Richard Branson Reveals Prototype For Supersonic Passenger Aircraft (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Sir Richard Branson on Tuesday heralded the rebirth of supersonic passenger flights with the unveiling of a prototype aircraft promising 3.5-hour flights from London to New York for an "affordable" $5,000 return. The billionaire Virgin Group founder said his Spaceship company would help Denver-based startup Boom build a new generation of supersonic jets and reintroduce transatlantic flight times unseen since Concorde was scrapped. Branson is partnering with Blake Scholl, a pilot and former Amazon executive, who will later on Tuesday unveil a prototype of the new jet in a hangar in Denver, Colorado. While several other companies, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are developing new supersonic jets, Scholl said his plan was likely to beat them to market as it does not require any new technology that would need approval by regulators. Scholl said test flights would begin in southern California, with plans to launch the first commercial departures in 2023. If the plans stick to schedule, Boom flights will launch 20 years after British Airways and Air France decommissioned Concorde. He said Boom would succeed where Concorde failed because developments in technology and lighter materials meant tickets would be much cheaper. Boom will have just 45 to 50 seats, compared with Concorde's 92 to 128. Scholl reckons the demand for affordable supersonic flights could make this a $100 billion market. He said his plane could work on 500 different routes, but would concentrate initially on London to New York, San Francisco to Tokyo, and Los Angeles to Sydney.

Comments

Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

So what about the sonic booms? As far as I remember, sonic booms were annoying in residential areas. Has there been a breakthrough in engineering that minimizes the effect of them?

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.

Re:Sonic Boom

[wasted]

The most profitable routes for supersonic aircraft are mainly over oceans, so the aircraft won't be supersonic over land for those routes. I don't know how they would handle a Los Angeles to New York route, though.

Re:Sonic Boom

[I'm New Around Here]

At $5000 a seat, you think they give a shit about sonic booms disturbing people?

Interestingly, women and minorities will be the most impacted by these flights.

Re: Sonic Boom

[ShanghaiBill]

No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.

Concorde proved that there aren't enough one-percenters to make supersonic aircraft economically viable. People want cheap fares and direct flights. Even most rich people aren't willing to pay a thousand dollars an hour for a quicker flight.

Most rich people I know are cheapskates. That's how they got to be rich.

Re:Sonic Boom

[x0ra]

it just won't be supersonic over land...

Re:Sonic Boom

[Guspaz]

$5,000 is the price of a business class seat on the routes they're talking about (not even first class), and it's a quarter the price of the Concorde. It just might be cheap enough to get a self-sustaining amount of traffic, which will provide an ongoing incentive to develop cheaper and cheaper planes. It's getting past that initial wall that's the problem, which the Concorde never did.

Sonic booms are resolved two ways. First, the same way that the Concorde did: use it on trans-continental flights. North America to Europe and Asia are the two obvious examples. Second, modern technology and computer simulation enables a reduction in the intensity of the sonic boom. What's available today is a decent reduction from the Concorde, although it's still nowhere near sufficient to enable supersonic flight over populated areas. But with a large fleet of supersonic aircraft flying, you get a powerful incentive to push that research forward.

Re:Sonic Boom

[freeze128]

Yeah, leave the atmosphere. No air - no sound.

Didn't Branson already promise space based travel? Where are the rockets/planes for that? It's been several years.

Re: Sonic Boom

[FaxeTheCat]

The price quoted it pretty close to a business class ticket on a traditional flight, so the market may actually be there.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Bearhouse]

Not true; in fact the reverse! In its later years, (once BA and Air France had figured out that people did not actually care how expensive the tickets were, and racked up the prices), Concorde flight were very profitable.
Of course, this ignored the massive R&D costs that were written-off by the UK and French governments and could not be recovered due to the small number of units produced.
Concorde was retired mainly because Airbus decided to stop offering maintenance...understandable because it was 1960s technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I have to check my privilege?
Or can I carry it on?

Re:Sonic Boom

[stealth_finger]

Interestingly, women and minorities will be the most impacted by these flights.

How so?

Re:Sonic Boom

[Ferocitus]

If you have to ask, make your way to the Greyhound station.

Re: Sonic Boom

[mjwx]

No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.

One Percenters can afford to own their own planes (although the lease/rent them for the most part). They dont land at London Heathrow with the rest of the peasantry, they land at Farnborough and have a limo to take them into central London.

For this to be viable it needs to be affordable for the upper middle business traveller. The C level execs of smaller companies or the regional directors of larger ones.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Tom]

You are confusing the 1% with the 0.01%. There is an elite within the elite. The super-rich. The oligarchs and billionaires. The Forbes 500. The guys who consider themselves so far above everything, their private airplanes have underage prostitutes as a complimentary service for guests.

The 1% can afford $5k and consider it a good investment if it saves them some time and gives them the privacy of a small plane filled exclusively with people of their type. The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

You must mean the 1% of the 1%. It only takes 400-500K of household income to be in the top 1% in the US. The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.

I am in a 1% household (500K/yr) and I rarely even fly business class unless someone else is paying for (NYC->London b-class ticket is $3-6K depending on when and who you fly).

"Upper middle class" in your eyes seems to be the top 2-3%, and the "1%" in your world must be the top .05%-.01%.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Joce640k]

I rarely even fly business class unless someone else is paying...

Yep, and that's the point. That's why it's called "business" class - because somebody else usually pays for it (a "business").

Re:Sonic Boom

[Joce640k]

These aircraft will whoosh over their heads and the massive sonic boom will ruin their hair (women) or weave (minorities).

Re:Sonic Boom

[fisted]

I used to like sonic boom. Haven't heard one in years though.

Re:Sonic Boom

[AmiMoJo]

TFA is a bit light on details, but it looks like they have based their design off research done by JAXA and NASA into reducing sonic booms. Maybe it's not that bad.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys who consider themselves so far above everything, their private airplanes have underage prostitutes as a complimentary service for guests.

Citation needed

Re: Sonic Boom

[Richard_at_work]

The bulk of both Air France and British Airways Concorde fleets were purchased at full price (their original fleets were fully paid for, but both airlines were offered aircraft at a discount that other airlines dropped orders for), so the comment about development costs is neither here nor there - the Boeing 787-8 is unlikely to recoup its development costs, even with over 400 ordered (the 787-9 and -10 will, however), but its a fantastic plane in service and airlines arent responsible for its development costs.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Rei]

Not going to comment on most of that, but I do agree that there's a market. It's probably a wise decision that they went for a smaller aircraft - weaker sonic boom and more frequent flights for a market of a given size (and the ability to serve lower-traffic markets). Combined with modern tech for aerodynamic efficiency, propulsion, sonic boom modeling, etc, and a long list of "lessons learned" from Concorde, I wouldn't be surprised to see this - or at least one of their competitors - succeed.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Z80a]

They solved that by strapping Ryu to the airplane, so he keeps blocking em with hadoukens.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

smaller lighter planes have smaller booms too (is proportional to engine power), also better if they have lower wing loading and fly higher. If small engines were more competitive efficiency wise then 2-3 person Mach2.2 planes would probabaly be ok for supersonic flight overland.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Rei]

They spent five years developing their first commercial craft... and then accidentally destroyed it on its fourth test flight, killing the copilot and seriously injuring the pilot. Ironically, the crash had nothing to do with it being a rocket; a combination of too few safety lockouts and poor pilot training led to the air braking system being deployed at too low of a speed. Which was a brand new huge setback. The fact that it took five years to even get to that point was itself due to a series of delays, including a complete redesign of the motor (really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel).

Re:Sonic Boom

[Rei]

Corr: that was five years from the unveiling to the flight failure. It was nearly a decade since the initial announcement. Oh, and I forgot one major issue - they had a tank explosion in 2007 that killed three employees. It's just been a trouble-plagued process. But they're still working on it.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Dunbal]

Even most rich people aren't willing to pay a thousand dollars an hour for a quicker flight. Most rich people I know are cheapskates. That's how they got to be rich.

Let's ignore the executive jet industry. These jets are owned by rich corporations and people.

Rich people like value (real or perceived). You forget that Concorde was "one class". There was no business, economy or first on Concorde. And while the service was better than economy class on a standard transatlantic flight, it was much below what first class provides. Concorde was literally falling apart. Seats were damaged. People would steal everything they could so they could have a souvenir of "Concorde" to show their friends.

