7 ms·

As an engineer, I find it amazing that aside from cleaner, more efficient, quieter, and safer, we really haven't significantly improved mainstream jet travel sp

As an engineer, I find it amazing that aside from cleaner, more efficient, quieter, and safer, we really haven't significantly improved mainstream jet travel speed for over 50 years. Supersonic must be a major barrier for all practical purposes.

Gmo 13y ago
We had supersonic flight (Concorde, also by airbus btw) and it was far too fuel inefficient (that and I think also they were not allowed in some countries if I remember correctly)
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > also by airbus btw By its predecessor Sud Aviation and BAC.
megablast 13y ago
You think cars have changed? Trains? Most things have not changed much.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Cars and trains have changed a lot. This video shows the difference pretty clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs (it's a head-on crash test between a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu). Cars are immensely safer than the death-traps they were in the past. They're also immensely more comfortable, mind-bogglingly more fuel efficient, and produce a hell of a lot less pollution. These aren't marginal improvements.
Shivetya 13y ago
Well http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml pretty much sums up the whys. The passenger miles per unit of fuel were not in favor of super sonic planes which were originally developed to compete with the smaller jets (707) that were around when development started. Those jumbos (747) made air travel really cheap.
nawitus 13y ago
It's a matter of cost. It's "easy" to build Mach 2.5 jetliners, but customers actually prefer to fly really, really cheap instead of flying really, really fast.
trust-me 13y ago
The newer, lighter planes are using a lot of plastic and are worse at isolating passengers and crew from the radiation at high altitudes.
joezydeco 13y ago
"You're Too Cheap to Fly Faster" https://medium.com/we-live-in-the-future/7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/we-live-in-the-future/7885a299bca2
smackfu 13y ago
People do not like sonic booms, at all.

Gmo 13y ago

We had supersonic flight (Concorde, also by airbus btw) and it was far too fuel inefficient (that and I think also they were not allowed in some countries if I remember correctly)

jacquesm 13y ago
> also by airbus btw By its predecessor Sud Aviation and BAC.

megablast 13y ago

You think cars have changed? Trains? Most things have not changed much.

potatolicious 13y ago
Cars and trains have changed a lot. This video shows the difference pretty clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs (it's a head-on crash test between a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu). Cars are immensely safer than the death-traps they were in the past. They're also immensely more comfortable, mind-bogglingly more fuel efficient, and produce a hell of a lot less pollution. These aren't marginal improvements.

Shivetya 13y ago

Well http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-817-FAR.shtml pretty much sums up the whys. The passenger miles per unit of fuel were not in favor of super sonic planes which were originally developed to compete with the smaller jets (707) that were around when development started. Those jumbos (747) made air travel really cheap.

nawitus 13y ago

It's a matter of cost. It's "easy" to build Mach 2.5 jetliners, but customers actually prefer to fly really, really cheap instead of flying really, really fast.

trust-me 13y ago

The newer, lighter planes are using a lot of plastic and are worse at isolating passengers and crew from the radiation at high altitudes.

joezydeco 13y ago

"You're Too Cheap to Fly Faster" https://medium.com/we-live-in-the-future/7885a299bca2 https://medium.com/we-live-in-the-future/7885a299bca2

smackfu 13y ago

People do not like sonic booms, at all.