Is this Supersonic Passenger Aircraft 50-Years Too Late

[engine]

This announcement of a supersonic passenger aircraft caught my eye because I thought we'd seen the last of this kind of transport after Concord.
The maker talks about reduced noise levels.
I remember Concord flying over and it was loud, yet spectacular. We always watched it until it was out of sight.

They also talk about fuel technology coming from sustainable sources: Now this is something for the sceptical. This kind of fuel often comes from crops grown specifically for the purpose, and my concern is how much land is cleared to grow the crop to create the fuel. I'm not really convinced that is the best use of sustainable fuel, especially just for the few that can afford to fly on this aircraft.
[bbc.co.uk...]

[iamlost]

There are three parts to the story, all have been ongoing for quite some time:
1. United CEO Scott Kirby is tossing money at several alternatives including 200 short haul electric aircraft. The concern being if he’s too far ahead of the curve it’s money down the drain... and the tech is problematic on several fronts.

2. Bio aviation fuel is interesting to watch: when used it typically is 20-30% added to regular jet fuel, rather like ethanol added to car gas; it typically costs 4 to 5-times more than regular so doubling fuel cost per flight; only a few airports offer it eg San Francisco and Schiphol and they can’t supply much.

Currently, either a marketing greenwash or an enviro guilt fare increase depending on airline; Whether it will be a farm subsidy enviro racket (like ethanol) is yet to be seen.

3. Boom Supersonic is also interesting to track. They are currently years behind schedule, planning a one third scale test vehicle flight later this year. Beyond all the tech and regulation hurdles there remain the ‘boom’ part that hobbled Concorde. And then there are a few atmosphere enviro problems that have been ignored because the cause is currently most/all military...

I take it all with a shaker of salt and an extra large helping of popcorn.

[thecoalman]

The Concorde was probably 50 years too early. Interesting bit of history, Boeing was developing the 747 along with it's own supersonic plane that would of competed with the Concorde. The 747 was intended to be primarily a freighter. Development money from the government dried up and they faced the choice of going forward with one plane. At that point the choice may have already been made for them because Boeing basically bet the company on the 747, if it failed the company was toast. The Concorde and 747 debuted simultaneously, I don't have to tell you the rest of the story.

[coothead]

"The maker talks about reduced noise levels."

Gosh, that will be reassuring news for the likes of Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough won't it.

Does the maker really think that his brainchild will help any of the issues raised here...

[twitter.com ]

birdbrain

[NickMNS]

"The maker talks about reduced noise levels."

For who? The passengers? Yes, that is one of the benefits of travelling faster than the speed of sound, you don't hear the noise you make.

[lucy24]

Oh, this is just what every traveler has been longing for: a mode of transport that means you spend less time in transit--going from point A to point B, aka The Fun Part--than you spent waiting in line to start moving in the first place.

[phranque]

that is one of the benefits of travelling faster than the speed of sound, you don't hear the noise you make.

the air within the aircraft is also moving faster than the speed of sound, so any vibrations within may be heard from within.

[tangor]

Me? I miss the journey. Old enough to remember trains, with sleepers and dining cars and whistle stops along the way. On the other hand, I can't think of many places I need to visit these days that would require supersonic travel or great distances. The journey from my recliner to the kitchen is arduous enough.