Like Concorde, only smaller and crappier.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It’s like sometimes going forward feels eerily like going backward. (On a more prosaic note: after each trans-Atlantic flight, a Concorde spent 72 hours in the maintenance hangar. That’s normal for a military fast-mover, but not so much for a high-availability VIP transport.)
In what way do you feel Boom's design is "crappier" than that of the Concorde? I'm surprised you know enough about Boom's aircraft to have such a strong opinion about it, but I'm interested to hear what you think they got wrong.
-
-
Significantly smaller, lower maximum speed? (I’ve been following their public announcements, just because.) More to the point I’m not a big fan of supersonic bizjets in general. Stupid-high fuel consumption for little time advantage.
-
They replicate a mistake the UK’s Air Ministry persistently made in the 1940s and 1950s—backing planes that were too small by assuming the bulk of the market was VIP-only.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
IMHO "Boom" is a terrible name... just like "Comet" was not a great name for an airplane.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.