The Future of Flight

Roland Piquepaille writes "With "High Times," the Economist delivers a very long and extremely well-documented article about the future of aviation during the next fifty years. It tells us about pilotless planes, with 32 countries currently developing more than 250 models of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), primarily for combat purposes. The article also looks at future civilian pilotless planes and at the future of personal aviation. But what captivated my attention in this article was the last part about future commercial supersonic and hypersonic (at least five times the speed of sound) planes. In particular, the Economist describes the HyperSoar. "The HyperSoar is a concept for a craft flying at ten times the speed of sound and able to reach any point on the globe within two hours." This overview contains more details and references about the HyperSoar which would fly from Los Angeles to New York in 35 minutes."

hypersonic planes

[cinnamon colbert]

gee, just like the pop science article i read as a kid 30 years ago...can't wait !! (maybe they will have the 100 mile per gallon carb additive to - no wait, no more carbs !!!!)

It may be fast.

[pbug]

But even with that fact HyperSoar which would fly from Los Angeles to New York in 35 minutes. How long would you have to wait at the airport to get on the plane?

No mention of blended-wing bodies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on how development of transverse fans works out, blended wing subsonic commercial craft could be a huge thing in the next 50 years. Odd that they didn't mention it...

35 minutes to LA from NY!!!

[the_2nd_coming]

wow, I think that if this Plane is developed, we may see the beginning of cross country commutes every day, much like we see train commuters in Connecticut.

"honey, Im gonna be late for work!!! my Editor at the LA Times sad that if I was 5 minutes late again that I would be fired!!"

"ok, just make sure you get to the subway on time this time so you can catch the 6 o' clock train to JFK"

weird.

Hub-n-Spoke vs. Point-to-Point

[G4from128k]

Although the article did a good job of discussing flight technology, they did not say enough on the market forces that might drive different scenarios. Its not clear whether Boeing's vision of direct point-to-point travel or Airbus's visions of mass-transit hub-and-spoke [findarticles.com] will be the future of air travel. On the one hand, the decline in business travel hurts the economics of offering quick direct flights to everywhere while new technologies like free flight [wikipedia.org] aid point-to-point travel. On the other hand, its not clear whether people will tolerate multiple connections and long boarding processes required for larger aircraft like the A380.

Re:Environmental Issues?

[JuliusO]

You're right, airplanes need to be more ecologicaly friendly. However, your statment that the energy cost for travel by flight is higher than for other transpor methods is not true. A Cesna airlpane can get between 15 and 30 miles to the gallon. A jet when you devide the the fuel consumption by the number of people being carried isn't bad either. They are similar in efficiency to the cars we drive. As for making hydrogen by nuclear means, why do people always bring up nuclear power. There is no safe way to dispose of the waste yet and this is unlikely to come anytime soon. Until then, it's just a time bomb until there are serious environmental issues from radioactive waste that leaks into our water supply.

Re:According to my own virtual tests

[giminy]

Wasn't the XB-70 made in the early to mid sixties?

Also don't forget what happened to one of them. Making a big (ie passenger) aircraft that can fly that fast and that high and still be stable is ridiculously hard in the real world. Even modern-day 747s and other big round passenger aircraft are ridiculously UNstable, and require all sorts of computer operation to keep them from becoming overstressed and flying apart.

Aerospace analysts are always too optimistic

[Anonymous Coward]

As an aerospace engineer, I'm always surprised about how many things we are supposed to achieve in the next so-many-years.

People, believe me: It is _not_ going to happen. Period.

Why not?

