NASA says it will build quiet supersonic passenger jet

Quote: Face

I think I've asked this before, but I still don't understand... why is this an issue?

To quote Grandpa Simpson: "EPA! EPA! EPA! EPA!" :)


I experienced a grand total of three sonic booms while in Israel in 1985. Two were rather low, and relatively near. Not something I'd like to experience frequently. The third was higher up, but as near. It was reminiscent of an aftershock after a quake.

Fighters are relatively small. Even the F-15 and F-111, two of the bigger supersonic tactical fighters, are smaller than a regional jet. Concorde was much bigger. I think size does matter to the energy in a sonic boom, not just speed. That might have been a factor.

Quote: Nareed

Couldn't handle the longer long-haul routes which wide body jets did. In particular it was well-nigh impossible to use in transpacific routes.

The range of about 4500 miles was a more severe restriction than the limited seating. LAX to either London or Tokyo is about 5500 miles, and London to Singapore is 6750 miles. The plane would make a technical stop in Bahrain to refuel when trying to reach

Quote: Nareed

What I would like to find out is what happened to all the orders from airlines other than BA and AF. I've read that at least Pan Am and Brannif placed orders, the latter even leased one and operated it for a short time. I do know there's no way the plane would have been developed with only two airlines placing orders for less than 20 planes all told.

The initial production that went to BA and AF was what is normally called LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production). Building 3 test models does not really demonstrate that the item can be manufactured at a reasonable cost. But LRIP is too small to start developing cost savings initiatives.

The sonic booms I recall from Alpena, way out over the lake, out of sight, the sonic booms would rattle the windows and shake the doors.

Given the developments and evolution in the air travel industry since Concorde entered service, a successful supersonic plane must:

1) Have enough range for ultra-long haul routes of 15+ hours flight time. Currently several models of subsonic planes can do this (777, 787, A380, A340 and A350)

2) Consume a reasonable amount of fuel. This one's tricky. Currently it would be impossible for a supersonic plane equal in range and payload to, say, an A320, to consume an equal amount of fuel as said A320. But how much more is reasonable? 50%? 75%?

3) Be able to fly over land as well as over water. IN short, to cover the same routes subsonics do, even if at a higher altitude. Yes, this means reducing the sonic boom.

4) Not draw the ire of environmental regulators.

5) Be able to carry freight as well as passengers and their luggage.

A niche plane could be made easily (ie not easy) to cover the all-business class routes from NYC/NJ-London/Paris route, but wasn't that what Concorde essentially did?

The Concord had an accident. That was it's death warrant I think.

Quote: Nareed

1) Have enough range for ultra-long haul routes of 15+ hours flight time. Currently several models of subsonic planes can do this (777, 787, A380, A340 and A350)

A niche plane could be made easily (ie not easy) to cover the all-business class routes from NYC/NJ-London/Paris route, but wasn't that what Concorde essentially did?

The G650 offers an ultra-large-cabin with a level of comfort far greater than any other aircraft in its class. The living environment provides comfortable accommodations for up to 18 people. The G650 offers the fastest and longest range of any business jet available today. At a long-range cruise speed of Mach 0.85, the G650 will carry eight passengers and a crew of four on nonstop legs of 8,000 miles. That’s Dubai to New York, Boston to Beijing or London to Buenos Aires.

See, I don't think business jet customers are going to be interested in a jet that goes supersonic with a range of 4500 miles. I think they will want the equivalent range of a Gulfstream.

I really don't think the commercial airline industry is truly going to sell tickets by the seat on supersonic planes. I think they will be confined to either private sales, or lease arrangements.

Concorde managed about 16.7 L/100 km per passenger; which is similar to a business jet. Even the most fuel hungry jets in use for commercial service are 3.5 L/100 km per passenger. The new Dreamliners are advertising 2.31 L/100 km.

I think it is too big of a gap to close.

Quote: Pacomartin

I really don't think the commercial airline industry is truly going to sell tickets by the seat on supersonic planes. I think they will be confined to either private sales, or lease arrangements.

I don't see the airlines braking with their business model that far.

Another thing to keep in mind, now that I think of it, is whether the first/business class crowd even wants a faster plane.

Suppose you fly really long route which takes the 787/A350 15 hours, but your new plane can do it in 7. Do you put in lie-flat beds? Depending on the route and time, some passengers might prefer to stay awake. An old style 90s business seat would be enough. On other routes or times, sleep might be essential. Then the old seat would be insufficient.

Quote:

I think it is too big of a gap to close.

Maybe not that big. Concorde relied on afterburners. Since the supercruise engines have been developed for tactical fighters. The latter engines are much more fuel efficient to about Mach 1.5 or so. That should help.

Quote: pew

The Concord had an accident. That was it's death warrant I think.

m

Might have been a catalyst. I saw it as a sad comment on modern society. One accident in 25 years and people said we had to ground the fleet forever.

Quote: pew

The Concord had an accident. That was it's death warrant I think.

I don't think so. While the fleet was small, it operated without a major accident for about 30 years.

More to the point the planes were 30 years old or so, and Airbus, which inherited the business of providing spare parts and maintenance for Concorde, no longer saw it worth their while. Concorde flew for a few years after the accident, after all. It may have contributed to its retirement, but it was not the main cause.

I think it was the last straw, the straw that broke the camel's back, like the Lockerbie 747 bombing was for Pan-Am.