with the exception of the Concorde, the average cruising speed of a large airliner has been of 500mph for a while now. Why don't they make them faster - I'm sure quicker long-haul flights would appeal to many. Is it cost and fuel consumption?
2007-08-11 01:02:36 · 8 answers · asked by Pigloo9 1 in Travel ➔ Air Travel
... and noise. Concorde was limited to Mach+ speeds only over the ocean where sonic booms wouldn't disturb (or frighten?!) many people.
I was on Northwest to AMS a few years ago, with tremendous tail winds, and we were at times pushing 660 mph -- this according to the flight tracking info provided on the overhead screens. That flight only took about 6 hrs! Oh, it was an MD10 (11?).
2007-08-11 01:12:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You reach a point in which you can't physically make an aircraft go any faster because of the amount of drag exerted on it by the air it's cutting through. The faster it goes, the more air it has to go through per second, the greater the drag, so the greater the force needed to push it through etc. This would increase fuel consumption a fair whack. The reason Concorde was able to go faster was because of its thin, streamlined design, but this restricts how many passengers you can fit on the plane, and less passengers means less profit.
So like you say, it comes back to money. The reason the Concorde fleet was retired was due to the air companies preferring to retire the fleet rather than fork out for the necessary renovations. The same applies for any companies thinking of using any more supersonic airliners - too much cost.
2007-08-11 01:12:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all comes down to cost. The Concorde is proof that the airline industry can build faster commercial passenger jets if they wanted to. The Concorde was a supersonic plane that was fast, used heaps of fuel, and people had to pay a big premium to fly on it.
2007-08-11 01:15:04 · answer #3 · answered by Michael T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they can make it faster but there are many factors to look at, i.e the "g" factor and the sonic boom factor thats why concorde has been retired from the main fleet of commercial airliners. Its not just how fast a jet goes its how comfortable it is. As far as my knowledge goes it is like this only but who knows in future they may invent a faster and more comfortable commercial aircraft.
2007-08-11 01:13:33 · answer #4 · answered by harjit s 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both reasons. When the new Airbus A380 was tested, they went up to 1 Mach (about 1000km/hour) but the aircraft shook like crazy. These new aircrafts are capable but to be cruising at that speed will cost too much (the faster the airplane, the more fuel it uses per mile or kilometer) and it will be uncomfortable for passengers.
2007-08-11 01:13:45 · answer #5 · answered by always curious 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Commercial airliners have reserve power, since they are certified to be able to fly with one engine inoperative. In a dive, with max power, some airliners -- besides the Concorde -- actually managed to go slightly supersonic (that was done during test flights, no paying passengers on board). But running the engines at maximum take-off power wears them down, and uses a lot more fuel, so airliners actually fly at a speed which is supposed to be the most economical. And that is the cruise speed, which is less than maximum operating speed.
2016-05-19 21:16:27 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pigloo9, It is all about the cost, not only the planes but the runways !
2007-08-11 01:08:30 · answer #7 · answered by lonewolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some perform better than the other
2007-08-11 01:11:12 · answer #8 · answered by kimarley r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