Fun fact, Concorde's maximum speed wasn't limited by the power of her engines, but by heat sensors on the nose and wing leading edges that limited it's speed to its maximum skin temperature of 127°C. The skin was made from an Aluminium alloy, and not Titanium. This was done to keep costs down.
I'm surprised that an aluminum alloy can't handle temperatures more than 127°C. I did not know aluminum was that weak to heat. I thought plain aluminum would be able to handle much hotter temperatures, let alone an alloy.
But nowdays technology improved, we have better glasses, better paints, better insulation, better engines, we optimized constructions with certain materials and so on. This means that we have better managements for costs and I'm sure that since the people is richer and willing to spend in these things just to show to others their life, I'm pretty sure costs will be repaid in no time compared in the back 70/80.
I so very badly this becomes a viable option in air travel soon! I never got the chance to fly concord but this being a reality means I can fulfill a lifelong dream of supersonic flight! Let’s hope it comes together as planned
Yeah, I think the $100 seat on a supersonic flight is not realistic. There's a lot of demand for these seats and the Boom Overture scales *down* compared to existing trans-oceanic stock. Best case scenario is that these flights will cost less than Concorde but there's no way they will cost less than a standard coach seat on a subsonic airliner.
*_@reatile_* Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
When the Concorde first debut, there were 2 other competitors. We all know Concorde was made by the British and French. But there was also another version of the fast supersonic plane. The US made the Boeing 2707, a supersonic plane. But the plane was a commercial flop. More flop than supersonic jet. And then the Soviets made the Tupolev-144. The Boeing 2707 died because of how loud it was. Worse, it was very expensive because the plane was designed to cruise at a higher altitude than the Concorde and thus its skin was made of Titanium. But more embarrassingly, it died even before it was bought by other airlines - in its testing phase. The Concorde died because of the Air France 4590 crash. However, what's pretty ironic is that the plane didn't crash by itself, it was due to a part of another plane, which, get this, its model is the DC-10. Yep. Turns out that you don't need to be inside a DC-10, the plane of death, to crash down and either survive with injuries or die. It wasn't as expensive as the Boeing 2707 and it was the best supersonic plane out of all the other competitor planes. Lastly, the Tupolev-144. It basically was never shipped to any other airlines, it passed its testing phase, and it died silently due to unknown reasons. However, it may be due to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union or the 1970 Paris Air Show crash. Basically, in the 1970s (Forgot which year), Paris held air shows which featured the Concorde we all know and love, and the Tupolev-144. In an effort to look better than the Concorde, the pilots of the Tupolev-144 plane flew it faster and did more daring maneuvers that looked better than the maneuvers the pilots of the Concorde performed. However, these daring acts would lead to their demise, because in a combination of stressing the airframe performing those maneuvers and also not aware of the plane losing altitude, the plane broke apart in 3 pieces and crashed. No one survived.
These guys actually ended up showing the Tupolev by accident in one of their shots about Concorde. XD Also, the 2707 never flew. In fact, construction never even got underway: it died on the drawing board when it turned out that developing such a large and fast SST wouldn't prove to be feasible at the time.
It wasn't the crash of flight 4590 that stopped concord, that crash was in 2000 , the last flight of concord was in 2003 , air france and British airways blamed high maintenance cost and a downturn in demand.
@@avremelkatz6006 The downturn in demand was due to the crash, but Concorde never really made any money for the airlines, it was largely just a marketing stunt. Although, on it's last few days, British Airways was doing a huge marketing campaign to convince people to fly the Jet, as it may be their last opportunity. That was the only time an airline has ever made a profit from Concorde [I believe]. As a consequence of the rising fuel costs and lack of profit, it was put to rest.
@@Kaidhicksii Boeing quit at drawing board when they realized the big market was for jumbo jets. Many environmental chimeras were floated and Democrats in Congress pulled government research support. So no US SST.
Not even in a short range flight it cost $100 right now. Unless you find a last minute flight. I'm sure at the launch it will be 100 'cause they need ppl to try it, to appreciate it and to show it is safe and fast. Once they'll be done with marketing at $100, prices will go up to the normal cost that these kind of jets have, not less than $1500 for sure.
*_@SingingPostman27_* Yes that will be something. Any airport to any other airport in 2 hours max.😊 The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed. Only the power to overcome the drop due to gravity would be required (by choosing the correct height and speed satellites, are able to circle the earth for tens of years with no power). The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.
@@drill_fiend1097 They didn't want to tarnish their image. The Boom would only be for a niche market and not the average United or American airlines passenger. They only ordered for publicity purposes.
I just read the delivery of the first aircraft to United airlines is scheduled for 2029. Is the delivery of the first Overture jet still set to be 2023?
*_@Shibu11229_* The latest from Boom (04Aug2023): Overture is slated to roll out in 2026, begin test flights in 2027, and is expected to receive type certification by 2029, which is what will allow us to carry passengers.
Fabulous yes. $100 tickets never. $1,000 maybe. On a $200 million plane cost seating 80 people plus significant fuel and operational costs if a flight cost less than $200 per hour per passenger seems implausible. I lived the dream at age 26 in July 1979 on Concorde London to New York in 3 hrs 23 mins at 58,000 feet, before the ticket price almost doubled be 1982 and it finally went into profit. The key to viability is likely to been a quiet Sonic Boom over land.. Distance without refueling will also be a big factor. In Australia it takes a full day to visit Europe.. Only Qantas does it non stop from Perth in 17 hours.
