the era of Google:It can be done. But it'll always be niche, particularly hard hit by market shocks, and have incredibly limited appeal-- no matter how incredible its performance may be.

    How about liquid hydrogen? Could be produced from renewable electricity sources.
     
    lancelot07
    Posts: 1084
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:51 pm

    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):
    Apparently some people just can't accept that reality.

    It isn't a reality.
    Except for people who think flying (and driving a gas-powered car) is evil and only wooden sailing boats are acceptable.
     
    vc10
    Posts: 1414
    Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:53 pm

    Quoting cpd (Reply 73):
    The shuttle is a special case. And a prestige project if ever there were one.



    If the USA hadn't stuffed up their own SST project with grandiose bigger and better designs, I suspect we would have had more SST aircraft.

    [E

    It might have been special case, but a USA lawyer wanted to challenge it, if was used to prevent supersonic civil flights over the USA
    His offer was not taken up.
     
    vv701
    Posts: 5895
    Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:26 pm

    Quoting N415XJ (Thread starter):
    had to be owned by the French and British governments as BA and AF would not have been able to hold onto them themselves
    Quoting RIX (Reply 28):
    Eventually, both airlines did it by their own, with a profit. What was "owned" by the governments was R&D, which was nowhere near being paid back.

    Only two of the airframes built were ever owned by the British and French governments. The BOAC / BA order for five frames was at a price of £25 million each, £125 million in total. This was virtually the same price as the US $ price in the PA and TW options to purchase. The agreement for these potential USA purchases required the two airlines to convert their options into firm orders within six months of any firm orders placed by both AF and BA. Both American airlines cancelled their options on the last day of this six month period, 31 January 1973.

    Note here that in real terms £25 million is more than today's list price for a B 748i.

    However very early on in the Concorde story the British and French governments between them had underwritten the production costs of 20 Concorde frames. As a result when production ceased they each found themselves the owner of one of the last two frames manufactured . To avoid further maintenance costs on these aircraft or breaking them up the governments sold their single frames to BA for £1 and to AF for FF1. Here AF got the real bargain. At the time there were around 13 FFs to £1.

    Initially BA parked their £1, seventh Concorde at LHR. It was in an all-white livery. They used it as a source of spares. However when a pre-production machine parked at Bristol Filton became a manufacturer-owned spares resource, BA returned its £1 frame to service. They operated it on the existing LHR/JFK twice daily rotation.
     
    User avatar
    LAX772LR
    Posts: 12780
    Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:55 pm

    Quoting cpd (Reply 78):
    And you think I'm one of those SCG types?

    I don't think about you at all, to be honest.


    Quoting cpd (Reply 78):
    Just because you flew on Concorde means very little.

    You mean OTHER than completely invalidating your ridiculous accusatory question.  


    Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 79):
    How about liquid hydrogen?

    Well, maybe something like that could be the true technological leap required to make it viable. Who knows. Would be cool to see.


    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 80):
    It isn't a reality.

    Hmm, let's review:
    Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):
    ......ya know, considering all the SonOfConcordes, Skreemrs, QSSTs, Skylons, JAXA SSTs, SonicStars, and Spike S512s that have been successfully produced after all the talk/hype, and are now flying around today.
    So, um, yeah-- come again?
    I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
     
    User avatar
    Starlionblue
    Posts: 19574
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:14 am

    Quoting dare100em (Reply 71):
    With todays It-data-capabilities, internet and so on ther's no longer the same pressure as 20 or 30 years ago for CEO's and others to meet personally all the time carrying paper around. Yes, personal contact is still important and time is money but with Skype you safe nearly all the time and a lot money.

    It would be limited to "physical" present people like VIP's, politicans, musicans.

    This is only partly true, and far less than you seem to think. Certainly video conferencing and other means of communication have decreased the need for business travel, but salespeople, managers and many others still travel all the time. Until we reach full sensory immersion virtual reality, it seems people still value face to face, hand to hand contact. This is especially true in cultures that are more firmly founded on personal relationships than most Western ones, for example Chinese culture. Many Asian cultures also value "status" and "face" more than western ones, meaning more people are willing to pay extra for the status of traveling in a premium class.

    As usual, it depends on the price. If an SST went into service that offered the equivalent of today's first class fare for a reduction of travel time in half, there would be plenty of punters lining up, especially if it had the range to fly London to Southeast Asia non-stop.
    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
     
    Viscount724
    Posts: 19316
    Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:27 am

    Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
    Quoting ordell (Reply 67):
    My understanding is that supersonic travel by non-military planes is not allowed over the U.S. It's a holdover from the Cold War era. Am I incorrect?

