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)

 

[WKTaylor]

I noted the prototype flies with [3] J85 [MIL surplus?] turbojet engines... with a very good track record in +1.5-Mach SS flight.

The production engines for the BOOM Overture have to be capable of accelerating the Acft past M1+ to cruise speed.... the maintain SS cruise with efficiencies of bypass.

Thrust increase by staged afterburning [thrust augmentation]makes for a high-rate fuel burn.. and gobs of noise... but might be a certification necessity.

I suspect that a civil version of F404 engines might be and option for a small transport... ITAR issues not factored-in... but a whole new fan/by-pass-engine for super cruise requires a deep bank account to develop the ideal special engine for PAX paying airliner.

This project reminds me of that famous Howard Hughes quote... " How do you make a small fortune in aviation?... start with a large fortune!"

 

[rb1957]

reminds me of another saying ... there's one born every minute

 

[btrueblood]

Rb, I agree that Boom is jumping the gun - they need to get the data from the X59, or else will lose out to somebody using that (assuming it works) to build a "approved for continental service" plane and eating their lunch.

Boom's big thing appears (to me) to be picking a lower cruise speed - I think Mach 1.4 vs. Concorde's 1.8? Lower speed means less power required for a given distance, so cheaper than Concorde, but still fast enough to give rich people a feeling of superiority when the sit at the hotel bar waiting for their poorer friends to arrive on the cattle car flights. <Shrug>

 

[3DDave]

Scale the X59 to a 2+3 seating and the plane is about 600 feet long. Even 1+1 is going to be around 300 feet long.

The X59 is at 100 feet and a tight squeeze for the width of a pilot.

X59 is fun, but I don't see it having any influence on future commercial flight.

High end commercial transport has showers and beds and chefs for the wealthy. Squeezing into a cigar tube without amenities doesn't seem that attractive.

 

[btrueblood]

You don't think that big shnozz will translate to commercial SST's? What would it do to your 300 foot plane, add another 100 or 200 ft?

But you might ride the BOOM just to say you flew at M1.4? Which I think was the main draw for Concorde too, watching the Mach meter on the fwd bulkhead tick up to 1.8 or whatever. Dunno, I'm not that rich. I did (as an Aero student at UW) go down to Boeing field to watch its one time landing there. They flew a couple planeloads of people willing to spend inordinate amounts for "flights to nowhere" - out over the Pacific, run up to Mach 1.8, turn around and come home again. There is likely an untapped market there.