Spirit wants $100 for a carry on bag. My daughter wore three shirts and two pants to save the $100. my brother did the same on Ryan air. Air Baltic charges $12 for a breakfast, $5 for a beer and $20 for dinner.
*_@jbshaka653_* Yea. It all looks a bit shaky. But Boom have defined a route for the Symphony propulsion system with FTT designing the engine and Boom doing the inlet and exhaust ducting
*_@knutkristiansen3306_* Yeah. It will be great, like the change from prop to jet in the late 1950s. In the future you should see any airport to any airport times of 2 hr. max
*_@user-rz7nn1ox4p_* The Boom Overture will have to comply fully with the FAA regulations before it could enter passenger service, just like any other passenger airliner.
This aircraft is nothing more than a scaled down Concord. How is it not going to encounter the same logistical, technical and economic issues that doomed the Concord?
I think the Concorde engines were based on 1960s technology while the Boom is utilizing newer engine designs and materials by Rolls Royce. They aren't giving out much information on what that technology is, but time will tell if they can produce what they say. Rolls Royce talks about sustainable aviation fuel that reduces emissions. No idea what that means exactly.
Boom's goals are very lofty but seem to be pie in the sky. (Yes, pun intended.) What are these affordable yet environmentally improved jet fuels? They don't even give a possible example. Their other goals also seem unrealistic.
*_@nxtchpforme9154_* Your asking about Concorde's tyre blow outs and fuel tank ruptures? The FAA were always worried about that aspect of Concorde's design and issued a number of directives, so it should be an area that they would examine closely on the Symphony.
*_@saltof1_* Boom should be a much tighter and leaner outfit than Boeing or Airbus, so their costs should be lower and time scales shorter. But, on the other hand, the big companies would have better resources, especially financial and infrastructure. I don't think that Overture would be viable for Boeing to develop, and the same for Rolls Royce with the Symphony engine. Having said that, Boom is badly behind schedule and their financial position looks weak. They will need a miracle to complete the symphony engine and inlet and exhaust ducting by 2026.
Im happy to pay 4K USD from Australia to Dubai return. I think this is a fair price for economy class. For business class I think 8K ++ is a fair price and for first class 14k ++ is a fair price. Let’s be real here: aint no way an airline will sell you a ticket for $100-$300.
*_@ahmadalami9640_* Exactly 😊 Australia (Perth) to Dubai is 10% further than JFK to LHR. Your figures roughly tally with mine: Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
Hi my name is Antonio Perez I would love to go to the Philippines but it would take 16 Hrs from New York to the Philippines and it would take 16 hrs from the Philippines to New York as well that would be 32 hrs over all Right now so let's make t It a relat in my life time sincely yours Truly Antonio Perez
Boeing 2707 died because there was no market for it other then the U.S. government, then the government got involved in Vietnam and they found another pointless thing to spend the money on.
I am afraid this is going to fail very badly. When it comes to air travel, I don't think people care about 8 hours vs 4 hours unless if they can fly for the same price. And the website says 2X faster over water and 20% faster over land. Faster compared to what ? a Boeing 747 ? In that case how is 20% much of an improvement when flying over land.
Supersonics aren't allowed to fly over land (unless it is a military fighter) because of sonic boom. This plane isn't meant for domestic flights at all; it's mainly for oversea flights. So it flys in transonic speed range so it won't violate regulation over land right before landing/after take off.
@@rockwithyou2006 I am responding to "how is 20% much of an improvement when flying over land." It's not meant for flying over land because of regulations.
I worked on a trans-Pacific replacement years ago. Technically feasible, with engines the focus in technology. Economics rubbish. My guess is the economics have worsened over the years.
Muito bonitos os desenhos e projeções, mas parece mais uma enganação igual ao AERION S2, logo as grandes airbus e boeing compram o projeto da boom e engavetam para nunca sair do papel. Chega em 2029 adiam para 2035, em 2035 adiam para 2040 e assim caminha a humanidade.
I dont think people predicting what the future would be like took into consideration how detrimental Captialism would be to technological innovation. If they cant make money off it, chances are its not happening in 2024
' england = france did made the beautifully concorde airplane... ' come on america... american airplane company can make their own many more supersonic airplanes... how come never make it so far
I hate to say this, but this venture is going to be a total flop! First of all, there is no way in hell that it's only going to cost $200 to travel anywhere in the world. Second, and it's almost like a rule of thumb, whatever you have that goes fast will be high maintenance. The maintenance cost for these planes will go through the roof. Third, there is this thing called zoom. If business people have the choice whether to travel for business or just stay home or at their office and use zoom, I think most people will choose zoom in spite of the fact it would take less time to get to their business destination. They retired the Concorde because they lost their clients. The clients that used to take the Concorde have gotten richer over the years and they bought their own planes!
I think some ordered this plane as their private planes. They apparently have some private orders from European clients. But as for the ticket price, I bet its not gonna get any cheaper than 4000USD tbh.
I'm amazed how the $100 cost even came up. They might say $3000, maybe $2500... well, I really doubt it's feasible but let's accept it for a while. But $100? Why treat me like an idiot?
