Why We Don't Make Faster Planes Despite Tech Leaps

In the golden age of jet travel, the Concorde epitomized the dream of high-speed flight, whisking passengers across the Atlantic in under four hours. Today, despite leaps in technology, commercial aircraft are cruising at even slower speeds than their predecessors. It's a curious development that often puzzles aviation enthusiasts and passengers alike.

Let's explore this apparent paradox, blending scientific rigor with intriguing insights into the world of aviation.

The Science of Speed: Drag and Its Implications

Before delving into economic and environmental strategies, it's essential to understand some basic aerodynamics, particularly how drag affects aircraft speed. Drag is a mechanical force generated by the interaction of an object (like an airplane) with a fluid (such as air).

For aircraft, drag opposes the motion of the aircraft through the air and has two primary components: parasitic (or profile) drag and induced drag.

Parasitic vs. Induced Drag

• Parasitic Drag: Dominates at higher speeds; includes skin friction and pressure drag. As speeds increase, parasitic drag soars, requiring aircraft to expend more energy to maintain speed.
• Induced Drag: More relevant at lower speeds; related to the generation of lift. While it decreases with speed, its reduction cannot counterbalance the rapid increase in parasitic drag at higher velocities.

Parasitic Drag increases with the square of the speed.  Mathematically, it could be quantified as: D = ¹⁄₂ C_Dρ A v² where:

• • D is the drag force,
  • C_D is the drag coefficient, which depends on the shape of the aircraft,
  • ρ (rho) represents the air density,
  • A is the reference area (usually the frontal area of the aircraft),
  • v is the velocity of the aircraft.

This equation shows that parasitic drag increases with the square of the velocity, implying that doubling the speed results in a fourfold increase in drag (As velocity doubles, parasitic drag quadruples). This exponential relationship exponentially increases the power required to overcome this drag, which in turn significantly elevates fuel consumption since power required is proportional to the cube of velocity.

Induced Drag is caused by the creation of wingtip vortices, which are a byproduct of lift generation by the wings of an aircraft.

• Lift and Air Pressure: As an aircraft moves through the air, its wings generate lift by creating a pressure difference. The lower pressure on the upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface of the wing cause air to flow from below the wing to above it around the wingtips.
• Wingtip Vortices: This rolling movement of air from the higher pressure region below the wing to the lower pressure region above it results in swirling air currents at the wingtips known as vortices. These vortices trail behind the aircraft, creating a downwash that effectively alters the direction of the airflow over the wing. The altered airflow causes an increase in the angle of attack required to maintain lift, which increases drag.
• Wing Design: To combat induced drag, aircraft wings are often designed with specific features like winglets or raked wingtips. These designs help reduce the strength of wingtip vortices, thereby reducing induced drag. The shape, aspect ratio (the ratio of the wing's length to its width), and other design features of the wing also play a critical role in managing induced drag.

Higher speeds mean less wing area is needed for lift, which reduces induced drag, but this reduction cannot offset the increase in parasitic drag at very high speeds. Because induced drag is inversely proportional to speed, it becomes less significant as the aircraft's speed increases.

In the context of flying faster, let's focus more on the parasitic drag. The increase in drag with the square of the speed is due to the compounded effects of both frictional and pressure forces that occur as the aircraft moves through the air at higher speeds. These relationships hold true especially in the subsonic speed ranges where the majority of commercial aircraft operate.

What we find here is that while drag increases with the square of velocity, fuel usage increases more steeply due to the cubic relationship between power required and velocity, along with efficiency factors and other aerodynamic phenomena. Thus, the increase in fuel consumption is typically more than what would be suggested by a simple square of velocity increase.

Why Not Fly At Higher Altitude Then?

Indeed, flying at higher altitudes is a common strategy to reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency, primarily due to the reduced air density at these elevations.

Here's how this works:

Air Density and Altitude

• Reduced Air Density: As altitude increases, the density of the air decreases. This is because the air at higher altitudes is under less pressure from the weight of the air above it compared to lower altitudes. With less dense air, there are fewer air molecules to resist the movement of the aircraft, which reduces both forms of drag: parasitic and induced.

Effects on Drag and Fuel Efficiency

• Reduced Drag: With lower air density, the amount of drag caused by air resistance decreases. This reduction in drag means that less thrust is required to maintain the same speed, leading to less fuel being consumed.
• Engine Efficiency: Aircraft engines, particularly jet engines, can also operate more efficiently at higher altitudes. The colder temperatures at these altitudes can help improve the efficiency of the thermodynamic cycles within these engines.

Trade-offs and Challenges

Flying at extremely high altitudes, such as 60,000 or 80,000 feet, poses several technical and operational challenges that influence why commercial aircraft generally operate within the 30,000 to 40,000 feet range. Some points below:

• Climbing to High Altitude: Achieving these higher altitudes requires climbing against the gravity, which itself consumes a significant amount of fuel. Thus, the benefits of reduced drag and improved efficiency need to outweigh the fuel costs associated with climbing.
• Operational Limits: There are practical limits to how high commercial aircraft can fly. These limits are influenced by the aircraft design, engine capabilities, and regulatory constraints, including the need to maintain a safe oxygen level inside the cabin and the structural integrity of the aircraft under different pressures. Beyond the given altitude, the engines would struggle to generate adequate thrust due to insufficient air density. Some of the points below also expand on the operational limits.
• Engine Performance and Air Density: At very high altitudes, the air becomes exceedingly thin. This severe decrease in air density can significantly impair the performance of conventional jet engines, which rely on sufficient air intake for combustion. Engines would need to be specifically designed or modified to operate in such thin air, involving potentially costly redesigns and technological innovations.
• Pressurization and Structural Integrity: The higher the aircraft flies, the greater the difference between the pressure inside the cabin and the almost vacuum-like conditions outside. Maintaining cabin pressurization at these altitudes would require stronger, heavier, and more robust fuselage designs to withstand the increased pressure differential, which could in turn impact fuel efficiency and operational costs.
• Temperature Extremes: Temperatures at very high altitudes can be extremely low, posing risks of icing and requiring more advanced thermal management systems to protect both the aircraft's mechanical systems and the comfort of passengers.
• Regulatory and Safety Issues: Current aviation regulations and the design of air traffic control systems are optimized for operations within the standard cruising altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet. Flying at much higher altitudes would necessitate changes in aviation laws, air traffic control procedures, and emergency response protocols.
• Limited Escape Options in Emergencies: At extreme altitudes, safe emergency descent in the event of cabin depressurization or other in-flight emergencies becomes more complicated and hazardous. Aircraft and passengers must be equipped with special suits or systems to handle potential exposure to high-altitude environments.
• Economic and Practical Considerations: Flying higher might reduce air resistance, but the additional costs associated with developing engines and aircraft capable of safely and efficiently operating at these altitudes may not justify the marginal gains in fuel efficiency.

Specialized Aircraft for High Altitudes

While commercial airliners typically operate within the 30,000 to 40,000 feet range, certain specialized aircraft do fly at higher altitudes. For example:

• Military Aircraft: Many military aircraft, including reconnaissance planes like the U-2 and SR-71 Blackbird, are designed to fly at altitudes above 70,000 feet for stealth and surveillance purposes.
• Research and Weather Balloons: These can ascend to altitudes of 100,000 feet or more for scientific research and atmospheric studies.

High-Altitude Flight: A Double-Edged Sword

Flying higher does reduce drag due to thinner air, but there's a limit to how high commercial jets can go. Beyond about 40,000 feet, the diminishing air density poses challenges for conventional jet engines designed to operate efficiently at typical cruising altitudes. The increased requirement for specialized equipment and fuel for safe operation at these altitudes can offset the benefits gained from reduced drag.

The Supersonic Quandary

The allure of supersonic travel is undeniable. The Concorde, capable of speeds over Mach 2, once offered the fastest way to cross oceans. However, flying at such speeds introduces extreme parasitic drag and shock waves, leading to a phenomenon known as wave drag. Wave drag is a formidable force that appears when an aircraft approaches and exceeds the speed of sound, presenting a massive spike in resistance and fuel use.

For example, at supersonic speeds, the Concorde could gulp down approximately more than double the consumption of most modern aircraft per hour, on a per-seat basis.

Here are some key points that highlight the differences in fuel efficiency:

• Fuel Efficiency of Supersonic Flight:
  • The Concorde's engines were optimized for supersonic speeds, specifically cruising at around Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound). At these speeds, fuel consumption is inherently higher due to increased aerodynamic drag and the need for greater thrust.
  • The Concorde burned approximately 25,629 liters (6,770 gallons) of fuel per hour. For comparison, a Boeing 747-400 burns about 12,700 liters (3,350 gallons) of fuel per hour but carries many more passengers.
• Fuel Consumption Per Passenger:
  • The Concorde typically carried around 100 passengers, whereas large subsonic jets like the Boeing 747 or Airbus A380 can carry 400 to over 500 passengers. This difference in capacity meant that, on a per-passenger basis, the Concorde was much less fuel-efficient.
  • Estimates suggest that the Concorde used about 46.85 liters (12.37 gallons) of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, which is more than twice the fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers used by a Boeing 747.
• Operational Context:
  • The Concorde’s operating altitude of around 60,000 feet and its high speed allowed it to reduce air resistance due to thinner air at higher altitudes. However, the benefits gained from reduced drag at this altitude were offset by the enormous amounts of energy required to maintain supersonic speeds.
• Engine Technology:
  • The turbojet engines used in the Concorde, while efficient at high speeds, were less fuel-efficient at lower speeds and during takeoff and landing compared to the high-bypass turbofan engines used in modern subsonic aircraft, which are optimized for fuel efficiency across a range of speeds and conditions.
• Environmental and Economic Impact:
  • Increased Fuel Burn: The higher fuel burn translated directly into higher operating costs, making the Concorde more expensive to operate per mile per passenger compared to subsonic aircraft.
  • Emissions: High fuel consumption also meant that the Concorde had a larger environmental impact per passenger compared to other commercial aircraft, emitting more carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides per mile traveled per passenger.

The Cost and Context of Speed

High-speed flight doesn't come cheap. The quadratic increase in drag translates directly into fuel costs. For airlines, managing fuel expenses is a continuous balancing act, with even minor savings per flight potentially leading to substantial annual savings.

Environmental considerations also steer the operational preferences of airlines. Lower speeds mean reduced carbon emissions. In a world increasingly aware of climate change, the aviation industry is under intense pressure to decrease its carbon footprint.

Modern jet engines, such as high-bypass turbofans, are marvels of efficiency, optimized for specific flight envelopes—usually subsonic speeds where they can achieve a delicate balance between thrust, efficiency, and noise reduction. These engines are not designed to handle the air intake needs at extreme altitudes or supersonic speeds without significant compromises in performance and fuel efficiency.

• Technological and Operational Shifts

  • Advances in Engine Technology: Modern engines are designed to operate efficiently at specific thrust levels and speeds. The latest generation of high-bypass turbofan engines, used in aircraft like the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787, are optimized for efficiency over a wide range of operating conditions, but still favor slightly slower speeds than their predecessors.
  • Air Traffic Management: Efficient routing and the need to manage increasingly crowded airspace can also necessitate flying at speeds that optimize traffic flow and reduce the likelihood of delays.
  • Safety and Infrastructure: Higher speeds could necessitate new safety measures, emergency procedures, and potentially even new airport infrastructure.
  • Costs: While modern aircraft are certainly capable of flying as fast or faster than those from the 1980s and 1990s, the industry-wide shift towards sustainability and cost-efficiency has prompted airlines to choose flight profiles that prioritize fuel efficiency over speed. This shift not only helps in reducing operational costs but also aligns with global efforts to decrease environmental impacts from aviation.

  Historical Context

  • 1980s and 1990s Aircraft: During this period, the focus wasn’t as intensely placed on fuel efficiency. Aircraft often flew faster, partly because of less congested airspace and different economic conditions. Fuel prices were generally lower in relation to today, and environmental concerns were not as prominent in operational considerations.

Final Thoughts

The relationship between drag, fuel use, and aircraft speed is not linear. As the speed of an aircraft increases, drag increases exponentially, not linearly. This is primarily due to factors such as air density and the increase in aerodynamic drag, which rises with the square of the speed.

The quest for speed in commercial aviation has therefore taken a backseat to efficiency, cost management, and environmental responsibility. While the technology exists to push aircraft to fly faster, the benefits are overshadowed by higher operational costs, greater environmental impact, and current engine optimization strategies.

So, next time you settle into your seat for a long-haul flight, consider the intricate dance of physics, economics, and environmental science that dictates the speed of your journey. In today's world, the marvel isn't how fast we can travel, but how efficiently we navigate our way across the skies, balancing the scales of speed and sustainability.

You might also like: Why Passenger Planes Fly Slower Than Past