Boeing's Sonic Cruiser revised to Mach 1.8 ?

[SK]

The story reported on Telegraph's website:

Boeing unveils new Concorde (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/07/wconc07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/07/por_right.html)

Boeing unveils new Concorde
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 07/12/2001)

PLANS for a successor to Concorde which would be three times cheaper to fly are being drawn up by the American manufacturers, Boeing.

The company said yesterday that it had been asked by airlines to revise its designs for a "Sonic Cruiser" to produce an aircraft capable of flying at 1.8 times the speed of sound, roughly 1,200mph.

Boeing's initial concept, announced nine months ago, envisaged a plane that would travel at 0.98 of the speed of sound, about 10 or 15 per cent faster than conventional jets.

However, a group of leading carriers believes that the time gain offered by the original version will be insufficient, and wants to offer passengers much more radical reductions in journey times.

Wind tunnel tests on the basic Sonic Cruiser have shown that its unique front-located winglets and outward-leaning twin tails have reduced to almost zero the buffeting effect expected as the aircraft approaches the sound barrier.

Work is also proceeding on adapting the shape of the main double-delta wings to decrease the impact of the sonic boom, opening the possibility that supersonic flight over land might become achievable for the first time.

Pete Rumsey, Boeing's director of aircraft development, said advances in technology would allow the twin-engined aircraft to be as fuel-efficient per passenger as any existing jet.

[twistedenginestarter]

The airlines wouldn't say 'Can we have a plane that flies at 1200 mph'. Stripping out the journalese we are left with 'Nobody wants the Sonic Cruiser'. What a surprise.

I'll be interested to see Boeing's share price.

[BEagle]

Closed at 37.11, up 3.4% on the day.

[plasticpaddyie]

hard to believe that the US could ban for so long, flights over land in the concorde but would relax the rules for US produced aircraft :p

[recceguy]

Ok so the good idea of flying this wonderful aircraft at M0.98 is already discarded?
it seems the americans want to build another Concord : good luck...
Reducing the sonic boom (?) - diminishing the sonic vortices with the winglets - :D :D :D :D
Good to start the day with some laughs
(I have been flying aircraft at Mach 2.2 in the past - I have some ideas about it)

[foxmoth]

M.98 seemed a lot of effort for little benefit, 1.8 makes much more sense.
As for supersonic over land, I would have thought everyone knows that it would not have been banned if Concorde had been made by the US! :D

[MachOverspeed]

That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

When my Grandfather called his congressman and pitched a bitch about sonic booms, it was because military aircraft had cracked the wall in his house. He couldn't have cared less about the Concord. An F-104, probably out of Big Spring, had passed right over our place, and not only was the house damaged, but half our cows freaked out and jumped the fence.

When I was a kid, sonic booms knocked the windows out of my old school building on a regular basis.

You guys can cry all you want, but the real reason that supersonic flight over the continental US was banned, was because the tax payers demanded it. They were tired of their property being damaged, not to mention being shaken out of bed at 0300. The ban may have had the effect of rendering Concord even more non profitable than it already was, but trust me, nobody was thinking about that anyway. The ban helped to put Boeing out of the supersonic transport business as well, and they weren't happy about that as it cost them a ton of money.

I suggest that instead of sniping at the (Super) Sonic Cruiser, a more profitable tactic might be to participate in the project, or British Aerospace might go the way of Norton and BSA.

[Tricky Woo]

Hi Mach.

Nice rant.

Presumably the F104's that knocked out your school windows were flying a wee bit lower than FL500?

Incidentally, BAE Systems are highly unlikely to go out of business anytime soon, seeing as they've got a rather large piece of the Joint Strike Fighter pie. Er... unlike Boeing.

