Boom is an aeronautics company that has been working on bringing back supersonic passenger air travel. The company’s main product is the Boom Overture, which is essentially intended to be the modern day Concorde.
The company was founded back in 2014, and the goal is that the Boom Overture could be carrying passengers before the end of the decade. While this is no doubt an ambitious project, a major milestone was reached yesterday.
In this post:
Boom Supersonic’s XB-1 crosses the speed of sound
On January 28, 2025, Boom’s demonstrator aircraft, the XB-1, operated a historic flight. Specifically, this was the first civil supersonic jet made in American to break the sound barrier. The flight took place at the Mojave Air & Space Port in California.
The flight was flown by Boom Chief Test Pilot Tristan “Geppetto” Brandenburg, and the XB-1 entered the supersonic corridor and reached an altitude of 35,290 feet, before accelerating to Mach 1.122 (or 750 miles per hour), breaking the sound barrier for the first time. As mentioned above, this is pretty amazing, because historically supersonic aircraft have been developed by militaries and governments. So this is the first time we’ve seen an independently developed jet break the sound barrier.
Here’s how Blake Scholl, Boom’s Founder and CEO, describes this:
“XB-1’s supersonic flight demonstrates that the technology for passenger supersonic flight has arrived. A small band of talented and dedicated engineers has accomplished what previously took governments and billions of dollars. Next, we are scaling up the technology on XB-1 for the Overture supersonic airliner. Our ultimate goal is to bring the benefits of supersonic flight to everyone.”
How does this test flight get us any closer to supersonic commercial passenger travel? According to the company, here are the technology features proven through XB-1’s test program that will also apply to Overture:
- Augmented reality vision system — XB-1 and Overture both have a long nose and a high angle of attack for takeoff and landing, which makes it difficult for pilots to see the runway in front of them, so both aircraft leverage an augmented reality vision system to enable excellent runway visibility, without the weight and complexity of a moveable nose
- Digitally-optimized aerodynamics — engineers used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to explore thousands of designs for XB-1, and the result is an optimized design that combines safe and stable operation at takeoff and landing with efficiency at supersonic speeds
- Carbon fiber composites — both XB-1 and Overture are almost entirely made from carbon fiber composite materials, resulting in a sophisticated aerodynamic design with a strong, lightweight structure
- Supersonic intakes — XB-1’s engine intakes slow supersonic air to subsonic speeds, efficiently converting kinetic energy into pressure energy, allowing conventional jet engines to power XB-1 from takeoff through supersonic flight, and learnings from the development of XB-1’s specialized intakes are being applied to Overture and its purpose-built turbofan engine, Symphony
Let’s see if the Boom Overture becomes a reality
First and foremost, credit to the Boom team for how far they’ve gotten with this project. It’s incredibly impressive to see a private company developing a supersonic jet in this way. That’s a huge accomplishment, and that can’t be overstated. The company is also very well funded, including with investments from Saudi Arabia.
All that being said, suffice it to say that a lot more work needs to happen before the Boom Overture is flying. Boom has proven that it can develop a supersonic aircraft of some sort. Now the question is if Boom can build a passenger-sized supersonic jet that’s commercially viable, that gets support from regulators, and that could actually be carrying passengers by the end of the decade (or at least any time in the foreseeable future).
I’m certainly rooting for Boom, though to point out the obvious, there are major hurdles to overcome:
- Boeing announced the 777X concept in 2013, and that’s expected to enter service in 2026 at the absolute earliest; that was “only” an update to an existing jet from one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, so the timeline just seems highly optimistic
- The manufacturer of the Concorde never made money on the plane; most orders for the Concorde were never followed through on
- Given the range of the jet and the need for supersonic flight to be overwater, the actual markets where this is a viable concept are limited; sure, there’s New York to London, but aside from that, there aren’t that many city pairs, especially with many longer Pacific crossings not being possible
- I don’t think there’s a need for supersonic travel in the same way there used to be; premium travel has improved so much in terms of comfort, Wi-Fi connectivity, etc., so time spent traveling isn’t “wasted” in the same way as before
- With environmentalism being an increasingly important topic for airlines, I just don’t see how this concept fits into that, even if it’s much more fuel efficient than the Concorde was
I’d absolutely love to see the Boom Overture flying before the end of the decade with passengers. If the company can actually pull this off, I’ll be mighty impressed.
Bottom line
Boom has managed to make supersonic flight a reality with its XB-1 demonstrator aircraft. The goal is of course to get the Boom Overture flying eventually, which would become the modern day version of the Concorde.
The Boom team should be proud of what they’ve accomplished so far, though there’s still a huge, uphill battle, with turning this demonstrator aircraft into a passenger aircraft in a commercially viable way, with full support from regulators and airports.
