
Supersonic passenger jets might make a comeback - prostoalex
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-supersonic-jets-20170202-story.html
======
cyberferret
Nice to hear. Concorde was a beautiful airplane, but limited to '60s
technology (it even had vacuum tubes in the flight deck computers). But it did
pave the way for a lot of technological advances at that time, such as carbon
brakes etc.

Be good to see what engineers can come up with using current technology to
make things stronger, faster and lighter.

Always intrigued by the fluctuations in the airline industry. I remember a
time when it was said 'smaller aircraft were dead, and it is the time of the
super jumbos', and now the reverse is true with airlines shunning huge
aircraft for smaller aircraft that can do regional hops.

Given that the R&D and deployment process for a new aircraft type is measured
over decades, it would be incredibly difficult to build a plane today that
will fit the market in 10 years time. Hats off to Boeing, Airbus, Embraer et
al for their efforts.

~~~
agumonkey
They never replaced the computers with transistors ?

~~~
Baeocystin
I'm not saying this was necessarily true for the Concorde, but sometimes you
really do need a vacuum tube.

All commercial x-ray sources use tubes, for example. The magnetrons that power
our microwave ovens are vacuum tube oscillators.

And by their nature, tubes are much faster than semiconductors, which has its
uses.

~~~
foobar__
Where are tubes faster than semiconductors?

~~~
Baeocystin
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/introducing-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/introducing-
the-vacuum-transistor-a-device-made-of-nothing)

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/return-vacuum-
tube](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/return-vacuum-tube)

These links will get you started.

~~~
foobar__
These articles don't say that regular tubes are faster than transistors, only
that "vacuum-channel transistors" (nano-scale devices inspired by tubes but
different) could possibly eventually be faster than semiconductors.

But these articles are from 2014 and 2012 and they contradict easily looked up
facts. The 2012 article claims that this technology promises speeds of up to
460GHz, which seems to have already been topped by regular semiconductor
transistors, even by 2003: See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Feng#World.27s_fastest_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Feng#World.27s_fastest_transistor)
for a really old example.

So to me it seems that this research is in a very early stage and no one knows
whether the finished product (if it is ever finished) will be faster than
semiconductors. Of course the researchers working on this must make big
promises or they wouldn't get grants, but that's how the grant system works
today, and it doesn't tell you anything about how viable the product is.

edit: Not to sound to negative here, I am really looking forward to this new
technology and hope it will turn out alright. But it looks very much like
fundamental research, so I take issue with broad claims like "by their nature,
tubes are much faster than semiconductors, which has its uses", when
apparently nothing has left the laboratory yet.

~~~
Baeocystin
I appreciate the links.

Here's a more recent link, specifically regarding terahertz research, you
might find interesting.

[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/50/4/043...](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/50/4/043001)

I want to emphasize an important distinction: that vacuum-based amps have
higher potential switching speeds than semiconductors is not a novel thing,
nor is it early stage research. It is part and parcel of the nature of
semiconductors. What _is_ cutting-edge is miniaturization of vacuum-based
systems using conventional fab processes. That's the exciting stuff!

------
DodgyEggplant
What about climate change [1], and using less fossil fuels? We need the
opposite - less first class, less business class seats, less private jets, to
maximise the people who can travel per the same quantity of fuel. A typical
passengers aircraft burns ~ 48 tons (!) of fuel to cross the Atlantic [2].
Part of the refugees issue happens exactly because of the warming and drought
[3]

[1][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-
gam...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-
global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html)
[2][https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-do-airplanes-flying-
acro...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-do-airplanes-flying-across-the-
Atlantic-use) [3][http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-
water-...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-
blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/)

~~~
LoSboccacc
I'm not one of them but why rich people can't ever have nice things?

Just tax the heck out of them to offset whatever damage they cause to the
environment, they're price insensitive anyway.

~~~
onion2k
For that to work you have to ensure there are no loopholes to avoid the
taxation, that any offsetting actually works, and that no one tries to
"disrupt" the industry by ignoring the rules. Not to mention the environmental
impacts you can't offset such as the noise pollution suffered by everyone on
the plane's flight path. It's far more effective to ban supersonic passenger
flight.

