Fastest commercial jet airliner speed?
Discussion
The factors that made Concorde difficult and expensive to fly would not exist in precisely the same way in a more modern design. Don't forget, the planning for what became Concorde began as far back as 1958. The project began officially in 1962. That is an aeon ago in terms of aerospace knowledge and technology.
The only factors that prevent a successor to Concorde are -
perceived market
sonic boom
The sonic boom issue may be on the verge of being solved. Convincing airlines that they could buy/lease such an aircraft at an affordable price and operate it economically is a different matter.
Like you, I think a supersonic business jet is a much more likely prospect, mainly because the target demographic that used to fly in Concorde is also the same demographic that today are users of subsonic biz jets.
The only factors that prevent a successor to Concorde are -
perceived market
sonic boom
The sonic boom issue may be on the verge of being solved. Convincing airlines that they could buy/lease such an aircraft at an affordable price and operate it economically is a different matter.
Like you, I think a supersonic business jet is a much more likely prospect, mainly because the target demographic that used to fly in Concorde is also the same demographic that today are users of subsonic biz jets.
Markbarry1977 said:
Fastest commercial passenger plane (not business jet et al) after Concorde was the VC 10 that the RAF used. It was bloody loud and one of the reasons the RAF got rid of it was the fines it paid at every airport it took off from.
Still holds the record for fastest Atlantic crossing of a sub sonic aircraft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10
I thought the TU144 was faster than Concorde, at least if Top Trumps were correct.Still holds the record for fastest Atlantic crossing of a sub sonic aircraft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10
Edited by Markbarry1977 on Friday 25th November 08:12
Eric Mc said:
The factors that made Concorde difficult and expensive to fly would not exist in precisely the same way in a more modern design. Don't forget, the planning for what became Concorde began as far back as 1958. The project began officially in 1962. That is an aeon ago in terms of aerospace knowledge and technology.
The only factors that prevent a successor to Concorde are -
perceived market
sonic boom
The sonic boom issue may be on the verge of being solved. Convincing airlines that they could buy/lease such an aircraft at an affordable price and operate it economically is a different matter.
Like you, I think a supersonic business jet is a much more likely prospect, mainly because the target demographic that used to fly in Concorde is also the same demographic that today are users of subsonic biz jets.
Yes, I forget the development start point of the Concorde. The only factors that prevent a successor to Concorde are -
perceived market
sonic boom
The sonic boom issue may be on the verge of being solved. Convincing airlines that they could buy/lease such an aircraft at an affordable price and operate it economically is a different matter.
Like you, I think a supersonic business jet is a much more likely prospect, mainly because the target demographic that used to fly in Concorde is also the same demographic that today are users of subsonic biz jets.
I agree regarding the target market of business users as well.
Maybe in 10-15 years.
Regarding the Sonic Boom issue I am not sure that it's an issue (to me at least). I've only heard a couple in my time, I didn't die! Although it has other issues...
I suspect a simple "do not use over land" would work to begin with.
Kempus said:
The largest commercial airliner to break the sound barrier was that of a China Airlines B747 -SP.
We talk about it occasionally in CRM when discussing jet upset and the situation these guys got themselves in was somewhat incredible.
Kempus
Did it really? The (German) article I read said it topped out at Mach 0.99. We talk about it occasionally in CRM when discussing jet upset and the situation these guys got themselves in was somewhat incredible.
Kempus
The description of the incident made me think it was a flight I was quite glad not to have been on.
xjay1337 said:
Nanook said:
Severely limits it's usefulness. You're going to pay all that extra money for a supersonic business jetu, over a subsonic Learjet or Cessna, but if you want to fly from London to Dubai, or LA to New York, or whatever else, you're just flying in a really expensive subsonic business jet.
Didnt think about that. Maybe only above 45000ft or something then?Eric Mc said:
Even though it was designed as a "commercial airliner", it never really operated commercially. The short period of service it had with Aeroflot proved it was impossible to operate safely or reliably and was withdrawn after a fairly small number of flights (something like 50).
IIRC the Tu144 couldn't supercruise either, so it was horrendously expensive to operate. Trying to make an aeroplane that can handle all the aerodynamic requirements of slow speed, subsonic, transonic and supersonic flight is not easy - even today.
Modern fly by wire stability systems would help, a lot but they would need top be very reliable with lots of back up. And that's before you start considering economic and environmental aspects.
Modern fly by wire stability systems would help, a lot but they would need top be very reliable with lots of back up. And that's before you start considering economic and environmental aspects.
Wkipedia says this
Operational service
The Tu-144S went into service on 26 December 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata in preparation for passenger services, which commenced on 1 November 1977.
The passenger service ran a semi-scheduled service until the first Tu-144D experienced an in-flight failure during a pre-delivery test flight, crash-landing on 23 May 1978 with two crew fatalities.[16] The Tu-144's 55th and last scheduled passenger flight occurred on 1 June 1978.
An Aeroflot freight-only service recommenced using the new production variant Tu-144D ("D" for Dal'nyaya – "long range")[17] aircraft on 23 June 1979, including longer routes from Moscow to Khabarovsk made possible by the more efficient Kolesov RD-36-51 turbojet engines, which also increased the maximum cruising speed to Mach 2.15.[18]
Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled flights before the cessation of commercial service.
Operational service
The Tu-144S went into service on 26 December 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata in preparation for passenger services, which commenced on 1 November 1977.
The passenger service ran a semi-scheduled service until the first Tu-144D experienced an in-flight failure during a pre-delivery test flight, crash-landing on 23 May 1978 with two crew fatalities.[16] The Tu-144's 55th and last scheduled passenger flight occurred on 1 June 1978.
An Aeroflot freight-only service recommenced using the new production variant Tu-144D ("D" for Dal'nyaya – "long range")[17] aircraft on 23 June 1979, including longer routes from Moscow to Khabarovsk made possible by the more efficient Kolesov RD-36-51 turbojet engines, which also increased the maximum cruising speed to Mach 2.15.[18]
Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled flights before the cessation of commercial service.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff