4/3: New Boeing jet

[Undertoad]

Boeing had a lot of flak over it's corporate HQ news last week, and skipped was this news, that they want to build this jet rather than more stretch 747s or whatnot. This is an artist's rendering. The trend is towards speed, and this jet would fly just under supersonic. It would shave off some time on cross-country flights.

Artist's renderings have sure gotten better over the years.

[adamzion]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
Boeing had a lot of flak over it's corporate HQ news last week, and skipped was this news, that they want to build this jet rather than more stretch 747s or whatnot. This is an artist's rendering. The trend is towards speed, and this jet would fly just under supersonic. It would shave off some time on cross-country flights.
[/b]

I guess Boeing's engineers decided that the <b>very</b> significant increase in fuel use required for supersonic flight wasn't worth it for the relatively insignificant increase in speed when compared to a plane which can fly at speeds which are just subsonic enough to avoid running into problems with the sound barrier.

Good call,
Z

[russotto]

Originally posted by adamzion

I guess Boeing's engineers decided that the <b>very</b> significant increase in fuel use required for supersonic flight wasn't worth it for the relatively insignificant increase in speed when compared to a plane which can fly at speeds which are just subsonic enough to avoid running into problems with the sound barrier.

Good call,
Z [/b]

Not just fuel use, the entire airframe needs strengthening to make it past Mach 1. And of course there's the whole sonic boom issue. Though IMO if it were reasonably possible to build a trans-Pacific SST, it would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it isn't. The increase in speed is not at all insignificant; the Concord flies at over Mach _2_.

Also, most commercial jets fly reasonably close to the speed of sound nowadays; they can't be getting that much more out of it. The limiting factor, as I understand it, is that airflow must be kept subsonic _everywhere_ on the plane, or bad things happen.

[Undertoad]

I went and got the company line on this beast. It's slated to go mach .95. It's also quieter than previous commercial jets, and has a longer range, thus possibly avoiding hubs on cross-country flights.

[tw]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
I went and got the company line on this beast. It's slated to go mach .95. It's also quieter than previous commercial jets, and has a longer range, thus possibly avoiding hubs on cross-country flights.

It also flies higher, avoiding the congestion of those many other and slower airplanes. Current airplanes can often only fly as fast as the one ahead of it.

Reducing flight time may no appear a great advantage. However when you pay the Concord $5000 to reduce the flight time by more than half; compared to a $100 to take 20% of the flight time.

Some were taking the flight from Allentown to San Jose CA, doing their business, and getting home on the red eye that night. 20% reduction in flight time is a major requirement to those cross country, and more important, Trans-Pacific passengers - especially without paying $4000 more for the Concord.

What's more, I don't think the Concord runs profitable. I believe BA and Air France ran it as a loss leader. It can only operate supersonic over oceans. Extensive research has attempted to reduce the sonic boom problem and high fuel consumption - with no improvement. Then there is the ozone layer - which supersonic planes hurt. Just another reason why Reagans hypersonic plane was flawed in conception and why airplane manufacturers are hestitant to full the upper atmosphere with more supersonic planes.