• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

how long will it be before we have another supersonic airliner?

vshah

vshah

Lifer
i feel lucky to have been able to fly on the Concorde once....I wonder how long it will be before another plane like it flies?
 
Originally posted by: vshah
i feel lucky to have been able to fly on the Concorde once....I wonder how long it will be before another plane like it flies?
Click to expand...

When they figure out how to make one that will safely and economically carry the same passenger load as a standard transoceanic airliner.
 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: vshah
i feel lucky to have been able to fly on the Concorde once....I wonder how long it will be before another plane like it flies?
Click to expand...

When they figure out how to make one that will safely and economically carry the same passenger load as a standard transoceanic airliner.
Click to expand...

i recall reading that the 787 cruises at mach ~.85 or thereabouts. is that last bit really that much harder/more inefficient to squeeze out? guess it is for a similar sized plane...
 
One thing engineers need to take into account is that flight dynamics change radically once the sound barrier is breached. It is not just a matter of turning up the throttle, but ensuring the airframe can smoothly make the transition and subsequent supersonic flight.
 
Probably quite a while because fuel consumption go way up, and so do noise levels. If a new engine can be built that doesn't brun as much fuel and if the acoustic signature of the shockwave can be changed so that supersonic aircraft can be used over land, then I would expect them to come back. I would pay more for a ticket if I could be to my destination faster, but not the many thousands more that a Concorde flight was.
 
Probably not in our lifetime. I was reading some article that was saying how the demand for faster flights just isn't there. And so there will be minimal R&D put into it.
 
Originally posted by: vshah
i feel lucky to have been able to fly on the Concorde once....I wonder how long it will be before another plane like it flies?
Click to expand...

The concorde represented the same relic of a bygone era that the Apollo missions to the moon represented. Once it was done, and we went there, nothing more was to be done for 30+ years.

Commercial air travel at >mach 1 is the absolutely no different. It was done not for economics or competition, but rather for the sake of doing it once, the first time, simply to prove it could be done.

The second time we have >mach 1 commercial air travel will be because of finanical reasoning, not engineering. And it too will not likely happen for another 30-40 years.
 
I don't think a supersonic airliner is necessary. The tickets were ungodly expensive, and it only shaved a few hours off Trans-Atlantic flights. I think the overly wealthy will begin flying on 100% first-class luxury Boeings.
 
we had one. it was the Tupolev Tu-144. it flew before the concorde did.

boeing looked into making a much larger airplane than the concorde at about the same time as concorde. boeing couldn't figure out how to make money on the 2707.

even the commies had the good sense to kill off the Tu-144.



any future supersonic transport aircraft will likely be more rocket ship than airplane, and it's demand will be driven by fedex and ups more than anything else.
 
When they get around the following problems.

1) Sonic booms over populated areas (concord was forced to slow over populated areas because of this)
2) Poor Fuel Economy
3) Lack of passenger capacity
4) Ticket cost (actually a combination of 2 and 3)
5) Demand - Not many people actually need to get from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours instead of 8 hours. (also a function of 4)
 
I've noticed that man's efforts towards speed really stopped around 1970. Do cars on the street move any faster? Nope. Do planes fly any faster? Not really. It's like man kind got to a certain speed and said "Well, this works."
 
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I've noticed that man's efforts towards speed really stopped around 1970. Do cars on the street move any faster? Nope. Do planes fly any faster? Not really. It's like man kind got to a certain speed and said "Well, this works."
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to balance. Do we really need to get halfway around the would in 5 hours at 7 times the cost, or is it fine for it to take 12-14 and cost 7 times less? People voted with their wallets and the supersonic airliners folded because that wasn't what people wanted.

While planes haven't gotten faster, they are far more efficient than they were in the 70's. This is partially due to the newer engines being better at this and partially due to the increased passenger capacity. To the point where now it uses less fuel per person to travel on a 777 then it would take for all those people to drive to the destination.
 
