Return of SuperSonic Flight

kyleb said:
What a waste of time and effort. I don't believe supersonic flight is viable for commercial or private travel. Too inefficient and the airframes will require too much runway to use most of the 5,000' or so airfields that provide the point to point convenience of private air travel.

The play should be "Show me one and we'll quickly write permissive rules around it while it is undergoing certification".
Click to expand...
Parachutes to stop, jatos to launch.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't think the market for supersonic flight is with regular people.
Click to expand...
I believe Boom's target market are the people who buy first and business class long-haul tickets today. Their goal is to have an airplane that is profitable at that price level.
 
If the test was relevant and well-designed, memorizing the answers would be called LEARNING THE MATERIAL.
 
So this company is going to build and certify a supersonic aircraft with their own engine in less time than just and engine takes when developed by a company dedicated to developing engines?
 
X3 Skier said:
SpaceShipOne was a one off experiment. Boom plans a fleet of Commercial transports with regularly scheduled flights by numerous airlines. Good luck raising 6-8 Billion dollars to produce them. Might take a while to recover the money flying 75 people a plane at $1700-$2000 a seat.
Click to expand...
BA and AF turned the Concorde profitable once they surveyed their target audience for what they THOUGHT it cost, then raised their prices to get there (3-5x, IIRC). Depending on the route, I'd say there's a market at $6k/seat one way today.

"In 1977, it cost £431 to fly one way onboard Concorde between London and Washington. Adjusted for inflation, that's about £2,200 ($2,800) in today's [2023] money... by the end of the 1990s, you'd be looking at $6000 one-way fares to cross the Atlantic in a few hours." https://simpleflying.com/concorde-cost/

"In 1996 for example, British Airways charged $7,574 ($12,460, adjusted for 2020 inflation) for a round-trip flight from New York City to London." https://www.britannica.com/question/How-much-was-a-ticket-on-the-Concorde
 
EdFred said:
Who memorizes answers on a test about supersonic flight?
Click to expand...
I was wondering where that post went. It was supposed to be in the thread on "Why is Shepherd Test Prep legal." Never mind.
 
DJTorrente said:
BA and AF turned the Concorde profitable once they surveyed their target audience for what they THOUGHT it cost, then raised their prices to get there (3-5x, IIRC). Depending on the route, I'd say there's a market at $6k/seat one way today.

"In 1977, it cost £431 to fly one way onboard Concorde between London and Washington. Adjusted for inflation, that's about £2,200 ($2,800) in today's [2023] money... by the end of the 1990s, you'd be looking at $6000 one-way fares to cross the Atlantic in a few hours." https://simpleflying.com/concorde-cost/

"In 1996 for example, British Airways charged $7,574 ($12,460, adjusted for 2020 inflation) for a round-trip flight from New York City to London." https://www.britannica.com/question/How-much-was-a-ticket-on-the-Concorde
Click to expand...
Lot easier to be “profitable” when the government shouldered all the development costs and sold the plane to the state airlines for a pence on the pound.

simpleflying.com

How Much Did Each Concorde Plane Cost New?

Looking at the price of a new supersonic airliner.
simpleflying.com simpleflying.com
 
I think it has much less to do with practicality and much more to do with a huge investment vehicle that takes ages to mature, and can be marked wherever they want for the better part of a decade.
 
AKiss20 said:
Lot easier to be “profitable” when the government shouldered all the development costs and sold the plane to the state airlines for a pence on the pound.

simpleflying.com

How Much Did Each Concorde Plane Cost New?

Looking at the price of a new supersonic airliner.
simpleflying.com simpleflying.com
Click to expand...
Sounds like Foreflight, Garmin, Jepp and everyone else that uses government supplied data and GPS satellite info (maybe some GPS is now privatized) and sells it.
 
Most military supersonic fighters and bombers have features that allow them to take off and land at speeds under which will result in total destruction if they encounter a screw on the runway. Those features, such as swing wings and/or very high power to weight ratios are incompatible with an economical passenger SST. That's what killed the Concorde.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like Foreflight, Garmin, Jepp and everyone else that uses government supplied data and GPS satellite info (maybe some GPS is now privatized) and sells it.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like Foreflight, Garmin, Jepp and everyone else that uses government supplied data and GPS satellite info (maybe some GPS is now privatized) and sells it.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here. Capitalists loves to sell back to the tax payer that which they already have paid for. Nominally the government is supposed to stop them but... *gestures broadly*
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like Foreflight, Garmin, Jepp and everyone else that uses government supplied data and GPS satellite info (maybe some GPS is now privatized) and sells it.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the viability of Boom’s business plan? The only use of “Government” work is in the research into quieter supersonic flight. Boom is privately financed whereas the Concorde development was largely financed by the British and French governments.
 
X3 Skier said:
What does this have to do with the viability of Boom’s business plan? The only use of “Government” work is in the research into quieter supersonic flight. Boom is privately financed whereas the Concorde development was largely financed by the British and French governments.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out how people seem to be okay with it when it's something they use/can afford, but it's not when they don't/can't. Just seems inconsistent stances.
 
EdFred said:
Sounds like Foreflight, Garmin, Jepp and everyone else that uses government supplied data and GPS satellite info (maybe some GPS is now privatized) and sells it.
Click to expand...
The data already exists and was gonna exist with or without Garmin, et al. That's the difference (IMO). The Concorde was purpose built with government money to serve a purpose. It was a direct government subsidy. Not "Hey, the government already has this asset, let's build a business leveraging that asset."
 
Larry in TN said:
I believe Boom's target market are the people who buy first and business class long-haul tickets today. Their goal is to have an airplane that is profitable at that price level.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't see that working at all. To me is sounds like their target market are people willing to invest in it more than actually have it work.

My comment on ss flight was that I think removing the restriction could be good for someone trying to build a small supersonic plane that catered to the "I can afford anything" market. I do think that could be profitable.
 
DJTorrente said:
BA and AF turned the Concorde profitable once they surveyed their target audience for what they THOUGHT it cost, then raised their prices to get there (3-5x, IIRC). Depending on the route, I'd say there's a market at $6k/seat one way today.

"In 1977, it cost £431 to fly one way onboard Concorde between London and Washington. Adjusted for inflation, that's about £2,200 ($2,800) in today's [2023] money... by the end of the 1990s, you'd be looking at $6000 one-way fares to cross the Atlantic in a few hours." https://simpleflying.com/concorde-cost/

"In 1996 for example, British Airways charged $7,574 ($12,460, adjusted for 2020 inflation) for a round-trip flight from New York City to London." https://www.britannica.com/question/How-much-was-a-ticket-on-the-Concorde
Click to expand...
A first class round trip from Dallas to Dubai is $30,000+ and they fill them. No one was paying fares like that in the 90s. I think the economics have changed.
 
Larry in TN said:
I believe Boom's target market are the people who buy first and business class long-haul tickets today. Their goal is to have an airplane that is profitable at that price level.
Click to expand...
They claim their target range will be able to do Seattle-Tokyo. That's practically impossible to pencil out, because the layover in Seattle (SFO->Seattle->Tokyo) would make it slow enough that going direct (SFO->Tokyo) would be comparable.
 
Corin said:
They claim their target range will be able to do Seattle-Tokyo. That's practically impossible to pencil out, because the layover in Seattle (SFO->Seattle->Tokyo) would make it slow enough that going direct (SFO->Tokyo) would be comparable.
Click to expand...
They hope to run that flight in four and a half hours. With an hour and a half layover, you'll still get there in just a little more than half the time.
 
kyleb said:
The data already exists and was gonna exist with or without Garmin, et al. That's the difference (IMO). The Concorde was purpose built with government money to serve a purpose. It was a direct government subsidy. Not "Hey, the government already has this asset, let's build a business leveraging that asset."
Click to expand...
Waypoints, altitudes, navaids, J/Q/T/V routes, and fixes just manifested themselves out of nowhere and became available? And when they change that happens on its own too?
 
Albany Tom said:
Yeah, I don't see that working at all. To me is sounds like their target market are people willing to invest in it more than actually have it work.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
Like I said, it is a fun hobby and uses OPM to indulge in an unachievable dream.
 
Lindberg said:
They hope to run that flight in four and a half hours. With an hour and a half layover, you'll still get there in just a little more than half the time.
Click to expand...
"Hope" is the operative word. Pretty hard to do without an engine anywhere in sight to push the currently "Paper airplane". An old adage from my career in aircraft development, Paper Airplanes always outperform Real Airplanes. As a corollary, The POH performance is the best you could possibly expect so don't plan on it.
 
EdFred said:
Waypoints, altitudes, navaids, J/Q/T/V routes, and fixes just manifested themselves out of nowhere and became available? And when they change that happens on its own too?
Click to expand...
All that stuff has been on paper charts forever and has been digitized for decades.
 
kyleb said:
All that stuff has been on paper charts forever and has been digitized for decades.
Click to expand...
It was still funded, produced, and maintained by the government. Time is irrelevant.
 
X3 Skier said:
"Hope" is the operative word. Pretty hard to do without an engine anywhere in sight to push the currently "Paper airplane". An old adage from my career in aircraft development, Paper Airplanes always outperform Real Airplanes. As a corollary, The POH performance is the best you could possibly expect so don't plan on it.
Click to expand...
Yes, "hope," "plan," "goal," and similar words are always operative when doing new things. The past i was responding to asserted that their plan was unviable even if successful.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, "hope," "plan," "goal," and similar words are always operative when doing new things. The past i was responding to asserted that their plan was unviable even if successful.
Click to expand...
I happen to agree with that assertion (Along with the CEO of Delta) since the ROI to either Boom or an Airline is totally unrealistic. But since the required Development and Sales $$$$ are nowhere to be found, I fully expect this this to gradually peter Out and thus it is a Moot Point IMNSHO.
 
EdFred said:
It was still funded, produced, and maintained by the government. Time is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The point is it wasn’t created expressly for a customer. It is infrastructure the US government decided was necessary when it created the CAA and even before that for assisting mail, commerce, and presumably the military as part of the government’s desire to create a logistics network of rail, road, water and air transport. Passing it along to a user or user group doesn't drive additional cost on the government's side. It just realizes more benefit for something the taxpayers were paying for anyway.
 
Lindberg said:
Isn't that a capital expense?
Click to expand...
I mean yes but so? If you have to recoup your capital costs you inherently have to charge more to remain profitable to cover your debt service or not be profitable. My point was they don’t have to recoup any acquisition (and embedded development) costs because they were given the planes essentially for free.

It’s like the son who talks up how successful he is at his business when daddy bought him all the needed assets first.
 

Ramjet engine for Mach 5 hypersonic aircraft tested​


Source

The 2-hour Japan-US flights​

Japan’s hypersonic research efforts are part of a broader global race to develop ultra-high-speed transportation systems.

JAXA said future applications could include aircraft capable of traveling between Japan and the United States in approximately two hours, dramatically reducing current trans-Pacific flight times.
 
Executive Order June 6, 2025.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall take the necessary steps, including through rulemaking, to repeal the prohibition on overland supersonic flight in 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days of the date of this order and establish an interim noise-based certification standard, making any modifications to 14 CFR 91.818 as necessary, as consistent with applicable law.

Sounds like this was just ballon fuel.
 
Clip4 said:
Executive Order June 6, 2025.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall take the necessary steps, including through rulemaking, to repeal the prohibition on overland supersonic flight in 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days of the date of this order and establish an interim noise-based certification standard, making any modifications to 14 CFR 91.818 as necessary, as consistent with applicable law.

Sounds like this was just ballon fuel.
Click to expand...
Probably be done when Pictures are added to the Pilot Certificates.
 
The “hypersonic orbital spaceplane” would be worth developing as it would take only an hour to get anywhere on the globe. It’s not an affordable technology yet, but the travel time reduction would be worth it. Supersonic flight time savings isn’t worth the effort as you’re still in the plane for hours.
 
Brad Smith said:
The “hypersonic orbital spaceplane” would be worth developing as it would take only an hour to get anywhere on the globe. It’s not an affordable technology yet, but the travel time reduction would be worth it. Supersonic flight time savings isn’t worth the effort as you’re still in the plane for hours.
Click to expand...

I don’t really care about being able to get to China in an hour. What I want is a way to get from Winter Haven to Orlando in less than two hours of I4 traffic.
 
Half Fast said:
I don’t really care about being able to get to China in an hour. What I want is a way to get from Winter Haven to Orlando in less than two hours of I4 traffic.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking a giant pneumatic tube system would be the most entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top