Concorde could fly again

[Tim Walker]

The F-22 is designed for supersonic supercruise. However, it is a very expensive aircraft, and its use as an interceptor may justify that expense.

However, an airliner has to make economic sense (or be subsidized by the tax payers). If you think about it, it turned out that a larger subsonic airliner-the Boeing 747-was the way to go.

 

[Starkers]

With all the work put into making jets more fuel efficient, I'm sure supersonic jets would also benefit.

I wonder what the fuel economy of an F-22 at supercruise is, and if that would be a good baseline for a supersonic liner. I'm not asking for much, maybe just mach 1 or 2. At least for now.

Sure, a new SST would be more fuel-efficient than Concorde, but it would still be much more expensive than standard subsonic commercial air. Even people who could afford it often didn't find the couple saved hours worth the Concorde premium over the standard first class fare, and if anything that market (rich people) is even softer today because of the rise of the long-range private jet.

Remember, Concorde was developed with public money, billions that the British and French taxpayers never got back. That will not happen again. A future SST developed by Boeing or Airbus would be so expensive it would literally be gambling the entire corporation, which, without airline market demand, also will not happen. The near-Mach 1, 250 pax Boeing Sonic Cruiser proposal in the '90s attracted about zero airline interest.

Yes that's correct, and it was just the one sortie at that but a phenomenal achievement all the same.

Indeed. Considering that the Vulcan's original raison d'etre was to deliver "cans of instant sunshine," I'm OK with it almost-never having been used in anger. Likewise the B-36 and B-47 (as a bomber, the reconnaissance variants did see action).

Very good point!

 

[Santaman]

Supercruise isn't anything new, the first aircraft capable to do so is the English Electric Lightning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

Really fast beast, can climb like nothing else.

I wonder what the fuel economy of an F-22 at supercruise is, and if that would be a good baseline for a supersonic liner. I'm not asking for much, maybe just mach 1 or 2. At least for now.

That doesn't mean anything. The Concord supercruised.

Okay, thanks!

 

[Maurice]

My favorite airshow experience was seeing an SR-71 do two slow (and by slow I mean over 200mph) flybys, with 30 foot tails of blue flame shooting out of each nacelle. Wowsa!

 

[John Clark]

Supercruise isn't anything new, the first aircraft capable to do so is the English Electric Lightning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

Really fast beast, can climb like nothing else.

And from the aircraft mentioned on that page, I just wish I could have seen the TSR2 in flight too

 

[Santaman]

TSR2 was a remarkable machine for its time, it also used the same engines as the Concorde, older versions but still.

My favourite go fast jet is the Mig 25 though, 36 tons of welded nickel steel, its heavy, looks like a brick with wings but no one can deny that its fast...

 

[J.T.B.]

My favorite airshow experience was seeing an SR-71 do two slow (and by slow I mean over 200mph) flybys, with 30 foot tails of blue flame shooting out of each nacelle. Wowsa!

Was the plane there on the ground, or did they fly in from a "more secure" location? I almost went to an airshow that would have had an SR-71 flyby, but I didn't want to face the anticipated 100,000 crowd so didn't go. I wish now I had, it would be my only chance.

It's still kind of amazing to me that the descendant of the "can't-confirm-its-existence" CIA black plane ended up doing airshows, but time passes. I only found out a few years ago that an A-12 had crashed in the '60s in the Utah desert, not far from an area I am passing familiar with. I don't think it was publicly acknowledged till around 2000.

My favourite go fast jet is the Mig 25 though, 36 tons of welded nickel steel, its heavy, looks like a brick with wings but no one can deny that its fast...

Oh yes. There were sighs of relief all across NATO when Belenko's example showed that "go fast" was about all it could do well!

 

[John Clark]

I don't recall seeing one of those either(the mig-25)

Most of the airshows I visited when I was younger tended to have more NATO planes (or Western Front WW2 aircraft). I did get to sit in the cockpit of various aircraft at those shows and they did do Dakota flights from one of them that I got to try (as a passenger obviously).

 

[Santaman]

Oh, there is MUCH more to tell about that beast, after the collaps of the Soviet Union a Dutch reporter was allowed to catch a ride with a Mig 25, when he arrived it was -25c and the plane was nowhere to be found, he asked about that and the pilot grinned and pointed at a big heap of snow besides the hangar and indeed a tail was sticking out of it, while they were suiting up the plane was dragged out of the heap of snow and the pilot casually told the reporter that it had been sitting under there for about two weeks, they got in, checkups were done and within a few minutes it was pushing Mach 2.8 at 80.000 ft
Like everything Russian its build to cope with all kinds of environments..

