After World War II, as early supersonic military aircraft were pushing the boundaries of flight, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that commercial aircraft would eventually fly faster than sound as the technology became better understood and more affordable. Indeed, by the 1960s the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union all had plans to develop commercial transport aircraft capable flight beyond Mach 1 in various stages of development.
Yet today, the few examples of supersonic transport (SST) planes that actually ended up being built are in museums, and flight above Mach 1 is essentially the sole domain of the military. There’s an argument to be made that it’s one of the few areas of technological advancement where the state-of-the-art not only stopped moving forward, but actually slid backwards.
But that might finally be changing, at least in the United States. Both NASA and the private sector have been working towards a new generation of supersonic aircraft that address the key issues that plagued their predecessors, and a recent push by the White House aims to undo the regulatory roadblocks that have been on the books for more than fifty years.
The Concorde Scare
Those with even a passing knowledge of aviation history will of course be familiar with the Concorde. Jointly developed by France and Britain, the sleek aircraft has the distinction of being the only SST to achieve successful commercial operation — conducting nearly 50,000 flights between 1976 and 2003. With an average cruise speed of around Mach 2.02, it could fly up to 128 passengers from Paris to New York in just under three and a half hours.
But even before the first paying passengers climbed aboard, the Concorde put American aircraft companies such as Boeing and Lockheed into an absolute panic. It was clear that none of their SST designs could beat it to market, and there was a fear that the Concorde (and by extension, Europe) would dominate commercial supersonic flight. At least on paper, it seemed like the Concorde would quickly make subsonic long-range jetliners such as the Boeing 707 obsolete, at least for intercontinental routes. Around this time, the Soviet Union also started developing their own SST, the Tupolev Tu-144.
The perceived threat was so great that US aerospace companies started lobbying Congress to provide the funds necessary to develop an American supersonic airliner that was faster and could carry more passengers than the Concorde or Tu-144. In June of 1963, President Kennedy announced the creation of the National Supersonic Transport program during a speech at the US Air Force Academy. Four years later it was announced that Boeing’s 733-390 concept had been selected for production, and by the end of 1969, 26 airlines had put in reservations to purchase what was assumed to be the future of American air travel.
Even for a SST, the 733-390 was ambitious. It didn’t take long before Boeing started scaling back the design, first deleting the complex swing-wing mechanism for a fixed delta wing, before ultimately shrinking the entire aircraft. Even so, the redesigned aircraft (now known as the Model 2707-300) was expected to carry nearly twice as many passengers as the Concorde and travel at speeds up to Mach 3.
A Change in the Wind
But by the dawn of the 1970s it was clear that the Concorde, and the SST concept in general, wasn’t shaping up the way many in the industry expected. Even though it had yet to make its first commercial flight, demand for the Concorde among airlines was already slipping. It was initially predicted that the Concorde fleet would number as high as 350 by the 1980s, but by the time the aircraft was ready to start flying passengers, there were only 76 orders on the books.
Part of the problem was the immense cost overruns of the Concorde program, which lead to a higher sticker price on the aircraft than the airlines had initially expected. But there was also a growing concern over the viability of SSTs. A newer generation of airliners including the Boeing 747 could carry more passengers than ever, and were more fuel efficient than their predecessors. Most importantly, the public had become concerned with the idea of regular supersonic flights over their homes and communities, and imagined a future where thunderous sonic booms would crack overhead multiple times a day.
Although President Nixon supported the program, the Senate rejected any further government funding for an American SST in March of 1971. The final blow to America’s supersonic aspirations came in 1973, when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enacted 14 CFR 91.817 “Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom” — prohibiting civilian flight beyond Mach 1 over the United States without prior authorization.
In the end, the SST revolution never happened. Just twenty Concorde aircraft were built, with Air France and British Airways being the only airlines that actually went through with their orders. Rather than taking over as the standard, supersonic air travel turned out to be a luxury that only a relatively few could afford.
The Silent Revolution
Since then, there have been sporadic attempts to develop a new class of civilian supersonic aircraft. But the most promising developments have only occurred in the last few years, as improved technology and advanced computer modeling has made it possible to create “low boom” supersonic aircraft. Such craft aren’t completely silent — rather than creating a single loud boom that can cause damage on the ground, they produce a series of much quieter thumps as they fly.
