Son of Concorde

targo writes "BBC reports that EADS is considering a new generation hypersonic commercial aircraft. "Son of Concorde" would be twice as fast, carry twice as many passengers while being much quieter than its predecessor. It would get from Tokyo to Paris in just two hours, US destinations are not mentioned. However, as Japan's failure last summer suggests, it might not happen too easily."

Comments

Wait a second...

[cgranade]

If we couldn't get a supersonic jet to be profitable for less than $2K/ticket, how the hell is a hypersonic jet going to be profitable. I mean, sure, it carries twice the passengers, but if its going twice as fast, can we expect it to burn more fuel, too?

ughh....

[ambienceman]

I realllly hope they consider better silencing techniques and way to calm the drafts coming from the turbines. My dad's house is by JFK. Everytime that plane flew over, the house would shake. It's not just us either, it's the whole neighborhood that surrounds the land under the Concorde's take-off trail.

They re-routed it, but it still affects the area pretty bad. I've seen strollers being swept around. I hope they fix it if they decide to make a successor.

Failure Reborn

[Pavan_Gupta]

There are reasons why supersonic travel don't work, and especially in this kind of modern day economy. Firstly, they're damn ineffecient. They suck up fuel like it's not worth anything. Secondly, they're not economically effecient -- even holding twice as mayn people, you're only looking at carrying a relatively small amount fo people. Lastly, the price of development of a plane like this, and the price of the plane itself, is not worth it.

There is a reason why the modern concorde died, and it wasn't only because of the accidents that occured -- it had to do with the fact that there isn't a market for super high speed travel. People just want to get quickly from one place to another, they dont' want to go super fast. Moreover, people on the ground are already super angry about the sound of jet noise (especially near airforce bases -- I know first hand), and unless there is some sort of boom supression technology, these planes will not fly in the united states.

Our airline industry really needs to try and turn a profit ebfore they continue to waste time and money innovating. Sure the government will bail them out over and over -- like they do for the rail road companies, but I hate wasting my tax money on childlike business tactics by big airlines. Its about time some of these companies developed some responsiblity -- and a supersonic jet is not where it lies.

Let's make bigger planes, and try to keep them at relatively fast speeds. And there's my rant. Do with it as you must.

Re:Failure Reborn

[BiggerIsBetter]

I disagree. Flying halfway around the world is a PITA, even at the fast-ish speeds the current crop of jet-liners can fly at.

Go to any international airport and take a look at the travellers who have spent 12 hours on a flight, with 8 more ahead of them after their stopover.

Trust me on this - if they have the money, people will pay for this high-speed service. Even if it means an "economy" seat for the price of business class, it's worth it to shave 15 hours off your travel time.

Re:Failure Reborn

[BiggerIsBetter]

There is no point.

2 hours sitting on a plane vs 23 hours sitting on a plane. That's the point. That's worth a lot of money to some people, including myself

What part of that don't you understand?

Re:Failure Reborn

[MtViewGuy]

I'd like to mod down the people who modded you to flamebait status in the first place.

You are right in many of your assessments, especially when you consider the issues about operating the Concorde in the first place. Between the very high fuel burn rate which limits its range, jet engines that are very noisy and spew out lots of unwanted exhaust emissions (especially oxides of nitrogen at altitude), the sonic boom problem and limited carrying capacity, small wonder why Concorde in the end was probably not the way to go in terms of supersonic travel.

I hope you read my post about my suggestion for a future SST design, a plane that will fly at Mach 1.7 and use the latest aerospace technologies to reduce fuel burn for much longer range, reduce jet engine exhaust emissions, drastically reduce or eliminate the sonic boom problem, and carry a reasonable load.

Re:Failure Reborn

[Zeinfeld]

There is a reason why the modern concorde died, and it wasn't only because of the accidents that occured -- it had to do with the fact that there isn't a market for super high speed travel.

There was only one accident and in fact that had little to do with the end of service, the real issue was the Airbus consortium terminating support. The cost of maintenance would have soared. The fleet was way too small to be economic.

The real reason Concorde failed was that it carried too few passengers, used too much fuel and protectionism in the US blocked landing at the major airports until the consortium stopped manufacture.

The result was not as much of a disaster as often claimed. The development money on the first joint product went down the drain, but the collaboration led directly to airbus. With Boeing looking at a stale and aging product line and unable to get any new plane off the drawing board without a major subsidy through the pentagon, Airbus is now the dominant force in the market.

Airbus will be building a 1200 seat aircraft, which with the current glut of 600 seaters is probably the sweet spot in the market at this point.

The idea of supersonic cruisers keeps popping up and bobbing down. Eventually one will get built simply because there has to be something more interesting to build than yet another super-jumbo.

The idea that seems to crop up quite often in tendem with the superjumbo idea is the idea of lobbing satelites into space en-route. If someone could make that happen with an interesting size payload, I guess some military might sign of on the R&D.

That is probably what NASA should have built instead of the shuttle.

Re:Failure Reborn

[Anonymous Coward]

As somebody who took a series of flights late last year from Toronto to Vancouver to Honolulu to Sydney to Melbourne (24 hours plus stopovers), I'm certain that there are people out there willing to pay for faster jet travel, just so they don't have to sit in those damn cramped conditions for hours on end. And that's not counting the productivity cost to businesses that have their top people tied up on international flights for hours at end...

Re:Failure Reborn

[uradu]

> How many people fly around the world often enough that the time spent matters

Why does it have to be around the world? If I could be in Europe in 2 hours, that would make a huge difference. Instead of going once every one or two years, I might go two or more times a year, for shorter periods. When transit time stops being a significant percentage of total trip time, that weekend in Paris all of a sudden DOES mean two days in Paris, rather than one day in Paris and one on two planes.

Of course, the economics would have to be different. I am pretty confident that IF new SST technology is eventually commercialised again, it will be considerably less expensive than Concorde. Flying SST couldn't be more expensive than flying first class, preferably substantially less, otherwise your potential clientelle is reduced to Hollywood. That's one lesson they've learned if nothing else. The Concorde was the first of its type, so no prior economic data existed; but it also was a prestige project to show the world that Europe still had it, so economics didn't entirely make or brake it. For any new project that would of course not be true at all. Today, if it ain't makin' money, it ain't flyin'.

There are various reasons why cheaper SST is possible: improved engine efficiencies, increased aerodynamic understanding, replacement of heavy analog or mechanical components with electronics and fiber optics (e.g. drooping nose on Concorde will be replaced with virtual windows, miles of copper cable with fiber), increased passenger capacity.

I'm not saying that all these advances WILL make SST viable again, but rather that IF it becomes viable again, they will be major contributing factors. After all, the article said that EADS is simply studying the feasability of a new plane, not that one is on the drawing board. It's quite likely that they will

Remember the Sonic Cruiser?

[Diphthong]

This sounds like aeronautical vaporware. Boeing's attempt at a higher-speed "Sonic Cruiser" was scrapped last year when the company felt that economical flight at current speeds was the way to go (via the 7E7 project), and the Cruiser wasn't even planning to pass the sound barrier.

It's one thing for EADS to think speed is the way to go, and it's quite another to propose something as ambitious as they have. Based on the article I strongly suspect they're making token research into engine tech but aren't actually trying to design a plane at all here (no mention of fuselage design at all). It's just Fun with Public Relations.

Theres less resistance up there.

[FURY13RT]

Theres a measure of fuel savings at high altitude. Going faster and higher means going further for less fuel... if you can get it up there, of course.

Re:Shelf it for now..

[martinX]

The Concorde (and its successor) appeals to a different market (i.e. not you and me). This market isn't a part of the 'post 9/11 airline industry'.

That downturn was because, amongst other things, people were afraid their Jumbo people mover would be hijacked and used as a weapon. I would imagine that Son of Concorde would require specialised training. Not something you'll get in a Florida flight school.

As to whether or not people can afford it, if you have to ask "how much" then it's not for you. Or me.

