[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: boom.jpg (77 KB, 1280x720)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
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
>>
>>1984125
I 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.
>>
>>1984134
It'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
>>
>>1984125
No I wont.
>>
>>1984134
They'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 manufacturer
why did this get funded?
>>
>>1984357
gotta spend other peoples' money to make money haha. wanna buy a nft?
>>
>>1984357
>normal shape that does nothing about sonic booms
There 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 less
Hmm, I don't think I will.
>>
>>1984488
Honestly 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
>>1984499
They are both cramped tubes. People who really care about comfort want to spend as little time in the sky as possible.
>>
>>1984355
what 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.
>>
>>1984570
Cramped 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.
>>
>>1984656
was that one of epstein's codephrases
>>
>>1984125
Great! We almost catching up with 70s tech!
>>
>>1984580
>all I think of is saudi oil rig
retarded idea, i know
but 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
>>
>>1984134
I'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
>>
File: endurance.jpg (124 KB, 1400x860)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
What is the cruising speed of the Bombardier Global 7000?
It has achieved a speed of Mach 0.995
,,,,soclose!!
,,9000 mile range.
>>
File: speedzone.jpg (272 KB, 1400x787)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
>>1984906
>It has achieved a speed of Mach 0.995
runtofront,,,supersonic!@
>>
>>1984125
Americans can’t build airplanes. Boom will go boom, just like boeing.
>>
>>1985160
>Boom will go boom
Are you implying they will fly supersonic some day? I don't think they will ever fly actual plane.
>>
>>1984154
Man, 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 grounded
Yeah, 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.
>>
>>1985563
10 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.
>>
>>1985543
Us 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 charges
Also,
>the fact it was massively expensive for passeners and still burning cash for the airlines
Passengers loved it and the airlines made a profit from it. The Concorde was unprofitable only for the manufacturer.
>>
>>1984134
you'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
>>
>>1985525
you need to be rich first
>>
>>1989172
Yeah 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?
>>
File: afrc2016-0093-070.jpg (1.76 MB, 3001x2400)
1.76 MB
1.76 MB JPG
>>1984125
I 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?
>>
>>1984125
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13271891/futuristic-jet-replace-boeing-faa-approval-spacex.html
>>
>>1984125
Wasn't the discontinuation of Concorde down to it being economically inefficient?
Won't this just fall into the same trap?
>>
>>1989711
Airbus declined to continue to support the Concorde. A certified aircraft without manufacturer support is scrap.
>>
>>1984125

Why do you think Boom won't fail the same way Aerion did?
>>
>>1989753
I 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%
>>
>>1989711
Concorde 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
>>
>>1984125
a-and i VILL be happy right?
>>1984126
even during concorde was only meant for rich people, the tech will become more affordable with time as with everything else
>>
I am going to bump to say that the XB-1 has flown twice and has not exceeded Mach 1. It might be too early to call, but after nearly seven years of delays, I think Boom is looking more like Bust.

In all honesty, we are best looking more comfortable aircraft with a wider range of performance than these supersonic jobs. Essentially create an "almost anywhere" airliner that seats 300+ passengers, needs 5000' or less for takeoff and landing and can fly transatlantic (East Coast U.S to U.K, not St. Johns to Shannon or something similar).
>>
>>1984154
>Venture capital sees how much money rich people have for flying
Maybe the good idea is a supersonic bizjet like a mini Concorde but ten places and the only company capable of this is not a startup but an already experienced company in bizness jet or in supersonic or the two like Dassault.
>>
>>1995129
>after nearly seven years of delays, I think Boom is looking more like Bust.
(laughs mildly)
>>
I believe that the disassembly of the Concorde was not due to any problem related to the fact that it was not profitable; but rather that the large economic groups sell garbage at a price of gold and have an agreement not to innovate so as not to give up any of the perpetual profit.
If they could bottle the air, they would
>>
When considering the price, what advantage will supersonic travel offer compared to ordinary planes? Some hour or two less ETA?
>>
>>1995476
It was about 4 hours less going NY to London. Hardly justifiable especially in the era of zoom and in-flight internet but simps will simp for the lifestyle of the rapacious oligarchy because they think they'll be that some day
>>
>>1984580
Specialists need to fly out to oilsites all the time. They don't have the necessary personnel for every eventuality. Doesn't matter with regard to speed though because you need to get equipment there too, which takes far longer than flying out engineers and technicians.
>>
>>1995961
Oil sites in Jamaica Bay and the Thames Estuary? Or the ones 80 miles off the remote coastline of nowhere? How many 12000 foot runways are there within helicopter distance of an oil field anyway? Am I missing something here or are you grasping at straws?
>>
>>1984125
>American airplanes
No thanks.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.