Commercial flights faster than sound

[Linear]

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..

Also.. drag is equal to velocity square.

Drag is proportional to velocity square.

Small details are important.

[AngelLestat]

I delete it before see your post, but not because that detail which I notice but I could not find the exact word, it was due the extra details that I needed to point like if the shape is very aerodynamic you may have equal drag than a 747 at lower speeds.

[vger]

Wasn't there an attempt sometime before Columbia bit the dust, to develop a commercial aircraft that would fly up to the edge of space, for the specific purpose of getting from A to B faster?

[Nibb31]

.

Not profitable and the only 2 that were built (both no longer flying) were and are gas guzzlers.

There were 20 of them built. 6 prototypes and preproduction aircraft and 14 production aircraft that went into service with Air France and British Airways.

Only two of them were destroyed, one was dismantled for parts and of course the one that crashed, which means that 90% of the aircraft have been preserved, which is pretty unique for any type of aircraft. They are now on display or in museums around the world. A museum has just opened in Toulouse where they actually have two of them on display.

It is not easy to build supersonic airliners for commercial service so they were amazingly complex aircraft. For example, they had a complex tankage and fuel transfer system that pumped fuel back and forth to shift the center of gravity of the aircraft for the different flight regimes, and the hydraulic nose that was necessary to allow visibility when on the ground.

Originally, there were over 70 preorders from 16 companies, including American companies, but that was before the 1973 oil crisis and the flight ban in the US.

The noise was a bit of an overblown problem. Nobody complains about sonic booms from military jets or the space shuttle. The real reason it became an issue in the US was protectionism with Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas's strong lobbying to ban supersonic jets. With the ban, the only viable routes became Paris/London-New York, which made Concorde uneconomical.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Nibb31

[Bill Phil]

I delete it before see your post, but not because that detail which I notice but I could not find the exact word, it was due the extra details that I needed to point like if the shape is very aerodynamic you may have equal drag than a 747 at lower speeds.

And that drag is weird at trans and super sonic speeds...

[Kinglet]

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.

No, what we need to do, is to make sub-sonic flight more expensive.

[WestAir]

As a complete aside, many conventional airliners have broken the sound barrier thanks to tail winds.

(The MFD of a 747-400. Ground speed is 752 knots thanks to a 213 knot tailwind)

(752 knots is around 850 mph. About 100 mph faster than the sound barrier at sea level.)

[ghpstage]

As a complete aside, many conventional airliners have broken the sound barrier thanks to tail winds.

(The MFD of a 747-400. Ground speed is 752 knots thanks to a 213 knot tailwind)

(752 knots is around 850 mph. About 100 mph faster than the sound barrier at sea level.)

Common mistake made here. Its important to recognise that the speed of sound is dependant on speed relative to air, not the ground meaning groundspeed is the wrong measure.

The wind strength and direction makes all the difference if your are looking at groundspeed. If you were to send two aircraft off at mach 1 in opposite directions, with a 100 knot wind then the one facing th headwind would have a groundspeed 100 knots lower than the reference mach 1 speed, and the one with a tailwind 100 knots faster than the reference speed.

It certainly is possible to exceed mach 1 with an airliner in a dive, but for obvious reasons that tends to be frowned upon!

Edited March 27, 2015 by ghpstage

[Iskierka]

I see one misconception throughout this thread that Concorde was somehow unprofitable - this actually isn't true, as while yes, it cost more to operate, they did get a significant number of extra passengers who wanted specifically to fly on Concorde, who, now that is no longer an option, simply go elsewhere, flying with Lufthansa or such rather than BA or AF. Modern re-evaluations of Concorde's economics say it certainly made significant profit compared to what happened after, as many rich first-class passengers were lost.

The main reason Concorde actually got shut down was because of Airbus, who were done with maintaining what was effectively their first aircraft and now out-of-production, and instead used the opportunity to massively raise maintenance costs and push their newer aircraft that they could make much more of a profit from. Additionally, costs were naturally higher because of a few mistakes made, as BA for some reason actually laid off a lot of Concorde's maintenance crew during the downtime, so when it came back they didn't have experienced crew to work on it.

