You WILL fly supersonic this decade
I don't think so, fuels costs will translate to ticket costs.And I always go for the cheapest tickets.
I haven't flown in over a decade
>>1984125I was deep into "flying cars" 2015-2019 so I am familiar with startup scams and this is one of them. They have hoovered up so much venture capital yet have never flown a single thing. The whole idea is almost as dumb as flying cars anyway. It's too expensive and not environmentally friendly. Idk how anyone is falling for this.
>>1984134It's because the bizjet market is doing insanely well lately. I don't think normies realize just how bad it is because most of it is in and out of completely different airports that normies never see. Venture capital sees how much money rich people have for flying, remember the trick to VC is you throw a tiny amount (couple billion) at any/all moonshot type stuff that might have a slightly more than tiny chance at succeeding, and if you play the odds right you still come out ahead even if most of your ventures fail
>>1984125No I wont.
>>1984134They're targeting businesses that need to fly out engineers across the world to fix some machine that generates tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a week. The tech has been done before, so it's not some pie in the sky idea.
>>1984125>normal shape that does nothing about sonic booms>no engine manufacturerwhy did this get funded?
>>1984357gotta spend other peoples' money to make money haha. wanna buy a nft?
>>1984357>normal shape that does nothing about sonic boomsThere are still other issues. the original plan called for a maximum speed of M2.2, but this was lowered to M1.7 at some point.this was because no heat-resistant material could be found to replace Concorde's aluminum.Amazed at the lack of planning by this company, which launched the project and tried to raise money without even thinking about such a problem.
>>1984125>cramped tube for J class prices but it goes fast>comfy lie-flat seat with decent food for the same price or lessHmm, I don't think I will.
>>1984488Honestly the comfort increase in the 787 and A350 over prior models was shocking, I wish they'd try to modernize their fleets with what already works rather than wasting money (and thus pushing the losses onto customers) trying to shave a couple hours off New York to London for the ultra-rich.
>>1984488>>1984499They are both cramped tubes. People who really care about comfort want to spend as little time in the sky as possible.
>>1984355what machine?all I think of is saudi oil rig and jews trading computer and all of those have on site engineer
>>1984134>The whole idea is almost as dumb as flying cars anyway.Halving transcontinental flight time is a "dumb idea"? Go cross an ocean in a tiny Honda jet then and see you in one day or whenever you're done with your multiple refueling stops.
>>1984570Cramped tube isn't too bad if you aren't obese and aren't having the life force sucked out of you by 10% RH air at 70% of sea level pressure.
>>1984656was that one of epstein's codephrases
>>1984125Great! We almost catching up with 70s tech!
>>1984580>all I think of is saudi oil rigretarded idea, i knowbut can a human skydive from a supersonic plane?then all you'd need to do is fly over the rig, let the engineers hop out and hope they know how to land
>>1984134I'm rooting for explosion overtness to succeed against my better judgment. It's a wholly untested design so there are bound to be at least a couple of comfy major disasters
What is the cruising speed of the Bombardier Global 7000?It has achieved a speed of Mach 0.995,,,,soclose!!,,9000 mile range.
>>1984906>It has achieved a speed of Mach 0.995runtofront,,,supersonic!@
>>1984125Americans can’t build airplanes. Boom will go boom, just like boeing.
>>1985160>Boom will go boomAre you implying they will fly supersonic some day? I don't think they will ever fly actual plane.
>>1984154Man, I need to start up a business scamming rich people.
I doubt it. Realistically it would take at least 15 years to rediscover this forgotten technology
Why do techbros measure aviation progress only in speed?>civilian aviation is stagnating beause Concorde was groundedYeah, just ignore that today flights cost like 25€ and are safer than ever before. Bonus if they claim state regulation killed supersonic, not the fact it was massively expensive for passeners and still burning cash for the airlines.
There are many billionaires around the world who would be willing to pay $10 million for space travel. if so, there are people who would buy a ticket for a supersonic flight with a capacity of 30 people, and there are people who would buy an entire plane.There is a demand, although BOOM is a scam.
>>198556310 million for trip to space is one time fee. The thing with supersonic airliner or business jet is that bill to develop it is billions. Business jet would probably be fine with engines nicked from a fighter, but airliner definitely won't be so engine development is going to cost billions. Handful millionaires, even when if couple billionaires would join 'em, don't have enough money to fork upfront to economically uncertain project like supersonic airliner or business jet. There simply isn't enough guaranteed demand for supersonic plane to justify economic risks involved.Boom lost its engine on moment Rolls-Royce told them fork over the money for engine development. Rolls-Royce made gigantic mistake with Boom, they were willing to do feasibility study new supersonic engine without asking them to pay for all related expenses. If they had done so, they would have never had any kind of engine proposal at all. What RR did wrong is giving any ounce of credibility to these photoshop peddlers.
>>1985543Us Burgers can hardly pay for a flight that is under $250 these days, exceptions are things like NYC - Philadelphia or Miami - Orlando.
>>1985543>flights cost like 25€>doesn't include the myriad of additional chargesAlso,>the fact it was massively expensive for passeners and still burning cash for the airlinesPassengers loved it and the airlines made a profit from it. The Concorde was unprofitable only for the manufacturer.
>>1984134you'll not find anyone more skeptical of startup scams and venture capitalism and all the rest of it than me, but this seems a far cry from the flying car nonsense. if i had to place a bet, i would say that Boom will not succeed but flying cars were complete bullshit from the get go, even moreso than fully autonomous car hype
>>1985525you need to be rich first
>>1989172Yeah you would have had to be a child at the time or else clinically retarded to fall for flying car crap, they're basically just helicopters or light aircraft made to look like cars.Did anyone seriously think it would be cost or regulatory feasible to own a helicopter with wheels which they'll be able to fly themselves and take off/ land in their suburban street?
>>1984125I sure hope so. Like Bacon said, the Global FTV5 demonstrator reached Mach 0.995, and NASA needs to get their X59 outta that fuckin hangar and in the air before I die of old age. I think eventually the focus will be more on supersonic route optimization rather than trying to blast your way across the continental US or western Europe at Mach 2.
So anyone riding these will be Boomers?
>>1984125https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13271891/futuristic-jet-replace-boeing-faa-approval-spacex.html
>>1984125Wasn't the discontinuation of Concorde down to it being economically inefficient?Won't this just fall into the same trap?
>>1989711Airbus declined to continue to support the Concorde. A certified aircraft without manufacturer support is scrap.
>>1984125Why do you think Boom won't fail the same way Aerion did?
>>1989753I think one of the big issues was re-engining. It used the same 1960s-era afterburning turbojets it did back when it was first designed. However, there wasn't any newer engine available that could do the job. So it was eventually decided to pull the plug on support.
Considering that Olympus593 was developed in the 60's, 50 years of advances in metallurgical technology could improve the fuel efficiency of the engine by about 20%
>>1989711Concorde was economically inefficient because it was built in the 1960's. An old airframe with inefficient engines that guzzled fuel.A newer design can be more efficient; in fact the Concorde B was always planned to be built which would have had a more efficient wing profile and engines (no afterburners) and used much less fuel, but it obviously never got built because nobody bought the original.
>>1990857>only 20%They already knew how to increase efficiency in the 593 by 25% back in the 70's. They just never built them because nobody needed them.https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-b
>>1984125a-and i VILL be happy right?>>1984126even during concorde was only meant for rich people, the tech will become more affordable with time as with everything else