The only problem I see is even though the Boom Overture can possibly fly just about anywhere within four hours for $100.00 per person, the companies purchasing the planes are going to charge much more. My mom was a successful businessperson whose philosophy was, “I would rather make a lot of a little then a little of a lot.” The Concorde had the right idea as far as travel, however, instead of making it affordable for the lower echelon, (a lot of a little), they made it only for the affluent, (a little of a lot). I am sure the airlines who have placed orders will not make it affordable for the masses, so I am sure my chances of riding on a Boom Overture won’t happen. The airlines will cry “poverty” where if everyone could afford to use the plane, the airlines would make so much more. Furthermore, if this plane can do as they say and it is affordable to all, there will be many more traveling thus making the company (Virgin, United…) so much money based on volume of flights. This works like the car rental companies. in NYC it costs $125.00 per day for a full-sized car where in Orlando the same car goes for $89.00 per day. Because Orlando has a constant turnover of cars due to the tourist industry, the rental companies make more money because of the turnover.
*_@wedmundchambersii4434_* Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
I would be able to go from Miami to Honolulu. I could probably go from Miami to Honolulu in 4 to 6 hours versus 10 to 12 hours on an average airline. And if this is true, I can probably go from Miami to Honolulu for 200 bucks a person Versus 700 or 800 bucks a person with regular airplanes. And I probably would take my mom, and my stepmom with me. That would be a total of 1200 on the price tag compared to around 4 to 5 grand in total just for a round trip. Right now, getting from Miami to Honolulu would be no big deal, even though it is a really really long flight as I would have to go from Miami to LAX and then from there to Honolulu on two different airplanes. However, coming home is a completely different story. For whatever reason it’s more like a 24 hour flight because see you leave Honolulu one morning at like let’s say 11 AM. I wouldn’t get home back to Miami until 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM, or even 6 AM in the morning which is crazy. And that’s despite the fact that their time zone is only six hours before us and Los Angeles is only two hours to three hours after them, and despite the fact that it is only a total of a 10 to 12 hour flight. So in short, you leave Honolulu one day but then you don’t get back home to Miami until the next morning. With this, coming back home wouldn’t be an issue with supersonic planes.
By the way, I probably would be able to go from Miami to Singapore in 8 to 12 hours compared to 20 to 24 hours with a regular airline jet. A total round-trip price tag for the three of us would be almost 10 grand for the three of us from Miami to Singapore and Singapore and back. With a supersonic plane, it would probably be cheaper if that comes to be. It would cost anywhere from 400 to 800 bucks a person which equates to about 2402 five grand. but then there’s the issue with aviation regulations regarding the speed and altitude
Again, Jehovah God our Creator and Savior is The Great Spirit, Jehovah is freedom ! REVELATION 4:11 2CORINTHIANS 3:17 MATTHEW 28:19 REVELATION 15:3 Thank you
Ummm. ...$100? That's neither realistic or economical for an investor for an aircraft that holds 88 people. How many aircrafts would need to be in the sky to make a decent profit? And landing taxes are bit getting cheaper. And these super sonic will only enter large expensive airports, not smaller cheaper ones.
Liars! $100? How about the truth-10 to 20 thousand dollars minimum. The plane costs $200 million and carries 65 passengers. A short flight on Spirit airlines costs $100. Complete nonsense narrative.
Boom is promising too much, I wonder if we have technology for all of that and keep cost at $100? I don't think that's sustainable. I hope Boom doesn't join the duo Theranos-Nikola who promised too much and never delivered.
*_@bobduvar_* The US did not ban Concorde, apart from a short local ban at JFK because of Concorde's subsonic noise. On what grounds will Paris ban Overture? Concorde started scheduled flights from London and Paris to New York, Washington DC, Miami, and Barbados in 1976, but people living in the New York airport area demonstrated against the noise. They had good reason. Concorde was even more noisy than the Boeing 707, which they had previously demonstrated against. It also had an unpleasant tearing sound. As a result of the protests, the New York Port Authority temporarily banned Concorde, but the ban was subsequently overturned by a higher court. Opposition to supersonic transport (SST) grew from 1960, notably in the US, UK, and Scandinavia. By the 1970s there was opposition from France, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, India, Singapore, Malaya, and Australia. The UK based 'Anti-Concorde Project', started by Richard Wiggs in 1966, tried to kill Concorde on cost, environmental, and noise grounds. There were also many complaints about Concorde noise at Heathrow airport. US protestors targeted all SSTs, including Concorde. In 1967, Dr William Surecliff, of Harvard University, devised the 'Citizen's League Against Sonic Boom', which aimed to stop the US SST program and Boeing 2707 project. Also in the US, the 'SST and Sonic Boom Handbook', edited by William Shurcliff, was published in 1970. It states that Concorde will devastate the environment, destroy the ozone layer, harm 'human physiology', and upset animals, among other things. Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. It was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, the US banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed. This ban made most Concorde routes nonviable. Many US politicians and experts doubted the feasibility of SST, but the US SST initiative still went ahead. After funding in-house SST studies for 17 years, Boeing won a contract to develop the 2707 advanced SST in 1967. Subsequent oil price hikes, concerns about sonic boom, and the environmental lobby forced the senate to axe the project in 1971, at a $1bn spend. This ban was very unpopular and decimated Boeing's finances, resulting in 7,500 lay-offs. The technical issues with the 2707 had been resolved and two prototypes were being constructed. Although the project was on line for completion, it was ultimately cancelled because of sonic boom and the environmentalists. It turned out that the cancellation was fortuitous, because it saved the US a mint and eliminated a potential competitor for Concorde's routes. By special concession, the US government, with no benefit to itself, did allow Britain and France's noisy SSTs to fly subsonically over the US, and use US airports, despite public objections. The FAA figures show that Concorde's take off noise was 120 dB compared to 104 for the Boeing 707, which itself was considered to be loud and was the subject of protests. Se far from sabotaging Concorde they actually helped it.
