It seems that another company, named BOOM Aero is trying to take the air travel further than the legendary Concorde. Only the time will show how they're going to achieve it. MACH 2.2 is the target. IMHO they have to re-think the name. Here is the official web site: Boom - Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
Looks like they have a solution for the heating by using composites, leading edges of which will be thermal protection systems similar (but much lighter because of lower temperatures) to those on the X-37B. Propulsion for mach 2.2 is well understood, but usually does not take place over that long a period of time. Concorde propulsion was up to the game for long flights, but the airframe could not take sustained heating above about mach 1.7, their normal cruise speed.
I don't see the point of a supersonic plane. With all the hassles of getting on and off a plane, going through immigration and customs, getting your luggage, getting screened -- what's the point of saving a few hours in the air? IMO what the airline industry should be doing it making air travel easier on the body and make the experience more enjoyable. Who cares if there's a few more hours in the air if you're having a good time?
+1 However, Concorde had a dedicated check in desk & check in line at LHR "back in the day". Even BA recognized "we" spent more time getting on & off than in the air & tried their best to fix that for Concorde pax. I still recall sitting in the 1st class lounge there when the PA was screaming for some dude to get on the damn plane - He'd arrived from the Middle East that morning, bags transferred onto Concorde for the NY flight, and then went shopping. Came ambling in to the desk about an hour after it should have left - But it couldn't as his bags were aboard. Unreal. Totally agree on making it more "pleasant" - The upstairs bar/lounge on a few 747's was nice. Cheers, Ian
Having been on numerous 10 hr flights, both in coach and business/1st, I am more than ready to get off regardless of how enjoyable the experience was (or wasn't). Except when the movie I'm watching only has 15 more minutes and they shut down the system for landing.
It's another rich CEO who is a "pilot" and is going to spend a metric crap tonne of money on nothing...watch!
Read "The Team" profiles. Claiming as "good accomplishments" the Premier 1 and the Eclipse 500 is dubious. The Premier would have killed most companies it was sooooo late, over budget. The Eclipse got to the finish line, at least, but also suffered from incredible delays and even some questionable systems architecture decisions. The great accomplishment so far: a nice website. Likely to be their only accomplishment. These guys needs to go have a heart-to-heart with Vern Rayburn. Aerion has taken a very long time but they at least have very deep pockets. They still might not make it though. Jeff
It's my understanding that Concorde operations were heavily subsidized. What makes these guys think they'll find a profit without two nationalized airlines to pick up the expenses? Boom? How about Bust?
We're working with a new composite that is cured like a normal epoxy, but after that it is "post cured" (it does not have to be jigged during the post cure) at a higher temperature and after that it is capable of long term exposure of a bit over 400F. This is about right for a Mach 2.2 airframe an there are a number of matrix materials that can be used with it. We're looking at it from an engine perspective, but you can make large parts out of it like entire airframes. The beauty of this stuff is that it isn't hyper-expensive either. I remember a long time ago a guy at a symposium was showing a chart with how metal temperatures had increased over time with the development of new nickel alloys and he extrapolated that curve up to the 1990's and how we were going to reduced cooling.. Except they forgot that the base metal of these alloy turned to taffy at around 2200F.. A material that is capable of operating at 400F that is as light and as strong as carbon fiber is a breakthrough, no doubt about it and it will make a 2.2 Mach supersonic biz jet a lot more feasible. Still a lot of issues that have to be addressed, but the airframe was the biggest one. Still lots of issues with keeping the interior, fuel wheels and tires and other things cool, but a 2.2 cruise is a big improvement over what could have been done before.
'Flight tests to take place late next year.' My money is they are the some of the same people who tried to make the Javelin Personal jet located on KAPA airport. 18 months is a very ambitious schedule from drawing board to flying prototype. IIRC, there are a number of companies working the supersonic transport market. The first one to receive certification will most have no problems filling orders. This will be the 'toy to have' for billionaires.
Right now without a breakthrough in sonic boom technology, which NASA and its contractors are working to solve, there is still a prohibition against flying civil airliners supersonic across CONUS. So you would be limited to overseas routes, likely with part of the route subsonic for departure and arrival. Still, less than 2 hours to Hawaii or a bit longer to Europe has to have a market if the price is right.
Had Boeing's 2707 successfully flown perhaps SST might have become commercially viable. Perhaps today several generations of improvements would have established better sound suppression etc and made SST viable. We'll never know. Without the US playing in the sandbox Concorde was never going to be commercially viable and was supported not unreasonably by UK and French tax payers for a time out of national pride.
I hear you but as someone who flew Concorde a few times on business to NY, the experience was incredible. To wake in London at 6am local and be in a Manhattan office ready to make a presentation by 11:30am local the same morning was surreal and useful. Today with Global Entry and only carry on I can be off a plane and in a car in less than 20 minutes. Boarding is a little longer but hardly a chore if you're flying upfront. Getting through airports is a pain but do-able. There's enough people in the world excluding business paid PAX who would IMO pay a reasonable premium to slash half the time off the long haul journey. There's also the X Factor of SST. Concorde ran many vacation charter flights (sail to NY fly back Concorde etc) and these were always fully booked with "ordinary" folk loving the experience of SST. I remember speaking to a charming man who had won a competition run by his burger chain employer for best lifetime employee (or something). He and his wife were given tickets on Concorde as his prize with a short stay in NY. He cried as he told me flying on Concorde was a dream for him, a lifetime achievement. I hope someone makes it possible again in my lifetime.
Correct. The Concorde project was never financially viable. The 16 aircraft were and built with massive government subsidies from the 2 countries - in fact taxpayers money. After studing the figures, no private carrier wanted to buy it, because they had calculated that it was impossible to break even, and even less make any profit with it. Therefore, it was imposed on the 2 national airlines (British Airways and Air France) that operated them with reluctance. They soon asked for subsidies to maintain the fleet of Concordes afloat. So the taxpayers paid twice for them! Even with state help, each ticket for Concorde was sold at a loss. Seat occupancy percentage was below average. A survey, published in France, revealed that only 32% of Concorde travellers actually paid for their fare to fly Concorde. Most passengers had their flight paid for by government departments, corporation expense budgets, or other institutions. I think BA and AF were actually glad when they were finally allowed to ground the aircraft and stop the service. Concorde has been bleeding them for years. Concorde was maybe an advance aircraft providing a unique experience, but it turned out to be complete "white elephant" in commercial terms. The project was born out of vanity at a time of great rivalty between De Gaulle and the British government. When the colossal costs were announced, neither France, nor Britain wanted to loose face and admit their couldn't afford it or wanted to pull out.
Judging by the failure of numerous SST/ supersonic biz jet ideas, you best bet may well be Club Concorde - Concorde For London No idea whether the £160 million funding to get Concorde back in the air is real, but not insubstantial. Whether they can get it cleared for passenger supersonic flight is a whole different matter as well. But they are talking about doing it before the decade is out.
Which great human endeavor (nuts or otherwise) hasn't been based on vanity and/or rivalry? That's what makes us human, why we are prepared to turn irrational dreams into reality, why our kids are inspired when this stuff happens. I don't care why Concorde was built, I'm just delighted she was.
160m isn't even a generous F1 budget. Perhaps they could blow the whole wad, get the club aboard for a flight and push the aircraft back to the museum.
A problem Concorde had. The U.S. and most of Europe outside of France and the UK put in civilian airspeed limits. A civilian airplane in North American airspace can't exceed 0.99 Mach as an example. OK maybe there is some demand for a supersonic plane to go NYC to London or from North American cities to Asia. But anywhere in North America, they are just another subsonic jet with major competition.
There is good chance of that But if you look at the cost of getting one similar era Avro Vulcan bomber back to the sky, I think it took approx 10 years and £7 million. Admittedly, getting a passenger aircraft up and running and certified will be a lot more, but if their fund raising is to be believed, perhaps feasible. Both aircraft use similar vintage engine (the Concorde ones are are development of the vulcans with afterburners etc). The biggest problem they ran into was getting the support from BAe on the old Rolls-Royce engines. So now it is grounded for good. Plan B - one flight with a decent champagne budget out of £160 million.
Such resins have been around for over 30yrs, but in the past had longevity issues associated with thermal cycling. If they've gotten past those problems then maybe the original hype that accompanied these products back in the 80's will finally be realized.
