I don’t understand the hype around Boom Supersonic 🤷‍♂️

We’ve had concord operational for 27 years at Mach 2.

Unless they’ve managed to minimize the boom, what is the fuss about?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Making it affordable to run ? 🤷‍♂️

How?

No idea, but Concorde was a loss maker but a flagship for the airlines. If supersonic travel is being made affordable then maybe this is what this project offers 🤷‍♂️

Sure there will be cost efficiencies from modern design and manufacturing processes, but the fundamental physical laws still apply. The faster you want to go, the exponentially more energy it takes to do that. Above mach speeds, that’s an insane amount of fuel.

This hasn’t changed.

The main issue as far as I’m aware is the banned flights over land. Unless they addressed the sonic boom problem, they haven’t really fixed anything

Concorde used to fly subsonic to the Bristol Channel before it cranked up because of that

Maybe it's only going to go supersonic when it's over the ocean?

Maybe. I don’t see them talking about the boom in their marketing - at all.

If they only went supersonic while over the ocean, they could do NY to London probably 75% of the journey at high speed, and subsonic while over land. Similarly, they could do LA to Tokyo or LA to Sydney mostly supersonic over water, then move to subsonic for takeoff and landing.

The “cool” factor and the fact that Concorde has been out of operation for the entirety of the past generation’s lives so it’s “new” to them.

It’s a neat concept, but it needs to be made affordable to get past being a novelty only usable by the wealthy. That may be their approach, though because the convenience of being able to travel that far that quickly is valuable to some.

I would totally fly with the Concorde if it would come back