When Belenko's bird was taken apart they first laughed, all the electronics were vacuum tube until they realised that the radar was 600 Kw(!!) and that vacuum tube tech is not really bothered by EMP...

Oh yes. There were sighs of relief all across NATO when Belenko's example showed that "go fast" was about all it could do well!

 

[Marc]

Oh yes. There were sighs of relief all across NATO when Belenko's example showed that "go fast" was about all it could do well!

Given it was designed to intercept the B-70 Valkyries I'm not sure that it needed say dog-fighting or ground attack mattered as much as balls to the walls speed.

 

[MANT!]

Saw many SR-71s fly during my time in the USAF..at one point I spent 1 month at Beale AFB (SR-71s home airfield) doing compass swings of KC-135s right at the end of the runway...the noise, the shock diamonds in the exhaust, the sheer sense of speed as they lifted off..it was awe inspiring...The Mig-25 was no where near as fast (when they were clocked at Mach 3.2--it was only for a few minutes)..the SR could go that fast almost the entire mission long...

 

[sojourner]

Oh yes. There were sighs of relief all across NATO when Belenko's example showed that "go fast" was about all it could do well!

Given it was designed to intercept the B-70 Valkyries I'm not sure that it needed say dog-fighting or ground attack mattered as much as balls to the walls speed.

The B-70 is a plane I would have loved to seen flying. That thing had beautiful lines.

 

[J.T.B.]

When Belenko's bird was taken apart they first laughed, all the electronics were vacuum tube until they realised that the radar was 600 Kw(!!) and that vacuum tube tech is not really bothered by EMP...

Yeah, the early word was that radar was so powerful it was "ECM proof." I don't know if that's true, but IIRC Iraqi MiG-25s did run off some EF-111s in Gulf War 1. Soviet designs are fascinating.

Given it was designed to intercept the B-70 Valkyries I'm not sure that it needed say dog-fighting or ground attack mattered as much as balls to the walls speed.

Right. But early-on people thought it might be some kind of next-generation super fighter that would be hard to match, and it created some anxiety. What they found out after the defection were the trade-offs in the design, which brought it more down to earth, so to speak. Fast but not maneuverable, tricky to fly slow, short-legged etc.

Saw many SR-71s fly during my time in the USAF..at one point I spent 1 month at Beale AFB (SR-71s home airfield) doing compass swings of KC-135s right at the end of the runway...the noise, the shock diamonds in the exhaust, the sheer sense of speed as they lifted off..it was awe inspiring...The Mig-25 was no where near as fast (when they were clocked at Mach 3.2--it was only for a few minutes)..the SR could go that fast almost the entire mission long...

I would have loved to have seen some of that. On the Navy side, I got in on the tail end of the A-7s and the EA-3B. Missed the Phantoms and RA-5C. But carrier decks look so boring now.

The most memorable thing I saw at an airshow was as a kid c. 1979, a demonstrating USMC Harrier lost power on its vertical landing and dropped about 20 feet to the ground. The front gear snapped off, but the pilot was OK. The Blue Angels (A-4 era) were standing around the flightline before their show and they all took off at a full speed run toward the plane.

 

[John Clark]

The Harriers were always fun to watch at the airshows.

I remember one story I read about RA-5s being a bit scary on carrier decks as the nose gear was relatively far back.

The F4s I tended to see most were the F4J(UK) versions as they were stationed at the base where most of my early airshow visits took place.

 

[Maurice]

My favorite airshow experience was seeing an SR-71 do two slow (and by slow I mean over 200mph) flybys, with 30 foot tails of blue flame shooting out of each nacelle. Wowsa!

Was the plane there on the ground, or did they fly in from a "more secure" location? I almost went to an airshow that would have had an SR-71 flyby, but I didn't want to face the anticipated 100,000 crowd so didn't go. I wish now I had, it would be my only chance.

Just a flyby, unannounced as I recall. It was the first airshow at Fallon NAS, and the SR-71 was out of Beale AFB.

 

[JES]

TSR2 was a remarkable machine for its time, it also used the same engines as the Concorde, older versions but still.

