5 ms·

Even if supersonic flight were 2.4x less fuel efficient than regular flights, based on Concorde vs other aircraft, if that translated into 2.4x ticket prices, a

Even if supersonic flight were 2.4x less fuel efficient than regular flights, based on Concorde vs other aircraft, if that translated into 2.4x ticket prices, a lot of people would still pay it. $1000 vs $2400 to get to Europe in 6 hours instead of 12? A lot of people who just hate those long flights would pay for it, especially given that flights are only a portion of total vacation cost, together with hotels, etc. Or for a flight inside the US, $1000 rather than $400, but to get from coast to coast in 3 hours rather than 6, may be very worth it for some people. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/107206/how-close-can-supersonic-airplanes-get-to-subsonic-fuel-efficiencies https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/107206/how-clos...

erikerikson 1y ago
The Concorde and what I understand to be it's lack of viability was exactly what I was thinking about - it motivated my question. What's different now?
- pests 1y ago
  I remember seeing something from Boom (now renamed?) which was an YN company years ago. I recall them developing some technology to solve the noise problem - somehow bouncing the sound off the atmosphere or similar IIRC? I do think its viability has increased over the years, just everyone has this default "it wont work" mindset because of the failure that was Concorde.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
  the biggest difference is that composites and better computers probably make designing and manufacturing a good design a lot more feasible
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    IIRC the big issue was cooling the air into the engines. I think that is still a big issue.
    - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
      The engines remain really tough, but using a properly tapering fusalage does let you increase capacity/thrust by 10-20% (and a lighter airframe helps here too)
- bawolff 1y ago
  They did fly them for 33 years. Even if it didn't work out in the end its not exactly an abject failure. I could imagine slightly better business plan, etc could make all the difference. After all, concorde design started almost 75 years ago, surely we've learned a thing or two on how to design aircrafts with lower maintenance & operating costs in that time.
  - lazide 1y ago
    It lost money consistently all the time. The only reason it kept flying for 33 years is a vanity project for national airlines. Which it was excellent at. Actually viable business? Not so much.
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Concorde made an operating profit. Not a huge one (how could it, with fourteen planes flying), and it didn’t recoup development costs, but it was in the green once that initial cost was paid.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Concorde never paid those initial costs, and had massive subsidies [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending...]. It was able to coast, eventually, but that’s some very fancy accounting. “French Transport Minister Daniel Hoeffel, saying France ''will not and cannot abandon Concorde,'' signed a new agreement with Air France this week. The French Government, which with Britain had spent more than $2 billion developing the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, will pay 90 percent of the plane's estimated operating losses for the next three years, compared with 70 percent in the past. Under the new pact, the French taxpayer will contribute $66 million this year to the cost of Air France's champagne-and-caviar service linking Paris with New York, Washington, Caracas and Rio de Janeiro. In 1982, when losses are expected to decline slightly, the subsidy will be about $64 million, and in 1983, $59 million.”
        1y ago
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
Worth mentioning that no one intends to make commercial jets go Concorde fast (mach 2) again, to my knowledge. Boom is talking about "Boomless Cruise" being up to mach 1.3. they are trying to bounce the downward going sound waves off the atmosphere, bouncing them back up. It seems to be significantly speed dependent? https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-announces-boomless-cruise https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-ann...
- Robotbeat 1y ago
  That’s only over land. They intend to go 1.7 (perhaps more) over the ocean.
- sroussey 1y ago
  What happens when there are 1000 flights over land all having sonic booms, and 1000 reflecting sonic booms, and the 1001 plane flies through all the sonic booms?
  - adastra22 1y ago
    There are no sonic booms with this new aircraft. That’s the point.
    - swores 1y ago
      They still make the booms - they're doing clever stuff to prevent the sound waves reaching people on the ground, they're not changing the laws of physics to magically silence it.
      - adastra22 1y ago
        I actually worked in the same building as the people organizing this research. Now I'm drawing on decade-old memory, and the program may have changed in the interim, but at that time the research that would become the X-59 demonstrator was absolutely about eliminating the sonic boom. There is no law of nature that says you have to have a sonic boom when you break the sound barrier--there are in fact a lot of assumptions wrapped up in that outcome. A sonic boom is what you get when a traditional solid, largely flat-ish airfoil pushes air smoothly through the transition to supersonic flight. Very ELI5, but during the transition the energy/noise being put into the air basically stops dissipating from the aircraft at the point of transition, and so all that noise clumps together into a shockwave. The shape of the X-59 makes it such that the transition doesn't happen uniformly over the air surfaces of the plane at the same time. It does get a little noisier around the transition, but it not a shockwave at all.
hnlmorg 1y ago
The concord was heavily subsidised. Those ticket prices didn’t cover the cost of the service. It was also far less pleasant a ride than even most economy class tickets for long hall flights. The space was more cramped and it was much louder inside the cabin. Personally, Id rather spend more for nicer seats on a longer flight than worse seats on a shorter flight. And a lot of people with money felt the same. Design changes might help with the passenger comfort problem but when the plane is already running at a loss, it’s a hard sell asking for more R&D costs (which would be massive) to redevelop the concord.
- sho_hn 1y ago
  This is something I've really flipped on when I started taking trains more to replace domestic flights (in Europe) to improve my personal CO2 footprint. I used to be really impatient with travel and tried my best to save travel time, and never took the train. Then I forced my self to change my ways. Nowdays, I find thst plan the train travel days as part of the trip: Sure, it takes me a whole day to get somewhere, but I allocate that time for hacking on the laptop on a side project, reading a book, or playing a game on the Steam Deck, things I normally don't find that much time for. I find e.g. my vacation satisfaction actually has gone up. Train travel is also easier with (my) kids than air travel despite the longer duration, because you can roam the train more, change location to the restaurant, etc.
  - nucleardog 1y ago
    Hard agree. If you lean into it, it's a much more pleasant way to travel in many cases. Everything about air travel is rushed, stressful, and unpleasant. Yeah, I can get there in 3 hours (if you account for the "show up two hours early in case we understaffed the check-in desk" thing), but by the time I get there I'm _wiped_. Plus I'm probably going to end up either leaving or arriving at some ungodly hour that means my sleep schedule's screwed and that's basically all I'm getting done that day anyway. The train I take instead runs every 30 minutes. You can rock up 6 minutes before the train leaves and walk right on after someone scans a QR code. You can bring a drink! There's tons of space for people and luggage. The seats are huge. Your legs fit. The tray is big enough to actually work on. You can get up and go for a walk. There's a water fountain and water bottle filler. The washroom is bigger than some bedrooms I've had. If you're traveling with kids you can actually book seats at a full-fledged table and have lots of room for activities and colouring and such. And it takes 5 hours. So sure, in theory it's two hours longer. In reality, I've got back almost 5 hours of my day. And I can arrive at a reasonable hour and not tired and stressed to shit and actually do things with the rest of my time. Last trip I used the way there for some relaxing. Did some reading, played some games, generally just wound down. On the way back I was able to get some work done effectively so actually got paid for my travel day. Either way, it was a much better experience.
flippyhead 1y ago
I'd do it 1/10_000th the speed if I could, from an airship with a hotel glued to the bottom.
- FredPret 1y ago
  An air-yacht sounds awesome, especially if it could be made really safe and comfortable, and fly low enough that you can see the views. You may not even want to get off the yacht at all!
dylan604 1y ago
> Or for a flight inside the US, $1000 rather than $400, but to get from coast to coast in 3 hours rather than 6, may be very worth it for some people. Don't those people already have access to private jets?
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  Do you know how big the gulf is between a first class ticket and a private jet? Having more options between those two would reach a huge market, especially if it saved time instead of just offering “luxury.”
  - dylan604 1y ago
    I assume anyone that can afford a first class that isn't having it paid for by a company can also afford a ride on a private plane. They just choose not to.
    - eightysixfour 1y ago
      What are you talking about? LA to NYC first class (lie flat) on American = $3k LA to NYC on a super-midsize PJ (seats 8) = ~$50k Even empty legs cost way more than this: Miami to NYC on a Citation X = $24k Not only that, but on a cross-country flight, the commercial first class is more comfortable than a midsize.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    It depends how many people you bring on the private jet. Rich people usually come with quite the entourage. I'd imagine that becomes cheaper pretty quickly
    - dylan604 1y ago
      It's not an incorrect statement, if for the flippant reason. To charter a jet, you pay for the jet in total not for individual ticket sales. So if you divide the jet's charter price by the number of people and each person chips in does become more feasible. Plus the amount of time you don't need to spend at airports waiting, going through security, waiting for baggage claim, etc. Private jets also fly faster than commercial, so there's an additional bit of time saving as well

erikerikson 1y ago

The Concorde and what I understand to be it's lack of viability was exactly what I was thinking about - it motivated my question. What's different now?

