New supersonic airliner.

[hairystick]

It seems development is underway for a replacement Concorde by a private company/consortium.

 

http://boomsupersonic.com/

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/boom-supersonic-passenger-jet-virgin-richard-branson-london-new-york-concorde-a7420466.html

 

An interesting layout of engines.

[Head in the clouds.]

Looks like a nice design, just a pity we had to give up what we had. The engines near the tail does seem odd for an aircraft designed to like along at M2.2....but what do I know, I can tell you how to make a tin can but that' it.

[Albeback52]

 "That anyone can afford to fly"?  $2500 US (£2024 ) each way across the pond?? "Affordable supersonic travel"?  Who are they trying to kid? Just who is this "anyone" anyway? Might be "affordable" for the likes of Richard Branson and those wealthy enough to fly on Concorde but, surely still way out of reach f the vast majority of air passengers. Show me an aeroplane that makes supersonic flight a truly affordable reality for everyone and I guarantee I will be properly impressed but, not otherwise.

 

Allan

[HP42]

What will they make it from? How does carbon fibre composite stand up to frictional heating at that speed? It wI'll encounter all the problems Concorde had,  i.e. lack of range, noise on take-off (if reheat is used), heating issues, economy of scale, though it could work in its favour. If the ticket prices are as quoted and it comes to fruition I think it would be viable but I'm not convinced yet. 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi

I have my doubt, whether this one will ever fly outside computer hard discs, especially as it looks more like a publicity stunt than a serious project. There have been several other supersonic business transports announced (IIRC Grumman/Suchoi planned one some fifteen years ago) but the market for this class of planes just does not exists. I certainly would not mind if Branson's guys would succeed, though. Cheers

Jure

[JohnT]

I recall viewing a programme on TV that was on SST's and it had the industry bean counters saying the future was in smaller SST types with high cost seats for those who really needed the speed and those able to afford very high ticket prices and not in mass market where cost outweighed slower transit times.

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

 "That anyone can afford to fly"?  $2500 US (£2024 ) each way across the pond?? "Affordable supersonic travel"?  Who are they trying to kid? Just who is this "anyone" anyway? Might be "affordable" for the likes of Richard Branson and those wealthy enough to fly on Concorde but, surely still way out of reach f the vast majority of air passengers. Show me an aeroplane that makes supersonic flight a truly affordable reality for everyone and I guarantee I will be properly impressed but, not otherwise.

 

Allan

 

The kind of people who really need to cross the pond in 3 hours would have no problem in spending £2000 for a flight. Spending 3 instead of 8 hours on a plane makes no difference to a tourist going on holiday for a couple weeks but can make a difference to businessmen. £2000 may sound a lot but if I try to get a flight from London to NYC for next week flying BA in business class, we're talking £3400 with return, £1700 per leg. First class is over £2500 per leg. If I'm a businessman flying from one city to the other to close a multilion £ contract, I'm happy to fly in 3 hours and pay an extra for this.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, HP42 said:

What will they make it from? How does carbon fibre composite stand up to frictional heating at that speed? It wI'll encounter all the problems Concorde had,  i.e. lack of range, noise on take-off (if reheat is used), heating issues, economy of scale, though it could work in its favour. If the ticket prices are as quoted and it comes to fruition I think it would be viable but I'm not convinced yet. 

 

I share the same doubts about the use of carbon fibre structures, these are not really the best suited for use at very high speed. At the same time they can be easily used in areas that are subject to lower temperatures, leaving the most demanding ones to be covered by better suited materials, like titanium.

The lack of range though can be a real problem: crossing the Atlantic may sound great, but is this the best route today ? With the Asian routes carrying a huge number of first and business class passengers, maybe these would be even better suited to a new generation SST, however these routes generally require longer range. Maybe designing an SST for the Atlantic is not the right thing to do anymore

 

37 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I recall viewing a programme on TV that was on SST's and it had the industry bean counters saying the future was in smaller SST types with high cost seats for those who really needed the speed and those able to afford very high ticket prices and not in mass market where cost outweighed slower transit times.

