New supersonic passenger proposed with cooperation with Virgin Galactic - Polidicks

[quote]Honeywell International Inc. has agreed to supply avionics for a proposed supersonic jetliner—intended to carry only premium passengers—that could slash transcontinental travel times in half. The concept of a three-engine aircraft featuring fewer than four dozen seats, previously announced by closely held startup Boom Technology Inc., also is expected to take another step forward Tuesday with the unveiling of a one-third scale flying prototype. The demonstrator vehicle, called Baby Boom, is slated to take to the air in 2017. If development goes as planned, the full-size version, including cockpit systems from Honeywell and engines manufactured by General Electric Co., could start carrying passengers early in the next decade. With its needlelike nose, sweptback wings and tapered carbon-fiber body, the XB-1 demonstrator resembles the contours of an experimental jet fighter. It has room for a single pilot, plus an optional flight-test engineer. A cabin mock-up of the ultimate aircraft, also shown for the first time Tuesday, features large oval windows, almost like portholes, and a single row of seats on each side of the fuselage.[/quote] [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-passenger-jet-edges-closer-to-reality-1479242115[/url] [quote]Boom Technology's demonstration aircraft should be ready for takeoff in 2017 The world is flying at a lower speed than it was just over a decade ago. Ever since British Airways retired its fleet of Concorde aircraft in October 2003, commercial airliners have not traveled faster than the speed of sound. One U.S. aviation startup — backed by Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson, no less — hopes to make flying supersonic again. Boom Technology, based in Colorado, unveiled a scaled-down flying prototype of their supersonic passenger jet Tuesday, reports the Wall Street Journal. The XB-1 demonstrator, dubbed “Baby Boom,” resembles a two-seater fighter jet, according to renderings released by Boom to media outlets. The company’s website says that the XB-1, “the world’s first independently developed supersonic jet and the fastest civil aircraft ever made,” is expected to make its first flight in late 2017. The company also released more details about the full-size passenger plane in development, which it hopes can be ready for the first flight in the 2020s. Mashable reports that the plane would seat around 45 to 55 passengers, each with their own oval-shaped personal windows, aisle access and overhead luggage bins.[/quote] [url]http://time.com/4572627/boom-aviation-startup-xb1-revive-supersonic-air-travel/[/url] Would be neat to go back to the days of the Concorde. Still, the $1b R&D pricetag seems overly optimistic but at the same time they're claiming they'll reduce costs by using off the shell technologies. I do think they've got the aircraft size right however: the only people that will use this (at first at least) will be the rich and famous, and businesspeople who need to make a meeting across the Atlantic or Pacific.

Wasn't the reason concord fell out of favour was that there just wasn't enough premium passengers to cover the cost of running the fleet? I dunno it would be nice to return to the days of Concord because the plane was such a marvel of design, back when all my country seemed to do was team up with France and create amazing shit.

The Concorde made literally no sense economically though. There was a reason it failed. Concorde couldn't go over land since the sonic boom would piss people off. So no New York to LA flights. Concorde couldn't go over the Pacific because it was too big. Concorde was also hella expensive so they had limit quantities. But in reality they had to have double/triple the amount of aircraft than actually needed at any given time because this plane catered to the rich (because it was hella expensive); meaning if the plane was delayed at Heathrow they had to have a backup waiting and ready to go at all times at JFK and vice versa. And these extra planes just sit there making no money. Good luck!

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51393710] Concorde couldn't go over the Pacific because it was too big. [/QUOTE] Why would you presume that would be an issue here? You would think that an aircraft that is going to be used across the Pacific would be capable of crossing the Pacific.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51393710]The Concorde made literally no sense economically though. There was a reason it failed. [B]Concorde couldn't go over land since the sonic boom would piss people off. So no New York to LA flights.[/B] Concorde couldn't go over the Pacific because it was too big. Concorde was also hella expensive so they had limit quantities. But in reality they had to have double/triple the amount of aircraft than actually needed at any given time because this plane catered to the rich (because it was hella expensive); meaning if the plane was delayed at Heathrow they had to have a backup waiting and ready to go at all times at JFK and vice versa. And these extra planes just sit there making no money. Good luck![/QUOTE] Couldn't you just..reduce speed? Or did the Concorde [I]have[/I] to remain supersonic?

[QUOTE=download;51393759]Why would you presume that would be an issue here? You would think that an aircraft that is going to be used across the Pacific would be capable of crossing the Pacific.[/QUOTE] Plus what about the 747 and A380. Surely if size was the issue then the two largest passenger jets wouldn't be flying across the Pacific

[QUOTE=Kylel999;51393782]Couldn't you just..reduce speed? Or did the Concorde [I]have[/I] to remain supersonic?[/QUOTE] At that point, why use the Concord? It was enormously expensive. If you're going to reduce its speed to subsonic levels, why not just use a considerably more economically efficient subsonic airplane to begin with?

[QUOTE=download;51393759]Why would you presume that would be an issue here? You would think that an aircraft that is going to be used across the Pacific would be capable of crossing the Pacific.[/QUOTE] Concorde didn't have the fuel capacity. This could due to improved technology but they still have solve the other issues. Which are still pretty big.

If it could go stupidly fast could you fly LA to New York by first flying in the opposite direction out to sea to break the barrier away from land and then fly at like Mach 5 back inland and toward LA/NY. I don't know how far out you'd have to fly. It would be super sweet to have super sonic commercial planes back even if they were for the rich I'd love to see one fly again

[QUOTE=Apache249;51393798]Plus what about the 747 and A380. Surely if size was the issue then the two largest passenger jets wouldn't be flying across the Pacific[/QUOTE] [B]Concorde[/B] wasn't too big; the [B]Pacific [/B]was too big.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51393799]At that point, why use the Concord? It was enormously expensive. If you're going to reduce its speed to subsonic levels, why not just use a considerably more economically efficient subsonic airplane to begin with?[/QUOTE] And even then the commercial airliners dont like flying slow. They want the higher faster approaches to save on fuel costs

[QUOTE=jamzzster;51394094]If it could go stupidly fast could you fly LA to New York by first flying in the opposite direction out to sea to break the barrier away from land and then fly at like Mach 5 back inland and toward LA/NY. I don't know how far out you'd have to fly. It would be super sweet to have super sonic commercial planes back even if they were for the rich I'd love to see one fly again[/QUOTE] The sonic boom is produced continuously by the aircraft so long as it is traveling at supersonic speeds. Flying out to sea wouldn't help unfortunately.

I imagine newer engines would make it economical as a premium jet, the Falcon 7x which is a similar class jet to this proposed one has a 6,500 nautical mile range, and you would only need a fraction of that.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51393710] Concorde couldn't go over land since the sonic boom would piss people off. So no New York to LA flights. [/QUOTE] I thought sonic boom only occurs once when you reach supersonic? It's not like it's always sonic booming every second it's flying at supersonic.

How high would a supersonic plane have to fly so sonic booms wouldnt be a problem over land?

[QUOTE=jamzzster;51394094]If it could go stupidly fast could you fly LA to New York by first flying in the opposite direction out to sea to break the barrier away from land and then fly at like Mach 5 back inland and toward LA/NY. I don't know how far out you'd have to fly. It would be super sweet to have super sonic commercial planes back even if they were for the rich I'd love to see one fly again[/QUOTE] That's actually not a terrible idea, if the design could support steeper banking with consistent lateral G-force neutralization during take-off. It could loop out to sea, building speed gradually as it climbs in a wide (miles, perhaps tens of miles) swinging arc, before sweeping across the US at high altitude and repeating the maneuver in reverse as a landing procedure on the other end. The key wouldn't be "having the sonic boom out at sea" so much as climbing in altitude and increasing distance from land enough to reduce its impact before reaching the speed of sound. It would require a lot more fuel than a straight shot, however. Another problem is incompatibility with existing holding-pattern systems and airport runways, making the super-sonic passenger planes require priority landing and take-off over others, or a private air-strip (and accompanying air-space) to fit its specific landing space requirements.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;51394746]How high would a supersonic plane have to fly so sonic booms wouldnt be a problem over land?[/QUOTE] Too high. Even at over 70k feet, well above cruising altitude for normal air liners, a sonic boom was still a major problem on the ground.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51394095][B]Concorde[/B] wasn't too big; the [B]Pacific [/B]was too big.[/QUOTE] Oh right :v:

About the sonic boom problem, this page is interesting: [URL]http://machinedesign.com/defense/supersonic-flight-overcoming-sonic-boom[/URL]

It doesn't even have a tipping nose... also Concorde proved supersonic travel wasn't really economically feasible so im interested to what changed.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51395595]It doesn't even have a tipping nose... also Concorde proved supersonic travel wasn't really economically feasible so im interested to what changed.[/QUOTE] Not feasible for the average person but it certainly is for a businessperson who needs to make a meeting and whose time is worth thousands of dollars per hour. That's why the aircraft is so small.

[QUOTE=download;51395658]Not feasible for the average person but it certainly is for a businessperson who needs to make a meeting and whose time is worth thousands of dollars per hour. That's why the aircraft is so small.[/QUOTE] Yea, the Concorde was not really a financial success because of that. Busnesspersons that require to be somewhere fast usually decide this last minute and its too costly to have concords running travel routes unless completely filled. hence they were a failure since it was never possible to both be very fast and be very available for last minute ticket purchase. Concorde still is one of the most awesome aircraft ever, but loads of people bankrupted themselves keeping them airborne.

I don't think this will work out and will just end up in the same boat as Concorde. But I get a lot of my work from Honeywell so works for me I guess.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51393710]The Concorde made literally no sense economically though. There was a reason it failed. Concorde couldn't go over land since the sonic boom would piss people off. So no New York to LA flights. Concorde couldn't go over the Pacific because it was too big. Concorde was also hella expensive so they had limit quantities. But in reality they had to have double/triple the amount of aircraft than actually needed at any given time because this plane catered to the rich (because it was hella expensive); meaning if the plane was delayed at Heathrow they had to have a backup waiting and ready to go at all times at JFK and vice versa. And these extra planes just sit there making no money. Good luck![/QUOTE] Ahem, just gonna point you here... [url]http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html[/url] [QUOTE]On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. [/QUOTE] Concorde [I]was[/I] profitable, all the way up to its retirement. The reason it was retired was political. It wasn't due to the sonic boom over land, nor was it due to the operating costs. Life was made very hard for BA/AF and promises/agreements made at the beginning of the project were not honored (referring to the JFK/New York ban). That made it a difficult project and ultimately when BA/AF came to it, they just scrapped it and decided to go with capacity over speed (see BA and AF investing in wide body/superjumbos rather than speed).