When are Civilian Aircrafts going to Fly faster?

[strella]

Its been many years since civilian transport planes are flying at the present speeds, i.e. well below Mach 1.

Any informed decisions/guesses as to when are we going to fly faster. I think it is long overdue.

[Rengineer]

Easy one: They'll do it when the civilians accept the sonic boom that goes with it. And pay the price for superfast air delivery.
Which taken together, means: Not anytime soon.

It may be another matter for business jets or even passenger planes - at one time the Concorde could actually almost make money - but if you need to go subsonic while over land, it just doesn't work out. If it was me, I'd rather go for higher climb and approach speeds on subsonic jets, as that's where the most time is spent on short-haul flights.

[dixi188]

A few years ago Boeing proposed its Sonic Cruiser.
It was to be trans sonic at about .95 mach.

This would save around 1 hour on London to Los Angeles.

But the numbers did not add up re. higher fuel burn and development costs, so they went for the B787.(I'll bet the development costs are about the same now).

You could save 1 hour in the airport if security procedures and baggage claim were streamlined.

[Capetonian]

Seems to me that the biggest waste of time is the boarding procedures, everybody queuing at the gate, then queuing in the jetway, then pushing paste everyone else in the aisle.

[Groundloop]

Its been many years since civilian transport planes are flying at the present speeds, i.e. well below Mach 1.

Any informed decisions/guesses as to when are we going to fly faster. I think it is long overdue.

1976 to 2003!

[crispey]

Some folk have hit the nail on the head.Sorry airline people,but what with all the security checks,airlines check in requirements,poor seating(I'm 6-1) and generally indifferent service-unless going business class)I prefer the train for many destinations in near Europe.OK so I'm lucky enough to live near Stoke and Crewe stations so door to door from my house to central Paris/Brussels etc is about the same as flying from MAN.

However I will have to use you to get further afield.And Mach 0.78 is fine by me.

[SNS3Guppy]

We're cruising .82 to .84 these days; that's fast enough.

Going faster sounds great, but there's a much higher cost associated with the speed.

You can go as fast as you're willing to pay. If you want to well exceed the speed of sound, go rent a Mig in Russia for a ride; you can do it at high cost, but to what end?

Surely we can go faster, but to what end? I don't see the need, myself.

[con-pilot]

The way it looks as of now, the next supersonic civilian jet will be a business jet.

New supersonic passenger jet set for takeoff - Technology & science - Innovation - msnbc.com

[Piltdown Man]

Personally, I'd expect slower aircraft to be developed. Speed comes at a price.

PM

[Peter47]

I spoke to an engineer a good few years ago who reckoned that we would eventually jump straight to hypersonic sub-orbital jets which could do London - Sydney in a few hours and not develop a new generation of supersonic jets owing to sonic boom problems (and the amount of energy required to produce sonic booms).

I would think that this is a few years off (although a certain Mr Branson has an outfit looking to provide sub-orbital flights).

One of the all business airlines that went bust (maxjet, Eos - I forget which) hasd its own dedicated terminal at Luton and combine this with the latest first class sleeper suits and you probably cannot justify supersonic transport except for ultra long hauls such as Los Angeles - Sydney. However you would need to develop a SST that does not require refuelling en route to be worthwhile (unless you refuel in flight - discuss) and that is a long way off. Its probably easier to develop a hypersonic sub-orbital craft - or the guy I was chatting to thought.

It is certainly intersting to compare aircraft in the 40 years prior to the introduction of the 747 in 1969/70 with the 40 years since and the rate of growth has certainly slackened, but remember that Apollo 11's computer had much less computer power than a modern notebook. The early 747s had plastic tubes linked to speakers in armrests - state of the art at the time. Airframe development has slowed down but avionics & IFE, etc, have advanced at a rapid pace.

With all the concern about environmentalism I see effort going into developing new fuels such as algae together with incremental developments in efficiency. And I have to say I am hopeful that technology will provide answers ans we will still be flying in fifty years.

Even so, I would be very interested if ant ppruner has information when we are likely to be travelling in flying wings and what speed we will likely be doing so. (My guess is about Mach 0.84.)

[Phileas Fogg]

Concorde and the Tu-144 were a trial of "can it be done?" ... "yes it can" as with man on the moon etc. We no longer have men landing on the moon the same as we no longer have supersonic travel .... because developement is mega expensive, for mega loss at the end of the day, and a case of "been there, done that".

It will only be a matter of time before something faster than supersonic is developed .....

[Agent153Orange]

I spoke to an engineer a good few years ago who reckoned that we would eventually jump straight to hypersonic sub-orbital jets which could do London - Sydney in a few hours and not develop a new generation of supersonic jets owing to sonic boom problems (and the amount of energy required to produce sonic booms).

I would think that this is a few years off (although a certain Mr Branson has an outfit looking to provide sub-orbital flights).

One of the all business airlines that went bust (maxjet, Eos - I forget which) hasd its own dedicated terminal at Luton and combine this with the latest first class sleeper suits and you probably cannot justify supersonic transport except for ultra long hauls such as Los Angeles - Sydney. However you would need to develop a SST that does not require refuelling en route to be worthwhile (unless you refuel in flight - discuss) and that is a long way off. Its probably easier to develop a hypersonic sub-orbital craft - or the guy I was chatting to thought.

