What If the American SST Had Not Been Canceled?

As everyone probably knows the United States was hoping to build a Supersonic Transport in the 1960s to compete directly with the British/French Concorde (and it turns out the Soviet TU-144).

Neither the Concorde nor the TU-144 came close to being remotely economically viable.

There were dire predictions about the damage to the American aviation industry over the termination of the project.

In addition, the cancelation of the project was part of the justification for the approval of the American space shuttle program (helping the aviation and aeronautical industry in the U.S.).

Some questions:

1) Was there any chance the American SST would be more successful than the Concorde or TU-144?

2) Had the American SST been noticeably more successful would it have strained relations between the Americans and the British (no one cared about relations with the French).

3) After the U.S. spent billions on the SST would the federal govt. have been willing to spend billions on the space shuttle development.

4) How would the large amount of experience building a long range supersonic vehicle have influenced developments in American military and civil aviation in the future?
 
American Taxpayers take a Bath

This assumes a POD after Congress supports the Boeing 2707 over the Lockheed L2000, although either way I assume similar outcomes, just with different results for the two manufacturers.

1. IMHO, No. Most US majors would order a few for prestige reasons, same as with the 747 (Delta, Braniff, and Continental for example) then quickly dump them when they realized they were incompatible with their route networks. In fact, assuming an service entry date of 1974-75, there's a good chance they cancel or store them in the desert upon delivery while looking for a buyer once the oil shock of 1973 hits (think PSA's L1011s). Yes, the plane is more capable than the Concorde, but the Boeing 2707 carries 300 people. If the airlines put piano bars in the front of their 747s in the early 70's because they couldn't fill them--what are they gonna do with a SST with a much higher seat mile cost. And if the Government still enacts the supersonic overland ban--orders will dry up overnight similarly to the Concorde. I love the idea of a American SST, but the plane would be a money hole and a huge write off for the US government. Rolls-Royce bankruptcy on steroids.

2. With a Boeing 2707, the Concorde is the supersonic Comet--DOA. Even if somehow the fuel prices and overflight bans don't materialize, BOAC/BA will scream for 2707s to better compete with Pan Am, TWA, and Lufthansa. Maybe Boeing offers a 2707 powered by Olympus variants to sweeten the deal. Shades of BOAC's deal with Boeing to provide RR Conway-powered 707-420 to replace the unwanted Comet 4s (and to a lesser extent VC-10s) forced upon them by Westminster. It might cause arguments in Parliament, but I seriously doubt it will seriously strain relations between London and DC. This isn't Skybolt 2.0.

3. Hmmm....don't know enough about the Congressional debates on Shuttle to do more than speculate, but I'd be surprised if Congress is in a mood to spend billions on the STS while losing their shirt on the SST project. Maybe funding for Apollo-derived hardware and possibly a proto-X-37/super DynaSoar for the Air Force shows up late in the 1970's.

4. Long-term, I doubt much changes. Given the economic and political outcome for the Concorde OTL, I'd be very surprised to see a 2707 replacement. Subsonic returns with a renewed focus on efficiency similar to OTL. It's possible that if Boeing built the 2707 rather than Lockheed with the L2000, we'd see Boeing unable to financially support the 747-200/300 upgrades and the 757/767 programs. Maybe Lockheed and McDonnll-Douglas gain traction with their twin engine proposals for the TriStar and DC-10 and kill Airbus in the crib. We might end up with a multi-polar American commerical airliner aviation industry.
 
IIUC when BA charged first class +25% prices on Concorde it was highly profitable for them. However how much traffic is there in the world that can handle first class +25% fares apart from those handful of trans Atlantic routes? perhaps LA - Tokyo and maybe other Asian 'Tiger' capitals.

How about if the 2707 became Air Force One?
 

Delta Force

Banned
IIUC when BA charged first class +25% prices on Concorde it was highly profitable for them. However how much traffic is there in the world that can handle first class +25% fares apart from those handful of trans Atlantic routes? perhaps LA - Tokyo and maybe other Asian 'Tiger' capitals.

How about if the 2707 became Air Force One?

The Civil Aeronautics Board controlled routes and prices in the United States. It could arrange things to make the Boeing 2707 be profitable, or the aircraft could become profitable after deregulation when it is decided that people should be charged a supersonic premium.
 
