Yet another supersonic transport jet promised...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another supersonic transport jet promised...
...complete with the obligatory fancy interior 
:
Supersonic 'Boom' jet promises to fly from Sydney to LA in under seven hours
These seem to pop up every couple of years. This one promises SYD-LAX in under 7 hours, for a fare of around US$3500, all based on "existing technology". If you look at the company website, there seem to be some serious people involved, and a 1/3 scale prototype is due to fly in "late 2017". But is there really any reason to think this is not just another deluded fantasy?
(I would love to be wrong, though)
:Supersonic 'Boom' jet promises to fly from Sydney to LA in under seven hours
These seem to pop up every couple of years. This one promises SYD-LAX in under 7 hours, for a fare of around US$3500, all based on "existing technology". If you look at the company website, there seem to be some serious people involved, and a 1/3 scale prototype is due to fly in "late 2017". But is there really any reason to think this is not just another deluded fantasy?
(I would love to be wrong, though)
Surely he'd be planning to show more up-to-date movies than that?
The total mission perspective is missing. It will still take an hour to get TO the airport, two to three hours wat AT the airport and then another hour at the arrival airport before you are released to find a cab to your destination. So for a Sydney-LA run you's spend 4-6 hours on the ground and 7 in the air. For a Heathrow to New York run you'd still spend 4-6 hours on the ground for less than four in the air. It would be similar for Heathrow to Chicago except that you'd spent another three hours trying to find the scumbag of a baggage handler who vandalised your gear and nicked your valuables.
The airport is the bottleneck, and it would surely be far cheaper and more cost-effective to invest in ways to reduce these delays than to invest in decidedly speculative high speed aeroplanes for the flying segment.
Mach 2.2 presumably means significantly higher than FL600. There's no mention of how the radiation problems would be addressed.
PDR
The total mission perspective is missing. It will still take an hour to get TO the airport, two to three hours wat AT the airport and then another hour at the arrival airport before you are released to find a cab to your destination. So for a Sydney-LA run you's spend 4-6 hours on the ground and 7 in the air. For a Heathrow to New York run you'd still spend 4-6 hours on the ground for less than four in the air. It would be similar for Heathrow to Chicago except that you'd spent another three hours trying to find the scumbag of a baggage handler who vandalised your gear and nicked your valuables.
The airport is the bottleneck, and it would surely be far cheaper and more cost-effective to invest in ways to reduce these delays than to invest in decidedly speculative high speed aeroplanes for the flying segment.
Mach 2.2 presumably means significantly higher than FL600. There's no mention of how the radiation problems would be addressed.
PDR
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly appears to have ignored all the data from NASA's QSP boom-reduction work ( most famously that F-5E with the grotesque nose for boom-shaping ). Just a 1950s-standard delta planform ; is it even area-ruled? Certainly appear to have done their work on the marketing side, though.
Business class only? They'd do better to operate from airfields that are geared up for exclusively business class, such as Farnborough or Biggin Hill.
Not that it will ever happen. And who came up with the idea of calling it the Boom Jet? Great idea until one crashes.
Not that it will ever happen. And who came up with the idea of calling it the Boom Jet? Great idea until one crashes.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ill-fated Concorde" ? Certainly sales never lived up to the dream, and certainly there was one fatal crash (albeit caused by part of another plane) but they did have quite a respectable operational innings. A partial success rather than "ill-fated" in my opinion. Do these words represent Beardie's view? Is the former huge fan of Concorde now belittling it to boost his own cover version?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde struggled to make 4 hour sectors to/from NYC, looking at the pic of what seems a very similar 'pencil' design one wonders where they're going to store twice as much the fuel as Concorde could store.
Concorde became a success by it's failure but commercially, financially, it was a disaster.
Concorde became a success by it's failure but commercially, financially, it was a disaster.
