Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sonic booms are not really significant for most aircraft above 40,000 feet. When I was an FCF (functional check flight) pilot, I would routinely fly to at least Mach 1.4 at 40K. Since the speed run also had to be flown within gliding distance of the base, it was often outside of special use airspace, yet no one ever complained, nor really noticed.
The USAF guidance, which is not applicable for civilian aircraft, of course, but nonetheless is based on EPA findings, from AFI 13-201, is:
3.4.1. When operationally necessary, conduct planned supersonic operations IAW current, approved EIAP and only under the following conditions:
3.4.1.1. Over open water areas, above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15 NM from any land area.
3.4.1.2. Over land areas, above 30,000 feet MSL.
3.4.1.3. Avoid areas of population concentration and avoidance Locations, as well as HAF specified critical areas listed in FLIP AP/1B.
Those areas in AP/1B include Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Zion, etc.
Below 30K above the ground, the booms become intrusive. Below 10K, the local news, JAGs, and the base civil engineers and environmental quality personnel all get busy, as do activists and ambulance chasers.
In a country where people spend $50k on a watch, $500K on a car and $5M on a painting its hard to believe that they cant find a few people that would pay to fly just for the bragging rights.
They can.
That's the problem. They can find a few.
As I noted before, when you factor in the enormous cost of R&D ($25+ billion for the A380, and it'll be significantly larger for a supersonic airliner) manufacturers aren't going to reach the break-even point unless they sell lots and lots of such an aircraft type. The A380 break-even point is currently projected to be somewhere north of 400 units. And they're a long way from that in both deliveries and outstanding orders, which is really instructive, as the A380, while relatively underperforming in sales compared to other widebodies, is a vastly more flexible airliner than any SST would be.
In a nutshell, a manufacturer is going to need to sell a whole lot more than a few in order not to lose massive amounts of money on building a supersonic airliner. And, no, rich people doing it once just to say "I did it!" isn't going to pay for hundreds of units each making tens of thousands of flights over the lifetime of its service.
Sonic booms are not really significant for most aircraft above 40,000 feet. When I was an FCF (functional check flight) pilot, I would routinely fly to at least Mach 1.4 at 40K. Since the speed run also had to be flown within gliding distance of the base, it was often outside of special use airspace, yet no one ever complained, nor really noticed.
The USAF guidance, which is not applicable for civilian aircraft, of course, but nonetheless is based on EPA findings, from AFI 13-201, is:
3.4.1. When operationally necessary, conduct planned supersonic operations IAW current, approved EIAP and only under the following conditions:
3.4.1.1. Over open water areas, above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15 NM from any land area.
3.4.1.2. Over land areas, above 30,000 feet MSL.
3.4.1.3. Avoid areas of population concentration and avoidance Locations, as well as HAF specified critical areas listed in FLIP AP/1B.
Those areas in AP/1B include Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Zion, etc.
Below 30K above the ground, the booms become intrusive. Below 10K, the local news, JAGs, and the base civil engineers and environmental quality personnel all get busy, as do activists and ambulance chasers.
I couldn't tell you what altitude they were at since it happened once at night and several times while it was snowing, but the booms were quite intrusive. Almost jump out of your skin intrusive. I couldn't complain if I wanted to (I didn't) because there is no cell service out there and I wouldn't know who to complain to anyway. There's not much in the way of population out there.
In a nutshell, a manufacturer is going to need to sell a whole lot more than a few in order not to lose massive amounts of money on building a supersonic airliner.
And, no, rich people doing it once just to say "I did it!" isn't going to pay for hundreds of units each making tens of thousands of flights over the lifetime of its service.
Well Boom technology is hoping to sell thousands of planes. They are expecting people to pay the same as they already pay for a bigger seat and better food to alternatively get someplace in half the time
Although the time savings of cutting a 5 hour trip in half is less than cutting a 7 hour trip in half, you have almost as many people flying from New York area to Los Angeles as you do flying to London. Ultimately you can appeal to a bigger class of people if you can fly over land.
Passengers in one year
London/Heathrow - New York/John F Kennedy 3,078,693
London/Heathrow - New York/Newark Liberty(NJ) 1,000,189
Los Angeles, CA (Metro Area) - New York City, NY (Metro Area) 3,420,000
Specifically if a Boom Technology aircraft has 55 seats, * 365 days * 1 flight per day = 20,075 seats per year. Now if 4 million people per year make the trip from NYC area to London Heathrow, perhaps two dozen planes might handle the passengers who are willing to pay for supersonic flights.
But one round trip at supersonic speeds may be possible in an 8 hour day. A secondary trip to London may be possible n a 24 hour day may be possible, but more likely a trip to california is more likely.
In a country where people spend $50k on a watch, $500K on a car and $5M on a painting its hard to believe that they cant find a few people that would pay to fly just for the bragging rights.
A $50,000 watch lasts far longer than 3.5 hours. A $500,000 car lasts far longer than 3.5 hours. A $5M painting lasts far longer than 3.5 hours. If you can build a plane and sell tickets for $50,000+ to people who can fly back and forth to London whenever they want for as long as a watch or a car or a painting lasts, go for it, but that number is going to be either zero or possibly one.
A $50,000 watch lasts far longer than 3.5 hours...
But luxury transportation is always about spending ridiculous amounts of money for a very short time. Even compared to other transient pleasures such as hotel rooms or fine dining.
Concorde burned over two tons of fuel just taxiing onto the runway, and over 100 from London to New York. So each seat required 1 ton of fuel each way. Compare that to today’s 777, which uses 44 tons for the same London to New York route for a lot more passengers.
Boom technology claims a 30% efficiency improvement over Concorde, but it will still be very high compared to a normal widebody.
I am saying that the luxury travel market can handle the cost of that extra fuel consumption.
Boom technology likes to talk about a $5000 round trip ticket from New York to London.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
