Commercial flights faster than sound

[Ethanadams]

Why don't we have conventional planes for the public that go super sonic?

I know know that there were some but they crashed but that was from desighn flaws so why don't we have them again?

[SargeRho]

Cost, mostly. The speed advantage of supersonic passenger jets isn't worth the extra cost.

[EdFred]

Because they made way too much noise, and basically got regulated out of existence. That along with it being wicked expensive to go that fast caused the end of the Concorde SST flights.

[Kryten]

Expense. Very few people actually took the option when it was available, they were basically little more than status symbols most of their service lives. When you take into account all the checks and the fact they only flew into a few airports, they didn't shave much time off of most journeys in practice.

[Camacha]

It looks like the answer is pretty much here, but to put it concise: people like cheap, not fast. Well, they do like fast, but only when it is cheap.

[Elthy]

Since most times (low/medium distance) you spend more times at the airport than in the plane there wont be much use fo supersonic flights

[Kerbart]

I know know that there were some but they crashed but that was from desighn flaws so why don't we have them again?

Actually, only one crashed. Now that did push the Concorde from the top of the safety list (zero fatal incidents) to pretty much the bottom (because these lists are "per passenger km" and the Concorde simply didn't transport that many people in its lifetime) of the list.

The incident was caused by a piece of metal left by a previous plane on the runway (I think the lawsuit over that is still going on) piercing a fuel tank as it was kicked up by the landing gear. What really shut the program down was that this was a pretty good excuse to shut the program down; the reasons had more to do with economics than anything else.

As Kryten pointed out, when you take into account all the security checks (which might have been more extended with a high-profile plane like the Concorde) you lose a lot of the shorter travel time. Another way of cutting your transatlantic travel time down is hiring a business jet (bypassing most of the time-consuming BS at an airport). You'll get a similar door-to-door time, for probably a comparable price, with a much better experience.

I work in the transport industry. Customers will always tell you that shipping speed is of the utmost importance to them. When it's time to pull the wallet, they'll pick the slowest (cheapest) option anyway, with the exception of a very, very select few.

[pincushionman]

"We can make an airplane that gets across the ocean two hours faster than mormal! It'll only cost each passenger $2500 rather than $700!"

"No one will buy a $2500 ticket for that. What would they do with those two hours?"

"Ummm…watch TV, probably."

"How much would it cost us to put a TV in every seat of a normal airliner?"

"Well…about $10 a seat, if you spread it over the lifeti-"

"People will buy an $800 ticket for that."

And that's why we don't have any supersonic airliners, but all the long-hauls have TV's in the headrests.

[Tex_NL]

...

The incident was caused by a piece of metal left by a previous plane on the runway (I think the lawsuit over that is still going on) piercing a fuel tank as it was kicked up by the landing gear.

...

Almost correct.

It was indeed a piece of metal dropped by the previous plane but that was not what pierced the tanks. During take-off Concorde ran over the metal which caused a tire to explode. A large chunk of rubber thrown from the tire was what ruptured the tanks.

---

"We can make an airplane that gets across the ocean two hours faster than mormal! It'll only cost each passenger $2500 rather than $700!"

...

Concorde tickets could cost over 4 times that much. Some would go past $10.000.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Tex_NL

[pincushionman]

Concorde tickets could cost over 4 times that much. Some would go past $10.000.

The specifics of the cost aren't important to that example conversation. The point is people weren't convinced to spend a significant amount more for a negligible benefit, but they could be convinced to spend a "small" amount more for a small benefit.

[Ten Key]

Improvements in the global communications infrastructure have also reduced the need for expensive supersonic transports. Shaving a few hours off a transatlantic flight becomes less important (and less valuable) when you can just send an email or set up a video chat over the internet.

[LordFerret]

Never rode the Concorde. Would have liked to. Watched two of them (two different occasions) take off from Kennedy in NYC ... L O U D, but impressive. Business associate of mine rode it; Only comment was that it was fast (quick trip), and expensive, but other than that unspectacular - like any other flight to Paris she'd taken.

What Tex_NL ^^^ said about the crash.

[sgt_flyer]

Among civilian supersonics, the TU-144 which crashed in the bourget during the air show (talk about bad press) and one other catched fire inflight (they managed to land it, but some parts of the plane collapsed after landing, killing some of the crew)

[magnemoe]

The specifics of the cost aren't important to that example conversation. The point is people weren't convinced to spend a significant amount more for a negligible benefit, but they could be convinced to spend a "small" amount more for a small benefit.

It has an important effect if prices was lower far more would use it, £10.000 is far more expensive than business/ first class from Paris or London to New York.

Now if your did want to go from Paris to New York but rather from Berlin to Chicago, you could either jump three flight or by an first class ticket with an seat who can be converted to an bed, that would you select, you are not paying and you have flown supersonic planes before.