TW

[Kerosene Kraut]

I highly doubt that it will cruise supersonic with the current design. All the airline customers clearly want cost, fuelflow and noise to be no more expensive than a 767. Concorde Mark 2? Well if they need to develop a special engine only for it that might work financially. :D

[con-pilot]

Tricky, although a little rough, Mach pretty well has it right. You must remember that it was in the 60’s when Boeing was designing the US answer to the Concorde. The United States, and a lot of Europe, was going through a period of anti-everything. Anti-war, anti-government, anti-bra (well that bit was alright), anti-establishment, anti-older generation, etc.

These were the ‘Nixon’ (The fact that Johnson was president matters little.) years. The media was just in the infancy of rabid reporting of “Anything to sell and increase rating” type news. For the younger generation (The “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Crowd.) the only true driving force was the bigger the headlines the better. Remember Woodstock, LSD, Timothy Leary, sit-ins, “Drop out, tune in.”, race riots. The SLA (Patty Hearst), well, I could go on forever, but I think you get my drift.

In 1965 (I think) the U.S. Air Force was directed to conduct supersonic flights over a medium sized city in the United States. That city was Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I don’t know why we were so lucky. Oklahoma City could be considered to be the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’ of the United States. One would be hard pressed to find a area in the United States that was more conservative or patriotic then as well as today. One can only speculate that the government’s thinking was that if the citizens of Oklahoma City complained there was a true problem with sonic booms.

The first airplanes used were, in fact, F-104s. As the war in Viet Nam heated up the F-104s were replaced by F-106s. As this happen a long time ago my memory (like everything else about me) may be a bit rusty. However as I recall there were three flights a day. The first around 08:00, 12:00 and 17:00. The altitudes varied from very high, around 50,000ft to ridiculously low, 18,000ft. I believe these flights lasted for over three months.

The damage claims amounted to over 10’s of millions or dollars. Hens stopped laying eggs, cows stopped producing milk, chicken farms lost thousands chickens, building walls and foundations cracked, windows were shattered (this was from the low altitude runs), dishes fell from cabinets and more of the same type claims. The local newspapers were flooded with letters complaining about the sonic booms, preachers in churches gave sermons on the Devil’s work in creating the sonic boom (well I told you that Oklahoma City is the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’ ;). Although I must say a lot of Oklahomans said they really were not against the sonic booms, they just wanted them to be moved to Texas. Oklahoma and Texas don’t get along to good together, especially during football season.

Because of the results of the flights over Oklahoma City and the current mood of the country Congress refused to fund any more monies to Boeing for the SST. This was devastating to Boeing. Boeing lost 100’s of millions of dollars and had to layoff thousands of workers. In fact there was a billboard on the Interstate highway leaving Seattle to the south that said “Would the last person leaving Seattle please turn off the lights.”

That is the real reason why the Concorde was banned from flying over the United States land mass. It had nothing to do with the fact that Boeing did not build the SST. In fact there was a large movement by a lot of people in the US to not even let the Concorde land or takeoff anywhere in the United States. Fortunately their views were unheeded by Congress and the wonderful Concorde was allowed to operate in and out of the United States.

There is humorous story I must relate about the sonic boom flights over Oklahoma City. A popular radio station had a talk show and as one can imagine a lot of the calls concerned the sonic boom flights. One morning a man called the station to complain about the sonic booms.

Radio show host; “Yes sir, what is your problem about the sonic booms?”

Caller; “I get woken up way too early in the morning because of the blasted things.”

Host; “Well how early are you woken up?”

Caller; “4:30 in the morning.”

Host; “4:30 in the morning! The first boom is not until 8am, what are you talking about?”

Caller; “Yeah, I know. I fly the first morning flight and I got to get up at 4:30 and I’m sick and tired of it!”

[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]

Ok, put in the "e", sorry about that.

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]

[MachOverspeed]

Trickey Woo-

Yeah, they were flying pretty low. Low altitude training routes abound in the West Texas area, even today. Given the occasional nav error, they sometimes came right over our small town of 6000 inhabitants. I heard a story once of a guy finding a long piece of telephone cable draped over his house. Folks said that a jet must have snagged it somewhere, and that it must have fallen off the jet, and onto this guy's house......I guess its possible.