What do you make of the Boom XB-1 operating a supersonic flight, and of the prospect of the Boom Overture becoming a reality?
You said "first civil supersonic jet made in American".
I think you mean America instead of American
The single-most important thing was left out: how loud was the "boom"? That's
crucial to whether or not it can be viable, and why they named the company Boom.
If this was made by a company from China there would be thousands of obnoxious emphasis on the word China or Chinese but you'd get lucky if they mention the city or even the company name regarding US made innovations.
AW, C'mon you guys
Were here because we love airplanes. OR because we are just here to complain and show off how dismissive we can be.
My wife and I flew Concorde just before it was finally cancelled (well after Paris) Put our son on BA 747 to NYC and he arrived 3 hours before we did. Loved every minute sitting in Concorde Lounge, drinking Dom and Pims and watching Wimbledon while they tried to...
AW, C'mon you guys
Were here because we love airplanes. OR because we are just here to complain and show off how dismissive we can be.
My wife and I flew Concorde just before it was finally cancelled (well after Paris) Put our son on BA 747 to NYC and he arrived 3 hours before we did. Loved every minute sitting in Concorde Lounge, drinking Dom and Pims and watching Wimbledon while they tried to get the Leyland push tractor to get Concorde in position.
An aviation nut since birth it was an experience of a lifetime. Just to see the black of deep space.
I think marketing this as anything other than an experience would not be viable but there are 9 Billion people on this earth and some line up to pay $50,000 for Antarctic
cruises. Hoe many have put a deposit on low earth orbit? The moon?
Isn't first class Pacific $25,000 list? or more.
I probably won't be hre to see the first flights but if I am put me at the front of the list.
Unless price is competitive, can’t see anyone paying extra for a commercial flight.
1. NYC - LHR
- 11 pm gmt curfew
- 3 hour flight time
- leave 3 pm Est latest
Not really a full day of work meetings in nyc. Can just take normal morning flights
- no reason to take red eye when can’t sleep that short and arrive when curfew lifted
2. LHR -...
Unless price is competitive, can’t see anyone paying extra for a commercial flight.
1. NYC - LHR
- 11 pm gmt curfew
- 3 hour flight time
- leave 3 pm Est latest
Not really a full day of work meetings in nyc. Can just take normal morning flights
- no reason to take red eye when can’t sleep that short and arrive when curfew lifted
2. LHR - NYC
- maybe take 8 am gmt flight and arrive at 6 am et
- long day and not really any value add than flying night before or normal same day and landing later
3. LHR west coast
- maybe cut off 3 hours since only supersonic over Atlantic
4. Get the range for trans pacific but rough time change and longe flight with sleep
5. Private jets where time > money but not enough to economies or scale to produce.
Fun to have but unless costs matches, no one’s paying.
No internal or industry knowledge just random thoughts :)
Ben, can you talk more about why they can't go over pacific? Can't carry enough fuel?
I flew the Concorde from JFK to LHR and then LHR to IAD (I think as it was nearly 40 years ago).
It was a harsh takeoff, harsh landing and seats comparable to domestic first class. The food was very nice and the passengers were dressed very well. The most noticeable was how short the flights were.
Since Booms Sonic boom is not noticeable (I think) it does make routes like LAX-JFK possible.
I flew the Concorde from JFK to LHR and then LHR to IAD (I think as it was nearly 40 years ago).
It was a harsh takeoff, harsh landing and seats comparable to domestic first class. The food was very nice and the passengers were dressed very well. The most noticeable was how short the flights were.
Since Booms Sonic boom is not noticeable (I think) it does make routes like LAX-JFK possible.
I do hope transpacific is possible as I spend my time most.y oscillating between SFO and NRT
"harsh takeoff".... lol
I think they are a few years early. If the X-59 QueSST works, then supersonic flights over land may be permitted which could change the demand for this. The X-59 is designed to lower a sonic boom to the level of a car door closing slated to begin flight testing later this year
"I don’t think there’s a need for supersonic travel in the same way there used to be; premium travel has improved so much in terms of comfort, Wi-Fi connectivity, etc., so time spent traveling isn’t “wasted” in the same way as before..."
If I can fly from JFK to HKG in 5 hours, I don't care for or need premium travel. 14 hours however is another story. I'm rooting for them!
Remember your blog host flies for the sake of flying. Most other people fly because the have to, or want to be, someplace where they are currently not.
"A small band of talented and dedicated engineers has accomplished what previously took governments and billions of dollars."