The Lockheed Martin X-59, developed in partnership with NASA, was designed to help explore this technology. Commercial companies such as Boom Supersonic are also developing their own takes on this concept, with eyes on eventually scaling the design up for passenger flights in the future.
In light of these developments, on June 6th President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Leading the World in Supersonic Flight which directs the FAA to repeal 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days. In its place, the FAA is to develop a noise-based certification standard which will “define acceptable noise thresholds for takeoff, landing, and en-route supersonic operation based on operational testing and research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) data” rather than simply imposing a specific “speed limit” in the sky.
This is important, as the design of the individual aircraft as well as the environmental variables involved in the “Mach Cutoff” effect mean that there’s really no set speed at which supersonic flight becomes too loud for observers on the ground. The data the FAA will collect from these new breed of aircraft will be key in establishing reasonable noise standards which can protect the public interest without unnecessarily hindering the development of civilian supersonic aircraft.
The boom was one thing, but man, making a het (especially with that capacity) exceed certain speed also guzzles whatever fuel you put in. The numbers just don’t add up anymore, except to maybe unnecessarily shuttle around a small amount of excessively rich people. I think at this point we should be addressing other things.
Airplanes like this fuel innovation. Trying to make an aircraft so fast and so aerodynamic means that other airplanes will become better, more efficient as a result. All the tricks they learned will end up being used in creating new planes. The engine technology used is incredible, the shape, the everything. Before the accident, people were willing to pay the high price of a ticket, which means that it does add up. As long as it’s not tax payer subsidized, it’s not important at all what they do. If it is tax payer subsidized, shut it down, regardless of what it is as that shouldn’t exist in the first place. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
The government is going to take your money no matter what or how many times you say no; this is at least one of the better things they can spend it on.
Every government on earth has problems with getting their operations in order. But subsidies directly hurt everyone. It’s throwing away money they don’t have, on making things more expensive. It’s the most insane thing ever. I remember a few years ago when several car companies received a 3000 subsidie on electric cars. The same week, those car manufacturers all bumped the price by 3000 dollars. The only thing that happened for the consumer was that second hand prices just became much higher, which is a net negative, and it’s a huge waste of tax money.
Subsidies are the most insane thing ever.
The government literally picks winners and losers every day. Anything a government decides to do is likely to impact some other group negatively. The recent US budget gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy, at the cost of health care for millions. No winners or losers there.
The government shouldn’t do all that much if it was run properly. What what you said after that makes no sense. Now I’m not American but I read a lot about the BBB and read large parts of it, and it’s designed to give the biggest tax breaks to poor people. I don’t know any wealthy people that survive on tips and overtime. And no Americans or immigrants will lose healthcare. Only illegals, freeing up money to be used on Americans and immigrants. I can give you tons of reasons why I don’t like it (for example, increasing the deficit, expanding surveillance, keeping coercive spending, etc), but that doesn’t have anything to do with what you said.
Maybe you need to read some more news from neutral sources as your news sources seem to be giving you very incorrect information. Maybe use allsides or ground news.
But what this has to do with subsidies or airplanes, I have no idea.
every development cross polinates with other developments…but supersonic is kind of niche. the aerodynamic problems are unique to supersonic travel. if you invest the effort to make something quiet or efficient in the supersonic regime, it isn’t going to have much application to regular subsonic jets.
The day I see somebody come up with a real 7 billion dollar infusion I will believe it’s all about economics the science is doable
Bad slow planes so sad, need to get to my golf course much faster, boom!
Preach.
And if we’re going to grant billionaires the boon of legal supersonic private jet flight between their vacation houses, we should ask for something in return.
I.E. a tax on supersonic flight which is inversely proportional to the number of passengers, to subsidize childcare and affordable housing.
It seems private business aircraft seem to “trigger” a certain portion of the population.
PJDS (Private Jet Derangement Syndrome).
Jealousy of success is exponentially proportional to one’s slacker quotient.
The more you are a lazy SOB, the more jealousy you have of others success.
Perhaps you haters should cease being envious of others (one of the 7
deadly sins), and strive to achieve that level of success that “zillionaires”
have achieved (hint: they didn’t get there sitting in mommy’s basement
hating on others – instead, other people’s success were role models to
motivate them to achieve).
Concorde was a work of art – it drew crowds everywhere it went – people
would be in awe of the timeless beauty of it’s shape – and the enormous
power of it’s engines on full afterburner.
Oh, and by the way, the “virtue signalling” phonies, perhaps you should
all give your hard earned money to a deserving slacker.