Of course, the shutdown can actually be blamed on AF, as BA were happy to continue operating Concorde after the incident - they saw that it likely seemed to be some outside interference, so felt there was no issue to continue flying while the investigation went on, as the planes themselves were safe. It was only after lobbying from AF that BA cancelled operations - which then massively harmed public image of the plane, as people started to think it may be unsafe if there was a total shutdown on flights (entirely false, as seen by its perfect safety record aside from one incident caused by another aircraft's poor maintenance).

Although, while the economic argument is not a strong a reason for Concorde's shutdown as people believe, Concorde was notably less economical than it could have been. What everyone is familiar with is actually the Concorde A model, and following commercial introduction of the A model, the original plan had been to make a slightly enlarged B model, with much quieter and more economic engines, improved aerodynamic performance, potentially higher speed, and overall being an all-round better vehicle. Which is saying a lot, as Concorde A was a fairly impressive vehicle. This plan was unfortunately shut down when America threw a temper tantrum, and decided to get overland supersonic flight banned despite there being little evidence for it actually causing problems, simply because all their companies had failed to develop anything comparable while two tiny Euro nations had beaten them. The overland flight ban then massively reduced interest in the plane, and various other US-centralised lobbying against the Concorde meant that only AF and BA were willing to buy and fly them, resulting in it being, from the standpoint of selling the vehicle itself, a commercial failure that did not warrant Concorde B's development.

In short, if you want to know why we don't have any supersonic airliners, it's because America was bad at making them then threw a hissy fit so no-one else could. That's genuinely the main reason for it, and then one badly-handled incident of the only one that succeeded got it taken out of the sky when it was perfectly fine to continue operating.

[magnemoe]

I see one misconception throughout this thread that Concorde was somehow unprofitable - this actually isn't true, as while yes, it cost more to operate, they did get a significant number of extra passengers who wanted specifically to fly on Concorde, who, now that is no longer an option, simply go elsewhere, flying with Lufthansa or such rather than BA or AF. Modern re-evaluations of Concorde's economics say it certainly made significant profit compared to what happened after, as many rich first-class passengers were lost.

The main reason Concorde actually got shut down was because of Airbus, who were done with maintaining what was effectively their first aircraft and now out-of-production, and instead used the opportunity to massively raise maintenance costs and push their newer aircraft that they could make much more of a profit from. Additionally, costs were naturally higher because of a few mistakes made, as BA for some reason actually laid off a lot of Concorde's maintenance crew during the downtime, so when it came back they didn't have experienced crew to work on it.

Of course, the shutdown can actually be blamed on AF, as BA were happy to continue operating Concorde after the incident - they saw that it likely seemed to be some outside interference, so felt there was no issue to continue flying while the investigation went on, as the planes themselves were safe. It was only after lobbying from AF that BA cancelled operations - which then massively harmed public image of the plane, as people started to think it may be unsafe if there was a total shutdown on flights (entirely false, as seen by its perfect safety record aside from one incident caused by another aircraft's poor maintenance).

Although, while the economic argument is not a strong a reason for Concorde's shutdown as people believe, Concorde was notably less economical than it could have been. What everyone is familiar with is actually the Concorde A model, and following commercial introduction of the A model, the original plan had been to make a slightly enlarged B model, with much quieter and more economic engines, improved aerodynamic performance, potentially higher speed, and overall being an all-round better vehicle. Which is saying a lot, as Concorde A was a fairly impressive vehicle. This plan was unfortunately shut down when America threw a temper tantrum, and decided to get overland supersonic flight banned despite there being little evidence for it actually causing problems, simply because all their companies had failed to develop anything comparable while two tiny Euro nations had beaten them. The overland flight ban then massively reduced interest in the plane, and various other US-centralised lobbying against the Concorde meant that only AF and BA were willing to buy and fly them, resulting in it being, from the standpoint of selling the vehicle itself, a commercial failure that did not warrant Concorde B's development.

In short, if you want to know why we don't have any supersonic airliners, it's because America was bad at making them then threw a hissy fit so no-one else could. That's genuinely the main reason for it, and then one badly-handled incident of the only one that succeeded got it taken out of the sky when it was perfectly fine to continue operating.

Yes, its important to remember that development and construction cost is sunken costs rarely case something to shut down. Just the operational costs.

As for overland supersonic, I have no idea how much noise Concorde made at cruising attitude. An modern supersonic plane can be made so you don't hear the boom on ground.