My favourite go fast jet is the Mig 25 though, 36 tons of welded nickel steel, its heavy, looks like a brick with wings but no one can deny that its fast...

And going fast is about the only thing it's good at. It not only looks like a brick with wings and a nice looking nose, but it flies like one too.

 

[JES]

With all the work put into making jets more fuel efficient, I'm sure supersonic jets would also benefit.

I wonder what the fuel economy of an F-22 at supercruise is, and if that would be a good baseline for a supersonic liner. I'm not asking for much, maybe just mach 1 or 2. At least for now.

Sure, a new SST would be more fuel-efficient than Concorde, but it would still be much more expensive than standard subsonic commercial air. Even people who could afford it often didn't find the couple saved hours worth the Concorde premium over the standard first class fare, and if anything that market (rich people) is even softer today because of the rise of the long-range private jet.

Remember, Concorde was developed with public money, billions that the British and French taxpayers never got back. That will not happen again. A future SST developed by Boeing or Airbus would be so expensive it would literally be gambling the entire corporation, which, without airline market demand, also will not happen. The near-Mach 1, 250 pax Boeing Sonic Cruiser proposal in the '90s attracted about zero airline interest.

Yes that's correct, and it was just the one sortie at that but a phenomenal achievement all the same.

Indeed. Considering that the Vulcan's original raison d'etre was to deliver "cans of instant sunshine," I'm OK with it almost-never having been used in anger. Likewise the B-36 and B-47 (as a bomber, the reconnaissance variants did see action).

Very good point!

I'm still hopeful that more advanced technology or breakthroughs will help to make a supercruise liner more reasonably, you know.
There are at least two civilian supercruise aircraft that are being worked on, which are the HyperMach SonicStar, which telling by the planned 30 seats in "VIP luxury accommodation", is only for fat cats, and hence none of us would likely be able to fly on it, and the Zero Emission Hyper Sonic Transport. No idea if the projects will go anywhere, but the fact that people are still trying to make the dream a reality is comforting. I think eventually we'll see a supersonic transport, and not just for the wealthy fat cats who don't want subsonic flights because they can afford better.

Then again, what is it that makes supersonic speeds so difficult or expensive? If it's just the fuel, we need to stop using fossil fuels (it's polluting, and the costs will only continue to rise throughout the century).
If it's maintainence, then maybe the propulsion that makes supersonic travel possible can be simplified or refined?

 

[sojourner]

If it's just the fuel, we need to stop using fossil fuels (it's polluting, and the costs will only continue to rise throughout the century).
If it's maintainence, then maybe the propulsion that makes supersonic travel possible can be simplified or refined?

You make it sound so easy. Just use a different kind of engine! Of course! Why didn't any of those aerospace engineers think of that?

Don't you think maybe they've been trying for years to solve this problem?

The fact remains that for now petroleum based engines are still the best choice from an energy efficiency standpoint. And I mean that from a given amount of power per mass/volume of fuel.

 

[J.T.B.]

Then again, what is it that makes supersonic speeds so difficult or expensive? If it's just the fuel, we need to stop using fossil fuels (it's polluting, and the costs will only continue to rise throughout the century).

First, it is incredibly expensive to develop a new airliner. I said above that it would be gambling the company to build a new SST, but actually that is pretty much the case with all brand new jet liner designs. The L-1011 was a wonderful jet for example, but delivery delays ended up knocking Lockheed out of the commercial aircraft industry.

A new SST, even more so. It would not just be more expensive, but orders of magnitude more, to research, design, build, test and develop a new aircraft to carry passengers that much faster than production aircraft.

Second, the basic rule of thumb is that aerodynamic drag increases in proportion to the velocity squared. The drag working against your airplane becomes harder and harder to overcome the faster you go, so you have to use more and more energy for a diminishing return of airspeed. If you want to increase airspeed 10%, expect to burn about 20% more fuel and so on (a rough example, but you get the idea). So faster air travel will always be less efficient and more expensive, and less and less efficient the faster it is.

If it's maintainence, then maybe the propulsion that makes supersonic travel possible can be simplified or refined?

Wouldn't it be nice... But sojourner is right, there is nothing on the horizon that could be used that way other than air-breathing, fossil fuel burning engines.

 

[publiusr]

I think it may be a long time before either Boeing or Airbus build a Blended Wing Body of any size. Just to see something in the skies besides twin-jets.