 

It does make sense, 40 seats would be easier to fill than 100 at that price. Less seats also mean a smaller aircraft with less thrust required and therefore maybe lower operating costs

 

49 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hi

I have my doubt, whether this one will ever fly outside computer hard discs, especially as it looks more like a publicity stunt than a serious project. There have been several other supersonic business transports announced (IIRC Grumman/Suchoi planned one some fifteen years ago) but the market for this class of planes just does not exists. I certainly would not mind if Branson's guys would succeed, though. Cheers

Jure

 

The existance of a market for these planes is something I often wonder about myself. As I said above there are still people who are interested in flying quickly regardless of costs, however the same nature of the business world is changing a lot. Today the presence of a businessman in another country is made less and less necessary by the Internet and services like Skype. The same businessman I mentioned above may want to fly quickly from NYC to London to close a deal but at the same time the vast majority of the work leading to this deal will have seen a lot of internet based meetings and very few actual visits from people. The world is moving more and more towards the mobility of the information, isn the mobility of people still so important to require such an investment ?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Giorgio N

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi John, hi Giorgio

I have no doubts there is a number of wealthy people who would be willing to pay a ticket price in that range for a supersonic ride, whether for business purposes or just for the thrill of it. Such a plane may even earn a profit for an airline, after all, Concordes on trans-Atlantic routes had been in the black most of the time. However, what would a production run look like, twenty to thirty planes on global scale? I appreciate that development and production costs have dropped significantly since Concorde/Tu-144/Boeing SST times, but such a short production run is hardly a good recipe for profit, unless they would turn them out using 3-D printers. Again, I would very much like to see a new supersonic airliner of any size. Cheers

Jure

[Graham T]

Doomed to failure IMHO.  If there was a REAL market for supersonic air travel then SURELY Boeing or Airbus would be seeing it & getting ready to exploit it?   

[Agent K]

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:32 PM, HP42 said:

What will they make it from? How does carbon fibre composite stand up to frictional heating at that speed? It wI'll encounter all the problems Concorde had,  i.e. lack of range, noise on take-off (if reheat is used), heating issues, economy of scale, though it could work in its favour. If the ticket prices are as quoted and it comes to fruition I think it would be viable but I'm not convinced yet. 

 

I suspect aerodynamics, materials science, propulsion efficiency etc. have moved on a little since the 1960's......

[Britman]

Too small a market for the big two.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi, Agent K

Aviation certainly has advanced since the 60', but focus had been mainly on military. And while there is plenty of Mach 2 capable military planes in use these days, right now I cannot think of a single type, which cruises at supersonic speeds regularly. For example, has anybody researched fatigue of aircraft's composite structure, subjected to two hours of stress at Mach 2 on daily basis? How about sonic boom, what had been learned from that reshaped F-5E research plane on that question? Also, vibrations and cabin noise level are bound to be higher with an engine in the tail, and so forth and so on ...

If the question of the sonic boom would be solved, or at least if the level of noise would be lowered substantially, the new plane could be put on overland routes and that would increase her appeal to airlines. Without that, she is confined to North Atlantic route, where Icelandic fishermen are not likely to file in many complaints about noise. Just my thoughts. Cheers

Jure

[Albeback52]

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 3:34 PM, Graham T said:

Doomed to failure IMHO.  If there was a REAL market for supersonic air travel then SURELY Boeing or Airbus would be seeing it & getting ready to exploit it?   

I do not personally believe we are doomed forever to bumble around the world at 450 kts or thereabouts.  The introduction of aircraft like the 747 brought cheap air travel within the financial grasp of the masses.  Someone needs to produce a supersonic airliner capable of providing cheap mass transit in the same way the 747 did. I think it will come eventually but, maybe not for a couple of decades at least. I watched one documentary some time back and, at least one Airbus guy was interviewed and his opinion was that in order to offer economical and affordable mass transit then any future SST would have to be (necessarily) like Concorde but much bigger - in the 250 - 300 seat class and with a range of at least 4000 - 5000 miles. His comment was that designing the aeroplane was the easy part. Designing the engines capable of propelling such an aircraft at bean counter friendly costs was the big problem.