    Well that and the fact that sonic booms are unpleasant.

    The sonic boom is the only current reason for the many bans on overland commercial flight by supersonic aircraft.

    AF and BA had to change flight routings several times to move them further away from land due to sonic boom complaints from residents near the south coast of England.
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:56 am

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 84):
    As usual, it depends on the price. If an SST went into service that offered the equivalent of today's first class fare for a reduction of travel time in half, there would be plenty of punters lining up, especially if it had the range to fly London to Southeast Asia non-stop.

    That would be difficult to do, because of the flight route. The flight route to Bahrain was interesting enough with its subsonic sector over Europe and then accelerating down the Adriatic (after passing over Chioggia IIRC) and then over the Mediterranean - followed by clever use of lat/lon coordinates to make the INS follow a particular path over Lebanon, then down to Bahrain, and from Bahrain to Singapore. These days the route would be academic, as Saudi Arabia probably won't allow supersonic overflights.

    The other way to Asia was to be via Novosibirsk, which was to be an option to get over to Japan. That was probably not so commonly known. In any case, that never happened with the withdrawal of the TU-144 from regular service.

    Modern engines would absolutely obliterate the old Olympus 593-610-28s for efficiency, but I'm not sure just how much better they'd be. Even the non-reheated Olympus planned for Concorde-B was quite a dramatic improvement in efficiency. We'd probably better that easily today. What a modern SST engine would do, Rolls Royce would have a good idea and I'm sure they've probably studied it quite well back in the mid-80s/early-90s.

    I'm digging back into knowledge that is pretty rusty/faded, so my recall might be a bit off.

    [Edited 2016-04-04 19:59:19]
     
    User avatar
    Starlionblue
    Posts: 19574
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:19 am

    Quoting cpd (Reply 86):

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 84):
    As usual, it depends on the price. If an SST went into service that offered the equivalent of today's first class fare for a reduction of travel time in half, there would be plenty of punters lining up, especially if it had the range to fly London to Southeast Asia non-stop.

    That would be difficult to do, because of the flight route. The flight route to Bahrain was interesting enough with its subsonic sector over Europe and then accelerating down the Adriatic (after passing over Chioggia IIRC) and then over the Mediterranean - followed by clever use of lat/lon coordinates to make the INS follow a particular path over Lebanon, then down to Bahrain, and from Bahrain to Singapore. These days the route would be academic, as Saudi Arabia probably won't allow supersonic overflights.

    The other way to Asia was to be via Novosibirsk, which was to be an option to get over to Japan. That was probably not so commonly known. In any case, that never happened with the withdrawal of the TU-144 from regular service.

    Agreed about the route. My point was that if it were offered people would line up to pay for it.
    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
     
    lancelot07
    Posts: 1084
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:56 am

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 87):
    Agreed about the route. My point was that if it were offered people would line up to pay for it.

    This route had good reasons.
    1. need for a stop to refuel.
    2. the Soviet Union was pretty much closed airspace. Routes back then were very different from now because of that.

    And i can't see any reason why Saudi Arabia or Russia would not allow supersonic flights.
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:25 am

    The Bahrain route was non stop. Then on to Singapore. And then to Australia if needed.

    The Novosibirsk route I think was never flown, but the airport I think was in the training sims.

    Saudi Arabia can use supersonic flight corridors as a bargaining chip to get favours from the countries of those airlines wishing to use the route. Same with Russia.
     
    WarrenPlatts
    Posts: 517
    Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:04 am

    You guys ever heard of Busemann's bi-plane? First invented by Nazi aeronautical engineer Adolf Busemann who was brought to the United States under Operation Paperclip.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Busemann

    By using two wings, you can get the compression and expansion shock waves to exactly cancel, mostly eliminating the sonic boom:
    http://i.imgur.com/wRvfJa8.png

    A further effect is a drastic reduction in drag at the design supersonic speed:
    http://i.imgur.com/m9ExXne.png

    Where the red line bottom's out at Mach 1.7, the theoretical drag coefficient is only 0.003--an order of magnitude improvement over the conventional, single airfoil.

    If they could make this work, that would be the ticket IMO!

