Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:56 pm

We all know the ill-fated story of the Concorde and its sister, the Tu-144. Their market appeal was very limited because they were not only extremely expensive to fly but also couldn't really make use of their speed except on select TATL routes.
The fundamental hurdles of crossing into speeds greater than Mach 1 remain unresolved today. However, a somewhat significant amount of R&D goes to both increasing the efficiency of a potential future SST and reducing the noise and sonic boom problem. Out of those two, which needs more attention?

On the one hand, customers & passengers care more about efficiency. On the other, the general public only cares about the environmental effects. Assuming the boom problem was solved, would the current efficiency of SST designs be sufficient to make them affordable, at least as business jets? Or would the speed advantage still not be worth the added cost? Could we trade some efficiency for a significant noise reduction and still have a business case?
 
cpd
Posts: 6407
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:16 am

I think the sonic boom trouble is almost solved.

Fuel efficiency of such a plane nowadays would also be far superior and make the plane capable of long range routes (eg, trans-Pacific).
 
mxaxai
Topic Author
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:44 am

cpd wrote:
I think the sonic boom trouble is almost solved.

Fuel efficiency of such a plane nowadays would also be far superior and make the plane capable of long range routes (eg, trans-Pacific).

What I've heard of the Aerion design was that the boom is "solved" for low speeds only, i. e. Mach <1.3. This is why they have a low-noise cruise and a high-speed cruise at Mach 1.6 for legs over water. Mach 1.3 is not much faster than Mach .9.
And for the fuel efficiency you need to remember the much lower regular business cabin prices, even while offering lie-flat seats. No design I have seen so far uses anything better than premium economy or US domestic first seats.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20012
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:22 am

mxaxai wrote:
cpd wrote:
I think the sonic boom trouble is almost solved.

Fuel efficiency of such a plane nowadays would also be far superior and make the plane capable of long range routes (eg, trans-Pacific).

What I've heard of the Aerion design was that the boom is "solved" for low speeds only, i. e. Mach <1.3. This is why they have a low-noise cruise and a high-speed cruise at Mach 1.6 for legs over water. Mach 1.3 is not much faster than Mach .9.
And for the fuel efficiency you need to remember the much lower regular business cabin prices, even while offering lie-flat seats. No design I have seen so far uses anything better than premium economy or US domestic first seats.


M1.3 is not much faster than Mach 0.9? I would call a 44% speed increase massive. A 10 hour cruise phase is now under 7 hours. Also typical cruise for faster airliners is 0.85, making the improvement 53% A 10 hour cruise is now around 6½ hours.

LHR-JFK is currently around 8 hours. Counting 7 hours as cruise, you're down to a bit over 4½ hours, for a total flight time of 5½ hours. Just in terms of aircraft utilisation that is pretty big..

Even using in excess of 50% more fuel per seat, the economic case seems very much there, and this is the M1.3 case, not M1.6.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:02 am

Efficiency is the key here. A few days ago, GE announced that they had made a breakthrough in hybrid propulsion. Whilst this is going to be primarily about other modes of flight, it could be read across to supersonic propulsion and a novel engine/fan setup to power an SST.

The sonic boom issue has now been minimised to the point that it is now more of a rumble than a boom. Not much louder than a conventional jet.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:15 am

I think the Aerion solution is a good one.I believe the primary market will remain tatl but this low speed supersonic mode will allow them to reach a much wider range of cities on both sides quickly.
What I don't understand (from Aerion or Boom) is that they have both changed engine config from 2 to 3 but neither have - Ever had a power plant in mind for either config or the various thrust levels involved (i.e. 4 different engine possibilities).
The power plant is obviously - absolutely critical and yet they just play drawing board games with fantasy engines.I would love to see it happen but this approach makes me doubt either venture frankly.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:00 am

The only mature supersonic engines out there are all military, and if sourcing domestically Aerion and Boom will find that the US state department won't just hand them out for free, nor will they necessarily allow civilian development of them.
My bet would be to try purchasing Russian powerplants, and have the construction line in somewhere outside US ITAR influence like the Czech republic or Norway perhaps.
Buying a pair of GE F110s or P&W F100s is just going to be a massive headache, buying Klimov RD-33s or Saturn AL-31s could be easier - but then I expect tech support in service would be terrible.
Possibly the most conducive partner might be a British supplier - enquire about EJ-200s from Rolls Royce. They'll do a very good job but will take a very very long time to do it, as is the British way these days.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:06 am

Starlionblue wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
cpd wrote:
I think the sonic boom trouble is almost solved.

Fuel efficiency of such a plane nowadays would also be far superior and make the plane capable of long range routes (eg, trans-Pacific).

What I've heard of the Aerion design was that the boom is "solved" for low speeds only, i. e. Mach <1.3. This is why they have a low-noise cruise and a high-speed cruise at Mach 1.6 for legs over water. Mach 1.3 is not much faster than Mach .9.
And for the fuel efficiency you need to remember the much lower regular business cabin prices, even while offering lie-flat seats. No design I have seen so far uses anything better than premium economy or US domestic first seats.


M1.3 is not much faster than Mach 0.9? I would call a 44% speed increase massive. A 10 hour cruise phase is now under 7 hours. Also typical cruise for faster airliners is 0.85, making the improvement 53% A 10 hour cruise is now around 6½ hours.

LHR-JFK is currently around 8 hours. Counting 7 hours as cruise, you're down to a bit over 4½ hours, for a total flight time of 5½ hours. Just in terms of aircraft utilisation that is pretty big..

Even using in excess of 50% more fuel per seat, the economic case seems very much there, and this is the M1.3 case, not M1.6.


Anything less than Mach 1.8 is too close to the Mach hump to be economical, you've got to go faster.
Also, apart from FADEC systems, the technology of supersonic turbojets today is unchanged since the '70s - Aerion and Boom claiming they will make far greater fuel economy on the basis of 'improved technology' is a false premise. Mechanical systems wise there's been no quantum leap, but providing supercruise can still be attained there is still a worthwhile corner of the envelope to achieve there.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4223
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Largest problem for SST: Boom or fuel efficiency?

Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:04 pm

Won't the competition be a more comfortable, room to work, good recline or lay flat economy-plus or business versus less travel time and a little crowded? Of course some could afford both.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 744lover, tomcat and 15 guests

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