faster airplanes

I was curious about why boeing and airbus are not interested in developing jets that fly at faster speeds. The development of jets seem to be for longer range and more fuel efficient but not faster.

I dread every long haul flight. If the flight time was cut I'd be willing to pay more.

So, why is there no interest in faster jets? I'm sure it has to do with the economics but what makes it not feasible? Obviously the Concorde didnt do too well.

They had a faster airplane, the Concorde. Expensive to operate, limited seating. I'm sure at some point in the future, they'll try again.

In the end, most airlines favored lower operating costs over a marginal increase in speed, and the project did not attract the interest Boeing had been hoping for.

so basically the increase in speed is not proportional to the increase in costs?

maybe with a few decades of research this won't be true anymore. at least im hoping so.

i'm not a business traveler (anymore), so i fly economy. its no fun to sit back there for 15 hours as I will be next monday on jfk-hkg.

Or the other way around. Actually it is, just that it's not linear but more likely geometric (X% increase in speed results in Y % increase in costs where Y > X)

Probably defying some law of physics for atmospheric flight. Going suborbital and avoiding air friction travelling through the atmosphere is the best bet.

My sinister side thinks that the airlines don't care if you sit for 30 hours on a trans-ocean route as long as it saves fuel costs.

2 companies are working on private jets capable of supersonic in the $80MM range. IIRC theyre looking at 2013 or so launch. once they become popular, carriers will probably get back into that market.

Todays fastest airliners are travelling at transonic speeds (Mach No. =0.90-0.95 range).

To fly faster they would have to be supersonic. Breaking through the Mach No. = 1 barrier requires tremendous energy, as the drag, aerodynamics, etc. change at this barrier. Plus there are operational constraints - due to the noise of the sonic boom, the Concorde only flew supersonic when over open water or uninhabited land.

The fuel penalty to fly supersonic is enormous. Airlines are already being criticized (vilified?) in the press for the greenhouse gases being emitted by aircraft - supersonic aircraft would only make that situation worse.

^^^

They care if somebody else is doing it in enough less than 30 hours to notice for the same fare, since at that point it becomes a marketing issue. The catch is "for the same fare." As noted in another post, flying much faster than today's jets (typically Mach 0.82-0.85*) requires a great deal of additional energy. As you approach Mach 1, the required power goes up dramatically until it comes down again (somewhat, not nearly all the way back) on the other side. The added fuel consumption you need to get a 10 percent speed increase is a bad trade-off today. You could do it, but the market (enough people, on enough routes, willing to pay the price for the time savings) isn't there. That's what killed the Sonic Cruiser concept.

________________________________
*One reason today's generation of airliners is fractionally slower than older ones is that modern turbofan engines, while much more economical than older turbojets, work better at slightly lower speeds.

i would imagine there is indeed a market for $80MM supersonic private jets, especially in 5 years.

(considering there is a market for $500MM custom private jumbo jets and $500MM yachts right now)

More like M.75-M.85.

It's inefficient to operate planes close to 1.0 Mach. It has to be either above it (a la Concorde) or below it, like most jets today.

I'm sure for 80M usd you could convince Tupolev to resurect it's supersonic projects Concordski (Tu-144) and the Tu-444: http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Show.asp?SectionID=199

The answer is "diminishing returns," aerodynamically and economically.