Boom has orders for 76 of its future supersonic passenger jets(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Boom has orders for 76 of its future supersonic passenger jets
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/boom-has-orders-for-76-of-its-future-supersonic-passenger-jets/
207 comments
For the end consumer in this realm there is only victory, regardless of what happens to Boom. If 4 hour transatlantic flights become a viable option again I frankly don’t care who succeeded or failed to get to that point.
I do enjoy watching companies like Boom, because this is the kind of underdog chutzpah that the word “courage” is supposed to describe.
I do enjoy watching companies like Boom, because this is the kind of underdog chutzpah that the word “courage” is supposed to describe.
4 hours combined with airport waits ends up becoming something like 6 hours right?
Is there a big difference in practicality between 6 hours and 10 hours? Feels like you still lose the day to travel for the most part.
Is there a big difference in practicality between 6 hours and 10 hours? Feels like you still lose the day to travel for the most part.
If you have your routine down, fly during the work week (most business travel), and have precheck you can pretty reliably have your wait down to 45 minutes. I fly a lot and usually breeze through the airport.
Sometimes I go through the airport in 45 minutes or even a lot less, but I still get there three hours early because the risk of not getting through in 45 minutes, and the problems it causes if I don't, are too great. Getting through in 45 minutes four times out of five doesn't help me if I miss my flight and all my travel plans are ruined the other one time out of five.
I think that there should be city center terminals at which you do check in. Then a bus would take you to the airport. The terminals could be nice, with free breakfast, and you'd sit down at a table with your laptop after going through check in. And when the bus came, you'd get on it stress free. If an airline did this, they could save a lot of passenger time and stress and it would probably be cheaper and better for the environment then faster planes.
Here it is!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_Air_Terminal
Or rather, was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_Air_Terminal
Or rather, was.
And the idea is all the passengers would be on the bus so they would delay departure if the bus was delayed?
I don't think it would help much to put the check-in in the city centre though - getting into a city centre is just as prone to delay as getting to an airport, and I'd still need to leave hours for that possibility.
I don't think it would help much to put the check-in in the city centre though - getting into a city centre is just as prone to delay as getting to an airport, and I'd still need to leave hours for that possibility.
Yes, all passengers would be on the buses and if a bus was delayed they would delay the plane.
Oops, I forgot that in the US you don't have subways. Here in Europe, there are never, ever, delays going to the city center.
Oops, I forgot that in the US you don't have subways. Here in Europe, there are never, ever, delays going to the city center.
> Here in Europe, there are never, ever, delays going to the city center.
Two words guaranteed to strike terror into the heart of Londoners: "tube strike".
(I'm all for subways but let's not pretend they're 100% reliable when they run on Victorian technology and have various sorts of regular delay inducing incident)
Two words guaranteed to strike terror into the heart of Londoners: "tube strike".
(I'm all for subways but let's not pretend they're 100% reliable when they run on Victorian technology and have various sorts of regular delay inducing incident)
Sure, but I'm guessing this happens rarely enough (once every couple of years) that it would fall under the same category of "severe thunderstorms", i.e. an act of God that was going to delay everything no matter what you would do.
I’m British, but I still wouldn’t bet thousands of pounds worth of travel plans on absolutely being able to get into London without delay.
I forgot you guys were still technically in Europe, sorry.
Why are you being so snide and unpleasent?
To take London, a very exceptional case IMO, and present it as an example of European transport is not very meaningful. England is really much more like America in this regard, you even have American style suburbs. It is not really a counter example to say that London hasn't got a reliable subway line. And I think that it is perhaps a little arrogant to think that London in any way represents Europe. Most european cities have a series of subway lines which cross in the center. The center is therefore easily reachable by all. However, the outskirts are not, due to the need to change trains. My suggestion of putting terminals in city centers, rather than in the airport at the outskirts of the city, is therefore reasonable within the context of Europe. London being an exception, due to your professed lack of functional public transport, is a pity, but it is not a counter argument.
Is that possible for international flights? My impression is that you're kinda forced to get there super early. But maybe I'm doing this wrong.
I'm also used to doing international flights from cities where the airport is super far away. For example Charles De Gaulle is still a 45 minute train ride away from a lot of useful stuff. DFW's a bit out there too.
The dream is obstensibly Shinkansen-style "get there in the morning, leave in the evening and be back before bedtime" flows. Is that doable with smaller international flights already?
I'm also used to doing international flights from cities where the airport is super far away. For example Charles De Gaulle is still a 45 minute train ride away from a lot of useful stuff. DFW's a bit out there too.
The dream is obstensibly Shinkansen-style "get there in the morning, leave in the evening and be back before bedtime" flows. Is that doable with smaller international flights already?
Depends on the airport. 100% possible at LCY, which is also only 20m from Canary Wharf.
It really does. I can reasonably go to Houston Hobby or Austin Bergstrom and with Precheck expect to be at the gate within 15 minutes of when I walked in the door (assuming no checked baggage). DFW or O'Hare or George Bush is an entirely different ballgame.
SFO - less than 60 minutes from SOMA to seat with (1) precheck, (2) no check in bags.
I usually get into the airport a few minutes before boarding. My emplacement process is usually ~20-25 minutes with no wait.
Yes, a big difference. Currently, if you're based in London and have meetings in NYC you can fly out in the morning and take the evening flight back but won't be at home for the night. With a 4 hour flight (preferably out of London City where you can arrive 25 min before departure) you can fly out in the morning and be back at night. That way they can at least get some time to spend with their families. Some people would spend a lot of money for that.
A note for comparison on use of LCY: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/62...
In short, the largest plane that can take off from there is an A318, and it immediately has to go refuel at Shannon.
In short, the largest plane that can take off from there is an A318, and it immediately has to go refuel at Shannon.
LCY has a short runway and particularly strict noise limits, it’s not especially obvious that fast aircraft would be able to operate from it.
When an aircraft is fast in the air it doesn't mean it has to be fast at the runway.
For example the takeoff and landing speed of a F16 is almost the same as any other commercial plane (~270 km/h).
For example the takeoff and landing speed of a F16 is almost the same as any other commercial plane (~270 km/h).
You are comparing apples to oranges. Takeoff speed of similarly sized plane to F16, Cessna is around 100km/h.
Concorde's take off speed was 400 km/h. Delta wings don't have same amount of lift, hence higher speeds.
Concorde's take off speed was 400 km/h. Delta wings don't have same amount of lift, hence higher speeds.
Similar?
The F16 is about twice as long (49 feet / 15 meters) a Cessna (28 feet / 8.3 meters) and weights about 8.5 times as much unloaded: Cessna 2200lb / 1000kg and the F16 18,900lb / 8,570kg.
The F16 is about twice as long (49 feet / 15 meters) a Cessna (28 feet / 8.3 meters) and weights about 8.5 times as much unloaded: Cessna 2200lb / 1000kg and the F16 18,900lb / 8,570kg.
Fair enough. A bit larger, but lighter (17.68 m, 12,850 lb) Learjet 45 has landing speed of 200 km/h.
A Cessna 172 is in the 1700lb range empty.
Yeah I looked at a few Wikipedia entries and decided to use a number at the higher end in an effort to not appear to be cherry picking.
I was only replying to the fact that you cannot tell by top speed what runway is needed and what sound it makes.
Plus you avoid jet lag.
Yes, there is. If it's 6 hours you can make it two way for a meeting in one day without breaking your sleeping schedule.
If it's 10 hours, you can't.
If it's 10 hours, you can't.
You can if you sleep on the return flight (or sleep on the first flight and have time in your schedule to shower/change after you land).
The advantage is not with when you sleep, it's with where. With 6 hour flights you can sleep in your bed at home. You can't do that with the 10 hour flights unless you break your sleep schedule.
The advantage is not with when you sleep, it's with where. With 6 hour flights you can sleep in your bed at home. You can't do that with the 10 hour flights unless you break your sleep schedule.
I fly internationally regularly for work. I get to the airport early have a coffee and get some work in. Then on the plane i connect to the wifi and continue to work. This way i don't lose any time. It's just a regular work day except I've crossed a sea and continent.
Are you arguing for or against the viability of this idea? I genuinely cannot tell.
I'm giving another perspective to inter-continental air travel and the idea that travel time is lost time. To clarify I'd take a shorter flight if available purely for my spinal health but it's possible to make international travel work. Timezones are a bigger concern than travel time.
[deleted]
Airbus/Boeing are not known for quick delivery. It took >8 years to get the 787 from launch announcement to a customer, and that's after who knows how many years of internal studies and research.
I think the revenue from this would be a drop in a bucket compared to what Boeing pulls from conventional subsonic jetliners. Also, their entire engineering paradigm favors slow & conservative development. See how ULA has struggled to catch up to scrappy SpaceX.
There were over 100 orders for the Concorde in the 1960s and when the first prototype was flying this already went down to 74, but most of them were canceled, so only 14 commercial planes were ever build. I would be sceptical about this project.
It can mean any number of things depending on the contract. An order could be everything from a a vague deceleration of interest, to an obligation to buy the plane at a set price given that it meets some criteria. The article doesn't say which it is, or if it's anything in-between.
I once read they had serious overheating problems.
They had serious problems, period.
As you say, one major problem was that the aircraft skin got really hot from friction - hot enough that they had to build it out of a special titanium alloy, and paint it with heat resistant paint - but that was inadequate. Due to the heating and cooling that occurred each cycle the entire airframe would expand and contract very substantially - over repeat cycles this lead to metal fatigue, and would lead to failure but not for incessant expensive maintenance. For an idea of how much the thing expands, on the final flight of the model now at RNAS Yeovilton, the flight engineer stuck his cap between the engineering console and the bulkhead, where it remains sandwiched by pressure today.
Apart from the thermal issues, the entire craft suffered from “so cutting edge it barely works” all over, from special tyre compounds to window seals to the famous drop nose. It was an engineering marvel and nightmare, in one improbable package. It’s frankly surprising it even ever existed.
I think the major difference will be that Concorde was a space age plane built with 60’s tech, and these will Be space age planes built with space age tech.
As you say, one major problem was that the aircraft skin got really hot from friction - hot enough that they had to build it out of a special titanium alloy, and paint it with heat resistant paint - but that was inadequate. Due to the heating and cooling that occurred each cycle the entire airframe would expand and contract very substantially - over repeat cycles this lead to metal fatigue, and would lead to failure but not for incessant expensive maintenance. For an idea of how much the thing expands, on the final flight of the model now at RNAS Yeovilton, the flight engineer stuck his cap between the engineering console and the bulkhead, where it remains sandwiched by pressure today.
Apart from the thermal issues, the entire craft suffered from “so cutting edge it barely works” all over, from special tyre compounds to window seals to the famous drop nose. It was an engineering marvel and nightmare, in one improbable package. It’s frankly surprising it even ever existed.
I think the major difference will be that Concorde was a space age plane built with 60’s tech, and these will Be space age planes built with space age tech.
Concorde pulled off supersonic travel with plane designed on physical pieces of papers, with pencils and rectangles.
SpaceX has like 9 or so failed landings until they pulled it off. If Boom keep iterating fast enough, I think they have a good chance of being successful.
SpaceX has like 9 or so failed landings until they pulled it off. If Boom keep iterating fast enough, I think they have a good chance of being successful.
> space age plane built with 60’s tech
Wasn't the 60's the space age, though? :)
Wasn't the 60's the space age, though? :)
Was it?
I have the feeling much of the tech of the last century was too much for the people living at the time.
Yes, they found out about fusion and fission, but there are no viable fusion reactors out there and even the fission ones are highly problematic.
Yes, they build super sonic planes but they barely held together or did cost a fortune.
Yes, the send people to space, but how many and at what price?
We even had super computers and main frames, but it took half a century to get this tech in every home AND then some time to get it in everyones pocket.
Last century was more of a industrial mass market thing. The stuff from the 1800 was finally available for the rest of us.
The whole high tech stuff was discovered at the time but it wasn't really usable, even if it was still used, see concord or fission based power plants.
On the other hand, the risk we took for the power plants was probably set off by getting electricity to everyone and allowing the industrial age tech to work more wide spread.
Anyway, I think we are in more of a space age now than we were back in the days.
I have the feeling much of the tech of the last century was too much for the people living at the time.
Yes, they found out about fusion and fission, but there are no viable fusion reactors out there and even the fission ones are highly problematic.
Yes, they build super sonic planes but they barely held together or did cost a fortune.
Yes, the send people to space, but how many and at what price?
We even had super computers and main frames, but it took half a century to get this tech in every home AND then some time to get it in everyones pocket.
Last century was more of a industrial mass market thing. The stuff from the 1800 was finally available for the rest of us.
The whole high tech stuff was discovered at the time but it wasn't really usable, even if it was still used, see concord or fission based power plants.
On the other hand, the risk we took for the power plants was probably set off by getting electricity to everyone and allowing the industrial age tech to work more wide spread.
Anyway, I think we are in more of a space age now than we were back in the days.
Now just wait for 2 billion+ people to actually get working on our future problems. Say what you will about China and India industrializing, but if we manage to transition fast enough to renewables, having so many middle class people will have a huge impact on the world history, more than anyone is expecting right now, I think.
We're living in the age of idiocracy.
Fun thing: the SR-71 is built as well to cope with massive expansion once up to speed, so much so it is leaking all over the place when groundborne.
If you don't think that 60's tech is space age tech, then you might do good to DDG the Apollo program!
Seriously, I understand that you meant "space age" as "contemporary" but in fact, the term _should_ still refer to the age in which it was coined and represents the big leaps and bounds in the eponymous technology.
Seriously, I understand that you meant "space age" as "contemporary" but in fact, the term _should_ still refer to the age in which it was coined and represents the big leaps and bounds in the eponymous technology.
> these reservations include non-refundable down payments
Interesting that they forgot to say how large is the down payment
Interesting that they forgot to say how large is the down payment
In absence of a specific number the only sane thing to assume is that it's way closer to $1 than to the cost of the plane. Such an easy and obvious marketing tactic.
No way that the actual amount could be allowed to become public if it is individually negotiated per customer.
I am typically quite skeptical about these kinds of products, but the phrase "non-refundable deposit" made me read on. I hope they pull it off!
I wonder about noise concerns. The concorde only reached supersonic flight on the ocean, not on land because of the sonic boom.
And a lot of the push back was NIH because boing bailed on its SST it would be interesting to find out who bankrolled the anti concord activits.
And Boom is a US company :-)
And Boom is a US company :-)
Presumably they’d only do trans-oceanic flights.
Their FAQ says:
> Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's.
So I don't think they have that presumption.
> Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's.
So I don't think they have that presumption.
Dubai or Singapore to Heathrow or CDG are over land and still have plenty of potential.
Trans-Pacific routes could also use supersonic planes, since longer distances mean even more time savings (Tokyo to Los Angeles in 5 hours instead of 10) and there's virtually nobody underneath to complain about the noise.
In USA, all supersonic flight over land by civil aircraft has been prohibited by regulation introduced in March 1973. [0] Without changes in the legislation, airlines can only offer supersonic flights over the ocean.
[0] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap...
[0] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap...
Boom (and others) are working to get those rules changed to limit maximum noise rather than maximum speed. If they can figure out how to make Mach 2.0 as quiet as Mach 0.85 to people in the flight path, go for it:
http://aviationweek.com/bca/legislation-open-door-us-superso...
http://aviationweek.com/bca/legislation-open-door-us-superso...
It's pretty much a solved problem for the last two decades. You can use the shape of the wing and fuselage to broaden sound wave, and go supersonic at an angle of attack that sends the brunt of the transition sonic boom above the horizon or at least on a long trajectory to the ground.
Not necessarily a dealbreaker. Concorde did ok with British airways flying out of NY. Assuming the rules don’t change there are plenty of viable routes out of Houston, NY, and SFO.
Concorde was a British-French aircaft, so it was allowed to fly over the UK. If it had been American, it would have been banned instantly. It was horrifically noisy.
> It was horrifically noisy.
I saw it land/take off a handful of times as a kid. The noise was unlike anything else I've ever experienced - you could hear it many kilometers away and up close (on the airport boundary) you'd feel every internal cavity vibrating when it departed. As a child it was marvellous!
I saw it land/take off a handful of times as a kid. The noise was unlike anything else I've ever experienced - you could hear it many kilometers away and up close (on the airport boundary) you'd feel every internal cavity vibrating when it departed. As a child it was marvellous!
I never said it's a deal breaker, just that it's not possible to fly supersonic over the land.
I do hope that the Boom team will be able to deliver a viable service for benefit us all. Would love nothing more than to travel faster.
I do hope that the Boom team will be able to deliver a viable service for benefit us all. Would love nothing more than to travel faster.
The look like they’re doing ocean only flights. At 3:15 in the video they show a map with about 500 routes.
Supersonic flight doesn't have to be as noisy as the Concorde was. Remember, Concorde was designed in the mid 1960s (over 50 years ago) with minimal use of computer modeling. We've had decades of advances in computer modeling and processing power so it's now possible to design planes with much quieter sonic booms. On the order of 100x to 1000x quieter.
Here's one plane being developed by Lockheed Martin, "designed to create a sonic boom only 1% as strong as that generated by the Concorde." Though, this plane is smaller than the Concorde so it's boom should naturally be smaller, however the idea still applies to other supersonic planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAI_Quiet_Supersonic_Transport
Lockheed Martin claims their design only generates 60 A-weighted decibels of noise. This is compared to the Concorde’s sound at cruising altitude of about 90 A-weighted decibels. 60 decibels would put it at about the sound of a normal conversation. That would make it quiet and non-intrusive enough for overland flights.
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/innovations/072016-webt-superso...
Here's one plane being developed by Lockheed Martin, "designed to create a sonic boom only 1% as strong as that generated by the Concorde." Though, this plane is smaller than the Concorde so it's boom should naturally be smaller, however the idea still applies to other supersonic planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAI_Quiet_Supersonic_Transport
Lockheed Martin claims their design only generates 60 A-weighted decibels of noise. This is compared to the Concorde’s sound at cruising altitude of about 90 A-weighted decibels. 60 decibels would put it at about the sound of a normal conversation. That would make it quiet and non-intrusive enough for overland flights.
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/innovations/072016-webt-superso...
Aerion, Boom, Gulfstream, HyperMach and more. It seems crowded for such a niche product with a lengthy, costly and uncertain development cycle.
What I'm really curious about is how they're going to deal with radiation. At the required altitude your pilots and attendants can't do a normal routine. You'd get too high of a dosage, unless things are shielded. But that is heavier.
Extra radiation exposure is minor at those altitudes.
For passengers, yes. Workers, no.
The Concord had 12-15uSv/hr [1] (2-3x a long haul flight). The lower bound and best case, workers are fine. Upper bound and European (which are stricter than American, but we're talking international flights) standards are 1mSv (whole body) or 50mSv (effective to skin) [2]. So we're between 4166hrs/yr and 66.6hrs/yr working that would be allowed.
Because it is international they'd probably go with the lowest common denominator, at 1mSv/yr dosage allowed (50mSv/yr for American radiation workers, 150 for Astronauts). And we're just talking flight, not adding the nominal background radiation, which is going to reduce the number of hours even more.
So in short, no, the extra radiation exposure at those altitudes is not minor. It has to be considered if you are going to hire people to fly your plane and attend to your passengers. Airlines already consider radiation exposure. No one wants to do massive medical payouts 30 years from now.
[1] http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-heal...
[2] http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Doses_Limits.htm
Addendum: 1Sv in a year is a 5.5% increase of cancer over your entire lifetime. 1Sv in an hour will probably kill you.
The Concord had 12-15uSv/hr [1] (2-3x a long haul flight). The lower bound and best case, workers are fine. Upper bound and European (which are stricter than American, but we're talking international flights) standards are 1mSv (whole body) or 50mSv (effective to skin) [2]. So we're between 4166hrs/yr and 66.6hrs/yr working that would be allowed.
Because it is international they'd probably go with the lowest common denominator, at 1mSv/yr dosage allowed (50mSv/yr for American radiation workers, 150 for Astronauts). And we're just talking flight, not adding the nominal background radiation, which is going to reduce the number of hours even more.
So in short, no, the extra radiation exposure at those altitudes is not minor. It has to be considered if you are going to hire people to fly your plane and attend to your passengers. Airlines already consider radiation exposure. No one wants to do massive medical payouts 30 years from now.
[1] http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-heal...
[2] http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Doses_Limits.htm
Addendum: 1Sv in a year is a 5.5% increase of cancer over your entire lifetime. 1Sv in an hour will probably kill you.
The dose limits for radiation workers (which includes airline flight crews) is 20 mSv/yr. This is supported by the ICRP [1] and the EU [3].
British Airways carried out and published data from radiation monitoring of Concorde crews: "Supersonic transport (SST) flights The Concorde SST... was designed to fly at the... operating altitude of around 18 km (about 59 000 ft). Concern for potential hazards... led to monitoring equipment... being installed in all Concorde aircraft. Many data have been derived from this, including more than 20 years experience of the radiological environment. ...these flights indicate that the radiation exposure of Concorde flying crew is unlikely to exceed 6 mSv/y." [2]
I will also suggest the interested reader look into "radiation hormesis" and what data really exists to support the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model, or the idea that any amount of radiation raises risk, below certain dose rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/
[1] http://www.icrp.org/icrpaedia/limits.asp [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128520/pdf/oen... [3] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:...
British Airways carried out and published data from radiation monitoring of Concorde crews: "Supersonic transport (SST) flights The Concorde SST... was designed to fly at the... operating altitude of around 18 km (about 59 000 ft). Concern for potential hazards... led to monitoring equipment... being installed in all Concorde aircraft. Many data have been derived from this, including more than 20 years experience of the radiological environment. ...these flights indicate that the radiation exposure of Concorde flying crew is unlikely to exceed 6 mSv/y." [2]
I will also suggest the interested reader look into "radiation hormesis" and what data really exists to support the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model, or the idea that any amount of radiation raises risk, below certain dose rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/
[1] http://www.icrp.org/icrpaedia/limits.asp [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1128520/pdf/oen... [3] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:...
Thanks for that. I didn't see that paper when I was quick googling for Concord levels. That's not bad, 7.8hrs/day is the max (given the 7uSv/hr dosage they are estimating). So no flight crew is going to undergo that.
Though it still begs the question, is Boom going to get that. As I understand it, Concord had nickel-aluminum throughout its body, which has better shielding properties than CF. They are also introducing more flights. Transpolar flights means more dosages.
But given that paper I'm less concerned with the radiation dosages now. I'll still be interested to see what the data says when they start gathering it. We've also learned a lot more about radiation exposure, especially in flight since '96 [1][2]. And note that these values vary quite a lot.
The real interest here will be in solar storms. I also wouldn't be surprised if NASA straps detectors to those planes, if Boom becomes commercial. I'd be very interested to see that.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-rad...
Though it still begs the question, is Boom going to get that. As I understand it, Concord had nickel-aluminum throughout its body, which has better shielding properties than CF. They are also introducing more flights. Transpolar flights means more dosages.
But given that paper I'm less concerned with the radiation dosages now. I'll still be interested to see what the data says when they start gathering it. We've also learned a lot more about radiation exposure, especially in flight since '96 [1][2]. And note that these values vary quite a lot.
The real interest here will be in solar storms. I also wouldn't be surprised if NASA straps detectors to those planes, if Boom becomes commercial. I'd be very interested to see that.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html
[2] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/airline-rad...
This is the most interesting question I've seen in a while.
While I'm confident that material choices could provide some protection based on decades of spaceflight engineering and research into lightweight radiation protection methods.
However it's the kind of hidden issue I can honestly imagine no one thinking about until it's far too late, which could make it a significant Achilles heel in terms of practical operation of these planes by airlines.
While I'm confident that material choices could provide some protection based on decades of spaceflight engineering and research into lightweight radiation protection methods.
However it's the kind of hidden issue I can honestly imagine no one thinking about until it's far too late, which could make it a significant Achilles heel in terms of practical operation of these planes by airlines.
So I actually do some work in this area, hence me asking the question.
The conventional method is aluminum. New methods include UHMWPE (polyethylene, same stuff grocery bags are made of) and Kevlar. There's doping methods to help some of these materials, but it can be really complicated.
Carbon Fiber, what they are using, isn't really that great for shielding. I've personally run simulations on this, and untreated CF isn't that great of a shield. So my question is, are they treating their CF? Are they using dopants? What resins are they using? What altitudes will they be flying at? These things matter very much.
The conventional method is aluminum. New methods include UHMWPE (polyethylene, same stuff grocery bags are made of) and Kevlar. There's doping methods to help some of these materials, but it can be really complicated.
Carbon Fiber, what they are using, isn't really that great for shielding. I've personally run simulations on this, and untreated CF isn't that great of a shield. So my question is, are they treating their CF? Are they using dopants? What resins are they using? What altitudes will they be flying at? These things matter very much.
Don't they have to use a fine copper grid over the surface of any carbon fibre used in aircraft? Otherwise you get a lightning strike on the wing, and it explodes? Does that help shielding from radiation too?
I asked some colleagues and they said no. CF is conductive btw. And at that high of a voltage...
But my intuition would say that Cu adding to CF would not improve its shielding qualities. Especially if it is a mesh. No mesh is going to make the shielding characteristics better because the particles are at such a high frequency.
But my intuition would say that Cu adding to CF would not improve its shielding qualities. Especially if it is a mesh. No mesh is going to make the shielding characteristics better because the particles are at such a high frequency.
Not claiming this is 100% factual, but this YouTube video suggests the mesh thing is real : https://youtu.be/m37z5R2rJ5E
And I've seen similar on UK documentaries as well.
And I've seen similar on UK documentaries as well.
I'm highly skeptical considering Boeing and Airbus haven't been able to make a supersonic plane. This is not software where a couple of smart guys can code something decent up over a pizza-fueled weekend.
Some skepticism is justified, sure, but at this point making supersonic aircraft isnt rocket science any more. It’s a well understood problem domain and they are using well proven engines.
Even if it were rocket science Boeing has been making rockets a lot longer than SpaceX, who are still handed my them their ass.
Even if it were rocket science Boeing has been making rockets a lot longer than SpaceX, who are still handed my them their ass.
Boeing makes supersonics. The just haven't managed to make a commercially viable one. They have the technical ability tho'.
I wish Boom the best of luck in getting a working product, but they need to fix their marketing. There is absolutely no way that plane tickets will cost 75% less than Concorde tickets, unless something drastic changes from the norm of air travel- either severe baggage restrictions, extremely cramped seating, or different fuel.
Even with all the greatest computer model, one thing remains the same: it takes a massive amount of thrust to maintain supersonic flight. EVERY airplane that is/was capable of supersonic cruise (SR-71, XB-70, F-22, Concorde) have/had comically oversized engines compared to what design rules of thumb would suggest. New technologies enable slightly more efficient airframes and slightly more efficient engines, we are talking about a few percent overall. So, I can see tickets being 20% less than they were in the Concorde's day.
Part of the reason I think they have mis-calculated a number is that they might be calculating a flight cost that includes fuel only and doesn't include other things an airline has to price into a ticket- namely insurance and maintenance. Insurance for the first supersonic passenger plane since the Concorde is guaranteed to be higher than a 767. Maintenance is going to be crazy as well- flying at Mach 2.2 places different stresses on an airplane, and they break a lot. All of the current supercruising airplanes are/were maintenance nightmares. Don't think that technology can "magic away" all the maintenance issues that come up with sustained stress on your engines, skin friction, and cooling issues.
Unless something else changes, there is no way you'll be able to buy a NY to London plane ticket for 75% less than a Concorde. How might they get there? Packing people in like sardines, or replacing normal baggage space with extra seats, would both get more paying seats on board, but would be a big setback from what business class passengers expect. Or maybe there is some magic fuel out there that is lighter than Jet-A/B and delivers more thrust and is safe enough for use in a passenger jet. The existence of magic fuel is unlikely, so be prepared for one of two things- 1. your tickets cost more than expected, or 2. you are packed in like a sardine.
Again, I'm glad that someone is trying to make a supersonic passenger jet, but hyperbolic marketing ultimately hurts you in the long run when it becomes obvious that you can't live up to expectations.
Even with all the greatest computer model, one thing remains the same: it takes a massive amount of thrust to maintain supersonic flight. EVERY airplane that is/was capable of supersonic cruise (SR-71, XB-70, F-22, Concorde) have/had comically oversized engines compared to what design rules of thumb would suggest. New technologies enable slightly more efficient airframes and slightly more efficient engines, we are talking about a few percent overall. So, I can see tickets being 20% less than they were in the Concorde's day.
Part of the reason I think they have mis-calculated a number is that they might be calculating a flight cost that includes fuel only and doesn't include other things an airline has to price into a ticket- namely insurance and maintenance. Insurance for the first supersonic passenger plane since the Concorde is guaranteed to be higher than a 767. Maintenance is going to be crazy as well- flying at Mach 2.2 places different stresses on an airplane, and they break a lot. All of the current supercruising airplanes are/were maintenance nightmares. Don't think that technology can "magic away" all the maintenance issues that come up with sustained stress on your engines, skin friction, and cooling issues.
Unless something else changes, there is no way you'll be able to buy a NY to London plane ticket for 75% less than a Concorde. How might they get there? Packing people in like sardines, or replacing normal baggage space with extra seats, would both get more paying seats on board, but would be a big setback from what business class passengers expect. Or maybe there is some magic fuel out there that is lighter than Jet-A/B and delivers more thrust and is safe enough for use in a passenger jet. The existence of magic fuel is unlikely, so be prepared for one of two things- 1. your tickets cost more than expected, or 2. you are packed in like a sardine.
Again, I'm glad that someone is trying to make a supersonic passenger jet, but hyperbolic marketing ultimately hurts you in the long run when it becomes obvious that you can't live up to expectations.
And yet again someone on HN spends 5 mins reading about a company and concludes that the company has
forgotten / misunderstood / miscalculated / is hiding
something entirely fundamental to their business model.
Look, this is a company with adults on board. It's not just 2-3 kids doing another CRUD app in a domain they are completely new to. It's engineers with education and long careers in aviation. I think they know better than most of us the size of engines, that planes use fuel and what it cost. I think they know the cost of insurance and maintenance and other cost components that go into flying at supersonic speed.
forgotten / misunderstood / miscalculated / is hiding
something entirely fundamental to their business model.
Look, this is a company with adults on board. It's not just 2-3 kids doing another CRUD app in a domain they are completely new to. It's engineers with education and long careers in aviation. I think they know better than most of us the size of engines, that planes use fuel and what it cost. I think they know the cost of insurance and maintenance and other cost components that go into flying at supersonic speed.
