SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Quieter, Faster, Stronger: The Next Jet Age Is Coming
Human flight is on the verge of a second renaissance, with new technology ushering in an age of faster and quieter passenger jets. Although the supersonic Concorde jet launched over 40 years ago, commercial flight speeds have stagnated (and even regressed) since then. But new breakthroughs from NASA and jet startups show that innovation is finally returning to air travel.
NASA is working on quiet supersonic tech that is able to muffle the inevitable sonic boom to a "soft thump." At the same time, they've found new technologies that can reduce noise from existing aircraft by over 70%, potentially improving the quality of life near airports and reducing noise complaints. Meanwhile, three US startups are working to revive commercial supersonic travel, with lighter and stronger materials, a quieter design, and cleaner and more efficient engines. They hope to deliver their first jets to the airlines by the mid-2020s.
In 1976, the Concorde premiered as the world's first supersonic commercial jet, and for the next 27 years, it limped along as a cautionary tale of innovation gone sideways. The plane was extremely loud at even normal speeds, especially during takeoff and landing, but its ear-splitting sonic booms were completely intolerable.
Public opposition to the noise led the FAA to preemptively ban supersonic flight over land, effectively imposing a speed limit of Mach 1 (or 767 mph) across the country.*
The speed limit meant that the Concorde could only go supersonic on transoceanic flights, dramatically restricting its potential market. Limited routes, inefficient engines, excessive weight, and a $15,000 ticket price combined to doom the project, and it went out with a whimper (not a boom) in 2003.
The Concorde was probably never going to succeed, but the FAA made a big mistake by banning all supersonic travel in an attempt to address the noise problem. By imposing a speed limit instead of a noiselimit, the FAA killed research and investment that could have developed quieter supersonic tech.
There has been innovation in air travel since the 1970s, but it's all been about cutting costs, rather than improving the product. That has created huge benefits for consumers, and flying today costs half of what it did back then.
But this has also meant slower flights for basically everyone. Today, the fastest commercial jet is still the workhorse Boeing 747, which maxes out around Mach 0.8 (roughly 660 mph). But most jets won't fly anywhere near their top speeds, because flying slower saves on fuel. Even adding a couple minutes to a flight can add up to major savings for a big airline, and customers just don't care about a few extra minutes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:06PM (5 children)
When you get up, not to the 'sound barrier' but just sufficiently close to it, there's a rapid increase in drag and instability. So you have to match that with an increase in thrust, and you don't want to stay around the speed of sound for long, it's better to either stay well below it or accelerate as quickly as possible up to ~1.2mach or better, where things settle down somewhat. But even then, you're burning a lot more fuel and stressing the parts of the airplane much more than you would be at subsonic speeds.
The Concorde wasn't just useless because of the ban - it still flew the transatlantic route where it could do full speed on a long haul - but of course it had very high fuel costs and even more astronomical maintenance costs. And that's very typical of supersonic planes - fighter jets are also notorious maintenance hogs and for the same reason. Crossing the sound barrier is very stressful to the airplane, as is sustained supersonic flight. So each time they fly they need to be inspected and repairs are called for much more often than would be the case with a subsonic plane.
I'm sure a modern design could improve on the Concorde considerably - but todays subsonic passenger liners have been improved over those current back then as well. And airlines work on volume. They want as few different types of airplanes as possible, they want that economy of scale. Adding a new model that only runs a few high price runs at high speed means a lot of extra expenses to recoup means even higher ticket prices means even fewer people interested in paying extra to ride the fast plane.
It seems to really make this work they'd probably need it to NOT to be a special plane just for these high priced high speed routes, but a plane that could replace the entire fleet and do all the routes without costing significantly more than what they're using now. It would need to be able to fly efficiently at subsonic speeds for short runs filled at lower prices, but also step right up and go supersonic when the situation called for it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:19PM
Calling it drag is slightly off. It's the pressure wave at the leading edges (not exactly the same as airflow drag) that takes a bit more power to break through to achieve mach speed. Then you get the boom. I learned all this in Aeronautics school.
(Score: 2, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:26PM
We spent the last 10,000 years on horseback. I hope we don't spend the next 10,000 on kerosene.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:27PM (2 children)
So, the "one plane to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?" - sure, if you've got a design that doesn't suffer inefficiencies when transitioning between 500 mile local hopper routes and trans-Pacific long haul, that's strong magic - should sell well.
Southwest is competitive because they went basically single-model, and focused their whole business on the routes that model serves well, efficiently. Southwest will not be serving the San Diego - Melbourne route anytime soon.
On the other end of the scale, I understand that a large number of massive Airbus (forget the model) jumbos are available for sale at "reduced prices" these days, seems that the current world economy just doesn't support them, even if they are efficient from a certain perspective, being limited to special airports that can handle them is a big handicap.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:36PM
>. massive Airbus (forget the model) jumbos are available for sale at "reduced prices"
The back story I heard (no cite, sorry) on this was as follows: Boeing had been thinking about a bigger successor to the 747, but early in preliminary design decided that they would be better to focus on a smaller plane (might have become the 777). At any rate, Boeing left the big plane concept around and somehow it got leaked to Airbus that it was an active project. Based on that the Airbus A380 was designed as a competitor and taken through to production...and as you say the A380 was a commercial flop, now out of production.
Industrial espionage can backfire!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:42PM
Yeah, not an easy thing to do at all, that's my point. Might take a few more years on that. Swing-wings have been around a long time but they're still extreme maintenance problems, one of the reasons most of them are retired now.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?