Well first of all, aerospace as an industry is extremely conservative. Despite it's high-tech image, the facts (and my experience) show differently. Look at the shape of aircrafts for example: Essentially unchanged since the 1930s. The fuselage-wing-tail concept is still the most popular, and all the research on blended wings, canards, double-fuselage, and other stuff people have made up, have not changed a thing (try to find the book by E. Torenbeek, you'll be amazed about how rich a phantasy some people have). That is because it simply is by far the most efficient concept: it's easy to stabilize, and you can put lots of people in it. Blended wings, for example, turn out to be too thin for people to fit in for, say, an aircraft for 100 people. Also, safety is easlier to achieve, and there's lots of room for cargo/luggage and fuel. Boeing's SST and Sonic Cruiser, and even the Concorde, did not fail without a reason. The A380, the "next generation aircraft", still has the same basic design as a DC-3 had 60 years ago. Another example is materials: Aluminum is still the primary construction material. It is _very_ slowly being replaced with composites and laminates (carbon, glass fibre/epoxy, GLARE). Aircraft manufactures can't sell an aircraft until it is absolutely proven that the new aircraft is safe and maintainable and has cheap Direct Operating Costs. So they all play safe and go with trusted concepts/materials. The A380 took about US$15_billion_ to develop. You don't go gable with such amounts. You play safe.

Then there's an economic reason. Profits for airliners are extremely low: 3-5% is not unusual. In fact, very few airlines have made a net profit over the past two decades. In the USA, airlines go bankrupt every 10 years, in Europe they would not survive without government support. Investing in airlines is high risk. This automatically means that investments in aircraft manufacturers is also quite risky. So actual research development of new technologies in the aerospace industry are very low, and usually government-sponsored, related to military applications, or conducted in universities or research institures. The "time to market" of any new technology in the aerospace industry has been estimated to be about 35 years.

This is already too long a story, I could go on for pages. But realy, this kind of views on the future just makes me laugh my pants off.

Travel time

[spectrokid]

L.A city centre -> L.A airport : 50 mins
L.A. ->Tokyo : 30 mins
Tokyo airport -> Tokyo city centre: 1:20h

Freight UAVs

[atherton2]

I could see UAVs being used for freight long before the public will accept it for holiday flights. Also the piolts are concerned with the collision avoidance abilites of UAVs. This may mean that in the next few years we may see plans for UAV only airports near our lager cities. For this to become anywhere near reality the problems of overcrowded airlanes and over worked air-traffic control staff, need to be resolved. For tis 'free flight' needs to be adopted, it allows piolts to plot their own flight plans and then when airborne onboard computers 'project' a 300km (30 sec)'bubble' around each aircraft, and automatically resolve incursions into the 'bubble'. This method allows more direct and efficent routes to be taken by aircraft and frees up large regions of currently unused airspace. Boeing is backing this move and is also taking an intrest in personal air transport. Yes, that means a flying car.

You are right

[penguinoid]

I missed a zero, sorry. However, I will argue your second point

Flying right side up does prevent you from falling down to earth, and flying upside down should provide downward thrust (unless you change the angle of attack of the wings). So it should allow you to go at faster than the escape velocity.

Re:35 min. NY to LA passenger flights? Keep dreami

[twiddlingbits]

Technology aside (assume it will exist) the economics are going to be tough. The Concorde went under because no one wanted to pay that kind of transatlantic fare, which meant the plane was always operating in the red. Any new technology such as a 35 Min NY-LA plane would need tends to be very expensive at first, so ticket prices would be sky high. Not to mention getting something like that FAA certified to carry passengets (so it and they can be insured) would be a nightmare and very expensive. With high-speed Internet access so cheap, you can hold a LOT of video-meetings for the price of one plane ticket. Then if you really need to go in person to close the deal, you take the lowest cost flight. In fact, most employers require you take the lowest cost flight unless it would make you arrive too late. It would be very hard to justify a (guessing here) $25,000 ticket just to save 4 hours time unless someone made $6,000/hr. I can see cases where it would pay but they are not prevalent enough to subsidize the operational costs. One positive aspect is that donor organs could be shipped anywhere for transplant, versus some limits now due to flight times. That might be worth $25,000!! Of course, a Government could give the firm an operating subsidy which would help prices to be lower. If you were looking at it strictly as a free market venture you likely wouldn't make it.

Re:UAV vs Airline piolts

[f97tosc]

Commercial airlines have an accident rate of 0.06 crashes per million hours of flying whereas the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk UAV used by the US military has 1600 crashes per million hours of flying

This is not a fair comparison. Military UAVs fly around in hostile areas, and what is more they are basically designed and priced to be expendible. Also keep in mind that today's passenger planes are fully capable of flying and landing on auto-pilot.

