Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brucets

United Boom Supersonic

Recommended Posts

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. 


Matthew Kane

 

Share this post


Link to post
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


Simulator: P3Dv5.3

System Specs: Intel i7 9700K 4.7GHz CPU, MSI Z390 Gaming Edge AC MB, 32GB DDR4 3600MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Super video card, 2x 1TB Samsung 970 EVO SSDs, Windows 10 Home OS

Share this post


Link to post

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.


Bob Scott | President and CEO, AVSIM Inc
ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System: i9-10900K @ 5.2GHz on custom water loop, ASUS Maximus XII Hero, 32GB GSkill 3600MHz CAS15, EVGA RTX3090 XC3 Ultra
Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz,
3x NVME 2x SATA Samsung SSD, EVGA 1KW PSU, 1.2Gbps internet
SoundBlaster XFi Titanium, TOSLINK to Yamaha RX-V467 HT Rcvr, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf spkrs, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro
PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensors, Coolermaster HAF932 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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 by FBW737

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 🤣

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
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. 😏 

Share this post


Link to post

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


Simulator: P3Dv5.3

System Specs: Intel i7 9700K 4.7GHz CPU, MSI Z390 Gaming Edge AC MB, 32GB DDR4 3600MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Super video card, 2x 1TB Samsung 970 EVO SSDs, Windows 10 Home OS

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

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

 

Too much weight I would imagine for variable geometry. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 3

Bob Scott | President and CEO, AVSIM Inc
ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System: i9-10900K @ 5.2GHz on custom water loop, ASUS Maximus XII Hero, 32GB GSkill 3600MHz CAS15, EVGA RTX3090 XC3 Ultra
Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz,
3x NVME 2x SATA Samsung SSD, EVGA 1KW PSU, 1.2Gbps internet
SoundBlaster XFi Titanium, TOSLINK to Yamaha RX-V467 HT Rcvr, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf spkrs, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro
PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensors, Coolermaster HAF932 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by dave2013

Simulator: P3Dv5.3

System Specs: Intel i7 9700K 4.7GHz CPU, MSI Z390 Gaming Edge AC MB, 32GB DDR4 3600MHz RAM, Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070 Super video card, 2x 1TB Samsung 970 EVO SSDs, Windows 10 Home OS

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 1

Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v5.3HF2 & v3.4, Intel i7-8086K o/c to 5.0Ghz, Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti 11Gb, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 SSD, 1Tb Samsung 860 EVO SSD, Asus Prime Z370-A mobo, 32Gb G.Skill DDR4 3000Mhz RAM, Win 10 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” monitor, Fulcrum One yoke.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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 by Christopher Low

Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...