Posted on 08/05/2015 8:18:37 PM PDT by nickcarraway
When it comes to faster-than-sound air travel, economics have knee-capped innovation.<
For 27 years, the Concorde ferried Burberry-clad patricians from London to New York in three hours while they sipped martinis at Mach 2.04. As Air France and British Airways ramped service by Concordes, many had high hopes that supersonic commercial was going to become a norm.
It didn’t.
Instead, a Concorde flight crashed in 2000, the September 11 attacks created a slump in air travel, and maintenance costs became unjustifiable. Although Concordes operated at profit, they raked in a lot less money than conventional flights, and their 30-year-old cabins ceased to look even retro-chi. So Air France and British Airways retired their fleets in 2003. The idea of supersonic travel wasn’t dead, but the planes were effectively extinct.
It’s been twelve years since a Concorde flight, and supersonic travel has yet to return, despite a huge amount of progress in aviation technology, including the advent of hypersonic (5x the speed of sound) fighters. The relevant question no longer concerns whether or not we can make it work; it’s all about whether the airline industry has an incentive to try.
The answers are as bound to history as they are to new technologies.
The Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 (the Soviet Union’s answer for supersonic commercial flight which — as fits well with Russian history — had a lot less success) were rife with issues to contend with. Besides being much more difficult to design and construct, the planes needed to be specialized for transporting civilians. This meant reducing excessive noise from takeoff and from sonic booms that occurred when the plane would break the sound barrier. It also meant keeping flights over water in order to not terrify people.
One of the big selling points in the ‘60s for supersonic engines was increased fuel efficiency. Turbofan engines on subsonic planes are less thirsty, which wipes out the Concorde’s advantage. To exacerbate that loss, turbofans can also carry a lot of weight. By the end of the Concorde’s run, a Boeing 747 could carry three times as many passengers while using roughly the same amount of fuel. Bulk beats speed in this particular arena.
And, of course, supersonic flight means much more wear and tear on the plane’s wings, nose, and body. Heavier structures are needed to minimize the stress caused by high winds and temperatures. This means that the empty weight per seat on a Concorde was three times that of a Boeing 747. Again, those numbers aren’t trending in favor of supersonic anything.
All things considered, the Concorde was more of a luxurious novelty than a viable long term strategy for airlines. Keeping those flights in service today would be cheaper, but conventional flights are still profitable enough that mass-market airlines have no particular reason to change their business models.
Furthermore, hypersonic flight, which offers real efficiency, has its own problems not endemic to supersonic flight. The biggest hurdle is the extreme temperature rises caused by the friction of air hitting the craft’s surface at breathtaking speeds. Recent chatter suggests that hypersonic aircraft travel might be sustainable using “scramjets” (supersonic combustion ramjet engines), which allow for airflow through the engine’s combustion chamber and could cool the jet down. These “air-breathing” vehicles could reach speeds as high as Mach 15, but don’t expect them to hit the tarmac at JFK any time soon.
The delay has everything to do with research budgets. In 2012, NASA spent a meager $15 million to study hypersonic travel. The military is much more interested in hypersonic flight, but of course, this is for military purposes. Commercial spaceflight companies like Virgin Galactic are also interested in using hypersonic flight technology for their own vehicles, but their destinations — and ticket prices — are literally out of this world.
Still, Virgin’s extraterrestrial ambitions may represent a glimmer of hope for faster-than-sound travel. The civilian race to space is fueled by egos and by money; it makes sense largely because the wealth gap has given a fair number of people truly and profoundly disposable income. These consumers care more about an experience than they do saving money, a reality that fundamentally changes the economics of travel. Within that market, currently dominated by NetJets and its ilk, a supersonic or hypersonic service might make sense. Jetsetter gonna jetset — they might as well do it in style. A specific carrier could move into this space, but it would almost certainly have to branch off from an existing airline because overhead would be significant.
And, let’s be real, the airline industry has experienced more than its fair share of turbulence, so we’re not talking about a group of execs looking to take risks.
It’ll be at least 15 years and probably much longer than that before anyone gets to enjoy the thrills of a three-hour flight from Paris to Tokyo. But that doesn’t mean it’s never going to happen, just that you might want to continue stockpiling Ambien for a while.