Yet rich people seem to have no trouble forking out MILLIONS of dollars for the ability of a) being able to travel where and when they want, b) NOT being groped and herded by the TSA and immigration/customs officials and c) not having to mix with the rabble. If you think rich people are worried about paying a price and that's why Concorde failed, you don't understand rich people.

It's not how much money you want, it's what you are offering me for my money.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do we do about it? Start killing them again?

Unfortunately, even with a regular purge, the "elite" will simply reform with new members. Their very existence says more about human nature than anything else.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also a major smear campaign against Concorde lead by US interests because it was not US technology. I'm not saying sonic booms aren't real, but if you actually try to do research into Concorde noise levels you'll find a lot of misinformation and confusion: most reports I could find point to take off noise, which was, by all accounts, deafening. However, how that lead to a ban on supersonic flight doesn't make any sense at all. Since the Concorde (and indeed any other plane) would have been flying very high while supersonic, the actual on-the-ground volume simply couldn't have been that bad.

And, sorry to rant, just step back one second. If sonic booms from supersonic high flying aircraft are so loud, then how did the SR-71 engage in "covert" surveillance of the USSR? You'd just listen for it and know it was there. Of course, you need something to shoot it down (see Gary Powers, etc...) and I wonder if it's coincidence that Russia is known to have the world's best SAM systems?

Re:Sonic Boom

[cheesybagel]

Read the article. They basically want to do flights where most of the travel route is over the ocean.

I'm more interested in which engines they are using. Aside from military engines I can't think of any single engine available today which has an afterburner (which they will need if they want to hit Mach 2+).

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

You can't hear a sonic boom on the ground from a plane that is 45,000 to 50,000 feet high, get a clue.

Re:Sonic Boom

[serviscope_minor]

really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel

How come? It seems they started with it then switched away and back several times. What's wrong with HTPB---honest question?

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

But that was obvious. I mean, I'm poor and I don't give a shit about you either!

Re:Sonic Boom

[Rei]

Burn rate, mainly. Solids are very different from hybrids in that the oxidizer is intermixed with the fuel, and thus it's easy to get any burn rate you want, from "none" to "rapid unscheduled disassembly" ;) With hybrids, combustion only occurs on the surface as a surface/gas reaction and the rate of reaction there is limited, so it's much more of an issue. With polybutadiene, this means having more channels and thinner walls to get the burn rate up, which increases the odds that chunks will break off as it burns, among other problems. It's generally recognized that the optimal situation is to have a fuel that readily forms a low viscosity melt layer which can be easily aerosolized, dramatically increasing the surface area. So, for example, fuels like paraffin wax and polyethylene work very well for hybrids. Combustion enhancers like aluminum significantly help as well.

Re: Sonic Boom

[GrumpySteen]

[citation provided]

Re:Sonic Boom

[stud9920]

Gary Powers ==> U-2 ==> subsonic

Re: Sonic Boom

[GrumpySteen]

The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.

You're thinking "private luxury jet", but that is not the only way to fly privately, so it's not as ridiculous as you think. The numbers on that page are for a low-end plane (an older Cessna), but $400k/year is the low end of the 1% so it seems appropriate. The highest number on that page, $32k/year, is well within the reach of someone making $400k/year if they want it.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Your street fighter II is showing.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Ogive17]

Maybe I'm one of the few but I don't think $5k (for round trip) is that big of a deal considering it's "business class". Go look up a normal business class ticket, not going to be significantly less. Plus, many of the people that would use this would have the ticket purchased by the company.

I'm low on the totem pole at my company but when I have to travel to Asia, it's business class. If I remember correctly my ticket to China was $4,500.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

You're joking right? We're talking about a transatlantic flight. I don't think a 175 MPH Cessna with a 750 mi range is really going to cut it here.

Obviously yes, private general aviation is affordable for the "1%". But that is primarily for entertainment, not for actually getting from point-A to point-B (except ultra-short haul routes).

Re:Sonic Boom

[Joce640k]

You can't hear a sonic boom on the ground from a plane that is 45,000 to 50,000 feet high, get a clue.

It's almost as if you didn't do any research at all before posting that.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

There likely is a a market, but it may remain limited to a niche. The benefits of reducing flight time become less when you have a layover to get to an inland airport vs a direct flight to that airport. If I'm going from NY to Munich, and I go supersonic to Heathrow then regular jet to Munich, I'm not sure I'd save more than a couple hours vs going direct from NY to Munich. Add that if the Boom flights are less frequent, layovers are likely going to be longer on average. I might just be happier with an overnight sleep in business class and a direct flight.

Re:Sonic Boom

[serviscope_minor]

Ah I see, thanks for the answer!

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

The strategy with the U2 was to fly high enough not to get shot down, but then Gary Powers did proving that Russian SAMs could reach much higher than previously thought. That's why the SR-71 was "screw stealth, just go too fast to catch" instead. By the time the enemy could get a radar lock and launch missiles the Blackbird was already too far away for the missile to catch up to.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

The blackbird also flew higher than the U2 if I recall. The U2 was something like 70K feet, where the blackbird was 85K feet.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

And Concorde's ceiling was 60k feet, though it regularly flew at 55k feet.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

> If sonic booms from supersonic high flying aircraft are so loud, then how did the SR-71 engage in "covert" surveillance of the USSR?

The SR-71 never flew across the USSR "coast-to-coast" style like the early U-2 did (e.g. start in West Germany and land at a turkish airbase, both NATO members). The SR-71 flew arc paths that started over international open waters, e.g. Bay of Finland or nominally neutral swedish lands and skimmed or slightly violated soviet territorial waters, e.g. near the Murmansk naval base. They gained insight using side-looking cameras and synthetic aperture radars without going in. The inside of vast russian lands was always the target of satellite based espionage.

If the SR-71 tried to fly straight across USR, the russkies would have shot it out of the sky using a nuke-tipped SAM, precision aiming and collateral damage be damned. The S-200 Vega (SA-5 Gammon) had a speed of Mach 5.5 and a range of 285km. Through-flights occured over North Korea and Vietnam, but ended soon when a smaller S-75 (SA-2) SAM managed to explode just 200m under an A-12 Oxcart (CIA serviced SR-71) and embedded some shrapnel in the fuel tanks. After that, side-looking spy cameras came into fashion to avoid another Gary Powers case.

Re: Sonic Boom

[K. S. Kyosuke]

By what measure can the influence of leaders and executives at major corporations be considered "disproportionate"? One would think it is entirely logical that it is significantly greater.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Kagato]

$5000 is the J price to London (usually LHR). If you're going to Dublin the same ticket can be had for closer to $2500.

Re: Sonic Boom

[WindBourne]

Military sonic booms are 120-190 dcbls. Concorde was 110 dcbls. Booms will be less than 85 dcbls, or about garbage disposal. So yes, progress has been made.

Re: Sonic Boom

[dcw3]

"The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants."

Agreed, but your $10k figure is way low at many locations.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Business class on long flights is theoretically worth it because between the lay-flat beds and booze you can manage to actually get some sleep and be able to function immediately when you land, saving on exec time.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

(once BA and Air France had figured out that people did not actually care how expensive the tickets were, and racked up the prices)

Except by "people" you mean "people who are willing to pay thousands of dollars for a faster flight." For those people, sure, jack up the price all you want, they don't care. But how many of them are there? That's always the big gamble with this sort of thing; if you make it more widely available, will the market expand? Most people simply aren't in the market for this at any viable price, so they're out. And most businesses (and all government-funded programs) would be fine having their employees' legs cut off and stowed under the plane if it would save $10 per ticket, so they're out too. Sensible wealthy people won't pay more than they absolutely have to, so forget about them. Rich dumbasses pissing money away would probably just get their own private jet and use that until it gets repossessed. That just leaves the previous Concorde class and the lucky bastards who are able to get their employers to sign off on business class tickets. Either you jack the price up to milk the former and lose the latter, or you have to cut the price to be competitive with the latter and offer premium services to maximize the profit on the former. Either way is risky and leaves little margin for error.