I personally think hypersonic transports (Mach 5+) will never be worthwhile: this is because of (1) exorbitant development and production costs even compared to supersonics (Mach 2-3), let alone ordinary jetliners; (2) ginormous fuel consumption required at such speeds; and (3) any time savings compared to SSTs, even on longer routes, will be pretty marginal. For these reasons, I think Mach 5 will be the exclusive realm of military aircraft and orbital spaceplanes like the HOTOL project.

On the other hand, I think that a new generation of SSTs could become viable in the future, but in order to be viable they'll have to have (1) at least twice the passenger capacity of the Concorde, (2) enough range to fly from LAX to Tokyo Narita nonstop and without in-flight refueling, and (3) significantly lower operating costs than the Concorde. Plus, fuel costs will have to stabilize at a reasonable level, or an alternative jet fuel would have to be developed (maybe using coal-to-liquids process, like the Germans did in WW1/WW2?) When will that happen? Definitely not anytime in the next ten years, probably at least twenty years or more from now.

By the way, in-flight refueling of civilian transports is absolutely out of the question because of the safety hazards involved.

[MG23]

Originally Posted by Agent153Orange

I personally think hypersonic transports (Mach 5+) will never be worthwhile: this is because of (1) exorbitant development and production costs even compared to supersonics (Mach 2-3),

I think that's the biggie: building a prototype suborbital transport would probably be cheaper than flying it enough times to demonstrate that it's safe to use for regular passenger flights. Otherwise you'd probably have to develop it to launch things into space and then when it's proven there start simplifying the design to use for suborbital passenger transport.

But note that a suborbital flight would get you anyhwere on the planet in less than an hour, as it would peak at much higher than Mach 5, and I suspect it would probably still be cheaper than building an aircraft that could sustain Mach 5 in the atmosphere. The downside, as one SF writer put it, is that half the time a passenger can't get to the toilet (because you're accelerating or decelerating) and the other half they can't use it (because you're weightless).

(2) ginormous fuel consumption required at such speeds;

It's not that bad. The space shuttle burns about 10kg of fuel per kg it puts into orbit, so if the mass of a passenger and associated structure could be kept to half a ton, a suborbital London to Sydney trip could be maybe four tons of fuel per passenger. LOX/LH2 appears to cost around a dollar a kilo, so at $4,000 that's about the cost of a Concorde flight to New York, isn't it? And if you were burning thousands of tons a day, I'm sure you could get prices down.

The problem is getting the maintenance and turnaround time down to the point where the fuel is the major cost rather than maintenance (AFAIR the space shuttle's LOX/LH2 makes up less than 0.1% of the cost of a flight). Which goes back to flying the test vehicles an awful lot of times to thoroughly debug the system, which goes back to requiring vast billions of development funding with a fairly dubious market at the end of that.

[Mike Tee]

Apart from Concorde does anyone know which was the fastest of the sub sonic passenger Jets. I seem to remember reading that the Convair CV990 was up there and possibly the VC10. Am I right.

[Dr Jekyll]

We're cruising .82 to .84 these days; that's fast enough.

Not if you want to go say, London to Sydney. Long haul airlines advertising is primarily based on listing the on board facilities for passing the time. 'You won't get quite as bored on our flights as other peoples'. Rather as if telephone baning services competed on the basis of the music you had to liten to while on hold.

Once you can fly between the two major cities in the world which are furthest apart, do a few hours work, then get back the same day there will be no advantage in going faster. But that's a long way ahead.

[L337]

The 747 100-200 & 400 will all nudge Mach 0.9 Not for the faint hearted though. The fuel burn goes through the roof.

On a daily basis we cruise the 747-400 at M8.2 to M8.6 depending on winds and weight.

This makes interesting reading. Speeds

[MidlandDeltic]

L337 opined : "On a daily basis we cruise the 747-400 at M8.2 to M8.6 depending on winds and weight."

That's fast! M.82 to M.86 I presume

MD

[L337]

ooops

0.82 to 0.86 of course. I wish 8.6 for all of our sakes.

[SNS3Guppy]

Not if you want to go say, London to Sydney. Long haul airlines advertising is primarily based on listing the on board facilities for passing the time. 'You won't get quite as bored on our flights as other peoples'. Rather as if telephone baning services competed on the basis of the music you had to liten to while on hold.

Yes, .84 is fast enough when flying long haul. I do it all the time. We cruise standard .84 in the 747, and I really don't see any great need to go any faster.

I recently rode EK for a 16 hour flight aboard a 777. I watched several movies, listened to some music, slept, ate two meals, penned some thoughts about the north pole, and changed airplanes in San Fransisco for another leg home.

While a small percentage of passengers will be willing to pay the excessive costs of supersonic flight (or hypersonic at such time that becomes available), they'll be few, and far between. Much like the customer base for the Concorde.

[con-pilot]

Apart from Concorde does anyone know which was the fastest of the sub sonic passenger Jets. I seem to remember reading that the Convair CV990 was up there and possibly the VC10. Am I right.

I cannot answer for the VC-10, but the Convair 990 was the fastest sub-sonic airliner produced as far as I know. While I never flew one, I was the only passenger on a Modern Air 990 from OKC to MIA one night on a deadhead ferry flight and we were cruising at Mach .92.

A side note, the Convair 990 put Convair out of business. When the 990 was delivered it could not meet the speed that was promised. While I cannot remember the details now, all of the 990s had to modified drastically to meet the specs. The cost was too high to absorb, the company went broke and was bought by I believe General Dynamics.

Oh, one more thing about Convair. They never built a Convair 580, all the 580s were modified 440s and I think a few 340s, not too sure about the 340s though.