DailyDirt: Supersonic Flights

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wed, Aug 21st 2013 5:00pm — Joyce Hung

Remember the Concorde? It was the longest operating commercial supersonic aircraft that flew its last flight in 2003 after 27 years of service. With a cruising speed of 1,350 mph (Mach 2), the Concorde could fly from New York to London in under 3 hours. For more than 20 years, the Concorde was the fastest and safest airliner in the world, but a deadly crash in 2000 that killed all 109 people on board, as well as 4 people on the ground, precipitated the demise of the Concorde, which was already suffering from a general downturn in the aviation industry. There hasn't been a successor to the Concorde since it was retired, but perhaps the following are some possibilities.

Apparently, a secret team of Boeing engineers is still working on the Sonic Cruiser, which was cancelled and replaced by the 787 Dreamliner. Technically, the Sonic Cruiser isn't supersonic, since it's designed to fly at 0.98 Mach, but its design has changed a bit since the original was proposed. The engines, which would have F-35 like variable geometry chevrons, are now located over (rather than embedded in) the wings, which now also have vertical stabilizers. [url]
The X-51A WaveRider "Scramjet," an unmanned hypersonic aircraft, successfully reached Mach 5.1 in its final test flight. It traveled 230 nautical miles in just over 6 minutes and was the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever. The X-51A is unique in that it uses a hydrocarbon (rather than hydrogen) fuel in its supersonic combustion engine.[url]
Why isn't there a successor to the Concorde? Perhaps it's because we're too cheap to fly faster. In fact, we're actually flying slower today than we were 50 years ago. In 1958, airliners were traveling at cruising speeds of just over 600 mph, compared to today's more fuel efficient 550 mph.[url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: aircraft, airline, aviation, concorde, dreamliner, flying, jet, mach, plane, scramjet, sonic cruiser, supersonic
Companies: boeing

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 3:32pm

I know this is a bit off topic but...
http://i.imgur.com/dgPKtRz.jpg

Remember yesterday how people were saying that it wouldn't be possible to mine asteroids because the rocket fuel costs would be to high?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2416.html#.UhU_yZLrwSl

Nasa already has you covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 5:36pm

Teleportation
I think we won't see super/hyper sonic travel until we perfect the personal teleporter. Unfortunately, the Concorde (as far as I recall) did not have adequate range to cross the Pacific, so it was limited to US/Europe travel. If it had the chops to go from the US to Japan/Taiwan/Australia/China in one jump, it would still be here today, especially given it currently takes over 18 hours to get across the big pond, and for business people, time is definitely $$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:10pm
  
  Re: Teleportation
  Is there broadband wireless internet on trans-Pacific/Atlantic flights yet? I'd think that would obviate some of the need for supersonic jets... Also, private jets probably reduce some of the time wasted by the TSA!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2013 @ 4:07am
  
  Re: Teleportation
  Teleportation wouldn't cease the demand for propulsion to reach places where you still don't have the other end of the teleporter I'd guess. Still, if we reach that technology locally it would be awesome. I'd get 1 extra hour of sleep every day =D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cpt kangarooski, 21 Aug 2013 @ 6:27pm

The Concorde never had enough range for the Pacific (in fact, with refueling stops for the SST along the way, a nonstop 747 would have a shorter flight time). When land overflights at speed were banned, it was basically dead. As for reviving supersonic aircraft, there is a big problem of jet lag. Tourists generally just take the cheapest flight. High speed flights are mainly going to be used by business people who need face to face meetings. But what good is that if you're so jet lagged that you can't function adequately, and need time on the ground to recover?

The shortest route from NYC to Tokyo, for example, is about 11,000 km (mostly overland; a supersonic route would be longer). A Concorde ran at about 2100 kph. So that's 5 hours 15 minutes if it was supersonic on that shortest route. If you leave at noon in NYC, you'd arrive at 5:15pm Eastern, but 6:15am Tokyo time. You'll want to go to bed by the time your lunch meeting comes along. That's not so good, given how pricey it'll be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 21 Aug 2013 @ 10:08pm

Was Concorde Technically �Commercial�?
Considering it never actually made money during its entire existence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2013 @ 7:33am

"Technically, the Sonic Cruiser isn't supersonic..."

Maybe that's why they call it the SONIC Cruiser? Maybe? Perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christenson, 22 Aug 2013 @ 7:36am

TSA Delays
To make the speedup of supersonic travel usable, you have to get rid of the TSA/security theater delays. Business supersonic travel also now competes with teleconferencing.

A morning meeting in Tokyo on New york time on no notice is quite do-able by an energetic businessman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
swcowan3 (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 12:09pm

supersonic flight/economics
If enough rich folks want the fastest travel possible, some capitalist somewhere will provide it (Branson?). Unfortunately, unless/until it's profitable, don't hold your breath.

I remember before the first oil embargo, when jets taking off stood on their tails to get to altitude ASAP, but you don't see that anymore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John S Mournian, 2 Jan 2016 @ 8:39pm

sonic Cruiser
It is my understanding that BOEING and NASA are still trying
to come up with a more economical plane that would have
some of the Sonic Cruiser features; i.e., more speed, less fuel. The USA is losing its leadership role in aviation
and for the all the money that this country wastes on wars
to "protect democracy & human rights' in countries where
the Man with the biggest Club wins, we should use it to advance our own industrial base. Our ideal partner should
be Japan; NOBODY else! We need jobs in USA, not countries
that are steeped in corruption. BOEING knows me as "Smoke Screen".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]