pests 1y ago
I remember seeing something from Boom (now renamed?) which was an YN company years ago. I recall them developing some technology to solve the noise problem - somehow bouncing the sound off the atmosphere or similar IIRC? I do think its viability has increased over the years, just everyone has this default "it wont work" mindset because of the failure that was Concorde.
adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
the biggest difference is that composites and better computers probably make designing and manufacturing a good design a lot more feasible
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  IIRC the big issue was cooling the air into the engines. I think that is still a big issue.
  - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    The engines remain really tough, but using a properly tapering fusalage does let you increase capacity/thrust by 10-20% (and a lighter airframe helps here too)
bawolff 1y ago
They did fly them for 33 years. Even if it didn't work out in the end its not exactly an abject failure. I could imagine slightly better business plan, etc could make all the difference. After all, concorde design started almost 75 years ago, surely we've learned a thing or two on how to design aircrafts with lower maintenance & operating costs in that time.
- lazide 1y ago
  It lost money consistently all the time. The only reason it kept flying for 33 years is a vanity project for national airlines. Which it was excellent at. Actually viable business? Not so much.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Concorde made an operating profit. Not a huge one (how could it, with fourteen planes flying), and it didn’t recoup development costs, but it was in the green once that initial cost was paid.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Concorde never paid those initial costs, and had massive subsidies [https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending-aid-to-concorde.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/09/business/france-extending...]. It was able to coast, eventually, but that’s some very fancy accounting. “French Transport Minister Daniel Hoeffel, saying France ''will not and cannot abandon Concorde,'' signed a new agreement with Air France this week. The French Government, which with Britain had spent more than $2 billion developing the world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, will pay 90 percent of the plane's estimated operating losses for the next three years, compared with 70 percent in the past. Under the new pact, the French taxpayer will contribute $66 million this year to the cost of Air France's champagne-and-caviar service linking Paris with New York, Washington, Caracas and Rio de Janeiro. In 1982, when losses are expected to decline slightly, the subsidy will be about $64 million, and in 1983, $59 million.”
      - 1y ago

jauntywundrkind 1y ago

Worth mentioning that no one intends to make commercial jets go Concorde fast (mach 2) again, to my knowledge. Boom is talking about "Boomless Cruise" being up to mach 1.3. they are trying to bounce the downward going sound waves off the atmosphere, bouncing them back up. It seems to be significantly speed dependent? https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-announces-boomless-cruise https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-ann...

Robotbeat 1y ago
That’s only over land. They intend to go 1.7 (perhaps more) over the ocean.
sroussey 1y ago
What happens when there are 1000 flights over land all having sonic booms, and 1000 reflecting sonic booms, and the 1001 plane flies through all the sonic booms?
- adastra22 1y ago
  There are no sonic booms with this new aircraft. That’s the point.
  - swores 1y ago
    They still make the booms - they're doing clever stuff to prevent the sound waves reaching people on the ground, they're not changing the laws of physics to magically silence it.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      I actually worked in the same building as the people organizing this research. Now I'm drawing on decade-old memory, and the program may have changed in the interim, but at that time the research that would become the X-59 demonstrator was absolutely about eliminating the sonic boom. There is no law of nature that says you have to have a sonic boom when you break the sound barrier--there are in fact a lot of assumptions wrapped up in that outcome. A sonic boom is what you get when a traditional solid, largely flat-ish airfoil pushes air smoothly through the transition to supersonic flight. Very ELI5, but during the transition the energy/noise being put into the air basically stops dissipating from the aircraft at the point of transition, and so all that noise clumps together into a shockwave. The shape of the X-59 makes it such that the transition doesn't happen uniformly over the air surfaces of the plane at the same time. It does get a little noisier around the transition, but it not a shockwave at all.