There are some "nice things" that money shouldn't be able to buy because they
have too much downside for everyone else. Regardless of how much money you
have, you still have to share Earth with everyone else.

~~~
paganel
> Not to mention the environmental impacts you can't offset such as the noise
> pollution suffered by everyone on the plane's flight path. It's far more
> effective to ban supersonic passenger flight.

When you first read a paragraph like this without experiencing what airplane
noise pollution actually means you say to yourself: "How bad that can actually
be? The airplanes fly at an altitude of 10,000m, I'm sure it can't be that
bad. Right?"

Wrong. Since the Ukrainian Civil War started lots of large airplanes have been
diverted to fly above my parents' country house, somewhere in Eastern Europe.
The closest airport is located at about 140 km, but it doesn't matter, because
at least once every hour you can hear those damn big "birds" flying 10km above
you. It's even more unsettling when you notice them at 5 in the morning, as
you had quickly woken up ready to fall asleep again but you now can't because
there's that nasty airplane noise making its way through the house's concrete
walls.

Supersonic flying over populated areas would increase that shitty noise
exponentially.

~~~
goodcanadian
I'm going to have to disagree. I grew up on a farm, and yes, outdoors on a
calm day, you can hear jets flying over at 30000'. But, it is very quiet:
easily drowned out by wind rustling in the trees and such. I would be very
surprised if you heard it indoors. Perhaps, with a window open, but even then
it will be drowned out by things like the refrigerator running. Frankly, it
may have woken you up because it was an unfamiliar sound, but certainly not
because it was loud. Either that, or the airplane you are complaining about is
at significantly lower altitude than you imagine.

~~~
paganel
It happened more than once, and by looking at that airplane radar app I saw
that there are lots of A380s flying above my parents' house each day. It is an
airplane-spotter's dream location, though, on a clear and sunny day I was able
to count 6 (six) airplanes flying above my head at the same time.

------
chx
I find the unbridled optimism just unfathomable. Here's two examples of plain
old jet programs, small jets at that:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Regional_Jet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Regional_Jet)
1.5 billion dollars.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries)
5.4 billion dollars.

This is not a piece of software app that you can just launch whenever you feel
ready full of bugs. You can't pull an Uber and say, hey fuck regulations, we
will just do it ([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-
self...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self-driving-
cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco)). Yeah, sure, if you want to fly between
Inner and Outer Camelstan then you might get away with the very fashionable
"disrupt" shit but if you want to fly airspaces controlled by the FAA, EASA,
CASA -- and let's face it, the money is in New York, London and Sydney -- then
you need to do better.

This is going to cost 5-10 billion dollars at least just based on the very
fact that the C Series costed 5B and I can't see what here would make it
cheaper. And it's not easy to see how are you going to recuperate that much
money, this is not a big market and while obviously time is money, it's a very
big question of just how much money. Gulfstream delivers 140 planes a year
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/general-dynamics-profit-
rises-9...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/general-dynamics-profit-
rises-9-1453905234) with about 2-2.5b profit a year. I absolutely can not see
how these numbers will stack up. Is this another venture capitalist fueled
hype? VC invests, hypes it up, gets rid of the stock, small investors at the
end get to hold the bag.

~~~
ThenAsNow
> I find the unbridled optimism just unfathomable.

Agreed. This is due to fawning "enthusiast" type reporters with little
understanding of the technical issues or the history. But then, which field is
free of this phenomenon when reported by non-specialist press? Even specialist
press (e.g., Aviation Week) tends to be overly credulous. The big publications
that captured my imagination growing up, like Popular Mechanics and Popular
Science, are really not any better.

The people with the longest head start and most interesting technology are the
Aerion crowd, and they have been gestating for years without a lot of hardware
to show for it. Boom, Spike, and others are receiving too little skepticism,
IMO.

~~~
chx
You do not even need to be aware of the nitty-gritty details, it's enough to
look at any jet program costs. Heck, even the Russians
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100)
couldn't build a regional jet below 1.5B.

------
Animats
We've been here before. There was Aereon[1] They announced they were building
a $120 million supersonic bizjet back in 2015. It was going to cost $80
million in 2007. Their web site hasn't been updated in more than a year.

It's not impossible, but the market is small. The total number of known
private jets in the world above $100m is about 10. There's one guy with a
private Airbus 380, and a few Boeing Business Jets, including Trump's. Boeing
has about 12 more Business Jets on order, but most of those are 737-based.

[1] [http://www.aerionsupersonic.com](http://www.aerionsupersonic.com)

~~~
Cyph0n
I'm pretty sure that there are more large private aircraft in the Middle East
alone. They might be reported as government property to avoid scrutiny though.