I own a 155′ yacht and make no apologies for it. I busted my ass since I
was 16 (now 75) and employ thousands of people in my business, and I’m
one of those people that own a private jet. I make no apologies for it.
What have you done/accomplished ? (besides “hate” on people more
successful than yourself).
“I own a 155′ yacht and make no apologies for it. I busted my ass since I
was 16 (now 75) and employ thousands of people in my business, and I’m
one of those people that own a private jet. I make no apologies for it.”
Sure you do.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity
Why would the millionaires in congress want this?
“I.E. a tax on supersonic flight”
Not a bad idea. If the tax is proportional to the discomfort caused by the noise. So no sonic boom during the night allowed and higher tax when flying over/near residential areas.
“which is inversely proportional to the number of passengers”
Number of passengers should not be a factor. Number of people disturbed by the noise.
“to subsidize childcare and affordable housing”
Subsidizing affordable housing is an oxymoron. Better spend the money on adding walls near highways that reduce noise or something. That way causing noise will require you to pay for measures that reduce noise elsewhere.
The lengths America will go to to avoid making high speed rail is quite incredible. For all the money spent on trying to make supersonic transport workable over built up areas, we probably could’ve already had a 350kph+ HSR network covering the major metropolitan areas on the coasts and the Midwest.
To be fair high speed rail doesn’t cross oceans. And supersonic passenger jets are likely to be used for longer trips than the typical HSR link.
Now you have me dreaming about a tunnel running from the US to the EU.
Make it for high speed freight (since human passengers would be too risky to start) with tons of tracks. Co-run it with fiber optic lines and even link power grids via super conductors or super HV cables.
Now we have less cargo ships, faster cargo shipping, an internet line less likely to get cut, and if the power grids are linked solar storage is easier because sunny areas can export to night areas.
America had pretty good passenger rail until a certain point in time
We have an extensive rail infrastructure, but it’s primarily geared for freight these days. Wouldn’t mind seeing HSR as medium-distance travel option in my state, but as with most public transit, it would probably turn into another money pit vs. something that could break even.
Extensive? Maybe, in as much as it reaches most of your cities. It’s not well connected though, even if you had regular passenger trains on the existing rails the routing is stupid for many pretty normal inter-city journeys.
LA to NYC is 2446 miles (3936km), So youre looking at ~11.5hrs if your HSR runs nonstop service (unlikely). A regular 747 flight between the two is only ~6 hours, At mach 3 it would only take about an hour. HSR and Supersonic planes are not competing with each other, They service entirely different transport needs.
What people get wrong about HSR is that it is never about sheer speed, but it is speed and capacity. Build a dedicated HSR, you not only get fast transport, but also something that runs at high frequency Take the Japanese Shinkansen system. It links the major cities at a speed where daily commute times are acceptable, but run every 15min, which means you have a high speed conveyer belt. However fast air transport is, you still have the problem that airports are a distance from the city centers, you need to add arrival times and time to get out and you have limited landing slots.
OK at a certain point air travel wins, when there is a certain distance between points, but there are plenty of cases even in the US where a high speed train would be then quickest, most efficient way to transport people, however fast the plane bit can go.
An 16 car Shinkansen bullet train has roughly 2X the passenger capacity of a 747. How many LA to NYC daily commuters do you think there are in need of high speed rail service that takes twice as long as a 747 or nearly 12X the time of the Mach 3 jet discussed here.
Other than the shuttling people up and down the east coast where amtrak operates Acela and the NEC 120+mph trains. Tthe US just doesnt have the sort of centralized economy that requires or would benefit significantly from HSR. Americans dont commute several hundred miles to work, we move to within 50-100 miles of our employment.
Like I said “”They service entirely different transport needs.”
Billionaires do not want to sit in a train.
Why is the country who wrote “We the people…” now ruled by kings?
Problem with rail is that it normally involves taking land involuntarily
That’s what the Boring company and Hyperloop are all about fixing to make rail travel in a tube super duper you’ve never seen better faster fast.
sarcasm mode off
An ecological aberration…
Americans trying to improve an French/British technology?
I wonder if it will be similar in terms of performance to the “Russian Concorde”, the Tupolev Tu-144. ;)
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
My father took me to the Paris Air Show in 1973. I remember seeing the Tu-144 in flight the day before it crashed.
And also Concorde prototypes 001 and 002 in a group flight.