Forever Stuck at Mach 0.70?

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

If ever there were click bait for naysayers, it would be this week’s announcement by Boeing that it’s exploring a Mach 5 passenger jet capable of hopping the Atlantic Ocean in two hours and the Pacific in three. Boeing revealed the concept at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

As a more or less professional naysayer, I naturally clicked on the link. Aviation Week had an excellent technical summary of the Boeing concept, which is nested in a group of emerging technologies driven as much by the military market as by civilian demand. For years, Boeing has been dabbling in hypersonics and even the new Mach 5 concept vehicle relies on research extending back to the company’s aborted 2707 SST cancelled in 1971.

As you would naturally expect, Boeing’s hypersonic group concedes the technical challenge while at the same time suggesting the developable technologies are there to solve these. They’ll need to figure out cooling for the airframe and cabin, weight and fuel considerations and, above all, combined Brayton cycle turbojets and ramjets that cocoon the engines' conventional rotating machinery. The airplane would accelerate to some low Mach number on the turbojet and the ramjet section would take over to establish Mach 5 cruise. Exotic stuff.

My naysayer radar illuminated a sticky point in this concept and it’s not technical, but economic. The Boeing hypersonic group likes Mach 5 because it allows a traveler same-day return on a business trip. Boeing says this gives the would-be HyperLiner airline better use of assets, too. And they’re gonna need all they can get.

But let’s break this down. If I have a business meeting in, say, Tokyo, that’s so important that it’s worth—$40,000 in airfare, maybe?—what’s my day gonna be like? Let’s say my meeting is at 10 a.m. Tokyo time. Los Angeles is 16 hours behind Tokyo, so allowing for airport travel and the three-hour flight, I’ll need to leave at 1 p.m. LA time, arriving in Tokyo at 6 p.m. California time. (It’s now 10 a.m. in Tokyo.)

Not too bad. Maybe a cup of coffee will get me through it. Meeting done, I board the afternoon flight back to Los Angles, where it is now 1 a.m. the same day I left. Four hours later, I’m home at 5 a.m. This flight is not really a red-eye because it’s not long enough to get much useful sleep.

Let’s go the other way, New York to London. For my 10 a.m. meeting, I’ll need to leave for JFK at 1 a.m. local time. After the meeting, the afternoon flight gets me home mid- to late afternoon, in time for dinner. An awfully long day, but maybe tolerable.

So Boeing’s bet is on finding enough people with enough money who are willing to put up with such killing schedules for the sake of … I’m not sure what. Are there sufficient people in the world whose time is so precious to constitute a market profitable enough to entice an airline to invest several hundred million bucks to make it happen? I have little doubt that the world wealth is there to do this. As I write this, I’m sure several dozen jets are flying wealthy clients across the Atlantic and Pacific in cracked-lobster splendor. But are there enough to fund a fleet of hypersonics? Now or in the late 2030s when Boeing might deliver such a thing?

On the other hand, I like to imagine that my naysaying is leavened by a more expansive grasp of history. The history of transportation, from feet stuffed into dusty sandals, to carts pulled by beasts of burden, to trains and automobiles has always been, directionally, about increasing speed.

In mass aviation transportation, we have been stuck at Mach 0.75 or so since the 1960s and, except for the Concorde’s brief flame, have actually regressed since the Boeing 707 smoked along at 607 MPH. Taking the longer view, a hundred years from now, will we still be stuck at that speed, continuing to trade improving economy and efficiency for the same old plodding cruise speed? My bet is no.

The formula has worked, after all. The Miami-Barcelona round trip ticket I bought earlier this month cost $825. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that’s $75 less than I paid for a similar trip in 1971—47 years ago. Perhaps not miraculous, but remarkable nonetheless. While I’d be delighted to make the trip in two hours or less, I’m sure I’ll never be able to afford that. But I derive no small satisfaction in believing that one day, someone will.

Comments (10)

The economics of going faster are even made worse because of 2 more reasons:

1) These will be low production aircraft (so there will be no economy of mass production) and

2) The low production numbers will also mean that the speed advantage IS LOST (because the chances are better than even that you will have to wait for the extremely few numbers of available flights and the ones that actually go to your destination directly) . Much easier to find a slower flight that leaves every 30 minutes to London for your "instantaneous need" than having an instantaneous need exactly match the one or 2 flights available on a faster plane.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | June 27, 2018 12:20 PM    Report this comment

I'd say the economics depend on the "military market". Development and production of like components could have a significant impact on the commercial market. Maybe that ticket will only be $39,000. :-)

Posted by: Robert Mahoney | June 27, 2018 4:01 PM    Report this comment

Yeah, right!
My bet is on private or Net Jet's sort of service.
And, Paul is right, the time factor is sort of lost due to the fact that we all live in "local" time.

On the other hand, by that time virtual reality will probably be more wide spread, obviating the need for 'in person' contact.

And then there is the all too real environmental impact of fossil fuel burning. Of course killing others, even indirectly, hasn't yet stopped progress...

Posted by: Richard Katz | June 27, 2018 4:44 PM    Report this comment

That ain't gonna happen! Maybe.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | June 27, 2018 8:23 PM    Report this comment

I don't blame Boeing for trying, but if the Concorde wasn't a commercial success, a Mach 5 aircraft certainly won't be. And there's still the issue of the sonic boom, and as far as I'm aware, that hasn't been solved to the point of allowing over-land flights. And unless that can be solved, I don't see how any high-speed atmospheric vehicle can be a commercial success.

Posted by: Gary Baluha | June 27, 2018 8:39 PM    Report this comment

Then there's Elon Musk who claims he'll be able to (in about a decade) transport you anywhere in the world in under an hour for the price of a full-fare premium economy seat. On a rocket. Via space. Maybe on the way back you'll take a few days holiday in orbit to (literally) de-compress.

Posted by: Cameron Garner | June 28, 2018 12:34 AM    Report this comment

I'd love to see the technology advance. I've been following Reaction Engines in the U.K. for several years. The have a very interesting concept for using ultra-high efficiency heat exchangers to produce oxygen from the air to use in rocket propulsion, thus reducing the need for the weight of O2 on board. Having said that, you have to wonder why someone would want to travel all that way, for all that expense, to spend so little time at his or her destination. I have heard of people riding the Concorde from the U.K. to New York for shopping trips. Maybe this new aircraft could be to ultimate shopping bag.

Posted by: James Freal | June 28, 2018 5:59 AM    Report this comment

If we follow Moore's Law of computing power, maybe by 2030 we will be able to build the Star Trek transporter and eliminate the need for aircraft altogether.

Seriously, though, it seems to me that the supersonic transport concept is more suited to executive jet class aircraft that are currently under development by other companies. It is hard to imagine that airlines could make a profit operating hypersonic airliners, but there are plenty of corporations and private individuals who could afford a supersonic bizjet for their personal use. In the end, it will be economics, and not the technology, that makes or breaks the concept.

Posted by: John McNamee | June 28, 2018 12:07 PM    Report this comment

I'm holding out for the "Space Elevator".

If each major city has a space elevator then I can just take a casual space walk from one elevator to the other and tip the elevator operator.

Mach 5 Hyperliner, Space Elevator, UBER unmanned flying taxi and Electric VTOL....? My money is on the digital stabilized helicopter autopilots and Lower Orbit global aircraft. I guess we'll wait and see.

Posted by: Klaus Marx | June 28, 2018 9:03 PM    Report this comment

"The elevator operator?" THERE's a quaint concept! ;-)

Posted by: YARS (Tom Yarsley) | June 29, 2018 2:53 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?


Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration