Supersonic Passenger Jet

Of course. "When" is the more interesting question, and obviously a number of obstacles must be tackled between here and there. At the moment you have to deal with relatively high fuel costs and political concern over the climate. Figuring out pulse detotantion engines would help, as would creating cheap biofuels. These things take money and time.
 
probably not economically viable. The Concorde certainly wasn't. But it did have outstanding onboard service, food and amenities, from what I understand.
 
Nope. They are not cost effective. Well maybe someday, but not untill they can figure out how to do it on the cheap.
 
_1393390_cruiser-afp.jpg


Subsonic, I know. But probably as close as you're gonna get!
 
I think it's more a matter of hypersonics (above Mach 6) as there has been a flurry of both private and government interest in the past few years. The private interest has been generated as an offshoot from the movement in private suborbital space flight technology (such as Rutan's Spaceship One and Two) as the technology is very closely related. Although Spaceship Two will not reach hypersonic speeds or feature any flight plans that would be conducive to hypersonic transport, it makes inroads to some of the more practical issues of hypersonic flight such as re usability, reliability, and airliner-like turn around operations. The government interest has been sparked by continuing NASA and USAF experiments into scramjets for hypersonic cruise missile technology and related applications, technology that might seep into the the manned commercial sector as the B-47 jet bomber technology eventually did into the commercial airliner sector. The Japanese government has also been conducting some notable commercial oriented research into both supersonic and hypersonic technology of late. BUT knowing how conservative the airline industry has become since deregulation and the early fuel crises, it really won't surprise me if they're still flying subsonic "metal tube" designs 50 years from now... The real technology innovation will probably be in private, corporate, and fractional flight operations.
 
I think there were two or three companies exploring the supersonic biz jet, with a low sonic boom sig. I think they are all on hold.:dunno:
 
yes... until one blows up.. but seriously ......... I think its just a matter of when. That aerion jet is an awesome bird, I want a type rating in that lol :rawk:
 
Concorde type airliner. I dont think so. Supersonic? I think the next "high speed" passenger type of flying will be suborbital flight.
 
I agree with most of the other posts.

Supersonic commercial aircraft? Probably something flown by a Virgin Galatic type deal, but not something we'll see flying routes like CDG/LHR-JFK again. But for buisness jets, I think its a matter of when.
 
Suborbital makes the most sense. Get enough speed that you can start to orbit and if you can get 100 passengers from new york to tokyo in 2 hrs... there will be many willing to spend 30,000$ for a tiny seat and no bathroom.

Low drag, high speed, low temperature gradient on the hull at 200,000'+... makes the most sense for long range cruise. The real problem is short haul where it doesn't make sense to go that high as you need to do a slow speed descent to make sure you don't overstress the hull. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

You know if anyone can figure out directional magnetics (how to steer a magnetic field) none of this would be a concern... just saying... there's your next trillionaire.
 
I think as the world gets increasingly small and as the markets in africa and asia open more and more we'll need something that can make the trips quickly. Eventually, I see space planes as the solution, jump up and hop out of the atmosphere and glide back in. It won't cost as much as it does now once the technology gets better.
 
ppragman said:
Eventually, I see space planes as the solution, jump up and hop out of the atmosphere and glide back in. It won't cost as much as it does now once the technology gets better.
Click to expand...

So basically a passenger-carrying ICBM, minus the warhead? :D
 
ppragman said:
I think as the world gets increasingly small and as the markets in africa and asia open more and more we'll need something that can make the trips quickly.
Click to expand...
That's what they thought about the Concorde. It never caught on. There are several gigantic factors in the US that will preclude its' viability.

Speed costs money. (Airline) Passengers aren't willing to pay way it will cost to operate supersonic airliners. All the walmart society wants is a free ride.

Airlines are in a cost savings mode. They are currently operating a pathetically slow speeds (M 0.74-0.77). It is counterproductive to have a supersonic plane and fly it slowly.

The US ATC system is completely outdated in its aircraft handling procedures. I don't mean modernization....that is just lipstick on a pig. They are designed around older, less performing aircraft and are severely wasteful to modern aircraft. The procedures are designed to make the controller's job easier when they should be designed to make air travel itself efficient. Millions of gallons/year are wasted from early descents and delayed climbs. There also needs to be a protocol for fast vs slow planes. All planes should not be forced to fly the speed of the slowest in line. The prime example is the Citation X when compared to the Concorde. There were only approx 12 Concordes which operated with specific ATC handling procedures. There are over 300 Citation Xs and the fleet has been flying for 15 years. Even with such vast fleet numbers, ATC hasn't fully grasped the speed differential between M.90+ and M.77. One controller slowed us down and even told us..."think about all the gas you are saving." We were quick to point out his misconception.

So. In a nutshell:
The airlines can't afford to buy them.
Passengers aren't willing to pay what the service is worth.
ATC can't efficiently sequence them. (which would make the cost rise, then the ticket prices rise, then the fleet numbers reduce.....sounds just like the Concorde)

What is truely sad is that airliners today are operating no faster and no higher than they were 50 years ago. Advances in the first 50 years of aviation were stagering.....the Wright flyer to the 707. The last 50 have been spent making the panel look pretty and getting more thrust with less fuel. Which really is moot when ATC makes you fly the last 300 miles at FL230 instead if FL410+.


ppragman said:
Eventually, I see space planes as the solution, jump up and hop out of the atmosphere and glide back in. It won't cost as much as it does now once the technology gets better.
Click to expand...
ROFL...You mean like the Space Shuttle? What a waste of assets. Never met its design goals or laugh goals. It cost a lot of money and now we are back to Rockets. They have been talking about the National Aerospace Plane since the '80s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top