On Wednesday lawmakers introduced the Supersonic Aviation Modernization (SAM) Act—a new bill to overturn the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) 52-year ban of civil supersonic flight over U.S. land.
Thank God that no one is trying to reduce bogus carbon footprints anymore.
We are back to “we can all enjoy faster flights” instead of airliners mucking around at barely 400kts to save fuel.
What? living in a fools paradise you say?
Silent but deadly???
Misleading headline, bloated title of legislation.
But very good move to eliminate the broad ban.
Note that Boom Supersonic company demonstrated that the sound of supersonic flight does not reach the ground if altitude is high, which is more efficient anyway.
Commercial airliners have slowed down over time driven by economic factors more than anything else. You can’t ignore the laws of physics, supersonic airliners will burn a lot more fuel than subsonic airliners. As with the Concorde only the rich will be able to afford to fly them.
Sigh.
You should compare fuel per passenger trip - speed counts.
Blake Scholl is trying to reduce the cost of supersonic tickets using modern technology.
(Saving the one scarce resource - individual time alive, counts.)
No, not so much. What’s keeping people away is discomfort when parking at airports, discomfort with airport security measures, discomfort with flight delays, discomfort when actually sitting in the plane, discomfort with baggage and rental cars at the other end.
The faster airplane will not alleviate any of those discomforts; it only adds a new discomfort of a higher ticket price.
I think you’re spot on in your analysis.
Whether the boom is audible on the ground also depends on Mach number. The recent test flight was only Mach 1.4, but the Concorde cruised at over 2. So the Concorde would have been audible at any altitude.
Also, I would say the current regulation has not slowed innovation at all, because Boom was able to get an exception to conduct their test flights.
You are correct, that is why I doubt a 100+ passenger jet flying supersonic will ever see service in the US. But with all the unpleasantness involved in airline flight is what keeps pilots like me employed in the charter industry. Those persons who have the money spend it in an airplane that is comfortable, convenient, and with a lot less hassle than “cheap” airline flights. I’ll bet there is demand for speed, for those who have the money to pay for it. A smaller supersonic jet would be more practical and probably easier to be quieter than the afterburning turbojets that powered the Concord. Persons with money to burn aren’t going to care about cost if it saves them time.
Per trip? Per mile? Per hour?
At cruise Concorde’s engines were far more efficient than the subsonic engines of the day and even beat the performance of some modern engines. The airframe design was not as weight efficient as it could be, likewise the wing lift to drag ratio, and that brought overall efficiency down a bit. But we’ve made huge advances in structural and aerodynamic technologies since the 1960s.
Innovation is a lab experiment until it finds an accepting market, and the current regulation would have prevented that.
Boom estimates that for first class the Overture will consume 2-3 times as much fuel per passenger seat per mile as a subsonic airliner. When compared to an economy seat, the difference will be 5-8 times greater.
Looks like the SAM Act has the political climate on its side, and Boom is pushing hard, and I’d like to see it become a tech and financial success. But the 4890 sm range limit cuts them off from some of the best routes, like LA to Tokyo (5,450 miles), SF to Hong Kong (6,920 miles), and Singapore to London (6,765 miles). The same long-haul headache that tripped up the Concorde.