Slashdot Mirror
A New Engine Could Bring Back Supersonic Air-Travel (economist.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report (may be paywalled): Every morning, time once was, a giant roar from Heathrow Airport would announce the departure of flight BA001 to New York. The roar was caused by the injection into the aircraft's four afterburners of the fuel which provided the extra thrust that it needed to take off. Soon afterwards, the pilot lit the afterburners again -- this time to accelerate his charge beyond the speed of sound for the three-and-a-half hour trip to JFK. The plane was Concorde.
Supersonic passenger travel came to an end in 2003. The crash three years earlier of a French Concorde had not helped, but the main reasons were wider. One was the aircraft's Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus engines, afterburners and all, which gobbled up too much fuel for its flights to be paying propositions. The second was the boom-causing shock wave it generated when travelling supersonically. That meant the overland sections of its route had to be flown below Mach 1. For the Olympus, an engine optimised for travel far beyond the sound barrier, this was commercial death.
That, however, was then. And this is now. Materials are lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics and the physics of sonic booms are better understood. There is also a more realistic appreciation of the market. As a result, several groups of aircraft engineers are dipping their toes back into the supersonic pool. Some see potential for planes with about half Concorde's 100-seat capacity. Others plan to start even smaller, with business jets that carry around a dozen passengers. The chances of such aircraft getting airborne have recently increased substantially.
Supersonic passenger travel came to an end in 2003. The crash three years earlier of a French Concorde had not helped, but the main reasons were wider. One was the aircraft's Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus engines, afterburners and all, which gobbled up too much fuel for its flights to be paying propositions. The second was the boom-causing shock wave it generated when travelling supersonically. That meant the overland sections of its route had to be flown below Mach 1. For the Olympus, an engine optimised for travel far beyond the sound barrier, this was commercial death.
That, however, was then. And this is now. Materials are lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics and the physics of sonic booms are better understood. There is also a more realistic appreciation of the market. As a result, several groups of aircraft engineers are dipping their toes back into the supersonic pool. Some see potential for planes with about half Concorde's 100-seat capacity. Others plan to start even smaller, with business jets that carry around a dozen passengers. The chances of such aircraft getting airborne have recently increased substantially.
How many people old enough to afford it can stand the 9Gs necessary
3Gs, not 9.
With good chairs that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Supersonic over the Pacific would still be a game changer. My last 17 hour flight to Singapore was way, way too long. Even in business it's just not fun.
If you could have this (Concorde) for 8 hours supersonic -
https://media3.ausbt.com.au/15...
Or this (Singapore Airlines) for 17 hours subsonic (for the same price) -
https://samchui.com/wp-content...
Which would you choose?
Concord supercruised as well. That capability wasn't sufficient to make it profitable.
The term "supercruise" isn't all that well defined. There are several military aircraft that can sustain supersonic speed without afterburner given enough altitude and limited or no external stores. The F-22 is just a new degree of supersonic capability; it can perform most of its mission above supersonic speed including weapon deployment and aggressive maneuvers at lower altitudes that previous combat aircraft.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
F-22 has engines that provide so much efficient thrust, it can cruise at supersonic speeds without using the afterburner.
So did the concorde.
It didn't need afterburners to accelerate Mach 1, it was simply more efficient to do so. The concorde cruised at Mach 2.2 without afterburners running, which is somewhat faster than the F-22 can supercruise.
SJW n. One who posts facts.