I think we will get pilotless flights eventually, but it may take 50 years.

1. Military transports will be first. There are already discussions about this; it would be a realitvely simple matter to modify the plane - the tricky part is negotiating rights for flying through airspace and landing at international airports.

2. If the military is doing it, why shouldn't commercial freight transports like FedEx be allowed?

3. When this has been working for a number of years - it will be tempting to let a few peole ride along. The military may get permission to let someone sit in on urgent matters. Freight flights will follow.

4. Eventually, some airline will get the permission to fly pilotless passenger lines. Most travellers will be skeptical at first, but as time passes and it becomes clear that the pilotless flights are both safer and cheaper - most people will be persuaded...

Tor

Re:Mach 5?

[jfmiller]

Could we all spesify weather our mach numbers are at sea level or 100,000 feet or whatever, the speed of sound changes as altitude increases.

Why we don't have rocket planes

[Damiano]

Strangely enough we've been seeing similar claims for the last 50 years. Even back in the 50's, magazines such as Popular Science were informing us that "soon" we'd have rocket planes that will take us anywhere in the world in X hours (where X is very small).

Why don't we have them yet then?

Cost. Most people want to fly as cheaply as possible and aren't willing to spend an extra grand in exchange for shaving three hours off their travel time.

In addition, unlike the 50's, business people no longer need to travel everywhere to cut deals. With the advent of email, teleconferening, etc. they don't have to.

Something we geeks need to remember is that just because we can invent a cool new technology doesn't mean there will be any drive to bring it to market.

Damianio

Re:It's nearly 2004....

[Desert Raven]

I can't say I'm sorry at all that we don't have flying cars.

Seriously, the average goober has enough trouble dealing with two dimensions. Three is far too much for them to handle while they lean over the seats to yell at their kids while talking on the cell-phone with one hand while holding the map in the other.

I'm paranoid enough worrying about them while I'm driving. I don't want to worry about one of them dropping out of the sky onto my house.

And, even if you make the completely insane jump of reason that would let you believe that the average driver would be safe, there's always maintenance to deal with. The average aircraft spends as much, or more time in routine maintenance than in the air. Well-publicised errors notwithstanding, aircraft are some of the most meticulously maintained machines on earth. This, compared with my fellow car drivers, who are often seen driving with missing headlights, cruising at 75mph on temporary spares, belching blue smoke because they can't be bothered to remember to change the oil frequently, etc.

I can see some limited applications for flying cars, mostly in emergency services (ie: ambulances). However, for the general public? No thank you, it gives me the shudders just to think of it.

Re:Aerospace analysts are always too optimistic

[DumbSwede]

I have to agree to a large degree with this poster. Aviation followed a very exciting first 70 years, very similar to what we are now see in the personal computer industry. The last thirty have shown it to be a fairly mature technology. The 747 was designed in the late 60's and is nowhere near the end of its life cycle. The Airbus 380 has not yet arrived, and will still have to prove its reliability and economy of operation. Even so, the 380 has a familiar look, and while large, is hardly radical. The fasted plane ever publically acknowledged, the SR-71 blackbird, was also designed in the 60's.

Security and speed of boarding become more important in the airline equation than ever before. Marginal increases in speed, do little to improve the overall perception of the flying experience. Radical changes in speed, while exciting to contemplate, will require decades of testing before being considered safe enough for commercial adoption.

Pilotless craft might make sense for small planes where the pilot's pay is a huge fraction of the total transportation cost, but will take much longer to be adopted in 200+ passenger craft, even if the pilot is largely redundant.

That all said, Flying Wings is where I see the future of flight going. That and computer assisted small jump craft of various types. See this recent Popular Science article [popsci.com] on flight. There is an expression in military circles when it come to evaluating new aircraft: "looks right, flies right." Looking at the envisioned commercial passenger flying wing concepts in the Popular Science article, one can't help but feel this aircraft has the right shape. Kudos also to whomever created the pictures in the magazine, because at first look, you would swear these beautiful behemoths are already lifting off from tarmacs in Tokyo.