They built Concorde in the 1970s / stop making this a big thing of building a similar plane in the 21st century / it’s getting boring / ps this is just a upgraded Concorde / it looks like Concorde it fly’s as fast as Concorde so it must be a upgraded version of Concorde : period
*_@tonynewman8586_* Yea, Overture is just like Concorde, except it's made out of composite rather than aluminium, and it has medium bipass turbofan engines without reheat, rather than turbojets with reheat. It uses cameras and a display rather than a droop snoot. It has a delta wing, with waisted fuselage and empennage, rather than a delta wing with fin. It carries 72 passengers in a spacious quiet cabin, rather than 100 in a cramped noisy cabin. It flies at Mach 1.7 rather than Mach 2. It requires 2 pilots, rather than 2 pilots and a flight engineer. It is economical at low and high speeds, rather than being a fuel guzzler at low speeds and a thirsty at high speeds. Its development cost will be $6bn rather than $14bn. It's buying price will be $200m rather than $1.2bn. It complies with ICAO-14 noise regulations, rather than having a 120dB noise level.
I was 8 years old when I experienced The Concorde. it was exciting. 🇫🇷
Fun fact, Concorde's maximum speed wasn't limited by the power of her engines, but by heat sensors on the nose and wing leading edges that limited it's speed to its maximum skin temperature of 127°C. The skin was made from an Aluminium alloy, and not Titanium. This was done to keep costs down.
Yes, I heard that the passengers felt uncomfortably warm during flights.
I'm surprised that an aluminum alloy can't handle temperatures more than 127°C. I did not know aluminum was that weak to heat. I thought plain aluminum would be able to handle much hotter temperatures, let alone an alloy.
Did not know that but that does make sense. Today wasn't wasted. :D
But nowdays technology improved, we have better glasses, better paints, better insulation, better engines, we optimized constructions with certain materials and so on.
This means that we have better managements for costs and I'm sure that since the people is richer and willing to spend in these things just to show to others their life, I'm pretty sure costs will be repaid in no time compared in the back 70/80.
oooooOoO
2:46. Blakeeee key& peel 😂😂😂
I so very badly this becomes a viable option in air travel soon! I never got the chance to fly concord but this being a reality means I can fulfill a lifelong dream of supersonic flight! Let’s hope it comes together as planned
"I so very badly this becomes a..." ?
Consider bill gates, Soros, world economic forum have their control committee look to
whats so great about supersonic flight. its not you really know the difference other than you got to the destination quicker.
It won't. Sorry to burst your bubble but it won't
The $100 price is wayyy too good to be true 😂 ain't no way that's possible, I'm literally about to spend $1000 on an economy flight to Malaysia...
Yeah, I think the $100 seat on a supersonic flight is not realistic. There's a lot of demand for these seats and the Boom Overture scales *down* compared to existing trans-oceanic stock. Best case scenario is that these flights will cost less than Concorde but there's no way they will cost less than a standard coach seat on a subsonic airliner.
*_@reatile_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
i think $100/ hour is feasible
Actually ticket price on the Overture will be something like 2 000$
I'm hoping to have the opportunity to fly on this awesomely prestigious Aircraft sometime in the future. Thank you so very much.
BOOM is a fantastic company. Blake Scholl is a real visionary.
When the Concorde first debut, there were 2 other competitors.
We all know Concorde was made by the British and French. But there was also another version of the fast supersonic plane. The US made the Boeing 2707, a supersonic plane. But the plane was a commercial flop. More flop than supersonic jet. And then the Soviets made the Tupolev-144.
The Boeing 2707 died because of how loud it was. Worse, it was very expensive because the plane was designed to cruise at a higher altitude than the Concorde and thus its skin was made of Titanium. But more embarrassingly, it died even before it was bought by other airlines - in its testing phase.
The Concorde died because of the Air France 4590 crash. However, what's pretty ironic is that the plane didn't crash by itself, it was due to a part of another plane, which, get this, its model is the DC-10. Yep. Turns out that you don't need to be inside a DC-10, the plane of death, to crash down and either survive with injuries or die. It wasn't as expensive as the Boeing 2707 and it was the best supersonic plane out of all the other competitor planes.
Lastly, the Tupolev-144. It basically was never shipped to any other airlines, it passed its testing phase, and it died silently due to unknown reasons. However, it may be due to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union or the 1970 Paris Air Show crash.
Basically, in the 1970s (Forgot which year), Paris held air shows which featured the Concorde we all know and love, and the Tupolev-144. In an effort to look better than the Concorde, the pilots of the Tupolev-144 plane flew it faster and did more daring maneuvers that looked better than the maneuvers the pilots of the Concorde performed. However, these daring acts would lead to their demise, because in a combination of stressing the airframe performing those maneuvers and also not aware of the plane losing altitude, the plane broke apart in 3 pieces and crashed. No one survived.
