Boom is an aeronautics company that has been working onbringing back supersonic passenger air travel. The companys main product is the Boom Overture, which is essentially intended to be the modern day Concorde.
Continue reading: Boom Achieves Supersonic Flight With XB-1, An Impressive Milestone
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
You don't think they would launch MIA-LIS??!? Not having the range for SFO/LAX-TYO is quite the bummer.
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.
" almost entirely made from carbon fiber composite materials"
...otherwise known as "plastic".
That old guy in The Graduate was astute.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?"
Overture when it’s flying Subsonic flies at 94% of the speed of sound so there’s about a 20% speed advantage subsonic then
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.
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 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.
"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.
"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!
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
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.
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.
how the Mercedes F1 team was unable to turn their CFD/Wind tunnel runs into actual track performance a couple of years ago
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.
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
Ben, can you talk more about why they can't go over pacific? Can't carry enough fuel?
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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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?
You said "first civil supersonic jet made in American".
I think you mean America instead of American
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.
…. Clearly Synn, doubt exists as to if you actually experienced a Concorde flight, otherwise you would be aware that passengers even an inch shorter than you, cannot stand comfortably upright in the cabin. As I top you by a good English inch, therefore, one believes that my observation is more than valid on my flight from Rio to Paris via Dakar.
On the pond hopping flights most American hooray Henry’s were too busy quaffing bubbles to notice anything of substance. Was that not so?