Re:Technology

[hedley]

Have you been enjoying subsonic travel lately? The latest generation of these craft utilize thousands of microprocessors and associated firmeware from FADEC's to laser ring gyro's to seat back entertainment systems. Even the lavatory flush is controlled by a microprocessor. Of course, your fear would be amplified if there was not some form of reliability in these systems and some redundancy. When you enjoy that flight on a 777, you are getting there thanks to all of those systems working nominally. When things go wrong, a microprocessor is most likely helping the crew diagnose whats going wrong. Perhaps the processor has already made a correction and has alerted the crew after the fact the problem has been controlled. Smaller crews, specialized processors to control crew workload. I am sure this aircraft will be evolutionary in that regard, an extension of where we are today wrt the glass cockpit.

Hedley

It's only tecnology research, but wise thinking

[theolein]

The BBC article states clearly that they're only doing the research on the technologies, with the aim of producing a flying hypersonic craft with noise reduction down to that of a 747. It also states that they realise full well that there is no commercial market for such a craft right now.

So why are these people researching some technology that has no current market? Obviously because they realise that the market will not always be in the slump that it now is. It's called visionary thinking. The Concorde may have not covered full costs (I don't know enough about that), but it made BA and Air France a fist full of money as tickets cost around $3000 a pop IIRC and there were definitely enough rich people willing to pay those prices for a quick pop to New York or Rio, and those same rich bastards will still be willing in the future when and if this thing ever becomes a real plane.

For the rest of us there's the double decker Airbus A380 that will be making it's maiden flight in 2005.

Re:Won't work.

[Timesprout]

Strange, I seem to remember Concorde working for 27 years. The Yankees must not be very good at canning things.

There will always be a market for supersonic

[Douglas Simmons]

It's human nature to want to experience something few ever do, like supersonic speed. And more importantly, it's human nature to want to feel superior to everyone else. I'm guessing that's why that Boeing jet failed which, while quite fast, was slower than sound. Not to mention it is human nature to dislike being trapped in a plane for twenty hours.

Though I myself am a Greyhound man (17 hrs a weekend to see my girlfriend), there's a large clump of us with deep pockets; and for the above motives, in a market with no competitors, an airline with one of these puppies in their fleet can name its price for tickets and people will buy them. Especially since the Concorde was thought to be the end of all passanger supersonic travel, there's an increased excitement and novelty to this particular prospect. People will want to fly on this thing, and some of those people can actually afford to do so in such a way that the airline and the people behind the plane's construction and production will remain in, or eventually climb to, the black.

Plus all that stuff about it being efficient, quiet, larger capacity and range, twice as fast, yada yada... My point is supersonic travel will always be at least a "going concern" and one day perhaps profitable.

At the very least, it'll make a country look good to have one of these babies -- the prime reason the UK subsidized the unprofitable Concorde.

I can't

[salesgeek]

As I read /. I am struck by the persistence of people saying:

* This can't be done!
* This can't be done economically!
* We shouldn't try because it can't be done.

I just hope the people working on making a plane that will cut down on my travel time have a different attitude. I hope they are asking how can it be done? rather than why can't it be done.

It's easy to be a nay sayer. Nothing exposes genius faster than naysayers proven wrong.

Oh Really...

[tonyr60]

Let me seee...

1 hour to get to airport,
1.5 hours check in before departure,
2 hours flight time,
30 minutes to get baggage
1 hour custums and immagration.

Yep, we need faster air travel.

Particularly this morning when my flight was delayed an hour because the pilot had not arrived and a replacement needed to be found.

I've done that flight recently

[Goonie]

Well, not quite, but Melbourne-Frankfurt (with stopover in Singapore), and also LA-Melbourne (a 15-hour nonstop flight, until recently the world's longest scheduled flight). I defy anyone to do those routes and then tell me there's not a latent market for supersonic travel.

Re:Whiner

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a different AC than the other one. But I also believe that you're whining. What part of "don't live next to an airport" don't you understand?

Construction started on New York International airport in 1942. It was finished in 1948 and it became JFK in 1963. Concorde has been operating since 1969.

(1) The airport is at least as old as the house, possibly older.
(2) If your your dad has not been living in that house since 1948 - the airport was there first.
(3) If your dad has not been living in that house since 1969 - Concorde was there first.

My advice to your dad: Get out now while it's quiet before bigger, badder aircraft come in - or an existing aircraft crashes into the neighbourhood.

Re:Impressive

[jc42]

... low-earth-orbit ...

Possibly, or a suborbital arc.

