
Supersonic Flight Prepares for Takeoff Again - mstats
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332
======
cyberferret
Alas, while I have been lucky enough to see Concorde fly, I was never
fortunate enough to actually fly IN one. Though when I walked through one at a
museum some years ago, I thought that even a 2 hour flight in that cramped,
narrow cabin would have been a very uncomfortable experience.

Modern subsonic airliners are now capable of far better speeds and
efficiencies. Qantas just commenced one of the (if not THE) longest non stop
flights from Perth in Western Aus. to London in 17 hours. I myself flew from
Sydney to Houston direct in 15 hours last month. The new generation 787s etc.,
with their carbon fibre construction enabling them to fly at higher altitudes,
combined with efficient, powerful power plants are slicing _hours_ off most
long routes.

The last time I flew to London (mid 90's), the Singapore-London leg was 22
hours in a 747. To be able to fly Perth-London in 17 hours is a massive
improvement of over 20% reduction in flight time in just a couple of decades.

Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft
than even 10 in a narrow missile. I do realise that modern SST aircraft may be
wider and more comfortable than the Concorde, but there are still physical
limits to fuselage cross sections and weights that will limit the comfort
factor and size IMO.

~~~
boznz
>Personally, I would far rather spend 17 hours in a comfy, wide body aircraft
than even 10 in a narrow missile.

Personally, I would rather spend 3-4 days in an airship with a bedroom and a
bar and a view.. Not everyone is in a rush.

~~~
nate_meurer
Yes, or an ocean liner. I dearly hope I live to see the resurrection of an
affordable North Atlantic passenger line.

~~~
tim333
There are a few passenger services from $1000 or so. I'm not sure it was ever
really cheap [https://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/atlantic-
co...](https://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/atlantic-container-
line-announces-new-trans-atlantic-passenger-service-starting-in-march-hamburg-
antwerp-liverpool-halifax-new-york-baltimore-and-return/)

~~~
icebraining
I doubt it was that expensive. I know families who migrated from Europe to the
US in the 50s/60s, and I'm pretty sure they didn't have (inflation-adjusted)
$1000/person.

It was probably easier to find work on a ship to pay for the trip, at least
for able-bodied men.

~~~
twic
A Rudolph Arhlich got a third-class ticket from Bremen to New York in 1928 for
$208.75:

[https://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/ImmigrantTickets/1928-1...](https://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/ImmigrantTickets/1928-10-03-SteamshipTicket-
GeorgeWashington-ThirdClass.html)

It would have been higher by the '50s, i guess, but not five times higher.

~~~
icebraining
That actually undermines my claim :) $208.75 in 1928 is over $3000 today.

------
adventured
Kind of surprised they didn't mention the low-boom supersonic plane Lockheed
is working on for NASA (which just received a $247.5m contract) -

[https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-x-plane-supersonic-
lockheed...](https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-x-plane-supersonic-lockheed-low-
boom-x-58/)

~~~
jandrese
$247m seems cheap for a brand new experimental supersonic aircraft.

~~~
coolspot
Didn’t read the contract, but it might be payment to fund just one phase of
long-term development.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/UAdoq](http://archive.is/UAdoq) works for me.

~~~
YetAnotherNick
Surprised that it worked. If I remember correctly, you can block the page from
being archived in robots.txt.

~~~
LoSboccacc
that's archive.org and that being retroactive is also why everyone moved to
archive.is

------
rdl
I think I'd want to fly in these at least once, but I'd probably prefer a
subsonic aircraft with Ka-band satellite and more comfort (via more space and
weight budget) for most flights. NYC to London one-day turnaround would be a
killer market for it, but 7h in coach++ vs. 16h in suites-level luxury would
probably lead me to prefer the subsonic suite for transpac.

~~~
dx034
I think it'll aim at business travellers anyway. One-day returns EU-US are one
example that will have high demand but there are a lot more profitable routes.
London-HKG is currently 12h direct, I bet a lot of companies would pay up
significantly to reduce that. The difference with supersonic is close to an 8h
workday in each direction.

------
imglorp
I wonder what will be different financially this time around, to make SST
profitable. Customers are as price conscious as always and the first class
crowd is limited, especially so for a higher priced option.

