Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 189
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    47,767
    Divorce lawyers of America smile and order a second martini.

    The world is perfect. Appreciate the details.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    That's actually pretty neat but I suspect that design won't carry over to the commercial passenger carrying world.
    Live Free or Die

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Middle of the NEK
    Posts
    5,022
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    Amusing that the last SST startup, Aerion, shuttered two weeks ago.
    Competing with Boom and when they didn't get a "contract", they folded?
    Aim for the chopping block. If you aim for the wood, you will have nothing. Aim past the wood, aim through the wood.
    http://tim-kirchoff.pixels.com/

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Middle of the NEK
    Posts
    5,022
    Quote Originally Posted by AdironRider View Post
    That's actually pretty neat but I suspect that design won't carry over to the commercial passenger carrying world.
    Agreed. That is a REALLY long airplane carrying only one person. Scaling that up to a commercially viable size is likely not realistic at this time.
    Aim for the chopping block. If you aim for the wood, you will have nothing. Aim past the wood, aim through the wood.
    http://tim-kirchoff.pixels.com/

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    22,739
    Quote Originally Posted by From_the_NEK View Post
    Competing with Boom and when they didn't get a "contract", they folded?
    I believe Aerion was planning to make a bizjet, so not really a direct competitor.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    130
    Jesus, I need to start my own pie in the sky company. These guys are idiots selling dreams and some schmuck is giving them money.

    http://edition.cnn.com/travel/articl...cks/index.html

    Trans-Atlantic for $100. It's about 3500 miles New York to London. What's a gallon of Jet A go for? $8/gallon? A 737 Max 8 burns about 750 gallons per hour. Probably need to multiply that by 5 to go 3 times faster (that's probably very, very low), so 3,750 gal/hour. For reference Concorde burned 5650 gal/hour. Assuming the lower fuel burn rate at $8/gal for 4.5 hours and... that's a $135,000 fuel bill alone. Divide that by what, 50-100 passengers and yeah... this doesn't even come close to the $100 per person working out.

    I mean, I built a plastic snaptite model of one of these in the 80's. Does that make me an expert on SST's? I can start my own company and get that VC $$$?

    Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    Jesus, I need to start my own pie in the sky company. These guys are idiots selling dreams and some schmuck is giving them money.

    http://edition.cnn.com/travel/articl...cks/index.html

    Trans-Atlantic for $100. It's about 3500 miles New York to London. What's a gallon of Jet A go for? $8/gallon? A 737 Max 8 burns about 750 gallons per hour. Probably need to multiply that by 5 to go 3 times faster (that's probably very, very low), so 3,750 gal/hour. For reference Concorde burned 5650 gal/hour. Assuming the lower fuel burn rate at $8/gal for 4.5 hours and... that's a $135,000 fuel bill alone. Divide that by what, 50-100 passengers and yeah... this doesn't even come close to the $100 per person working out.

    I mean, I built a plastic snaptite model of one of these in the 80's. Does that make me an expert on SST's? I can start my own company and get that VC $$$?

    You people need to calm down. It's not your money. Go buy some bitcoin and GME and leave this SST stuff to others. Elon is going to space then onto Mars. What the hell does he know about Mars?
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    You people need to calm down. It's not your money. Go buy some bitcoin and GME and leave this SST stuff to others. Elon is going to space then onto Mars. What the hell does he know about Mars?
    No, that's just it. It's not my money and I'm as stupid as these folks at Boom. How do I get onto this gravy train?
    Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13,291
    Take a picture of your model, tweet to Elon and ask him for some $.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Mayonnaisium
    Posts
    8,497
    Remember that $1,000 juicer that worked as well as squeezing the packets with your hands? Make it a $2,000 juicer and it will sell. Bigly.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,939
    Jet-A is 7x $ now vs what it cost when the first Concorde prototype flew in 1969. Then again, that is a perfect match for inflation... airline buy a lot of fuel futures and those bets can really change the calculus. I'm sure the OPEC shenanigans were the number one issue for the airlines 1973-1978. It was a hard hit on SST plans. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 is the #1 thing of all things that shaped the industry between 1978 and 2001 (and really up through 2020).

    737 Max carries twice the passengers with half the engines to service vs a Concorde.

    Concorde actually had really efficient engines, at cruise, for the time. The problem with your 5650gal/hr fuel consumption number is that Concorde uses 7500gal of Jet A just to taxi, takeoff, climb and accelerate to cruising speed of Mach 2. Reheat is a bitch for efficiency.

    Still, using your numbers, Concorde was about 6x the fuel consumption of 737Max gal per passenger mile on a NY-London flight. Maint and acquisition cost for the Concorde was significantly higher.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    22,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    737 Max carries twice the passengers with half the engines to service vs a Concorde.
    And probably a whole lot more cargo.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    9,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    doesn't even come close to the $100 per person working out.
    Yeah, $100 is typical startup airline bullshit.

