Richard Branson Reveals Prototype For Supersonic Passenger Aircraft

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The plan is for 3.5-hour flights between NY and London—for $5000. Can we at least get another name on the plane other than something that implies an explosion?

…test flights would begin in southern California, with plans to launch the first commercial departures in 2023. If the plans stick to schedule, Boom flights will launch 20 years after British Airways and Air France decommissioned Concorde. He said Boom would succeed where Concorde failed because developments in technology and lighter materials meant tickets would be much cheaper. “Sixty years after the dawn of the jet age, we’re still flying at 1960s speeds,” Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom, said. “Concorde’s designers didn’t have the technology for affordable supersonic travel, but now we do. Today, we’re proud to unveil our first aircraft as we look forward to our first flight late next year.”
 
If I'm paying 5K for a flight then I'd want more leg room
4000.jpg
 
The concord did not fail because the tickets were expensive... $5k is expensive to the prole but is a drop in the ocean for the powers that be...

The concord failed because airports and airlines could not stand it so when a convenient reason came along... they refused to fly it.

The concord has no holding capability... it is A to B and must land & everything else must change. UNLESS this replacement can do hold or has lww-speed capability (so short runways like london city can used, it's still going to have issues
 
Megalith said:
“Sixty years after the dawn of the jet age, we’re still flying at 1960s speeds,” Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom, said.
Click to expand...
We haven't even gotten subsonic travel as safe as it should be yet, nor can we always find airliners when they go missing... Even if I had the money to fly supersonic I wouldn't for another 20 years until they've perfected the process.
 
naib said:
The concord did not fail because the tickets were expensive... $5k is expensive to the prole but is a drop in the ocean for the powers that be...

The concord failed because airports and airlines could not stand it so when a convenient reason came along... they refused to fly it.

The concord has no holding capability... it is A to B and must land & everything else must change. UNLESS this replacement can do hold or has lww-speed capability (so short runways like london city can used, it's still going to have issues
Click to expand...
This new one is basically a flat 75% shrink of the concorde design with nothing really new and without any viable engines available and apparently no engine manufacture willing to from the billion or so in dev costs for the engine. Economics haven't changed really from the concord. And unless they can replicated the dedicated embarkation and customs that the prior Concorde had, it won't really save that much time either.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
We haven't even gotten subsonic travel as safe as it should be yet, nor can we always find airliners when they go missing... Even if I had the money to fly supersonic I wouldn't for another 20 years until they've perfected the process.
Click to expand...

subsonic airplanes are pretty damn safe. Generally safer than going to work.
 
Good luck with this, Branson. Not exactly virgin territory you're entering...
 
Funny considering Richard Branson was trying to buy the entire Concorde fleet off of British Airways 13 years ago....for 1GBP each.



I will say that the Concorde is probably one of the most beautiful birds of manmade aerial engineering to date....with its only competition being the SR-71.
 
Skripka said:
Funny considering Richard Branson was trying to buy the entire Concorde fleet off of British Airways 13 years ago....for 1GBP each.



I will say that the Concorde is probably one of the most beautiful birds of manmade aerial engineering to date....with its only competition being the SR-71.
Click to expand...
Except they took too many compromises on safety to save weight. That and it was a handful at low speeds.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Except they took too many compromises on safety to save weight. That and it was a handful at low speeds.
Click to expand...

IIRC Concorde was fly-by-wire, but barely...only a primitive analog flavor of it. Weren't most delta-winged supersonic aircraft with that vintage style avionics (or older) handfuls at lower speeds as a rule?

Over the service life of those airframes did they ever replace that gear with digital? I honestly don't know-but given the economics of the airplane I'd be surprised if BA spent the money. F-16 and newer supersonic fighters are only really flyable at all thanks to digital computers.



Didn't help matters that after all the delays of SST....by the time it finally took to the air the fuel crunch hit....and the midwest aviation boom went bust. Then Congress prohibited Concorde from supersonic overflights of the USA.
 
Skripka said:
IIRC Concorde was fly-by-wire, but barely...only a primitive analog flavor of it. Weren't most delta-winged supersonic aircraft with that vintage style avionics (or older) handfuls at lower speeds as a rule?

Over the service life of those airframes did they ever replace that gear with digital?.
Click to expand...


Yes. Planes like then including the Hustler, Delta Dagger, and Delta Dart were all handfuls at low speed.
Nope they never did. The avionics were of course upgraded. But the primary control systems were not.
 