------
_ph_
The Concorde was an incredible achievement considering the time it was built
and a very beautiful airplane. It was very fuel inefficient, both because at
the time of construction the oil crisis had not happened yet, and the
limitations of jet engines back then. However, modern cheap air travel is
mostly possible because modern jet engines are so much more efficient than
their ancestors from the Concorde times. So it is very unfortunate, that the
Concorde was built but that it did not trigger any iterations of the concept,
just picking up all the advances in jet engine and body material construction.

~~~
trhway
> It was very fuel inefficient

my understanding is that Concorde engines are among the most efficient built
to date - they had something like 70:1 compress ratio. It is juts the nature
of high speed flying that you have to burn much more fuel.

>modern jet engines are so much more efficient

because of high-by-pass. Wouldn't work for supersonic.

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumpti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_specific_fuel_consumption#Significance_of_SFC)
:

"For example, Concorde cruised at Mach 2.05 with its engines giving an SFC of
1.195 lb/(lbf·h) (see below); this is equivalent to an SFC of 0.51 lb/(lbf·h)
for an aircraft flying at Mach 0.85, which would be better than even modern
engines; the Olympus 593 was the world's most efficient jet engine.[2][3]
However, Concorde ultimately has a heavier airframe and, due to being
supersonic, is less aerodynamically efficient, i.e., the lift to drag ratio is
far lower. In general the total fuel burn of a complete aircraft is of far
more importance to the customer."

~~~
WalterBright
I don't remember the exact figure, but the last episode of "Aviation
Disasters" was on the Concorde, and mentioned that it burned a major amount of
fuel just getting to the runway, and because the delta wing was very
inefficient at low speeds, burned another big chunk of fuel just getting off
the the ground.

~~~
cyberferret
It's a common bug bear of all aircraft with swept wings designed for
supersonic flight. Terribly inneficient at take off/landing speeds.

Which is why most military aircraft have to hook up to a tanker after take off
to fill the tanks so they can continue on their mission. Concorde (and other
passenger aircraft) don't have this luxury due to the risks involved, so I am
thinking that most of the high cost of fuel vs passenger load that is being
discussed in this thread is because of the voracious thirst that the plane has
in the early stages.

Most supersonic aircraft are quite efficient in the cruise stage. The Lockheed
SR-71 for instance, derives a fair percentage of thrust just from the shape of
the airframe, so the pilots actually throttle back a little once they reach
Mach 2+!

~~~
cknight
It is interesting to hear the SR-71 was so efficient once it got going.
Certainly when it was stationary it was possibly the least fuel efficient
aircraft ever - its body was designed to leak fuel when on the tarmac. The hot
airframe would, once in flight, expand to seal the gaps!

~~~
Inconel
The SR-71 was an interesting beast. I've read that due to the constant leaking
while on the tarmac they would have to immediately rendezvous with a tanker to
refuel after takeoff.

~~~
cyberferret
I highly recommend you guys try and grab a copy of "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich
which is a fantastic story about Kelly Johnson and the Lockheed facility that
built the SR-71, U2 etc.

Ben worked alongside Kelly, and said that the guy had an unerring knack for
designing aircraft. Ben (an aerodynamics engineer) would spend days designing
an intake, and Kelly would come along and take one look at it and say "That is
20% too big", and sure enough, when Ben went back over his calculations, he
would find it to be about 18% oversized.

Another great book is "Sled Driver" by Brian Shul - probably one of the best
aviation books I've read (and I am a former pilot).

Sadly, I believe both books are out of print now, but you may be able to find
a copy somewhere second hand. I've seen "Sled Driver" on eBay for about $3000
from time to time!!

~~~
Inconel
I have a copy of "Skunk Works" and it is indeed a great book. Amazon still has
it for under $12[1]. And seeing as it's quite popular, most large libraries
should have a copy as well.

It's great that you brought up "Sled Driver", I'm actually currently saving up
to buy a copy. Brian Shul still has new copies available on his website for
$250[2]. I think the copies that go for very high prices on eBay are the first
editions or some of the special commemorative versions.

May I ask your opinion on the print quality of "Sled Driver"? I know Shul is a
photographer, in addition to being a former SR-71 pilot, so I assume the
photographic print quality is quite high. Have your read his companion book
"The Untouchables"?

[1][https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/...](https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-
Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486205417&sr=8-1&keywords=skunk+works)

[2][http://galleryoneimages.com/Hangar/index.php?cPath=22](http://galleryoneimages.com/Hangar/index.php?cPath=22)

~~~
cyberferret
Yeah, I think mine is a first edition - a friend gave it to me about 25+ years
ago. It is a treasured book in my house.

The photos in there are nice, but I would say it is on par with most coffee
table style books that I've seen. Wonderful photos, but the print quality is
about the same as most books of that era. To be honest, I got so caught up in
the stories he tells in there that I can't recall a lot about the photography
- I will have to revisit it and check it out.

Great that he has started republishing the books again. I remember about 10
years ago when it was out of print, copies were going for about $6000+ on eBay
!! o_O I thought I was sitting on a goldmine. :D

I haven't read "The Untouchables", but will put a copy on my wishlist for this
year. Can't get enough of books about great planes and great pilots.

~~~
Inconel
Thanks for the response. I didn't realize Sled Driver was first published that
long ago. I'm certainly glad he is offering newer editions, even if they are
still quite pricey.

------
WalterBright
I wonder what the cost effectiveness of ballistic sub-orbital flights would
be. That would solve much of the fuel efficiency problem.

~~~
vkou
At the expense of 'Everybody dies if the slightest thing goes wrong.' And
'Everybody better be wearing space suits... Unless you want to get Souz-11'ed.

There is more then an order of magnitude of complexity between designing a
vehicle that can travel at Mach 2, and one that can travel at Mach 22.
Personally, I'd pass on the risks of hypersonic re-entry for my SEA->NYC
flight... And on having to pee into an astronaut diaper.

Space travel (And a ballistic suborbital hop is 90% of the way there) is, as a
mode of transportation, incredibly dangerous.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Why space suits? Just pressurize the cabin so everybody can breathe. As for
Gs, just make sure they're pointed toward the back of the seats and you won't
need G suits.

~~~
mikeytown2
See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11)

~~~
dreamcompiler
Didn't know about that one. Thanks for the link. Still, passenger jets are
pressurized today and they rarely lose pressure. The technology is much more
reliable now.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
IIRC pressure loss incidents are common, but not newsworthy because nothing
really bad happens. The air pressure is still high enough to allow people to
breathe, so you just need to supply oxygen-enriched air while the plane
descends to 10000 feet.

With suborbital flights, neither breathing nor descending more quickly would
be an option.

------
CaliforniaKarl
I'd like to see a 3-Dimensional scatter graph, showing what customers will
accept in terms of three variables:

• Comfort • Speed • Price

I wonder how post-Concorde passenger jets would fit in, assuming they ever
made it down to our level.

------
djsumdog
For those with ad blockers:

[http://archive.is/U2cOP](http://archive.is/U2cOP)

------
peteretep

        > A flight from Los Angeles
        > to Tokyo would take about 
        > five hours, compared with 
        > almost 12 hours today
    

Beating JAL or ANA first class, even with a seven hour reduction, will take
some doing.

~~~
Scaevolus
It also overstates its effect on total travel time-- which includes all the
other nonsense (like the TSA) and planned buffering against uncertain delays
that makes it frustrating. You'll burn a day crossing the Pacific either way.

~~~
ghaff
It's not even so much TSA--getting through security in the US only takes me
5-10 minutes typically with Pre-Check. But I hate to feel like I'm rushing so
I do build in buffer. I have to get to the gateway city (which is almost never
Boston), with a reasonable allowance between flights. I'm an hour to the
airport. Clearing immigration/customs can take a while. Getting into an Asian
capitol from the airport can easily be another hour.

As you say, even cutting out 5 to 6 hours isn't that big a deal.

------
usaphp
For me personally the issue is not with a flight the time but with comfort.
The other day I flu JetBlue mint from LA to New York and I never felt better
after the flight. The problem with my flights to Europe are incredibly narrow
and uncomfortable seats and limited leg space. I just can't physically sit in
those economy seats even for 2 hours...I'm 6'3" btw

~~~
hh2222
And since the airlines want you to upgrade to first or business class, they
have little incentive to make economy class bearable.

~~~
ghaff
It's also driven by the fact that a lot of people (and many corporate travel
departments) pick flights strictly based on price so anything you can do to
appear at the top of the travel agent listing sorted by price gets you
business.