    73/8 is not a great comparison because they wouldn't typically be used on the same city pairs as the Concorde. A better comparison would be the 787. (fast vs cheap)

    Nobody can make money without repeat business, so the question there is would people pay the high ticket on a regular basis? And/or if they had that kind of money to burn would they want to be squeezed in with 49 to 99 strangers, or would they want to be in a biz jet like a Gulfstream or a Global? (fast vs luxury) Add in the time wasted dealing with all of the airport terminal hassle, and limo to limo time starts to look the same.

    It was really the development of ETOPs stand-up cabin sized biz jets that killed the supersonic airliner idea.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    No, that's just it. It's not my money and I'm as stupid as these folks at Boom. How do I get onto this gravy train?
    Perhaps there's another way?
    https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist...-for-over-18k/
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    13,817
    Sadly or ironically
    These rich fucks that need to be in Europe in three hours are the same ones driving Tesla’s and telling you to eat more bugs and less meat
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    Sadly or ironically
    These rich fucks that need to be in Europe in three hours are the same ones driving Tesla’s and telling you to eat more bugs and less meat
    Bring back the days of airships so that true transatlantic luxury travel can be re-experienced.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    9,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Not DJSapp View Post
    Trans-Atlantic for $100. It's about 3500 miles New York to London. What's a gallon of Jet A go for? $8/gallon? A 737 Max 8 burns about 750 gallons per hour. Probably need to multiply that by 5 to go 3 times faster (that's probably very, very low), so 3,750 gal/hour. For reference Concorde burned 5650 gal/hour. Assuming the lower fuel burn rate at $8/gal for 4.5 hours and... that's a $135,000 fuel bill alone. Divide that by what, 50-100 passengers...
    To add to what summit said, you can't really do the math that way because the Concorde's fuel burn was constantly changing. Taxiing from the terminal burned ~1000-1500 Kg (pilots measure fuel by weight and time, not gallons or liters). That's a huge number for so few passengers.

    The fuel consumption at take-off power was something like 80,000 kg/hr, and would increase to around 100,000 kg/hr by V2 (speed) -- to put that into perspective, if at that point the pilots decided not to bother climbing any more, and just joy-rided around at that altitude instead, they'd run out of fuel in about one hour. As summit said, reheat is a bitch for efficiency. It gave them ~20% more thrust for take-off with an ~80% fuel hit.

    Once the airplane is in the clean climb configuration, the fuel flow drops to something much lower (don't know the number) but the important part is that it continues to drop with altitude while the true airspeed continues to increase.

    At around .9 mach they re-lit the reheat and accelerated to 1.7 (while still climbing!) Back then, no other civilian jets went above FL410 so at FL430 they'd shut the reheat off and cruise climb up to 60 thousand feet, while accelerating to Mach 2. Depending on temperature and wind, they might not even make 60 before the descent point, so they'd start down, and the entire flight was an arc.

    Long way of saying that you can't say fuel flow per hour times hours on that airplane.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    15,321
    not sure if video exists, but you could see the walk aisle floor flex during takeoff
    that plane was a beast of a vehicle
    sort of surprised there weren't heart attacks from takeoff, either from the force or the view of the plane bending

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    22,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    Long way of saying that you can't say fuel flow per hour times hours on that airplane.
    Perhaps even longer flights--like trans-Pacific routes--would actually make economic sense with an SST, assuming you can get that kind of range with a modern design. Problem is the Atlantic routes are still the bread and butter of international travel.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    9,828
    Yeah, the longer you can be at 60 thousand, the better.

    Well, except for the radiation.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    7,988
    Are you guys REALLY up for a good laugh? Read this page of theirs touting how "eco-friendly" they'll be. They have all the modern corporate eco-jargon BS in there, perhaps to help assuage the guilt of their investors. Downright comical:
    https://boomsupersonic.com/sustainability
    Having at least an elementary grasp on physics, something tells me that the terms "supersonic" and "sustainable" don't quite go together. Perhaps they'll fuel it with the fumes of the bullshit flowing from their website and VC pitches?


    HA!

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,254
    It’ll be fueled by Bitcoin

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    (relevant and better information)
    I get all of that, I was trying to keep it simple and consider average fuel consumption rates just to show how wildly off the mark these yahoos are.

    Better question for those real aeronautical folks here: if the Concorde and other big birds (747's, A380's etc) burn so much fuel moving their fat asses around the tarmack, why don't they just tow them to the stop bar on the active? The connect the tug for pushback anyway. Saving 1500 Kg of Jet A per trip would pay for a tug and a tug driver really quickly.
    Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    14,172
    Quote Originally Posted by From_the_NEK View Post
    Agreed. That is a REALLY long airplane carrying only one person. Scaling that up to a commercially viable size is likely not realistic at this time.
    Of course it's not realistic at this time, the picture in the article is an illustration since the X-59 itself doesn't exist yet and won't fly for at least another year. However, the stated goal of the X-59 program is to enable future commercial supersonic travel over land. NASA wouldn't be building the X-59 if they didn't think it was possible to scale it up to a commercial-size aircraft.

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,063
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Perhaps even longer flights--like trans-Pacific routes--would actually make economic sense with an SST, assuming you can get that kind of range with a modern design. Problem is the Atlantic routes are still the bread and butter of international travel.

    the navy just demonstrated midair refueling from a drone, could you do that cheap enough to make commercial sense?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •