Like Concorde, only smaller and crappier.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
Replying to @paulg
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.)
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @cstross
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @paulg
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @cstross
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Not per floor area, per passenger. Flight times are so much shorter that you don't need lie-flat seats in business class.
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.