These guys actually ended up showing the Tupolev by accident in one of their shots about Concorde. XD
Also, the 2707 never flew. In fact, construction never even got underway: it died on the drawing board when it turned out that developing such a large and fast SST wouldn't prove to be feasible at the time.
It wasn't the crash of flight 4590 that stopped concord, that crash was in 2000 , the last flight of concord was in 2003 , air france and British airways blamed high maintenance cost and a downturn in demand.
@@avremelkatz6006 The downturn in demand was due to the crash, but Concorde never really made any money for the airlines, it was largely just a marketing stunt. Although, on it's last few days, British Airways was doing a huge marketing campaign to convince people to fly the Jet, as it may be their last opportunity. That was the only time an airline has ever made a profit from Concorde [I believe]. As a consequence of the rising fuel costs and lack of profit, it was put to rest.
@@Kaidhicksii Boeing quit at drawing board when they realized the big market was for jumbo jets.
Many environmental chimeras were floated and Democrats in Congress pulled government research support. So no US SST.
the 2707 never flew
CONCORDE IS BACK!!!!!!
How does this man not have at least 100k subs?
appreciate the support
Not even in a short range flight it cost $100 right now. Unless you find a last minute flight.
I'm sure at the launch it will be 100 'cause they need ppl to try it, to appreciate it and to show it is safe and fast.
Once they'll be done with marketing at $100, prices will go up to the normal cost that these kind of jets have, not less than $1500 for sure.
I'm also waiting for Hypersonic Commercial Aircraft. Thank you so very much.
*_@SingingPostman27_* Yes that will be something. Any airport to any other airport in 2 hours max.😊
The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed. Only the power to overcome the drop due to gravity would be required (by choosing the correct height and speed satellites, are able to circle the earth for tens of years with no power).
The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.
Great video
So booms 3 main goals do not include safety ?
I know there have been orders...just like Tesla. It will happen...but not in my lifetime. But I will be eighty this November. Good luck!
yes iam ready... with my wife of course
Hope it works out for them. Even if they’re able to do it for so cheap, at 65 passengers a flight you won’t be transporting too many people.
It's undoubtly going to be premium flight option. Probably for very rich people.
@@drill_fiend1097 For now like all new Technology & Services
It's for a niche market.
Not the average passenger.
It will never be ready by 25' since Rolls Royce ended partnership with Boom.
@@747heavyboeing3 The fact that Rolls Royce left is a pretty big red flag.
@@drill_fiend1097 They didn't want to tarnish their image. The Boom would only be for a niche market and not the average United or American airlines passenger. They only ordered for publicity purposes.
What fuel does it use?
Considering the ticket price, it does not use fuel at all. Pilots and stewardesses likewise...
*_@moRaaOTAKU_* AIRMADE™ Sustainable Aviation Fuel, but it will probably also work on ordinary jet fuel, same as a Boeing 737 for example.
What does the bathroom look like inside the airplane?
Personal coke bottle???
Excellent stuff bro
Concorde looks more beautiful still
However, when developing this smaller aircraft, the Americans also had the Concorde as an aircraft from which they took everything that was good...
I. Can’t. Wait. I’ll. Fly. In. It. Just. For. The. Speed. !
How will it not face the same sound problem that the concorde had?
@Lew Rodd Even without it breaking the sound barrier, wouldn't that just be super loud to people if the plane is flying over populated areas?
@Lew Rodd oh Thank you
I just read the delivery of the first aircraft to United airlines is scheduled for 2029. Is the delivery of the first Overture jet still set to be 2023?
*_@Shibu11229_* The latest from Boom (04Aug2023): Overture is slated to roll out in 2026, begin test flights in 2027, and is expected to receive type certification by 2029, which is what will allow us to carry passengers.
Just a reincarnation of the Concorde
2023 is their first test flight.
The concord could break windows with its supersonic boom.
Fabulous yes. $100 tickets never. $1,000 maybe. On a $200 million plane cost seating 80 people plus significant fuel and operational costs if a flight cost less than $200 per hour per passenger seems implausible.
I lived the dream at age 26 in July 1979 on Concorde London to New York in 3 hrs 23 mins at 58,000 feet, before the ticket price almost doubled be 1982 and it finally went into profit. The key to viability is likely to been a quiet Sonic Boom over land.. Distance without refueling will also be a big factor.
In Australia it takes a full day to visit Europe.. Only Qantas does it non stop from Perth in 17 hours.
At $100 per ticket, Boom will become the Spirit of supersonic flight. We all know what that means.
Spirit wants $100 for a carry on bag. My daughter wore three shirts and two pants to save the $100. my brother did the same on Ryan air. Air Baltic charges $12 for a breakfast, $5 for a beer and $20 for dinner.
It will become Titan of the Skies, I guess...
100 dollars is a very long term goal
How do you plan to fly over land Supersonic? Concord could only fly SS over Oceans. You might have a long legal battle with the Tree Hugger's
Doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. (FYI, Rolls Royce dropped out of this BOOMdoggle)
*_@jbshaka653_* Yea. It all looks a bit shaky. But Boom have defined a route for the Symphony propulsion system with FTT designing the engine and Boom doing the inlet and exhaust ducting
The flick does not actually visit the _inside_ of the plane. If you’re like me, looking for that, must wait..
