Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-07-2016, 08:48 AM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
boom supersonic plane. how the hell?

So a new startup claims that they'll be able to design and build a 40 seat supersonic plane that has the range to fly Auckland - LA non stop, and they claim that ticket prices will be able to be comparable to business class.
From previous threads on her on this topic it seems pretty unbelievable, the fuel costs should make it a non-starter unless they have some unbelievable break through. Except they claim to be using existing engines? The whole thing would seem like a scam to rope in investors except for the calibre of the names they have on board. What says the dope? What possible existing engines could they be using on these things? Could they possibly meet their performance and cost of operations claims?

Popular Mechanics article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flig...of-the-future/

Boom website, with list of senior staff.
http://boom.aero/about/

Last edited by coremelt; 07-07-2016 at 08:48 AM.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:12 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
I can't really attest to the technology and if it is really feasible. But I'm mindful that companies fail, not because the technology doesn't work, they fail because they build something customers really don't want. They spend a lot of time mitigating the technology risk, and not enough on the market risk.

My feeling (without any solid data other than experience) is that the initial promises will not materialize and the scope and benefits will have to be scaled back from the hype, and that customers really won't want what is offered as badly as the company expects.

Witness the failure of the Concorde to sell the hundreds of planes it was hyped to do; or the Segway; or Googleglass....same deal with the hyperloop.
  #3  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:24 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,845
Are there a lot of wealthy people who want to travel between LA and Auckland frequently and quickly? Seems to me that the entire target market for this service is Peter Jackson.

Last edited by Gyrate; 07-07-2016 at 09:25 AM. Reason: target market, not target audience
  #4  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:30 AM
Duke of Rat Duke of Rat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Front and Center
Posts: 5,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Are there a lot of wealthy people who want to travel between LA and Auckland frequently and quickly? Seems to me that the entire target market for this service is Peter Jackson.

If only it could fly between other destinations...
  #5  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:34 AM
Asimovian Asimovian is offline
The Zeroeth Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Are there a lot of wealthy people who want to travel between LA and Auckland frequently and quickly? Seems to me that the entire target market for this service is Peter Jackson.
According to a longer article linked from the first one, New York/London and San Francisco/Tokyo are equal or higher on the agenda. I'm skeptical, but I'd love to see it happen.

I wonder if one of our resident aviation experts can tell me if I'm correct in thinking that flying at those speeds at 60,000 feet is also likely to greatly reduce the amount of turbulence passengers would experience.
  #6  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:44 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Witness the failure of the Concorde to sell the hundreds of planes it was hyped to do
Concorde failed in large part because American companies lobbied against it because it wasn't American and in lesser part because of the Arab oil crisis.

That second factor may be the killer this time around.
  #7  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:54 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
It's unclear to me what kind of "prototype" the think they can build with 2.1 million. Maybe a life-size Styrofoam model?
  #8  
Old 07-07-2016, 10:53 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Concorde failed in large part because American companies lobbied against it because it wasn't American and in lesser part because of the Arab oil crisis.

That second factor may be the killer this time around.
Maybe, I'm not completely intimate with why the Concorde failed to sell anywhere near the number of planes planned; but I do remember the environmental outcry. The same issues could come into play for this plane

The larger point still fits. It wasn't the technology that killed the success of the Concorde, it was the overall market resistance to the business idea. Whether that resistance is in paying customers, regulatory hurdles, organized competition, or perceived 'dorkiness' of the user or technology....any of those could be fatal to scalable successful growth
  #9  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:09 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
It's unclear to me what kind of "prototype" the think they can build with 2.1 million. Maybe a life-size Styrofoam model?
A computer simulation maybe.
  #10  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:14 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Maybe, I'm not completely intimate with why the Concorde failed to sell anywhere near the number of planes planned; but I do remember the environmental outcry. The same issues could come into play for this plane
Was there an environmental outcry about anything besides the sonic booms?

A forty seat plane isn't huge, there are existing turbo-jet engines that could be used, although whether they would be practical is another matter. The GE J85 has been used in both military and commercial aircraft. The Northrop F-5 uses a pair of these engines to reach Mach 1.6. However, the range of that aircraft is rather limited, a NZ to LA flight will require a lot of fuel. I doubt two of those engines is sufficient to get a 40 passenger craft with enough fuel across the Pacific at supersonic speeds. There are plenty of other engines to use, the Rolls Royce engines used in the Concordes are still out there, possibly economical to put the existing engines into use, but the cost is still very high, hard to see enough people spending enough money for those flights to make it economically viable. The Concordes were heavily subsidized.
  #11  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:19 AM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
A computer simulation maybe.
A really cool logo, a la Next. Can't do anything without one.

I think the real argument against most forms of super-high-speed transport is that ther just aren't that many people who need to get somewhere in half the time, given standard train/aircraft speeds. The issues with flying SF-Tokyo are a lot more than a few hours of flight time.

The Concorde, in its functional years, was always pitched as the ride for C-level types whose time was so incredibly valuable that six hours to get to London would depress their company stock price, or something else trumpish. Always sounded like bullshit to me, one more preening bit of swank like a Patek Phillippe for every day of the week.
  #12  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:21 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Was there an environmental outcry about anything besides the sonic booms?

snip .
Yes, plenty. Regular pollution to noise disruption to destruction of the ozone layer
WHether these concerns were founded in reality is secondary. The perception of the problem drove public opinion against it; which again plays to the market risk assessment and mitigation that I've previously mentioned.

http://www1.american.edu/TED/sst.htm
  #13  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:23 AM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Was there an environmental outcry about anything besides the sonic booms?
Yes. Concorde/SST flew in an especially sensitive layer of the atmosphere, and caused ozone depletion. Had there been more in service, as originally planned in the 1970s, it could have been a major ecological issue. Nothing's changed there.

ETA Ninja'd by Sigene, but I will add that they were never allowed on overland routes (e.g. NY-LA) because of the noise issues. Their pollution is no worse than any plane, but it's emitted at a bad location, compounding the ozone problems.

Last edited by Amateur Barbarian; 07-07-2016 at 11:25 AM.
  #14  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:42 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,069
Well, the business class is full on most large aircraft and there are hundreds of these trans-oceanic flights every day. But like most projects, it will come in well over budget and below specs. I suspect the $2.1M is for initial engineering design.

The failure of the Concorde IIRC was that it could not make as much money, since it was early 1960's technology and a very limited number were built. And, if you've every been inside, it was charging $8,000 for a flight from Paris to NYC in a tiny seat about the size of coach or smaller.

Mach 2.2 gives me a number of about 4.5 hours LAX to Australia or NZ (12,000km); range of a typical fighter 2500 to 3500km? So it would need 4 or 5 times the fuel load.
  #15  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:44 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Maybe, I'm not completely intimate with why the Concorde failed to sell anywhere near the number of planes planned; but I do remember the environmental outcry.
It was all a complete put-up job by Boeing et al. I think the modern term is astro-turfing.
  #16  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:44 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,278
My recollection of the Concorde's business model is that it was predicated entirely on "the US will buy them!"; it was never expected to be economically viable long-term without export sales.

My personal recollection of the Concorde's noise issues is more spectacular. I lived near Dulles International Airport during the years the Concorde landed there. By the time she reached Dulles airspace, she had been over land for a while, and was not flying supersonic.

Nevertheless, the noise was absolutely epic. Despite being miles away, the Concorde's rumble started out louder than other commercial planes...and just grew and grew in intensity, until it was a deep, sustained, booming thunder that you felt, everywhere. If that noise had been used in a movie, people would have accused the sound crew of Hollywood exaggeration. It was unreal.

We used to joke that the other side of the county was sliding off the edge of the earth. We always knew instantly when she came in to land.

Whatever noise concerns people had were absolutely justified.
  #17  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:54 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It was all a complete put-up job by Boeing et al. I think the modern term is astro-turfing.
I can't dispute that, as I have no real evidence for or against it; but this is the sort of minefield the currently discussed business has to recognize, account for and mitigate. Again, this plane is less likely to fail due to technology, and more likely to fail because of market risks. Those risks can include nefarious, underhanded doings by the competition; whatever.....they will have to somehow deal with that possibility.
  #18  
Old 07-07-2016, 12:00 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 9,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It was all a complete put-up job by Boeing et al. I think the modern term is astro-turfing.
do you have any evidence of this, or is it just conjecture on your part? Because the Concorde had a number of issues by itself which made it impractical for most flights:

1) couldn't fly above the speed of sound over land
2) used pure turbojet engines which are very fuel-thirsty (the damn plane burned two tons of fuel just getting from the gate to the runway!)
3) needed afterburners for take-off and passing Mach 1, which made said thirsty jet engines burn fuel at a horrendous rate
4) using afterburners at take-off made the plane incredibly loud
5) limited passenger capacity.

With fuel and operating costs what they are, airlines would rather buy bigger, slower, more efficient planes and get butts in seats. The Concorde was an expensive-to-operate curiosity which existed so a handful of well-to-do folks could get to a couple of places faster than the rest of us peasants.

Last edited by jz78817; 07-07-2016 at 12:02 PM.
  #19  
Old 07-07-2016, 12:52 PM
Disheavel Disheavel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailboat View Post
Nevertheless, the noise was absolutely epic. Despite being miles away, the Concorde's rumble started out louder than other commercial planes...and just grew and grew in intensity, until it was a deep, sustained, booming thunder that you felt, everywhere. If that noise had been used in a movie, people would have accused the sound crew of Hollywood exaggeration. It was unreal.
+1!

Whenever a Concorde departed from JFK, the entire airport stopped in its tracks and stared. Inside the terminal the rumble was loud and this is where the sound proofing made it such that 747s barely made a whine. I was taking the old shuttle bus from the A line to the terminals once when the driver announced that he had just seen the Concorde turn toward the runway above/in front of us so he "was going to wait right here for a minute" directly behind the take off. The rumble and roar were just awesome- the whole bus felt like it was going to shake apart. The true draft was all deflected so this was just the noise, and it lasted a long time. The whole bus was giddy the rest of the uneventful trip to the terminals. But I cannot begin to explain how loud the take off was compared to other jets.

B-1 takeoffs from Ellsworth over I-90 pale in comparison.
  #20  
Old 07-07-2016, 12:57 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 10,475
If this succeeds where the Concorde failed, it'll be because there are potentially a lot more people globally in that sector of the market. Gross World Product is ~4 times what it was in 1980 and the vast majority of that increase is concentrated in the class of people who might think nothing of paying an extra few thousand dollars to get from Beijing to Los Angeles a few hours faster.

A relaxing of the rules about SST over land (if they really can make it quieter) will help. But I think the real reason this has a shot is that there are just more rich people interested in flying on it.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 07-07-2016 at 12:59 PM.
  #21  
Old 07-07-2016, 01:07 PM
Dorjän Dorjän is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Euclid, OH
Posts: 2,141
Smells like vaporware
  #22  
Old 07-07-2016, 01:59 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
do you have any evidence of this, or is it just conjecture on your part?
I used to work with people who were involved.
  #23  
Old 07-07-2016, 02:53 PM
t-bonham@scc.net t-bonham@scc.net is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
I think the real argument against most forms of super-high-speed transport is that ther just aren't that many people who need to get somewhere in half the time, given standard train/aircraft speeds. The issues with flying SF-Tokyo are a lot more than a few hours of flight time.
Yhe real killer for the Concorde was fiber optic undersea cables, and the low cost communications they enabled. Why go through all the hassles involved in flying there when you can Skype in from your desk?
  #24  
Old 07-07-2016, 04:07 PM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
So a new startup claims that they'll be able to design and build a 40 seat supersonic plane that has the range to fly Auckland - LA non stop, and they claim that ticket prices will be able to be comparable to business class.
I'll believe in the hype when they start using phrases like sub-orbital, otherwise sounds like just a faster arctic circle route.

Declan
  #25  
Old 07-07-2016, 04:17 PM
joema joema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Concorde failed in large part because American companies lobbied against it because it wasn't American and in lesser part because of the Arab oil crisis....
Concorde was a British/French airplane designed and produced in Europe. How could American political lobbying significantly influence its success or failure?

It could not fly supersonically over land in the US, but this had nothing to do with lobbying -- any US civil SST also could not. Concorde had limited range, a small passenger capacity, could not fly long trans-Pacific routes, and was very expensive to operate. Its useful advantage was basically limited to super-premium tran-atlantic routes.

If a US air carrier wanted to buy some Concordes they would have bought them, just like they buy Airbus today. Concorde had insufficient compelling advantages to offset the cost and limitations, so US carriers didn't buy them. I don't see how what lobbying has to do with this.
  #26  
Old 07-07-2016, 05:56 PM
markn+ markn+ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,047
If nothing else, "Boom" seems like a really poor name for an aircraft manufacturer.

--Mark
  #27  
Old 07-07-2016, 06:16 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 10,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net View Post
Yhe real killer for the Concorde was fiber optic undersea cables, and the low cost communications they enabled. Why go through all the hassles involved in flying there when you can Skype in from your desk?
And, yet, the number of passengers traveling globally by air keeps climbing. Here's the Bureau of Transportation Statistics if you want to take a look at the data.

I don't know if Boom is going to succeed. It's probably a long shot. But suggesting that there's no market, or that the failures of the Concorde will necessarily repeat seems off base. The world has changed a lot since 1980.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 07-07-2016 at 06:16 PM.
  #28  
Old 07-07-2016, 06:19 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by joema View Post
Its useful advantage was basically limited to super-premium tran-atlantic routes.
And guess what: they were much in demand at the time. But American aerospace companies successfully lobbied to prevent landing rights. The problem was that it wasn't American. It was a competitor to which American aircraft manufacturers had no answer. Had the plane been at least part-American then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Quote:
If a US air carrier wanted to buy some Concordes they would have bought them, just like they buy Airbus today.
They did, but cancelled their options.
  #29  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:01 PM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
OK, so the only possible engines mentioned so far are the GE J85, it's a 1950's design so I can't imagine it's particularly fuel efficient. Are there any other engines available for purchase by civilian companies that could possibly push this thing to mach 2.2? They do clearly say "existing engines".

The other thing that's odd about this is they are going straight to a 40 seat version designed for scheduled flights. It would seem to make more sense to me to first make a smaller 10 seat model as a private jet. There's certainly at least 40 or so billionaires and heads of state globally that would buy one just for the status symbol and don't care too much about running costs. There's a bunch of other companies aiming for this market but they all seem to be taking many years of development or are put on hold indefinately. On the other hand boom was formed in March this year from what I can tell and claims they'll have a prototype by end of next year ????
  #30  
Old 07-07-2016, 09:07 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 53,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by markn+ View Post
If nothing else, "Boom" seems like a really poor name for an aircraft manufacturer.

--Mark
Yes, that seemed to me to be disadvantageous to me from the start.

-Carnivorousplant.

Last edited by carnivorousplant; 07-07-2016 at 09:07 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-07-2016, 10:05 PM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by markn+ View Post
If nothing else, "Boom" seems like a really poor name for an aircraft manufacturer.

--Mark
It's doubly bad, not only because of association with crashing, but also because it makes people think of the sonic boom, which is the part of supersonic flight you want people to forget about. I guess they knew all this and think its "edgy".
  #32  
Old 07-07-2016, 10:29 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 9,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
And guess what: they were much in demand at the time. But American aerospace companies successfully lobbied to prevent landing rights. The problem was that it wasn't American. It was a competitor to which American aircraft manufacturers had no answer. Had the plane been at least part-American then there wouldn't have been a problem.
Quartz, this is GQ. You've stated this more than once, and I'd like some proof. And no, "I talked to some people one time" isn't a cite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
OK, so the only possible engines mentioned so far are the GE J85, it's a 1950's design so I can't imagine it's particularly fuel efficient. Are there any other engines available for purchase by civilian companies that could possibly push this thing to mach 2.2? They do clearly say "existing engines".
it's not that the J85 is the only thing which can do it , it's that a supersonic aircraft needs a turbojet (or low-bypass turbofan) engine with re-heat (afterburning) to get the job done. Turbojets and low-bypass turbofans are inefficient enough as it is; add afterburning and they're little more than fuel-sucking rockets. Airlines live and die by "asses in seats," so it's in their best interest to shuffle people around in big, sub-Mach planes with enormous, slow-spinning turbofans. Supersonic aircraft burn so much fuel and carry so few passengers that they're not worth talking about.
  #33  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:42 PM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Supersonic aircraft burn so much fuel and carry so few passengers that they're not worth talking about.
Well yeah that was the consensus last time this was discussed in GQ, but look at the list of names involved, these guys should know what they are talking about. Is it possible they are trying to make a design that could supercruise super sonically without having to use after burners at all, even during take off and when passing mach 1?
  #34  
Old 07-08-2016, 12:34 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,069
I'm wondering if the picture in the article is entirely accurate. To carry enough fuel, I presume the fuselage would be a large tank too. Much like the 747 where the center between the wings is a big tank (and has exploded at least once) I wonder how confident passengers will feel sitting on top of an extremely large tank? Toward the end of the flight I presume it will be a giant air tank at flash-point vapour density?

the real question is - has supersonic jet engine development made a decent amount of progress since the early 1960's? Possibly it has.

As for getting a prototype in two years - maybe by then they'll have a decent number of engineering drawings.
  #35  
Old 07-08-2016, 02:11 AM
coremelt coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
As for getting a prototype in two years - maybe by then they'll have a decent number of engineering drawings.
Well Scaled Composites timeline for SpaceShip one was three years from full time development until it's successful flights and then retirement. A flyable prototype is a long way from FAE approval, but seems like it's possible in practise.
  #36  
Old 07-08-2016, 06:45 AM
lazybratsche lazybratsche is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,662
But with $2 million in funding, all they can pay for is a handful of engineers shooting the shit at a conference table for a year or two. Their "senior staff" can be payed only with the promise of future profits. I'd be surprised if they could even get a wind tunnel model with so little money...
  #37  
Old 07-08-2016, 06:59 AM
joema joema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
....American aerospace companies successfully lobbied to prevent landing rights. The problem was that it wasn't American. It was a competitor to which American aircraft manufacturers had no answer. Had the plane been at least part-American then there wouldn't have been a problem...
Concorde's first European commercial service began on January 21, 1976. Within a few months it was approved for US commercial service to Dulles airport on May 24, 1976.

A group of environmentalists in league with the New York Port Authority (not aerospace companies) tried to ban Concorde from New York until 1977, when the US Supreme Court overturned this. Even with that delay Concorde was flying to NYC in 1977, one year after its first commercial service anywhere.

So there were forces trying to prevent Concorde US landing rights but these were not predominately American aerospace companies but environmentalists and municipal officials. This is documented in the book "Concorde Conspiracy", by Graham M. Simons.

Ultimately they only slightly delayed these landing rights, allowing Concorde to fly to the most profitable US it could reach. Thus Concorde was mostly free to succeed or fail on its own merits.

The problem is Concorde had a short range and very limited passenger capacity. It could barely make it across the Atlantic. No supersonic civil airliners -- US or otherwise -- were/are permitted on US overland flights. That restricts any SST whether Concorde or a US design to trans-oceanic supersonic flight. Concorde was a high-priced, niche product with limited range performance and a very high fuel cost per passenger mile. It began operations in an era of oil supply crisis and organized rabid environmentalists looking for a rallying point.

A key opponent to Concorde was British citizen Richard Wiggs who started the "Anti-Concorde Project": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project

Last edited by joema; 07-08-2016 at 07:00 AM.
  #38  
Old 07-08-2016, 07:10 AM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
Quartz, this is GQ. You've stated this more than once, and I'd like some proof. And no, "I talked to some people one time" isn't a cite.
It is when the people to whom I talked were the ones involved in designing, building, selling, etc the plane.
  #39  
Old 07-08-2016, 07:19 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,435
What are the kerosene-per-passenger-mile costs for super- versus sub-sonic travel? Is this a business plan that depends on continued cheap fuel?
  #40  
Old 07-08-2016, 07:31 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,278
Interesting 1977 Atlantic article on Concorde politics and challenges, written closer to the events in question but of course without whatever benefit hindsight provides us today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...an/gillman.htm
  #41  
Old 07-08-2016, 07:34 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It is when the people to whom I talked were the ones involved in designing, building, selling, etc the plane.
While I can't dispute you and perhaps what your claim may be true... this is not a reliable citation based on facts. This is only an opinion from an extremely biased group of people who, you claim, told it to you.
  #42  
Old 07-08-2016, 07:49 AM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 9,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Well yeah that was the consensus last time this was discussed in GQ, but look at the list of names involved, these guys should know what they are talking about. Is it possible they are trying to make a design that could supercruise super sonically without having to use after burners at all, even during take off and when passing mach 1?
I'm not 100% sure that's even possible. you've got to do all sorts of novel tricks at the engine inlet when you're going trans-sonic/super sonic. I suppose you could transition over to something like ramjets/scramjets, but I don't know what kind of fuel consumption those would entail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post