Right, because marketing speech is never misleading. Say, would you be interested in purchasing some shares on an innovative blood testing company?
The engine development from 80's/90's (e.g. F404) to the modern variants (F414) basically allows 20% more thrust at the same size/weight of engine. Supercruise isn't that exotic now in the military realm. Quite a few modern fighters have supercruise now that the most modern engines support it.
Of course, supercruising in a fantastically expensive small fighter is not the same as supercruising in an airliner. And a military fighter being sold as "cheap to operate" such as the Gripen E is not the same thing as being able to sell seats in it at commercial prices. 75% less sounds like a LOT, but I'm not sure how much of the Concordes prices consisted of fuel, and how much consisted of other things (expensive development, expensive maintenance?)
Of course, supercruising in a fantastically expensive small fighter is not the same as supercruising in an airliner. And a military fighter being sold as "cheap to operate" such as the Gripen E is not the same thing as being able to sell seats in it at commercial prices. 75% less sounds like a LOT, but I'm not sure how much of the Concordes prices consisted of fuel, and how much consisted of other things (expensive development, expensive maintenance?)
I'm inclined to be skeptical of the prospects of this for all sorts of reasons (airport noise, viability of the "all premium" business concept). But they are now reporting contracts with airlines, including nonrefundable deposits, and the airlines that put money down are presumably familiar with all the costs you mention, and probably had someone go over the math.
> But they are now reporting contracts with airlines, including nonrefundable deposits
Partial payments like that are an investment in the chance that Boom will deliver something exceptional; they avoid not being in the first wave if Boom succeeds.
It doesn't mean they think the chances of Boom producing a worthwhile product are > 50%.
Partial payments like that are an investment in the chance that Boom will deliver something exceptional; they avoid not being in the first wave if Boom succeeds.
It doesn't mean they think the chances of Boom producing a worthwhile product are > 50%.
I'm sure the airlines know exactly what they are getting. The passengers are going to be the mad ones when they find out they can't afford a ticket. When this happens the demand will plateau for the few high-demand routes that can sustain this price of ticket, and Boom won't get another order past the original 76 pre-orders.
The airlines know what they are getting and the passengers are going to be the mad when they can't afford a ticket?
This doesn't make sense to me. The airline should have a netter idea of what passengers can and cant afford. Is they are confident enough to order planes, I feel its safe to assume the demand is there.
More importantly I'd like to know what the cost and payment down is. If its $100k you might have many taking a high risk punt. If its $20m you've got some real commitment and confidence.
This doesn't make sense to me. The airline should have a netter idea of what passengers can and cant afford. Is they are confident enough to order planes, I feel its safe to assume the demand is there.
More importantly I'd like to know what the cost and payment down is. If its $100k you might have many taking a high risk punt. If its $20m you've got some real commitment and confidence.
[deleted]
> The passengers are going to be the mad ones when they find out they can't afford a ticket
Business travelers will be buying these. They'll have a travel budget, the trip will be justified, and the company card will pay. It will pass through silently and might eventually show up in a travel policy that states how only executives are allowed to book supersonic flights.
Not only won't the passengers be mad, they might even be more likely to fly given the reduced travel time. It will now be much faster from NYC to London than to the Bay.
Business travelers will be buying these. They'll have a travel budget, the trip will be justified, and the company card will pay. It will pass through silently and might eventually show up in a travel policy that states how only executives are allowed to book supersonic flights.
Not only won't the passengers be mad, they might even be more likely to fly given the reduced travel time. It will now be much faster from NYC to London than to the Bay.
Considering the airlines financial history of government bailouts and bankruptcy I wouldn't be so sure.
Aircraft fuel efficiency has improved by more than 50% since the 1960s. Most people would call that more than "a few percent".
That's subsonic fuel efficiency. Supersonic is another thing entirely.
The supersonic wing is also terrible at subsonic speeds, meaning it takes a terrifying amount of fuel to push it up to altitude and supersonic. Military supersonics deal with this by getting a drink from a tanker after takeoff.
The supersonic wing is also terrible at subsonic speeds, meaning it takes a terrifying amount of fuel to push it up to altitude and supersonic. Military supersonics deal with this by getting a drink from a tanker after takeoff.
Boom are flying with turbofan engines, not the turbojet engines that were common in the 60s.
As for aerodynamics, the F-22 is relatively efficient at high subsonic speed and also doesn't require external tanks like earlier jets do.
As for aerodynamics, the F-22 is relatively efficient at high subsonic speed and also doesn't require external tanks like earlier jets do.
Wikipedia says that the F-22 is able to supercruise without afterburner, using turbofan engines. This may be the key.
Supersonic capable turbofans that are able to get the "force multiplier" of using bypass airflow for thrust at supersonic speeds are honestly the key enabling technology here.
So basically a supersonic turbofan is a SCRAMJET behind the first fan?
Not being an expert on supersonic turbofans, I went to the obvious first information source and it was surprisingly illustrative. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
From a little further reading it seems it seems that supersonic turbofans are actually just the apex of the continued sophisticated work being done on jet engines which has allowed them to push the intake fans of low bypass turbofans up to supersonic airflow speeds.
From a little further reading it seems it seems that supersonic turbofans are actually just the apex of the continued sophisticated work being done on jet engines which has allowed them to push the intake fans of low bypass turbofans up to supersonic airflow speeds.
As is the Typhoon
Why has nobody designed a variable width wing? One that can expand / contract for different speeds?
Naïve question, I know. Just curious...
Naïve question, I know. Just curious...
They're called flaps and slats.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/flap.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/flap.html
Barnes Wallis developed some interesting designs in the early 50s: http://www.sirbarneswallis.com/Supersonics.htm
Concorde has a variable width wing.
I think they mean variable geometry more in the line of the B-1 Lancer or F-14 Tomcat... And the answer is probably cost, complexity, reliability and weight.
All four of those.
To be fair, the cost of jet fuel has increased by more than 50% too, and won't be the dominant cost if they are only shipping 70 jets.
But the comparison is with the costs of the Concorde when it was shut down in 2003, not the costs of the Concorde in the 1960s.
According to US census bureau, per capital income in US has increased by 10x since late 60s. Jet fuel prices have increased around 6x, from around 30 cents to around $2. So wouldn’t that make jet fuel more affordable?
Did you account for inflation? $1 in 1970 is worth $6.52 now.
Inflation, the general rate at which the price of goods and services is rising and falling, is literally the calculation made in the post to which you have replied.
This is the standard "engineers other than software are idiots" type HN FUD. For the record, Boom is staffed by aerospace veterans from the likes of Scaled Composites, P&W, Adam Aircraft, SpaceX and Boeing. https://boomsupersonic.com/about/ They might know thing or two about cost analysis.
This has nothing to do with a software engineer looking down on other types of engineering, since I'm not a software engineer. My post was all about Boom's marketing mouth making claims that it won't be able to back up, or possibly making half-truths that are going to leave people disappointed.
I'm also an "aerospace veteran" and have seen more projects cancelled than succeed (most recently the Lear 85). Designing a new plane is capital "H" Hard. That goes doubly so for planes that are big departures from the previous experience of the company. Cessna makes great light business jets. They are currently trying to design a line of bigger jets and are finding it very hard. Lear can't figure out how to make anything without mechanical flight controls. It takes a couple generations of design to figure things out. So a bunch of engineers from Scaled and Boeing aren't going to help. How many ex-Concorde engineers have they hired?
I'm also an "aerospace veteran" and have seen more projects cancelled than succeed (most recently the Lear 85). Designing a new plane is capital "H" Hard. That goes doubly so for planes that are big departures from the previous experience of the company. Cessna makes great light business jets. They are currently trying to design a line of bigger jets and are finding it very hard. Lear can't figure out how to make anything without mechanical flight controls. It takes a couple generations of design to figure things out. So a bunch of engineers from Scaled and Boeing aren't going to help. How many ex-Concorde engineers have they hired?
>How many ex-Concorde engineers have they hired?
All right, when you said you are an aerospace veteran I was prepared to take you seriously, but this cancels that out completely. Firstly any Concorde engineers would, if they started their career right out of college on Concorde, be about 80 years old by now. Then this plane is using different and much more modern engine technology, different control systems and different materials. Almost nothing learned from Concorde would be up to date and relevant to this plane, from an engineering perspective.
All right, when you said you are an aerospace veteran I was prepared to take you seriously, but this cancels that out completely. Firstly any Concorde engineers would, if they started their career right out of college on Concorde, be about 80 years old by now. Then this plane is using different and much more modern engine technology, different control systems and different materials. Almost nothing learned from Concorde would be up to date and relevant to this plane, from an engineering perspective.
Indeed. It's much easier to criticize a new effort. It's not that the components of the criticism itself is necessarily wrong, but the conclusion that what the new endeavor is doing is impossible is purely based on armchair quarterback.
We should remain skeptical whenever someone says they will do great things that hasn't been done before, but immediately going to the conclusion of "it's impossible because I can't imagine how to make it work" is just plain arrogance - a true skeptic should be skeptical of his/her own judgement.
We should remain skeptical whenever someone says they will do great things that hasn't been done before, but immediately going to the conclusion of "it's impossible because I can't imagine how to make it work" is just plain arrogance - a true skeptic should be skeptical of his/her own judgement.
>This is the standard "engineers other than software are idiots" type HN FUD
What? I don't think that has anything to do with it at all, and the distinction between types of engineering seems irrelevant. I think he's pointing out that they're trying to make a profitable business without understanding the necessary costs. Given the nature of startups to overpromise and underdeliver (as that's a common tactic to help raise money), his skepticism seems reasonable to me. I see just as many criticisms of software businesses on this site (actually many more, since there are far more articles about software companies here than hardware companies).
I have very little aerospace experience so I do not claim to be an expert, and while like to see people tackling big problems eventually succeed, his points seem salient to me.
What? I don't think that has anything to do with it at all, and the distinction between types of engineering seems irrelevant. I think he's pointing out that they're trying to make a profitable business without understanding the necessary costs. Given the nature of startups to overpromise and underdeliver (as that's a common tactic to help raise money), his skepticism seems reasonable to me. I see just as many criticisms of software businesses on this site (actually many more, since there are far more articles about software companies here than hardware companies).
I have very little aerospace experience so I do not claim to be an expert, and while like to see people tackling big problems eventually succeed, his points seem salient to me.
In fairness, HN usually assumes software engineers are idiots too. The general sentiment is more "engineers other than me are idiots".
I am listening, I'd like to know more from them.
Concorde used turbojet engines, with afterburners for takeoff and from M0.95 to M1.7
Boom is using medium-bypass turbofan engines which are much more efficient.
As for comparison with the F-22, The F-22 engines are quite reliable. The F119 engine (to my knowledge) has never had a core failure requiring shutdown in flight. The RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) coating on the F-22 is maintenance intensive, but not required for a SST. Almost 50 years of research should provide a paint that can handle the heating of supersonic flight, with minimal maintenance.
Boom is using medium-bypass turbofan engines which are much more efficient.
As for comparison with the F-22, The F-22 engines are quite reliable. The F119 engine (to my knowledge) has never had a core failure requiring shutdown in flight. The RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) coating on the F-22 is maintenance intensive, but not required for a SST. Almost 50 years of research should provide a paint that can handle the heating of supersonic flight, with minimal maintenance.
It is important to note that afterburners, while they give you extra speed, are pretty much like dumping fuel overboard.
I imagine it's a huge upgrade being able to design with computer modeling. I honestly can't fathom how they calculated supersonic airflow when designing the Concore.
Even into the 90s, numerical simulation of naiver-stokes was pretty minimal (I worked with the NASA Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation folks at Ames at the time) and yet up to then the SR-71, X-1B, Valkyrie etc were all designed, built and flown, not to mention some spacecraft too that you might have heard of :-).
There was some computational modeling, but mostly it was old fashioned engineering: slide rules, models, and as someone else remarked, some over-engineering. The same way people built bridges 150 years ago when that was a black art.
There's a wonderful/sad picture at the Hiller museum on 101 in San Carlos. It shows the day the Boeing SST program† was shut down. In front of the mockup (which is also at the museum) are wooden workbenches with vices attached.
It made me realize that not only were they designing everything with slide rules, but people then built all the parts by hand from drawings a draftsman (not draftsperson in those days unfortunately) also produced by hand from hand-sketches and notes by and engineer. Honestly this blew my mind when I realized that the ME-262, SR-71 and LEM were produced in the same way.
And I should have known: at MIT I took Unified the last year (1983) that the practical work was done entirely on old WW II surplus machine tools. In the next room, not yet unpacked, were early CAD systems.
† I still wonder if Boeing was every really serious about passenger SST.
There was some computational modeling, but mostly it was old fashioned engineering: slide rules, models, and as someone else remarked, some over-engineering. The same way people built bridges 150 years ago when that was a black art.
There's a wonderful/sad picture at the Hiller museum on 101 in San Carlos. It shows the day the Boeing SST program† was shut down. In front of the mockup (which is also at the museum) are wooden workbenches with vices attached.
It made me realize that not only were they designing everything with slide rules, but people then built all the parts by hand from drawings a draftsman (not draftsperson in those days unfortunately) also produced by hand from hand-sketches and notes by and engineer. Honestly this blew my mind when I realized that the ME-262, SR-71 and LEM were produced in the same way.
And I should have known: at MIT I took Unified the last year (1983) that the practical work was done entirely on old WW II surplus machine tools. In the next room, not yet unpacked, were early CAD systems.
† I still wonder if Boeing was every really serious about passenger SST.
In 1971 my mother worked for Caltrans[1] with the title of 'delineator'. The title was originally 'draftsman' in 1965 or so when she was hired.
When it ruins your life, it's a vice. When it holds your work together, it's a vise.
[1] California Dept of Transportation
When it ruins your life, it's a vice. When it holds your work together, it's a vise.
[1] California Dept of Transportation
Reminds me of my Mech eng BTEC thermofluids course the college had a load of ww2 surplus lathes to.
Though on my course we only had 1 person who worked at a traditional engineering firm the rest of us worked in RnD at the RAE ARA or on campus at CIT.
Though on my course we only had 1 person who worked at a traditional engineering firm the rest of us worked in RnD at the RAE ARA or on campus at CIT.
I doubt they could with much precision, which is probably why they just gave the Concorde a ton of thrust and huge flight control surfaces.
The fuel costs are a larger concern to the low cost airlines charging $300 round-trip, than to a supersonic service charging say $2500 round trip (this would represent a 75% saving over Concorde). The fuel consumption per seat mile of the Concorde was roughly 3x that of a 747. Concorde used abt 700l of fuel per passenger, each way, IIRC, and today, with turbofans rather than turboject, you might achieve say 500 l. Bear in mind that airlines pay less for fuel than you and I at the pump... about $0.5/litre, today.
As for maintenance costs, I imagine that one can expect a very substantial decrease due to the use of CAD, better materials and improved practices. Cost reductions of >40% per flight hour were achieved in the military for "equivalent" aircraft between 1970's and 2000's, and reductions of >50% per seat-mile were achieved in the same period for commercial aircraft (eg: early B747 vs B777). Maintenance costs for commercial airlines are a fraction of the fuel costs in any case.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the Concorde was a very profitable business for British Airways, with operating profit of ~40% for the Concorde!
As for maintenance costs, I imagine that one can expect a very substantial decrease due to the use of CAD, better materials and improved practices. Cost reductions of >40% per flight hour were achieved in the military for "equivalent" aircraft between 1970's and 2000's, and reductions of >50% per seat-mile were achieved in the same period for commercial aircraft (eg: early B747 vs B777). Maintenance costs for commercial airlines are a fraction of the fuel costs in any case.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the Concorde was a very profitable business for British Airways, with operating profit of ~40% for the Concorde!
> Finally, it is worth remembering that the Concorde was a very profitable business for British Airways, with operating profit of ~40% for the Concorde!
You make some good points, but BA received their Concordes for free. It's easy to turn a profit with a 150 million pound gift. Air France did not have it as easy. Boom's customers will not be getting their planes for free. And a 50% efficiency saving does not translate into 75% cheaper tickets. And my experience is that claimed maintenance savings are never as good as promised, and that goes doubly so for the "A" variant of any plane.
You make some good points, but BA received their Concordes for free. It's easy to turn a profit with a 150 million pound gift. Air France did not have it as easy. Boom's customers will not be getting their planes for free. And a 50% efficiency saving does not translate into 75% cheaper tickets. And my experience is that claimed maintenance savings are never as good as promised, and that goes doubly so for the "A" variant of any plane.
> but BA received their Concordes for free.
Only the last four white-tails were close to free, they cost 1 Franc each.
The original UK Government-borne £115 million contract cost of the BOAC / BA Concordes was being recouped at a rate of 80% of their operating profit until in 1984 BA bought themselves out of the arrangement for £25 million.
Only the last four white-tails were close to free, they cost 1 Franc each.
The original UK Government-borne £115 million contract cost of the BOAC / BA Concordes was being recouped at a rate of 80% of their operating profit until in 1984 BA bought themselves out of the arrangement for £25 million.
Interesting why was BA gifted their Concordes? Did Air France lose money on their Concorde routes?
According to a NYT article [1] from the 2003, when the Concorde flew it's last flight, the airlines have never disclosed exact numbers for the profitability of the Concorde. Air France said 'Concorde operation was profitable "in some years."' BA said it once was, but not after the AF Concorde crash in 2000.
They specifically mention that both Airlines didn't have to pay for the planes:
> Part of the reason the airlines could claim some profitability on the Concorde was because they did not have to incur capital costs on the planes. [...] The governments of England and France underwrote the costs of building the 14 Concordes, which were then turned over to the two national airlines.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/nyregion/for-concorde-econ...
They specifically mention that both Airlines didn't have to pay for the planes:
> Part of the reason the airlines could claim some profitability on the Concorde was because they did not have to incur capital costs on the planes. [...] The governments of England and France underwrote the costs of building the 14 Concordes, which were then turned over to the two national airlines.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/nyregion/for-concorde-econ...
My grandfather was one of the first pilots in Air France.
He refused to fly the Concorde because he would never fly a plane that would make the company loose money.
> a supersonic service charging say $2500 round trip (this would represent a 75% saving over Concorde)
FWIW Concorde ticket prices were so high because they were expected to be so high. By clients. BA raised their prices significantly in the early 80s to match what customers perceived the prices would be:
> Market research had revealed that many of Concorde's existing business customers had their tickets purchased by their employers, and thought the cost of a journey on Concorde was more expensive than it actually was; thus ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions.
FWIW Concorde ticket prices were so high because they were expected to be so high. By clients. BA raised their prices significantly in the early 80s to match what customers perceived the prices would be:
> Market research had revealed that many of Concorde's existing business customers had their tickets purchased by their employers, and thought the cost of a journey on Concorde was more expensive than it actually was; thus ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions.
The Concorde's design was finished in 1960, when almost all computers still used vacuum tubes. Computational aerodynamics definitely made a huge improvement in design, especially for supersonic flight.
I think most of the computers used were actually humans back then.
Concorde had analogue fly-by-wire, including autostabilisation and autothrottle. Information about it is scattered all over this pprune megathread: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-78.h...
"I wish Google the best of luck, but there is absolutely no way that their index will cover a billion pages. It takes a massive amount of storage to maintain coverage…"
"but they need to fix their marketing"... Indeed, why would anyone name a vehicle that catapults you across the Atlantic as the sound of an explosion?
How much time does one actually save? Modern air travel is as much about the airport as the aircraft. You spend almost as much time getting to or from the aircraft than actually flying, even on transatlantic routes. So for far less money they could achieve the same results by attacking the airport ends of the travel time equation.
And what business passenger, by definition someone with a degree of wealth, would cram themselves into a concorde-like seat rather than the epic accommodations of a modern first class cabin? Just to save a couple hours?
And what business passenger, by definition someone with a degree of wealth, would cram themselves into a concorde-like seat rather than the epic accommodations of a modern first class cabin? Just to save a couple hours?
I think the possibility of leaving New York for a London meeting and then returning the same day, would have a great appeal for some people. Then cutting long trans-Pacific flight times in half could also be worth paying a premium for. And, like you suggest, these aircraft are likely to be flying from the smaller airports that private jets use that can get you on the plane quick. Like London City Airport.
Or Luton Airport which has a lot of private jets
And no mention of how bad this will be for the environment?
Seems like it’s aimed at business class. Businesses certainly don’t care about externalities they don’t foot the bill for.
I'm not sure if a business-focused article discussing an order of the aircraft really needs to make mention of it?
Given the financial risks associated with ICAO's commitments for carbon neutral growth of the industry, and potential impact of current and future national/supranational emissions trading and carbon tax policies over the expected lifetime of a plane that's not going into service for a few more years yet, perhaps it's quite relevant even from a business-focused perspective.
Simplistic counter-argument: At this point, any article needs to mention the environment if we're going to cut back on carbon pollution as much as we need to.
Insignificant compared to the tens of thousands or airplanes flying daily.
For over-land flights, you don't think the sonic boom might have any impact on wildlife?
We’ve had supersonic flight for just over 70 years now, and haven’t seen any indication that your fears are justified.
Yeah but what if? We better completely stop developing all new technology until our fears can be resolved
.. and it's been banned over land for civilians and rarely used by militaries.
Apparently non oceanic flights are banned in the US, so it’s currently a non-issue here. Not aware of the EU restrictions.
One of the explicit goals of Boom the company is to make overland flight viable (which makes the economics of supersonic flight closer to viable).
How is a sonic boom 1/40th the volume of Concordes going to affect wildlife?
That's the question, isn't it? It would be a good idea to find out.
(Additionally, I suspect any figure like 1/40th the volume of Concorde is drawn from thin air at this point. They don't have a prototype flying subsonic yet, much less supersonic.)
(Additionally, I suspect any figure like 1/40th the volume of Concorde is drawn from thin air at this point. They don't have a prototype flying subsonic yet, much less supersonic.)
Which land are they flying over?
They don't have an aircraft yet, obviously. But one of the company's explicit goals is overland flights.
It is worse, but probably not that bad. There's strong evidence that emissions at high altitudes have magnified effects on the atmosphere (~2-4x IIRC) and planes are the second largest source of transportation CO2 besides road vehicles. Supersonic planes fly higher and emit a couple times more pollution. However planes are still like 7% of all transport emissions even when scaled for altitude, and stopping those emissions is incredibly challenging.
Plus, frankly, if we get a handle on energy and road vehicles it probably just won't matter. Those two factors would reduce emissions by an order of magnitude. The planet might just be able to sustain air travel without intervention. Also, I like going fast.
Plus, frankly, if we get a handle on energy and road vehicles it probably just won't matter. Those two factors would reduce emissions by an order of magnitude. The planet might just be able to sustain air travel without intervention. Also, I like going fast.
Several countries have already committed to ban cars with internal combustion engines in the next 10-20 years.
London is introducing a new "T-charge" today whereby owners of older and more polluting vehicles have to pay an extra fee to enter central London.
I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
London is introducing a new "T-charge" today whereby owners of older and more polluting vehicles have to pay an extra fee to enter central London.
I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
> I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
The Concorde actually burned almost 8x as much fuel per passenger-mile as a 747. However that still only brought it down to 14 passenger-miles per US gallon. In the US the average car gets 25 mpg[1], so they're on the same magnitude. A modern supersonic jet would probably get closer to if not better than an average car, but that's also nullified if you put more people in the car. NB that the ban is on selling, not owning, as far as I know.
So yeah on a per-pollution basis it checks out, but the car ban can happen because electric cars are essentially identical and completely substitute-able. I seriously doubt it would happen if electric cars could only drive half the speed of gasoline cars. I could see a carbon tax but I think a ban is very unlikely. Airplanes are just too efficient, and get well over 100 mpg nowadays.
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....
The Concorde actually burned almost 8x as much fuel per passenger-mile as a 747. However that still only brought it down to 14 passenger-miles per US gallon. In the US the average car gets 25 mpg[1], so they're on the same magnitude. A modern supersonic jet would probably get closer to if not better than an average car, but that's also nullified if you put more people in the car. NB that the ban is on selling, not owning, as far as I know.
So yeah on a per-pollution basis it checks out, but the car ban can happen because electric cars are essentially identical and completely substitute-able. I seriously doubt it would happen if electric cars could only drive half the speed of gasoline cars. I could see a carbon tax but I think a ban is very unlikely. Airplanes are just too efficient, and get well over 100 mpg nowadays.
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....
Key word there: rich people. Nobody with power will want to stop this technology. This isn't even getting into how regulating aviation isn't in the Paris agreement, but has been delegated to the ICAO, which is captured by industry.
It isn't just more emissions per passenger mile, but this will also instead the number of passenger miles due to its convenience.
It isn't just more emissions per passenger mile, but this will also instead the number of passenger miles due to its convenience.
If they can make these planes, I don't think selling them will be the problem.
So excited about this but I do think they may want to re-think their name, especially given Concorde's end.
[deleted]
So, has anyone wondered what happens when a Boom plane goes "boom!" ?
How could they call a plane something that means "explosion"?
How could they call a plane something that means "explosion"?
My assumption is the “boom” refers to the sonic boom encountered when transitioning to supersonic speeds.
Not when transitioning -- sonic booms ("a sonic boom"?) are/is emitted continually at supersonic speeds.
This is true, but there's also a significant shock when crossing the sound barrier as the shockwave front draws up against the body of the plane. That was one of the biggest factors in why it took so long to break the sound barrier- you've gotta blast right through it. Around the sound barrier the rapidly changing air pressure pulls on the plane in weird ways, for instance literally twisting the wings off spitfires. They couldn't predict most of those problems ahead of time.
I suspect the company is named after the sonic boom, not the explosion “boom.”
Whoever chose that name for the company really didn't think things through.
How did you figure that out? Looks like getting permission to make quiet sonic booms over land is a key part of their business model:
> Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's.
Did you also predict the failure of the iPad in the marketplace, due to its unfortunate name?
> Boom's airliner is designed to maximize efficiency while producing a “boom” at least 30 times quieter than Concorde's.
Did you also predict the failure of the iPad in the marketplace, due to its unfortunate name?
"Boom" is also associated with the sound of an explosion. You don't want your planes associated with explosions. I think the mass market has a much stronger association boom=explosion than boom=sonic boom.
imagine a picture of an airplane and BOOM next to it. Tell me what 97% of the people think it is.
There is a huge difference between sounding like an advanced feminine product, which from your follow up post is what you're getting at with the iPad comment, and using BOOM in the name of a company in an industry that has lots of dramatic media coverage and footage of mid-air explosions, landing explosions, explosions just after take off, and so on.
I think he was referring to the fact that the name might make people think the planes explode.
I got that. Some people thought that iPad would fail because it sounded like a feminine sanitary product.
The people who think the name has a negative connotation don't deserve to get on a supersonic flight.
All they need is a single incident, not even involving an actual explosion or deaths, and the brand will be irreversibly ruined forever. Why put your company branding on such a thin razorwire of acceptance in the first place?
Why are they designing a plane with pilots? Why not automate that, perhaps with a remote option where a pilot sitting on the ground can take over in emergency/unusual situations?
Because we simply can't trust computers & systems engineering 100%. Go read about Flight QF72:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-o...
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4659526/the-untold-story-o...
Or Scandinavian 751, the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7...
Automation has made flying safer, as pointed out in the article you link, but we have entered a new era where humans can no longer trust computers nor fully take over control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7...
Automation has made flying safer, as pointed out in the article you link, but we have entered a new era where humans can no longer trust computers nor fully take over control.
> the pilot actually retired after that because he felt he could no longer trust airplanes
I don't know where that part comes from, it's not mentioned in the wikipedia page, nor any of the sources or on the swedish version of the page (together with the sources). Would be interesting if there really is a phobia of more technically advanced airplanes, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
I don't know where that part comes from, it's not mentioned in the wikipedia page, nor any of the sources or on the swedish version of the page (together with the sources). Would be interesting if there really is a phobia of more technically advanced airplanes, but I don't think this is one of those cases.
They talked about in one of those crash investigation show.
There are research done in this domain, but unfortunately can not find the reference right now. Basically, even though there are less and less airplane accidents, a common theme now is the pilots saying "I don't understand what the plane is doing".
PS: This is the pilot in question, there is a reference to the "Mayday" episode where he is interviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen
There are research done in this domain, but unfortunately can not find the reference right now. Basically, even though there are less and less airplane accidents, a common theme now is the pilots saying "I don't understand what the plane is doing".
PS: This is the pilot in question, there is a reference to the "Mayday" episode where he is interviewed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_G._Rasmussen
You've mentioned one story, but how about the countless cases where the pilots are the problem?
As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?
And there's countless cases where it all starter "autopilot disengaged ..."
I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.
I don't mind paying 1% of ticket cost to pilots when it's hundreds of life in question. It's very different when you have 500 passengers and 1 passenger in a 35k car.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Automation has made flying much safer, but currently, there are edge cases where human could fix issues if they knew what the airplane was doing and were able to take over. This is not an isolated case.
What advantage would an autonomous passenger airliner provide? By removing the cockpit and the pilots, you get a few more passengers and perhaps a few premium priced seats at the very front. The cost of having the pilots in the cockpit doesn't make a big difference in the operating costs, and there would still be crew needed on the ground and on board.
Compare this with the costs of such a project, with ground systems facilities, extra development costs, regulatory hurdles. Then you have the human element, having no pilot on board would certainly scare away some passengers but more importantly would make the whole project seem much riskier from an investors' point of view.
While it's feasible from a technological standpoint, it's not a worthwhile effort to consider at this day and age. There just isn't much to be gained by not having pilots on board.
Compare this with the costs of such a project, with ground systems facilities, extra development costs, regulatory hurdles. Then you have the human element, having no pilot on board would certainly scare away some passengers but more importantly would make the whole project seem much riskier from an investors' point of view.
While it's feasible from a technological standpoint, it's not a worthwhile effort to consider at this day and age. There just isn't much to be gained by not having pilots on board.
I won't fly in a plane without a pilot, I want some professional who can assess plane's technical state to be on board so he/she will do the job right, because they will be risking their own lives if something's wrong.
For risks, aside from generally achieving the promised goals is there a big risk Boeing or Airbus copy this and have better sale channels to take over this as soon as the concept is proven. Boom development seems to have happened really quickly. I imagine the resources of the bigger companies can throw with their fiance and general engineer/production systems at this quickly if boom proves the concept.