Ignore the Haters - Boom Supersonic CAN Succeed
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/cobyexplanes
Purchase shares in masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. How Masterworks works:
- Create your account with your traditional bank account
- Pick major works of art to invest in or our new blue-chip diversified art portfolio
- Invest, hold shares in works or trade them in our secondary marketplace
See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/about/dis...
Support me on Patreon: / cobyexplanes
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@PlanesWeekly
Chapters:
Intro - 0:00
Boom’s Mission - 1:05
Boom’s Challenge - 2:10
How Boom Can Succeed - 3:44
Range Issues - 6:51
Performance Issues - 7:58
Boom’s Odd Positioning - 10:07
Outro - 11:18
________________________________________________________________________
A few months ago, Boom Supersonic got some bad news. Rolls Royce - its primary engine partner - announced they were ending their partnership. The company will no longer provide engines for Boom’s supersonic jet.
And the press went bananas. Even though there are other engine options out there, the news played into a longstanding narrative that Boom is in over its head and is doomed to fail. But today, I’m here to tell you the skeptics are wrong. Despite the very real challenges the company faces - Boom is actually extremely well positioned to succeed...It’s just not in the way that you might think. Let me explain…
#Boom #Concorde #Gulfstream - Auta a dopravní prostředky
WHOA! Knew this video would be controversial, but didn't realize just how much. So, let me address a couple of counter-arguments people have been making:
#1, It's true that sonic booms are a huge inhibitor to the program's success. They create a ton of noise, and Concord was banned from flying over land as a result. However, Boom *claims* they have proprietary technology to limit sonic booms which would negate this. Playing devils advocate here, I'm assuming they are good for their word and actually have that technology matured and ready to go (though it should be noted they haven't actually demonstrated said technology yet. We'll see how that plays out).
#2: This analysis is build under the assumption that Boom can sort out the engine issues - it looks solely at the business case in they event they can bring a plane to market, not whether or not they can actually find a new supplier. However, since so many are bringing it up, perhaps I should have mentioned that this remains a challenge for boom. If they aren't able to find a new supplier, the plane is most certainly grounded.
Right now, alternative suppliers like GE and Safran have made it clear they won't supply Boom with engines. However, both have previously evaluated supersonic derivatives of the popular CFM-56, so engine development would be much cheaper should they change their mind. One reason I think they *could* change their mind is due to the US government's involvement in the project. I neglected to mention is that the US Air Force has awarded a contract to Boom (albeit a modest one) to build them military variants of Overture. If the Air Force truly sees promise in Overture, they could award a similar contract GE to support Boom.
All in all, I tried to stay away from all this excess detail in order to make the video more digestible, but perhaps that wasn't the way to go? You guys let me know if you want me to get into all this nitty gritty in the future - if so, perhaps it warrants starting a podcast. Let me know if that's something you'd be interested in.
But either way - like I mentioned at the end of the video - there are HUGE hurdles in bringing this jet to market. But my ultimate point is that - should they succeed in overcoming these challenges - they won't struggle to sell the jet. Hope that helps clear some stuff up ◡̈
this is good clarification, thanks
No, Boom is not addressing the sonic boom mitigation problem, their entire business case is based on a supposed demand for overseas flight. No way that makes for a feasible business jet.
Yes, you should've mentioned this. Your videos are incredibly detailed and smartly put together, but this one lacks that. I still don't believe this project will happen, but let's hope I'm wrong :)
yeah a podcast wud be fun
Thank you, Coby, for this follow-up note. I can understand your premise for this video - basically highlighting what are the use cases where Overture is perfectly positioned to carve a market for itself. However, the critical thinking behind every idea explored - which is found in your other video was missing.
Innovation is always welcome, but measure skepticism is the only way to ensure the innovation is going in the right direction. At the moment I feel Overture is risking leaning more towards Hyperloop than towards Shinkansen on the scale of effective solutions for transportation.
Doubters is probably a more accurate term than haters. I would love to see this plane come to fruition, but have serious doubts about that happening, even after viewing this very well-reasoned segment.
haters make a better youtube title in my opinion :)
Yeah a plane can't fly without engines. I was always more a pipedream than reality.
Yeah I wouldn’t say haters, majority of people who doubt it will see the light of day make valid points. Aside from the whole engine issue; it’s the bigger picture of a super sonic jet being able to produce a solid steady profit for a commercial airline. We all know how much ticket prices will be for one of these based on lower seat capacity for an international flight. This won’t be an everyday flight for your typical peasant passenger. They can say it won’t cost a lot to operate or maintain but you know it will in some way or form. Don’t get me wrong, it would be amazing to see a super sonic commercial jet in the skies again but it’s seems far fetched that one would last long even if it did
A plane like this will be popular in the beginning but I think people will see there is no real reason to spend probably double to triple to fly on it. Maybe business related workers needing to travel across sea in a timely manner but even that has its drawbacks. Travel would fluctuate different times of the year based on work flow etc so it’s no guaranteed to be steady. Basic turbo fanned commercial planes are easy to fill seats in.
Exactly. The concept renderings are pretty, but let's see the actual aircraft. Build it, then we will see.
Same here. Also, I'd add that Concorde was absolutely massive compared to a business jet. A scaled down Overture would probably work better in the bizjet niche, but even so, it's a tough business case. Most bizjets go to corporates or leasing companies, not individuals. Though they don't work on the same model as airlines, they *do* still focus on economics in the sense of depreciation and risk management and an unknown manufacturer with a very left field product is still a risk - especially when that product can't fly over land and can't land at smaller / more central airports. It's just a non-starter.
This video did more to convince me that Boom will fail versus succeed. That short range, long runway requirement, and high cost cripples its utility.
This is a trophy plane. It’s a way to show how wealthy you truly are.
Of course only the ultra rich will buy it. All sorts of things are sold as pure status goods (and always have been - why do you think the pyramids were built?). I think the market is there for a trophy plane. There are several practical issues - range, supersonic boom, takeoff speed - that make it an impractical toy, but the killer one IMO that prevents it even being a trophy is the engine. You can make its exhaust velocity high enough to go supersonic, or you can make it low enough (via high bypass ratio) to meet airport noise limits. You can't do both. As RR told Boom.
@@kenoliver8913 Very good point, Concord had a specific exemption on noise limits, but this is unlikely to be afforded to a new plane. Such exemption would be especially controversial if it's seen as a trophy toy for the super-rich. It's hard to imagine today just how loud Concord was - I recall from the late 90s it actually making my ears ring when it took off right over me from LHR as I was sat in traffic with the window down.
Concorde was attracting many ordinary people come the last yrs, not all the rich . You could, as part of a club or group, hire Concorde for 1000 mile trips around the Bay of Biscay. for instance, or the Artic Circle, with all the luxury food and drink etc, and experience Mach 2.2 B.A stated in 2002, that THERE Concorde Service, was earning them, 25% Net, of all their Earnings, and rising.
Why did they end the service ? because of a decades old legal agreement with Air France, that if one airline closed down their Concorde Service, the othe would too. A.F 's Concorde service, was in deep financial trouble, and they couldn't afford all the new safety measures and procedures.
@@MrDaiseymay Where did you find that agreement between BA and AF? I can't find any mention of that. I found that Airbus told the airlines that there would be expensive overhauls that needed to be done on the aircraft soon.
And I don't understand what you mean by 25% net of all their earnings or where you got that info.
