# New SST by 2029...



## CupofJoe (Jun 5, 2021)

United plans to buy 15 Overture supersonic aircraft made by Boom [see what they did there? ]. Boom has yet to flight-test any supersonic jet.








						United plans supersonic passenger flights by 2029
					

The US airline has ordered 15 supersonic passenger jets which could cut travel times in half.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



But 50+ years on and the new plane will be slower than Concorde...
I feel robbed!


----------



## HareBrain (Jun 5, 2021)

If you squash the "C" down, the name Concorde is quite a neat visual representation of the plane. (Though that can't have been intentional, because the Brits wanted to call it Concord.) That's the main reason this laggardly upstart will never come close.


----------



## Dave (Jun 5, 2021)

I thought sub-orbital rocket ships were being developed? The kind that could do UK to Australia in an hour.

I don't really see the need to fly supersonic. Surely, the time taken, both getting to and spent waiting at airports, is the longest part of the journey. It would be better for the environment to work on better holographic communications for business meetings. And long-haul tourism needs to have subsidies cut so that the cost mirrors the environmental costs. I don't want to stop air travel completely (because I want to go on holiday myself) and it's vital for people living on islands, but it is far too cheap compared to rail travel.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 5, 2021)

Personally, I think this is just a gimmick to try and squeeze some 'research' money out of gullible companies. Sub-orbital would make these obsolete overnight.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 5, 2021)

Here is Boom's promo...




And the Press Release








						United Adding Supersonic Speeds with New Agreement to Buy Aircraft from Boom Supersonic
					

/PRNewswire/ -- United Airlines today announced a commercial agreement with Denver-based aerospace company Boom Supersonic to add aircraft to its global fleet...




					www.prnewswire.com


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 5, 2021)

It’s a good promo but I’m not convinced. And here’s why. I’ve been inside Concorde (we have one at our local museum of flight). It’s a beautiful and highly impressive work of engineering. But it’s tiny inside. The promoters claim that they can operate on lower fares but how can they do that with this design? Consider the power (and therefore fuel) required to go supersonic. Consider the design similarities between Concorde and this new venture. Modern aircraft tend to be on the larger side to fit in as many fare-paying passengers as possible. The more passengers carried, the greater the spread of running costs but where will they put all those extra passengers? Overture just doesn’t look to me like it could hold many more passengers than Concorde and be more economical,  even with today’s more fuel efficient engines.

Not only that, but the promo mentions the limited routes used by Concorde and fails to mention that part of this limitation was caused by environmental/sound concerns and a reluctance from some airports to allow Concorde to operate. These concerns are still likely to come into play now. Will these routes not open to Concorde be open to Overture? I have my doubts.



 Just call me Mr. Sceptical.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Jun 5, 2021)

Dave said:


> I don't really see the need to fly supersonic. Surely, the time taken, both getting to and spent waiting at airports, is the longest part of the journey.


The flight time from east coast US to west coast is about 6 hours. When we travel to visit my wife's family in Thailand, the journey, airport to airport, from the Washington, DC area to Bangkok is 20-23 hours with one layover. If the ticket prices are anywhere near reasonable, then I think there would be demand for supersonic service.


----------



## Dave (Jun 5, 2021)

Well, it takes me about 45 minutes to get to Gatwick, and about 2 hours to get to Heathrow or Stanstead or Watford. Other UK airports are often about an hour out of cities. Add Luggage check-in, passport control, the walk to the Gate, various delays, the safety talk. Repeat at the other end (if the baggage conveyor is working) and it could easily be as long as a journey would take flying between any major European cities.


Wayne Mack said:


> The flight time from east coast US to west coast is about 6 hours. When we travel to visit my wife's family in Thailand, the journey, airport to airport, from the Washington, DC area to Bangkok is 20-23 hours with one layover. If the ticket prices are anywhere near reasonable, then I think there would be demand for supersonic service.


I think that would be true for you, except that Concorde used to only fly UK to USA, UK to Brazil, and UK to Australia (but it still stopped on the way in Dubai and Singapore). I agree that with the much longer journey times then it becomes more advantageous, but suborbital journey times would be even quicker. As @Foxbat just said, the weight of passengers and fuel make several layovers absolutely certain on longer supersonic journeys, and the engine noise pollution will restrict routes even more than it did for Concorde. When I worked in Putney, London, and Concorde flew over above at 5pm everyday, it was impossible to hear someone speaking (and it wasn't even flying supersonic on the landing run). Today, no one would find that acceptable in the UK, but maybe the environmental laws in the US are not the same.


----------



## Dave (Jun 5, 2021)

Apologies for the double post. I just feel that supersonic flight is old technology and that the future is sub-orbital.