*_@akauppi2_* 'flick' is very Brit 1950s. I wonder if anyone knows what it means.😊
So you want me to believe that a supersonic intercontinental flight will cost me less than taking Uber in a rush hour? Alright...
*_@redwood_shores_* Sounds reasonable
I would like to fly supersonic, makes it more viable for intercontinental flights. South America all of a sudden doesn't seem so far away.
*_@knutkristiansen3306_* Yeah. It will be great, like the change from prop to jet in the late 1950s. In the future you should see any airport to any airport times of 2 hr. max
and safety...
*_@user-rz7nn1ox4p_* The Boom Overture will have to comply fully with the FAA regulations before it could enter passenger service, just like any other passenger airliner.
It'll never be $100, stock prices will ensure that.
I wish we weren't in the era of cutesy names for absolutely everything.
So let me get this right, Boeing names their next airplane BOOM 😂
This aircraft is nothing more than a scaled down Concord.
How is it not going to encounter the same logistical, technical and economic issues that doomed the Concord?
*Concorde
@@Aeronaut1975 I stand corrected.
I think the Concorde engines were based on 1960s technology while the Boom is utilizing newer engine designs and materials by Rolls Royce. They aren't giving out much information on what that technology is, but time will tell if they can produce what they say. Rolls Royce talks about sustainable aviation fuel that reduces emissions. No idea what that means exactly.
@@marktaylor8659 it probably doesn't mean it cheaper...
Lesbians
They just upgraded the concorde ots taken 40 years for a contry to reinvent the wheel
100 dollars in 1973 maybe. Super cool idea tho!
Boom's goals are very lofty but seem to be pie in the sky. (Yes, pun intended.) What are these affordable yet environmentally improved jet fuels? They don't even give a possible example. Their other goals also seem unrealistic.
Right, $100 tickets!
The Boom Overture is set to actually release in 2030 also this comment has been posted after 2023 and it hasn’t released yet
The experts in the comments section sound like the same crowd that doubted Ford...
Slower for a aircraft is not a bad thing.
*_@nxtchpforme9154_* It is if they stall.😊
$100 then, $500 now!
Lets see if i live to see this pipe dream(im 48)...if Branson's involved...it should arrive by 2100
Airtank accident???
*_@nxtchpforme9154_* Your asking about Concorde's tyre blow outs and fuel tank ruptures? The FAA were always worried about that aspect of Concorde's design and issued a number of directives, so it should be an area that they would examine closely on the Symphony.
New planes are QUIETER, thankfully. Speed is good but fuel savings and flying QUIETER is more important than simply faster.
Totally agree, big and slow is the way to go. Why the hurry
Sign me up. With the yucky taste of airline food, short flight time means less airline meals.
They must know something that Boeing nor Air Bus don't know.
*_@saltof1_* Boom should be a much tighter and leaner outfit than Boeing or Airbus, so their costs should be lower and time scales shorter. But, on the other hand, the big companies would have better resources, especially financial and infrastructure. I don't think that Overture would be viable for Boeing to develop, and the same for Rolls Royce with the Symphony engine.
Having said that, Boom is badly behind schedule and their financial position looks weak. They will need a miracle to complete the symphony engine and inlet and exhaust ducting by 2026.
Im happy to pay 4K USD from Australia to Dubai return. I think this is a fair price for economy class. For business class I think 8K ++ is a fair price and for first class 14k ++ is a fair price. Let’s be real here: aint no way an airline will sell you a ticket for $100-$300.
*_@ahmadalami9640_* Exactly 😊 Australia (Perth) to Dubai is 10% further than JFK to LHR. Your figures roughly tally with mine:
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
I see the destruction of the Ozone layer.
Hi my name is Antonio Perez I would love to go to the Philippines but it would take 16 Hrs from New York to the Philippines and it would take 16 hrs from the Philippines to New York as well that would be 32 hrs over all Right now so let's make t
It a relat in my life time sincely yours Truly Antonio Perez
Boeing 2707 died because there was no market for it other then the U.S. government, then the government got involved in Vietnam and they found another pointless thing to spend the money on.
Anyone here in 2024 and still
No further information?
Please, when you're talking about engineering, use the metric system as every engineer in the world
*_@j0shmorillo435_* Yes, it's a pain to have to keep converting, but aviation traditionally, uses feet, knots, nautical miles, pounds, tons, etc.
@@phonicwheel933 yes but here he is talking about the engineering part not the flying part so he should speak with the units engineers use
@@j0shmorillo435 Fair point. 😊
who said 100 USD, for sure not less than 5000 USD
事故らなければの話
I am afraid this is going to fail very badly. When it comes to air travel, I don't think people care about 8 hours vs 4 hours unless if they can fly for the same price. And the website says 2X faster over water and 20% faster over land. Faster compared to what ? a Boeing 747 ? In that case how is 20% much of an improvement when flying over land.
Supersonics aren't allowed to fly over land (unless it is a military fighter) because of sonic boom. This plane isn't meant for domestic flights at all; it's mainly for oversea flights. So it flys in transonic speed range so it won't violate regulation over land right before landing/after take off.