I know why the Concordes are gone, but I’m still not happy about it.
Flying on one was on my bucket list.
One of the problems with it, I think, was the fact that it was basically only used for routes from western Europe to eastern America. That was the only route they decided made economic sense, and had the advantage of being mostly over ocean where nobody would complain about the sonic booms, but cutting an eight hour trip down to a four hour trip simply wasn't that dramatic. For commercial supersonic flight to really take off, it's needs the really long haul routes and I think that's what could make a big difference with any future attempt - India's growth, China's - it the cross-Pacific and cross-Asia/Europe routes that have the distance to really make a huge difference.
I'd like a London to Melbourne route, but I doubt that would be viable. :)
No, at least not for a long long time. The old adage “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go” is more true in airplanes than cars. As well, the mountains of money required get considerably higher.
“For commercial supersonic flight to really take off, it’s needs the really long haul routes and I think that’s what could make a big difference with any future attempt”
That’s a really good point. I was thinking about a flight I took many moons ago, non-stop from Chicago to Seoul, South Korea. IIRC, the flight time was between 14 and 15 hours. A supersonic plane (assuming it had the range to fly that distance) would have made for a much easier flight, I think.
Trips to the moon and supersonic commercial travel are all past tense. We have allowed our country to be indebted and sold out and unemployed. We had a world class country that once produced tangible products that we consumed and that made us prosperous as a nation.
The greedy crooked bankers (the ones Congress bailed out with trillions of our declining money, along with help from the Fed) somehow convinced scheming politicians on a puppet string to allow a select few to get rich by globalizing our economy, while we lose our sovereignty.
Illegal immigration and multi-culturalism are a major sidebar of their globalization effort. Financialization by Wall St money changers instead of industrialization of America by CEOs is one big root cause of our decline.
... excessive noise from takeoff and from sonic booms that occurred when the plane would break the sound barrier. It also meant keeping flights over water in order to not terrify people...
Not so much that sonic booms scared people. It was one of the many sounds of freedom. What P.O’ed people was when sonic booms from lower flying aircraft broke windows in homes, which they frequently did.
People living near old cold war SAC bases also used to complain when those big multi engine propeller pusher engined B36’s used to shake houses to their foundation from the subsonic shock wave from those mighty engines when they flew overhead even at altitude.
700mph [roughly the top speed of jets like the 747,737..etc] is fast enough for me. But then I’m not a weary corporate guy who has to fly several times a week... it might make a huge difference to them.
I can’t imagine how boring it would be to routinely fly from NYC to Tokyo every week...arghhh :-( One of those 15x scramjets would be very welcome for that route.
Although Concordes operated at profit, they raked in a lot less money than conventional flights …When you have so few of them and so many more conventional planes, then of course they would bring in less comparative total revenue.
I remember seeing those Convair B-36’s flying when I was a 3 year old kid in San Diego in the late 1950’s. Quite the sight!
Didn't she marry Ralph Kramden?
The new SST--most likely a private jet--will sport the following features:
1. A shape designed to reduce the sonic boom to essentially inaudible levels even flying at top speed.
2. Will be limited to a top speed of Mach 1.6 (1,054 mph). This allows more extensive use of composite structural materials to reduce airplane weight, since structural heating at Mach 1.6 is much lower than the Mach 2.0+ speeds of the Concorde.
3. The Mach 1.6 top speed means a far less expensive afterburning system for the engines, which means lower fuel consumption and lower emissions.
4. It will seat up to 14 passengers.
5. The range of the plane will be somewhere between 4,900 and 6,500 nautical miles, depending on how much supersonic flying is needed. Transatlantic flights will be done at Mach 1.6 top speed, while transpacific flights will be done at Mach 1.2 to 1.25 to reduce fuel consumption.
5. Will use the variable cycle engine I mentioned earlier to reduce takeoff noise levels so it complies with the ICAO Stage IV noise standard.
Won’t happen again. Too expensive, too “booming,” and with the luxury super liners there’s no need to be there in half the time.
"Business Class" on a 777 is nice. Really nice.
Until you're in it for double-digit hours.
LAX <-> Sydney is just a gawdawful grind ...
Try it some time ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.