SSTs - any future?

[Kontiki]

The Concordes and Russia's Tupolev Tu-144 were developed in the late 60's and promised to be the next big thing in aviation. We all now know their massive faults - terrible reliability, even worse fuel efficiency, loud, limited capacity, etc. Hell, the Russians haven't even flown theirs in over 20 years. Boeing flirted with the idea in the early 70's as well, and ultimately scrapped the idea.

The current trend seems to be to larger capacity, traditional airliners (Boeing 747-400's, Airbus A380) for long-hault flights. However, with the newest developments in engine technology like supercruise, will SSTs become a viable option? I could easily see them in service on trans-Pacific flights, like LA/San Fran/Vancouver - Hong Kong/Tokyo/Shanghai. I also think people would gladly pay more to shave some time off those rediculous flights.

Whadya think?

[Ming]

The "profit" for airlines comes from the business traveler. Right now, most businesses are cutting back on travel, and cutting back on allowing their people to fly first class. Some companies are even asking their employees to TURN IN THEIR FREQUENT FLYER MILES...
The Concorde proved that not many people are willing to pay the big bucks to save a few hours. In today's economy, it would be even less.

Both Airbus and Boeing have done the research for an SST... but the airlines have shown NO INTEREST, and probably won't for a very long time. Without firm commitments from the airlines, nothing is going to happen.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I do not see much future for jet engined SSTs. Not when a magnetic or other non fueled assisted lauch is available, I might see a subortial rocket transport for very long jauls. but they will have to develope a method for getting a good chunck of its lift off power from a ground facility so that it use less fuel and does not have to lift the means of initial thrust.

[Kontiki]

I realise that there currently isn't the demand, but I'm wondering how far down the road, if ever, that demand may arise.

I think the Concorde's problems are that it's priced to the extreme and cuts time off an already acceptable length flight. As I said, I think the real possibilities exist trans-Pacific, not trans-Atlantic.

If development/procurement costs can be brought down such that we're not talking 10 grand for a ticket (a decent seating capacity would also help), I could see a demand emerging. Granted, those costs will only go down with enough production volume, so it becomes a viscious circle....

[Ming]

Again... the airlines now drive the "development" end of new planes. Unless the airlines demand it, and make FIRM committements... Boeing and Airbus can't afford to even start production. And looking at the current state of Airline finances... and knowing that it's going to take a long time for many to get back on their feet again...

No way

[Dinner]

New SSTs are DOA.

[KrazyHorse]

I think we've discovered that until things get a lot cheaper, 700 kph is "fast enough"

[Az]

I don't think that jetliners go 700mph.

[Ned]

Without checking it out, what has to be done to normal aircraft to take them above mach 1? The reason I ask is that if the engines were powerful enough, the same plance could be disigned to fly under mach 1 over land, but over mach 1 over the ocean. The problem I see in cost is that the SST today is a special purpose plane.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think that jetliners go 700mph.

Neither do I.

[Az]

I am sorry, I assumed that all NAers use miles. Mea Culpa.

[DanS]

Boeing is going for more efficiency to sell to the Jet Blues and Southwests of the world--it's all about operating costs. Boeing ditched their new oversized jets, although I think Airbus is still going on theirs. Perhaps Boeing started their oversized just so Airbus would piss away a hunk of money on theirs.

[axi]

See how on many occasions technology goes back and may eventually be lost? 30 years ago, man went to the moon and flew across the Atlantic with mach2 speed. Next year the Concorde may be grounded.

Nah, there are no guts nowdays. Back in the 60's, nations were engaged in a virtual pissing contest and they performed technological wonders. Now all they care about is $$.

[Lancer]

Yes, I believe there is demand for such a plane for the cross pacific flights. If my seat were to cost an extra $200 to get there in 7 or 8 hours instead of 12, I'd pay it. It would put Australia/NZ on the tourism map, making it possible for people to see these places on a two week vacation.

Maybe not right now with the economy, war etc, but in a couple of years when things are better, God willing.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ned
Without checking it out, what has to be done to normal aircraft to take them above mach 1? The reason I ask is that if the engines were powerful enough, the same plance could be disigned to fly under mach 1 over land, but over mach 1 over the ocean. The problem I see in cost is that the SST today is a special purpose plane.

If you tried to get a normal aircraft to supersonic speeds, it would literally shake apart and fall into pieces. You have to have a special purpose plane to survive the tremendous shocks and stresses associated with moving faster than the speed of sound. Remember that, as little as 50 years ago, many reputable scientists believed that it was literally impossible to go faster than the speed of sound. It is quite hard to do, and lots of good test pilots died as we learned to make it happen.