Like Concorde, only smaller and crappier.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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.
Boom is faster. It's smaller because that's the size that makes economic sense, not because they can't build a bigger plane. It's an airliner, not a business jet. And it has the same fuel consumption per business class passenger as an ordinary subsonic airliner.
-
-
So far its maximum recorded speed is 0, because it hasn't flown yet.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Boom MIGHT be faster - it does not exist yet - and if so only marginally by 0.14 Mach, which seems pretty modest considering it will launch not less than 50 years (sic!) after the Concorde.
-
First it has to be a viable biz. Not simply faster than the Concorde.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Something is off. Similar fuel consumption per floor area as a subsonic plane? Hard to believe. (And would imply that almost every size group would get supersonics.) If more expensive, then business case is less time door-to-door, mostly implying that it isn't a liner.
-
Also, it's a three-engine design so that they don't have to bother with ETOPS hoop-jumping, but that makes it more expensive in maintenance than an equivalent twin would be (and thus more expensive than a similar-sized subsonic).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Boom doesn’t have an engine for the Overture so any fuel consumption figures are fantasies.
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.