[adorno]

I think this is just a scaled-down proof of concept.

If that's the case, it means that, the passenger version ia many years in the future, a decade or more. Why not just take the Concorde specs and work from there?

[NorthMountain]

Why not just take the Concorde specs and work from there?

Because the Concorde made a tremendous sonic boom. This experiment, along with a similar experiment sponsored by NASA, is all about massively reducing the sonic boom. The Concorde is an example of what NOT to do.

[pierrem15]

Because the Concorde made a lot of noise and burned fuel like crazy. This new design is supposed to be quiet enough to fly over land and be efficient enough to be profitable.

[Phlyer]

Why not just take the Concorde specs and work from there?

Going supersonic, while not trivial, is a well-established technology. Going supersonic economically enough for either airliner or even bizjet travel is another matter. Concorde never even came close.

The only jet which can cruise with a significant supersonic speed (approximately M1.5) without using afterburners is the F-22, and the real magic there is not in the airframe - though it was designed very carefully. The real magic there is in the engine which can provide a lot of thrust at M1.5 even without afterburner. If these guys can develop an engine of whatever size they will need on the full-scale airliner, with the amazing performance of the F-22's engine, then they have a chance that Concorde, with those old-design engines never had.

After that, it's possible the airframe will turn out to look sort of like Concorde (as the Russian TU-144 did). However, the second big issue is sonic boom, which was the excuse given for not allowing Concorde to fly supersonically over land. To fix that, you probably need a tail more like is on the recently revealed Lockheed Skunk Works project.

So, can't use the Concorde engines or anything like them, and can't use the Concorde airframe economically (since most of the high-paying routes involve overland legs), but whatever turns out, I'm sure someone will say that they would have been better off if they just used Concordes with a new engine, and avionics, and structural materials, and . . .

[cpdiii]

“Why not just take the Concorde specs and work from there?”

Horrible fuel burn per seat mile.