And Concorde, overall, lost a ton of money. Britain and France basically wrote off everything they put into it. The Concorde is not a great example showing how Boom could succeed.
The biggest problem with this is that they won't be able to fly supersonic over land because of the noise. They weren't able to during concord and Boom is not looking to change that either. So this would be exclusively for over ocean travel which would limit the use for anyone not doing very regular trans oceanic flights. Maybe a few uber billionaire could justify and a few charter airline but I can't see that being enough to sustain a company. If they are going to succeed they need to sell to airlines that will fly these regularly.
The Siberian flight corridor is closed now, though. And that's the only long haul overland flight corridor that exists apart from perhaps North American East-West coast flights.
Actually, they are planning to decrease the noise. I believe that the the nose and wingtips are designed to fit inside of the "Mach Cone" which drastically decreases sound from a sonic boom, so that it sounds more like a car door slam. In fact this new type of design is pretty much why the company started up in the first place.
NASA is working on this with the QueSST. So the law may be changed, for a soft boom , at Mach 1.2 ~ 1.4.
@@williamlathan6932 Big fat maybe.
Yeah, I don’t see this being great for business jets. They more than likely won’t be able to land at smaller airports where most of your small business jets land at. If anything, it will be an inconvenience for them. Boom might sell a handful to some billionaires but then what? They’ll just be twiddling their thumbs. And it seems like Boom is more interested in the commercial airline market. There is just going to be so many obstacles for Boom to even break even if the plane sees the light of day
Strangely what Cody has failed to mention was in actuality, Boom can't find any engine manufacturers to develop them their engines. Not just Rolls Royce, but CFM, GE, Safran, P&W, and Honeywell all said they had no interest in supersonic aircraft. So the problem isn't the economies right now, it's getting the plane in the air.
Because making an engine with fast enough exhaust velocity to propel the plane at supersonic speeds and which also meets modern noise standards at takeoff is pretty well impossible. Because physics.
True - I didn't cover this explicitly which perhaps I should have. But Boom has a previous partnership with GE and Safran, who have developed supersonic iterations of the CFM-56, which is almost certainly what boom is eyeing as a replacement
@@kenoliver8913 I think they can. I think what it is is that the 737 max reminded the world that advances in technology always come at a cost. The next De Haviland Comet is always in the shadows. I feel like a lot of engineering companies are terrified of innovation.
Yup. Then there is the simple fact that developing such an engine, and the required technology, is going to take somewhere in the region of 6-8 years at the very least. The Overture is supposed, according to Boom, to be in service by 2029 and they have refused to accept that this deadline is no longer credible.
Then there is their single concept demonstrator. The XB1. It was originally due to be flying by 2018... then it was due to fly in 2020... Here we are at the butt end of 2022 and it has yet to fly despite their decision to skip fitting fly by wire because of the complexity of such a system and thus speed things up... If they are having such massive delays getting the simplified concept demonstrator off the ground, how on earth are they going to cope with sorting out the much larger and incredibly more complex full size Overture?
The lack of engines isn't, despite Boom's spin, a minor hiccup. It is a massive problem. Rolls Royce were not prepared to sink billions into developing the engines when there was no possible way they would recoup their investment and no other engine manufacturer is going to bankrupt themselves just so Boom can succeed. Therefore, Boom is stuffed unless they can raise the billions needed to design, test and build the engines themselves which would push the price of of each Overture up astronomically and lose them any hope of ever selling a single plane.
I am not going to get too deep into Booms various insane claims, such as $100 fares and flying exclusively on SAF. They are, to put it bluntly, total fantasy. The cost of SAF is about 3-4 times the cost of regular jet fuel. That is going to put the ticket price out of the reach of all but the richest passengers, blowing their "supersonic flight for all" ethos out of the water.
So far, all Boom have produced are some slick graphics and a concept demonstrator that has yet to fly an when it does will give very limited information as it no longer resembles the Overture since the new design was unveiled.
Building an economical supersonic transport has proven to be the biggest challenge in aviation. Big firms have tried and failed...
The chances of a start up coming onto the scene and cracking it, even WITH the support of a major engine manufacturer, was slim. Without an engine manufacturer? Not a chance.
Also, point of order, Rolls Royce were never in partnership with Boom. They undertook a contract to carry out a feasibility study as to whether it would be possible to develop the engines required by the Overture. Nothing more. At the end of the study they merely stated that they wouldn't be developing them.
The "partnership" rubbish came from Boom, who have developed a nasty habit of exaggeration in their claims.
@@cobyexplanes Not happening. Not enough sales to make it worthwhile.
It's wishful thinking Coby. Boom is only in business at the moment to raise money and pay salaries. Executives don't want to recognize that its dead, because the gravy train will end. It was a crap shot when they had an engine supplier. It's a total bust without them.
But they made an announcement last week in Greensboro, NC that BOOM will be building and supplying it's own jet engines! 🦧🫣🤔😬🤭🤠🛩
@@johnpoindexter6594 My high school metal shop is also going to make a jet engine.
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Multi angle Delta gull wing
• Empennage for area rule
• Waisted fuselage to comply with area rule
• 4 engines in under wing pods
• 65 to 80 passengers
• 201 feet length (same as Concorde)
• 106 feet wing span (greater than Concorde)
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Spain-based Aernnova, will design and supply the wings.
• Italian aerospace giant Leonardo, will design and build the fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri, also Spain-based, will design and develop Overture’s empennage.
• Other suppliers include, Florida Turbine Technologies, Safran Landing Systems, Eaton, Collins Aerospace, Flight Safety International, GE Additive, and StandardAero.
Florida Turbine Technologies (a division of the $1.88bn Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc.) will design, develop and test a bespoke engine that matches the unique requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help with the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and a variable-geometry exhaust nozzle, which will ensure low noise, especially on take off and landing. The propulsion system will be efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds.
11x-2023.08.24
2025 is one hell of an optimistic projection for the main plane itself
it will necer happen
that it is, especially since they don't have their demonstrator aircraft off the ground yet. They're quoting first delivery for 2029, I think its more likely we see first flight then
Facts!
especially as they have nothing more than an RC model now. The only way they will succeed or make money is by selling Airfix models
@@LongJohn97 And also their Merchandise. Boom is more of a merchandise company than an aerospace company at the moment. And it will probably continue to be that way for the foreseeable future.
If boom succeeds I’ll eat my hat
Deal.
I don’t think you need to start habitually wearing a hollowed-out cabbage on your head. I really don’t.
@@markiangooley 😂😂😂😂😂
@@markiangooley perhaps pork pie would be better.....?
But Coby, what about the supersonic booms? Supersonic aircraft aren’t able to fly over land because it’s very disruptive to population centers. I’m a train, choo choo
Excellent question, Coby Trains! Boom says they’re working on technology to significantly reduce sonic booms, which should earn them the ability to fly over population centers. Whether they’re able to pull it off and implement such technology is a question for Real Engineering
Only an issue > 767 mph. Still 200mph faster than your average jet over land.
@@glorfindel17 the issue is those trans-sonic speeds induce insane amounts of drag and create lots of airframe stress. So it’s not ideal to sit at those speeds.
@@cobyexplanes Yes they are working on this, so is NASA. But a massive plane going supersonic will always produce a significant boom.Maybe (and that is a big maybe) a reduced boom would be acceptable in the US where the center of the country is sparly populated (with the adequate lobying in congress), but it will never be over Europe, Japan and China.