------
djsumdog
There's a really good vox video on why the Concord failed:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE)

~~~
kogepathic
The biggest reason Concord wasn't successful was the sonic boom.

This is why it only ever flew transatlantic. It was originally envisioned to
also fly across the US, e.g. NYC to LA, but this was banned due to noise
concerns.

Had the Concord been permitted to fly over the continental US, it could have
been much more successful than it was.

~~~
hanoz
The biggest reason Concord wasn't successful was that it was banned from
flying over continental US.

How much that was because of the sonic boom is a matter of some debate.

~~~
kogepathic
> How much that was because of the sonic boom is a matter of some debate.

No, it's actually not a matter of debate at all. See FAR 91.817 [0]

 _No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight
Mach number greater than 1_

[0]
[http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml](http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml)

------
janwillemb
Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic, but these 'might' headlines are never followed up
by the real thing. It helps me to read these headlines a bit different: might
= won't. In casu: _Supersonic passenger jets won 't make a comeback_

~~~
bamurphymac1
Janwillembs Law of Headlines

------
drallison
Is individual travel time so important that we should spend our limited
environmental capital and build supersonic passenger jets? The Concorde was
cool and sexy and destructive. Today's passenger jets, much improved over past
aircraft, are still destructive and damaging.

* [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/average-us-family-des...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/average-us-family-destroys-football-fields-worth-arctic-sea-ice-every-30-years)

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation)

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Wikipedia got nice list of those projects, as usual most of projects never
realize.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport)
List of potential problems with supersonic jets is also quite long. I guess
we've all would love to see progress being made.

------
dmix
I was just watching a documentary on the 2000 Concorde crash in France the
other day. It had some really good history and technical breakdown of how it
worked.

Apparently it was an unusually safe aircraft with no accidents for 30yrs until
this incident. I won't ruin it but what caused it is also interesting from an
engineering perspective.

[https://youtu.be/nKu_IoJ65gw](https://youtu.be/nKu_IoJ65gw)

------
Ericson2314
I feel like increase in inequality between the 1970s and now alone could be
enough to make a new Concoard succeed.

Once the powerful are hooked there will be no going back.

~~~
omegaworks
I was thinking along the same lines - what changes in society have occurred
since then that would make any one person need to expend this much fuel to get
from point a to point b marginally quicker?

You'd think with advancements in telecommunications - the internet, etc -
there'd be even less reason to need to be physically present in a place.

~~~
ghaff
People are social. There's still lots of reasons why people want to meet with
each other in person.

------
api_or_ipa
Surprised nobodies posted 'The Submarine', one of PGs many excellent
essays[0]. tl;dr: PR is a big submarine, always hiding beneath the surface.

[0]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

~~~
nether
Isn't everything PR?

------
0max
Is NASA co-operating with JAXA on this project? They've been working on a
similar project for over a decade and last I heard were doing small scale
tests.

------
astdb
The challenge facing Boom Aero is making it economically viable, which was
Concorde's weak point.

~~~
dingaling
Concorde made money for British Airways in every year it flew. Originally,
however, they had to return 80% of any operating profit to the UK Government
in exchange for a 'Condorde Subsidy'

After BA had been privatised they bought themselves out of that agreement,
ending the subsidy but pocketing the profit directly. They then proceeded to
operate the fleet for another 20 years.

So, in a British context, on an operating basis Concorde absolutely was
economically viable. On a program basis, considering all the development
costs, it was not; but then again the Boeing 787 program is > $30 billion in
deficit right now and is unlikely to ever clear that.

~~~
pmyteh
Yeah; on privatisation they were transferred the airframes as a 'fully
depreciated asset'.

I'm full of admiration for Concorde as a technical achievement, but it's
certainly easier to make a profit if you don't have to pay for your aircraft
or initial stock of spares, let alone the development costs of the plane...

------
Pxtl
Considering the need to lower our carbon footprint and the massive amount of
fuel spent in subsonic air travel, this seems wrongish.

------
joshwcomeau
I refuse to read an article that forces me to whitelist the site in my
adblocker. Not because I'm anti-ad, but because their ad code is likely an
invasion of privacy.

I don't mind paywalls, but _this_ is egregious to me. Fuck the LA Times.

~~~
rayvd
Add the following in uBlock Origin under "My Filters":

    
    
      @@||latimes.com^$generichide
      ||tribdss.com^
      latimes.com##[id^=google_ads_iframe]
      latimes.com##[id^=trb_ad]
      latimes.com##.trb_gptAd
    

Enjoy.

~~~
Mandrew
Excellent. Thank you!