Re: Sonic Boom

[nealric]

A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)- meaning a flight that would be two hours in a jet is an all-day affair. On top of that, you are grounded or diverted by weather that a jet piloted by a professional wouldn't even flinch for. In reality, most of the people who own light Cessnas (or more commonly, fractional ownership) use them to putter around on Sunday afternoons or for short trips to nearby cities.

Re: Sonic Boom

[dcw3]

You don't have to be rich to fly a Cessna. Go to nearly any USAF base, and you'll find an aero-club, where young airmen making poverty wages take flying lessons. I know, I got my license at one.

Re: Sonic Boom

[dcw3]

"Yet rich people seem to have no trouble forking out MILLIONS of dollars for the ability of a) being able to travel where and when they want, b) NOT being groped and herded by the TSA and immigration/customs officials and c) not having to mix with the rabble. If you think rich people are worried about paying a price and that's why Concorde failed, you don't understand rich people. "

It's human nature. If you don't have to wait, stand in line, put up with shitty food, etc., would you? It's the same reason that many people refuse to take public transportation in areas such as the Washington DC Metro...the commute is twice as long (and less reliable), you have (seriously) stinky people, and why the hell would I want to stand on a frickin' train when I can sit comfortably in my vehicle?

Re:Sonic Boom

[dcw3]

"And, sorry to rant, just step back one second. If sonic booms from supersonic high flying aircraft are so loud, then how did the SR-71 engage in "covert" surveillance of the USSR? You'd just listen for it and know it was there. Of course, you need something to shoot it down (see Gary Powers, etc...) and I wonder if it's coincidence that Russia is known to have the world's best SAM systems?"

You might know the SR71 was there, but fat chance you could do anything about it. As for the U2, it flies ~20k ft lower, and much, much slower.

Flying at 90k+ feet, how long do you suppose it took the sound to reach the ground? How far away do you suppose the SR-71 was by then?

90000/1100ft per sec = ~81 seconds.
SR71 top speed = ~2200mph or .61 miles/sec .61 x 81 = approximately 50 miles.

And, that's assuming you're directly under the flight path.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Tom]

It is logical, that they have influence within their respective organisations.

It's the influence on politics, media and society that is disproportionate, because being a good manager or CEO or investor or funder doesn't say one thing about being good at politics, guiding a country or making politics.

The reaons the world is in such a sorry shape is exactly that we allow managers to run it, instead of visionaries and idealists.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Tom]

Even ignoring the rampant anti-semitism there, nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust. Name one super-rich who died in a concentration camp.

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

Fact is rhe plane will go supersonic at a hight where no one on the ground will hear the boom.
No research required ...

Re:Sonic Boom

[dcw3]

I used to frequently fly overseas on business class. Most recently, from Atlanta to Dubai...that was a $5k ticket that the company paid for. As a 2%er, I'm personally too cheap to pay that kind of price for my own flights, even though my knees typically hit the seat in front when I'm sitting in sardine class. 14 hours in a tiny seat is cruel and unusual for anyone 6" or taller.

Re:Sonic Boom

[serviscope_minor]

Aside from military engines I can't think of any single engine available today which has an afterburner (which they will need if they want to hit Mach 2+).

You don't need an afterburner. The Rolls Royce Olympus 593 was in fact capable of pushing the concorde all the way to it's maximum speed without the use of the afterburner. However that meant the concorde spent a long time in the high drag trans-sonic region, so it was more efficient to use the afterburner to exit that regime as quickly as possible.

Re: Sonic Boom

[ShanghaiBill]

nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust.

The Holocaust wasn't aimed at the rich. But the purges of Stalin and Mao were. They killed plenty of rich people. My wife's laoye (maternal grandfather) owned a furniture factory in Beijing, and was quite prosperous. He was shot in the back of the head in 1949.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

By what measure can the influence of leaders and executives at major corporations be considered "disproportionate"? One would think it is entirely logical that it is significantly greater.

You should learn how to use a dictionary. Do you know what "disproportionate" means?

Re: Sonic Boom

[ChrisMaple]

Don't confuse human nature with statistics.

Re: Sonic Boom

[ChrisMaple]

The "visionaries and idealists" set has a large overlap with "loonies and cultists." I don't want the government headed by someone having "visions".

Re:Sonic Boom

[djinn6]

Don't we have anti-satellite weapons now? You don't have to be faster than something to get in its path and explode.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact is rhe plane will go supersonic at a hight where no one on the ground will hear the boom.
No research required ...

Here's some research for you:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/684806.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

Re:Sonic Boom

[ChrisMaple]

The ability to do supersonic flight involved design compromises, one of which was high takeoff noise.

Re: Sonic Boom

[WindBourne]

Uh no. Concorde boom us 110 dcbls. That is also why european gov did not allow Concorde to run supersonic over their area.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that this will take advantage of the recent research into low boom vehicle design as well as high altitude flights where the booms rarely intersect the ground (curve back upward while passing through the atmosphere). Research projects in supersonics are ongoing to improve vehicle designs, test low boom vehicles to gauge impact on populated areas, etc. The sticking point with overflights, at least in the US, is legislative and it will take some time for that to change. We have the technology and are collecting data to try and prove that it A) works, B) isn't going to adversely impact communities, and C) can be done in an environmentally sane way. Much of this is, at least in the US, not going to work unless the legislation governing supersonic overflight is changed such that low boom vehicles and/or high altitude flight is allowed outside of designated airspaces for non-military purposes. Using maneuvers to try and simulate low booms (no real demonstrator aircraft to speak of, pretty sure the F-5 was just boom shaping rather than low boom), researchers have been able to get down into the 0.1 - 0.2 PSF range which is a huge reduction and sounds more like a car door shutting than a typical sonic boom (often it also produces a double boom).

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Although going to say China and India could benefit from it. Those flights are absurdly long.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

The "visionaries and idealists" set has a large overlap with "loonies and cultists." I don't want the government headed by someone having "visions".

Too late!

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever heard a sonic boom, unless you were on a boat at the time, it wasn't produced by any civilian aircraft. Concorde only flew at supersonic speed for about one-fifth of its flightpath, all of it over the mid-Atlantic. And that was still enough to halve the flight time, relative to a 747 on the same route.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

This article claims it was 110db at take off. Loud yes. But that has nothing to do with the volume at ground level while the plane flies at Mach 2.2 at 55k feet.

Can anyone dig up a reference for an actual sound reading taken while Concorde over-flies at max speed and max elevation?

There is also this, which starts out very promising and I got excited that it may actually answer the damn question. But it doesn't. The guy claims that the sonic boom is equivalent to a loud trumpet at 0.5m, which may be true, but makes no correction for the fact the concord is 55k feet away.

Some more info here, but still nothing definitive.

The problem is all the reference points don't apply, since the main comments are from those observing the space shuttle (Mach 25 vs Mach 2.2) and military jets at much lower altitude, i.e. performing maneuvers. What we really need is a sea captain's report from the middle of the Atlantic.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Tom]

That's why modern government systems have checks and balances and separation of powers.

Which work great to keep idealists pragmatic, but fail utterly when all branches of the government are run by the same type of bureaucrats.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Tom]

That may be true (don't know enough about chinese history to say for sure), but the GP was talking about jews. Stalin and Mao didn't target jews.

Re: Sonic Boom

[GrumpySteen]

And $400k/year is in no way comparable to the top end of the 1%, but you missed my obvious point so I'm guessing you won't understand why that matters.

  I was responding to a blanket statement about private flight being out of reach to people making $400k/year and a low end plane is the appropriate thing to be looking at when talking about private flight for the low-end of the 1%.

Re:Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Satellites are a lot easier to hit than an insanely fast plane (once you have the technology). You don't need to search for it, you just track it for a few orbits, and you know exactly where it's going to be the next time around.

Same way they shot down that F117 Nighthawk, btw, because some morons decided that it was a great idea to fly the exact same route every day. One day somebody put a rocket in it's flight path.

Re: Sonic Boom

[nealric]

And I was replying to your blanket statement. When people talk about "private flight" in this context, they are talking about it as a rich person's alternative to flying commercial. My point is that owning a Cessna is not an alternative to flying commercial, but a completely separate hobby.

Re: Sonic Boom

[rpstrong]

A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)

Say what? A 182 cruises at around 170 mph - are you 'often' flying into 70 mph headwinds?

Re:Sonic Boom

[VisceralLogic]

Did you know that the sonic boom from the space shuttle entering the atmosphere was audible on the ground?

Re: Sonic Boom

[nealric]

It depends which 172/182 you are talking about- they've been making them since the 1950s. They've made faster and slower variants (fixed gear/retrac, turbocharged non-turbocharged). My dad used to own a 1970s vintage 172 and now owns an 80s vintage 182 (both fixed gear). We took plenty of trips in it. With the 172, it was not at all unusual to bump around at sub 100mph ground speed with a 30-40mph headwind. A 30-40mph headwind is pretty common at altitude. The 182 is a bit faster, but I've never seen 170mph groundspeed except with a tail wind. Bottom line, Cessnas are slow.

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

The Space Shuttle does not create a 'sonic boom' when it enters the atmosphere.
It is far far far above sonic speed when it enters. So it csn't produce one.
And if it would ... it would be something like 50 - 60 miles away from your point of observation: no way you ever would hear it.

When it is producing a sonic boom it is already approaching the landing site and probably below 10,000 feet hight and probably less than 5 miles away from the landing site.

Perhaps you should read up 'what' a sonic boom is, and how it is produced.

Hint: stuff that flyes far faster than speed of sound does not produce a sonic boom. Hm ... why might that be so ...?

Re:Sonic Boom

[VisceralLogic]

How about some facts from NASA? https://www.nasa.gov/centers/a...

...A sonic boom is the thunder-like noise a person on the ground hears when an aircraft or other type of aerospace vehicle flies overhead faster than the speed of sound or supersonic...

...An aircraft, for example, flying supersonic at 50,000 feet can produce a sonic boom cone about 50 miles wide...

...increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength...

Re: Sonic Boom

[cthulhu11]

Upper management and salescritters. Companies will pay for them. I've seen a manager at an ostensible non-profit take a $10k itinerary

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

No idea, I would say the "facts" are wrong :D

50,000 feet is about 17km, which is about 12miles.

Over ten miles you hear no boom. To far away. And if it is in the "hight" the distance when you can't hear anything is far less as air density/pressure decreases with hight. And that means the distance sound travels is much shorter. ...increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength...

That is not a sonic boom. Sonic booms only appear when the "noise generator" is very close to the speed of sound, does not matter if slightly below or slightly above or just right.

A plane flying mach 1.3 or 2.0 or 10.x does not create/track a sonic boom.

Re: Sonic Boom

[Anonymous Coward]

And children. Don't forget the children. Especially the female minority ones.

Re:Sonic Boom

[VisceralLogic]

A sonic boom is the propagation of a shock wave through the air. The shock wave is generated when an object exceeds the speed of sound, whether by a little or a lot. It does of course attenuate with distance (and height), but they still are created and can be heard. Maybe you're saying that by the time it goes that far it's weaker, which I agree with, but it's still technically a sonic boom.

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

The shockwave the space shuttle creates during reentry: is no sonic boom.
And a sonic boom is not really a shockwave either.

And yes, in the example regarding a Concord or the new plane in this article: if they are so far away as we talked about the, sonic boom is to dim to be heard. I lived 20 air bases, I have a pretty good idea how far a plane is away when you hear it or its sonic boom.

A sonic boom, as I said above, is not really a shockwave. That is a layman's explanation or just a coined term. A sonic boom is created like this:
Lets assume a plane is 10 "sound seconds" away.
It flies directly at you with exact speed of sound (could be a few percent above or below, would only minimal change the effect).
Now, the sound it produces at -10 seconds will reach you in exactly 10 seconds. The plane as well, but that is irrelevant.
The sound produced at -9 seconds will reach you after exactly 9 seconds, obviously.
And so on when the plane has distance 1 second, the sound it produces will reach you after one second.

So: which "piece of sound" does reach you first? The one produced when the plane was 1 second away, or the one produced when the plane was 10 seconds away?

Obviously all the sound produced of the course of time when the plane was 10 seconds away till it is over you: reaches you at the same time. This is a sonic boom. And if it is "hard enough", then it can be a shockwave.

The sonic boom goes in all directions, the shockwave is focused into the direction the plane is flying.

And beyond the fact that it is VERY LOUD in short distances, up to 5 miles or more hearable: it vanishes with the square of distance like any other sound.

So: a plane breaking the sound barrier in 45,000 feet, that is roughly 15km, which is roughly 45 sound seconds is to far away to be heard. The sound needs 3 quarters of a minute to even reach you. So far away it is (not taking into account the thin air up there, most likely that makes it a distance of over one minute)

Re:Sonic Boom

[VisceralLogic]

A sonic boom is a shock wave. When an object is going faster than the speed of sound, you aren't going to hear it until the shockwave reaches you. If it temporarily goes supersonic, it will produce a shock wave that continues on without it, which will weaken over time. If it continues flying at the speed of sound, it will travel with the shock wave, maintaining its strength. If it continues going faster than the speed of sound, it will leave a trailing shock wave.

You can visualize it like the bow wave from a boat. The faster the boat goes, the more the wave become conical behind it. When that wave hits, that's the sonic boom. It's the increase in pressure caused by the shock wave that creates the "boom". Depending on the shock strength, it may not be very strong.

A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.).

Re:Sonic Boom

[angel'o'sphere]

I explained you how a sonic boom is created.

And something that is already faster than the speed of sound does not create one ... and "sound wave" it has in its wake is only a few percentages of the strength of a real sonic boom.

As I said before: calling it a shock wave is misleading at best: or simply wrong.

A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.).
If you want to put it like this :D

Re:Sonic Boom

[VisceralLogic]

And I'm explaining to you what it actually is. I have a couple degrees in Aerospace Engineering. I'm giving you the technical, scientific definitions. If you choose to define them your own way, you're free to do so, but you're wrong.

It's not the prototype

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what we engineers call a 'paper airplane.'

Re:It's not the prototype

[Black Parrot]

It's what we engineers call a 'paper airplane.'

Or 'vapor' airplane.

London?

[niks42]

Since this is for the 1%, post Brexit there won't be a London where the 1% want to be. Try Frankfurt to New York.

Re:London?

[SuricouRaven]

Even if the financial sector does move out of London, it will take many years. Every major financial service company has at least a regional office there, and many have their main office in London. Relocating such a business operation isn't something that can be done overnight.

Re:London?

[danhuby]

...and they'll want to move out of London in style, right?

Re:London?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-1% resident of London, I wish you were right, but I doubt it. To understand you need to see London from a rich person's point of view. From that perspective, the main thing you are interested in is political stability (i.e. a ruling political class that will protect your interests/wealth), which the UK almost uniquely has through a hereditary monarchy at the top (which clearly has an interest in protecting unearned wealth), a parliamentary system that is pseudo-democratic (house of lords, first past the post), and a judiciary that can curb the power of government against the people (look at the way private citizens can sue the government).

Compare this with other countries which have either more populous democracies (where the masses can simply vote to redistribute your wealth) or those with less democracy (where the leader might decide they want a share of your wealth). Where would you rather hoard your assets? The answer is London.

The other big benefit of London is that it is the pre-eminent global tax haven through the non-domiciled status system. It is essentially like a supermarket for tax havens, where you can live in London and shop out your tax liabilities to any of the convenient offshore tax-free locations around the world, without having to live on a sleepy island in the middle of no where. Many of the available tax havens have power structures that connect up with the UK mainland, which gives great confidence in the protection of your wealth.

Re:London?

[AmiMoJo]

They are probably betting that the UK will be do desperate to attract companies it will put up with sonic booms and pollution just to get this thing. The UK could still have a future as a stop-over point for transatlantic flights.

Re:London?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax dodger Branson doesn't even live in the UK. Neither does he use his own billions to start spin-off businesses. But keep spreading lies and FUD, loser.

Re:London?

[Anonymous Coward]

more populous democracies (where the masses can simply vote to redistribute your wealth)

Minor nit: I think you mean "more populist democracies".

Re:London?

[dcw3]

Sigh...you're too desperate in your attempt to put down the UK for their decision. There won't be any sonic booms over the country.

Re:London?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn, why dont some of these rich dudes DO something about climate change, rather than inventing useless shit.

Boom?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boom is a really stupid name for an aircraft company. That's like naming a ship company Drown.

Re:Boom?!?!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Depending on your perspective off the world and how much black humor you are willing to inject into your life, that is an excellent name for an aircraft maker.

Re:Boom?!?!

[RoverDaddy]

Or selling a car named Nova in Spain.

Re:Boom?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more like naming a ship company Sink.

Re:Boom?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boom is a really stupid name for an aircraft company. That's like naming a ship company Blub-Blub-Blub.

Fixed that for you

Re:Boom?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit again?

"Nova" means the same thing in Spanish as it does in English. The claim that Spanish speakers read it as "no va" is a long-debunked urban legend.

That's why they are already doing it.

[gl4ss]

They're already moving the banks due to brexit, even if brexit isn't confirmed. ..you think this will have flights next year already? take a look at the mockups. the mockup photos in the article don't even match the claims. the plane is a two seater and the article says 90 seats - so whats up with that?

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Who wants to live in the boring provincial town of Frankfurt?

The 1% like London.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[stealth_finger]

The 1% like London.

They're the only ones.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[Sique]

At least, Germany offers two Frankfurts to choose from, one in the West and one in the East.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, of course.
 
That is why my family came here with nothing 25 years ago, and obviously explains the massive influx of people regardless of property prices - London finally has a higher population than it did before WW2.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[dcw3]

I just spent a week of vacation there. You're full of shit.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[stealth_finger]

I just spent a week of vacation there. You're full of shit.

Try living or working there for any real length of time. A weeks vacation? Fuck off.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[dcw3]

I just spent a week of vacation there. You're full of shit.

Try living or working there for any real length of time. A weeks vacation? Fuck off.

It doesn't take more than a few hours to see through your lie.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[stealth_finger]

What lie? The off the cuff comment implying only rich people like London? So what, you like London? What do you want? A fucking ribbon?

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[dcw3]

"They're the only ones."

That one...blatant lie. But thanks for playing troll.

Re:That's why they are already doing it.

[stealth_finger]

Do you take every little comment you see on the internet as uncompromising statement of fact?

BOOM

[Anonymous Coward]

A company named "Boom" building airplanes..

Concorde was killed by politics not price

[DrXym]

The name Boom was chosen after comparing favourably to Kablammo, Plunge, Missing, FreeFall, Disintegrator and Fireball during test marketing.

Re:Concorde was killed by politics not price

[Dog-Cow]

And the crowd favorite: Planey McPlaney-face

Re:Concorde was killed by politics not price

[chispito]

Well, there's some precedence for one of your options:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Concorde was killed by politics not price

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ryan FR Fireball already took one of those names seventy years ago...

Re:Concorde was killed by politics not price

[jmv]

Concorde lost in large part because if you count all the airport crap and the flight schedules, you can get across the ocean much faster (and much more comfortable) by renting a private jet than by booking on the Concorde.

Re:Concorde was killed by politics not price

[R3d M3rcury]

Hey, at least they didn't call it "Bo-ing!"

Airplanes don't bounce.

Re:Concorde was killed by politics not price

[DrXym]

The Concorde service wasn't like that. They sent a limo for you and had a separate checkin, lounge. You could go from kerb to boarding in 20 or 30 minutes. The process wouldn't be especially slower than a private jet. And flying a private jet across the Atlantic would take you 7 hours or so.

I've been on a private jet and for international travel you still have to go through the usual bullshit of airport security, baggage scans and even liquid restrictions plus customs on the other side. Private jets cost way more than even a 1st class ticket. They're only viable if you're super rich or have a lot of people coming and going between the same destinations to afford to charter them.

Concorde is often downplayed

[MayeulC]

Concorde's reputation as a luxury plane might be a bit off, as well a the common perceived reason for its demise. I recently read this interesting post about interesting Concorde facts, although there are a lot more.
According to some sources, it was killed mostly because it was more profitable to operate a more conventional plane, not because it was not profitable at all.
This plane was such a marvelous piece of technology, and there is plenty of very interesting reads on it all over the net. I am glad some are trying to revive supersonic jets, although I hope they will make them in a "greener" fashion.

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[serviscope_minor]

I am glad some are trying to revive supersonic jets, although I hope they will make them in a "greener" fashion.

The Concorde was actually designed for low fuel consumption. And it was actually pretty good for the standards of the day, it's just the day moved on rather faster than expected. There are basically two ways of increassing the efficiency of a jet engine: increase the pressure ratio thereby increasing the thermodynamic efficiency and increasing the mass flow, decreasing the maximum velocity of the air.

Neither is especially easy. Larger engines also create more drag, weigh more and big fans are hard to make. It turns out however that was much easier and high bypass turbofans cropped up pretty soon. The former is very hard because it increases the core temperature. Pressure ratios have been slowly creeping up, making use of single crystal nickel turbing blades with cooling channels running through them. That allows them to operate safely above the creep limit of the metal astonishingly.

Except the concorde! Flying higher, it starts from colder, lower pressure air and uses ram compression along with the conventional turbocompressor core, reaching an astonishing pressure ratio of 70, compared to only 50 on the absolute latest technology Trent 1000. The contemporary 747 engine reached a mere 23:1. The concorde gambled on the pressure ratio being decisive, but it lost out to larger, slower planes with high bypass engines.

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[leathered]

Concorde was profitable for BA and Air France. It just wasn't profitable for UK and French taxpayers who never recouped it's development costs.

What killed Concorde was Airbus withdrawing the type certification for it.

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[segedunum]

According to some sources, it was killed mostly because it was more profitable to operate a more conventional plane, not because it was not profitable at all.

Indeed. Profit, profit, profit. That's why we have very, very expensive beds on long haul flights. How about we just get there faster? But screw progress and the passengers.

Anything Branson does though is a scam.

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[k6mfw]

Interesting article and one mention, “Market research later in Concorde’s life revealed that customers thought Concorde was more expensive than it actually was. Ticket prices were progressively raised to match these perceptions.” The other aspect "it was killed mostly because it was more profitable to operate a more conventional plane" is something I have to think about (that doesn't make sense but then most of us making money decisions do it for very strange reasons).

Back in those days, SST was the big thing. In 1960s there were people living who remembered reading in newspapers about first airplane flight. With extremely fast development of airplanes, it seemed only natural SST will be primary way of getting around the planet. Cargo will fly on the 747s.

However, I think overall SSTs simply don't scale up especially these days as it may be faster (and reducing 18 hours in coach to 9 hours would be very nice) but overall looking at cost, travel time to airport, time getting through security, etc. Maybe costs can be reduced, sonic boom more quiet (NASA is working on that, http://www.nasa.gov/press-rele... ). However, we also have the Internet so people on long flights are not incognito for hours on end. For executives and the 1%, subsonic private jets are more preferred (there are some proposals for SST "Learjets"*) as simply drive to airport, grab stuff and hop on the plane (don't have to unload carryons, take off shoes and belt, have TSA get all in a hissy fit when they find a partially filled water bottle). So for most people will SSTs save that much time? Regarding speed, even the military doesn't go that fast (if need to, that's what a missile is for).

Back in 1990s when NASA was investigating HSCT I talked with a NASA aero engineer old enough to have worked on SST development work. He said for HSCT (they changed the acronym because SST had bad connotations) to be successful the overall aircraft has to have seats same price as subsonic coach (otherwise companies and vacation travelers are not going to pay even a little more). To achieve this the aircraft has to be much more fuel efficient than Concorde (which flew on afterburners) and has to have about 250 seats (if less, then price per seat will not be like subsonic coach).

* "Learjet" is a generic term like Kleenex, Band-Aid, Xerox people use to call privately owned small jet transports. You all airplane buffs at airports watching a Cessna Citation or a Grumman Gulfstream take off usually hear someone say "oh look, there goes a Learjet!"

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[k6mfw]

Another aspect this was a huge cooperative program between England and France, think about that besides different language and culture,previously these two countries were wartime enemies for centuries. There's gotta be a huge discussion about that.

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[djinn6]

Fuel efficiency isn't the final goal. If it was, everyone would be traveling on blimps and following the trade winds.

A 10 hour flight on a 747 might cost $100,000 in fuel. This is about $200 per passenger. Even if the supersonic plane triples that, the final round trip price should only be $400 more. Now would you pay $1000 more for extra leg room or $400 more to reduce it to a 5 hour flight?

Re:Concorde is often downplayed

[Anonymous Coward]

UK

Wrong economics

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall press comment that Concorde simply wasn't viable with only a hundred seats. I'm sure aerospace analysts know this too. And ... pretty sure that you could get a Concorde ticket to NY for less than $5,000, back in the day. So I'm afraid this announcement must be nonsense, clear through.

Re:Wrong economics

[Anonymous Coward]

And ... pretty sure that you could get a Concorde ticket to NY for less than $5,000, back in the day. So I'm afraid this announcement must be nonsense, clear through.

Adjust for inflation, please. = ~ $6566 (assuming a ticket in 2003 at $5000)

Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

An aircraft that burns even more fuel per mile than a normal one and nicely pollutes the stratosphere to boot. Perhaps Branson should just stay on his carribean island and enjoy the sea - before the hurricanes get so bad due to climate change that his house is blown away.

And yes, I know there are plenty of people on this site who don't think human induced climate change is real and I respect your right to hold that opinion. Try respecting mine and don't reply with a load of insulting bile. Thanks.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

The real gains in Pollution Control with vehicles have come from increased efficiency. This does not apply to Aircraft, which Worldwide are exempted from Controls. On top of that, Piston craft can still use Leaded gas.
But one curious byproduct of increased efficiency, which reduces CO, CO2, and HCn, is the increased production of NOx, which results from side reactions due to the higher combustion temperatures, that heat up all that normally unreacted atmospheric Nitrogen; the ~80% stuff that actually does most of the work. NOx in the Stratosphere is particularly bothersome, because of the attendant increase in Ozone production.
Aircraft gain in efficiency when fully loaded, that is, when every possible seat filled, which with Pollution considerations aside, achieve levels comparable to personal vehicles on the ground. But "Business Class" planes are horrifically fuel inefficient; around 11-16% of that achieved by the Cattle Cars.
No bile; just a reference that supports your claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Oxides_of_nitrogen_.28NOx.29

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

Luckily with NOx it doesn't hang around in the atmosphere very long , so while its a nasty pollutant its soon gone. CO2 however is the real problem right now.

You're right about aircraft efficiency. IIRC a 747 at full capacity has the same mileage per person as a person driving a small car the same distance. Of course the problem with the comparison is that its not possible to jump into a small car and drive 3000 miles in a day (and who would anyway even if it was?) then come back again the next, so air travel is still a horrendous polluter per person in comparison to ground transport.

"But "Business Class" planes are horrifically fuel inefficient; around 11-16% of that achieved by the Cattle Cars."

I reckon its safe to assume that the sort of people who fly in business jets don't give a rats backside about the enviroment. Its just something else for them to exploit.

Re:Just what the world needs

[110010001000]

Although people like Al Gore like to fly around in business jets, it is doubtful they have much impact on CO2 emissions compared to your typical plebeian driving his car to work every day. You might as well also complain about people like Al Gore, who have four vacation homes.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

Getting to work is an essential. Flying usually is not. And I'm no fan of Al Gore, the mans a screaming hypocrite.

Re:Just what the world needs

[serviscope_minor]

On top of that, Piston craft can still use Leaded gas.

Mostly, yeah. The problem is getting new engines certified for GA use. Automotive engines now get phenomenal reliability under much tougher conditions: wide RPM and torque range, lots of stop-start, wide specifications on fuel performance, long (possibly indefinite) times between overhauls, really strict emissions requirement and etc. There has been huge development of auto engines, becuase there's a lot of money in it and not having to do warranty replacements is important. New auto engines are warrantied for as much or more than the TBO for aero engines.

But the thing is, the market is very small, and it's really expensive to get certified, so no one really wants to bother designing a modern engine (aircraft engines are designed for different power characteristics and are generally air cooled) and then getting that design through certification when good enough ones already exist.

Except it's changing a bit since avgas is getting harder to find. The new engines are diesels, which can run off jet fuel (jet fuel and diesel are very similar, but jet fuel is generally a bit less lubricating). You can also make good two stroke diesels, which offset the weight disadvantage.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Although people like Al Gore like to fly around in business jets,..."

Um, we're not talking about Gulfstreams that get parked a week for every few hours flown, or at least I'm not. These are ~500 "Business Class" planes that will do a couple of New York-London round-trip runs a day for example, burning ~100,000 liters of fuel each, (Extrapolated from the Concorde numbers.), so that ~100 people on each round-trip won't have to rely on those plebeian Conference Calls, and can get back in time to watch tonight's "American Apprentice".

"...it is doubtful they have much impact on CO2 emissions compared to your typical plebeian driving his car to work every day."
This isn't about efficiently carving out a slice of an existing Market, it's about creating, or rather reviving, a new Market, that of the casual Transatlantic Business Commuter. They may be able to justify the price paid per ticket, they're not paying for it after all, but the cost is spread out on all of us. Each one of those Business Commuters burns away maybe the same amount of fuel a day as ~500 Joe Schmoes in their Hondas. This is self-indulgence of the highest order.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

While working on D-SEND for JAXA I asked a project leader from JAXA about the fuel consumption for their supersonic carrier. If I remember correctly, they predicted their aeroplane would consume twice as much fuel consumed per person and a trip, compared to moden passenger aeroplanes. However, JAXA's aeroplane would be bigger than the business jet in this article, so I assume the business jet would have worse efficiency.

I worked on D-SEND for JAXA:
- D-SEND http://www.aero.jaxa.jp/eng/research/frontier/sst/d-send.html

Re:Just what the world needs

[swillden]

Getting to work is an essential. Flying usually is not.

What about flying to work? Business travel fills a large number of aircraft seats, and the majority of business class and first class seats.

Personally, I work from home except for the one week out of every 4-6 that I fly somewhere.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

There are unleaded avgas alternatives in general use, such as UL91/96. It can be used for most GA aircraft, just not historical ones (i.e. Spitfire, not a 60s Piper).

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

If you live so far from work that you have to fly their perhaps you should consider moving house.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

All true about car engines, but I do wonder how long one would last if it had to sit at its max power rpm for hours on end. You could argue that stop start allows the engine to have a "rest" for want of a better word.

Re:Just what the world needs

[MorePower]

As a frequent business traveler, I have to ask: where do I move my house to? The reason I have to fly for work is because my customers are scattered around the world, I'm not flying to any one particular place. There is no one place on Earth that has enough customers to keep me employed full-time throughout the year. And as work gets more and more specialized, I think this will increasingly become the norm.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously I don't commute via plane... that would be nuts. But our manufacturing is in Canada, our tradeshows are in Las Vegas and Germany, and we sell products worldwide and sometimes have to support them. Are you suggesting a road trip (price of gas is more than a ticket to Vancouver or Vegas)? And which road to Hamburg?

Re:Just what the world needs

[swillden]

If you live so far from work that you have to fly their perhaps you should consider moving house.

Almost none of those business travelers are commuting. I'm not. Last month I had meetings in California. Next month I need to be in London. I'm going to have a meeting in Colorado soon.

Re:Just what the world needs

[serviscope_minor]

All true about car engines, but I do wonder how long one would last if it had to sit at its max power rpm for hours on end.

Well, more like 70% power, right? You use max power for takeoff, then cruise at 70% or so.

You could argue that stop start allows the engine to have a "rest" for want of a better word.

Well, rest won't help per-se in that it has no mechanism for recovery, assuming that the cooling system is working and the engine doesn't overheat. The act of starting from scratch does cause wear, due for example to the hydrodynamic bearings not actually providing good lubrication until the engine starts to move. And the oil is optimized for the warm engine (synthetic oils help but don't eliminate the problem completely).

The question is, I suppose, how much running the engine at 75% power compared to 30% power affects the wear. I have no idea! Might be interesting to look in Germany since with their Autobahn, there are going to be cars cruiding much closer to their maximum power non redline power than most other places.

Re: Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have big dreams. To build and fly a supersonic aircraft is top of my list. I don't think there's anything evil or cynical about it. Why don't you leave the 1% talk for another time and let those of us with a passion for aviation have an enjoyable discussion.

Re:Just what the world needs

[ghoul]

Latest research shows that as CO2 levels go up and the world warms the amount of plants go up and the rate at which they grow i.e. Use up Co2 also goes up. It means there is a negative feedback cycle and negative feedback loops are always stable. So I seriously doubt the apocalyptic predictions being made will come true. Further you have to look at the cost of fighting global warming. The fight affects the poor the most by slowing down the industrialization of poorer countries and also by closing dirty industries like coal which provide employment to the poor. And also look at who gains. Hyper educated narrow field specialists in non productive fields like lobbying make hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. The damage caused by the fight against global warming is more than the damage global warming itself would cause. The realistic damage would be having to build Netherland style dikes around a few major cities and some cropland turning to desert (while other frozen tundra would become prime cropland). Fighting global warming only makes sense for todays global elite. For everyone else who is trying to pull themselves up by the bootstrap its a cruel joke.

Re:Just what the world needs

[tlhIngan]

The question is, I suppose, how much running the engine at 75% power compared to 30% power affects the wear. I have no idea! Might be interesting to look in Germany since with their Autobahn, there are going to be cars cruiding much closer to their maximum power non redline power than most other places.

Quite a bit, actually. The modern car engine is way overpowered for what it's used for - cruising down the highway is actually not very taxing on the engine at all - it's just got to put in as much power as is lost through friction and air resistance, which isn't a lot at all. Plus your transmission would be in a gear that puts it in a very efficient running mode (probably an overdrive gear).

You need the power when you want to change. Those horses are used if you're trying to measure 0-100 times, for example and you are flooring the engine and keeping it in the high-torque range.

Dyno testing replicates this by having the user floor the accellerator while the dyno puts on resistance and measures how much work is being done.

But the modern car engine isn't really designed for long term high power output - 0-100 times are done in a few seconds, while accellerating to max speed is really under a minute before the computer backs off the power. I'd be surprised if beyond that daily commutes get anywhere close to 70% max power.

Anyhow, plane engines also have to work for a while - if a car breaks down, you pull over and that's the end of that. If a plane engine dies, well, in a single engine plane you're going down. So they're designed for reliability as well, which meant they often have stuff that's irritating, like magnetos.

And leaded fuel is heading out. The engine manufacturers are all searching for alternative unleaded fuels. The writing's on the wall and the end of leaded gasoline is close. Handling leaded gasoline is expensive (and requires separate processing equipment, so your choice of refineries is limited), plus the demand isn't there - to produce the worldwide supply of avgas for a year, a refinery only needs to work for one day. That's it. And in the meantime you need to maintain all the leaded gasoline handling equipment.

Plus, there's only one source for the tetraethyl lead, and it's in the UK.

Re:Just what the world needs

[djinn6]

Aircraft contribution to global warming is basically non-existent. Go protest a coal plant if you really want to make a difference. Or better yet, go kill 100 people. Each one contributes 16 tons of CO2 per year. Not to mention all their offspring. /sarcasm

Re:Just what the world needs

[thegarbz]

You sounded like you knew what you're talking about right until you threw control theory and physics out of the window to reach your conclusion.

Starting with negative feedback: In general it promotes stability, but a system with negative feedback is not by that virtue alone stable, and in some cases the application of negative feedback can actually push it to a point of instability.

Secondly the problem with negative feedback is that there's no fundamental control point, stability even if your prediction of of the earth's system is true, does not fix an operation condition on a system. Venus also has a very stable environment, that doesn't make it a nice place to live. Vegetation doesn't inherently fix the operating point of the planet it just provides negative feedback, and if that stable operating point is one with several degrees higher average temperatures we're still overall screwed without any runaway condition being present (which is still likely).

A better argument would be how a plane or two would contribute close to nothing to CO2 in the grand scheme of things. This likely won't have even the slightest impact but you don't need to kick control theory around to get to that conclusion.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any of these extra plants need water? As for your 'elite' arguments, they are plenty of quite poor people on very small Pacific islands who might take exception to you putting words in their mouths.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

So aircraft producing 12% (and rising) of global transport CO2 emissions is a lie then is it?

Re:Just what the world needs

[djinn6]

Nice try.

So aircraft producing 12% of global transport CO2 emissions

They produce 100% of global air transport CO2 emissions too.

Re:Just what the world needs

[ghoul]

Fact of the matter is the science on Global Warming is not certain yet on whether it is actually a bad thing or not. Vast areas of the world like Canada and Siberia will become usable as prime cropland. Increase in temperatures will also increase rainfall in the Sahara and India making these areas more productive. Greenland will have a longer growing season. The northwest passage will open up reducing transport costs. The Amazon rainforest will get more greener due to higher CO2 levels.

The only negatives I have seen being reported till now is higher sea levels and desertification of California. On balance Global warming seems to be a good thing for the world except for East Coast and West Coast elites and some Pacific Island nations.

Why should the rest of the world slow down their development so that beachfront property belonging to billionaires not get swamped?

World has been much warmer at many times in the past and the amount of plants and animals in the biosphere also has been much higher (where do you think the carbon for the fossil fuels came from? Outer Space?)

Re:Just what the world needs

[thegarbz]

Displacement of civilisations, movement of species.

The human race will endure, but regardless on the outcome the result will be massive expenses towards maintaining a status quo, a wasted opportunity of humans pissing away advancements purely to keep doing what we're doing.

This is a bad thing, no scientific study needed.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Viol8]

I'm sure you think you're trying to make some profound point there, but fuck knows what it is. Go back to shouting at the pigeons.

Re:Just what the world needs

[ghoul]

No one says the status quo needs to be maintained. Californians can emigrate to Canada.

Re:Just what the world needs

[thegarbz]

Californians can emigrate to Canada.

as I said

the outcome the result will be massive expenses

Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want complain but the problem with most flights is not flighttime but the total time. You have to get to the Airport, check in, wait in line to go through the security check and wait at the gate. How about som innovation here?

Re:Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-airport-automated-security-lanes-1115-biz-20161114-story.html

Re:Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

This improves efficency at one step. I think that steps needs to be removed.

I think the security check should be done while boarding. People can only board the plane walking in a single queue anyway. Security checking, baggage loadingand checking of boarding passes could be done in the same sequence. Ideally, the checking should be performed by the cabin crew who has the most skin in the game.

Then you could arrive at the airport, walk directly to the gate, show boarding pass, walk through screening with your luggage, give away your luggage and enter the plane. You could arrive at the Airport 20 minutes before takeoff (most people will be there earlier anyway).

Re:Total Trip Time

[blackanvil]

Ah, but if it runs on a "chartered" model, you don't have to wait in line and go through the security check & etc. Smaller airlines running small airplanes do this; the one time I used it I was surprised at the "Oh, you're here early, go ahead and board and we'll tell the tower we're ready once everyone is here."

Re:Total Trip Time

[T.E.D.]

I don't want complain but the problem with most flights is not flighttime but the total time. You have to get to the Airport, check in, wait in line to go through the security check and wait at the gate. How about som innovation here?

Just as an example, Dallas is a 4 hour drive away for me (about 250 miles).

If I want to fly there it will take: 30 minutes to drive to airport. 1.5 hours for checkin, security, boarding etc. (the TSA recommended time for domestic flights), 1.25 hours for the flight itself, another hour to deplane, get my baggage, and rent a car, and another half hour (being really really generous here. Ever seen Dallas traffic?) to drive where I actually want to be in Dallas. That's a total of nearly 5 hours. It will today cost me about $160, plus car rental fees when I get there, whereas my 12ish gallons of gas for the car trip would be about $25.

So really you'd have to travel more than about 300 miles before an airplane would be quicker, and that's assuming you can score a direct flight. For example, for me to fly to Austin (say for SxSW), a 7.5 hour drive, would take AT BEST 7 hours once you factor in layovers and all the BS time wasted.

(Admittedly, the drive times aren't budgeted for refueling and bio breaks, but I think they are also calculated assuming travel no faster than the posted speed limits).

Re:Total Trip Time

[Overzeetop]

That's similar to my conundrum with my local airport. The hop leg from my regional airport - about 45 minutes by car - to the closest hub adds about 1:15 from gate to gate, plus 45 minutes of layover (in the best case) - or 2.75 hours. My travel time by car to the hub is about 2.75 hours. Often, there is a 1-2 hour layover, which means I can leave my house later and still pick up the direct flight from the hub. And that flight is $200 cheaper. For me, the break even is about 6-7 hours of drive time. Less than that and it's almost always worth driving.

Re: Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

That's mostly a problem with flights under four hours long, where driving a car or taking a train is a viable alternative. This is a supersonic transport so it would most likely be crossing the oceans or barren earth. Places where there is no good alternative.

Re:Total Trip Time

[boskone]

yes, you both are knocking on the door of private aircraft being advantageous.

Figure in a slow plane:
10 minutes to your local, small airport
10 minutes to preflight and take off
Travel at 105 kts direct (2.5 hours for the guy 250 miles from Dallas)
15 minutes to land, tie down

Call all of the above a little over 3 hours, but you got to choose when the 3 hours was (ie, if you're done early or a little later, no big deal, you're not meeting a scheduled flight)

No TSA, no "schedule", and no waiting for luggage. There are other disadvantages, but it's anice tool to have in addition to driving or taking an air carrier.

Re:Total Trip Time

[wired_parrot]

For an airliner, what matters is the flight time+aircraft turnaround time. Currently a trip from New York to London takes 6h30, and London to New York averages around 8hrs, due to prevailing winds. When aircraft turnaround time is included, usually around 1hr in average, this means an aircraft can be used to fly one round-trip fly a day.

With a flight time of 3-4hrs, this new supersonic aircraft will be able to fly 2 round trip flights a day, and possibly 3 if turnaround is quick. For an airliner, this means they need half the number of aircraft to maintain the same flight frequency, which reduces costs. This is where airliners can see substantial savings.

Re:Total Trip Time

[edtice1559]

When the Concorde was flying, there was a dedicated airport entrance for Concorde passengers, dedicated screening lines, and even a dedicated lounge at the airport. No mixing with ordinary people.

Re:Total Trip Time

[SvnLyrBrto]

There's a fairly massive barrier to entry there though. Maybe there're aircraft out there cheaper than Cessna's; but given that they're canonical and ubiquitous, I went looking for pricing on the 172. And it the cheapest model offered starts at $274,900. That being the cheapest, lowest-end, most bare-bones model available; stock, with no add-ons. That, of course, does not include the time and money for training to get your license.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Re:Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Same deal with Seattle Portland. 45 min flight, but you waste over 3 hours in total.

Amtrak: Just under 3 hours total trip time, and none of the stress, a fraction of the cost, and tons more fun for kids.

Re: Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been partially addressed. With TSA PreCheck, I arrive at SFO 40 minutes before my departure, walk through security (15 seconds to check ID, 30 to walk through the metal detector and grab my bag), and then head to my gate to board. The slowest part is boarding and the frequent "traffic on the tarmac" which can add 10-15 minutes. Realistically I don't see the boarding process going any faster since there are newbie or selfish travelers on every flight.

Re:Total Trip Time

[boskone]

aviation isn't cheap, but it can be more reasonable than people think.

a good 172 can be had for under 50K

Fixed expenses are the worst (hangar, insurance, annual maintenance) so the best way is 3-4 way partnership, this dilutes the cost to purchase and the fixed monthly/annual costs pretty significantly.

Re:Total Trip Time

[T.E.D.]

I'd love to believe Amtrak is the answer. Took it myself quite a few times when I lived in Philly. I was the proud holder of a one-price monthly transit pass for years, and took the train to work every day.

The problem is it doesn't go everywhere. For instance, nowhere within 100 miles of where I now live, and that's just a spur. To get to a hub on the real system, I'd have to make that same 250 mile trip to Dallas. Even more, I have to believe if people seriously starting using it, its infrastructure would have to scale to the point where all the stuff we love about airports would happen exactly the same with train terminals, but with slower travel too.

Re:Total Trip Time

[Anonymous Coward]

'Most flights' does not include the flight across the Pacific. If you've ever been on a plane for 14 hours, plus your check in and security check time, you might think this innovation is about time (the 'innovation' not being supersonic passenger aircraft, but supersonic passenger aircraft with fares that match business class on sub-sonic airliners).

Percenters!

[Anonymous Coward]

Times have changed, though. Much less Fifty Percenters, less Five Percenters and some more One Percenters. This time around, it might work out!

TSA is leniant with small airplanes

[Anonymous Coward]

The TSA cares less about security on smaller airplanes. I think the magic number is around 50 passengers, where passengers don't have to get checked to get on an airplane. A suicide bomber in the right place, can take down an entire airplane, killing a couple hundred people.

Re:TSA is leniant with small airplanes

[Overzeetop]

Close, but no. Even small commercial planes require all passengers to go through TSA screening. You're thinking of private air service, which is, iirc, mostly exempt from the traditional passenger TSA screening.

I think they are going to fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I was originally expecting a business jet sized, ~10-20 people, supersonic airplane. It turns out they are making it for 45 to 50 people. The original concorde seated 90 to 128 people, so this new plane will be about 40% the size of the concorde. The original concorde had support from both the British, and French, governments. The Soviet Union built one, and the US government wisely got out. So, now some billionares are going to make one with composites, which are more difficult to design, than aluminum?

Boeing asked airlines about their sonic cruiser, a mach 0.98 airplane in the late 90s. This airplane used more fuel than current airlines, and there was little desire from the airline companies. The Lift to Drag ratio of supersonic flight is inherently lower than subsonic flight. Subsonic flight L/D of ~20, supersonic, maybe 7. Engines are less efficient as well. Oil has gone from the historic $30/barrel price to ~$55/barrel.

It could work well for airlines serving the rich though.

Non-News

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-News, and badly researched as that? When I click through the linked articles, this is what I get:
Renderings (i.e. CGI) declared as "photograph" --> not the real stuff.
A 1:3 scale (presumably functional) model declared a "prototype".

In my book a "prototype" of an aircraft is the seral # 1 issue of the real stuff - ready for manned test flights by a test pilot. Seems they are at best still a couple of years away from this.

Stupid in Largest Scheme

[BrendaEM]

It makes sonic booms, and burns fuel like crazy. Meh.
I hope they don't think that they are going to supersonic that over my house!

engineers are the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, it temporarily distracted 1,000s of aerospace engineers from their diabolical plans to kill brown people, so it was worth it.

$5,000 still seems high. But that's maybe because

[Anonymous Coward]

I am poor. R&D would be the largest part of the cost. I think they should build is bigger. Built more planes. Put in a business class and lower its price.

Why go green when you can go orange?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Concorde was actually designed for low fuel consumption. And it was actually pretty good for the standards of the day, it's just the day moved on rather faster than expected.

Look!! Up in that highrise!! It's an orange!! It's [*cough*] an Oompa-Loompa!! It's . . . Donald [*cough*] Trump!!
Ta-ta-da-dumb!! (Pun intended). Never fear - Trump is here!! He'll defeat any hippie-liberal [*cough*] restrictions on fuel con- [*cough*][*cough*] -consumption and pollution!! It'll be like they never existed in the first place!!

It'll be [*cough*] just like the- [*cough*] just like the gool 'ol 1970s again. Racism aplenty, and why, hell, I bet he'll even be good enough to add lead back to our gasoline!!

Bring on that [*cough*][*COUGH*] change, [*cough*] Donald!! Change it back to the [*cough*][*cough*][*COUGH*] way things were before we improved them.

[*cough*] Thanks, [*cough*][*cough*], Donald!! You're awesome at pretending A-[*cough*]-GW is a hoax!!

Now, if somebody could [*cough*] do me a favor and help me find my lung . . .

Re: Why go green when you can go orange?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost

Hyperloop

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not an Hyperloop through Canada and Russia, or the Atlantic? (yes: What could possibly go wrong).

Big Bada

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you can get a multipass for a lower fee.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin still hasn't finished SpaceShipTwo, and now they want to build a new-gen SST?

How long have they been working on the SpaceShip series, a dozen years? Fifteen years? And before Virgin it was Scaled Composites.

Or maybe, Virgin has decided that there is something wrong with SpaceShipTwo. It could be technical, it could be market size, it could be safety... It could be lots of things. So maybe Branson has decided that the supersonic passenger jet has a better shot at success? Or maybe he just wants to hedge his bets.