Oh, give me a break, techbro! Your demonstrator uses GE CJ610, a 1960s-era turbojet engine. Someone had to fund and develop that all those years ago—and yes, it was mostly the military. Without diminishing the accomplishment of the team, you're piggybacking on decades of government-funded R&D done at NASA, JPL and elsewhere. Let's also not forget that...
"A small band of talented and dedicated engineers has accomplished what previously took governments and billions of dollars."
Oh, give me a break, techbro! Your demonstrator uses GE CJ610, a 1960s-era turbojet engine. Someone had to fund and develop that all those years ago—and yes, it was mostly the military. Without diminishing the accomplishment of the team, you're piggybacking on decades of government-funded R&D done at NASA, JPL and elsewhere. Let's also not forget that the designers of Concorde didn't have today's technology, modelling, manufacturing or materials. Gee, I wonder why they had such a hard time with that.
Ugh.
Yayyyyy, they did something that the Bell X1 accomplished 78yrs ago, and Concorde 55yrs ago!
........in an aircraft that's nothing like the proposed commercial product,
........and whose flight characteristics could've more quickly/easily/cheaply been simulated using fluid-dynamics software that's been available since the 1990s.
(But gotta provide SOME kind of show, to keep that sweet sweet V/C money pouring in.)
So, um, congrats?
One of the primary reasons to build a technology demonstrator is to understand how closely CFD models map on to actual performance. Yes there are simulations. You want data to understand how far your model is from observed performance and handling characteristics. This is an issue in not only planes but anything that uses models to predict performance.
If you want to see why correlation matters you can read all about how the Mercedes...
One of the primary reasons to build a technology demonstrator is to understand how closely CFD models map on to actual performance. Yes there are simulations. You want data to understand how far your model is from observed performance and handling characteristics. This is an issue in not only planes but anything that uses models to predict performance.
If you want to see why correlation matters you can read all about how the Mercedes F1 team was unable to turn their CFD/Wind tunnel runs into actual track performance a couple of years ago. They went down an entirely dead end aero concept their car and paid the price.
Huh??
Mercedes *literally* credited their CFD modeling prowess for their AMG Petronas team win at the Constructors' Championship during Covid, when they had no choice but to rely more heavily on that.
By their direct statement, the modeling produced BETTER results than expected, not worse. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.
Cool story.
Blake Scholl is living his best life.
I doubt the unit economics.
Of course, this is impressive, but the question isn't really whether this company can achieve supersonic flight. Any company (kind of) that gets enough funding and expertise can build an airplane that flies supersonic -- that part is well proven, and it's the unknown.
The question / unknown is whether the plane it eventually builds will fly at a cost anything close to what a passenger will pay on an ongoing basis. And you...
Of course, this is impressive, but the question isn't really whether this company can achieve supersonic flight. Any company (kind of) that gets enough funding and expertise can build an airplane that flies supersonic -- that part is well proven, and it's the unknown.
The question / unknown is whether the plane it eventually builds will fly at a cost anything close to what a passenger will pay on an ongoing basis. And you notice that none of the press releases ever emphasize this important point that will be the eventual test of success.
But you can be sure all the execs are thinking about this question.
Any serious attempt at this would be done with an engine first approach. Economics unworkable with 1960s technology (we already had a functional SST airframe). The PR first approach makes it clear that the goal is to take investor money and return nothing.
You get it.
To me, the most glaring red flag in all of this, is that these people have publicly approached Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, Rolls, Pratt, and GE............ and every single one of them said "no thanks" to partnership of any kind.
Knowing corporations, you'd think they'd want the free P.R., even if they're just functioning in...
You get it.
To me, the most glaring red flag in all of this, is that these people have publicly approached Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, Rolls, Pratt, and GE............ and every single one of them said "no thanks" to partnership of any kind.
Knowing corporations, you'd think they'd want the free P.R., even if they're just functioning in some manner of hands-off advisory role.
Speaking of P.R., something else of note, is that American only licensed Boom to utilize its corporate insignia once: for their August 2022 announcement of American's "order." Unlike United, AA did NOT allow Boom to utilize its livery on any of Boom's PR.... no (official) renderings of Boom Overture in AA's colors. Always found that interesting. Apparently, they don't want their colors associated with this thing.
The question really isn't whether they can achieve supersonic flight. That part is relatively known, and any company funded enough can eventually do it. The unknown is whether their aircraft design and operating model can do it at anything close to an ongoing reasonable ticket price, even if the design phase is totally money down the drain.
You will note that they never talk about that part of it publicly. But every exec on the team is thinking about that.
Having experienced two Concorde flights, onboard with both carriers, I can testify to the fact that the experiences were underwhelming.
Personally, I could not stand up straight in the cabin. Standing to use the lavatory was a contortionists nightmare. While the seats and legroom were barely adequate for my leg length.
