How to make a supersonic transport viable
Poll: How to make a supersonic transport viable
Total Members Polled: 65
Discussion
How high do you have to fly before sonic booms no longer an issue? Answer might lie there, although the current propulsion available is rather inefficient. Short of a breakthrough such as a new skin process that disrupts the compression responsible for the bothersome sound waves, but is that even being researched? Funny to think that apart from stealthy stuff on military stuff and some applied kwik-save economics, what game changing progress does aviation have to show for itself in the last 50 years odd?
LHRFlightman said:
I spent 17 years dealing with community concerns around aircraft noise.
Option 3 is never going to happen
In the days of Concorde that could have been the politics of envy - the complainers were never going to fly on Concorde. But if the thing that makes the boom can get them to Tenereife in 30 minutes, would they mind so much?Option 3 is never going to happen
option 3.
snowflakes who dial 999 for w sonic boom would have had a stroke in the cold war when it was much more common.
such snowflake types should be ignored anyway. put out a video so people know the difference between a terrorist bomb and a sonic boom then proeecute and fine any snowflakes who still ring 999 or 101 for waisting police time.
snowflakes who dial 999 for w sonic boom would have had a stroke in the cold war when it was much more common.
such snowflake types should be ignored anyway. put out a video so people know the difference between a terrorist bomb and a sonic boom then proeecute and fine any snowflakes who still ring 999 or 101 for waisting police time.
A lot of the sonic boom regulation stuff was US FUD because their supersonic airliner was an abject failure.
Now there is some impact, especially at low altitude, but at 40-60k ft where Concorde operated, the impact is minimal.
Newer aircraft with more advanced aerodynamics should be better.
Now there is some impact, especially at low altitude, but at 40-60k ft where Concorde operated, the impact is minimal.
Newer aircraft with more advanced aerodynamics should be better.
Psycho Warren said:
option 3.
snowflakes who dial 999 for w sonic boom would have had a stroke in the cold war when it was much more common.
such snowflake types should be ignored anyway. put out a video so people know the difference between a terrorist bomb and a sonic boom then proeecute and fine any snowflakes who still ring 999 or 101 for waisting police time.
Them damn 1960s snowflakes!snowflakes who dial 999 for w sonic boom would have had a stroke in the cold war when it was much more common.
such snowflake types should be ignored anyway. put out a video so people know the difference between a terrorist bomb and a sonic boom then proeecute and fine any snowflakes who still ring 999 or 101 for waisting police time.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/oklahoma-city...
The boom issue is real and in some conditions can break windows etc. With Concorde, there were more than just the Americans complaining about booms and denying supersonic overflight rights to other destinations, largely citing that the people being disturbed by sonic booms in these other countries being overflown were too poor to ever fly on supersonic transport, so for what possible reason would these countries allow it.
jamieduff1981 said:
The boom issue is real and in some conditions can break windows etc. With Concorde, there were more than just the Americans complaining about booms and denying supersonic overflight rights to other destinations, largely citing that the people being disturbed by sonic booms in these other countries being overflown were too poor to ever fly on supersonic transport, so for what possible reason would these countries allow it.
It does cost the RAF money.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-561251...
When Concorde was first proposed in the early 1960s, BAC and Sud Aviation were making confident predictions that there would eventually be 200 to 300 individual airframes in airline service.
The concern was growing of having so many aeroplanes planting supersonic booms over populated areas and that is brought about the growing objections to Concorde - and any other supersonic airliners.
Don't forget that the Russians were developing their Tu-144 and America the Boeing 2707 - so there was the prospect of perhaps 500 to 600 SSTs in service by the mid 1970s (that was what was being predicted in 1965/66).
In the end, I don't think the number of Concordes operating scheduled airline services ever exceeded 15.
The concern was growing of having so many aeroplanes planting supersonic booms over populated areas and that is brought about the growing objections to Concorde - and any other supersonic airliners.
Don't forget that the Russians were developing their Tu-144 and America the Boeing 2707 - so there was the prospect of perhaps 500 to 600 SSTs in service by the mid 1970s (that was what was being predicted in 1965/66).
In the end, I don't think the number of Concordes operating scheduled airline services ever exceeded 15.
In Southern England we would often hear the Air France Concordes in the evening as a whoosh/ bump/ bump.
Out at sea it can sound like two rifle shots.
In the USA they routinely used to fly supersonic military aircraft over land ( up to mach 3.2 frequently). That might be worth looking at for the impact on below.
Out at sea it can sound like two rifle shots.
In the USA they routinely used to fly supersonic military aircraft over land ( up to mach 3.2 frequently). That might be worth looking at for the impact on below.
In fact, NASA conducted deliberate sonic boom placement flights directly aimed at built up areas in order to ascertain their impact. The results were instrumental in dampening down any enthusiasm for regular civil supersonic air traffic.
Some of this programme was carried out using the North American XB-70.
Some of this programme was carried out using the North American XB-70.
The biggest issues / barriers to making it viable are economic. The next biggest issue is environmental. If an airline was to try and make a supersonic aircraft a commercially viable proposition, they’d have to get the marketing and sales strategies right. If they marketed it as a ‘super bling luxury lifestyle choice’ they could probably make it work ( economically), by pitching it at the sorts of people who see value in that sort of s
te. Unfortunately, the chances of them getting enough destination countries, and countries over which it would fly, to put up with the noise of it would be a headache. If they did somehow get the dispensations afforded to Concorde, on it’s routes, they’d still have the eco brigade banging on about its CO2 per passenger levels, as there still really isn’t any viable alternative to a reheat / afterburner system to get the thing moving at supersonic velocities. All in all, I’d be astonished if a commercial, supersonic, passenger aircraft ever flys again. It’s simply not worth the hassle for the operator.
te. Unfortunately, the chances of them getting enough destination countries, and countries over which it would fly, to put up with the noise of it would be a headache. If they did somehow get the dispensations afforded to Concorde, on it’s routes, they’d still have the eco brigade banging on about its CO2 per passenger levels, as there still really isn’t any viable alternative to a reheat / afterburner system to get the thing moving at supersonic velocities. All in all, I’d be astonished if a commercial, supersonic, passenger aircraft ever flys again. It’s simply not worth the hassle for the operator.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff