# boom supersonic plane. how the hell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 7, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308 "2016-07-07T13:48:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/41 "2016-07-08T12:34:41Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/42 "2016-07-08T12:49:52Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > 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. > [@md2000](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/43 "2016-07-08T13:21:58Z")
In the [Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/this-aerospace-company-wants-to-bring-supersonic-civilian-travel-back) article they claim it will be “30 percent more efficient than the Concorde was.” That doesn’t sound very optimistic…? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/44 "2016-07-08T13:42:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/45 "2016-07-08T14:17:33Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/46 "2016-07-08T14:17:35Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/47 "2016-07-08T14:20:38Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/48 "2016-07-08T14:59:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. [del]Commercial spaceflight[/del] transonic airliners on the cheap by using salvage parts. That always works so well. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/49 "2016-07-08T17:18:51Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > 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!). ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/50 "2016-07-08T18:31:54Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/51 "2016-07-08T18:39:27Z")
I was always surprised that the movie “Boeing Boeing” didn’t have any legal problems using that name. –Mark ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308/52 "2016-07-08T18:55:48Z")
[No boom today. Boom tomorrow.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnR3Tyrg_10) (sorry) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boom-supersonic-plane-how-the-hell/759308.md?page=2)