New 21st century Concorde to be built within 5 years

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Sounds like it should be a doddle, they even have 33 million quid

————————————————————————

Supersonic air travel could be back in little more than five years if a plane that aims to replace Concorde takes to the skies.

Boom Supersonic expects a prototype of its passenger plane to make its first test flight by the end of 2018.

Subsonic and supersonic tests will take place in the US.

If the full-size 55-seat plane is then approved, the first passengers could be travelling at supersonic speeds across the Atlantic by 2023.

Blake Scholl, the founder and chief executive of Boom, said at the Paris air show that the design of the XB-1 demonstration plane had passed a performance and safety review ahead of manufacturing.

Boom said five unnamed airlines had placed 76 orders for its passenger plane, which resembles Concorde but has a delta wing that sweeps almost to the tip of the nose.

It will also ditch the afterburner engine used by the British-French supersonic pioneer that was not only extremely loud but also very thirsty.

"By using a modern turbofan engine like Boeing and Airbus, you can make the aircraft both quieter and significantly more fuel efficient," Mr Scholl told the BBC.

The company claims that airlines flying its plane will be able to charge similar prices to a business class fare on the lucrative London-New York route of about $5,000 return.

Concorde tickets used to cost up to about three times that amount.

Time-poor travellers, meanwhile, will jump at the chance of getting to or from those two cities in about half the time a subsonic plane takes, according to Boom.

"Airlines are excited for something new and different to offer their passengers," Mr Scholl said.

Although Concorde had the backing of both the British and French governments, he said it was not economic because the imperative then was to beat the Soviet Union into the supersonic age, rather than build a practical or affordable plane.

"Being a private company that has to raise investment means we have to have a business case that is profitable for airlines and affordable for customers," Mr Scholl said.

Although many remain sceptical that Boom can deliver its promises, the company said in March that it had raised the $33m that would allow it to build and fly the demonstration plane.

One believer in the project is Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson, who announced late last year that he planned to buy the first 10 passenger jets made by Boom.

His Virgin Galactic space travel venture will also provide manufacturing and engineering services, as well as flight test support.

**LINK**

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @jeffdayman43397]

Sounds like a lot of marketing BS to me.

In any case it won't be the likes of me flying on it if it ever comes to pass- can barely afford the odd trip on today's aircraft….

I'm waiting for the teleportation service of the near future – get in a phone booth-like device here, emerge from another one at the destination of your choice, cost is less than a good steak dinner…. sign me up! (then beam me up)

[Gordon TarlingParticipant @gordontarling37126]

I can't help feeling that they have severely underestimated the challenges of supersonic flight. We have seen many similar dreams come to nothing over the past 20 or so years and I can't see how this one is much different. I do wish them luck though!

Gordon

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

$33 million to build a plane are they joking? we'll see

Tony

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Maybe he doesn't read wikipedia, many have tried before, and with buckets of aviation experience amongst them

That supersonic car has had a lot of trubbles too

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

One of the main problems flying London ( or Paris) Newyork supersonic. .was permission from the US end.
With an American design..this might no longer be a problem. …I guess environmental issues are more relaxed than the ’70’s.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

The Soviets had a lot of issues to sort out with the Tu-144

The amount of issues Concord overcame was quite amazing

 

There were unprecedented Soviet requests for Western technological aid with the development of the Tu-144. The request was made despite obviously not helping to foster Soviet technological prestige, which was one of the key purposes of the Tu-144 programme. In 1977, the USSR approached Lucas Industries, a designer of the engine control system for Concorde, requesting help with the design of the electronic management system of the Tu-144 engines, and also asked BAC-Aérospatiale for assistance in improving the Tu-144 air intakes. (The design of air intakes' variable geometry and their control system was one of the most intricate features of Concorde, contributing to its fuel efficiency. Over half of the wind-tunnel time during Concorde development was spent on the design of air intakes and their control system.) In late 1978, the USSR requested a wide range of Concorde technologies, evidently reflecting the broad spectrum of unresolved Tu-144 technical issues. The list included de-icing equipment for the leading edge of the air intakes, fuel-system pipes and devices to improve durability of these pipes, drain valves for fuel tanks, fireproof paints, navigation and piloting equipment, systems and techniques for acoustical loading of airframe and controls (to test against acoustic fatigue caused by high jet-noise environment), ways to reinforce the airframe to withstand damage, firefighting equipment, including warning devices and lightning protection, emergency power supply, and landing gear spray guards (aka water deflectors or "mud flaps" that increase engine efficiency when taking off from wet airstrips).[N 2] These requests were denied after the British government vetoed them on the ground that the same technologies, if transferred, could be also employed in Soviet bombers.[32][33] Soviet approaches were also reported in British mainstream press of the time, such as The Times.

Edited By Ady1 on 21/06/2017 15:56:48

[Clive Brown 1Participant @clivebrown1]

Posted by Ady1 on 21/06/2017 01:06:46:

Sounds like it should be a doddle, they even have 33 million quid

————————————————————————

.

.

It will also ditch the afterburner engine used by the British-French supersonic pioneer that was not only extremely loud but also very thirsty.

"By using a modern turbofan engine like Boeing and Airbus, you can make the aircraft both quieter and significantly more fuel efficient," Mr Scholl told the BBC.

I don't think that a civil turbofan engine could go supersonic, esp. without an afterburner.

[mike TParticipant @miket56243]

Sounds like the less you understand a problem, the easier it appears.

Feel sorry for the investors who coughed up the 33 Million. If they made a bonfire of the money, it could provide a good substitute for the afterburners

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I'm sure all the same criticism was levelled at Elon Musk in 2002… he's now operating resupply missions to the ISS.

Neil

[Another JohnSParticipant @anotherjohns]

Posted by Clive Brown 1 on 21/06/2017 16:30:23:

I don't think that a civil turbofan engine could go supersonic, esp. without an afterburner.

I wonder – as long as the air intakes slow the air down to subsonic, (as per modern fighter aircraft) it might be possible. They may need a reduced bypass ratio, but it is basically a solved issue now.

(IIRC, the Concorde's intakes were designed this way, but again, I could be wrong, as I'd have read it a long time ago)

Fun stuff – getting to the MEX at half the time would be great!

JohnS.

[Dod MoleParticipant @georgeclarihew]

Give the £33 million and I will fail to deliver just like Boom will, I would just squander it on equipping a bigger shed hoping to make a plane.

[Author]

Posts