hnlmorg 1y ago

The concord was heavily subsidised. Those ticket prices didn’t cover the cost of the service. It was also far less pleasant a ride than even most economy class tickets for long hall flights. The space was more cramped and it was much louder inside the cabin. Personally, Id rather spend more for nicer seats on a longer flight than worse seats on a shorter flight. And a lot of people with money felt the same. Design changes might help with the passenger comfort problem but when the plane is already running at a loss, it’s a hard sell asking for more R&D costs (which would be massive) to redevelop the concord.

sho_hn 1y ago
This is something I've really flipped on when I started taking trains more to replace domestic flights (in Europe) to improve my personal CO2 footprint. I used to be really impatient with travel and tried my best to save travel time, and never took the train. Then I forced my self to change my ways. Nowdays, I find thst plan the train travel days as part of the trip: Sure, it takes me a whole day to get somewhere, but I allocate that time for hacking on the laptop on a side project, reading a book, or playing a game on the Steam Deck, things I normally don't find that much time for. I find e.g. my vacation satisfaction actually has gone up. Train travel is also easier with (my) kids than air travel despite the longer duration, because you can roam the train more, change location to the restaurant, etc.
- nucleardog 1y ago
  Hard agree. If you lean into it, it's a much more pleasant way to travel in many cases. Everything about air travel is rushed, stressful, and unpleasant. Yeah, I can get there in 3 hours (if you account for the "show up two hours early in case we understaffed the check-in desk" thing), but by the time I get there I'm _wiped_. Plus I'm probably going to end up either leaving or arriving at some ungodly hour that means my sleep schedule's screwed and that's basically all I'm getting done that day anyway. The train I take instead runs every 30 minutes. You can rock up 6 minutes before the train leaves and walk right on after someone scans a QR code. You can bring a drink! There's tons of space for people and luggage. The seats are huge. Your legs fit. The tray is big enough to actually work on. You can get up and go for a walk. There's a water fountain and water bottle filler. The washroom is bigger than some bedrooms I've had. If you're traveling with kids you can actually book seats at a full-fledged table and have lots of room for activities and colouring and such. And it takes 5 hours. So sure, in theory it's two hours longer. In reality, I've got back almost 5 hours of my day. And I can arrive at a reasonable hour and not tired and stressed to shit and actually do things with the rest of my time. Last trip I used the way there for some relaxing. Did some reading, played some games, generally just wound down. On the way back I was able to get some work done effectively so actually got paid for my travel day. Either way, it was a much better experience.

flippyhead 1y ago

I'd do it 1/10_000th the speed if I could, from an airship with a hotel glued to the bottom.

FredPret 1y ago
An air-yacht sounds awesome, especially if it could be made really safe and comfortable, and fly low enough that you can see the views. You may not even want to get off the yacht at all!

dylan604 1y ago

> Or for a flight inside the US, $1000 rather than $400, but to get from coast to coast in 3 hours rather than 6, may be very worth it for some people. Don't those people already have access to private jets?

eightysixfour 1y ago
Do you know how big the gulf is between a first class ticket and a private jet? Having more options between those two would reach a huge market, especially if it saved time instead of just offering “luxury.”
- dylan604 1y ago
  I assume anyone that can afford a first class that isn't having it paid for by a company can also afford a ride on a private plane. They just choose not to.
  - eightysixfour 1y ago
    What are you talking about? LA to NYC first class (lie flat) on American = $3k LA to NYC on a super-midsize PJ (seats 8) = ~$50k Even empty legs cost way more than this: Miami to NYC on a Citation X = $24k Not only that, but on a cross-country flight, the commercial first class is more comfortable than a midsize.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  It depends how many people you bring on the private jet. Rich people usually come with quite the entourage. I'd imagine that becomes cheaper pretty quickly
  - dylan604 1y ago
    It's not an incorrect statement, if for the flippant reason. To charter a jet, you pay for the jet in total not for individual ticket sales. So if you divide the jet's charter price by the number of people and each person chips in does become more feasible. Plus the amount of time you don't need to spend at airports waiting, going through security, waiting for baggage claim, etc. Private jets also fly faster than commercial, so there's an additional bit of time saving as well