Concorde successor ?

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

1 minute ago, ThrottleUp said:

The fat tubes do between 850-960 km/h in the cruise (still air speed). This thing will clip along at 1,800km/h.

Tokyo-Seattle for example.

• Fat tube = 8hr 30min
• Overture = 4hr 30min

More examples on their site: https://boomsupersonic.com

 

Yes, it supposedly will do m1.7, but my speed references were in relation to overland flights (ie. Europe to Asia). 

[JRBarrett 3,076]

2 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

 

Yes, it does make sense going supersonic over water on several routes, but for example going from UK to Asia would mean flying over continental landmasses and that would prevent going supersonic. 

 

Since United will be the launch customer, they would not be able to offer UK to Asia routes in any case. It appears it will have enough range to fly from the US west coast to Asia, which Concorde could not have done even if Cabotage regulations had permitted it.

It certainly appears to have a similar form factor to Concorde but with two engines vs. four. I assume the engine inlets will use variable ramps to control the position of the supersonic shockwave in the inlet as Concorde did, but controlled by much faster and more sophisticated computers. It might well use fuel transfer to shift the CG aft for supersonic flight as did Concorde - but all automatically controlled via computer rather than requiring a dedicated flight engineer.

Concorde needed to use afterburners (reheat) for takeoff, and to accelerate from subsonic to Mach cruise - those are extremely noisy, polluting and fuel inefficient. I assume the new RR engines will not require reheat.

It’s a case of “I’ll believe it when I see it”. No doubt United has imposed development goals in their contract that will have to be met by Boom on a particular schedule, giving United an out to pull support from the project if it turns into a money pit.

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Yes, it will be interesting to see how modern technology meet the design requirements of a modern day supersonic jetliner. Ie, as you say, the Boom version will not have afterburners. Will it use an intricate fuel system to  shift the CG as it goes faster and higher? Also, the Concorde has a special trolley system for the floor since the fuselage increased quite a lot because of the heat on the skin while it was flying supersonic. The trolly would expand the floorboard to accommodate this. Will it be needed for the Boom?

[ThrottleUp 617]

6 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Yes, it supposedly will do m1.7, but my speed references were in relation to overland flights (ie. Europe to Asia). 

Oh I see what you mean now 🙂. You are addressing potential issues where they might not allow it to go supersonic over land. This could be a deal breaker but then again money talks and many flights have to overfly the vast lands of Russia to get to Asia. They already make billions from overflight and ATC fees , they will just charge extra for Booms and let them go supersonic!

[Amon1973 1,421]

4 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

Since United will be the launch customer, they would not be able to offer UK to Asia routes in any case. It appears it will have enough range to fly from the US west coast to Asia, which Concorde could not have done even if Cabotage regulations had permitted it.

It certainly appears to have a similar form factor to Concorde but with two engines vs. four. I assume the engine inlets will use variable ramps to control the position of the supersonic shockwave in the inlet as Concorde did, but controlled by much faster and more sophisticated computers. It might well use fuel transfer to shift the CG aft for supersonic flight as did Concorde - but all automatically controlled via computer rather than requiring a dedicated flight engineer.

Concorde needed to use afterburners (reheat) for takeoff, and to accelerate from subsonic to Mach cruise - those are extremely noisy, polluting and fuel inefficient. I assume the new RR engines will not require reheat.

It’s a case of “I’ll believe it when I see it”. No doubt United has imposed development goals in their contract that will have to be met by Boom on a particular schedule, giving United an out to pull support from the project if it turns into a money pit.

It actually has three engines.

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

As far as I've come to understand from some related youtube videos, NASA is in the process of testing out kit that will significantly reduce the sound of the boom equal to the sound of a car door being shut. Instead of one single boom, there will be two "thuds". Boom's Overture will not implement that technology in it's build, so their plane will be stuck within the boundries of today's regulation. Meaning no overland supersonic flights. 

And yes, I agree that it doesnt make much sense for United to fly from EU to Asia, and that it makes much more sense for them to fly from the USA west coast to Asia instead. However, there are other countries and carriers in the world that probably would have been interested if it had not been for the limitations. 

[aniiran 431]

The XB-1 demonstrator has been built since Oct 2020 but I haven't heard anything for almost a year.  No taxi taxi tests, no date for first flight. Kind of strange.  

 

 

 

 

[F1Fan 121]

Nice presentation video on the site.  Did I hear correctly?....$100 to fly in this Rocket?   Humm....ok! 😉

[F1Fan 121]

Duplicate post

Edited June 6, 2021 by F1Fan

[JRBarrett 3,076]

3 hours ago, eaim said:

It actually has three engines.

So it does! Didn’t initially view the presentation on the Boom website, but went back to give it a second look.

[eslader 1,783]

9 hours ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

Yes, it supposedly will do m1.7, but my speed references were in relation to overland flights (ie. Europe to Asia). 

Airlines didn't buy the 747 to fly from Chicago to Milwaukee, yet the 747 was a success nonetheless because there were applications where it made sense. 

There are an awful lot of people flying across the ocean every day, and some of them have enough cash that whatever the price bump would be for a supersonic flight would be worth it. 

From Miami to Paris is about 9 hours, almost all of which is over open water. You cut that down to 4.5 hours and you'll have a lot of people interested in upgrading to the fast option.

 

 

 

[109Sqn 1,564]

13 hours ago, Chock said:

Of course they can't change the laws of physics

A wise man once said that.

 

The element of this story I'm most sceptical about is the 2026 first flight. Seems way too optimistic. Immediately reminded me of easyjet's announcement of the Ecojet in 2007 (coincidentally referencing Star Trek!).. Totally different (indeed, diametrically different) concept of course, but similarly optimistic IMO.

[109Sqn 1,564]

Delete.

Edited June 7, 2021 by 109Sqn
Duplicate post

[Pilot53 544]

7 hours ago, eaim said:

It actually has three engines.

The Trijets are back!

[Christopher Low 5,354]

God knows we need a new generation of supersonic airliners in the skies. What is the alternative? Boring 8 hour plus flights that feel like they take forever and a day. Technological advancements are inevitable, and supersonic flight is only the tip of the iceberg.