What are your thoughts on Boom Airliner, the "successor"

>>1087244
Aerion probably come first

>>1087246
>Aerion
>Mach 1.5

Boom reach 2.2, friend.

>>1087249
Like it even matters. Besides, <2.0Mach puts airframes comfortably below the threshold at which aerodynamic heating becomes problematic

>>1087244
It will never succeed as a business for commercial air travel. The only chance supersonic passenger aircraft have is in the business jet market.

>>1087276
And this is because even if the engines are ~30% more fuel efficient than what the Concorde had (as Boom claims), that's still hugely inefficient compared to a modern turbofan. Not to mention that airliners have gotten quieter over the years and suddenly going to something that is substantially louder than even old airliners is just asking for a million lawsuits.

>>1087244
Dead on arrival.

File: 1-W74C3m7pSrPWOWlXV07feA.jpg (162KB, 1000x943px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1000x943px

>>1087279
>hugely inefficient
Lets consider what speed regime they're concerned with before calling them inefficient.

>>1087458
>propulsive efficiency
I'm not completely au fait with aeronautical engineering terminology, but it seems to me that this chart does not reflect the losses of moving a body through the air at high speeds.

Just because the engines are more efficient at high speed doesn't mean that the whole system is.

>>1087472
Aircrafts consume 6x nore fuels than high speed rails with merely 2x speed difference but people still fly

>>1087458
No matter what design decisions they make, it will be significantly less efficient than any modern commercial airliner. That is not an opinion and is not debatable.

It is not possible with any existing or near-future technology to make a supersonic airliner more fuel efficient (in total or on a passenger-mile basis) than a conventional subsonic one.

>>1087477
Because it is cost competitive for the consumer. They get to go >2x faster (and a higher factor than that on average) for the same or only slightly more money than they would pay for a train ticket.

Supersonic travel at the price point that Boom alleges will be viable (which is completely unproven), would be 5x-10x more expensive.

>>1087244
How tall are those landing gears gonna have to be? The engines droop off of an already low wing.

for SST to happen. It has to transport as many people, on the same amount of fuel, as a normal airliner.

by the time boom is up and running security and other airport inefficiency will take so long the total travel time will roughly be the same

>>1087766
>as many people, on the same amount of fuel, as a normal airliner.
not particularly, it could be a luxury transport for rich people who want to get where they're going as fast as humanly possible, so you can charge them more per person to make up the additional cost of fuel

>>1087768
That's exactly what Concorde tried to do and failed. And that was with Concorde holding 2x as many people as Boom.

>>1087767
Anyone that could afford the supersonic price point should be using Global Entry, TSA Pre-check, and CLEAR. Pretty much never a line when you have that.

File: uMsTO.jpg (76KB, 1178x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1178x640px

>>1087472
With regards to engines alone, pure turbojets are best for supersonic flight regimes, as they can take advantage of ram effect, which turbofans cannot.

>>1087609
>not an option and not debatable
NO. Efficiency is a key component, but it is not the only factor that must be considered. Money is the only thing an airline sees, as it is a heavily regulated business with lots of expenditure. Time is money to some people; I guarantee you there are people willing to pay to get from New York to London (or wherever for that matter) as fast as possible, even with a hefty price tag. If it is profitable they will invest in the technology.

It is certainly possible, but the time and money required for supersonic transport research, both engine and airframe, is a hard pill for people to swallow. The only reason that conventional subsonic aircraft look so good in comparison (from a numbers standpoint) is that they have been developed continuously since the 1950s and there is an existing market established for it. Thankfully both NASA and several private companies don't share your pessimistic appraisal of the concept.

>>1087786
concorde failed in large part because of shit press after VAPORIZING an entire flight of people
then because god fucking hates the concorde, their first post accident flight with passangers where they showed off that they fixed the issue was on september 11, 2001, meaning they got 0 press and couldn't do any flights for another month
if boom doesn't, well, boom it could succeed where concorde failed

>>1087790
It also needed insane amounts of fuel and was verry uncomfortable.

>>1087244
It's a good name

>>1087244
Yet another vaporplane.

These things (some startup with SST renders and nothing else) come around every 5 years to suck up "investment" from gullible retards.

>>1087790
No, the Concorde failed because it lacked a sustainably viable business model. The crash was just the last nail in an otherwise fully constructed coffin.

>>1087969
More comfortable than those "European business class" seats at similat flight duration and actually take you further

>>1088070
It was successful that they're extending their life from operation point of view

>>1088071
You where never in a actual concorde, where you?
The seats are smaller than economy class seats at Ryanair and you had verry little leg and headroom.

>>1088076
Never in an actual Concorde but if you're judging from your past experience in the plane then you might be tricked by your memory (look st those seat pitch info)

>>1088080
I recomend you to get in one at a museum.
I was in one and it is basicly like a downscaled economy class.
It might look ok on pictures, but it is fucking small in reality.

>>1088070
>>1088073
BA abandoned Concorde because they wanted to reduce the average noise levels around Heathrow in order to persuade the government to build another runway there.

>>1088073
What the fuck does that even mean?

>>1088085
which still haven't been constructed yet
>>1088084
at least it should be better in term of seat pitch?
>>1088107
Minus the initial investment, construction and acquisition cost

>>1088146
>seat pitch
I don´t have information about that since the Concorde I was in was the one in Sinsheim wich is angled upwards.

>>1088146
That still makes no sense. The life of the Concorde is not being extended.

>>1088150
It had since 1990s?

>>1088076
Have you been in an actual Concorde? There's not much headroom, true, but plenty of legroom.

-someone who's spent in excess of a thousand hours in a Concorde

>>1088153
Yes, I have been in the one standing in the museom of technology in Sinsheim.

>>1088151
Your garbled English is making whatever point you're trying to make basically indecipherable.

>>1088161
I mean they have already applied life expansion program to Concorde in mid 1990s
>>1088155
That one that does not allow you to sit in it?

>>1088164
That's completely fucking irrelevant.

File: aerion_052014.jpg (272KB, 2000x1272px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 2000x1272px

This shit apparently has 20 firm orders already.

Your move, Boom.

File: 123.png (43KB, 564x391px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 564x391px

>>1088289
Boom already moved.

>>1088293
>non-refundable payments
well that's encouraging

>>1088289
>>1088293
None of those orders are final or binding. Period.

>>1088312
Well now we know that they're confident in not getting their asses sued off

>>1087789
Hell, for the Trans Pacific and Trans Russia routes there is a HUGE market to go across in 5 hours, it is a huge dead spot, and Australia would love to be connected to the rest of the world in real time. There is a market, even if it was just JAL/Quantas/Aeroflot for a fast airliner.

>>1087789
You seem to be fucking ignoring that this exact thing has been tested in the real world and failed. And not a single thing in Boom's (or any other company's) business model overcomes that.

>>1088293
>>1088289
>Airliner competing against business jet

>>1088379
>tested in the real world and failed
No. Strict regulations on where it could land restricted its operation to several major airports exclusively, limiting it to several routes. That and a poor initial business model destroyed its economic potential.

>>1089705
Oh, you mean the fundamentally same model that Boom has explicitly proposed for operations?

>>1087611
It's less than two time faster as airports are typically far from cities while rails go straight to downtown.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (47KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1280x720px

DID SOMEBODY SAY BOOM?

>>1088070
>Concorde failed because it lacked a sustainably viable business model

The aircraft made bank for both Air France and BA.

The problem was only a few were produced and there were only x amount of replacement parts made. That was the biggest issue with the profitability.

>>1089565

They are both business jets.

>>1089742

You mean the very profitable concord model?

File: xb-1-1.jpg (52KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x349px

>>1087244

Also those are old renders

>>1087244
As someone who travels consistently across country, I'd cum buckets if this were a thing.

Sitting on a plane for 5 hours sucks ass.

>>1089742
I'm not defending Boom, I'm defending the Concorde and the idea of supersonic air travel. I truly believe the aircraft was fantastic and ahead of its time, but the strict regulation and ineffective initial management on the business side was it's downfall, not the plane itself.

>>1089935
The boom aorcraft will have 50 seats operating with full business class aorline service which is not business jet

>>1087244
Not going to happen.

The original sonic boom complaints were just the result of some con artists trying to make a buck from the FAA for cracked plaster and windows. They got turned down and were butt-hurt.

But now that the seed of sonic boom == bad has been planted in neurotics heads, we won't see the lifting of flight restrictions. It doesn't matter how 'soft' you can make the boom. If someone with the right mental tic hears it, they will shit themselves. Always wonder what these people do during thunderstorms.

>>1087244
absolute dogshit name

>>1089935
Concorde was not extremely profitable ever. It barely turned a profit operationally for a short period of time.

>>1089935
They're not business jets you dumb nigger. Business class is not the same as business jet.

>>1089743
And the vast majority of passenger traffic at basically every airport is not destined for city centers.

And your math is pure dog shit. Anything over ~500 miles, a jet is going to be much faster even including aiport time.

>>1089923
https://youtu.be/GVlpqEv7TKo