One supersonic jet company flies, another crashes

[@licencetoswill]

Concorde operated at a profit for every single year of operations, they just kept increasing the prices to cover costs. Some years it made 45% of BA's income alone. It ceased operations for other reasons - the fod crash and then 9-11 .

[@christianguzman4688]

Is the sonic booms also relevant?

[@Raptorman0909]

Concorde didn't need the burner for cruise, but it's problem is the same problem we still face -- drag increasing with the square of speed. The approach taken by Concorde and also taken by the new attempts is to minimize frontal area as that reduces drag. Unfortunately the reduction in drag with area is linear whereas the drag increase with the square of the speed. In order for Boom, or anyone else, to get the fuel burn down to barely tolerable levels the frontal area will have to be very low and that translates to a narrow cabin with a low ceiling height. And then there's the fact that the difference in flight time is likely to be about half that of a typical jet, but airtime is just one part of the equation. You need to get to the airport and do so enough early to check in, get scanned at security, and move to your gate. You then wait for boarding and once boarded and pushed back you may still have 15 or more minutes to wait your turn for departure. Double that time to account for the time it takes after landing to get to your destination, you know, baggage claim, taxi/uber, etc. For shorter flights like within the USA or Europe the time savings of a SST isn't that much so those flights aren't the sweet spot. The sweet spot for SST will be transcontinental But who want's to spend 5X to more than 10X the airfare to sit in a cramped narrow body plane that will almost certainly by much narrower than either the A-320 or 737 Max -- like a meter narrower.

[@Quatuux]

Imo the sweet spot of SST is business jets.

[@Raptorman0909]

@@Quatuux Yes, but business jets for those that can afford a $250M private airplane so, Musk and a few other billionaires!

[@Quatuux]

@@Raptorman0909 Firstly, a SSBJ wouldn't be so expensive imo. Secondly, most BJ buyers are not individuals but companies.

[@Raptorman0909]

@@Quatuux A common Gulfstream costs right about $80M, there's no way a SST for a private individual, whether or not they use a shell company as about 99.44% of them do to buy it, is going to be anywhere near as cheap as a G800. The newer SST's will operate the engines in much the same fashion as the did with Concorde, that is, the use of afterburner for takeoff and some of the climb-out, but then operate super-cruise during cruise -- hate to break it to ya, but those engines are going to be more expensive than the RR Pearl engines. The fuselage must be more advanced to deal with adiabatic heating at supersonic speeds and that isn't going to be cheap. My best guess is a SST for private people will be 2X to 4X the cost of a G800, in part because of the technology needed, but also because they will not sell many of them! There were a total of 20 Concordes built, that's it, 20! If we imagine a similar number of new SST's being built the design and engineering costs will be spread over about 20 planes and if it cost just $1B to design and engineer the plane the amortized cost to design and engineer alone would be $50M per plane. And the total design and engineering is likely to cost way more than $1B, in fact, I'd be surprised if it was less than $2B and if $2B is a more reasonable number then the cost per plane for engineering and design alone could easily exceed $100M. And that's before you account for the actual construction, testing, CERTIFICATION, and other associated equipment is needed, you know, like a simulator!.

[@SmoochyRoo]

Someone needs to make an SR-71 type design, that thing cruised for most of its flight time at mach 3 and was the envy of soviet attempts to replicate the same performance.

[@alfretwell428]

Can I just add a comment, Concorde did not use afterburners for cruise, so it was a genuine super cruise aircraft. To get technical afterburner was used to accelerate to M1.7 it then supercruised to M2 and afterburners were not used for the rest of the flight!

[@morskojvolk]

I wonder if the folks at Engineering TV did any actual _research_ for this article.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

Doesn't appear so.

[@Paul_C]

No, it is just another of those channels that sprang up during the lockdown. Basically do not watch channels from after 2019. Most of them are shit.

[@andymckee53]

Concorde did NOT need afterburner to maintain cruise speed of Mach 2. This guy is wrong! Get your facts right!

[@pismak]

You are right, In fact was the main difference in performance with the Tupolev supersonic Tu-144 . Last one need the afterburner to mantain high speeds, and that caused short range among other things

[@dahawk8574]

If it had needed reheat, that would have made for a very wet end of the flight across the Atlantic.

[@TerryMundy]

As an employee StandardAero I feel confident that our partnership with Boom will succeed. I'm happy to be a part of the team and am looking forward to fly on Overture someday!

[@davewalker9926]

The quality of an organization's tools is a very good indicator of their likely success. Boom has been an innovator with all the tools they have developed to innovate even further, again and again. Great engineering management team at Boom. Really impressive.

[@TerryMundy]

Tools and partnerships with the company I work for, StandardAero. I'm confident Overture will take to the skies with paying passengers by 2030 and I want to be one of the first to fly. Symphony will push Overture to new destinations that Concord couldn't go.

[@ambergris5705]

Concorde did not use afterburners to maintain its cruise speed, and was actually hyper efficient at those speeds, in terms of power produced for the fuel consumption (more efficient than any modern airliner). The problem is that it wasn't able to fly at those speeds over land, and was also using most of its fuel just for takeoff and acceleration towards supercruise. Get your facts correct!

[@tedsmith6137]

I do wonder if the ban on SuperSonic flight over the USA was more a childish tantrum because Concorde beat all the US manufacturers to service. Considering that the Military were, and still are, flying supersonic over land, then it seems a probable reason.

[@morskojvolk]

Europe also banned supersonic flight over it's territory. The rest of the world followed suit. Also, the military is restricted to certain corridors over unpopulated areas for supersonic flight.

[@ToddDunning]

It was from Enviro hippies

[@ericvantassell6809]

well, shed your intellectual lethargy and get after answers in preference to passive speculation. We believe in you. You can do it!

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

@@ToddDunning Enviro hippies getting paid via donations from Boeing lobbyists. Boeing also had a hand in designing the 'tests' used to back up the ban push, with testing being done with military jets at low level over major cities, and not the high level over rural places where the flightpaths would have been. The same city that hated Concorde because of those tests, loves Fleet Week.

[@ninja23yt]

military typically only goes supersonic in designated areas or when scrambled as an emergency response

[@rivsarredicoinen3510]

@Engineering TV. Do your proper research next time before making any publishing

[@Robert-sl7sq]

Concorde used after burners at take off and to accelerate trough the sound barrier to Mach 2, but after burners were not needed to maintain supersonic flight. If it would, Concorde would use so much fuel it would not be able to cross the Atlantic…..

[@Horinius]

It might be interesting to cover the future supersonic airplane from some Chinese company (not sure of the name).

[@dirkpitt5468]

Your article is about a supersonic jet but you start half your presentation with prop driven aircraft from the 20s! Can you ever just get to the point?

[@ericvantassell6809]

there is a rumour circulating that the government of Kazakhstan is in negotiations to buy Boom and rename it Ka-Boom as a state prestige project.

[@DimasFajar-ns4vb]

peace be upon you sir from me

[@patkelley4071]

Boom is not addressing the issue of shock wave noise, and will also fail.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

So, haven't watched any of their development video then?

[@patkelley4071]

@@PiDsPagePrototypes yes, and they acknowledge their design is intended for supersonic over ocean routes, not over land. The prototype exhibits none of the necessary features for shock wave reduction.

[@YellowstripeDad]

Misleading title

[@Chris-bg8mk]

Quit the clickbait, and get your facts straight. Otherwise change the channel name to BS TV.

[@Mycr0bi]

What about Hermeus?

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

1:00 BEEEEEEEEP, LIE DETECTED. Concorde was a commercial success, once the engineering bills were paid off it made a profit every year thereafter until 9/11, when a large number of it's regular passengers were lost.

[@fw1421]

Commercial supersonic travel will always be for the rich. It will never be financially affordable for the masses.

[@adrianthompson7033]

That's a lie, the Concord could supercruise without reheat, and it was capable of travelling from Britain to New York and back, before a Boeing 747 could make a single trip from New York to Paris. The concorde was always aimed at the wealthy for its passengers because of the high running costs, it was meant for business people to travel across the Atlantic in only a few hours, and it failed because of a safety design flaw that saw an aircraft crash because of a piece of debis, that fell from another aircraft, that punctured a wing. In the end the economics of redesigning the Concorde no longer added up because much of its technology was becoming outdated, and now because of advances in communications technology there is even less requirement for business travel. The Concorde was the only aircraft that could supercruise without reheat or commonly known as afterburners of its time, including military aircraft. Don't gaslight mate, because you're only damaging your credability.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

Not a design flaw. Poor maintenance by Air France killed it. Missing wheel spacer meant it drifted off center on the runway, to where the debris from a US jet had fallen. If it had run down the center, never would have hit the debris. If the FOD Walk had been done, the debris would not have been there.

[@adrianthompson7033]

@@PiDsPagePrototypes It doesn't change the fact that this so called engineer lied about the Concorde's ability to supercruise without reheat.

[@rexjohnson1905]

click bait

[@FrankFrankston-kj4sx]

Bullshit Concorde supercruised

[@richardharris7214]

Not the best video.

[@rivsarredicoinen3510]

@Engineering TV. Do your proper research next time before making any publishing

[@rivsarredicoinen3510]

@Engineering TV. Do your proper research next time before making any publishing