Rather than obsess on airspeed, I think our focus should be on making the trip to the airport fast and easy, and of course the boarding fast and easy. Imaging a airport where it was more like a trip to the local cineplex. You park your car close to the terminal minutes before your flight. The car is moved inexpensively for you to a storage lot (rather than park in the hinter lands and wait for a bus). Or better yet, you have had a quick comfortable ride (mag-lift or not) from a city center, directly to your terminal. You are a frequent traveler, so you have undergone a rigorous pre-screening procedure once a year, and can now be biometrically scanned in quickly for a hassle free entry. Like first class seating, biometric priority boarding could be a real money maker for the airlines. Once on board the flying wing, space is not as much a factor as in tube based airplane designs. Weight is the limiting criteria on the 800-1500 seat flying city, not space, so everyone has space to stretch out, and get comfortable. Even reclining to a complete sleep position, to just sleep through a long trip, very much like the golden age of rail. Personal video screens for each passenger will be considered a must, and you will have a screening choice of dozens of first run movies at a cost similar to seeing it in the theater. Your screen will also allow web-browsing, and by the time you update your journal on /. , and post a few comments, it's time to deplane.

Making airplane fuels more environmentally friendly should also be a priority this century. A lot of fuel is used on take off, so how about mag catapult launch? Perhaps planes that use microwave beam power; using conventional fuels only to get airborne, or for emergencies. The rest of the trip a series of boasts from microwave beam boast areas. Ah, but I'm getting decades ahead of myself, and the crystal ball always grows murky 10+ years out.

"Free Flight" not a panacea

[phliar]

... but for this to be widely adopted 'free flight' must first exist. This allows piolts to plot there own jouneys, cutting distances and utlising more airspace.

It does, eh? I'm a little skeptical -- what do you think the difference between a "direct" routing and an old-fashioned flight on airways is? We're talking about 2-3% (borrow some charts from a pilot friend so you can see the routes that exist). "Airspace" utlization is a red herring -- collisions never happen enroute, only at takeoffs and landings.

The problem is low-altitude (approach/departure) airspace around large airports, most large airports today are near capacity. (IFR traffic, which all airline traffic is.) Free flight doesn't buy you anything for approach/departure, which is where all the delays and inefficiencies are.

You might say the advantage of "free flight" is to the pilot -- less pesky knob-twiddling as you go from segment to segment. But the computer is flying the airplane enroute regardless of whether or not they're going direct or by a published route -- the flight computers know all the routes and will fly them all automatically. A "free flight" system has to know about traffic so it can tell the autopilot to take evasive action. That stuff is really, really expensive. (Check out how much TCAS-II systems cost.) How much longer before recreational and research aviation disappears? It's already ridiculously expensive to fly. The airlines are using this as a gambit to "own the airspace" -- make other uses of aviation prohibitively expensive so it's just airline and military flying. First transponders, then Mode C, then Mode S, and now TCAS for "free flight." (Yes, this is a rant -- but it's all true.)

Re:Flight sick?

[Simonetta]

The social effect of the hyper-sonic passenger aircraft was written about by Whitley Streibler in his book "Nature's End" in 1986.

In it he describes aircraft that can get you from L.A. to India in three hours but punch holes in the local ozone layer when they leave the atmosphere. These holes cause unfiltered sunlight to shine through tiny portals onto the earth.

In his book he describes whole blocks of children playing outside getting severely sunburned to the point of third-degree burns requiring hospitalization when one of these TAV (trans-atmospheric vehicle) windows passes over a schoolyard with kids playing at recess (an American term for the period when young children in school are allowed outside to run around).

He describes hundreds of mothers demonstrating at airports in the 2020's with pictures of their burned children begging people not to use hypersonic air travel because their pleas and lawsuits against hypersonic aircraft are ignored by the authorities.

An example of the unintended consequences that often arise when the full environmental effects of disruptive technology are not taken into account by corporate engineers. This is what science fiction is best at.