[WestAir]

Common mistake made here. Its important to recognise that the speed of sound is dependant on speed relative to air, not the ground meaning groundspeed is the wrong measure.

The wind strength and direction makes all the difference if your are looking at groundspeed. If you were to send two aircraft off at mach 1 in opposite directions, with a 100 knot wind then the one facing th headwind would have a groundspeed 100 knots lower than the reference mach 1 speed, and the one with a tailwind 100 knots faster than the reference speed.

It certainly is possible to exceed mach 1 with an airliner in a dive, but for obvious reasons that tends to be frowned upon!

[andrewas]

And Concorde cruised at mach 2. The fact a regular airliner with a strong tailwind can move more quickly doesn't change the fact that Concorde was much faster.

[Enterprise0709]

But if we discovered a more efficient way to fly, be it through better fuels or engines

I present you: the LAPCAT A2: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

[Frida Space]

Man, I would have loved to fly on a Concorde. From what I heard from people how flew on Concordes, you could really feel the acceleration at take-off. I guess it's the closest we normal people can get to experiencing a rocket launch.

[EdFred]

It is not a "misconception." The aircraft is flying 100mph faster than the sound barrier at sea level. Ground speed is important when talking about supersonic travel - the distance from Paris to New York is on the ground, after all.

You completely missed that point.

This is wrong on so many levels. The aircraft is flying at a given airspeed. That airspeed could be 1kt, with a 700kt tailwind. The airplane is not breaking the sound barrier. In order to break the sound barrier you have to be going faster than sound through the air at that altitude (or whatever medium you are travelling) . Look at the airspeed in your post....539kts. That is not faster than the sound barrier. The sound barrier has nothing to do with groundspeed.

Signed,

C-ASEL/AMEL/ASES

CFI

Edited March 27, 2015 by EdFred

[Guest]

From Mach number standpoint, groundspeed is completely irrelevant. Airspeed is that what matters.

And regular airliner will probably disintegrate, if somehow pushed behind M 0.95

[Kerbart]

Ground speed is important when talking about supersonic travel - the distance from Paris to New York is on the ground, after all.

You completely missed that point.

Well if we're splitting hairs over semantics let me know you intend to drive from New York to Paris, if it's on the ground, after all.

That boeing did not break the sound barrier; "breaking the sound barrier" suggests moving beyond mach 1 indicated air speed (and "indicated" is important as, by virtue of the way it's measured, it "magically" takes things like air pressure into account). What that boeing did was moving at a ground speed that exceeded the speed of sound at sea level. Which is pretty impressive, and sometimes convenient*, but in the end just means "moving faster than a fairly arbritary speed." Breaking the sound barrier on the other hand is a physical barrier to overcome that can destroy the aircraft if it's not constructed for it.

* Then again, most of my translatlantic EB flights where we had a good tailwind and arrived 2 hours early ended up with 2 hours in a waiting pattern, "there are no landing slots available except our original one"

[Technical Ben]

...

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.

Gotta comment on that. I only work in a shop, but customers are exactly the same... "I need this now, like mine broke down last week, but I was working, so could not get in. Can you deliver for tomorrow?!", me "yes, it's £20 next day to your door with unpacking..." customer, "waaaaaiit... you want me to pay, nah I'll take the 7 day free delivery thanks..." Lol.

[Kryten]

And regular airliner will probably disintegrate, if somehow pushed behind M 0.95

A DC-8 broke the sound barrier (in a dive) in a test flight in 1961.

[WestAir]

This is wrong on so many levels. The aircraft is flying at a given airspeed. That airspeed could be 1kt, with a 700kt tailwind. The airplane is not breaking the sound barrier. In order to break the sound barrier you have to be going faster than sound through the air at that altitude (or whatever medium you are travelling) . Look at the airspeed in your post....539kts. That is not faster than the sound barrier. The sound barrier has nothing to do with groundspeed.

Signed,

C-ASEL/AMEL/ASES

CFI

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

My original post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a sort of poke at the thread title "commercial flights faster than sound." The aircraft is going faster than sound from the perspective of an observer at sea level. From a boat drivers perspective, this 744 flew from LAX to Narita at a speed that was faster than sound. That was my point and I'm not sure how to better communicate it?

I didn't point out the aircraft's IAS because it didn't seem relevant to the jab...