@@drill_fiend1097 thats not what i asked. I just made a statement about why it could fail.
@@rockwithyou2006 I am responding to "how is 20% much of an improvement when flying over land." It's not meant for flying over land because of regulations.
I worked on a trans-Pacific replacement years ago. Technically feasible, with engines the focus in technology. Economics rubbish. My guess is the economics have worsened over the years.
I would be impressed by 100 dollars world wide that i doubt
Muito bonitos os desenhos e projeções, mas parece mais uma enganação igual ao AERION S2, logo as grandes airbus e boeing compram o projeto da boom e engavetam para nunca sair do papel. Chega em 2029 adiam para 2035, em 2035 adiam para 2040 e assim caminha a humanidade.
Chicago to Rome
I dont think people predicting what the future would be like took into consideration how detrimental Captialism would be to technological innovation. If they cant make money off it, chances are its not happening in 2024
'
england = france did made the beautifully concorde airplane...
'
come on america...
american airplane company can make their own many more supersonic airplanes...
how come never make it so far
I hate to say this, but this venture is going to be a total flop! First of all, there is no way in hell that it's only going to cost $200 to travel anywhere in the world. Second, and it's almost like a rule of thumb, whatever you have that goes fast will be high maintenance. The maintenance cost for these planes will go through the roof. Third, there is this thing called zoom. If business people have the choice whether to travel for business or just stay home or at their office and use zoom, I think most people will choose zoom in spite of the fact it would take less time to get to their business destination. They retired the Concorde because they lost their clients. The clients that used to take the Concorde have gotten richer over the years and they bought their own planes!
I think some ordered this plane as their private planes. They apparently have some private orders from European clients. But as for the ticket price, I bet its not gonna get any cheaper than 4000USD tbh.
I'm amazed how the $100 cost even came up. They might say $3000, maybe $2500... well, I really doubt it's feasible but let's accept it for a while. But $100? Why treat me like an idiot?
boom will go bust before their first plane flies one yard
*_@DrWhom_* Common sense says your right, but I do hope you are wrong.😊
As much as I would love to see a new SST in operation it just ain’t going to happen. So much hype but not a solid business plan.
The only problem I see is even though the Boom Overture can possibly fly just about anywhere within four hours for $100.00 per person, the companies purchasing the planes are going to charge much more. My mom was a successful businessperson whose philosophy was, “I would rather make a lot of a little then a little of a lot.” The Concorde had the right idea as far as travel, however, instead of making it affordable for the lower echelon, (a lot of a little), they made it only for the affluent, (a little of a lot). I am sure the airlines who have placed orders will not make it affordable for the masses, so I am sure my chances of riding on a Boom Overture won’t happen. The airlines will cry “poverty” where if everyone could afford to use the plane, the airlines would make so much more. Furthermore, if this plane can do as they say and it is affordable to all, there will be many more traveling thus making the company (Virgin, United…) so much money based on volume of flights. This works like the car rental companies. in NYC it costs $125.00 per day for a full-sized car where in Orlando the same car goes for $89.00 per day. Because Orlando has a constant turnover of cars due to the tourist industry, the rental companies make more money because of the turnover.
You never know...
*_@wedmundchambersii4434_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight, a Boeing 747 fuel cost per passenger is $147, and tickets cost $577 economy and $2,308 first class. Believe it or not, a ticket for the same trip in a subsonic business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. Overture's fuel cost will probably be $628, and tickets will probably be $1,300 and $3,800 respectively. The 747 and business jet would do the trip in 8hrs. Overture would do it in 4hrs.
He never said it would fly by 2023. That is something u just made up
Time is money. I rather 10k to get there fast than pay 30k for a shower 🚿
A very clickbaity title.
I would be able to go from Miami to Honolulu. I could probably go from Miami to Honolulu in 4 to 6 hours versus 10 to 12 hours on an average airline. And if this is true, I can probably go from Miami to Honolulu for 200 bucks a person Versus 700 or 800 bucks a person with regular airplanes. And I probably would take my mom, and my stepmom with me. That would be a total of 1200 on the price tag compared to around 4 to 5 grand in total just for a round trip. Right now, getting from Miami to Honolulu would be no big deal, even though it is a really really long flight as I would have to go from Miami to LAX and then from there to Honolulu on two different airplanes. However, coming home is a completely different story. For whatever reason it’s more like a 24 hour flight because see you leave Honolulu one morning at like let’s say 11 AM. I wouldn’t get home back to Miami until 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM, or even 6 AM in the morning which is crazy. And that’s despite the fact that their time zone is only six hours before us and Los Angeles is only two hours to three hours after them, and despite the fact that it is only a total of a 10 to 12 hour flight. So in short, you leave Honolulu one day but then you don’t get back home to Miami until the next morning. With this, coming back home wouldn’t be an issue with supersonic planes.
By the way, I probably would be able to go from Miami to Singapore in 8 to 12 hours compared to 20 to 24 hours with a regular airline jet. A total round-trip price tag for the three of us would be almost 10 grand for the three of us from Miami to Singapore and Singapore and back. With a supersonic plane, it would probably be cheaper if that comes to be. It would cost anywhere from 400 to 800 bucks a person which equates to about 2402 five grand. but then there’s the issue with aviation regulations regarding the speed and altitude
Drivel
Fun fact Rolls Royce ended partnership with boom.
Boom is a bust.
*_@747heavyboeing3_* It's 10 months later and Boom are still alive. FTT are designing the engine and boom are designing the inlet and exhaust ducting.
Anyone selling engines? engines anyone? jajaj
Again, Jehovah God our Creator and Savior is The Great Spirit, Jehovah is freedom ! REVELATION 4:11 2CORINTHIANS 3:17 MATTHEW 28:19 REVELATION 15:3 Thank you
How have you got your facts so wrong mate? Are u just making these things up??!
Ummm. ...$100? That's neither realistic or economical for an investor for an aircraft that holds 88 people. How many aircrafts would need to be in the sky to make a decent profit? And landing taxes are bit getting cheaper. And these super sonic will only enter large expensive airports, not smaller cheaper ones.
It is a long term goal
it will be cheaper to fly on Boom supersonic than the Boeing 777 300 and Airbus A380 and even cheaper than taking Greyhound Bus.
Correct, except for the single note: it will *not* .
Not significant.
LOL>>>LOL LMAO.
Liars! $100? How about the truth-10 to 20 thousand dollars minimum. The plane costs $200 million and carries 65 passengers. A short flight on Spirit airlines costs $100. Complete nonsense narrative.
Not gonna happen
Boom is promising too much, I wonder if we have technology for all of that and keep cost at $100? I don't think that's sustainable. I hope Boom doesn't join the duo Theranos-Nikola who promised too much and never delivered.
No, it will not join Theranos, it will join OceanGate.
This is crap there is no insde....designing an airplane thats illegal to fly
No way its a rip off
This plane will be banned in Paris like you did in 1977 with Concorde..... 😠
*_@bobduvar_* The US did not ban Concorde, apart from a short local ban at JFK because of Concorde's subsonic noise. On what grounds will Paris ban Overture?
Concorde started scheduled flights from London and Paris to New York, Washington DC, Miami, and Barbados in 1976, but people living in the New York airport area demonstrated against the noise. They had good reason. Concorde was even more noisy than the Boeing 707, which they had previously demonstrated against. It also had an unpleasant tearing sound. As a result of the protests, the New York Port Authority temporarily banned Concorde, but the ban was subsequently overturned by a higher court.
Opposition to supersonic transport (SST) grew from 1960, notably in the US, UK, and Scandinavia. By the 1970s there was opposition from France, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, India, Singapore, Malaya, and Australia. The UK based 'Anti-Concorde Project', started by Richard Wiggs in 1966, tried to kill Concorde on cost, environmental, and noise grounds. There were also many complaints about Concorde noise at Heathrow airport.
US protestors targeted all SSTs, including Concorde. In 1967, Dr William Surecliff, of Harvard University, devised the 'Citizen's League Against Sonic Boom', which aimed to stop the US SST program and Boeing 2707 project. Also in the US, the 'SST and Sonic Boom Handbook', edited by William Shurcliff, was published in 1970. It states that Concorde will devastate the environment, destroy the ozone layer, harm 'human physiology', and upset animals, among other things.
Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. It was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, the US banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed. This ban made most Concorde routes nonviable.
Many US politicians and experts doubted the feasibility of SST, but the US SST initiative still went ahead. After funding in-house SST studies for 17 years, Boeing won a contract to develop the 2707 advanced SST in 1967. Subsequent oil price hikes, concerns about sonic boom, and the environmental lobby forced the senate to axe the project in 1971, at a $1bn spend. This ban was very unpopular and decimated Boeing's finances, resulting in 7,500 lay-offs. The technical issues with the 2707 had been resolved and two prototypes were being constructed. Although the project was on line for completion, it was ultimately cancelled because of sonic boom and the environmentalists. It turned out that the cancellation was fortuitous, because it saved the US a mint and eliminated a potential competitor for Concorde's routes.
By special concession, the US government, with no benefit to itself, did allow Britain and France's noisy SSTs to fly subsonically over the US, and use US airports, despite public objections. The FAA figures show that Concorde's take off noise was 120 dB compared to 104 for the Boeing 707, which itself was considered to be loud and was the subject of protests. Se far from sabotaging Concorde they actually helped it.
Terrible name for the company
They built Concorde in the 1970s / stop making this a big thing of building a similar plane in the 21st century / it’s getting boring / ps this is just a upgraded Concorde / it looks like Concorde it fly’s as fast as Concorde so it must be a upgraded version of Concorde : period
*_@tonynewman8586_* Yea, Overture is just like Concorde, except it's made out of composite rather than aluminium, and it has medium bipass turbofan engines without reheat, rather than turbojets with reheat. It uses cameras and a display rather than a droop snoot. It has a delta wing, with waisted fuselage and empennage, rather than a delta wing with fin. It carries 72 passengers in a spacious quiet cabin, rather than 100 in a cramped noisy cabin. It flies at Mach 1.7 rather than Mach 2. It requires 2 pilots, rather than 2 pilots and a flight engineer. It is economical at low and high speeds, rather than being a fuel guzzler at low speeds and a thirsty at high speeds. Its development cost will be $6bn rather than $14bn. It's buying price will be $200m rather than $1.2bn. It complies with ICAO-14 noise regulations, rather than having a 120dB noise level.
I hope boom goes bankrupt
*Teleportation is real so air travel is all about views and pleasure.*