Gilcher 1

Ian Gilcher

Dr. Workman

ENG 1201-105

4 April 2022

How Could Supersonic Transports Become Viable Economically and Environmentally?

The most recent Boeing airliner, the 787 Dreamliner introduced in 2011, has a cruising

speed of 561 miles per hour (Simple Flying), but Boeing’s first jet airliner, the 707 of 1958, had a

cruising speed of 604 (Simple Flying). We seem to be going in reverse. Why can’t we make air

travel faster? Supersonic transports (SSTs) were first theorized in the late 1940s, when the first

supersonic flight in 1947 proved it was possible to fly faster than the speed of sound. Supersonic

flight is an important milestone in the history of aviation, allowing us to increase the speed of

aircraft to levels that were originally thought to be impossible.

Almost all airliners throughout history have been limited to subsonic speed with the only

exceptions being the Soviet Tupolev TU-144 and the Anglo-French Concorde. Our focus will be

the Concorde, as it was in service for much longer and more documentation is available. We will

also be looking heavily at future supersonic aircraft such as the Boom Overture, and the

Lockheed Martin/NASA X-59 QueSST. The Overture is slated to enter commercial service by

2030 (Boom Supersonic), and the X-59 is an experimental aircraft which should begin flight

testing sometime this year (2022) to research technologies that are hoped to significantly reduce

the negative effects of supersonic air travel (Ellis, Flat).

From a technical perspective the requirements of supersonic flight are rather

straightforward. All that is needed is the lowest possible amount of drag and the highest possible

amount of thrust. Any aircraft with low enough drag and high enough thrust is capable of
 Gilcher 2

achieving supersonic flight. But there is more to it, especially when we are looking at

commercially viable supersonic flight.

Specific engineering adjustments are needed by a supersonic airliner (using the Concorde

as an example). Typical airliners use what is called a high aspect-ratio wing, meaning the wing is

much longer than it is wide, similar to the wings of a glider. This increases the aerodynamic

efficiency of the wing. Supersonic aircraft typically use a kind of low aspect-ratio wing known as

a delta wing, which is very efficient at high speeds but have some difficulties at low speed (Real

Engineering,) such as causing the aircraft to maintain a very high angle while landing. The

Concorde solved this problem with a small wheel on the tail to keep the rear of the engines from

striking the ground and using what YouTuber Engineering Explained calls “the Concorde’s

iconic droop snoot” where the nose of the aircraft is hydraulically actuated and is lowered when

landing to allow the pilots to see ahead.

There is also the matter of thrust, of which supersonic flight requires a lot. Modern

airliner engines can produce more than 100,000 pounds of thrust and are extremely efficient - the

problem is that turbine engines cannot operate at supersonic speeds because the air must be

slowed down before it can be used by the engine. This is a problem all supersonic aircraft face

and is solved by the design of the air intake slowing down the air. The engines used by modern

airliners are extremely large, having a diameter of up to 12 feet in the case of the General

Electric GE9X which produces 134,300 pounds of thrust (MTU Aero Engines) and is one of the

most fuel-efficient engines yet. Unfortunately, this means these engines simply aren’t practical

given the space limitations of a supersonic aircraft. Supersonic aircraft have to use engines with a

lower bypass ratio where less air is blown around the engine in a turbofan engine then is blown

through the engine core and combusted, producing more thrust for their size and weight but far
 Gilcher 3

less efficiently. They also often use an afterburner, dumping raw jet fuel into the back of the

engine to burn the remaining approximately 20% of oxygen in the exhaust to create a significant

amount of extra thrust at the cost of huge amounts of fuel, to increase takeoff performance due to

the poor low speed performance of their delta wings.

The main arguments against a modern revival of SSTs are threefold - the cost, the

environmental impact, and the noise.

Detractors argue that SSTs cost too much to be commercially viable with ticket costs

exponentially higher than a traditional airliner. The Boeing 787 is one of the most fuel-efficient

wide body (two aisle) airliners seating 336 passengers (Boeing) with a fuel burn rate of just

under 12,000 pounds per hour (Boeing,) while the Concorde burned more than 56,000 pounds

per hour and only seated 100 passengers (British Airways). This is due to the smaller powerful

engines needed for supersonic flight. These engines would also likely cost more due to the

advanced bespoke design and costly exotic alloys and materials needed to withstand the extreme

temperatures and pressures of supersonic flight. This alone makes for a very expensive aircraft as

the engines will likely require more difficult and costly maintenance, the replacement of more

expensive parts, and as is sometimes the case in aviation, the replacement of a more expensive

engine. Not only does the aircraft have a larger upfront cost, but it also has a higher upkeep.

The massive fuel consumption is also very harmful for the environment. Right now

aviation produces approximately 2.5% of the global CO2 output, however this share will rapidly

rise as we struggle to come up with any cleaner ways of powering aircraft. In other words, while

things like cars will continue to produce less of the world’s CO2 in the future, aviation will

continue to produce as much if not more.

Probably the single biggest problem with supersonic flight is the sonic boom. Whenever

something moves through the air there is a pressure wave in front of and behind the object. At

supersonic speeds these pressure waves become a shockwave and cause a loud boom. With

traditional supersonic aircraft these booms are around 140 decibels, which causes what

researchers call “serious annoyance.” (Borsky, 119.)

SSTs are also louder inside and out. With the lower bypass ratio engines, the noise of the

engine is louder as it is not muffled by the bypass air. Additionally, when an afterburner is used

the noise level will be extremely loud while it is running. The main damage here is

environmental as the noise puts more strain on wildlife, causing them undue stress which can

prove extremely harmful. The noise also creates stress for people, which is why supersonic flight

over land has been banned since 1973. (CFR 14-91.817) This has made the profit margins and

market for SSTs much smaller as they can now only fly long transcontinental routes, instead of

shorter domestic routes.

The main arguments for SSTs are that they save time, increase profits, and are a symbol

of a more globalist, technologically advanced society.

To make supersonic flight feasible multiple issues must be overcome: having enough

fuel; fuel efficient enough engines to achieve intercontinental range; the ability to seat

passengers with at least a modicum of comfort; and low enough operating costs to be practical

from a financial standpoint.

There are still significant benefits to supersonic travel. The Concorde could make the

normally 8-to-9-hour long flight from New York to London in just 3 hours by flying at Mach 2,

or two times the speed of sound. This may sound like a simple luxury, however, aviation is an

industry where time means vast amounts of money and in some cases lives, as the evacuation
 Gilcher 5

and transport of critically wounded or ill patients is one of the most important missions in

aviation.

SSTs could cut travel times massively, taking the hugely long 21-hour 30-minute flight

from London to Sydney down to just 6 hours 45 minutes. The positive effects of this are easy to

see when we consider certain situations, for example, if you are going on vacation your travel

time would be significantly shorter, allowing you more time at your destination and reducing jet

lag. Another example would be the aeromedical evacuation of critically ill or injured patients to a

country where they may be able to receive more advanced or specialized treatment. While the

U.S. military was in Afghanistan wounded soldiers would be airlifted to a local military hospital

where they would be stabilized, then they would be sent to the military hospital at Rammstein

Air Force Base in Germany where they would further recover. Finally, they would be sent back

to the U.S. for further advanced recovery care. Shorter flight times would reduce the strain on

these patients’ bodies, helping improve potential outcomes. This looks like it is a possibility for

SSTs as the U.S. Air Force has already signed an initial contract with Boom (Johnson) to

investigate the feasibility of military SSTs possibly for aeromedical operations, but most likely

for VIP transport as a sort of supersonic Air Force One. This could cut diplomat travel times

significantly by effectively shrinking the globe, which could influence global affairs since

diplomats would have a much shorter trip. Just like civilian variants, it would also reduce jet lag

and make it easier to travel long distances.

SSTs could also cut the amount of crew members needed to make certain trips. That

flight from London to Sydney would only require one flight crew, rather than three to cover the

duration of the flight since pilots are only legally allowed to work 8 hours at a time.
 Gilcher 6

It is also argued that they actually increase profits for airlines that operate them by

drawing wealthy clientele who are willing to pay higher prices for luxury and reduced travel

time. This is in line with the business model used by the Concorde, as tickets for a flight from

New York to London cost about $4,200 adjusted for inflation.

