Boom Technology is a startup company aiming to create a 55-passenger civilian supersonic transport aircraft to fly up to Mach 2.2 (1,262 kn; 1,452 mph; 2,337 km/h). Conceptually it could fly from New York City to London in 3 hours and 24 minutes at a proposed round trip cost of $5,000.[1] The plane could seat 55 passengers in a higher-density configuration.
Im sold on it. The CEO has the right philosophy which is this. The Concorde worked. Technology wise, it was a success. The only problem was that it needed to be 30% more efficient to be profitable to produce and service.
Todays tech allows for 30%+ efficiency gains, so they are building it. It even looks like a Concorde partly because of the companies philosophy. It will be a marketing success to have it look the same too.
By: KGB - 11th December 2017 at 05:10
@JBoyl
Anyone who thinks American environmentalists will roll over and allow sonic booms over the U.S. just because the jet is built in America is crazy…If the environmental lobby hadn’t killed the Boeing SST, it would have had the same restrictions as the Concorde
When people are arriving in NY from London for less time than going across the states, the political pressure will mount. Every exec and their dog will be pissed that they cant fly fast over land. and it will be costing them money
By: topspeed - 13th November 2017 at 09:11
Only very low EAS speed could enable very high TAS at very high altitude. Thus increasing the coffing corner right into the space itself…if needed.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Equivalent_Airspeed_(EAS)
By: topspeed - 13th November 2017 at 08:19
How about just flying at 50 km altitude with very ” slow ” flying plane…it would still go supersonic at very very low EAS numeber.
By: J Boyle - 13th November 2017 at 02:26
Anyone who thinks American environmentalists will roll over and allow sonic booms over the U.S. just because the jet is built in America is crazy…If the environmental lobby hadn’t killed the Boeing SST, it would have had the same restrictions as the Concorde
The energy crisis/fuel costs made the American decision look prescient.
One wonders if the UK industry would have been better off to put the money spent on Concorde into convention aircraft, perhaps the UK would still have a prime contractor instead of making parts for the French.
By: silver fox - 10th November 2017 at 20:59
Looks like an interesting project, however will noise restrictions and restrictions on supersonic flight give the same problems that Concorde faced? or (being cynical) will an American built jet be treated more lightly than the European Concorde.
By: Spitzfeuer - 7th November 2017 at 14:56
Didn’t they say they will exhibit the small Baby Boom at the Dubai trade show next week? (On the ground)
By: TomcatViP - 7th November 2017 at 14:01
Not at all. I think we have a winner here.
They are good technically with an efficient management team and capital.
By: KGB - 4th November 2017 at 04:15
Nobody cared to even drop a comment eh. People are just so skeptical of it.
Everyone has had the so called bad economics of the Concorde drummed into them so hard that they cant even take this project seriously.
I think this is a sleeper project.Its going to catch fire.
Sign In
October 28, 2017 at 12:20 am