And if they don't solve that (which I doubt is even possible), the plane is dead as a private jet.
Yeah I looked in the comments section looking for that, the sonic boom. Very unlikely they will fix that. I believe they can alleviate the problem so it will be better than the Concorde, but they will have to convince the regulators that it is acceptable.
I agree the Overture is a great toy for billionaires. But, I've heard every engine manufacturer has pulled out of supersonic development. So, without an engine they have nada.
The engine is really the key to this.
*_@coldham77_*
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (06 September 2023):
• The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected
• Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly
• Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine
• Virgin have now let their Overture options laps
• 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines
• Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications
• Boom awarded STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications
• Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule
• Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats
• Empennage
• Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods
• Seats, 65 to 80, all business class
• Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde)
• Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde)
• Height, 36 feet
• Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet
• Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification
• Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings.
• Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage.
• Safran Landing Systems,
• Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration
• Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration
• Flight Safety International,
• GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing)
• StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway.
16-2023.09.05
Salt Lake City is a very isolated example as one can't find an intermediate stopover point (to change aircraft) in every common Billionaire destination. Not to mention, the Overture is restricted to large runways, mostly found in International Airports. You'd have to factor in a 20 minute taxi in/out from apron to runway if they're operating out of JFK vs 5 minutes out of Teterboro Airport. With that in mind, you can't make up much of the lost time on short hops.
In addition to all of this, where will they get the approval to the permission to fly supersonic and cause sonic booms over residential areas? On a red-tape perspective, it's only feasible flying the Overture over a large body of water, much like the Concorde did in her flagship routes from Paris/London to NY.
i agree
*_@rohitb6_*
Overture will only fly Mach 0.94 over land, 10% to 20% faster than regional and long range airliners. It will fly Mach 1.7 over water.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, land, mixed land/water, and water routes will be viable and Boom and the airlines have identified 500 such routes, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde.
It's not clear at the moment what Overtures runway performance will be like. Concorde had a problem in this area, but the proposed Concorde B upgrade includes a redesigned, bigger wing with leading edge slats for better performance, including at low speeds. It is quite possible that Overture's wing, which is considerably bigger, would also be designed to improve runway performance. In addition, Overture has an empennage which should improve stability at low speeds. Overture is also lighter, but will still have 4x 135,000 pounds of thrust available for take off.
Boom and the airlines aim Overture at the 700 million business trips per year world wide. All 65 to 80 seats on Overture will be business class, almost certainly with internet.
Overture would be a real stretch as a private jet. For one thing it will be huge at 202 feet long. It will cost $200M as opposed to &80M for the top of the range Challenger 8000, and it will only have half of the Challenger's range. The ownership costs would be huge too.
The issue with boom is that their management staff (aside from their engineers) don’t have experience. Their CEO has never been in aerospace before which gives me pause
This is a good point
Last role he was in was a director of product, doesn’t seem like he’s been in a real leadership position
They were good at making powerpoints though to raise funding. The development was really not more than powerpoints.
Fair point
I’m sorry what? You’re telling me….Their CEO, who has no aerospace experience, decided to take on a supersonic project?! Why am I just learning this now 😵💫
What are the "other viable engine options"? It was mentioned early on in the video and then nothing.
Also: the use of private jets has become a controversial topic recently due to their environmental impact. Here in Europe there are even calls to ban or restrict them. The market for private jets may not have a good future.
This.
Maybe you don't even need a outright ban to kill the business case. Carbon tax is coming soon, and that alone might have make supersonic jet prohibitive due to its poor efficiency.
then add that Boom is a quadjet. All hell will break loose if a bunch of billionaires starts using quadjets for short hops.
@@giths19 good point. Also: it seems to me that using 4 engines makes this plane needlessly complex, needlessly expensive and needlessly fuel inefficient. In the market for regular airliners anything with more than 2 engines has been taken out of production by now.
Should have touched on this more - Safran / GE have been exploring a supersonic derivative of the CFM-56 which should be fairly easy to adapt to overture
I think the business jet idea is not a bad one, and it could certainly have merit. But you touched upon there being plenty of other engine options outside of Rolls Royce. What are they? Saffron? GE? If I'm not mistaken, MentorPilot did a video on this exact subject and showed that the engine options aren't really there now that RR is out of the picture. And unless they have an engine, this plane design is quite literally grounded.
GE has clearly said not interested. They got bigger issues than such a low volume program to waste the resources.
Even marketing as a business jet is a gamble. You’re still only going to have select buyers. Plane is still going to need special maintenance etc. I guess it comes down to who has the patience for it. They might sell a handful and go know where else with it. I think Boom seem more interested in the commercial airline industry anyways.
@@johniii8147 true. They would basically be developing it exclusively for Boom which may just as well take a budget that is many times the 250 million that was mentioned as the capital raised for the entire company Boom. Advanced engines like this don't come cheap.
@@johniii8147 exactly. A lot of the main engine makers have better things to do and worry about atm than some hit or miss project.
@@johniii8147 You're right. And this makes me wonder where that "plenty of other options" really is. Because I don't really see there being any...
That is most certainly not Jackson Hole, it's Avoriaz in France. I realize most people don't care about the accuracy of stock footage on CZcams, it's like a game figuring out what places are actually being shown for some of us. Anyway, I think many of the points presented here make sense and I wish the team at Boom all the best in their endeavors!
As that footage played I though "wow, that's surprisingly pretty for a US resort!", and went to double check it was real. The Aquariaz building sign gave it away. Of course it's the French alps.
There are three obvious issues; two apply to both commercial and private use, and one is specific to private.
1-Boom has to find a new engine partner who can be convinced that Rolls-Royce was wrong. GE, P&W, and CFM would need to see how it would make financial sense to develop an engine for one specific aircraft, and have it be profitable.
2-While Boom says they're working on technology to reduce sonic booms, it's the political hurdles that will be more difficult. There's still a strong belief that sonic booms over population centers are harmful. Boom would have to convince legislators to remove objections to overland flights, and then deal with years of legal battles as environmentalists try to stop them. And as difficult as getting America to allow supersonic flight overland, the EU will be much, much harder to convince.
3-Overture would only appeal to a small number of owners-the same ones that use airliners as business jets. And then, they'd have a plane that can't land anywhere but large airfields, and can't use it's party trick-going supersonic-over land. While it would make flying NYC-London or LA-Tokyo much faster, NYC-LA would take the same amount of time
GE and PW have already said no.
Those damn environmentalists ruin aviation, they are the worst
*_@arthuralford_*
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (06 September 2023):
• The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected
• Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly
• Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine
• Virgin have now let their Overture options laps
• 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines
• Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications
• Boom awarded STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications
• Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule
• Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats
• Empennage
• Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods
• Seats, 65 to 80, all business class
• Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde)
• Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde)
• Height, 36 feet
• Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet
• Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification
• Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings.
• Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage.
• Safran Landing Systems,
• Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration
• Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration
• Flight Safety International,
• GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing)
• StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway.
16-2023.09.05
Interesting take for sure. However, I’m really struggling to see a demand for such a plane. As well as inheriting all the flaws of the concorde, boom will have to figure out emissions sooner or later. The talk of electric commercial planes is complete vaporware. With current battery technology, we are MILES from having any clue of how to solve the energy storage. As for hydrogen, well, I am pretty certain that such a solution will be best fit for relatively fuel efficient planes, as energy density and overall storage still remains a concern. Boom have all odds against them unfortunately.
Technical side yes, but just add a few points on political side as well. EU will start their carbon tax on aviation soon. Chances are they'd be charged by a hefty amount, if they are allowed at all. I'm well aware that the country with largest Transatlantic demand (UK) is outside EU's cohesive rules, but your jet is basically useless if it just works in UK.
Battery tech IS here, but just for very short range passenger flights; think an hour or so long
Medium-haul, yep, hydrogen makes sense
Long-haul (9+ hours) jet fuel sequestered from the air at the airport would likely make most sense; net emissions are eliminated and it can be stored efficiently.
@@planefan082 You are contradicting yourself though. Battery tech clearly isn’t here if it isn’t suitable for commercial jets on traditional routes. Our main concern is energy density which is a problem still to be solved
@@hugos2475 I'm not. I'm saying density isn't good enough for MOST traditional routes yet, but is good enough for 1-2 hour flights on smaller aircraft (the ones that are already in production as battery-electric). Not good enough yet for anything longer, but batteries in 2022 are nevertheless often underestimated.
@@planefan082 Hydrogen doesn't make sense. The volumetric density of compressed hydrogen is awful and liquid hydrogen is completely impractical for commercial applications. Look at the trouble NASA had with the SLS, it was delayed for months because of fuel leaks. It's incredibly hard to handle cryogenic fuel, it could never be done for planes that have to fly every day.
And now we see Boom getting a deal with an engine manufacturer!
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (06 September 2023):
• The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected
• Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly
• Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine
• Virgin have now let their Overture options laps
• 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines
• Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications
• Boom awarded STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications
• Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule
• Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats
• Empennage
• Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods
• Seats, 65 to 80, all business class
• Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde)
• Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde)
• Height, 36 feet
• Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet
• Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification
• Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings.
• Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage.
• Safran Landing Systems,
• Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration
• Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration
• Flight Safety International,
• GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing)
• StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway.
16-2023.09.05
I’m surprised that you didn’t mention a company like NetJets in the discussion on private jets. I could totally see NetJets operating a few of these exclusively along long-haul routes, which makes it so the super-rich don’t have to buy their own Overture and can instead use NetJets’ for long-haul. This seems like a better use case than domestic flying, where the difference between Gulfstreams/Citations and Overture is less.
Would make absolutely zero sense for a private company to spend the billions required for such a tiny market.
But over land speed will be maxed out at MACH .95
@@johniii8147 Overture will fly Mach 0.94 over land, 20% to 10% faster than regional and long range airliners, and Mach 1.7 over water. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, including mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde.
Overture's unit price has been set at $200M, and all 65 to 80 seats will be business class. The payback would probably be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and a utilisation of 8 hours per day, NetJets would probably make a handsome profit running Overtures.
Thank you Coby for Explaneing--let Boom's Overture be born to succeed... Concorde was not only a supremely beautiful technological sculpture, but she was an inspirational, revolutionary piece of extreme technology given her birth era. Fly-by-wire, the Royce Olympus turbojets with their computer-controlled intake ramps... We are well overdue for going Boom!
Ever think the English and French government sponsored a military B- 1 style fixed wing passenger aircraft? .... Concorde flight 2306 to Tehran..... Nope!
@@rambultruesdell3412 like Coby, please ExPlane :-)
I may have missed it in the video but did you mention the sonic boom issue with travelling at supersonic over land? I always believed that was mainly why Concorde failed and only flew as far inland as New York.
It has a longer range so the plan is to also fly trans-pacific
Concord failed for a variety of reasons. Boom was just one of the reasons.
Another reason is that an american plane manufacturer was working on a supersonic plane too and lobyied the congress to prevent US airlines from flying Concordes, among other things.
@@Bb13190 That's not really how it worked out. In fact US Airlines were the largest source of options for the Concorde. The Boeing SST was already canceled by 1971 due to goverment funding pulled and as the bad economics of it became clear.
@@johniii8147 So why no US airline bought the concorde ?
I can't believe you missed the over land flying issue.
I'm not. I don't think you have missed his point as more a comedian/click baiter than actually knowing much about aviation. I find him amusing for entertainment, not an actual good source for aviation.
i dont think he missed it, since Boom claimed they'll fix the sonic boom, Cody's premise took that as gospel.
@@giths19 There is no real way to reduce it other than very modestly with some radical fuselage designs that wouldn't work for actually carrying passengers. Boom said a lot things not true to get investments. It all comes back to physics and the latest design looked remarkably like an updated Concord.
@@johniii8147 I 100% agree, there is no way to reduce it when the engine/ engine designs don't even exist.
@@johniii8147 lol ok john
My father works as a consultant for Boom and the company is going stronger than ever
*_@thatguyinchina2693_* Nice to hear. Everyone who has actually had any dealings with Overture, speak well of them.
I want Boom to work just like millions of others. Let’s do this 👍🏆💪🏼
I just want it to be a reality. I missed my chance to see the Concorde, and really want to see a supersonic jet!
I really hope Boom succeeds. The company I work for is the primary provider of computing and simulation resources for Boom, and we have a great working relationship with them. I'm excited to see what they accomplish in the next couple of years.
Nice presentation Coby. Just a few points:
• The number of seats on Overture will be between 65 and 80, all business class, so 72 would probably be a good figure to work with.
• Overture will create a sonic boom, probably as loud as Concorde, so it will not be allowed to fly Mach 1.7 over land in any country.
• Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just two Atlantic routes for Concorde.
• Although the sales literature for private jets claim some high speeds, the fact of the matter is their cruise speeds are Mach 0.85, if they need to get their published range.
As far as using Overture as a business jet goes, there are a few issues:
• Runway performance would preclude regional airports, as you pointed out
• The speed advantage over land routes would only be 10% to 20% (Mach 0.94)
• Overture is huge: 202 feet long, with a 106 foot wing span (B727-800 = 129.5 feet long) This would make it a real handful for a private owner.
• It's very expensive at $200M, compared to a Global Challenger 8000, for example, at $80M
• Its range is only half that of the Challenger
• Its fuel consumption would probably be x4 that of Challenger
• Its cost of ownership would be sky high, compared to a Challenger
What we REALLY need is supersonic trains choo choo
You forgot to mention that most countries still have airspace restrictions for supersonic flight even today. Environmental concerns aside, I don’t think BOOM have the power to influence entire nations to open their airspace just for some wealthy folks to cut their flight time by half. That is still the biggest hurdle to supersonic travel to this day.
The other supersonic competitors, (can't recall names off head) are trying to get regulatory approval for supersonic flight over land by proving the sonic boom noise was mitigated. However those plans bet on regulatory changes not just in one country but globally. Though boom isn't targeting that specific approach, the over ocean market also heavily limits where the jet can be used.
@@monkev1199 As I recall the other competitors you mentioned (Aerion) pulled out from the SST game despite their studies proving it was indeed possible to build designs with low sonic boom sounds. So far, only BOOM actually went so far into the testing stage (albeit with a much smaller plane to test the design concept), while the rest build off NASA's case study on slender and flat designs to delay the characteristic shockwave cone formation as much as possible.
A new supersonic plane is always exciting! whether it'll end up flying or not its always nice to see nee concepts being brought up overtime to see and change how overtime people can improve the design of it. Especially with the enourmous decrease travelling time with tickets not being so crazy expensive like the Concorde it just makes me consider about flying it if it ever does. Hope it can find new engines soon
Don't get too excited. Just not happening for the for foreseeable future. Aviation is all about efficiency at this point, not traveling faster.
