Don't remember seeing this posted before!

Boom - United Goes Supersonic (boomsupersonic.com)

Bruce

If this happens and that would still be an 'IF' that would mean it has gone from 1969 with the first flight of the Concord to 2025 with the first scheduled flight of this one, that is 56 years between the two aircraft if this one actually flies. 

2 hours ago, brucets said:

Don't remember seeing this posted before!

Boom - United Goes Supersonic (boomsupersonic.com)

Bruce

This is great news. 

Boom is supposed to break ground on its manufacturing plant in North Carolina this year.  They're forecasting the first production aircraft in 2025 and passenger flights in 2029.

I must admit that I was skeptical of these little supersonic aircraft startups, but this one may be the real deal.

Dave

Reading their advertising, I had to raise my arm up over my head to save my watch, it got so deep so fast.  What a bunch of trendy green word salad.  The very real physics of supersonic flight are gonna slap 'em silly, me thinks.

11 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Reading their advertising, I had to raise my arm up over my head to save my watch, it got so deep so fast.  What a bunch of trendy green word salad.  The very real physics of supersonic flight are gonna slap 'em silly, me thinks.

I always respect your opinions, Robert!! 😁I guess we'll find out!

Bruce

 

Looks like the Concorde designers got everything right since this new offering nearly 60 years later looks pretty much the same as a Concorde.

Mind you, it'd nearly as good looking as Concorde!

Edited April 23, 20224 yr by FBW737

7 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

Reading their advertising, I had to raise my arm up over my head to save my watch, it got so deep so fast.  What a bunch of trendy green word salad.  The very real physics of supersonic flight are gonna slap 'em silly, me thinks.

 

In what respect? I'm not saying the project is destined for success, and I'm not convinced we need another supersonic passenger plane, but I'm sure they've analysed the feasibility and aren't just guessing it will work in terms of the physics, they must have quaffed engineers on the team.

Dry engines and composites, estimated to be quarter the cost of Concorde to operate. 

I've not seen any "word salad" the definition of the term being... "seemingly unintelligible mixture of words and phrases.

What I'd like to know is how they are addressing the cockpit view issue, I don't think they are opting for a tilting nose like Concorde, so I'm thinking probably cameras.

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

What I'd like to know is how they are addressing the cockpit view issue, I don't think they are opting for a tilting nose like Concorde, so I'm thinking probably cameras.

Cameras and/or synthetic vision with a HUD, goggles, or on the PFD do seem like the most sensible options rather than the complexity of a mechanically tilting nose and retractable screen etc. I daresay if the kind of cameras and related technology we have today were around in '69, BAC/Aerospatiale would have used them on the Concorde.

Beyond this, all of the advances in manufacturing, modern materials and computerised avionics and control systems we have nowadays mean it's an easier and indeed far less expensive task to make that thing now than it was back when Concorde was being developed.

Being that it is a US venture, I do however think we in Blighty ought to try to ban it from coming to the UK in an act of petty jealousy similar to the one exhibited in the US when Concorde was around, just to see how they like it. 🤣

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Being that it is a US venture, I do however think we in Blighty ought to try to ban it from coming to the UK

 

😁 Most definitely. That'll teach 'em.

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

most sensible options rather than the complexity of a mechanically tilting nose and retractable screen etc.

 

Yep, the weight penalty in terms of all that nose tilting gear is significant. Hope the cameras have plenty of redundancy though, or the pilot will have to stick his head out of the window. 😏 

I agree that it looks a lot like the Concorde.  I don't think there's any getting around that because any aircraft that flies at mach 1+ would have to have a similar shape with the delta wing.  I am a bit disappointed that they weren't able to come up with a more advanced design, then again I'm not an aerospace engineer so perhaps that's the best we can do right now.  I was imagining deployable canards or a shape-changing wing.

However, they are using turbofan engines, specially designed for use at supersonic speeds, which should be quieter and more fuel efficient than the old Concorde turbojet with afterburner engines. It is also built with composites which are lighter.  The company claims it will operate at one quarter the cost of the Concorde.

Although I'm still a bit skeptical, this thing has the backing of Japan Airlines and now United Airlines, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

We'll see.  They still have to develop the engines which will be a challenge.

Dave

37 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I was imagining deployable canards or a shape-changing wing.

 

Too much weight I would imagine for variable geometry. 

 

 

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

In what respect? I'm not saying the project is destined for success, and I'm not convinced we need another supersonic passenger plane, but I'm sure they've analysed the feasibility and aren't just guessing it will work in terms of the physics, they must have quaffed engineers on the team.

Dry engines and composites, estimated to be quarter the cost of Concorde to operate. 

I've not seen any "word salad" the definition of the term being... "seemingly unintelligible mixture of words and phrases

What I really meant to say is the advertising sounds like a game of eco-Buzzword Bingo.

The most relevant economy and carbon footprint comparisons aren't made with the Concorde, they're made against the various subsonic options coming available in the same epoch.  The energy requirements for supersonic flight are still going to make it far more costly and inefficient to operate than subsonic jets built with the same composite materials technology and the latest engines.  The Concorde was good for about 15 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel...four times that puts it at par with a 70s-era DC-10.  A 787 gets north of 100 pm/g right now today.  It's pretty hard to accept that saving a couple hours of flight time on a leg by burning over 40% more fuel is oh so eco-friendly, net carbon-zero wonderful.

This isn't going to be an airborne Tesla.  I wish they'd just dispense with the dishonest and thickly laid-on hyperbole and sell it for what it is really intended to be--a super fast jet for super-wealthy people that don't especially care how much it costs or how much resource usage it entails, just like the Concorde was.  I don't have a problem with that.

19 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

It's pretty hard to accept that saving a couple hours of flight time on a leg by burning over 40% more fuel is oh so eco-friendly, net carbon-zero wonderful.

You're right.  The company is just doing its marketing and trying to put the best face on what will actually be a "climate-unfriendly" aircraft.

The engines they will have to use will be inefficient low bypass turbofans, albeit more efficient than the old turbojet engines.  Moreover, they will use 3 of them just to transport 65-88 passengers thousands of miles. 

Despite all that, I'm still a supporter of supersonic passenger aircraft.

Dave

Edited April 23, 20224 yr by dave2013

They’ve still got the same problem Concorde had. You cannot fly supersonic over populated areas. So they are limited to a few routes. JKF to LHR and perhaps LAX to Tokyo with a stopover in Honolulu. No crossing the US mainland or Europe any faster than Mach 0.95.

It has fewer pax than Concorde (70 versus 100) and it only flies at Mach 1.7 compared to Mach 2.02.

If it relies on a display for the forward view let’s hope there are backup systems.

Still looks a long shot simply because to be commercially successful you have to have a large number of viable routes. That looks tricky just as it was for BA and AF with Concorde. At least BA made a decent profit with charter flights such as the “Round the Bay” one.

I would assume that there are solutions in development with respect to the supersonic shockwave problem. Not being able to fly faster than Mach 0.95 over land would hardly be a great advert for a next generation supersonic airliner.

Edited April 23, 20224 yr by Christopher Low