It is unlikely that I will be around to experience the Boom, even if it gets off the ground. That said, adding...
Having experienced two Concorde flights, onboard with both carriers, I can testify to the fact that the experiences were underwhelming.
Personally, I could not stand up straight in the cabin. Standing to use the lavatory was a contortionists nightmare. While the seats and legroom were barely adequate for my leg length.
It is unlikely that I will be around to experience the Boom, even if it gets off the ground. That said, adding a new commercial aircraft type to one’s list is every aviation enthusiast’s aim.
It was only a 3-hour flight, couldn't you have just held it in? ;)
In case you are unaware, the flight from Rio to Paris was actually a little longer than a mere three hours.
Why do people always assume the Concorde only flew to the USA?
Oh please. I'm 6'1, 220lbs, and had no problem negotiating the aisles, seats, and lavatories on the time I got to fly Concorde. Sure there are people taller and wider than me, but unless you're a giant, morbidly obese, or disabled, then you're just whining for the sake of whining. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as you're trying to make it sound.
I like the design. The super pointed nose is to reduce the shock waves creating less noise. I didn't see any mention if this was successful.
" almost entirely made from carbon fiber composite materials"
...otherwise known as "plastic".
That old guy in The Graduate was astute.
Without a boom-canceling airframe design, the ship will be limited to over-water routes. Without a super-cruise airframe design, the ship will be uneconomical. Without Mach 2 cruise speed, the time savings will be marginal. Without range, the ship will be impractical. But, we've known this for some time.
Their plan to mitigate these issues according to an interview:
- noise: fly subsonic over land but still about ~20% faster than conventional commercial jets
"a typical Subsonic airplane is anywhere between 78% and 85% of the speed of sound. Overture when it’s flying Subsonic flies at 94% of the speed of sound so there’s about a 20% speed advantage subsonic then" - Blake Scholl
-range: introduce a network of fuel stops at convenient locations...
Their plan to mitigate these issues according to an interview:
- noise: fly subsonic over land but still about ~20% faster than conventional commercial jets
"a typical Subsonic airplane is anywhere between 78% and 85% of the speed of sound. Overture when it’s flying Subsonic flies at 94% of the speed of sound so there’s about a 20% speed advantage subsonic then" - Blake Scholl
-range: introduce a network of fuel stops at convenient locations for short fuel stops
"You can do Seattle-Tokyo nonstop, that’s about the longest one that we can do without refueling. Today stopping means slow, but one of the interesting things about supersonic is if you take a route like LA-Sydney, we don’t have anywhere close to the range to do that nonstop. Today that’s a fourteen, fifteen hour flight. Overture, including the time to refuel in Tahiti can do it in eight-and-a-half hours. So the first generation Overture doesn’t have the range for the longest route nonstop, but it’s still faster and I think the art on that one will be not letting the passengers get off in Tahiti but doing an Indy 500 pit stop and keep going with the flight...
... There’s a parallel between the Supercharger network that Tesla built out to drive EV adoption and the refuel infrastructure that we will build to enable supersonic adoption across longer routes. The biggest difference is we only need two or three of these, there are a handful of locations that matter geographically and we don’t need to build thousands." - Blake Scholl
Honestly it sounds like they put some good thought into this and it sounds interesting at the very least. I'd rather live in a world with supersonic commercial jets than one without.
I agree with all your points. But it's never going to happen, because Greta.
Of course, the immediate and obvious followup to that is:
"Great, that's exactly what was proposed a half-century ago with Concorde. Why will your attempt be different?"
But here's what he's not telling you:
There's a REASON that most conventional aircraft designs stop short at around 90-92%, it's because the previously-linear increase in drag profile, begins to increase at a logarithmic scale.
The increase in drag is so bad, that Concorde would bring in its reheats at 0.93Mach,...
But here's what he's not telling you:
There's a REASON that most conventional aircraft designs stop short at around 90-92%, it's because the previously-linear increase in drag profile, begins to increase at a logarithmic scale.
The increase in drag is so bad, that Concorde would bring in its reheats at 0.93Mach, and afterburn its way through the trans-sonic acceleration zone, until the drag curve stabilized (around Mach1.6).
Or stated another way: it was more efficient to just inject pure fuel into the exhaust stream and relight it, than to spend any more time in the 0.93M - M1.5 zone, than was necessary.
That BTW, was the biggest skepticism that airlines had with Boeing's (ridiculous) Sonic Cruiser proposal, in the early '00s.
Yet this aircraft design is proposing to spend the majority of its flight profile there as well. Good luck.
You don't think they would launch MIA-LIS??!? Not having the range for SFO/LAX-TYO is quite the bummer.
It can make SEA - NRT or YVR-NRT right ?