SSTs are also seen as shining beacons of the modern world, with all the advanced

technology that goes into them to hurtle passengers through the upper troposphere at more than

two times the speed of sound. These two sides do both have some very good points and effective

arguments, and they both have a lot in common. Lowering costs, protecting the environment, and

reducing noise are all things that would benefit everyone. Both sides want all of these as

reducing costs would help the operators of SSTs and would allow more people to fly on them,

protecting the environment would keep people interested in SSTs and prevent the public from

avoiding them because of the environmental impacts, and reducing the noise would simply

benefit everyone.

Both sides could surely agree that with emerging and near future technologies such as

reduced sonic booms, sustainable aviation fuel, and improved engine technologies, SSTs will

likely soon be a viable means of mass transportation.

A solution to this conflict would simply be to phase them in over time in the near future,

which appears to already be happening with Boom and United aiming for a target of 2030 to

have their first modern SSTs in service.

To conclude, SSTs are one of the most fascinating areas of study in aviation and their

impacts will be very far reaching, hopefully as forces for good.

Works cited:

Adams, Eric. “The Second Wave.” Popular Scientist, Vol, 291. Issue, 1. Published Spring 2019,

Academic Search Complete, accessed 3 May 2022.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes. www.boeing.com/commercial/787. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Boom Supersonic website. www.boomsupersonic.com. Accessed 3 May 2022.

Borsky, Paul N. “Community Reactions to Sonic Booms in the Oklahoma City Area, Volume I:

Major Findings.” University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, published

January 1965, accessed 3 May 2022.

British Airways. “Celebrating Concorde.” www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/about-

ba/history-and-heritage/celebrating-concorde Accessed 5 May 2022.

Hardiman, Jake. “New Vs Old: Comparing The Boeing 707 To The 787 Dreamliner” Simple

Flying. Published 23 February 2021. simpleflying.com/boeing-707-vs-787-dreamliner.

Accessed 3 May 2022.

Johnson, Kimberly. “Air Force Awards Boom Supersonic $60 Million Contract For Aircraft

Development.” Flying Magazine, 12 January 2022, accessed 3 May 2022.

MTU Aero Engines “GE9X”

www.mtu.de/engines/commercial-aircraft-engines/widebody-jets/ge9x Accessed 5 May

2022.

Ellis, Sasha. Evan, Flat. “X-59 Resembles Actual Aircraft.” NASA.GOV, Joe Atkinson, 3

August 2021 www.nasa.gov/feature/x-59-resembles-actual-aircraft Accessed 5 May

2022.

National Archives. “Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Federal Aviation Regulations Part

121” eCFR.gov, www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121?toc=1.

Accessed 3 May 2022.

National Archives. “Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Federal Aviation Regulations Part

91.817” eCFR.gov, National Archives.

www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-I/section-91.817.

Accessed 3 May 2022.

Pimentel, Dan. “FAA Announces Final Rule on Civil Supersonic Flight Development.”

Flying Magazine, 12 January 2021, accessed 3 May 2022.

Powell, Devin. “Hushed Up.” New Scientist, Vol, 233. Issue, 3114. 25 February 2017,

Academic Search Complete, accessed 3 May 2022.

Real Engineering “The Insane Engineering of the Concorde.” You Tube,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnrpXxbVhME uploaded 26 March 2022. Accessed 5 May

2022.
 Gilcher 9

Schneider, David. “Mach 2, Take 2: Grappling Again with the Promise and Peril of Supersonic

Airliners.” IEEE Spectrum, November 2021, Academic Search Complete, accessed 3

May 2022.

Tuck, Adrian F. “Perspective on aircraft in the stratosphere: 50 years from COMESA

through the ozone hole to climate.” Quarterly Journal Royal Meteorological Society.

2021;147:713–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3958 Published 5 January 2021, Academic

Search Complete, accessed 3 May 2022.