Sonic boom or bust? Dreams of super-fast jet travel revival face headwinds

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | 12/22/2017 | Jamie Freed

[DFG]

Supersonic passenger travel, which died out with the Concorde's demise in 2003, will make a comeback by the mid-2020s if three entrepreneurial U.S.-based companies can make jets quiet and efficient enough to win over buyers and fliers.

Fifteen years ago, Boeing Co canceled plans to build the near-supersonic Sonic Cruiser, the last big attempt by a major manufacturer to speed up commercial travel.

Now Japan Airlines Co Ltd <9201.T> and Virgin Group are backing one of the three U.S. supersonic projects, Denver-based Boom Technology Inc, which plans a 55-seat all business class jet.

Lockheed Martin Corp is partnering with Aerion Corp to develop smaller supersonic business jets, with Spike Aerospace Inc also targeting the private jet market given many see the super-rich as the likeliest early adopters of supersonic travel.

[BlueDragon]

The Concorde was limited to NY runs, from London or Paris.

It used to fly into DFW. International flights were allowed to go supersonic.

If memory serves, for a short time there was DFW to Dulles supersonic (along with a few other domestic flights at that speed) until domestic supersonic flights were barred by act of Congress.

Braniff partnering with British Airways...

There may have been a few Air France flights too.

[mountn man]

Problem with US/Asia is fuel.

You need a plane large enough to carry enough fuel for the engines, which makes the airframe larger, which puts more drag on the plane.

Tokyo from LAX, is about 1000 miles beyond Concordes range.

Fuel weighs 6.8 lbs per gallon.
More fuel = more weight.

More weight means more fuel used to push the plane.

More fuel used, means more fuel needed.
More fuel needed means more weight.

[BobL]

Yea, I was just noting that at 1 hr. saved for 3000nm, you would save at least 2 hours flying to Asia from the US, not whether the plane was or could be practical. But it is worth noting at the time that fuel prices were very low, so the actual cost of the fuel wasn’t a factor - but if high consumption affected range, then that would be a big deal.

As to saving a couple of hours being a big deal - I suspect that it would be for some business travelers, but not most tourist types. As it was, the move to the 787 was slick and well-timed, and could have really sunk Airbus if they didn’t need an extra 3 years (or so) to get its new systems working and if they had put in more than a token effort at understanding the batteries they were using.

[BobL]

“Whenever I fly, I can’t help but marvel at the stagnation that has existed in the aviation industry over past half century or so”

...but try flying round trip from the US to Asia for $500 in 2017 dollars (and 2/3’s of that being taxes) 44 years ago. That’s where all the effort has been put, because that’s what most people wanted. Every time some operator (existing or new) promises ‘better service’ or better seating, for more money, they get rejected by the flying public.

[BobL]

“be herded into a cramped cabin, sit in a crappy seat, eat a crappy meal and take 4-5 hours to fly coast-to-coast”

Actually the 4-5 hours is now 5-6 hours, thanks to our high-bypass engines. 40 years ago, the planes were much faster...but they also used twice the fuel.