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
When they get around the following problems.

1) Sonic booms over populated areas (concord was forced to slow over populated areas because of this)
Click to expand...

NASA's done research that might get around this. Text

2) Poor Fuel Economy
3) Lack of passenger capacity
4) Ticket cost (actually a combination of 2 and 3)
Click to expand...
These will be really difficult to solve unless fuel prices drop a great deal, and that seems really unlikely.
5) Demand - Not many people actually need to get from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours instead of 8 hours. (also a function of 4)
Click to expand...
Yes, airline customers are notorious for shopping by price, so an SST will probably have to be similar in operating costs to conventional planes. It's hard to imagine how a purely subsonic plane won't be cheaper to operate, no matter how clever you get.

AFAIK, there's no real research going into a future SST in any case. That means that even if fuel prices drop, and Boeing or Airbus decides to build one, you won't see one coming off the drawing boards for a decade or so.
 
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
When they get around the following problems.

1) Sonic booms over populated areas (concord was forced to slow over populated areas because of this)
2) Poor Fuel Economy
3) Lack of passenger capacity
4) Ticket cost (actually a combination of 2 and 3)
5) Demand - Not many people actually need to get from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours instead of 8 hours. (also a function of 4)
Click to expand...

Sonic booms only occur when the aircraft is passing through mach 1. There is no sonic boom as the aircraft slows down from a supersonic speed. So what I think you mean to say is the Concorde could not accelerate to supersonic speed until it was outside a populated area, which really isn't that big of a deal. Chances are the aircraft would not be traveling at supersonic speed until it had climbed to 30,000 feet anyway which would give them plenty of time to fly over an unpopulated area. Anyway, I'm just nitpicking. The rest of your points are all valid.
 
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
When they get around the following problems.

1) Sonic booms over populated areas (concord was forced to slow over populated areas because of this)
2) Poor Fuel Economy
3) Lack of passenger capacity
4) Ticket cost (actually a combination of 2 and 3)
5) Demand - Not many people actually need to get from New York to Paris in 3.5 hours instead of 8 hours. (also a function of 4)
Click to expand...

Sonic booms only occur when the aircraft is passing through mach 1. There is no sonic boom as the aircraft slows down from a supersonic speed. So what I think you mean to say is the Concorde could not accelerate to supersonic speed until it was outside a populated area, which really isn't that big of a deal. Chances are the aircraft would not be traveling at supersonic speed until it had climbed to 30,000 feet anyway which would give them plenty of time to fly over an unpopulated area. Anyway, I'm just nitpicking. The rest of your points are all valid.
Click to expand...

Although I listed that first it is actually the smallest problem, and after doing some research most of the places that banned overland supersonic passenger planes did so out of ignorance more than actual fact.
 
I believe a sonic boom occurs WHILE an aircraft travels over mach 1, not as it passes over. That's why people often hear two shots when a rifle is fired, one from the muzzle, the other from the bullet's sonic boom as it passes by.
 
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Citrix
This is the future. skunk works just tested "the walrus" concept lighter than air vehicle.
Click to expand...

I don't see lighter than air vehicles making it to the mainstream because they can't deal with weather (specifically wind) at all.
Click to expand...

It's not actually lighter than air. It only uses enough helium to reduce its weight by 2/3. It's basically a large plane that is lighter than it should be because of the helium. (at least that's what I got from the article)
 
If that can land on water, it could make a good long distance cruise ship. Think of something with about 500 passengers that goes from the Phillipines, to Hawaii, to the tip of Baja California, to Acupulco, to Jamaica, to Morroco, to Dubai... just a month long round the world tour spending a couple days at a time at each place.
 
Boeing tried with the Sonic Cruiser, but then switched to developing the 787 when they realized no airlines wanted it.

The Concorde was so incredibly fuel inefficient that despite the exorbitant ticket prices, AF and BA lost money everytime they flew one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top