In short Concord had limited range and could not fly supersonic over populated areas. Supersonic on very long flights might attract more people same as business/ first class get way more expensive on long flights than short as more people are willing to pay for it.

[Camacha]

The simple problem was that Concorde comes from a different era. Back then, fuel economy was not relevant. As fuel prices rose quickly, the bird quickly found itself dressed for the wrong occasion.

[magnemoe]

Now some are working on supersonic private jets, this should work, first you have an group of super rich people who would by one, secondary you could build upon supersonic bombers with added features from the F22. Modern aerodynamic let you eliminate the boom at the attitude you will be flying, decent chance this will creep up to larger chartered business jets.

And yes fuel capacity will be critical, you will only use this for long trips (outside of the impress client stuff)

Note that the attitude supersonic jets are flying an large air leak will kill you. An small air leak will give the pilots time to push the nose down hard and get down to 10 km or below before everybody get brain dead. Added downside almost all of your passengers has an personal lawyer.

- - - Updated - - -

The simple problem was that Concorde comes from a different era. Back then, fuel economy was not relevant. As fuel prices rose quickly, the bird quickly found itself dressed for the wrong occasion.

Think it also run into some shuttle issues, fuel cost was not an factor in shuttle launches.

[TheGatesofLogic]

The real issue is quite apparent:

Fast, Cheap, Good

You may pick two of these.

[magnemoe]

Never rode the Concorde. Would have liked to. Watched two of them (two different occasions) take off from Kennedy in NYC ... L O U D, but impressive. Business associate of mine rode it; Only comment was that it was fast (quick trip), and expensive, but other than that unspectacular - like any other flight to Paris she'd taken.

Yes my boss prefer to fly business/ first class on long trips, then going Oslo- Stavanger who is an 550 km trip and have an morning meeting he tend to take the train, he enter go to bed and arrive the next morning. As most is going between this two cities the train is slow so they get 8 hour sleep, he is angry because the dropped the cabins with showers. You want to take an shower after sleeping if you go to an important meeting. Again money is not the main issue here, if cabins with showers cost $300 more nobody would complain. Engineers would get the regular sleeping cabins unless in meeting with upper management on the other side.

[Sampa]

Why don't we have conventional planes for the public that go super sonic?

I know know that there were some but they crashed but that was from desighn flaws so why don't we have them again?

.

Not profitable and the only 2 that were built (both no longer flying) were and are gas guzzlers. Also, they were small. They could not carry a lot of people and airlines operating them actually were losing money.

[Nuke]

sure you can cross the atlantic in 4 hours, after spending another 4 going through security.

[Greenfire32]

If we could find a way to make supersonic flight either as expensive as "conventional" flight or cheaper, it would -ahem- be cleared for take off.

I kill me.

Seriously though, one of three things must happen for an airplane to reach those speeds. It either needs to be small enough that that power requirements aren't stupid, it needs to meet stupid power requirements, or it needs a stupid high-power output engine.

Just imagine a 747 with like 30 jet engines. Stupid? Oh my god yes. Now imagine stuffing 300 people into a 10-passenger private jet. Stupid? Ya dang betcha!

But if we discovered a more efficient way to fly, be it through better fuels or engines or magic dust, a 747 with four "super jets" that costs just as much as a regular 747 would make the regular one obsolete and therefore worth doing.

I used a 747 as an arbitrary example plane.

[Sampa]

.

Not profitable and the only 2 that were built (both no longer flying) were and are gas guzzlers. Also, they were small. They could not carry a lot of people and airlines operating them actually were losing money.

Oh, and also, you'd have to fight national sound laws! The Concorde was banned from flying over solid ground while going supersonic. This was pretty much the wound that eventually killed the Concorde as a viable airliner.

[Ikaneko]

In short Concord had limited range and could not fly supersonic over populated areas.

Tell that to me. I lived in the south east of the UK, right in the major Heathrow exit channel. The noise those things made was unbelievable.

Still, the concord simply wasn't viable, but a cool project all the same.

[Camacha]

.

Not profitable and the only 2 that were built (both no longer flying) were and are gas guzzlers. Also, they were small. They could not carry a lot of people and airlines operating them actually were losing money.

Do you mean two separate designs, the Concorde and the Tu-144? As there were certainly more than two Concordes built.

Still, the concord simply wasn't viable, but a cool project all the same.

It pretty much was, but then the world changed.

[AngelLestat]

There are taste and needs for everything, the problem is how much people is interested in pay a lot more for a ticket just to save few hours.

You will find always some people which want to fly faster, but those same people are the ones which reach the airport to buy a ticket and fly in that same instant. So if there is not "concorde" ready, they will take another fly, so you are loosing the few people who may pay that ticket, but if you have a lot of "concorde" to secure instant demand, then there is not much people dealing to pay that.

So that is the why..

Edited March 26, 2015 by AngelLestat