I'm not the target market of this aircraft but i really hope Boom will able to realize this concept. We saw so many cool airplanes never reach production phase and i hope this aircraft will reach production phase.
@Dimitri Medrividev No, it's not a new concept at all, it's at least 60 years old (Concorde first flew in 1969, not sure when its design started) Concorde was not paying for itself at the end of its service, and with at most 80 passengers, this most likely won't either.
Overture is not aimed at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately catered for by Boeing and Airbus, for example. Instead, it is targeting the 700 million long range business trips made each year globally, 400 million by Americans. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will be compliant with ICAO-14 subsonic noise regulations, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Commercial supersonic flight over land is effectively banned worldwide, so Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water. A subsonic airliner does the JFK/LHR trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours. A 16 hour subsonic trip across the Pacific would require a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4=9 hours total on Overture. All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of subsonic airliners, would give a good margin for the airlines.
I’m in total agreement, but hey! One can only hope. That being said, progress certainly needs to be made on engines as I mentioned on my social media. While Boom notes progress has been made, nothing firm has come to fruition and the clock is ticking.
This airplane reminds me of Boeing’s 2707 and I do HOPE that Boom Supersonic is SUCCESSFUL because I would SO LIKE to ride in this EVENTUALLY because my dad has rode the Concorde before it was retired and THANK YOU SO MUCH @Dj’s Aviation for covering this and YOU are doing SUCH a GREAT JOB
the overture went from being concorde 2.0 to star wars spaceship. i’m not complaining though, it looks really cool, especially with its 747-like hump on the front of the aircraft.
I have lived under the london hethrow flightpath my entire life, and have never complained about the noise. Its something that people who dont live here think is a problem for us, when in actuality, more planes benifits the area rather then hinders it. I rember concorde as a kid, and every day at 7am and 7pm, you would get a boom no louder then shutting a door. It realy wasnt that bad. Just a bit of an overreaction from people who dont understand.
Well I remember Concorde as an adult and you never heard a sonic boom anywhere near Heathrow, it went super once over the Bristol Channel, Concorde must be the only plane ever that people would actually go outside to watch in awae and pride.
Concorde didn't go supersonic until it was no longer over land. You may have heard the engine signature over Hounslow and Windsor (and it was indeed significantly louder than everything else) but not a sonic boom
It was never the boom for me. It was, however one of the loudest planes on the ground because of those beautiful Olympus engines. I worked at DFW Airport when Braniff had two of them landing at the same time to announce the start of service. S beautiful sight! Touching down on the opposite sides of the airport and taxied to the Braniff gates and ended up almost diagonally nose to nose. Much smaller than I had imagined. More like an MD80 or 717. Very tall! Beautiful, like a runway model. But it WAS loud. I didn't have a single complaint about it.
Buddy it depends where you are relative to the boom... Last year a rafale flew supersonic above Paris... Believe me that it was heard like a damn explosion in a 15 km radius
Whitcomb Area Rule. To minimize aerodynamic problems encountered near and at transonic speeds, the change of overall cross sectional area of the aircraft viewed from the front must be as smooth as possible. With a Delta winged design, this naturally leads to a fatter front fuselage cross section.
I'm not sure why some folks make a big deal about the "Area Rule". It's *not* a recent innovation. It's been widely applied since the 1950s -- such as the Convair F102A. The Citation X and even the A380 also use Area Rule. Ps. It would surely have been an oversight if the Overture design didn't use it.
The design is a bit reminiscent of the Convair B-58 Hustler from the late 50's and 60's which had a short but interesting USAF career. I'm old enough to remember the days before the ban on sonic booms. Where I lived it wasn't all that bad. It reminds me of people that build houses near airports and then complain about the noise the airplanes make. Oh well.
genuinely one of the most beautiful aircraft designs I have ever seen in my entire life. If form follows function, then this will be a hell of an aircraft. However my biggest concern is not with the design but with the prospects of this ever being a real viable airliner in the open market
Have you seen RQ-170? or at least SR-71? With engines out and on pillars this is an absolute aerodynamic nightmare with aesthetics of a washing machine with it's guts on the outside. People who designed this have no concept of proportion, let alone aerodynamics. Form follows function, yeah, haha. Only if function is to captivate minds of uneducated gawkers on the internet.
It is not even a finished design, Joel. The nacelles are represented by basic pipes stuck under the wing because they have no clue what to do for engines. Ditto for many other details. I cannot believe that major airlines have put in orders (perhaps they are hedging their bets... have early orders in in case this goes anywhere, not much money lost if this pans out in the most likely way).
I'd say the massive news is yet another speed reduction. Originally it was mach 2.2 along with the fanfare that it would be faster than Concorde. Then it was dropped to mach 1.8 making it slower than Concorde. Now its been dropped again to mach 1.7. That's a bad look if I ever saw one.
I'm not sure how many airlines will want to order it now that it has 4 engines that will burn considerably more fuel than existing quadjets which have already fallen out of favor and its limited range of 4,250NM severely restricts the number of routes it can fly on. With the increase in size I expected an increase in range to at least 6,000NM to be viable on transpacific routes where supersonic flight could see immense time savings and attract East Asian airlines to order the type so I'm quite disappointed.
Yes - and on what engines does it get this 4250NM range? I'd think "less passengers but 6000NM" would be more of a sweet-spot for considering modern business reliance on Asia.
I think this does have a chance because of the void left by Concorde. Like that one, its not for the masses, yet updated with modern quieter technology to regain access in some airspaces. I think this will be a first class/business type only for long distance where it makes sense. Only down i see is the name of the company which kinda projects the opposite lol.
I thought four engines = more fuel, but none of the engines need afterburners now so without the fuel consumption of reheat it will kind of balance out.
But it'll reduce noise allowing for shorter more economically viable routes to be taken especially over land. Not to mention making it easier for the passengers inside.
There are many trade-offs in subsonic airliner design, and many more in supersonic airliner design. Overture will be the same length as Concorde, but will have a bigger wing with empennage. Overture will also be lighter and possibly more streamlined, but the 2 aircraft bear some comparison for illustration. The speed range for Overture is zero, for take off at sea level to Mach 1.7 for cruise at 60,000 feet. The take off noise will be compliant with ICAO-14 regulations, slightly quieter than current subsonic airliners. In comparison, Concorde generated an awesome 120 dB noise level. Each of Concorde's four engines, generated a take off thrust of 37,000 pounds with reheat. At 40,000 feet, due to low air density, the thrust dropped to 10,000 pounds, and at 60,000 feet it fell more to 6,800 pounds, while cruising at Mach 2.0. This reduction in thrust with altitude is normal for jet engines and the same order is to be expected for Overture's engines. BTW subsonic airliner engines typically only have 33% of their sea level thrust at 30.000 feet. Boom also intend that Overture will be fuel efficient at sub (Mach 0.94) and supersonic (Mach 1.7) speeds, compared to Concorde's great thirst, especially at subsonic speeds. This will be achieved by using a supersonic medium bypass engine with spike input diffuser and variable geometry exhaust nozzle, which will also reduce noise, as will the use of 4 engines, with no reheat. This just covers some of the main factors, but there are a load more, which Boom's engineers, Florida Turbine Technology, and the consulting engineers will have simulated when they chose 4 engines, rather than 2.
The entire industry is dropping four engine aircraft to the point where it is scrapping perfectly usable units, and this is said to be the future? I was at the Farnborough air show when a new fuel efficient Boeing 787 was being shown alongside a new super-capacity Airbus A380. Both were going to be the future. Concorde was an amazing machine, and it was fantastic that it came along when it did, as it was the right time to live its longest life. But high running cost, limited market machines do not make a good business plan.
The engine they have is not sufficiently powerful to propel it at mach 1.7 with only two engines. 3 is needed. Still 3 is a maintenance head ache. So general 4 is actually cheaper. The first supersonic aircrafts will be needed to be 3 or 4 engines to be of economical size. I guess when they refined it, they can make the aircraft quite a bit larger with retaining the number of engines, eventually getting better engines and reduce it to two.
@@matsv201 The downside of waiting for technology to catch up is that as these engines get more efficient, so do all engines. As this airframe becomes more economical to fly, so to do the already more economical aircraft. It will never close the gap on profitability of subsonic aircraft. It will always remain a higher running cost machine catering to a limited market by comparison, no matter how good the technology becomes. It's just a fact of diminishing returns.
@@smada36 True, most carriers now are going for models such as the Airbus A321 XLR and the A350 and other 2 engine variants which are super fuel efficient and can hold lots of PAX. 4 engine jets are being phased out and also to make their money back whilst only carrying ~70 PAX per journey they're going to have to charge a huge amount for tickets which will put people off. Turbofans are just so efficient now and airlines are more looking to squeeze every bit of efficiency out of them anyway, going fast doesn't really matter to them.
Now THIS is what I wanted to see, and I needed to set aside time for when I have no distractions and am all patience. My biggest question with the redesign - which apparently is also the finalized production design - is where the cockpit is, but I'm sure they already have that covered. I kind of liked the previous design better: looked simpler, was a trijet, and overall, just highly resembled Concorde. This on the other hand, clearly shows me just how far Overture and in turn Boom Supersonic have come in development. This plane is no longer simply a Concorde 2.0, but its own thing altogether. It looks like the lovechild of the famous Anglo-French airliner and the never completed Boeing 2707, and a downright beast. Dare I say, Overture is now an even more beautiful looking plane than Concorde was. As always, Boom sound like they know what they're doing, and I continue to have high hopes for them in the future. Now onto the more business side of things.
It’s a very nice aircraft overall but I think people are very skeptical about it because of what have to the British airways concord. I’d be surprised if it made it into service but I don’t know if the major airlines would buy it for the that same reason. Definitely would make a difference in the airline industry. Keep up the great work!
I love how we are chasing 1970s technology. The XB70 was capable of mach 2+ cruise on very little fuel due to compression lift. One bad crash and government funding killed 50 years of advancement.