I've got a question or two.

The talk about the Concorde was one of the earliest debates I can remember in the U.S.

Were the concerns about noise levels and dangers to the ozone layer in regards to the Concorde valid in any way?
 
Were the concerns about noise levels and dangers to the ozone layer in regards to the Concorde valid in any way?
Noise certainly: Concorde's boom (which would cover a path about 50 miles wide centered below its flight track) was apparently about 135 decibels--only slightly quieter than a gunshot fired next to you. The pain threshold is about 120 decibels, as a result of which the FAA requires aircraft to be no louder than 115 decibels. If SST traffic became common, living in the midwest near flight routes between LA and New York, for instance, could end up sounding like a warzone, and hearing protection would be the order of the day for anyone living in large areas. There's modern techniques to mitigate these effects via the design of the aircraft to at least some degree, but they exceeded the computational abilities of the time.

I don't know so much about the ozone layer, but permanent hearing damage to every resident of Flyover Country would seem bad enough on its own.
 

Archibald

Banned
I thought flying above 30,000 feet eliminated most of the noise from sonic booms reaching the ground?

Alas, unfortunately, NO.

I think even the space shuttle reentry sonic booms are too noisy - and the shuttle come from very high, deccelerating very fast.

As e of pi said - the sonic boom was unbearable. However all the talk about SST degrading the ozone layer was bullshit.
A handfull of SST airliners (a couple of hundred at most) would make little difference when compared to either a thousand of 747s or the industry CFCs.

Another issue for the SST was lack of range. The 2707 was not really much better than Concorde on that point.

True sonic boom reduction needs advanced, sophisticated shapes like this
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/nasa_supersonic_concept.png?itok=D_NCo-xq
 
I thought flying above 30,000 feet eliminated most of the noise from sonic booms reaching the ground?
They thought that before testing with the XB-70 showed otherwise. According to wikipedia at least (that paragon of information correctness) It turns out that the boom is actually "softer" below 40,000 ft. SST flight altitudes in the 50,000 ft range (sought to minimize drag, increase fuel efficiency, and extend range) would actually increase the shock.
 
They thought that before testing with the XB-70 showed otherwise. According to wikipedia at least (that paragon of information correctness) It turns out that the boom is actually "softer" below 40,000 ft. SST flight altitudes in the 50,000 ft range (sought to minimize drag, increase fuel efficiency, and extend range) would actually increase the shock.

As I recall it's been shown that flight over 100,000ft and the sonic boom doesn't reach the ground... The obvious issue here is "cruising" at altitudes over 100,000ft :)

The main economic issue for SST's in America is over 90% of the market is unserviceable due to the distances involved. SST would work "ok" between feeder hubs (think New York to Chicago to LA rather than New York to LA) the 'cruise' sections of the trip are not long enough at supersonic speeds, (and add in the aforementioned boom issues) for airlines to find the extra cost of operations and maintenance economic. SSTs really only make sense over REALLY long distance air-routes and most don't carry enough passengers to make the trip worthwhile.

Randy
 
IIUC when BA charged first class +25% prices on Concorde it was highly profitable for them. However how much traffic is there in the world that can handle first class +25% fares apart from those handful of trans Atlantic routes? perhaps LA - Tokyo and maybe other Asian 'Tiger' capitals.

How about if the 2707 became Air Force One?
1960s studies showed that with the time savings, just about all first class customers would move to supersonic transports - apparently 90% would switch if fares didn't change, and 85% would switch if fares went up 50%. That would allow subsonic widebody jets to go over almost entirely to economy, improving the economics of them.

Concorde never had a problem making an operating profit, the trouble was that they were massively expensive to build and would never have paid off the capital had they been bought conventionally. Some of that was due to the fact that they were basically prototypes, but not all.
 
I've got a question or two.

The talk about the Concorde was one of the earliest debates I can remember in the U.S.

Were the concerns about noise levels and dangers to the ozone layer in regards to the Concorde valid in any way?

it's NIH writ large

there;s literally a handful of none US designed aircraft that have been adopted by major civil players or the US military

even a JV with a US builder is no assurance of success ( see Merlin in the Marine One competition)
 
Boeing would have gone bankrupt. The cost of developing either the SST or the 747 would have pushed the company close to the edge (as OTL), and doing both would have killed it.
 
Top