    A couple of popular articles:

    http://news.mit.edu/2012/supersonic-biplane-0319
    http://tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=2012/biplane

    Technical article:
    http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/Papers/AIAA-2011-1248-354.pdf
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:36 am

    Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 90):
    You guys ever heard of Busemann's bi-plane? First invented by Nazi aeronautical engineer Adolf Busemann who was brought to the United States under Operation Paperclip.

    I have heard a little:

    http://news.mit.edu/2012/supersonic-biplane-0319
    http://www.gizmag.com/boomless-biplane/21871/

    (The same as you have). It should be possible to test it as a scaled down model for its suitability, one, to actually fly in a controlled manner, and two, for high speed aerodynamics which can be tested in a wind tunnel. Nowadays you could use a computer to simulate a lot of that as well.

    How does it go through the speed of sound though, where the drag is the highest?

    [Edited 2016-04-05 17:44:33]
     
    User avatar
    william
    Posts: 3222
    Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:40 am

    Quoting DocLightning (Reply 54):
    Which?

    F18 hornet was one.
     
    User avatar
    Starlionblue
    Posts: 19574
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:24 am

    Quoting DocLightning (Reply 54):
    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 52):

    Military jets use supercruise.

    Which?

    Dassault Rafale
    Eurofighter Typhoon
    Gripen NG
    F-22 Raptor
    English Electric Lightning
    Su-35 (I think)
    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:41 am

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 93):

    I wonder if TSR.2 could supercruise?

    I know it did go supersonic on one occasion (and just the one sole occasion) using the reheat on one engine and ran away from the Jimmy Dell's Lightning chase plane that was on full afterburners. Soon after that the program was cancelled.

    That TSR.2 was looking certain to be one hell of a fast 'plane.

    Edit: It seems on flight 14 (the one mentioned above) it did achieve M1.0 on dry power only.

    Quoting william (Reply 92):

    That'd be the classic Hornet wouldn't it?

    [Edited 2016-04-05 19:46:52]

    [Edited 2016-04-05 20:00:32]
     
    User avatar
    Starlionblue
    Posts: 19574
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:51 am

    Quoting cpd (Reply 94):

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 93):

    I wonder if TSR.2 could supercruise?

    I know it did go supersonic on one occasion (and just the one sole occasion) using the reheat on one engine and ran away from the Jimmy Dell's Lightning chase plane that was on full afterburners. Soon after that the program was cancelled.

    That TSR.2 was looking certain to be one hell of a fast 'plane.

    Edit: It seems on flight 14 (the one mentioned above) it did achieve M1.0 on dry power only.

    The TSR.2. A most droolworthy aircraft.

    There's a lot of good information about the TSR.2 and other classic Britcraft like the Vulcan and Buccaneer on this excellent site: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php
    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:14 am

    Yes indeed, a really controversial but beautiful plane. However, it was really bad at the fourth dimension of aircraft performance... (you may remember that comment).  

    One of my favourite planes alongside the F-111 which was another really beautiful plane.
     
    lancelot07
    Posts: 1084
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:44 pm

    Quoting cpd (Reply 89):
    The Bahrain route was non stop. Then on to Singapore. And then to Australia if needed.

       This was the plan. But I don't remember if there ever was a commercial service to Australia.

    Quoting cpd (Reply 89):
    Saudi Arabia can use supersonic flight corridors as a bargaining chip to get favours from the countries of those airlines wishing to use the route. Same with Russia.

    Yes, if current agreements about overflight discriminate between subsonic and supersonic traffic.. But even if they do, a deal should be fairly easily possible - the Saudis sure want to fly supersonic themselves, so do the Russians.
     
    vv701
    Posts: 5895
    Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:55 pm

    Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 97):
    This was the plan. But I don't remember if there ever was a commercial service to Australia.

    There were seven SIN-MEL-SIN rotations made as a route proving exercise in the summer of 1975. They were made by BA Concorde G-BOAC. But I do not think there were any scheduled commercial flights
     
    cpd
    Posts: 6116
    Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

    RE: Why Has Supersonic Transport Not Been Reevaluated?

    Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:57 am

    Quoting VV701 (Reply 98):
    There were seven SIN-MEL-SIN rotations made as a route proving exercise in the summer of 1975. They were made by BA Concorde G-BOAC. But I do not think there were any scheduled commercial flights

    What was the route on that, if you don't mind me asking (and if you remember)? I remember Concorde N94AD (cough, G-N94AD, aka G-BOAD), but didn't realise AC did that.

    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