Would you like to see supersonic commercial flights back?

Question

Like Concorde, Boeing 2707, Tupelov 144 or any other future supersonic aircraft

Answer 1

Yes, unfortunately I couldn't afford it...either could the airlines, that's why they're not flying anymore.

Answer 2

I'd love to see a return to supersonic commercial flight. But in order for it to be viable they'll have to address the problems that killed the Concorde. They have to make it cost effective enough that airlines will be willing to run the aircraft and will make money at it. Also, they need to eliminate, or drastically reduce, the sonic boom of the aircraft so it can be flown over populated areas. This will permit them to fly routes other than trans oceanic. The Concorde was a brute force aircraft and made a lot of noise in general so it needed special waivers to operate in the places it did fly.

I think in another 20 years or so we may see a new SST. But whether or not the airline industry will embrace it is a different matter.

Answer 3

Of course!

Right now, airliners are traveling at essentially the same speed the first 707, DC8 and Comet were going when they were first introduced, 50 years ago!

It is about time we speed up things a little.

Except that the world is now a different place: we cannot use as much fuel as the guzzling Concorde did. And of course, it would be totally ridiculous to have to come up to the airport 2 hours before, and to need 2 hours to get your luggage and leave an airport at destination if the aircraft flight time is like 2 hours; so check-in, check out and security checks have to be done in a more graceful and less complicated way.

Answer 4

It would be cool to see, but for example a seat on a 747 was $330, the same trip on the Concorde was $1,700. It will never happen again unless a breakthrough in jet engine technology happens.

Also, Concordes only flew from Western Europe to the East Coast due to the sonic boom that happens when you break the sound barrier. It was illegal to fly over land in the USA.

Answer 5

I think No i mean at the moment it may seem liker this would be all fun to see and go on bout think about your kids and kids kids lol the fuele that they use compaired to the all new A380 if it launches it just would not work out i mean they did not put conc out of service and the Boeing 2707 just to annoy people. i think that if they can come up with a good economicle one which they will not be able to then it will go but untill then its 9 houres LGW to JFK (EGLL-KJFK)

I hope that my opion has stuck some thought

tom

Answer 6

Yes, but it's a catch-22. Currently it is illegal to fly faster than the speed of sound over land (part 91), and while new technologies have made sonic booms much quieter in lab tests, who would spend millions of dollars developing a proof of concept that may repeal that law, all the while having it be illegal to operate at that speed?

Someone needs to grease a few palms in washington before setting out to work on the sonic boom problem. But it is a good investment. The top speed of civil aircraft is virtually the same it was in the 70's.

must....go....faster....

Answer 7

gas expenses have made supersonic flight too costly to be nicely-known. maximum individuals are extra drawn to a lower priced ticket value than a quickly flight, so modern-day airliner speeds in nice condition them. Supersonic plane may well be swifter yet in addition lots extra costly, and severe air fares merely are no longer the path to fulfillment acceptable now. additionally, supersonic plane are purely allowed to fly supersonic over water, which critically limits their usefulness. there are assorted different aspects that artwork against supersonic advertisement air shuttle acceptable now. The ability value is the main important concern, and till ability expenses may well be introduced down (the two with the help of dramatically extra suitable gas financial equipment or some new style of decrease priced gas), supersonic isn't interior the enjoying cards for the close to destiny. as that's, even undemanding airliners do no longer fly at their complete speeds at present, because of the fact it makes use of too lots gas. Flights at complete velocity might require greater value ticket fees to pay for gas and upkeep, and passengers want decrease value ticket fees, so velocity is sacrificed as a fashion to convey value ticket fees down somewhat extra.

Answer 8

The Boeing 2702 and Tupolev-144 never flew but yes that would be nice but sadly money brings things into existence and it also destroys thing's


Long live Concorde!

Answer 9

Certainly I would like to see supersonic flights back.

The major problem lies in the physics of shockwaves, it is very hard to predict the occurance of shockwaves. During the transition to supersonic speed, the sonic boom occurs in a split second, if any tiny error in calculation would lead to material failure. And moreover the aeroacoustics need to be perfected through greater aerodynamic streamlining and engines with low noise, so that not much vibration felt on ground. I hope we will have the solution within he next decade.

Answer 10

Oh yes. I miss jetting back and forth on the concord at $20K per ride. When it comes back, I'm getting on the line for those tickets.

Answer 11

On the one hand yes.... because speed is great... on the other no, as these airplanes would be very expensive to develop, and would use much more fuel per seat mile.