4 ms·

The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight, so it burned a ton of fuel. It also could not go supersonic over land because its sonic boo

The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight, so it burned a ton of fuel. It also could not go supersonic over land because its sonic booms were too loud. This mean that flights could only go over the ocean, and they were expensive due to fuel costs. Boom's goal is to reduce the sound of their sonic booms 30x and eliminate the need of afterburners.

hangonhn 2y ago
No. I don't think that's correct. The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region, where the drag is very heavy. Once you've gone past that the drag drops. At that point the Concorde can turn off the after burners. Source: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats
- jdblair 2y ago
  That's right, the Concorde had engines capable of supercruise - long distance supersonic flight without afterburners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supercruise_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supe...
  - mshook 2y ago
    This is correct, reheat / afterburner was used from Mach 0.9 something to 1.7, after which they'd were off. So yes, Concorde could supercruise.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    IIRC Concorde could super cruise a Mach 2 which is unmatched. It would also flight supersonic for most of its journey which is also presented unprecedented difficulties. It was really an unique plane.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Legend says the Tu-144 used afterburners the whole time while supersonic, but, then, it seems five units have engines without afterburners (RD-36-51's replacing the Kuznetsov NK-144 used in most of the fleet). I wonder what was the noise level in those late models.
  - ddalex 2y ago
    WHAT ?!?
- anothertroll456 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - giarc 2y ago
    Not really, that's like saying "they relied on closing the doors to the aircraft to achieve supersonic flight". Both happened, but aren't related if I'm reading the comments correctly.
    - vpribish 2y ago
      haha, good analogy - but his name has "Troll" right in it.
    - ortusdux 2y ago
      "The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region," https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic
    - anothertroll456 2y ago
      That's a really dumb response. Yes, it relies on closing the doors to achieve supersonic flight too. The Boom plane doesn't rely on afterburners at any point in the trajectory to achieve supersonic flight. So yes, you would be reading the comments incorrectly. Gosh this website is full of ignorant people.
- ortusdux 2y ago
  "The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight..." "The Concorde used its afterburners ... to get through the transonic region..." Am I missing something, or is there no difference between these sentences?
ceejayoz 2y ago
Boom also requires afterburners, at least for now. You can watch them kick in on the telemetry (which goes from "100%" to "A/B" for all three engines) at the bottom of the video around the 58:35 mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=3515 https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=35...
- double0jimb0 2y ago
  The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    When the production engine exists in physical form, we can absolutely discuss its capabilities. The XB-1 demonstrator is, using afterburner to get to speed, demonstrating other design features intended to keep the noise down. The original plan was a commercial partner for the engines, but the big three - Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric - turned them down. It's one of the biggest remaining question marks in the entire project.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 4ndrewl 2y ago
      s/When/If/
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    > The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane. There IS no production plane, nor can there be. The last company they wanted to use for engines dropped them as a client years ago (others did earlier): https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transport/2022/09/20/Future-of-supersonic-aviation-startup-in-question-as-engine-manufacturers-drop-out https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transpor...
- 2y ago
throwaway2037 2y ago
> The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight, so it burned a ton of fuel. Wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise > Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft without using afterburner. > Concorde routinely supercruised most of the way over the Atlantic Real question: How many in-production/operation engines in world can fly supersonic without afterburners? I think it is only a handful, all insanely expensive and backed with squillions of dollars of gov't/military money. And, the maintenance cycle must be out of this world expensive.

hangonhn 2y ago

No. I don't think that's correct. The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region, where the drag is very heavy. Once you've gone past that the drag drops. At that point the Concorde can turn off the after burners. Source: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats

jdblair 2y ago
That's right, the Concorde had engines capable of supercruise - long distance supersonic flight without afterburners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supercruise_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supe...
- mshook 2y ago
  This is correct, reheat / afterburner was used from Mach 0.9 something to 1.7, after which they'd were off. So yes, Concorde could supercruise.
- gpderetta 2y ago
  IIRC Concorde could super cruise a Mach 2 which is unmatched. It would also flight supersonic for most of its journey which is also presented unprecedented difficulties. It was really an unique plane.
rbanffy 2y ago
Legend says the Tu-144 used afterburners the whole time while supersonic, but, then, it seems five units have engines without afterburners (RD-36-51's replacing the Kuznetsov NK-144 used in most of the fleet). I wonder what was the noise level in those late models.
- ddalex 2y ago
  WHAT ?!?
anothertroll456 2y ago
[flagged]
- giarc 2y ago
  Not really, that's like saying "they relied on closing the doors to the aircraft to achieve supersonic flight". Both happened, but aren't related if I'm reading the comments correctly.
  - vpribish 2y ago
    haha, good analogy - but his name has "Troll" right in it.
  - ortusdux 2y ago
    "The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region," https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic
  - anothertroll456 2y ago
    That's a really dumb response. Yes, it relies on closing the doors to achieve supersonic flight too. The Boom plane doesn't rely on afterburners at any point in the trajectory to achieve supersonic flight. So yes, you would be reading the comments incorrectly. Gosh this website is full of ignorant people.
ortusdux 2y ago
"The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight..." "The Concorde used its afterburners ... to get through the transonic region..." Am I missing something, or is there no difference between these sentences?

ceejayoz 2y ago

Boom also requires afterburners, at least for now. You can watch them kick in on the telemetry (which goes from "100%" to "A/B" for all three engines) at the bottom of the video around the 58:35 mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=3515 https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=35...

double0jimb0 2y ago
The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  When the production engine exists in physical form, we can absolutely discuss its capabilities. The XB-1 demonstrator is, using afterburner to get to speed, demonstrating other design features intended to keep the noise down. The original plan was a commercial partner for the engines, but the big three - Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric - turned them down. It's one of the biggest remaining question marks in the entire project.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 4ndrewl 2y ago
    s/When/If/
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  > The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane. There IS no production plane, nor can there be. The last company they wanted to use for engines dropped them as a client years ago (others did earlier): https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transport/2022/09/20/Future-of-supersonic-aviation-startup-in-question-as-engine-manufacturers-drop-out https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transpor...
2y ago

throwaway2037 2y ago

> The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight, so it burned a ton of fuel. Wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise > Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft without using afterburner. > Concorde routinely supercruised most of the way over the Atlantic Real question: How many in-production/operation engines in world can fly supersonic without afterburners? I think it is only a handful, all insanely expensive and backed with squillions of dollars of gov't/military money. And, the maintenance cycle must be out of this world expensive.