 

Allan

Edited November 21, 2016 by Albeback52

[hairystick]

On 11/20/2016 at 7:30 AM, Jure Miljevic said:

Such a plane may even earn a profit for an airline, after all, Concordes on trans-Atlantic routes had been in the black most of the time.

 

I'm led to believe that Concorde became profitable once passengers were surveyed "how much would you pay to fly on Concorde" and "how much are you paying"?

Essentially the passengers were having their staff/personal assistant/secretary to book the flight. The had no idea how much it cost (basically: wealthy people).

So supersonic mass-transit travel isn't going to happen.

 

Secondly, Jeremy Clarkson pointed out in one of his books that "Concorde was too slow, in the digital age". True, up to a point, but people still needed to be able to get across the Atlantic, have a personal meeting and then get back home all in the same day. The market is there still and when BA cancelled SST services there was good demand and also a fleet of fully serviceable Concordes available.

 

An article on Boom's aircraft was talking about trans Pacific ocean flights AUS-USA in 7hrs which included a refueling stop, so I guess new markets are being looked at.

[Giorgio N]

26 minutes ago, hairystick said:

 

I'm led to believe that Concorde became profitable once passengers were surveyed "how much would you pay to fly on Concorde" and "how much are you paying"?

Essentially the passengers were having their staff/personal assistant/secretary to book the flight. The had no idea how much it cost (basically: wealthy people).

So supersonic mass-transit travel isn't going to happen.

 

Secondly, Jeremy Clarkson pointed out in one of his books that "Concorde was too slow, in the digital age". True, up to a point, but people still needed to be able to get across the Atlantic, have a personal meeting and then get back home all in the same day. The market is there still and when BA cancelled SST services there was good demand and also a fleet of fully serviceable Concordes available.

 

An article on Boom's aircraft was talking about trans Pacific ocean flights AUS-USA in 7hrs which included a refueling stop, so I guess new markets are being looked at.

 

We should not forget that Concorde was retired in 2003, the increase in data connections between then and now has been massive. I agree that there's probably still a market (as mentioned in one of my posts above) but has likely shrunk compared to 13 years ago

Trans-pacific flights are indeed something to look into, however the mention of a Australia-USA route is yet another sign of a view of the world that has been overcome by the development of world economy: an Australia businessman even today is more likely to need to travel to China than to the USA, a Sydney-Bejing route is way more interesting, as are routes from China to Japan and other RIMPAC countries. And of course from China to the US

[magwitch]

SYD-LAX is about 15 hours and a QF A380 is configured 406Y, 64J and 14F so there is obviously a very low limit to the number of customers that will pay a significant premium for more comfort even on such a long flight. So I think the number of customers who'd pay an even bigger premium to get there in 7 hours is even lower. SST just can't happen until there are breakthroughs in engine and airframe technology that will get the CASM down into the $0.06 - $0.07 range of the B777/A350.

 

SST + ULH is an interesting concept that would be revolutionary if could connect previously unconnectable city pairs like LHR-PER or NRT-GRU with reasonable flight durations. That would be revolutionary.

 

Finally, Branson's involved in this particular iteration so it will probably never happen anyway.

[Agent K]

On ‎21‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:24 PM, Jure Miljevic said:

Hi, Agent K

Aviation certainly has advanced since the 60', but focus had been mainly on military. And while there is plenty of Mach 2 capable military planes in use these days, right now I cannot think of a single type, which cruises at supersonic speeds regularly. For example, has anybody researched fatigue of aircraft's composite structure, subjected to two hours of stress at Mach 2 on daily basis? How about sonic boom, what had been learned from that reshaped F-5E research plane on that question? Also, vibrations and cabin noise level are bound to be higher with an engine in the tail, and so forth and so on ...

If the question of the sonic boom would be solved, or at least if the level of noise would be lowered substantially, the new plane could be put on overland routes and that would increase her appeal to airlines. Without that, she is confined to North Atlantic route, where Icelandic fishermen are not likely to file in many complaints about noise. Just my thoughts. Cheers

Jure

 

All good and valid points Jure yes, there is a difference between civil and military supersonic operations, I recall at the time I was involved in Concorde operations we always said we had more supersonic hours than the RAF at the time due to the continuous supersonic cruise rather than dash speeds.

 

I guess my point was the ability to design and power to overcome problems is far greater now than then, as is knowledge of such operations, and materials and such.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Agent K
typo

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi, Agent K

You were certainly right in your supersonic time comparison between Concorde and RAF. Probably you could also include USAF, L'Armee d'air and possibly VVS into equation and it is still questionable if all these would add up to Concorde's flying time at Mach 2. In his booklet about F-16 Lou Drendel quoted Harry Hillaker from General Dynamics on supersonic time of B-58 Hustler. Hillaker said that upon retirement the entire Hustler fleet had accumulated 200 supersonic hours, less than 5% of their flying time. The plane with the highest supersonic time had seven hours.

Certainly computer simulations are used where ever it is possible these days, which saves both time and resources. However, I imagine there is still plenty of research that requires real world conditions or at least something closely resembling reality, like a realistic simulation of Mach 2 cycles (variation of Comet style water tank perhaps) on cabin bubble composite structure and stressed skin. I am not really current on SST so perhaps that had been done already. I certainly hope someone will put another Mach 2 airliner into service soon and I do not really mind what she is made of, as long as she flies. Cheers

Jure

[Alan P]

Can't see this taking off, if you'll excuse the pun. RPKs (revenue passenger kilometres) dictate aircraft utilisation these days, so the actual operating costs of such an aircraft would make seat prices beyond the reach of all but the higher exec class. Although that is the only type of person who would realistically want/need an SST, the market would be tiny. I doubt many flag-carrier type airlines would want to operate more than a couple of these aircraft even if they wanted to. That suggests a single-type niche operator, and we've seen generally what happens to those. 

 

The sonic boom issue is still the Achilles' heel of SSTs. Overland flights would be very limited, so the routes would need to reflect long overwater sectors between hubs. I doubt the planned aircraft as featured could sustain trans-Pacific distances, so the supersonic utilisation would be limited indeed. Boeing looked at the transonic speed cruiser concept in the 90s, but threw it out in favour of what would become the 787. Although the 787 has a higher cruising speed than most airliners, it is nowhere near the 0.95-0.98 envisaged for the original concept. If the planned SST could only utilise its high Mach (2.0+) on very limited routes, it does suggest a limited market - probably transatlantic only; the Asian market could feature routes like NRT-SYD or HKG-AKL but would the market support that long-term? I don't know. Routes to and from hubs like DXB would be limited unless they regard Africa as unworthy of sonic boom conservation. 

 

In summary, I think it's a can of worms better left unopened!

[Knight_Flyer]

Have to agree, the sonic boom will prevent SST planes flying profitable routes not to mention passenger capacity, economy, maintenance costs being important to airlines.

[zebra]

I was sceptical when I first read about this - there have been so many companies talking up their supersonic business jet projects over the years (and the newspapers' coverage always makes me laugh - they always seem to report it as if it's the future of air travel!). Like many on here I'll believe it when I see it. But this time there's an actual prototype (albeit 1/3 scale) under construction, so they seem to have gone a step further than most. Good luck to them.

 

I'm more sceptical about the timeline - in service by 2023? Seems ambitious! That's not much more than 6 years. Compare that with a few recent airliner programmes - A320neo, launched in 2010, entered service in 2016 and that's just an update of an existing design. A350 - relaunched as A350XWB in 2006, entered service in 2015. A supersonic aircraft is inherently far more complex, will surely require a longer testing programme, and the risk of delay to the programme due to unforeseen issues must be much greater. Maybe they can get the full-size prototype flying by 2023, but I can't see it being in service by then.

