Boom - News - Boom Supersonic Reveals Refined Overture and Announces Landmark Market-Expanding Alliance with Northrop Grumman and New Tier One Suppliers

55 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Boom - News - Boom Supersonic Reveals Refined Overture and Announces Landmark Market-Expanding Alliance with Northrop Grumman and New Tier One Suppliers

Must be to early in the morning here, as your headline made me kind of chortle....

Boom Supersonic and Bra-p-a-a-appph! explosive gases corporation today announced that...." 🛬

7 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Must be to early in the morning here, as your headline made me kind of chortle....

Boom Supersonic and Bra-p-a-a-appph! explosive gases corporation today announced that...." 🛬

🤣

This is very good news for Boom.  The fact that Northrop Grumman is interested is a good indication that the concept and design are viable.

Having said that, I won't really get excited until they build a working prototype and fly it.

Dave

They've got a baby concept demonstrator, the XB-1. Not flown yet though.

 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Having said that, I won't really get excited until they build a working prototype and fly it.

This. I see a lot of press releases. Very little airplane.

Cheers!

21 hours ago, Luke said:

This. I see a lot of press releases. Very little airplane.

Cheers!

 

Concorde was conceived in the early fifties and first flight was in 1969. Something like 16 years. So maybe we should be patient with Boom. 😃

The details in this video.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Concorde was conceived in the early fifties and first flight was in 1969. Something like 16 years. So maybe we should be patient with Boom. 😃

It's difficult to compare the two. On one hand, we know a lot more about that flight regime and most importantly our design and modeling tools are light years ahead of what we had the in the 1960s. They could do some decent predictions but I imagine there were more than a few surprises and decent design changes given the visual differences between the prototypes, pre-production and production birds. On the other hand, they were financed by state-level actors.

I'd actually be less concerned with silence. Press releases at this stage are usually intended to get one thing, and one thing only - investor attention and more capital. As interest rates rise incredibly speculative ventures such as this become less competitive in a VC portfolio compared to either less risky or less capital intensive (ideally, both!) investments. They may be rushing to try and get a few more millions before capital becomes even harder to come by.

Cheers

I knew you'd have an excuse you cynical old devil. And you said pretty much what I predicted. 😁

Edited July 23, 20223 yr by martin-w

It looks rather nice to me, and I prefer to be optimistic regarding the future of SST.

If it’s restricted to subsonic speeds over populated areas I fail to see the point. Is Mach 0.95 that much faster than Mach 0.86 when the former can carry less than 100 pax compared to the latter such as the Dreamliner that can carry three times as many? Plus there’s bound to be a significant premium for Boom flights.

As for transatlantic, both BA and AF failed to fill up their Concordes after Sept 2001 bar the last six months. I don’t see how this can be an economical success. At least Concorde had a “wow” factor with reheats and a stunning shape. This looks far less attractive to my eyes.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If it’s restricted to subsonic speeds over populated areas I fail to see the point. Is Mach 0.95 that much faster than Mach 0.86 when the former can carry less than 100 pax compared to the latter such as the Dreamliner that can carry three times as many? Plus there’s bound to be a significant premium for Boom flights.

As for transatlantic, both BA and AF failed to fill up their Concordes after Sept 2001 bar the last six months. I don’t see how this can be an economical success. At least Concorde had a “wow” factor with reheats and a stunning shape. This looks far less attractive to my eyes.

Two thirds of the planet's surface is covered by water, so that's plenty of space for BOOM to wind up to supersonic speeds to make travel quicker even taking into account slower speeds over land since this is a small percentage of the overall flight route; this isn't too much different from what Concorde had to do too either - flying subsonic until it too got out over the water - and this is not even a speed restriction limited to solely supersonic aeroplanes; they all typically have to do less than 250 knots until they get above 10,000 feet. As for their seating, these days the airlines want range, not capacity, which is why there are many more smaller airliners than there are massive ones and why we don't often see tons of A380s and 747s at most airports.

The fact that the Boom aeroplane doesn't have massive afterburners and will be made from modern composites, will be factors in making it more economical and practical; modern airliners, with their improved performance, cheaper crewing costs, much better maintenance schedules etc, only have to have a few passengers on board to make their flight a profit-making trip, as evidenced by the number of small regional airliners which fly on a regular basis with plenty of empty seats.

Being a Brit, I'm as fond of Concorde as anyone - I went on it a couple of times and it was a cool experience - but from an economic standpoint, comparing it to a modern stab at creating something with similar capabilities, is akin to comparing perhaps a Short S23 Empire to an ATR-72. The S23 with its 123 foot wingspan, four Pegasus engines, five crew and 24 passengers, could go about 750 miles at 200 knots or so and a ticket would cost a lot, being the preserve of the well-to-do; the ATR with an 88 foor span, twin P&W 127 engines, two crew can go about 950 miles at about 280 knots, and it's considerably cheaper than going on a bus or train, or even driving that distance yourself.

This is the difference technological advancement brings us. On the downside, like yourself, I lament the aesthetics: I'd rather look at a Short Empire thundering across a lake to take off, than watch an ATR zipping down 23R at Manchester to get airborne, in the same way I'd prefer to swan around in a '57 Chevy than a Ford Focus, but this is the other price of progress. In fairness, that last one doesn't stop me from driving an old classic car like I do, but that's a choice I'm still just about able to do, and it ends up costing me a lot more!

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by Chock

Quote

Final ticket prices will be set by airlines, but we’re designing Overture to allow airlines to offer fares comparable to today’s business class. 

 

Quote

 

Overture is designed to fly 4,250 nautical miles. With this range, Overture can fly nonstop on routes like Atlanta to London or Seattle to Tokyo. For longer routes, Overture may require a refueling stop.

About 65% of viable routes can be flown nonstop. 

Today, there’s both the market demand and the technology to enable mainstream supersonic travel. Technology and materials have advanced enough that we can build faster and more efficient supersonic airplanes while taking care of the planet. Additionally, business and leisure travel has continued to grow, and travelers are willing to pay for speed.

Environmentally, Overture is the first supersonic airplane designed with a focus on sustainability from day one. We are optimizing the airplane to accommodate 100% sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and facilitate net-zero carbon operations.

 

Mach 1.7

60,000 cruise altitude

Range 4250 nm

600+ optimal routes

https://boomsupersonic.com/overture

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 20223 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Two thirds of the planet's surface is covered by water, so that's plenty of space for BOOM to wind up to supersonic speeds to make travel quicker even taking into account slower speeds over land since this is a small percentage of the overall flight route;

Internally in the US  flights from east coast to west coast are popular. Those flights would have to remain subsonic. Boom would be flying at half its maximum speed. Where's the advantage?

1 hour ago, Chock said:

The fact that the Boom aeroplane doesn't have massive afterburners and will be made from modern composites, will be factors in making it more economical and practical;

I've read nothing about the fuselage stretching because of the heat. Maybe that's not a factor with modern composites. It was of course with Concorde but that didn't cause any issues with the air frame. Concorde's reheats were only engaged for 1m 20s for takeoff and 7-10 minutes in the phase from Mach 0.95 to Mach 1.7. Yes, it ate a lot of fuel but only for a short duration.

Ultimately the customer will make their decision as to whether it's worth the extra expense. There will be initial popularity simply for the novelty value. Whether it succeeds long term is anyone's guess.

Now I must get back to my Concorde flight from Dulles to Barbados taking some rich passengers for a well-earned break. P3D v3 with VAS restrictions. Remember that? 😁

52 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Overture is designed to fly 4,250 nautical miles. With this range, Overture can fly nonstop on routes like Atlanta to London or Seattle to Tokyo

The GC distance for KSEA-RJAA is 4144nm. It also requires a subsonic leg to get to the coast at FL280. That route might be weight restricted as Concorde was for EGLL-TBPB.

As for KATL-EGLL that is another marginal route. The GC routing takes you up the east coast of the US so the route would have to change to get to the coast quicker. More miles on top of the 3659nm of the GC one.

It will be interesting to see how test flights go.