@@johniii8147 👍🏻👊🏻👌🏻
@@johniii8147 Boom and the airlines are not aiming Overture at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately covered by the big companies like Boeing and Airbus. Instead they are targeting the 700 million long range business trips each year worldwide.
All seats on Overture will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and ticket prices will be similar to subsonic business class. Overture will fly 65 to 80 passengers over a range of 4,880 miles, at a speed of Mach 0.94 over land, and Mach 1.7 over water.
The JFK/LHR flight will cost $5,000 return. Subsonic airliners will do the trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours.
*_@sanitizedover_* Yes, it would be great to fly in Overture. Let's hope that Boom get it into service. You were wondering about the engine:
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Multi angle Delta gull wing
• Empennage for area rule
• Waisted fuselage to comply with area rule
• 4 engines in under wing pods
• 65 to 80 passengers
• 201 feet length (same as Concorde)
• 106 feet wing span (greater than Concorde)
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Spain-based Aernnova, will design and supply the wings.
• Italian aerospace giant Leonardo, will design and build the fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri, also Spain-based, will design and develop Overture’s empennage.
• Other suppliers include, Florida Turbine Technologies, Safran Landing Systems, Eaton, Collins Aerospace, Flight Safety International, GE Additive, and StandardAero.
Florida Turbine Technologies (a division of the $1.88bn Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc.) will design, develop and test a bespoke engine that matches the unique requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help with the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and a variable-geometry exhaust nozzle, which will ensure low noise, especially on take off and landing. The propulsion system will be efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds.
11x-2023.08.24
they just announced they'll have to develop their own engine... thats most likely the coffins nail to the project. Many people don't seem to understand just how extremely difficult it is to develop an up to date jet engine. Chengdu for example is still struggling with the J20s Turbojets even after 6 years of development and with enormous military budget. its very very development intensive to create a "new" engine.
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (06 September 2023):
• The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected
• Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly
• Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine
• Virgin have now let their Overture options laps
• 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines
• Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications
• Boom awarded STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications
• Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule
• Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats
• Empennage
• Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods
• Seats, 65 to 80, all business class
• Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde)
• Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde)
• Height, 36 feet
• Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet
• Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification
• Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings.
• Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage.
• Safran Landing Systems,
• Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration
• Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration
• Flight Safety International,
• GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing)
• StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway.
16-2023.09.05
The Overture sure is a pleasing sight on the eyes isnt it? Its a fantastic looking jet and i surely do hope to see this thing in the air in my lifetime , fly on it too of course !
*_@scottwilson6467_* Agree
Man, I wanted to be convinced, but you pushed me the other way. I just don't see how they get over all these hurdles. But you at least earned my sub with your honesty. :)
I sense that of a lot of people are going to make a lot of money during the development of Overture, and when it all falls apart, they will say "Oh well, we tried" and walk away with full wallets and an empty order book, with investors also walking away knowing full well this was a risky venture.
*_@SparkBerry_* That's a very cynical prediction. What is it based on?
@phonicwheel933 as someone in the aviation industry who has seen and read too much.
@@SparkBerry sounds like you have had some bad experiences.
This reminded me of Nikola few years ago
The hype and the optimisms.
At some point even Real Engineer got into the train.
Only for in a few month. It's revealed that everything are just scam
Boom & Nikola Motors are twins.
The time savings you mentioned in the corporate jet pitch won't happen because you can't go supersonic over land. The Overture would only cruise slightly faster than commercial aircraft at M 0.98 on transcontinental routes such as JFK-SFO and even Europe-Asia routes. You only see major time savings on long haul oceanic sectors such as LAX-HKG or LAX-SYD which it just doesn't have the range for without a VIP configuration.
Sure, billionaires may indeed want to buy a supersonic jet... assuming they can actually fly overland supersonically. Boom has still not shown that their supersonic boom would be small enough to let them fly supersonic over land. If they cannot fly supersonic overland, most of Elon Musk flights would have to be subsonic and there, the G700 has it beat.
But even if there were people who could and would buy them and they could fly supersonic over land, market studies always ignore the engineering difficulty.
Engines are key to this working. Engines are extremely expensive to design and unless you have: a huge market, government support, or a captive audience (military/government) no one will develop you one that works out of the goodness of their hearts.
No engine, no plane. Unless they can get a jet engine built for the military (it would be old...) in thousands of units, they are done.
You mentioned how there are "other options" for engine manufacturers, and then never went into any detail. It doesn't matter what market you think Overture would be successful in as long as there's no engine. No engine means no plane, and no supersonic flight. Every engine manufacturer is focused towards more efficient turbofan engines and curbing carbon emissions. General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, and many others have already said no to Boom. They don't want to pour resources and money into something that's the polar opposite of what they're currently doing, only to be served by a small niche like the ultra-rich who are already being criticised for their private jets. This is on top of all the problems Concorde experienced, like sonic booms over land.
This video doesn't need to exist. Honestly I'm pretty disappointed in you.
You are trying to convince people that Boom will be financially successful, but Boom needs to find a suitable engine first. I don't think there are haters among aviation enthusiasts. I mean why would someone hate a new aircraft unless he is the owner of a jet manufacturer? People just don't believe that Boom will overcome technical difficulties.
Agreed. It wasn't hate. If you know anything about the aviation business it just wasn't hard to see it probably wasn't going to work. Too many variables that couldn't be addressed. They company also had no experience in such things. Would have been more credible if more established players were proposing it. They were not.
Coby, i happen to know one of the founders. Making a supersonic private jet - this is exactly where the whole idea of Boom started. You just come around the same idea again and again
I would love to see this bird flying, but for now with no engines available at the short term, i doubt they will accomplish the schedule
Good point on who’s really gonna purchase this aircraft very well explained
I think you are right on target with the private jet concept. It might be feasible for them to design a smaller version for this market.
*_@mercerconsulting9728_* If Overture reaches volume production there could be all sorts of spin offs. A twin engine business jet may be one option, but it would be expensive and long, but the killer would be only half the range.
I am not convinced. Even those who have the money, which are a small minority, want a private jet that is versatile and can them from 'point a to point b' with the minimum of fuss. Unless Boom's Overture can purchased by airlines, the financial return on the development costs is not good, hence Rolls Royce pulling out of the project.
Might succeed, so many factors, including the sonic boom issue. One thing to point out. These ultra rich people flying in their private jets is not dead time. They are basically flying offices, so they can work, have meetings etc while they are flying. I think the fact that business people can work and get so much done while flying now also makes supersonic travel less important than during Concorde's hayday.
There was also the tiny problem of the almost constant sonic boom blanketing everything you fly over at Mach + speed . Meaning they would probably ban Mach + flight overland .
Maybe, but people shoudn't complain about the sound of the sonic boom, it's cool, like being at a air show.
Overture will fly Mach 0.94 over land and Mach 1.7 over water. Boom have never said that Overture would fly supersonic over land. The big advantage over Concorde is that Overture will be fuel economic at both speeds, thereby making flight over land, mixed land/water, and water viable. Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Also Symphony will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations enabling it to use most airports, without triggering protests.
I'm thankful for this channel. Finally an American channel that provides us true news instead of the hateful Australian and European Channels
I think what I noticed missing from this discussion. Boom has failed to find a company willing to design an engine for them rolls royce recently declined to do so. Due to the characteristics of there aircraft, this is no trivial issue.. I would see this as the true hurdle they have to overcome.
