Stuart Nathan
Features Editor
The Engineer is observing with interest Sir Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic’s support for a new supersonic passenger aircraft.
It’s 69 years since Chuck Yeager became the first human being to travel faster than sound, and since that time such speeds have been accessible to civilians for only the relatively short window of Concorde’s operation. As we have reported in The Engineer, development of supersonic passenger planes is ongoing, with NASA, Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin all working on new technologies. We can now add a new name to that list, with yesterday’s unveiling of a prototype from Denver-based start-up Boom, backed by none other than Britain’s very own bearded Cavalier, Sir Richard Branson.
Boom, headed by pilot and former Amazon executive Blake Scholl, is developing an aircraft which will seat 45 to 50 passengers (about half of Concorde’s capacity). Scholl claims that these seats will cost about the same as a business class fare; around $5000 for a 3.5 hour flight from London to New York, for example. He also claims that, because Boom, unlike larger civil aerospace companies, is not developing new technologies for its aircraft that would need special approval from regulators, he will beat them into the air. Scholl claims that commercial services could start by 2023.
Branson has not said how much his Virgin company is investing in Boom, but the manufacturing arm of Virgin Galactic is to provide engineering and manufacturing services along with flight test support and operations, and Virgin has an option on Boom’s first 10 airframes. The prototype uses modern engine technology and lightweight composite materials and is claimed to be relatively cheap to operate; cheap enough, at least, for that $5000 ticket price to represent a workable profit margin.
There will always be those who insist that there is no need for supersonic travel. What’s wrong with teleconferencing, they ask. Is there anything that’s really so important that (taking time zones into account) anyone really needs to fly from London to New York and arrive effectively 90 minutes before they left? Isn’t it more sensible to spend your $5000 on a nice comfortable seat in a wide-bodied jet, watch a few films and have another glass of champagne? And by every rational argument, they are of course correct in every respect apart from the one that says travel is unnecessary. In many cases, there is simply no substitute for being there in the flesh. Everybody knows that a face-to-face meeting is more productive than a telephone conversation; the same is true of teleconferencing, and anybody who has tried to conduct a conference where one or more of the attendees is only there virtually will know how difficult it is (and it’s no better when you’re the virtual attendee).
Concorde’s days were almost certainly numbered even before it had been removed from service in 2003 following the crash in July 2000 and subsequent drop off in passenger numbers. It was not profitable and, towards the end of its service life, functioned more as a prestige PR project for British Airways and Air France. But in many ways, this was more because it was too large for the demand for supersonic flight and its technology had become outdated; it was terrifically fuel-hungry, notoriously noisy and expensive to fly. It was not practical at the time to go back to the drawing board and make a smaller aircraft; but the demand to break the sound barrier (mostly for business reasons) was undoubtedly there, and enough people believe it still is to justify the many new projects to develop “executive jets” capable of supersonic speeds.
Whether the demand is for an aircraft with six passenger seats, say, or 45 is something that only the market can reveal; paradoxically, of course, it’s unlikely that we could know this unless the service is actually launched. But as a technology magazine, we have to applaud the attempt. It’s always seemed (to me at least) a shame that the end of Concorde spilled a regression to a 1960s paradigm of passenger flight even though the aircraft were in many respects far more advanced and, for example, quieter and more fuel-economical. My favourite description of Concorde was that it was a view through a slice cut into the future, but it turned out not to be our future. Well, it should have been. If Blake Scholl’s vision proves accurate, it might wrench us back to the path the 1960s visionaries who conceived Concorde saw for us.
The Engineer has not always been the greatest fan of Richard Branson. Too many of his projects have been for personal glory rather than, as he claims, to advance the capabilities of mankind; many of our memories of using his train services are ones of discomfort and frustration, and for those who object to The Engineer taking tangents into politics, I’ll refrain from expressing my opinion on Virgin’s enthusiasm for taking over services from the NHS. It is of course undeniable that Branson’s interest in Boom is probably not motivated purely by altruism, but if it succeeds in opening up supersonic flight to those mortals who have not signed up for military service, don’t possess unlimited funds and don’t present popular science television, we are all for it. Gen. Yeager, an entertaining but tetchy presence on Twitter these days, might see it differently.
We have the ability, technology, skill and endeavour to have built this already in THIS country. What we do not have is the governments (note plural) with the foresight and dedication to LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT that is crucial for our technological future.
The Americans would not have taken the sound barrier if it was not for our British engineers being forced to share the more advanced knowledge of the aerodynamics of the tailplane and receiving nothing in return! Thank you government!
The Government GAVE Rolls Royce technology to the Russians after the war – Thank you government!
Imagine if we had continued with the development of Concorde. Where would we be now? We would be the world leaders in aircraft and space development. Concorde 2 would have been economically viable and commercially a success.
We have to think LONG TERM.
Agree 100%
Hear, Hear Adrian,
You seem to me to be spot on with your comments. Also we gifted the plans of the Harrier to the Americans and if you ever got a copy of Spy Catcher see how the Americans bullied our MI5 agents to release details of the Rafter code reading technology to the CIA that was world leading technology.
That last paragraph is both unnecessary and subjective, I recently travelled first class by Obellio then onto a Virgin train and there was no comparison, Virgin was 1000 times better. I’ve also in the last two years flown long haul with BA and Virgin and again, Virgin knocked the socks off BA in every aspect. Branson is a businessman, and a rather successful one at that, why do you think he does these ventures? For Fun? For the good of mankind? I suppose the NHS is doing just fine without his intervention as well is it? Its a shame a good article has been spoiled with that addition.
It’s subjective because it’s a comment piece. It even says “Comment” at the top. Perhaps you could look the word up in a dictionary?
May I suggest Mr Buckles run that under a cold tap for a moment, because, to paraphrase my undergrads; “he just got burned”!
Martin,
I know you have specific experience of Virgin travel, where I haven’t, but I do believe that Virgin are front runners in worker relations and very modern in how the businesses are organised, which is credit to Richard Branson. Therefore I think (like you) that he may have been badly judged in the editorial. If anyone on this website who are Virgin employees perhaps they could add a comment
Once found myself on a rather sticky wicket vis-a-vis a malfunctioning toilet door on one of Beardy’s trains just outside Crewe. Suffice it to say one hopes build quality is much improved on the aircraft – Disposing of a Tikka Dhal at 150mph with a 5 degree lean in full full of a passenger compartment is one thing, doing same at Mach 2 barely warrants thinking about.
Rather unsporting of Virgin, what!?
Prof Archibald.
Have you seen the state of some BR’s loos over the years, so one incident of a fouled up loo on a Virgin train doesn’t amount to much. Perhaps we shouldn’t allow drunken louts on a train, full of beer followed up with a late night Indian, who deposited it forcefully and inaccurately in the train loo and leave for others to clear it up . Also parents who allow their barely trained youngster to spray their pee around the cubical and leave furtively
Nevertheless, the last paragraph is relevant. Just because you have had a good experience with a Virgin “branded” product does not mean that this is true in all cases.
I agree with Martin, enjoyed the article a lot, but not necessary to have a go Branson. What he has is unbounded enthusiasm for science and technology and is prepared to use his fortune to that end. If only our government, past and present had a little of his foresight we would and should be leaders in this field
One only flight (NY-LON) on Concorde-written up into a short story sent to our editor. It was my great privilege as a student (summer at Bristol Siddeley and Bristol Aeroplane Co) to work (in a very minor capacity) on the Olympus 301? Engine. White heat of technology -Harold Wilson’s phrase -yes, indeed
Right then. Let’s crack into this and break the back of this rubbish once and for all.
R.E.G. Davies law of the supersonic non market:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fallacies-Fantasies-R-G-Davies/dp/0962648353
http://www.flyingclippers.com/postflight/4835-3.html
“Provocative, timeless research and well-written commentary that will be reluctantly repeated if not heeded.”
Total North Atlantic Passengers, one way.
Assume 20,000,000 per year.
Of which 5% are first class, or regular business customers: 1,000,000 passengers. – Yes, the figure is this small, most businesses would require a serious justification for flying at a premium over a conventional subsonic service. My own would.
Of these, assume only 40% fly upon the main city pairs, CDG/LHR to JFK – Any other destinations require a connection and that consumes some of the time that flying supersonic has saved so it would detract from the point- 400,000 passengers.
But assume upgrades, say x150%, because such a service could stimulate new trade: 600,000 passengers for a north Atlantic service.
Aircraft: Concorde had 100 seats: Assume one round trip per day – Twice daily services were proposed but drew little interest because of the scheduling issues of very late and very early flights, and the realities jet lag – Flying to New York sees you thinking about bed at 8pm and wandering around Times Square at five in the morning, flying to London sees you wide awake at 3am and sleeping until midday. The circadian rhythm is absolute and useless for business hours: Transpacific services from Tokyo to California are even worse: Result is 200 seats.
Assume a 70% load factor per flight – normal for airline operations – 140 passengers
Assume, generously, that the aircraft requires no maintenance and operates 365 days of a year: 50,000 filled seats.
North Atlantic Concorde market is thus 600,000/50,000 = 12 Aircraft.
What is the total market for the whole world for these aircraft? Let us be generous and quadruple that figure. 48 aeroplanes.
Emirates orders aeroplanes in batches larger than that. So does Michael O’Leary, and that is the total world market for these aircraft satisfied for say, the next ten years. This is reasonable as Singapore airlines in the past renewed it’s fleet at around 7 years, and British Airways is still flying stuff that it bought in the early 1990’s. i.e. Aircraft that are almost as old as the internet.
Assuming that this prospective new supersonic aircraft has the seat count that it does: 50 seats, at 70% load, that is 35 passengers, 365 days of the year: 12775 total customers. Divide that by the market and that is 47 aircraft. Quadruple it and the total market in the world for this aircraft is 187 units. They built a comparable number of F-22 Raptors. Compared to modern civil production runs, that is nothing. The grinning pullover has fooled everyone again.
Someone commented about aircraft manufacture and operations being profitable?
I believe the word on that street is that ‘if you want to make a small fortune in this industry, start with a large one!’ Preferably some-one elses: and that which HMG administers on our behalf probably the best going!
The Grinning Pullover has used that line himself many times….
Anybody else think this could be a viable way for the carriers to free up traditional aeroplanes for yet even more economy seating? I think perhaps they and passengers could have their cake and eat it too. Passengers in economy (arguably) get a cheaper flight, carriers get to drive their premium products upscale. I for one can see the value in SS travel when paying the big bucks, especially as if the company says, they can run it affordably.