I mean seriously they haven't got faster for decades now and with the Concorde out of action i cant see any relief on the horizon. They are making bigger planes but that's easy, build a fast plane. Can you see any relief in the next 50 years? I am serious!
2007-02-09 00:43:46 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
with the way climate change is and carbon emissions are, I cant see it happening for a while sadly. Until a clean way of running a supersonic aircraft is found, I think most airlines will be looking at efficiency rather than speed. The most positive developments on the horizon for commercial aviation are the scramjet type propulsion system and suborbital flight, these technologies, I think we will see instead of a normal supersonic aircraft.
2007-02-09 06:34:15 · answer #1 · answered by chrisbowe82 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Companies don't have unlimited funding, everything costs. Concorde was too expensive to operate, every time it landed it caused headache to operation managers. Answer to your question is: aerodynamics, technology and fuel. We are already using maximum efficiency in terms of altitude, and the speed we can get up there is close to maximum. What created "the maximum"? Engines, fuselage, materials, physics limits. Drag particularly - the faster you go, the price of operations goes to square of the increase in speed. You fly passenger jet too fast, and it'll break apart in mid air. Want to make it stronger? Then try to lift the weight off the ground... We may have the technology available for commercial use, in the distant future. Boeing 7E7 supposed to be a performer - companies didn't show interest, they'd rather chose fuel efficient aircraft, so 787 was born. A350 same story, it's all about saving the bucks, airlines don't really care how long it will take if they can squeeze few cents, actually the flying times are longer today than they were few decades ago.
2016-05-24 00:42:17 · answer #2 · answered by Rose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Concorde was a great jet but the sonic boom over populated areas means that it can only fly supersonic over the ocean or remote areas. It's not that they can't make the jet. Lockheed Martin have already developed aircraft that have "supercruise" meaning that they can constantly fly at supersonic speeds without afterburners with the same fuel efficiency as a jet that is flying slower. But again, you can't just go around cracking the sound barrier anywhere. Being in Naval aviation, I have had fighters go supersonic right over my head and it almost knocked me over. Every car alarm in the area would go off.
2007-02-11 14:44:23 · answer #3 · answered by nashmortis1 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd REALLY like to ride in an SST, see it brought outta the woods! It could cross the Atlantic in about 1/6th the time of conventional planes! Sonic Booms were a problem for the cities it passed over though. May NEVER see a machine like it again.
2007-02-09 02:02:19 · answer #4 · answered by thewordofgodisjesus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doubt it. Planes get close to super sonic, but going faster than that is just too inefficient. Passengers rather pay less and arrive later than pay more than arrive faster. Also, there is that pesky sonic boom...until there is some scientific breakthrough to alleviate the sonic boom, you will not see real demand to go M1.0
2007-02-09 01:13:52 · answer #5 · answered by RjM 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats a very good question. i agree that we hardly, if not at all, improved on our planes in the last 50 years. they should make more faster planes and not worry a lot on how big a plane is or anything.
2007-02-09 12:33:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so in the next 50 years with today world.
2007-02-09 01:03:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the neighborhoods are not ready any for sonic booms so their not going to get much faster when i was a kid in Redondo Beach about 2 a day was plenty
2007-02-09 02:53:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