Supersonic Flight Prepares for Takeoff Again
wsj.com
wsj.com
Modern subsonic airliners are now capable of far better speeds and efficiencies. Qantas just commenced one of the (if not THE) longest non stop flights from Perth in Western Aus. to London in 17 hours. I myself flew from Sydney to Houston direct in 15 hours last month. The new generation 787s etc., with their carbon fibre construction enabling them to fly at higher altitudes, combined with efficient, powerful power plants are slicing hours off most long routes.
The last time I flew to London (mid 90's), the Singapore-London leg was 22 hours in a 747. To be able to fly Perth-London in 17 hours is a massive improvement of over 20% reduction in flight time in just a couple of decades.
Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile. I do realise that modern SST aircraft may be wider and more comfortable than the Concorde, but there are still physical limits to fuselage cross sections and weights that will limit the comfort factor and size IMO.
Personally, I would rather spend 3-4 days in an airship with a bedroom and a bar and a view.. Not everyone is in a rush.
While we might like the idea of luxurious travel at a gentle pace, in practice the though process that will happen is:
* I would like to go to Australia
* I have 2 weeks of holiday
* In order to maximise my time in Australia I shall take the fastest travel I can affordIt was probably easier to find work on a ship to pay for the trip, at least for able-bodied men.
https://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/ImmigrantTickets/1928-1...
It would have been higher by the '50s, i guess, but not five times higher.
No modern subsonic airliner is capable of the speeds that the Concorde flew at.
> I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft than even 10 in a narrow missile
You must not have flown recently, or have been weathly (or fortunate) enough to not be in the 'economy' class. I'm not even super tall, just over 6ft, but I cannot fit in a standard seat on these 'modern' airliners. I too have been in a Concorde at a museum, and would prefer 10 hours in a sardine can to 17 hours in a sardine can.
The supersonic sardine can will cost more than a lie-flat bed with private curtain in a subsonic plane.
The 787 is certified ETOPS-330, it has to be within 6 hours of single-engine flight of an airport. That means significantly less fucky routes.
It’s beaten out by Qatar’s existing Doha to Auckland service (9025 mi vs 9008).
I like the airship idea from another poster!
+1 for the airship idea too - I would book a ticket in a flash.
They flew a 747-400 from Sydney to London direct all the way back in 1989 - things haven't changed that much unfortunately :(.
Travel times haven’t really improved in 40+ years. A quick search shows a 747 flew at ~614mph and a 787 at 583.
If we are talking business class, I would agree. For economy class, well, there isn't much comfort beyond the entertainment center anyways.
But his German colleague, who wasn't so much German as Prussian, felt this was unacceptable and went up to the counter and started yelling at the ticket agent. After 10 minutes of this, the agent shrugged and got dad the last seat on the Concorde (he was watching the clock for when the strike was to start anyway, so what did he care).
Dad was 6'3" (190cm) so it was a tight fit. But he said it was a memorable flight and something he was glad to have gotten the ability to do.
https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-x-plane-supersonic-lockheed...
Lighter structural materials (carbon composites instead of metal).
More advanced aerodynamics (less drag, thus less fuel is needed).
And while not directly related to cost, aerodynamic advances have also led to the possibility of nearly eliminating the sonic boom, thus allowing flight over populated areas.
The hourly flow rate in supersonic is roughly the same than in subsonic (cruising speed was around Mach 0.9), something like 20 metric tons per hour.
So the faster you went supersonic, the better as your fuel efficiency would increase.
There's even an entry about that in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumpti...
For example, Concorde cruised at Mach 2.05 with its engines giving an SFC of 1.195 lb/(lbf·h) (see below); this is equivalent to an SFC of 0.51 lb/(lbf·h) for an aircraft flying at Mach 0.85, which would be better than even modern engines; the Olympus 593 was the world's most efficient jet engine.[2][3] However, Concorde ultimately has a heavier airframe and, due to being supersonic, is less aerodynamically efficient, i.e., the lift to drag ratio is far lower. In general the total fuel burn of a complete aircraft is of far more importance to the customer.
And on the Olympus page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593
The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in supersonic cruising flight (supercruise) was about 43%, which at the time was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine.[3]
The other issues were mostly politics/NIMBY.
IIRC the estimated operating costs were about twice a 747 in seat/nmi in the early 70s.
But there are still physical limitations around size of a supersonic capable airframe and the like, which limits the design of new aircraft and will still keep the price per seat quite high.
However, by far, the biggest limitation that I can foresee is that the aircraft will have to fly non standard routes in order to avoid creating sonic booms over densely populated areas.
The A380 programme has over 200 aircraft delivered and over 100 more ordered and is not expected to break even.
In particular, losing the great circle route would be painful on the way to Europe.
Just London-NYC has >20 direct flights each day, that's more than 1,000 business class passengers. Most of them will already pay >$2,000 per flight (or their companies).
It won't be, and Concorde's 3h30 flights between JFK and London or Paris were not enough.
> Most of them will already pay >$2,000 per flight (or their companies).
That's cute. Circa 2003 standard round-trip on Concorde was >$10000 (that's around 14k in 2018 USD), discounted "celebration" fares were $7k. For $4k you could do Concorde one way and 747 the other way.
I'm aware of that, Concorde represented First class, not business class. I was talking about today's prices for business class fares. Ticket prices have come down over the past 1-2 decades, I wouldn't expect the same prices (inflation adjusted) as with the Concorde. But certainly more than business class fares, therefore my reference to current fares.
Regarding profitability, the Concorde was extremely inefficient and very restricted in flight paths. A supersonic jet that is allowed to fly supersonic over land could unlock more profitable routes (e.g. intra-US or EU-Asia), optimising utilisation.
It also won't happen. Especially in the land of NIMBY that is the US. Not only could Concorde not go supersonic over the mainland, it had to slow down to subsonic when crossing FLA between the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.
Although one becomes quite inured to plane noise, the distinctive rumble came to herald the lovely sight of this slender aircraft.