Back when the Concorde first came out, and occasionally after that, there were articles comparing supersonic flight to suborbital flight.

The main benefit of supersonic flight is that, since you're in the atmosphere, you don't need to carry your oxidizer with you. Also, you can maintain cabin pressure with a lighter shell, since the outside pressure is nonzero. But you have to push your way through all that air, so you have to be powered the whole trip.

The general benefits of the suborbital path is that you spend most of your travel time coasting above the atmosphere, not using fuel at all, and every place on Earth is at most 90 minutes away, plus the time it takes to get up and down, for a max of 2 hours. But you need to carry at least some of your oxygen (both for fuel and for breathing), and the cabin needs to be strong enough to hold pressure in a near vacuum.

The engineering calculations concluded that the crossover point in fuel consumption was at about 1500 km (1000 miles); at longer distance the suborbital flight would use less fuel than the supersonic flight.

All this was basically engineering estimates, though; nobody seems to have seen a motive for seriously developing the suborbital approach. This is probably because "space flight" is generally considered way out and unfeasible, no matter what the engineers say.

It'd be interesting to read some up-to-date calculations on this topic. I haven't seen any for a few years. Google doesn't seem to find any (or I'm not guessing the right keywords).

Anyone know of any good, recent writing on the topic?

Re:Won't be in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA has a strict policy about supersonic flight. It basically disallows it within a 50 mile radius of any US territory.

Perhaps you should also prepend such a statement with what kind of flight it was talking about? USA have supersonic flight in its airspace daily, and hypersonic flights happen more often than you know about. Perhaps the FAA is toothless when it comes to the ones flying really fast, but your statement about FAA only concerns civil aviation.

Re:Here's a way better solution.

[mnemonic_]

In other words, designing an aircraft which performs worse would be easier. Ingenious. But to attack your points specifically...

"2. By limiting the top speed to around Mach 1.7, it also means there is less need for exotic jet engine designs, which also reduces development costs. We could, for example, develop an engine for this new SST as a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine now found on many of today's widebody airliners. That could also mean the engine will meet today's strict rules for exhaust emissions, especially oxides of nitrogen emissions."
A derivative of the Trent 900, perhaps? It would be have to be modified significantly enough (1.9 times intake air velocity complicating everything, nacelle-less configuration for essential drag reduction, etc.) that it would be necessary to design an entirely new engine.

3. [sonic boom stuff]
And who says they're not doing this? Northrop's QSP efforts reached even the mainstream-tech media, and so I find it unlikely that the British engineers are unfamiliar with it. On the other hand, are you aware of the deployable serrated flap tests on lambda wing UAV's, or the vortex generator effects analysis on the V-22's dorsal region? Or the effects of forebody LEX during high-alpha supermaneuvers?

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the design necessary for a high-supersonic airliner and, in effect, insulting the intelligence and knowledge of aerospace engineers.

Re:Not half the world...

[rock_climbing_guy]

Actually, the ozone "hole" is over the south pole.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big downside to "coasting above the atmosphere, not using fuel at all". That is a ballistic trajectory meaning that you will be in freefall. the name "vomit comet" mean anything to you?
passenger comfort requires "gravity", gravity requires lift, lift implies drag, and drag burns fuel.
-Rob
ps: thats not to say you wouldn't get some thrill seekers wanting to fly, but i don't think it will fly with the business crowd...

Easy Travel is Bad...

[orn]

Okay, there are already a lot of +5 comments on this topic, so I suppose this one will probably never get read. But just in case you are reading this...

Regardless of whether it can be done or not, I want to register the opinion that easy, cheap world travel is actually a bad thing. When products and people can get anywhere in the world cheaply, then they do. This leads to single culture kinds of things, which makes you wonder why you were travelling at all! Similar to cultural diversity is the problem with bio-diversity (from which the whole arguement stems). The sheer number of biological invaders is astounding. Consider how many times you've been annoyed by those Japanese beetles (that look a lot like lady bugs). A few years ago, those didn't exist in North America. Now, they exist without bound. You can bet that there will be more and more of these problems in the future.

Yes, I enjoy travel quite a bit. And I don't like the idea of restricting travel. But we need more bio and cultural diversity. It keeps the world healthy.