Back in the 60's the military blasted around at full throttle, not much higher than the tree tops. I remember seeing nearly every type of the "century series" zooming down the Brazos river. After they passed, the fish would quit biting.

In the late 70's I was a roughneck in the oil fields. Every time we moved the rig, you could bet that within the next day or two we would get bounced by RF-4's out of Bergstrom, or T-38's out of Sheppard, or Air Guard 105's from God knows where.

They were subsonic (well mostly) then, but it was a hoot to see a simulated bomb run from the victim's vantage point. Once we asked our derrick man, a guy we called "side-ways" if he had seen that plane. He responded, "Hell man, I saw the pilot!"

I understand that the Italians and Germans used 104's for the low level strike mission a long time after the USAF parked all theirs. Something about the high wing loading producing accurate bomb delivery in the afternoon bumps, and ride comfort for the crews.

I always thought that was a cool plane...

[Capt Homesick]

Can I just be pedantic, and say that the aeroplane is called Concorde! If I get flamed for that, fair enough... :rolleyes:
(Edited to get the smiley working).

[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt Homesick ]

[411A]

Concord....Concorde....ah, old technology.
VERY old.

[casual observer]

Boeing doesn't need a big jump in speed to make the Sonic Cruiser (or Supersonic Cruiser) to be successful.

Superfically, the 0.98M aircraft is really not much: 15% increase in speed over the current generation of commercial aircraft. However, its potential to increase productivity is immense. In the best case scenario, an airline can use one aircraft to serve a daily US West Coast trans-Atlantic flight instead of the current two. That's a 100% increase in productivity. The 15% increase in speed just happens to be enough to allow airlines not to idle their aircraft on ground as often as they do now. Nowadays, good airlines can average around 12-14 hours of utilization of their long-haul jets. With a .98M aircraft, it has the potential to increase daily utilization rate to 16-18 hours (there are many examples similar to the US West Coast trans-Atlantic flights). Accounting for the 15% increase in speed, this is equivalent to 18.4-21.6 hours of utilization of a .80+M aircraft. This means airlines can increase the productivity of each aircraft by an astounding 50+%. Would I mind paying 20-30% more money for fuel (which increase the unit cost by about 5%) to increase the productivity of my aircraft by 50%? Of course I will.

Just take a look at how turboprops replaced piston-powered propellor planes, how turbojets replaced turboprops. You don't need to fly a whole lot faster and higher to be successful. The basic premise of a .98M aircraft is extremely sound. Don't be fooled by that small 15% increase in speed. It actually can be very valuable.

[gotajob4us?]

Or if you were really, really clever, you could dove tail a west coast, followed by an east coast........ :D

I think airline scheduling and fleet utilisation is on top of this particular one!

But you might just be right for a Europe - Far east route though

[rhythm method]

On the subject of sonic boom..

Surely every time the space shuttle comes in to land the locals of Florida are subjected to a double sonic boom. I remember hour building out in Titusville a few years back when one returned from a galaxy beyond... NEARLY SHAT MYSELF!!!! Thought I was back in Northern Ireland.

So what's the difference? If the space shuttle had been built in any other part of the world would it be allowed? ;)

[By the way there could be a health link cos the chickens in Florida aren't producing milk, the cows wont lay eggs, but I think the citrus groves are unharmed!]
:D :D

[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: rhythm method ]

[ltcdecisions]

I am wondering how something can be three TIMES cheaper. If this reporter and his editors are trying to say the current price for a Concord ticket is three Times the cost of what a ticket on Boeing's new proposed craft will be, I could understand their journalistic reference but as it stands I am a little worried about their out math ability.

One must assume that this is a release that went through the Boeing PR folks. I hope that somewhere in their other calculations they have not used their "new" math to figure out something other than the cost of the ticket. Are not these Boeing guys susposed to be graduate engineers with some math background?

Just a thought.

[CaptainSquelch]

I've been looking for this graphic ever since I heard about transonic cruise flight. Couldn't find it at first but now ...

http://home01.wxs.nl/~squelch/Extra/Graphics/Image1.jpg

Does that explain something

Sq

[flyrob2000]

Good on Boeing - Mach 0.98 would have been a pointless addition to their line-up. However - Mach 1.8 is still nowhere near the Mach 2.2 of Concorde that was developed 30 years ago. Concorde has shown that people pay to go fast so why bitch about cost? I say beat Concorde! With current technology it can't be too hard to travel faster than Concorde at a price far less than Concorde costed to develop (in excess of 1 billion pounds sterling in 1960/70's currency

[Roc]

To All the detractors out there,

I don't understand all the animosity out there for this jet?, Who wouldn't want to fly such a machine? Concorde is a fantastic aircraft, but why do pilots doubt that 40 years later we can't build a better machine? remember, who would have thought we could build jets invisible to radar? or land on the moon? Good luck Boeing! I only wish I may have the opportunity to fly one of these Cruisers!

[gordonroxburgh]

Never saying no to anything but I can't see it flying mach1+ over populated land, I would have guessed that it is pretty impossible to get rid of the Sonic boom.

Where maybe they are looking is at developing the technology to enable it to fly at M1.8 as economically as at M0.98. This is Concordes current main failing as it is very unefficient at low speed.

But with new aerodynamic technology and modern engines who knows what could be done in a few years time

[casual observer]

You can't change the laws of physics. Energy is proportional to velocity squared. Thus, to go to 1.8M, it will be a lot more expensive. Airframers might be able to build a 1.8M aircraft significantly more efficient than Concorde. However, it does not change the fact that the supersonic aircraft will be a lot more expensive to operate than any contemporary subsonic jets. 0.98M seems to be a good compromise. That is, the increase in speed has the potential to allow airlines to significantly increase productivity. Hence, it will more than make up for the additional fuel costs. This means airlines can offer slightly faster services at about the same cost. If a passenger can pay the same price and fly 15% faster, I think most will choose a faster flight. Without an increase in productivity, a 0.98M aircraft will not be economically viable. Boeing's business case, I believe, is strongly hinged on the pontential to drastically increase the productivity of each aircraft. That's why airlines are interested in the proposal. Airlines may want higher speed, but when they see all the numbers, almost everyone will come to the same conclusion that a 1.8M aircraft would not be cost attractive. Not a single all-premium service has proven to be successful, and I doubt a 1.8M aircraft would reverse this trend.

[ 09 December 2001: Message edited by: casual observer ]

[SaturnV]

Rather curious that this supersonic sonic cruiser has only been mentioned in the Telegraph. Not a word about this very major change in the sonic cruiser's flight regime in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or in the US press that I can see. Anyone find any other report of this in the press?

[Young Paul]

I heard some time ago that, just with the technology advances made from Concorde, it would be possible to make an aircraft with half the weight but the same payload. Or the same weight and twice the payload.

The argument about the amount of energy is fallacious and wrong. Just because something has four times the kinetic energy (from travelling twice the speed) doesn't mean it uses four times as much fuel. In fact, the wing design of airliners is part of what stops them going faster - not the amount of energy input required.

Fact is that airliners run using about the same fuel per pax per km as cars - well, at least, the same order of magnitude. Work it out. There's a very interesting part of the Boeing website on the environmental impact of airliners.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote an interesting book called "Profiles of the Future", in which he comments on the two failures of futurologists - failure of the nerve, and failure of imagination. Believe it or not, at one stage people thought that anybody travelling more than 15 mph in a train would suffocate. The fact that people already travelled faster than that on horseback seemed to escape their notice.

At risk of losing one of my favourite tricks, guess how heavy a Concorde is at max AUW?

Now guess again.

The max certified is about the same as that of a B767-300.