						Forget supersonic, the future of super-fast flight is sub-orbital
					

London to Sydney in less than an hour. Sub-orbital flight is coming, but when will it be a reality and how much will a sky-high ticket cost?




					www.wired.co.uk
				




However @Wayne Mack is spot-on about the cost being key. If the Overture flights do cost little more than a normal flight (which the promo promises) then they will sell out. Sub-orbital flights will be £200,000, well beyond everyday travel.


----------



## Serendipity (Jun 5, 2021)

The body and wing shape shows no signs of throwing the sonic boom beyond human hearing range e.g. lack of elongated nose. It was the legal position on the sonic boom that limited Concorde seriously in its early years. 

So unless they have deliberately omitted some interesting technology from their pictures, I would say this is not going to be that successful commercially. Here's a better design.


----------



## Parson (Jun 6, 2021)

I watched a new piece on this plane and it did say something about sonic boom suppression. It did not go into details. They also spoke of flying at 60,000 ft. far from sub-orbital but far higher than passenger jets fly today.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 6, 2021)

I guess that Boom [they really need an exclamation point after their name - _*Boom!*_ looks so much better] are hoping to crib from Lockheed and NASA's X 59 QueSST programme. Or are working on their own.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 6, 2021)

Serendipity said:


> Here's a better design.


I like it, but I think they must have cloned Gerry Anderson and got him to come up with this design. I can picture Thunderbird 1 coming to its rescue


----------



## mosaix (Jun 6, 2021)

At the time I got the impression that the limits placed on the routes that Concorde was allowed to fly were, in part, political. The ‘not invented here’ syndrome - especially overland in the USA. 

Whether or not an American designed craft would suffer the same restrictions remains to be seen.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 6, 2021)

I think both Concorde (although Anglo-French) and the Harrier were probably the swansong of the British as aviation innovators.


----------



## .matthew. (Jun 6, 2021)

Dave said:


> I don't really see the need to fly supersonic. Surely, the time taken, both getting to and spent waiting at airports, is the longest part of the journey.


That depends on whether or not you're one of the plebs who have to fly commercial


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jun 23, 2021)

So Concorde lives again.
How about bringing back the DeHavilland Dragon Rapide and the Lockheed Constellation not to mention the Comet and the Brabazon!


----------



## mosaix (Jun 23, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> So Concorde lives again.
> How about bringing back the DeHavilland Dragon Rapide and the Lockheed Constellation not to mention the Comet and the Brabazon!



Or the TSR2?


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 23, 2021)

Parson said:


> They also spoke of flying at 60,000 ft. far from sub-orbital but far higher than passenger jets fly today.


As it happens, 60,000 ft was the service ceiling of Concorde (although its cruising altitude was about 56,000 ft).


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 23, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> So Concorde lives again.
> How about bringing back the DeHavilland Dragon Rapide and the Lockheed Constellation not to mention the Comet and the Brabazon!


The Scottish Museum Of Flight (a few miles from where I live) has a Dragon Rapide. Beautiful little plane. I hate flying but I'd go up in one of these in a heartbeat


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 23, 2021)

BigBadBob141 said:


> So Concorde lives again.
> How about bringing back the DeHavilland Dragon Rapide and the Lockheed Constellation not to mention the Comet and the Brabazon!


Ah... The Bristol Brabazon "The Ritz of the skies!"
Why not go the whole way and bring back the transatlantic Seaplanes, the Boeing Clipper or the Shorts Empire [although it may need a different name]. If you don't go, fast go comfy!


----------



## .matthew. (Jun 23, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> Why not go the whole way and bring back the transatlantic


... AIRSHIPS!

Going on holiday is a day of atrocious travel each way, so you may as well just go slow


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 23, 2021)

.matthew. said:


> ... AIRSHIPS!
> 
> Going on holiday is a day of atrocious travel each way, so you may as well just go slow


As long as the New York "hub" is the top of the Empire State Building!


----------



## Ursa major (Jun 23, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> As long as the New York "hub" is the top of the Empire State Building!


But one would have to hope that the building no longer employs that big, hairy baggage handler.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jun 24, 2021)

Yes bring back the good old Imperial and Pan Am flying boats, now that was flying in style!

In a SF story I read once someone had a Ford Trimotor, the only airplane Ford built, I think they still do flights over the Grand Canyon with these!

P.S. To be honest I don't see SSTs being really practical, what about the problem of the supersonic boom overland, imagine what that would be like if everything flew supersonicly!
Bang, bang, bang all day long!
Maybe sub-orbital is the answer, but there again you have what is essentially a very large rocket taking off every five minutes or so, plus they can only be used for very distant travel.
So I think today's solution of a relatively slower transport but carrying a much larger amount of passengers is probably the only way to go, that is until they invent teleportation!


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 24, 2021)

There was/is a company in Switzerland offering flights around the Alps in Ju52/3m. I really want to fly on that.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jun 24, 2021)

Ah the good old Aunty Ju, much beloved by the German Army!


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 24, 2021)

My own (model)Ju 52.  Planes were so much more stylish back then. You could call it air-deco


----------