I wonder if a swing wing plane would allow better low speed handling.
 
Tsumi said:
I wonder if a swing wing plane would allow better low speed handling.
Click to expand...

They originally thought of doing it. With the Boeing 2707 (linked above).


But the gigantic size and wing-loading of a passenger airliner made the mechanism too large and impractical (due to structural demands) to implement.
 
Skripka said:
Go surf non-stop London->LaGuardia flights post holidays....1st class is looking like $4,500+USD as of this morning.
Click to expand...
Hell I'm not sure how the Atlantic compares to the Pacific (Yes I realize it's longer) but flights from SFO to Beijing can easily top $2k in coach!!! Depending upon the time of year, Chinese New Year is a boon to airlines although now you can fly for less than than $500 RT which is a damn good price
 
With advanced technology, we might go to the moon someday too!


Sixty years after the dawn of the jet age, we’re still flying at 1960s speeds,” Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom, said.
Click to expand...

I would think, from only having passing knowledge of the aerospace industry that this is because planes need to be versatile enough to be used in different applications. So a plane that can fly from New York to London, also needs to be able to fly from New York to Dallas. Considering that super sonic speeds are still banned over populated areas, it would make no sense to deal with the short comings of a super sonic capable airframe for a plane that won't always be doing that. The Concorde was a dedicated machine. But dedicated machines are not cost efficient.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Hell I'm not sure how the Atlantic compares to the Pacific (Yes I realize it's longer) but flights from SFO to Beijing can easily top $2k in coach!!! Depending upon the time of year, Chinese New Year is a boon to airlines although now you can fly for less than than $500 RT which is a damn good price
Click to expand...

Yeeeeeeeeeeee-ouch.

I've flown lots of the Atlantic...but never shopped Pacific routes. Yikes.



westrock2000 said:
With advanced technology, we might go to the moon someday too!




I would think, from only having passing knowledge of the aerospace industry that this is because planes need to be versatile enough to be used in different applications. So a plane that can fly from New York to London, also needs to be able to fly from New York to Dallas. Considering that super sonic speeds are still banned over populated areas, it would make no sense to deal with the short comings of a super sonic capable airframe for a plane that won't always be doing that. The Concorde was a dedicated machine. But dedicated machines are not cost efficient.
Click to expand...


Yea bans on supersonic overland make sense when you hear the stories from military guys who served in Korea a couple decades back....they'll flatly tell you that the SR-71 was not a "stealth" aircraft. You *knew* when it was going/gone by. BOOOOOOOOM.

Every airplane bigger than commuters like 737s has its commercial limitations. A380 for example can only be handled by certain terminals/runways, same for 747.

Granted there are some strange airfields that are leftovers from the 1960s/70s aerospace boom. Take Lincoln Municipal Airport for example in Lincoln NE. Smallish town, low traffic airport. Biggest civilian plane it ever sees is maybe a 737, but usually just CRJs. But LNK has a 15,000ft long runway. LNK was actually on the top-10 list for alternate Space Shuttle landing sites.
 
Tsumi said:
The F-14 :p

The A-10 is a close contender though.

I always attempt to beat the entire Ace Combat games with the F-14 if I can.
Click to expand...

Same here with regard to the F-14. I had a model of it as a kid, with variable sweep wings and all. Dat radar dish.
Ditto A-10.
My crystal ball (not to be confused by crystal shards) tells me no. 3 would be the AC-130. Because who wouldn't want to fly around with a howitzer.

One day I will pick up Richard Branson's idea and buy a little helium filled balloon. I will attach an array of 2 or 3 tiny cameras (the tiny light spy ones) to it and let it go. I will thus have my private surveillance satellite :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsumi
like this
michalrz said:
Same here with regard to the F-14. I had a model of it as a kid, with variable sweep wings and all. Dat radar dish.
Ditto A-10.
My crystal ball (not to be confused by crystal shards) tells me no. 3 would be the AC-130. Because who wouldn't want to fly around with a howitzer.

One day I will pick up Richard Branson's idea and buy a little helium filled balloon. I will attach an array of 2 or 3 tiny cameras (the tiny light spy ones) to it and let it go. I will thus have my private surveillance satellite :D
Click to expand...

B-1 is number 3 for me, followed by the AC-130. Then it is probably the P-38 and B-17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top