[casual observer]

When you compare air travel will automobile travel, you are not comparing apples with apples. There are two flaws in your comparison:

1. What kind of friction force you have to overcome on roads and in the air? Are they of the similar magnitude? I think not.

2. You are comparing mass transport with personal transport. Do you think fuel consumption per passenger per unit distance of a bus is similar to that of a car? I think not.

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: casual observer ]

[TwoTun]

Boeing (or anyone else for that matter) will not build va successor to Concorde while Concorde is still flying, I suspect. It's all to do with economics.

The most profitable routes for a supersonic airliners, given that nobody wants then flying over land supersonically, are (1) Europe - East Coast States and (2) West Coast States to Japan, with the former being much more profitable than the latter.

The Europe - East Coast route is a money spinner for BA. They have that route sown up, much better than Air France does.

Any aircraft manufacturer would need to spend billions to develop and build a rival to Concorde. Those costs would be passed on to the customers (the airlines) who eventually bought such a machine. The airlines, in turn, would need to pass on those initial purchase costs to their passengers in the form of expensive tickets.

While Concorde is still flying, BA would be able to undercut any fare that any other airline flying a new supersonic aircraft would have to charge, as the BA's Concordes are already bought and paid for and have a much lower cost than any successor would have.

Therefore, whilst Concorde is still flying LHR-JFK and making the profit it does, no new supersonic aircraft will be built, I suspect, due to simple economics.

And as Concorde is planned to fly for another 7 - 10 years, I think we will have to wait a long time for another supersonic passenger aircraft to come into airline service.

Just my view, you understand.

:cool:

[stoopid]

I'm not quite sure that "bought and paid for" is strictly true ....i thought ba got them for nothing :)

[CaptainSquelch]

Casual observer,

Indeed you can't change the law of physics. As you could have seen in my rather generic graph the Drag coefficient increases to about a threefold between Mach .84 and M .98 together with an increase of TAS of about 15% this increases the Drag by a factor 4.

Now if you increase your speed again to M 1.8 your Cd decreases by a factor of three. It actually drops back to around the value it was at M .84. Now that the TAS increases by 80% you have a Drag increase of only about 10%.

On top of that you can do interesting tricks with the intake of a supersonic aircraft to improve fuel efficiency that you can't do while flying subsonic.

That is a law of the complex world of physics of transonic and supersonic flight. This made me wonder from the very beginning why Mr Boeing boldly went were no man has gone before .... so far.

Sq

[casual observer]

Captain Squelch:

If I am not mistaken, the graph you had previously doesn't include everything. If it does, why do you think the Concorde at 2.2M would burn so much fuel than the B707 at over .85M which was designed before the Concorde and had more drag than the Concorde, as your graph clearly depicted? Your graph certainly does not explain this fact, right? I certainly don't think the British and French engineers took a step backward then. Neither do I think the laws of physics have changed since then. Right?

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: casual observer ]

[moggie]

We have the usual dumb post from 411A - denegrating the technology of an aeroplane that is no older than the L1011 which he seems to love so much.

On more intelligent matters, when you look at the drag curve 0.98M never made sense - so why did the Boeing guys not see that before? Surely someone there must have done an Aerospace engineering degree? Whether the aeroplane will ever be cost effective enough to buy and operate is another matter - only Boeing will be able to decide that. However, I do feel that it will be good for the industry to have a successor to Concorde - even if it does come from the wrong side of the Atlantic. Thelead time will be such that Concorde will be on the way out as the (Super) Sonic Cruiser comes in.

Modern computer modelling will help to reduce the effect of booms - but I still doubt that it will be allow to drop booms over land. US government subsidies (sorry - NASA Research!) will ensure that whatever engine is required will be available, too.

However, will there be enough trade to see it sell? There will have to be more than just the North Atlantic and unless it can do West Coast USA to Japan non-stop it will lose it's advantage over convential craft.

Interesting times ahead for Boeing - I hope for their sake they have it right this time (unlike 747X and 757-300).

