Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
#define DRM chmod 000
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.
MY SECRET DIARIES
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.
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 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.
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
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.
Strange, I seem to remember Concorde working for 27 years. The Yankees must not be very good at canning things.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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.
-- $G
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.
... 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?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
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...