was designed to achieve a range of 6,600 km, similar to the trans‐Atlantic routes served by Concorde. Such a maximum range would be of limited interest for the market of a future SCT since the most important part of its market will be the long distances over water, in particular the trans‐Pacific routes with ranges of more than 10,000 km.
The SCT must be able to take‐off from and land on existing airfields and comply with the associated noise criteria applicable to present‐day jetliners and the plane's dimensions must be compatible with the existing infrastructure of the relevant airports. Accordingly, the accessibility to the aircraft must allow for parallel embark and disembark, service, and fueling in order to enable rapid turn‐around.
In order to serve the many routes that have overland legs, subsonic/transonic flight performance must be at least as good as supersonic cruising and the plane should be able to cruise at speeds up to Mach 1.2 without producing an offensive sonic boom, thereby enabling increasing the cruise speed over land by 50% relative to present‐day jetliners.
1.6.3 Block Speed, Productivity, and Complexity
The block time for intercontinental supersonic flight rapidly improves through the low Mach number region; it levels out at speeds above Mach 3.0. Greater speeds will not be paid off with appreciable time saving to the passenger as well as increased productivity to the airliner, and the cost of cruising faster than Mach 2.0 can be large since it complicates the airframe and systems development effort. In particular, the structure of a high Mach number aircraft is subject to kinetic heating of the airframe skin. This requires a complicated air conditioning system and the usage of expensive heat‐resisting structural materials, whereas the combination of materials having different coefficients of expansion may increase structural stresses.
Complicated variable‐geometry engines are required when flying at high Mach numbers and, since the best cruise altitude increases as well, the installed power plant becomes heavier and more costly. Moreover, a heavier fuselage structure is required to cope with the higher cabin pressure differential and increased fuel tank pressurization to prevent fuel boil‐off.
A cruise speed lower than Mach 2.0 leads to less wing sweep than Concorde's leading edge sweep, which is better suited to low speed operation, higher bypass ratio engines that reduce take‐off noise, and cruise altitudes that reduce global impact of emissions. A cruise speed of Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.8 offers a practical possibility for increasing the block speed to about twice that of present‐day jetliners.
These considerations demonstrate that a considerable development effort is required to combine the need for high fuel efficiency in supersonic cruising flight with acceptable development costs and friendliness to the airfield environment during take‐off, climb‐away, approach, and landing. This means a major dilemma for the design team of any SST: there is a fundamental discrepancy between design characteristics acting in favor of efficient high‐speed cruising and acceptable flight characteristics at subsonic speeds, in particular take‐off and landing. A solution may be immanent in a market analysis indicating the effect of increasing the block speed on the aircraft's productivity and economy on a particular route network.
The industrial activities aimed at development of new SCT applications were concentrated in the time frame 1960–1990 but, in spite of the long history of technological research and development on civil supersonic aircraft, little systematic information required to initiate a realistic conceptual design of a supersonic transport or executive jet has been published. Remarkable exceptions are Corning's textbook [2] appearing first in 1960 with later versions up to 1976, and [3] published in 1978. Küchemann's authoritative book is dedicated to the aerodynamic design of transport aircraft in general and Concorde's aerodynamic development in particular.
The Concorde would not be able to successfully comply with the requirements of commercial air transport in the 21st century but with the present‐day technologies a much more efficient supersonic transport than the Concorde could be built. Many projects have been started to investigate the viability of a second generation SCT, resulting in a wealth of articles written by investigators from all continents, together forming a deluge for (teams of) engineers who are supposed to create a design concept based on a realistic set of top level requirements. It is the intention of the present author to present a synthesis of classical analysis models as well as methodologies generated by recent technological research and project studies that can be considered as an essential guidance to conceive an initial configuration design.
Bibliography
1 1 Blackall, T.E. Concorde, the Story, the Facts, and the Figures Foulis & Co., Ltd; 1969.
2 2 Corning, G. Supersonic and Subsonic, CTOL and VTOL, Airplane Design. 4th ed. College Park, MD: University of Maryland; 1976.
3 3 Küchemann, D. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, 1st ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1978.
4 4 Torenbeek, E., and Wittenberg H. Flight Physics – Essentials of Aeronautical Disciplines and Technology, with Historical Notes. Springer; 2009.
5 5 Brandt, S.A., Stiles R.J., Bertin J.J., and Whitford R. Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective, AIAA Education Series. Washington, DC: AIAA Inc.; 1997.
6 6 Anderson Jr, J.D. The Airplane; A History of Its Technology. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2002.
7 7 Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach/. 4th ed. AIAA Education Series. Reston, VA: AIAA Inc.; 2006.
8 8 Morgan, M.B. Supersonic Aircraft – Promise and Problems. J. R. Aeronautical Soc., June 1960, 64(594):315–334.
9 9 Küchemann, D. Aircraft Shapes and Their Aerodynamics for Flight at Supersonic Speeds. Pergamon Press; 1962.
10 10 Maurin E., Vallat P., Harpur N.F. Struktureller Aufbau des Überschallverkehrsflugzeuges “Concorde”. Luftfahrttechnik und Raumfahrttechnik. 1966, January, 12.
11 11 Swan, W.C. A Review of the Configuration Development of the US Supersonic Transport, Paper 17. 11th Anglo‐American Aeronautical Conference, London, UK, September 8–12; 1969.
12 12 Swihart, J.M. The Promise of the Supersonics. AIAA Paper No. 70‐1217. 6th Propulsion Joint Specialist Conference, June 15–19, 1970, San Diego, CA, USA; 1970.
13 13 Morien, Sir Morgan. A New Shape in the Sky. Aeronautical J., January, 1972.
14 14 Swan, W.C. Design Evolution of the Boeing 2707‐300 Supersonic Transport. Part I, Configuration Development, Aerodynamics, and Structures AGARD CP 147, October, 1973.
15 15 Poisson‐Quinton, Ph. First Generation Supersonic Transports. ONERA TP 1976‐113, 1976.
16 16 Shevell, R.S. The Technical Development of Transport Aircraft – Past and Future. AIAA Paper No. 78‐1530, August 1978. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.57876
17 17 Forestier, J., Lecomte P., and Poisson‐Quinton Ph. Les Programmes de Transport Supersonique dans les Années Soixante'. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Future Supersonic/Hypersonic Transportation Systems, Strasbourg, November, 1989.
18 18 Reimers, H.D. Das Überschallverkehsflugzeug der Zweite Generation – Eine Zweite Chance?! DGLR Jahrbuch, 93‐03‐029:1239–1250; 1993.
19 19 Seebass, R., and Woodhull J.R. History and Economics of, and Prospects for, Commercial Supersonic Transport. RTO AVT Course on Fluid Dynamic Research on Supersonic Aircraft, Rhode‐Saint‐Genèse, Belgium, Published in RTO EN‐4, 25–29 May, 1998.
20 20 Collard, D. Concorde Airframe Design and Development. SAE Trans. 100:2620–2641; 1991. www.jstor.org/stable/44548119.
21 21 Mercure, R.A. NASA's Supersonic Commercial Aircraft Technology Development – Background and Current Status. ICAS Congress Presentation, September 2002.
22 22 Torenbeek, E., Jesse E., and Laban M. Conceptual