 

Do I think there's a market for it? Maybe. There's a lot of money in the Asia/Pacific region these days, not to mention the middle east, so probably a lot more viable routes than were available to Concorde. To be truly successful they probably need to be able to overturn the ban on supersonic flight over land though.

[Giorgio N]

Really I don't see too many difficulties in building today an airliner capable of operating at M 2 or 2.2, the problems are all well understood and the solutions have been available for some time.

The difficulties are in building an airliner that can fly at M 2 and make money for the airline ! Now this is a totally different matter, as whoever is interested in the venture has to carefully consider the operational cost of supersonic flight versus the potential market and the money that interested passengers would be happy to pay for a ticket.

Personally I hope that one of these companies will succeed and that supersonic airliner will become a reality again, I'm not too convinced this will happen soon though. Seems to me that too many of these ventures are looking at things the wrong way by deciding to go supersoic first and then looking for a market (that was the way the Concorde was built). The proper process however is the opposite, a market should be identified first and then an aircrat should be designed around the requests of this potential market

[Paul A H]

Two-and-a-half grand to have a go in a supersonic bizjet, built by a startup in a lock up in Denver to a tight budget?

 

 

 

 

 

You first.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

A number of points:

 

1) NASA has been working on sonic booms for a long time; specifically how to reduce their magnitude and impact. A lot more is known now than was known in the 1960s about how to minimise the boom on those on the ground.

 

2) The ARE military aircraft capable of supercruise now - that is to say cruising at supersonic speeds without reheat (or afterburner to Americans). This was not the case in the 1960s. Concorde cruised with reduced engine RPM but in reheat.

 

3) Materials technology is no different to 5th generation military fighters. We're talking about a Mach 2 cruise, not Mach 3+. Skin friction at cruising altitude is no worse than any current Mach 2 fast jet.

 

4) £2,500 per ticket is a fraction of what Concorde cost. As someone stated above, it's about what you'll pay business class.

 

5) The internet is pants. Skype etc fulfil some basic needs but there is absolutely nothing like talking face to face.

 

6) The slowness of subsonic airliners is more of a problem than a 5 hour flight time difference would suggest. By the time you've got to the airport, checked in, gone through security, waited, boarded, flown, passed through immigration, collected bags and left the airport you've not only been awake for a longer time than most people spend awake in a day, you're also in a different time zone which screws you up completely. Such a trip over to do some task and back wipes someone out for 3 days in reality. A 3 hour flight could realistically half calendar time consumed and get the traveller home without having to adjust to time zones.

 

I don't believe the technology is a stretch at all. There is nothing unquantified or unknown. It just needs to be fast and economic on fuel, not fast, stealthy and manouverable. It simply needs the correct gestation period and financing. I also believe that the capacities discussed and the price point targeted are viable. Would it replace a Thomas Cook 767 with folk wedged in like sardines for £295pp return? No. Could you fill 40 seats for £2,500pp with a 3 hour flight time? I think you'd get all of the First Class and Business Class cabin passengers from scheduled subsonic airlines clamouring for tickets.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi

1) Agreed.

2) After take-off and initial climb reheat had been engaged during acceleration between 0,95 M and 1,7 M. Above that Mach number full power without reheat had been sufficient even when climbing. Cruising without reheat had been the main advantage of Concorde over ˝Konkordski˝, repeated ad nauseam back in the 70' and 80'.

3) Agreed on skin friction, but not on fatigue. Cabin is pressurised and ˝inflates˝ at every climb above 10000 ft and ˝deflates˝ at every descend. I do not know how much has been done on that field with CFRP and other composites, but I suspect most of the research has been confined to computer simulations. I do hope this is not considered enough and real life research will be conducted before a composite SST will be put into service. Repetition of Comet-like disasters from more than sixty years ago would hardly boost supersonic travel.

4) Still, a considerable sum.

5) Agreed.

6) Agreed, thought on east-west and west-east flights there would be no escape from time zone adjustment, no matter how fast the plane would fly.

Again, I would very much like to see new SST flying, preferably as soon as yesterday. However, I doubt this one will ever take-off. Cheers

Jure