[Chris]

There's been a lot of general misinformation on this (and other) supersonic threads. It is interesting to look at current research into eliminating sonic booms, with the intent of over land supersonic travel.

A sonic boom is a pressure wave, much like sound, and it is measured in the same way, as a change in pressure. Like sound, it is attenuated by distance, which in short hand means the further away you are, the quieter it is. No surprises so far.

There are two ways to increase the distance between the aircraft and the observer. The obvious way is to fly higher; the less obvious way is to fly faster. The shock wave has an angle which depends upon the speed; at higher speeds the shock wave angles further back, it extends much further before it hits the ground, hence a quieter shock wave.

Another way is to reduce the intensity of the source shock wave. Clever computers, aircraft profile and even microwaves to heat the air (hotter air = higher local speed of sound = less energy in the shock) have all been looked at.

Technology today probably allows a small aircraft to fly supersonically over land without anyone noticing. The SR-71 replacement (Aurora) almost certainly is a flying embodiment of this technology. Whether it is applicable to Concorde Mark II is harder to say. The speed required to angle the shock wave enough may be excessive - anything greater than M2.2 needs higher temperature metals than aluminium (this is the reason for this design point in Concorde and many military aircraft), which means further expense.

Maybe we have to wait until materials technology allows speeds of M3 to M5 at altiutudes of ~100k. This profile, even today, means no shock wave will reach the ground.

Engine technology - another major hurdle. I'll leave this for someone else.

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Chris ]

[Young Paul]

There are various reasons why supersonic transport is not widespread. Environmental impact is one. Lack of demand is the other. However, if the demand were there, it could be done these days. Concorde runs at an operating profit, remember - in other words, it covers its costs. And this is old technology - we could do at least twice as well as that, these days - in other words, halve the cost of supersonic travel. You'd need to add a lump to the fare to cover development costs - and it's the size of that lump spread over a small market that has prevented development up to now. The argument about kinetic energy is nonsense, however. Of course, you need to convert potential energy (fuel) into kinetic energy to accelerate the aircraft. But that's what engines are for. If you can get things into space (escape velocity 12 km/s [?]), then Mach 1.8 is hardly a huge mountain, relatively.

And yes, on a longish flight, in a nearly full aircraft, the specific fuel burn (kg fuel per pax per km) is not far removed from that of a car. Aircraft do go faster (more drag) - but they are in thinner air, and experience less resistance from air than cars do from roads. Also they travel in a straightish line, and cars generally don't. And their engines are **substantially** more efficient than car petrol engines.

[casual observer]

Exile from Groggs:

It is exactly my point that you have less resistant in the air than on road surfaces, that's why we can make air travel affordable.

However, we are talking about different aircraft flying at different speeds. Even though they will be flying at different altitudes (thus, different air resistance) and different speeds (thus, different drag), the differences are not big enough to make flying at 1.8M cost about the same as flying at .85M. We sure have the technology to fly faster. There are plenty of experimental and military aircraft that have achieved speeds much higher than Concorde's 2.2M. However, we don't have the technology to make it affordable. Airlines cannot (profitably) create demand at will. Until we have the technology to make supersonic travel affordable to the general public, not just some elite groups, no supersonic jets will be mass produced.

Airlines can ask Boeing to study a 1.8M aircraft. Nevertheless, when the numbers come out, all sensible airlines will see it will not be an economically viable aircraft, at least not in the near future.

[BahrainLad]

It's the general consensus that if you want to go faster, you need to go higher.

If you go higher, there's no air, so you can't use jets. Also as there is no air, there's no sonic boom (can anyone hear the Shuttle?).

The key is the engine technology. You need a Scramjet engine - one that can operate as a jet and then progressively turn into a rocket as you change the flight regime.

Ironically, Rolls Royce designed such an engine for the HOTOL - the RB 545? - 'Swallow' I think it was called. However, canning it 'in the interests of national security' was _such_ a good idea.....

[Young Paul]

Could you operate a SST with a fuel burn about 20-25% higher than a sub-sonic? Could you shift 150 or so airframes to cover development costs? (Or alternatively, tap into an appropriately targeted NASA program, as US mfrs tend to).

Is there a market? Suppose you designed one hull, with several fuel and fitting options. One could carry 240 economy pax for 3-4 hours, at a premium of (say) 30% - Say W. Europe - E.USA. Bear in mind that there is already a market for an upgraded economy product, with more legroom. What about halving journey time? No need to travel W-E overnight!

Then another option would carry 120 premium pax up to 7-8 hours - say US-Japan or China, UK-SA, Germany-Sao Paolo. A third would sew up the first class long-haul market by carrying 30 or so first class pax around the world direct in 10-12 hours - no refuelling stops; no ATC delays or tangling with weather; arrive feeling fresh (if jet-lagged!).

OK, slightly fanciful - particularly the last one. Also lots of pilots needed, due to radiation counts. But you have to think "marketing". Someone can make you want these things!

[Mycroft]

The fact remains taht there is not the demand for a large fleet of supersonic a/c. Although everybody wants to get to the destination more quickly, most people are not willing to pay. Although some Concorde pax will claim that it makes them more effective, Concorde is basically marketed for its unique capabilities, being the only a/c in which ordinary pax can go supersonic. There has never been enough demand to utilise all Concordes on the trans-atlantic route (trans-pacific not possible and no other route found to be profitable), many were used for charter services. There were reports several years ago of a US business jet manufacturer (Gulfsteam??) teaming up with a Russian design bureau (Tupolev??) to produce a supersonic BJ, but nothing appears to have happened with this project

[polzin]

Is the Concorde allowed to fly supersonic over any country of large land mass ?

[casual observer]

Could you operate a SST with a fuel burn about 20-25% higher than a sub-sonic?


If you are talking a 1.8M aircraft, I seriously doubt you can. Remember, we might have made many advances to make a supersonic jet much more efficient than the Concorde, but, at the same time, we have made other advances that make subsonic jets more efficient, too. So, the delta will always be about the same.


Could you shift 150 or so airframes to cover development costs?


You're not going to cover the development costs with 150 planes. Just take a look at the L-1011, of which 250 were built. Even the DC-10 didn't make money for McDonnell Douglas, and more than 400 of them were built.


(Or alternatively, tap into an appropriately targeted NASA program, as US mfrs tend to).


And you don't think Airbus leverages research by European agencies like DERA, ONERA, DLR, NLR, etc.?


Is there a market? Suppose you designed one hull, with several fuel and fitting options. One could carry 240 economy pax for 3-4 hours, at a premium of (say) 30% - Say W. Europe - E.USA. Bear in mind that there is already a market for an upgraded economy product, with more legroom. What about halving journey time? No need to travel W-E overnight!


Can you tell me how many subsonic trans-Atlantic flights there are each day, and how many supersonic flights there are? How can you say there is already a market for supersonic travel? Anyway, all your hypothetic scenarios are all unrealistic.

[polzin]

Until Boeing releases what altitude and engine type they plan to use, it seems that we dont know enough to determine if their SST aircraft makes sense or not. . Again I ask, is there any country that allows the Concorde to fly over a populated area. I wonder especially about England.................

[moggie]

Polzin - yes Concorde may fly over populated areas, but only subsonic. That is why it is actually allowed to get airborne and land again! However, they head off over the southwest of England to reach the Altlantic without having to dealy supersonic flight due to crossing Ireland. These routes also keep them clear of the other North Atlantic tracks so that you don't drop a boom on someone's 747!

Incidentally, as a military transport pilot I have flown underneath Concorde on these southern routes and you can feel and hear the double boom as it passes 30,000' above you.

Mycroft - the Gulfstream tie-up was with Sukhoi who are currently producing some great airframes but there is no sign of the proposed SSBJ yet.