4 ms·

I doubt the cost would be low enough to support demand. Transonic (approximately Mach 0.80 - 1.2) flight uses significantly more fuel than subsonic flight does

I doubt the cost would be low enough to support demand. Transonic (approximately Mach 0.80 - 1.2) flight uses significantly more fuel than subsonic flight does. Business jets like the Gulfstream G550 burn more fuel at M0.9 than regional Boeing 717(MD-95) at M0.75 with 4 times more passengers. The F-22 Raptor can supercruise at M1.6, with half the range compared to cruise at M0.85 similar to other fighters. If Boom can optimize an aircraft for supersonic transport it would still be expensive to operate. For comparison, no US operator has all business class scheduled flights from LA-NY, and British Airways flies their all business class NY-London flights in an VIP A320 series jet that cruises at M0.7 which is slower than most airliners on the route.

nickff 11y ago
The Boeing 747 has one of the lowest cost/passenger mile (CPM) of any aircraft, and cruises at Mach 0.85. Different aircraft have been optimized for different speeds, and while it is true that a supersonic aircraft will likely have a higher fuel cost than a comparable subsonic aircraft, the difference may not be as large as we currently think. There has never been a supersonic passenger aircraft built with modern turbofan engines.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  The 747 efficiency drops off sharply above M0.85 cruise. I remember reading that the VC-25 (747-200 based) 100% thrust cruise speed is around M0.96 with considerable range penalty. The 747-400 has newer engines but pretty close 100% cruise speed. This is above the approved Mmo for the 747 and not authorized operationally. Test pilots have reported that a Gulfstream G550 airframe can handle supersonic flight, and the BR710 turbofan engines can handle it. The limit is the engine intake design. With an optimized intake, its entirely possible the fuel consumption at M2.2 would be comparable to ~M0.98
- trhway 11y ago
  >There has never been a supersonic passenger aircraft built with modern turbofan engines. that is one of the major issues here. Modern turbofans on large passenger planes like 787, 380, etc... are that efficient in major part because of high by-pass ratio. Which is not really an option for 2Mach+ speed. As somebody mentioned, more comfortable 0.85Mach flight would be preferable in many situations to uncomfortable and very expensive 2Mach. If i were starting something like this i'd go straight for suborbital SFO to Singapore in under couple hours. Technology-level wise not that different, money is no issue in that segment (Branson's $200K is not that far from super-premium-business class for your priceless CEO) and there is always large money-no-issue fallback customer - military.
imaginenore 11y ago
That's why the ticket is $5K. Even if your fuel estimates are correct, they will burn 4-5 times more fuel, but they will charge 10 times per ticket compared to economy. I just checked, and you can get $532 roundtrip NYC<->LON.
- gomox 11y ago
  But a given airplane can carry a lot less people in a business-grade seat than in an economy seat. Also, NYC <-> LON for $500 is the price of only very few seats in a plane.

nickff 11y ago

The Boeing 747 has one of the lowest cost/passenger mile (CPM) of any aircraft, and cruises at Mach 0.85. Different aircraft have been optimized for different speeds, and while it is true that a supersonic aircraft will likely have a higher fuel cost than a comparable subsonic aircraft, the difference may not be as large as we currently think. There has never been a supersonic passenger aircraft built with modern turbofan engines.

neurotech1 11y ago
The 747 efficiency drops off sharply above M0.85 cruise. I remember reading that the VC-25 (747-200 based) 100% thrust cruise speed is around M0.96 with considerable range penalty. The 747-400 has newer engines but pretty close 100% cruise speed. This is above the approved Mmo for the 747 and not authorized operationally. Test pilots have reported that a Gulfstream G550 airframe can handle supersonic flight, and the BR710 turbofan engines can handle it. The limit is the engine intake design. With an optimized intake, its entirely possible the fuel consumption at M2.2 would be comparable to ~M0.98
trhway 11y ago
>There has never been a supersonic passenger aircraft built with modern turbofan engines. that is one of the major issues here. Modern turbofans on large passenger planes like 787, 380, etc... are that efficient in major part because of high by-pass ratio. Which is not really an option for 2Mach+ speed. As somebody mentioned, more comfortable 0.85Mach flight would be preferable in many situations to uncomfortable and very expensive 2Mach. If i were starting something like this i'd go straight for suborbital SFO to Singapore in under couple hours. Technology-level wise not that different, money is no issue in that segment (Branson's $200K is not that far from super-premium-business class for your priceless CEO) and there is always large money-no-issue fallback customer - military.

imaginenore 11y ago

That's why the ticket is $5K. Even if your fuel estimates are correct, they will burn 4-5 times more fuel, but they will charge 10 times per ticket compared to economy. I just checked, and you can get $532 roundtrip NYC<->LON.

gomox 11y ago
But a given airplane can carry a lot less people in a business-grade seat than in an economy seat. Also, NYC <-> LON for $500 is the price of only very few seats in a plane.