Jet fuel is running around $2.50 a gallon.
50 passenger capacity, Drag caused by supersonic flight, Extremely high fuel burn required for the engines to produce the necessary
thrust. The math does not work out.
Boom admits that they have no current engine, available or in the design phase, that will meet their requirements.
Boom's own data show that it will only be 4 times more fuel (gross) efficient than Concord was, but it carries only half the passengers. And that is with
"blue sky" engines (that don't exist). So you have a proposed 50% increase in efficiency.
Concord burned 10 times the fuel per passenger than a 747-400 crossing the pond. So at best this will burn 5 times more fuel per passenger,
Than a 747-400. But most airlines are retiring their 747s because they burn too much fuel.
A 787 or an A-350 are both about 20% more efficient than older twin jets (767s A-330s) and about 30% more efficient that a 747.
Concord could not survive competing in the 1980's. This aircraft which will only be marginally better than Concord was against competing contemporary aircraft and will be too expensive to remain in service. In short, it will lose money in revenue service. Just like Concord did.
It still will not be able to overfly land at supersonic speeds, thus limiting the routes it can fly.
If it is built, Which I doubt, It will be a white elephant. Just like Concord was.
The economics just are not there for commercial supersonic passenger flight, when they are up against the economics
of subsoinc flight.
Boeing was almost there with the sonic cruiser 17 years ago. That is probably the way to go. A new design optimized
for High SubSonic to low Supersonic flight.
