BOOM lives up to its name

[btrueblood]

Boom Supersonic takes its XB1 demonstrator above Mach 1.

 

[Brian Malone]

Boom seems to be following measured development plan and the XB1 demonstrator has performed as designed and expected. Scaling up to passenger service capacity will be the next challenge.

 

[XR250]

I was curious about why this is better than the Concorde.

Concorde Vs Boom Overture: 5 Key Points Of Comparison

Boom Overture hopes to pick up where Concorde left off two decades ago and become a slower, smaller, but more profitable jet.

simpleflying.com

 

[SWComposites]

much newer engines with (hopefully) much better fuel economy and/or range
improved aero shapes to reduce shock noise

 

[3DDave]

All they need is an engine. Which, presently, no maker has or is planning to develop. One engine deal has already been canceled.

But this is a neat plane to go jetting about in.

 

[SWComposites]

Boom and some outfit called Florida Turbine Technologies are developing the engine. https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony

 

[3DDave]

OK - it appears they are now into self-publishing their own engine; Standard Aero for production, Florida Turbine Technologies for some development and testing, Colibrium Additive for some parts.

This after 4 major engine companies pulled out - RR, GE, P&W, Safran.

What will be interesting is the competition for materials and talent in the engine marketplace.

In October StandardAero went public and the stock price is still below the issue, though it did go up a little.

Apparently the prediction was to start engine production in 2024.

 

[SWComposites]

it was a typo, they meant 2034.

 

[rb1957]

so the demonstrator is only demonstrating the "funky" profile (and enormously long airplane) as a means of reducing the power of the sonic boom ?
if this works as expected then this may allow supersonic flight over land, which would be a major improvement in the market over Concorde.

then the new "funky" engine needs to be designed, built, developed to improve the economics.
and they have insisted on SAF (or some variation thereof)
and then they'll need ETOPS certification ...

sorry, but it'll never happen ... not for these guys at least. If the design shows promise then others will leap on top of them and batter them into the ground (look at Bombardier's experience with C-series ... if the market place doesn't have confidence in you, you're doomed ... except if you're someone like Elon Musk or any other tech billionaire who can literally buy the marketplace).

 

[3DDave]

From Boom:

"Production is set to commence in 2024 at Overture’s Superfactory in Greensboro, NC, with rollout in 2026 and first flight in 2027."

Boom - News - Boom Supersonic announces Symphony™, the sustainable and cost-efficient engine for Overture

Boom-led collaboration brings together world-class companies across design, manufacturing, and maintenance including FTT, GE Additive, and StandardAero

boomsupersonic.com

 

[SWComposites]

There is a separate NASA/Lockheed X-plane intended to demonstrate low sonic booms.

The Boom demonstrator probably also has the goal of proving out their flight controls, validating aerodynamic predictions, etc along with demonstrating lower sonic boom.

First flight in 2027 seems a fantasy.

 

[3DDave]

Boom is not related to the quiet supersonic effort over at NASA. They have patterned the plane after the B-58 and I expect it will be about as loud on the ground.

If it shows promise there will be a buyout/merger; no one is going to want to duplicate the whole effort when buying a functioning result is available.

 

[SWComposites]

Yes, I said there are two separate supersonic demonstrator aircraft.

Who is going to buy Boom?
- Boeing? No money
- Lockheed? Why would they?
- Embraer? Too small
- Elon?
- China? Oh my

 

[3DDave]

The facebook guy, just to screw with Musk.

 

[rb1957]

so if a loud (Gen1?) boom, what's their advantage ? Sure, they have a new (unproven) engine concept, which'll take a decade to sort out.
if limited to over ocean then as limited (and uncommercial) as Concorde ... more so if fewer seats. Sure, the engine may give lower fuel costs.

But in this world of "de-carboning fuels", is this how we want to spend fuel ? Ok, SAF ... but using a "tonne" of fuel/carbon to move 50-60 "elites" around ... ??

but if not "novel" boom characteristics, then why a demonstrator ? "surely" we know enough about supersonic aircraft to have some confidence in our modelling ?

And airlines have proven they won't buy for small players ... again Bombardier's C-series (only sold after Bombardier gave the program to Airbus).

If they build this thing, first flight in nothing less than ten years. More likely they'll runout of money. Are they getting funds from the US government ? (if anyone would be interested in a novel supersonic concept it should be those guys)