Well it's never a trivial issue of an airplane with no engine. They don't really have any credibility left at this point.
@@johniii8147 well, that's where you're a little off the mark. Typically commercial designs are never without engine options.. the 737 has had something like 3 Different engines now. They last minute swapped cfm56 in on the Airbus a350. This is actually a unique case because they want a mixed (?) bypass supersonic engine. No such commercial engine exist, there are no viable substitutes either. A low bypass engine will consume too much fuel and a high bypass is too slow. This is a rare case, because there is no engine in existence even remotely suitable for the task and so far no firm willing to design it.
@@notsam498 That is not correct anymore. Outdated concept. The 737 has always had only one available engine option based on the generation of the aircraft. They started with PW for the first generation and moved on to CFM in later generations. Airlines didn't have an option on engine choice. And in today's world, only the 787 and 320 is their dual options for in production aircraft. All the rest there is no choice. Modern engines are simply too expensive to produce and develop for their to be an option unless it's very high volume aircraft. Other than the mentioned aircraft, engine choice isn't an option.
@@johniii8147 you are talking past me... I'm saying they refitted different engines three times.
Why is it there is always someone like you in a hurry to argue and be right about everything? If you read what I wrote I never said any planes had different selections of engine options. I was writing from the stand point of the manufacturer...... Maybe you should ask questions if you aren't clear, or read twice. Could you mansplain this a little more you think?
On top of that you are missing my point, there are next to no superSonic capable commercial (non military) engines.... If no one wants to design it, the plane is vaporware.
This is an EXTREMELY optimistic video. I think you're too much of a supersonic flight fan to see all the flaws mounting up against it
I feel like CZcamsrs are more well educated than new reporters because the amount of research they do + internet is unbeatable
Awesome video, I didn't even think of it from a private jet perspective. I think they will succeed, we have far better tech nowadays and we know how to fly supersonic. They're now building the engines in house and have specialists in supersonic engines as contractors who built existing engines. I always look at Concorde, it's the range that killed it. Concorde model C (there were 17 Concorde built) 18 was going to be revamped. Adjustable leading edge on the wing to increase lift a takeoff, slightly bigger fuel tanks and engines without afterburners, which would have been MUCH more fuel efficient and much greater range. That plane would have been a lot more successful than Concorde we all know, our tech now is much better and we need a change from the boring sub-sonic airlines!
A plane without an engine..... Yeah, that will work.
If they were to switch their focus to the private jet market they could make a smaller variant which would have better range and shorter runway requirements. I’m sure there are billionaires out there that are also av geeks and would love to fly everywhere supersonic. Hopefully there’s enough to make boom survive
Yeah, maybe
Too small a market to waste the investment capital on that are huge. Another company already tried that and went under quick.
Coby's entire premise rests on the idea that time in the air is time wasted. That is no longer true.
Technical and profitability issues aside… does anyone else find it super depressing that the return to passenger supersonic flight will most likely be just another toy for the ultra rich? As a lifelong avgeek who was in kindergarten when Concorde retired, I do.
And Rolls Royce's replacement as engine provider for such a limited production run is....?
None at this point.
None and it is hard to see who would be willing to take up that job. Developing an engine for a supersonic jetliner that has to be able to fly supersonic for longer periods of time is in completely different league than developing an engine for a regular subsonic jet. The Rolls Royce Olympus 593 that powered the Concorde is still totally unique in its performance profile. Not sure who would be able to replicate that.
Fuel consomption ? Noise ? Maintenance cost ? CO2 emission ? Aviation must do better in those areas, not sure a supersonic plane is a solution ...
rn there are electric planes that airlines are buying rn so the fuel & co 2 emissions are being dealt with
@@awesomeman116a Electric planes aren't good for commercial flight because batteries are too heavy. While it's a good solution for cars, airplanes will need a different power source like hydrogen power or biofuels.
Fuel consumption will be 1/4 that of Concorde, as Overture will use supercruise engines (which also cuts CO2 emmissions). Supersonic Boom noise cancellation is also one of the big design aspects of the Overture (Look into NASA's QuietSpike, it has to do with Mach Cones). I am not sure about maintenance, though, that could potentially be a stumbling point...
@@awesomeman116a airbus are already working on hydrogen powered planes and will b coming in the following years
@@top10cars2
That's true but the electric planes rn seem to be okay, and are more for remote places where there aren't as good road infrastructure and stuff
Boom still haven't flown their XB-1. Based around their original 3 engine overture design. Even though they have spent, what, $250M and many years promising to do so. Then this year they come out with a "new" 4 engine design while also anouncing no engine supplier. The business case is the last of their issues. However, as someone who saw the original Concorde when it flew to Sydney in the '70s, I truly would like to see a new supersonic passenger aircraft, before I kick the bucket.
The reason why the Boeing 2707 was an insane 2.7mach, 300 passenger plane was because Boeing basically determined only such speeds and passenger capacity would make the SST economically viable and so I think people are right to be skeptical of boom
*Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?*
*_Introduction_*
Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever.
*_Aviation_*
Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world.
*_Technology_*
Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft.
*_Flight_*
Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles.
*_Airframe_*
Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known.
*_Engines_*
Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise.
*_Costing_*
Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation.
*_Operation_*
Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests.
*_Ticket Cost_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 value
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
^^^^ $5,000 return
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours.
*_Market_*
Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes.
*_Conclusion_*
Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST.
_22-2023.09.04_
I'm not a hater of the idea, however, I don't share your theory about the 'Elons' of the world liking the idea of having to stand in line and go through the security queue. I think having a private jet on call is the preferred method of travel for them; It offers flexibility, some level of privacy as well as security. They can easily conduct business from 41K feet with the advent of today's technology, so those 90+ hrs aren't wasted. I definitely agree that Boom has a lot of hurdles to overcome. I suspect we won't see a Boom aircraft, certified for flight, until the beginning of the 2030s. The question is...will they run out of money before that. Love the channel and content. Happy holidays!
So... supersonic private jets that spend 4 times as much fuel, with fewer passengers and have a limited choice of airports.
They can't promote this plane as a private jet because they would expose them to the wrath of the greens
They don't have an engine partner, they don't have the numbers for commercial service, and the private jet business case would be a PR nightmare.
The private jet company proposing it already shut down.
Great video!
As cool as a new supersonic airliner is, I just don't think it's a good idea. Especially in this age of being climate conscious.
It’ll never fly.
Keep saying that to yourself,
I mean Concorde did have the best service of any airplane in the world, the so called "Concorde Experience" started when you entered the airport and you would head for the Concorde lounge.
Then on the plane you get a multiple course meal made by the finest restaurants in the US and UK and free flowing champagne and wine from France.
And you get to arrive in your destination in less then 3 hour's meaning you can save alot of time and don't need to spend a night in New York or London, but you could just fly home.
True and you certainly payed for it. Mostly wealthy business people used it. But there is a reason there hasn't been another supersonic passenger plane since.
Coby, you just made me more confident in my doubt Boom will succeed.
This is a great idea you have for Boom as a private jet. Thank you! One valid concern is the required runway length. Wikipedia for the Boom Overture says the balanced field length is 10,000 ft. That's how long the runway has to be, in the case of a single engine failure on takeoff. There are 189 airports in the USA with 10,000ft+ runways. The challenge will be the engines. If GE/CFM hadn't declined they might have been an excellent partner, owing to the supersonic engine, "Affinity", that they were developing for the Aerion AS2. The 15,000-20,000lbf requirement is doable, but getting a medium bypass (3-4:1 bypass ratio) that works suersonic and is reliable is the biggest problem. I could not find any medium-bypass turbofans that provide that level of thrust. Rolls Royce has one that is close in their existing BR725, which yields 16,900lbf and a 4.21:1 bypass ratio. Rolls may not be interested in developing a NEW engine for the Overture, but perhaps could be persuaded to sell off-the-shelf BR725s. If those are suitable at least to get some initial runs of the plane sold, and demand is high enough, maybe they could offer mods or finally develop the initially-requested engine.
_@antonnym214_ Not sure about the relevance of the Wikipedia balanced field requirement since the Overture redesign in mid 2022. But all the same, if 189 US airports can handle 10,000 feet that should be OK for Boom and the airline's business plan.
Overture is not targeted at the private jet market or the main line economy market. Instead they are aiming at the 700 million business trips that are made worldwide each year.
*_@antonnym214_* You said: *_This is a great idea you have for Boom as a private jet. Thank you! One valid concern is the required runway length._*
Unfortunately there are a few other areas too:
• Overture is huge: 202 feet long with a 106 foot wing span (B727-800 = 129.5 feet long).
• It's very expensive at $200M, compared to a Global Challenger 8000, for example, at $80M
• Its range is only half that of the Challenger
• Its fuel consumption would probably be x4 that of the Challenger
• Its cost of ownership would be high.
im so convinced that you know that these companies dont know this but you just tell them how in form of a youtube video
RR also bailed because their main contractor, Airbus, is working with another start up to make an SST. But some of this argument is moot if the aircraft isn't a quiet SST, and I don't think Boom was supposed to do that. That being said, if the aircraft can fly trans sonic then it should be fine for overland trips. But I hope they succeed. The reality is that designing an SST isn't much harder than designing a sub sonic airline today, especially with composites and computers. There main problem will be those engines and certifying it for flight above 50,000'. But I seriously hope they can pull it off.
Beautiful Overture look very gorgeous!
I truly hope this gets off the ground. It would very much be a prestige aircraft for the mainline carriers and I agree there is a great potential in the private market. That's the key item though: potential. It still remains to be see if potential will become product.
Enjoyed the video
While I agree that the private jet market is booming, I'm imagining that the price point for the Overture, unless it's downsized in price and size to something closer to a G700, puts it out of range for the bulk of the customers in this 'booming private jet market'. I think that Boom is targeting airlines, not because they're trusted and respected companies that will help build Boom's credibility, but because they're the only viable customer for the price point and sales volume that is needed for Boom to stay in business. The going rate for top tier private jets is ~$70M (i.e. G650ER, G700, Boeing Business Jet). They've sold around 500 G650's and over 250 BBJ's. Any of those sales figures would be good for Boom, I'd expect. But how many of those 750 customers can afford the estimated $200M for an Overture? Not many, I suspect, or at least quite a bit fewer. There are just more sales possible with airlines than there are uber rich clients who are able to buy an Overture.
@mauricedelarosa6083 Agree
It lacks one thing ONE THING. It needs moveable sweep wings like a fighter jet. This will give it better T/O and Landing performance which means that it will be more accessible and can fly just short of mach 1 which means that it can fly over land.
We will see if they can find engines, and I know they implemented design elements that would reduce the noise of the sonic boom, but how quiet it ends being and how tolerant the public will be, is something that we really won't know until a prototype runs test flights over populated areas. I really do hope that they pull it off as it is a really fascinating concept.
n July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Multi angle Delta gull wing
• Empennage for area rule
• Waisted fuselage to comply with area rule
• 4 engines in under wing pods
• 65 to 80 passengers
• 201 feet length (same as Concorde)
• 106 feet wing span (greater than Concorde)
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Spain-based Aernnova, will design and supply the wings.
• Italian aerospace giant Leonardo, will design and build the fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri, also Spain-based, will design and develop Overture’s empennage.
• Other suppliers include, Florida Turbine Technologies, Safran Landing Systems, Eaton, Collins Aerospace, Flight Safety International, GE Additive, and StandardAero.
Florida Turbine Technologies (a division of the $1.88bn Kratos Defence and Security Solutions Inc.) will design, develop and test a bespoke engine that matches the unique requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help with the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and a variable-geometry exhaust nozzle, which will ensure low noise, especially on take off and landing. The propulsion system will be efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds.
11x-2023.08.24
Interesting video. Against the time savings, I would argue that nowadays you can use the time while flying productively and thus rich people fly less but have to do more of their work on the ground.
Does the Jackson Hole example work if supersonic flight over land is prohibited?
One thing you are actually spot on is that YOU ARE NOT AN ENGINEER.
How a company with less than 300 employees would be able to roll out ANY commercial FAA-certified airborne vehicle is a huge mystery.
If we look at the F35, it has an engine in the front and back, we can kind of take the same concept and use the 2 engines out of the 4 where it can do 60 degree bend to help the plane land or we can use all 4 engines with a vertical design Mechanism so the engines can face 90 degrees down so it can slow down before getting close to its Destination and not to worry about the run way that much
If private travel were really the best use case for Boom the company itself would market the plane this way.
this is a woderful video. i am old and have learned me something new today. :-)
I believe the boom overture will make it because of super cruise. It will probably have afterburner but they wouldn't bother trying to optimize on afterburner and instead optimize super cruise ability.
They’re not haters they have serious concerns. I’d call them doubters.
I may be lying if I said that this program would be concidered. There are many areas that bring the costs of this through the roof. After the effect that a suitable engine could not be found. The same kind of problems happened to Boeing with the 2707. With many cancelled orders of the Concorde, the British, and the French made a potentially gutsy decision to develop the airplane only through two airlines. The program encountered a lot of testing to make it legit. Only 16 were built, but they transitioned air travel at a "new" level: high-speed. The Boom Overture didn't mark the realization to make that a reality because it was a complicated program. We are fine with regularly designed airplanes for now, but if something interesting like the Overture comes into view, then we'll see how it surfaces.
There has been many good designs that date back to the 70s and 80s. Once people get a taste for supersonic travel they'll want more.
Even if this does succeed nothing beats the classic iconic Concorde
Concorde was only supposed to be a bridge to suborbital/semiballstic flights that get you anywhere in 45 minutes that we should have had 20 years ago. Boom could be planning to leapfrog from replacing the Concorde to going for suborbital craft for the private market or restore Concorde-speed service to transoceanic routes while developing suborbital.
If i'm not wrong, overture is 2nd model compared to 1st(10:58)? 1st they should bring supersonic with size of current private jets and then leave it for private service, then they should enter it for public with same private jet size (they can pull business class people for same price but in return they save time.) then they should launch the bigger one.
Personal opinion: The world is already feels faster, because of these people who travel faster they expect the below people to work faster. people are not machine's though?
Boom Supersonic progress is done and cannot be reversed into failure the doubts is really due to its cost efficiency and adaptation towards the market.
*Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?*
*_Introduction_*
Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever.
*_Aviation_*
Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world.
*_Technology_*
Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft.
*_Flight_*
Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles.
*_Airframe_*
Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known.
*_Engines_*
Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise.
*_Costing_*
Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation.
*_Operation_*
Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests.
*_Ticket Cost_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 value
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
^^^^ $5,000 return
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours.
*_Market_*
Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes.
*_Conclusion_*
Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST.
_22-2023.09.04_
I feel like no matter how comfortable the flight is and how airlines what to go about it, there’s always gonna be demand for quicker air travel.
Agree
Would love to see this fly, maybe one day it will. But realistically there’s so much going against it it’s highly unlikely unfortunately.
I agree with you.
Hello, I have two questions:
What does BBJ mean
Why did United order the overture
Thank you
There is another option. Instead of attempting to partner up with airlines, or marketing only as a private jet, they could start their own airline flying the more popular business routes e.g. New York to London and similar. The only question I have to ask you though is in your video you showed Boom Supersonic flying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. I wasn't aware that the speed limit for flying over the continental US had been lifted? This is what previously prevented Concorde from doing much other than flights between London/Paris and New York because it was over the ocean when it was going supersonic. If that restriction has been ended then your case as private jet use could be the strongest option. If not then I think they are most likely to pitch to the major airlines or alternatively to start their own airline if they can get slots in places like JFF, CDG, Schiphol, and Heathrow.
Never watched the video to the end, but here's my biggest thought on the recent "they're dead in the water" thing.
The story about the major engine manufacturers proclaiming their break with/non-involvement in Boom came *right* after Boom posted their major, "final" aircraft redesign. It affected lots of things, but the primary and most noticeable difference for me was their adoption of four smaller engines rather than the three tail-mounted ones. It was kind of a blow to me, I might add, as I had always thought the trijet design was the most beautiful way a supersonic jet could have possibly come out.
Here's the question: Why are we assuming that Boom and us learned of the engine manufacturers' lack of involvement at the same time? The issue of having a viable engine was raised by both actual and armchair aircraft experts ever since the project was in its infancy. I can buy Boom not being razor-sharp, but does anybody here really believe they were dumb enough not to foresee the possibility of engine choice trouble? The timeline as I see it is as follows: 1) Rolls finishes up their engine consultancy with Boom, and decides against a further partnership. 2) Boom asks around for an engine from other manufacturers; They don't find much. Now, the important part.
3) Boom announces the redesign, featuring four engines that would likely cost less to develop out of existing designs; said 'existing designs' could be literally anything out of established manufacturers' military catalogue, minus afterburner and plus some extra bypass; in fact, the Eurofighter engine fits Boom's power requirement pretty well, producing 13klbs of thrust dry currently versus the 15-20klbs Boom needs. Before actual propulsion specialists get on my ass about this, yes, I am aware that it's not that simple and the development costs would still likely be exorbitant.
Here's the deal. Boom is currently running behind schedule on its little XB-1 demonstrator aircraft, and are concurrently building - with the capital that they do have - the supposed facility in which the full-scale airliners are to be built. The demonstrator's flight is drawing near, despite delays, as most of the ground test program is complete. My belief is that Boom, which up to this point has had little to showcase save for a workshop in which they build shit and a bunch of blog posts, hopes that physically throwing that airplane in the sky and breaking the sound barrier with it will generate enough murmurs that they can ask around for an engine again - this time, with the appealing proposition of only needing a *modestly* re-engineered jet, not a medium-bypass technological tour de force. This is probably when they'll cave on SAF or something, since I'm pretty sure even Scholl realizes that he'll never please the greens. Boom is also likely hoping for one of its sponsor airlines that "promised" they would buy aircraft to inject them with extra cash, either as an investment or as a straight up order, as a result of the test flight and the factory completion. One move that may be suboptimal for Boom's idealists but makes the whole prospect more realistic would be getting bought out by a company that wants the expertise. Maybe Airbus, isn't that ironic?
In the end, Boom hopes to deliver a seriously flawed and compromised, but nonetheless First Class ticket cost-viable aircraft that will shake up the transatlantic and transpacific flight scene. They have admitted to such in the past. This will be the 'first generation', one vastly more capable than something like a Concorde, but still limited and relegated to maybe several dozen overpriced deliveries - including ones they might make to the USAF. This will perhaps leave Boom depleted, but also as the only company in the world with the expertise and experience to readily develop another SST once NASA's low boom research comes through and their ability to actually get decent engines is secured. Or they might just fail in the next couple months, who the fuck knows. Thanks, COVID.
how can you have time for writing such an extensive and elaborate reply, but not for watching the video? did you have it arranged for a different purpose from before?
@@throwbacknba8259 I'm an Aerospace student. I wrote that because the topic interests me. That's about it.
Unfortunately no matter how many positives, or issues overcome there are, it only requires a single unresolved reason to ensure failure.
Until the propulsion 'reason' is resolved, everything else is rather acedemic.
Interestingly, Concorde used the older technology turbojets rather than a turbofan, as the additional efficiency of the fans of that time was more than negated by the extra drag resulting from their increased frontal area.
Could this be a reason for looking at a CFM56 based solution rather than, for example, one based on the larger LEAP?
The benefits of this for politicians and diplomats on foreign tours would also be hugely helpful.
I would love to see this succes, but I don’t believe it will be in the private sector. The immense cost of buying and running this plane, and needing another plane for when your not able to fly to the right airport is a big hurdle. There must come a smaller plane which is more convenient for that.
But supersonic flight could have some commercial viability I think, although the trend will be towards more slower and cost efficient planes. But this also could create a niche for this company to succeed.
*_@bakkerarjen_* Agree!
*Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?*
*_Introduction_*
Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever.
*_Aviation_*
Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world.
*_Technology_*
Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft.
*_Flight_*
Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles.
*_Airframe_*
Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known.
*_Engines_*
Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise.
*_Costing_*
Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation.
*_Operation_*
Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests.
*_Ticket Cost_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 value
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
^^^^ $5,000 return
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours.
*_Market_*
Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes.
*_Conclusion_*
Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST.
_22-2023.09.04_
The Boom factory is going up right now at PTI in Greensboro
This is the manufacturing home base of HondaJet also
I haven't read all the comments but the biggest engineering hurdle in putting together efficient supersonic engine systems is the intake design. It takes the resources of a very large corporation with armies of engineers and a broad range of test facilities to create a design for a new supersonic aircraft, especially one that plans on having any super-cruise fuel efficiency whatsoever. The Concorde for example, gets a vast majority of it's thrust at cruise speed from the intake geometry interacting with and compressing the supersonic airstream with the help of carefully manipulated shockwaves in the intake. I think the number was 63%. That's thrust coming from the intake system alone, before adding the tiny amount contributed by the engine exhaust(8%) and the remainder by the exhaust nozzle system(29%). Only a global powerhouse could create such a unique system for a unique aircraft and only if the return on investment was all but guaranteed. Unless Boom has addressed this need for efficiency at cruise speed, accomplished by extraordinary engineering achievements in supersonic intake design, there is almost zero chance of a supersonic aircraft that can cruise for long periods. There are some great text book graphics showing the intake shockwaves being modeled in computers as well as some photography from wind tunnel testing.
Unfortunately you can't just put enough thrust on the plane to reach supersonic speeds and call it a day. There has to be a carefully thought out and engineered engine system much more complex than the engine itself.
Best of luck to them but between the lack of demonstrator aircraft with nearly silent booms, permitting them to operate over land, and the lack of a major engine partner with supersonic turboramjet design experience, the chances still seem slender.
The SR-71 is another example where the engine system creates more thrust in the intake structure than from engine exhaust in supersonic cruise. Until recently, I couldn't understand where this force was coming from but I can respond with more details passed on to me if anyone is interested.
Cheers!