the real question is - has supersonic jet engine development made a decent amount of progress since the early 1960's? Possibly it has.
I don't know how much; I'm sure a lot of work has been wringing more efficiency out of them. But in concept they're still the same; a stack of fans blowing air into a flamethrower, which then blows through another smaller stack of fans. AFAIK modern (supersonic) fighter jets have moved to low-bypass turbofans, which are more efficient and also provide more fresh air for the afterburner when needed.
  #43  
Old 07-08-2016, 08:21 AM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 13,831
In the Bloomberg article they claim it will be "30 percent more efficient than the Concorde was." That doesn't sound very optimistic...?
  #44  
Old 07-08-2016, 08:42 AM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,905
Why am I yet again reminded of the Moller Aircar, which has been two years and one more big investor short of perfecting all its inherent flaws for most of my life?

ETA: :faceslap: Of course. It's on the cover of Popular Technowankers. Too.

Last edited by Amateur Barbarian; 07-08-2016 at 08:43 AM.
  #45  
Old 07-08-2016, 09:17 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I don't know how much; I'm sure a lot of work has been wringing more efficiency out of them. But in concept they're still the same; a stack of fans blowing air into a flamethrower, which then blows through another smaller stack of fans. AFAIK modern (supersonic) fighter jets have moved to low-bypass turbofans, which are more efficient and also provide more fresh air for the afterburner when needed.
They couldn't justify the cost of more efficient Concorde engines so I doubt there's much out there. There are Russian engines available commercially, I don't know anything about them. The engines from the Concordes are probably for sale, but that wouldn't explain any claim of improved efficiency. But there are engines made for the military that aren't available for commercial use only because no one has paid enough money to start producing a commercial version. They don't just start making $million+ engines because someone might buy them.

Anyway, no one is taking this all that seriously. The company is aligned with the Virgin space program and we haven't seen those commercial spaceflights yet.
  #46  
Old 07-08-2016, 09:17 AM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,208
I put this list together of the general flow of how I've seen and expect similar ideas to mature. This is based on 2 minutes worth of thinking. Pick any big idea and see how they fit:

Big idea with wildly exciting claims
Raise money based on claims
Do some technical work
Be behind schedule from initial claims, but features still there
Raise more money
Hit snags
Claim snags not related to technology
Blame snags on haters who have an axe to grind
Try to raise more money
Fail to raise enough
Scale back technical claims
Next (less big) idea with limited capability
Produce a prototype or few
Nobody cares, don’t sell enough
Company ceases operation
Blame detractors, haters and those who have an axe to grind
  #47  
Old 07-08-2016, 09:20 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
I put this list together of the general flow of how I've seen and expect similar ideas to mature. This is based on 2 minutes worth of thinking. Pick any big idea and see how they fit:
You forgot the last two steps:

Rinse
Repeat
  #48  
Old 07-08-2016, 09:59 AM
Amateur Barbarian Amateur Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
They couldn't justify the cost of more efficient Concorde engines so I doubt there's much out there. There are Russian engines available commercially, I don't know anything about them. The engines from the Concordes are probably for sale, but that wouldn't explain any claim of improved efficiency.
Ah. Yes. Commercial spaceflight transonic airliners on the cheap by using salvage parts. That always works so well.

Last edited by Amateur Barbarian; 07-08-2016 at 09:59 AM.
  #49  
Old 07-08-2016, 12:18 PM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by markn+ View Post
If nothing else, "Boom" seems like a really poor name for an aircraft manufacturer.
Oh, I dunno. Boeing seems to have done ok despite its name sounding like a piece of the plane just sprung off (boing!).
  #50  
Old 07-08-2016, 01:31 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 53,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Oh, I dunno. Boeing seems to have done ok despite its name sounding like a piece of the plane just sprung off (boing!).
Or the frame is failing under stress.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017