Back to Squawk list
  • 47

Boeing's hypersonic plane to be also a hyper polluter

Montreal - New supersonic passenger planes designed by Boeing and other manufacturers offer the chance to connect continents faster than ever. However, these future aircraft at supersonic and hypersonic speeds could also affect the environment at a much higher rate compared to today's air transport vehicles. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

dee9bee 8
Note the second paragraph...I submit for your consideration that "Boom" is not the ideal name for a company designing a supersonic aircraft :-)
Kevin Haiduk 10
I think it's cool as heck and should go ahead. Technology will advance. We would have never had a 707 if I follow the thoughts on here.
scott8733 3
I'll provide a non-political question, as I've grown weary of those posters.

Since the Concorde cruised at FL550-600 as supersonic, what would this theoretical Boeing Hypersonic machine cruise at, SR-71 ceilings?
ken young 1
Good question. It would make sense that the hypersonic aircraft could reach cruising altitude at the outer reaches of our atmosphere. SR 71 cruised at around FL 800
Roy Troughton 3
It’s still only a concept and engine technology has advanced significantly since the 1970’s.
WhiteKnight77 2
40's ;)
WhiteKnight77 0
I am downvoted due to me knowing that jet engines have come a long way since they were first developed in the 40s? Get real people. smh
Patrick Green 4
If the plane spews 7 times more pollution, but completes a trip in only a few hours, isn't that a break-even for emissions? (This is my second attempt to post this question. Sorry if it is a duplicate.)
ken young 1
And in the next 2 decades, emissions tech will imprpove.
djames225 1
No it isnt a BINGO as emissions are not just measured at flight level..look at what Patrick and myself were discussing just below here..if it spews 3-4x the emissions at take off and landing,it is not a break even for is actually worse because now, lets say, that craft can do a typical 10hr flight in 3 hrs. You think airlines are just going to park it after a return not only is the tailpipe spewing 3-4x the emissions at take off, flight and landing, it's now doing it 3x, not just once, in a single day. Emissions tech will improve but I doubt it will improve enough. The old addage goes, get a good strong horse, before you decide on the cart.
jgriffes 1
This is my thought as well. Though there's just not enough information at this point. What does "7 times more pollution" actually mean? Is that for a certain trip? Is that measured at idle? What's the number per seat? To me, it seems like an article like this is set up to try and put a stop to an idea before it's REALLY looked into thoroughly again. I say, let them research. Let them get well on their way to figuring out if this is actually a viable product now that engine technology has advanced so much. By the time something like this would be ready for production, engine technology, as well as fuselage construction I'm sure, will have progressed even beyond what most of us can currently imagine. That might make something like this feasible.
djames225 1
Where is everyone seeing 7 times more pollution? I see "These supersonic aircraft will burn five to seven times more fuel than the standard aircraft that are flying today," which, using technology of today, is true. I can see 3-4x the pollution, not 7. These aircraft will probably be using modified ramjet engines, which already are a flying stovepipe..but push them where Boeing et all want to go and it will be worse..ramjets lose efficiency the faster you go.
For these aircraft to actually work and not add to pollution, different propulsion systems must be looked at first, not a modified flying stovepipe.
Patrick Green 1
7 times was in an earlier post I don't see anymore. But, the headline says "hyper polluter" implying it is a horrible idea. I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad idea, but writing a headline that says it is a hyper polluter without understanding that it gets people to their destination much quicker is bad reporting.
djames225 1
Getting folks there quicker is 1 thing, but at the cost of expelling more pollution, which this planet does not need? I too would call it a hyper polluter, even at 3-4x what modern engines are putting out..saying that may wake up some sleeping brains that "hey we are heading in the wrong direction with these engine ideas" because so far, all Ive read about for propulsion ideas are based on today's gas turbine and ramjet engines, including the Reaction Scimitar.
Patrick Green 1
You are missing my original point. If the plane pollutes 3 to 4 times today's planes PER HOUR but it gets you there in 1/3 or 1/4 the time, the pollution is the same PER FLIGHT. That doesn't make it a hyper polluter.
djames225 1
Ahh..I see what you are thinking. But it is not measured in a strictly per hour smooth is measured at the start, in the actual flight itself, and then at the end, not a per hour per flight. If Im in LA, for example, and that plane puts out 3-4x the "pollution" at take off compared to today's flights, I don't care if it gets you to Singapore in 15 minutes. That is a hyper polluter.
Patrick Green 1
Good point. There are lots of questions this article didn't answer. I assumed (probably incorrectly) that it was talking about cruising at supersonic speeds vs takeoff and climb at subsonic speeds.
Craig Good 2
Because carbon-neutral biofuels won't be available in 20 years.
patrick baker 6
the go/no decision to develop , build, and put into operation any hyper polluter as this is rumored to be, is clear to me: speed for a priviliged few is less important than the air we all breathe and the climate change we all share, Nice idea, bad in real life....
kginsberg 5
The development and possible roll out is maybe 20 years away. Determining its "pollution" status based on todays technology is somewhat foolish. When the A380 was in its initial planning stages, whole new engine designs were required to make it an effective and economical commercial vehicle. IMHO, not a great idea to stunt technology "dreams" because todays technology may make it seem unattainable, unaffordable, or in this case a polluter.
Kevin Haiduk 2
Probably used some of the same excuses for the first commercial jets.
djames225 2
No because back then, pollution etc didnt abound like it does today..and the Concorde was infact dogged regularly by people about the smoke it put out.
Yes, with more advancements in engines, I see less pollution being spewn out of these, but should you not "develop the proper wheel first", that will drive the bird?
Killing a high leap in travel technology due to an early rumor seems like a great idea.

[This comment was deleted.]

Brian James 8
What's wrong with a true liberal? I agree with the original post - while the rest of us travel at sub sonic speeds, those who can afford the ticket on the faster planes will be the privileged few. And the rest of us will suffer with ill effects to the climate. Look around, it's already happening and there doesn't seem to be any issue with destroying the planet from the true conservatives.

If they can develop the technology to have a clean burning two engine 777, then they can develop the technology to keep these planes clean burning too. Your grandchildren will be thankful.
Emily Leighton -3
Nah, gotta kill the environment to own the libs
Ed Merriam 1
ever hear of Gbadolite?
Chris B -1
I'm assuming that the development funding and interest for this is coming more from the Pentagon than United/American etc.
chalet 2
Three ítems spelling the death knell of the Boeing tri-Sonic aircraft: spewing 7 times as much pollutants than current jetliners; the CO2 tax will be sky high (no pun intended) and the exponential cost of its development again referred to current commercial aircraft will price the tickets in a far worse manner than the Concord´s which if you remember, only the real rich could afford and still the UK and French governments had to cough up substantial subsidies for years. Having said this, if Messrs. Pratt, Whitney, Rolls, Royce plus oil/gas/petrochemical companies can come up with a magical and extremely cheap elixir spewing not an ounce of anything when burning gazillions of gallons at Mach 3 (H2?), perhaps, only perhaps, it might happen. My bet is that it won't.
Craig Good 1
If the plane ran on biofuels the amount of CO2 coming out the tailpipe would be largely irrelevant. It would merely be expensive at that point.
Jon Herd -3
Not quite.

The British made a small profit, the French never did, but neither country considerred the prestige of this aircraft. Imagine if the British or French version of Air Force 1 was a Concorde.

The death knell for Concorde first rang when the US green movenent spread every lie they could, and the final knife to the throat was M. spinetta, now head of Airbus, refusing to make and supply any further parts for Concorde.
djames225 3
British Airways and Air France did operate Concorde at profit, HOWEVER, this was because of the high roundtrip ticket prices ($8k USD back then was a huge chunk of change)AND because both British and French governments help absorb planning and production costs.
The "death knell" as you put it started when Concorde first took to the sky. It only flew between 5 airports: Heathrow, de Gauile, JFK, Dulles and Barbados (Adams International I think it was), passenger purchases started declining, fuel prices started to escalate, the terrible explosion/fire/crash after hitting debris on the runway, commercial avaiation downturn after 9/11, and yes, Aérospatiale/BAC (Airbus) refusing to make any further parts (don't know how Air France's CEO got named)
djames225 1
I will add to what I replied with..the aircraft only operated supersonic, which it was designed for, between those 5 airports in the beginning..yes there were a few subsonic/US carrier flown flights and they actually increased the operational cost of the jet as the R-R/Olympus 593's had bad burn ratios in subsonic flight..that's another they wanted to do a mk 622 engine but it never got off the ground.
Edw Sanderson 1
It also operated out of MIA, saw the ron every morning
Ed Merriam 1
there was also the "prestige project" working for it, then against it: it was a "peaceful competition" with the superpowers' Tu-144 and B2707: this was the same impulse behind things like Ariane, TGV, Airbus but also Aramis and Aérotrain, that'd maintain France's status as a Great Power post-colonialism
w2bsa 1
I must add that in the 1970’s, Concord had a subsonic leg from Washington Dulles to DFW. It was designated a Northwest flight.
AWAAlum 4
Just imagining how hard it must've been for those pilots not to kick her into supersonic...I feel the need for speed.
Fritz Steiner 2
Correction: It was a Braniff-crewed flight.

I flew on it in 1979. The fare was only $15 more than First Class. Fares were still regulated then, so I paid the difference and had a fabulous experience.
w2bsa 0
It actually may have been both. My sister flew on one at about the same time. Both airlines had hubs at DFW.
w2bsa 1
Thinking further, there were two European airlines operating the Concorde. British Overseas Airway Corporation, now British Airways, and Air France. Each US flagged airline Northwest and Braniff flew the respective flights in the US. It was some archaic rule that we had that required international flights flying on to US airports had to be flown by pilots from US careers.
BOAC never flew Concorde. They were the airline that ordered the aircraft, hence the first one being registered G-BOAC. But by the time the aircraft reached service, it was British Airways. Northwest never operated Concorde in the US. It was only ever Braniff.
dee9bee 1
It was a Braniff flight. Northwest never had a DFW hub. The legal process was so complicated that they had to paste a USA ('N' number)registration on the tail at IAD before continuing to DFW. The reverse occurred before leaving eastbound out of IAD.
Not quite. For a while, the BA aircraft were registered G-N94AA/AB/AD/AE and G-N81AC (why 81 instead of 94 I don't know). When they operated the internal leg of the flights, the "G-" was covered over.
Elliot Cannon 2
Hypersonic chemtrails.
xlerv8 1
It's been too long since concorde was pulled from commercial flights, we need planes to go faster. For people from Australia it takes too long to go anywhere. I 'd say it's way overdue to bring it back into service.
Cris Lambert 1
If it's going to be that bad prevent them building them !?Its quite simple!Its going to shave off 2 hours but it's going put that much pollution in the air stop them!Just saying.
Greg77FA 1
Naysayers trying to stop progress. Let it fly first then address improvements later.
dhice9102 1
Round trip--Same day? Anyone consider Hyper Jet Lag? Confusing to wrist watches too!
Poloko Nyambe 1
On a practical note there's very little regard for environmental effects when it comes to developments. Power stations, motor vehicles, cruiser liners you name it.
Only in the talking do people MENTION environmental considerations.
Nonetheless let Boeing go ahead to hypersonic, Airbus will develop cleaner hypersonic years later.
Technology forward.
Jose Suro 1
Do the math people. The flight will be a lot shorter. It will burn fuel at a higher rate for a shorter period of time. Notwithstanding the burn per passenger mile.
If these new high-speed planes are using fossil fuels, they are, if successful, a threat to human kind and to all life on our planet. However more likely they are dinosaurs prone to extinction. Boeing and other advocates of this kind of technology would better focus on emission-free and fossil-free air transport.
James Willich 1
All politics aside, this is one poorly written article.
AWAAlum -1
Maybe someone should be working on figuring out how to make speed killing fuel efficiency a thing of the past.
patrick baker 0
the decision for me is less complicated: it is the environment, stupid...Even if it is twice as fast, the pollutants put into place is far more a big deal.. who will be able to pay for a ticket? and what really is the big rush ever? This point withers a bit when confronted with nearly 20 hour flights , but there is a point, soon to be apparent, that the environment is not a balance sheet consideration.
Pie in the sky for civilian use.
ken young 0
Did miss where the TYPE of pollutants this aircraft's engines would expel?
A stupid "click bait" story.
Anastasia Kharina, went to a backwater, third world school in the Ukraine.
When she graduated (?) she went to work for a cosmetic laboratory.
Where she determined that "packaging" was causing global warming.
Suddenly she's a aerospace engineer with credentials no one can verify.
It is shameful that the "board of directors"
allow this fake news (actually propaganda, is the correct term) to be published on this site without 30 seconds of verification.
Whose side are they on?
I would like a response from the " board of directors".
djames225 5 would I..especially when I see a poster such as yourself spew "fake news" about a person who wrote a report. Next time you want to spew garbage about someone, at least use that thing called a brain and do some research yourself!
"Anastasia Kharina's work at the ICCT is concentrated in the aviation program, specifically the Aviation Fuel Efficiency Technology Assessment (AFETA) project. She has also contributed to ICCT's endeavor at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in developing the world's first aircraft CO2 emissions standard. Ms. Kharina holds a Bachelor of Materials Engineering degree from Institut Teknologi Bandung in Indonesia and a Master of Aerospace Engineering degree from University of Washington. She was born and raised in Indonesia and is fluent in English, Indonesian, and Italian."
BTW, that info is concurrent from 3 different sources.
Pure B.S. Comrade.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Brian James 7
so you're saying that the technology to go forward doesn't include technology that protects the environment? How do you think the 777 is cleaner burning than the 707?
ken young 1
No...The OP stated what he stated.
Not "so your saying"nmentalist movement. These people are opposed to EVERYTHING.
There are law firms such as the Southern Environmental Law Center. IN reading their mission statement and their past conquests, the Firm is in the business of stopping projects just to stop them.
In doing a search of these firms, it appears environmental law is a huge money making industry. And highly political in nature.
patrick baker -1
slow down and take a cruise ship or a cargo container ship, read a few books, and appreciate sunrises and sunsets, for nothing exists that is such a reason to be in such a hurry. You flatter yourself that such an aircraft is necessary now or ever...
Why not just let people decide how quickly they want to get there, is that so bad?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.