Alrighty then, time to bring back the age-old debate: will there ever be another supersonic transport?
Last time around, four countries designed one (USA, USSR, and Britain and France before the cooperation on Concorde), three built one (Concorde and Tu-144), and only those two ever entered service (with Concorde being the obviously more successful of the two). Since then, many nations have looked at the next generation of SSTs. Russia has the Tu-244. The USA has looked at various designs from various companies. Japan and France have gotten into it. The concept has even been looked at in the business jet category. But will any of these, or a future derivative, ever get air under their wheels?
Certainly, this could be Airbus’s next big project after the A380. NASA and DARPA have the QSP program in the USA which is projected to have a commercial spinoff. And Tupolev keeps claiming that the Tu-244 is still an active project.
Personally, this is where I think Boeing should be heading. They missed the boat with the Sonic Cruiser, rather than an A380-style aircraft. There is a relationship with Boeing and Tupolev, from the tests using the Tu-144D/LL 77114 in the late 90’s. Perhaps they could collaborate?
Another question is the issue of a NASP/Orient Express type platform. Would this make for a more commercially viable option? Is this the direction that the aerospace industry should now head in, as the SST has already been tried?
For a new SST to be viable, it must be able to do two things. One, it must be economically viable, and that means it has to be in the 300-seat class most likely. Two, it has to be able to serve on the trans-Pacific routes, so it has to be long legged. Both of these mean a large aircraft, with good fuel economy and excellent engines.
Anyone else care to comment?
By: KabirT - 17th June 2003 at 08:30
Originally posted by SOC
The main advances in QSP haven’t come so much in engine technology but in a beter understanding of aerodynamics and how they can be used to manipulate a sonic boom.
true but i think i read that QSP will use thrust-vectoring?
By: SOC - 16th June 2003 at 18:18
The main advances in QSP haven’t come so much in engine technology but in a beter understanding of aerodynamics and how they can be used to manipulate a sonic boom.
By: KabirT - 16th June 2003 at 06:03
A much reduced sonic boom will be a good idea so that the aircraft can travel over speed of sound while flying over land too. Yes i think they have already developed the engines for the QSP system.
And Mondu…dont worry there WILL be another SST!:D
By: SOC - 16th June 2003 at 04:38
NASA and DARPAs QSP (Quiet Supersonic Platform) project is aimed directly at producing an aircraft with a much-reduced sonic boom. The obvious civil benefit here is that an SST will no longer be restricted to overwater routes only. If all works out, and from what I hear a few strides are starting to be made, then a new SST is a great possibility, on those grounds at least.
By: mongu - 15th June 2003 at 21:45
Possibly an SST might be profitable, but as others had said the Sonic Cruiser was not an SST. I don’t know quite what it was – a waste of money springs to mind!
The aircraft must have a number of features not present on Concorde:
1. Supersonic cruising without afterburners. No big deal these days I don’t suppose – both the F-22 and the Typhoon have supercruise, and those aircraft designs have been around for years.
2. Bigger capacity. 200-250 seats sounds good to me.
3. Better range. LHR-LAX looks a good city pair to me.
But even with these improvements over Concorde, there is still the problem of the sonic boom. This will render the aircraft useless for a lot of routes, as overland flights must be subsonic. For that reason alone, I do not think we will ever see another SST in the skies.
By: KabirT - 15th June 2003 at 17:04
well making another modern and fuel efficient SST after 30 years of Concorde operations doesent seem like a downfal in tech. to me.
By: SOC - 15th June 2003 at 09:40
From that perspective, wouldn’t another SST be possibly regarded as a downfall in technology? If the issue is making more advanced aircraft, then perhaps the Orient Express concept should be revisited?
By: KabirT - 15th June 2003 at 09:32
Originally posted by SOC
SC wasn’t an SST, my point was that they bombed on the concept when they needed something to more directly compete with the A380 on the market.Also, if the market will be there in 10-15 years, then it would be in Boeing’s (or whoevers) best interest to get moving now, in order to have an aircraft ready when the market is there. Playing catch-up hasn’t done anything for Boeing lately.
true…..but a economicaly viable SST from Boeing can really make the A380 down…but then thats just a thought. And agreed on the point also that a SST must be out in 10-15 years, otherwise it will be seen as a downfal in aviation technology if they keep making things like the A380.
By: SOC - 15th June 2003 at 09:28
SC wasn’t an SST, my point was that they bombed on the concept when they needed something to more directly compete with the A380 on the market.
Also, if the market will be there in 10-15 years, then it would be in Boeing’s (or whoevers) best interest to get moving now, in order to have an aircraft ready when the market is there. Playing catch-up hasn’t done anything for Boeing lately.
By: KabirT - 15th June 2003 at 09:15
SOC….thanx for bringing this up!:D
Yes there will be another SST in future…i mean there has to be. Again now for billionth time from me speed is the future, NOT size! . And IMO Boeing should do it, as Airbus is stuck with the A380 project and current orders will not break-even the project so no way in next 10 years Airbus can think of making a SST. Boeing on the other hand should come out of the dumps and stop acting like morons, which they are doing these days, first take out an aircraft to increase there profitability and have a SST in the drawing board for near future. Agreed there is no market at the moment but there definately will be in next 10-15 years.
Yes agreed with SOC that the aircraft must be economicaly viable, less on fuel etc. (in SST terms).
Also SOC i dont think Boeings SC was much of a SST, it was just marginaly faster.
Sign In
June 15, 2003 at 9:06 am