Edited March 27, 2015 by WestAir

[AngelLestat]

The real reason it became an issue in the US was protectionism with Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas's strong lobbying to ban supersonic jets. With the ban, the only viable routes became Paris/London-New York, which made Concorde uneconomical.

Ok, that is another reason we need to add, but even without that, not sure if the today demand will be enoght due the reasons that I previous mentioned earlier, If I remember right, the concorde airline was with commercial issues the last years, so the last crash maybe just push the closure desicion.

How many hours people waste in an airport before departure... average 3? Then take an airplane which takes 3 hours instead 6 is not much difference if you count the previous 3, only a 30% time save.

As a complete aside, many conventional airliners have broken the sound barrier thanks to tail winds.

(The MFD of a 747-400. Ground speed is 752 knots thanks to a 213 knot tailwind)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/ssj14vegetajr/752%20groundspeed_zpswlodgyjy.png

(752 knots is around 850 mph. About 100 mph faster than the sound barrier at sea level.)

Thanks for the info, but you can only break the sound barrier (with respect the same airplane) if your speed with respect the wind is higher than the sound.. Because sound is also traveling over this same medium (tail wind).

But if you break or not break the sound barrier makes not diference.. you will reach much faster to your destination.

Fast wind jetstream are very common at that height.

In short, if you want to know why we don't have any supersonic airliners, it's because America was bad at making them then threw a hissy fit so no-one else could. That's genuinely the main reason for it, and then one badly-handled incident of the only one that succeeded got it taken out of the sky when it was perfectly fine to continue operating.

Is not the first time that USA do something like that, dirigibles die in 1940 because USA did not allow hydrogen airships flying in their territory, one might said.. ok that was a good call due the danger, but not so much.. that was the excuse.. The main reason is that USA was and is the only country in the world which has hellium reserve without commercial exploit until that time.

Now due that, the reserves are at 50% and is the only remaning in the world, once you use it, is lost.

That is why scientist are trying to push to stop selling hellium for party balloons, and the hellium cost is rising.

[EdFred]

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

The aircraft is going faster than sound from the perspective of an observer at sea level. That has nothing to do with its airspeed. My original post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a sort of poke at the thread title "commercial flights faster than sound."

This 744 flew from LAX to Narita at a speed that a boat driver would say was faster than sound. That was the point; it has nothing to do with the fact that the plane is moving through air slower than sound. I'm not sure how to better communicate that?

As an (additional) aside, I'm (for now) [removed for privacy reasons] I know what airspeed is.

No, it's not, and no they wouldn't. If you know what airspeed is, then you should also know that you aren't going supersonic just because your ground speed might indicate 700kts+

The sound barrier is not broken in relation to ground speed.

To paraphrase Marvin..."Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be a kaboom." No kaboom no sound barrier being broken.

Edited March 27, 2015 by EdFred

[WestAir]

No, it's not, and no they wouldn't. If you know what airspeed is, then you should also know that you aren't going supersonic just because your ground speed might indicate 700kts+

The sound barrier is not broken in relation to ground speed.

To paraphrase Marvin..."Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be a kaboom." No kaboom no sound barrier being broken.

Edit: I see where I went wrong. I stated "conventional airliners have broken the sound barrier." - That's an incorrect statement. What I should have said was "conventional airliners have had ground speeds far higher than the speed of sound at sea level." | Had I known that wording would have exploded into a debate about semantics, I wouldn't have posted at all.

Edited March 27, 2015 by WestAir

[EdFred]

Edit: I see where I went wrong. I stated "conventional airliners have broken the sound barrier." - That's an incorrect statement. What I should have said was "conventional airliners have had ground speeds far higher than the speed of sound at sea level." | Had I known that wording would have exploded into a debate about semantics, I wouldn't have posted at all.

This revised statement I would agree with. But it's not semantics. Breaking the sound barrier is far different than having a ground speed higher than what the sound barrier would be.

[WestAir]

This revised statement I would agree with. But it's not semantics. Breaking the sound barrier is far different than having a ground speed higher than what the sound barrier would be.

Thanks. In my mind I saw my original post with the picture garnering one or two "lol's, then everyone would move on. The whole thing caught me off guard. Next time I'll proof-read in fear of making an absolute fool of myself again. (Honestly that's probably why I post so little to begin with.)