~~~
bryananderson
More fuel-efficient engines.

Lighter structural materials (carbon composites instead of metal).

More advanced aerodynamics (less drag, thus less fuel is needed).

And while not directly related to cost, aerodynamic advances have also led to
the possibility of nearly eliminating the sonic boom, thus allowing flight
over populated areas.

~~~
thedrbrian
Going to struggle on the engine front as the major manufacturers have shifted
to high-bypass turbofans rather than turbo jets in the civilian world.

~~~
kristianp
Boom is planning on using "off-the-shelf" medium-bypass turbofans, with
proprietary intake and exhaust:
[https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner](https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner)

------
justinator
I would really think that environmental concerns would ground a supersonic
commercial passenger aircraft, until those problems are overcome - most likely
with a breakthrough in technology.

~~~
rootusrootus
Do you mean the noise, or the energy requirements? The former can be dealt
with, I think, or at least greatly limited (and flight paths can be kept to
areas tolerant of a bit of noise). The latter can't really a commonly held
concern it seems, or we'd already be trying to cut back on the tremendous
amount of regular flying that happens every day now.

~~~
larkeith
Parent is probably referring to the ozone layer depletion caused by the
Concorde and similar high-altitude jets [1].

[1]
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/70)

------
rconti
Wow, 4500 nautical miles unrefueled. So the US West Coast to Europe and US
West Coast to Oceania routes I fly most often might still be better-served by
a nonstop flight on a 787 or similar.

In particular, losing the great circle route would be painful on the way to
Europe.

~~~
dx034
Development of that plane is likely profitable even if you'd only use it for
EU-US East and US East-West. 3h flights LON-JFK and JFK-LAX/SFO (if supersonic
over land is allowed) would create enough demand to justify the cost.

Just London-NYC has >20 direct flights each day, that's more than 1,000
business class passengers. Most of them will already pay >$2,000 per flight
(or their companies).

~~~
masklinn
> Development of that plane is likely profitable even if you'd only use it for
> EU-US East and US East-West. 3h flights LON-JFK and JFK-LAX/SFO (if
> supersonic over land is allowed)

It won't be, and Concorde's 3h30 flights between JFK and London or Paris were
not enough.

> Most of them will already pay >$2,000 per flight (or their companies).

That's cute. Circa 2003 standard round-trip on Concorde was >$10000 (that's
around 14k in 2018 USD), discounted "celebration" fares were $7k. For $4k you
could do Concorde one way and 747 the other way.

~~~
dx034
> That's cute. Circa 2003 standard round-trip on Concorde was >$10000 (that's
> around 14k in 2018 USD), discounted "celebration" fares were $7k. For $4k
> you could do Concorde one way and 747 the other way.

I'm aware of that, Concorde represented First class, not business class. I was
talking about today's prices for business class fares. Ticket prices have come
down over the past 1-2 decades, I wouldn't expect the same prices (inflation
adjusted) as with the Concorde. But certainly more than business class fares,
therefore my reference to current fares.

Regarding profitability, the Concorde was extremely inefficient and very
restricted in flight paths. A supersonic jet that is allowed to fly supersonic
over land could unlock more profitable routes (e.g. intra-US or EU-Asia),
optimising utilisation.

~~~
masklinn
> A supersonic jet that is allowed to fly supersonic over land could unlock
> more profitable routes

It also won't happen. Especially in the land of NIMBY that is the US. Not only
could Concorde not _go_ supersonic over the mainland, it had to slow down to
subsonic when crossing FLA between the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.

~~~
dx034
That was because the boom was so loud with the Concorde. Fighter jet booms
regularly cause property damage. Apparently new designs allow for much quieter
supersonic booms which would make it easier to allow those. The US isn't just
a country of NIMBY, also of capitalism and lobbying. If enough congressmen get
free tickets for intra-US flights, the ban will quickly be lifted ;)

------
marcosscriven
Living in SW London while Concorde was in operation, I was able to quite
regularly look up and see it flying.

Although one becomes quite inured to plane noise, the distinctive rumble came
to herald the lovely sight of this slender aircraft.

------
drcongo
Given yesterday's arguments over the naming of CockroachDB, am I the only one
wondering if naming this thing Boom might, well, back fire?