@@heidirabenau511 no I meant the B2707. Even though it wasn’t built. Still one of my favorites. If it was built, of course it would’ve been my favorite airplanes ✈️
I think there is a reason for this change: Boom has gotten access to GE Aviation's _Affinity_ engine, which was temporarily shelved when the Aerion AS2 project ended last year. It may mean GE Aviation could have a testbed engine running by 2024.
No, the affinity is dead. If Boom had switched engine suppliers from Rolls, they would have said so. That Rolls-Royce won the engine development contract with Boom in spite of having no engine to offer, nor one in development, speaks volumes for how realistic this whole programme is.
The Affinity and the RR engine Overture use suppose to have about the same performance. The change probobly have more to due with balance and maintenance. An aircraft is more efficient the more space there is between the wing and the stabilizer. If the stabilizer is in the back, as in pretty much every airliner. The more forward the COG is, the more efficient is the aircraft. But if you make a aircraft 3 engined, there is really just one place to put the third engine. This also make maintenance much worse. For example, the A340, that many people see as failed aircraft, was actually more efficient than the MD11, despite having more engines. It was also much cheaper to maintain. Now.. i don´t see it as impossible for GE to revive the Affinity engine of Overture is a success. The new engines is pretty much a new era of aircraft engines, like the JT9D once was, that defined an generation. Pretty much every aircraft was build around that as a standard (747,767, A300, L1011, DC10) even some of them never used that engine, the size and capacity defined there counterparts.
I remember seeing the Concorde fly over from Heathrow when I left Thorpe Park once, it set off all of the car alarms in the car park and I've never heard anything like it since
Brits and French peoples reaction: Been there, done that and better. In all seriousness though it would be nice to see a new supersonic airliner so good luck to the people behind this project, I hope they succeed.
This is a business-class, fuel-efficient aircraft, so Overture will not be anything like Concorde in terms of ticket prices and economical performance. As for how it will increase efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions, one, you should've heard a little bit in this video. Two, go look up the rest of that stuff on their website.
Everyone was excited for the Concorde. All of the airlines wanted one until they actually built it. They couldn’t make any money off of it, and it’ll probably be a similar situation here. I hope it works, and is a success, but the way things are going, I have my doubts.
Hi, this looks to me like what Concorde might have become had it been iterated and allowed to evolve with time and technology. It's just a shame it's slower, Concordes defining attraction was it's ability to push mach 2, seriously shrinking the time between major business centres. After the pandemic though, virtual meetings have taken the world by storm, so I'm skeptical it will ever fly.
And this is the commercial problem with Boom. It is subsonic over land, and maxes out at Mach 1.7 over sea. So it won't save enough time to justify the much higher fuel and maintenance costs.
Awesome video and I really love the the new shape. Is the cockpit going to be windowless? I'm asking because there's no windshields on the new design, but I think it would look better if it were to have a normal windshield.
@@noah_dpk do you know where I could find the United and USAF renders in the new design? All of the ones I've seen are just in the boom render. I'm just curious.
Let me start by saying this is beautiful aircraft and I wish Boom well in the endeavors, but I see a major hurdle for Boom to overcome and that is the cost for available seat mile being too high for carriers to make money with the aircraft.
Especially if you realise Concorde sported 100 seats, way more than this Boom project. it requires a lot of time and money to design something entirely new.
Overture is not aimed at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately catered for by Boeing and Airbus, for example. Instead, it is targeting the 700 million long range business trips made each year globally, 400 million by Americans. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will be compliant with ICAO-14 subsonic noise regulations, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Commercial supersonic flight over land is effectively banned worldwide, so Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water. A subsonic airliner does the JFK/LHR trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours. A 16 hour subsonic trip across the Pacific would require a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4=9 hours total on Overture. All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of subsonic airliners, would give a good margin for the airlines.
So it a small version of the never built for Boeing 2707. Curious how their shaping will redue boom characteristics compared to the 2707. I hope it comes to life.
Looks like it has flaps though and it seems that the aspect ratio is higher than Concorde? So it should land about the same if not less speed. Also, since it's light on landing, I don't think 250kn, prob more like ~190kn
Not really. Concorde have a 3.2ton/meter span while landing, Overture will have about 2.2ton/meter span. Just doing the math it would imply the landing speed of Overture would be about 155knots. Sure the shape have some impact on the landing speed, but its really span and weight that is dominating the equation
*_@jungbolosse3034_* Concorde take off speed was 217kn (250mph), which was crazy fast, and caused tyre bursts. Its landing speed was 162kn (187mph), which was also very fast. Overture speeds should be a lot less than this, because it will be lighter, with a bigger wing and also leading and trailing edge flaps. Not sure if the empennage will also allow slower speeds.
Yeah… when we see the first proto fly, I’ll start to believe it could be possible, until then, it’s pure fiction or a great Microsoft Flight Sim add on.
If you've seen the inside of the Concorde, the space for each passenger is actually almost the same as a regular commercial airliner in Economy class but with only a little more legroom. The Boom Supersonic is all business class seating with circa 70 passengers or so.
The airframes of the Concordes are really old. Because of the stresses involved with supersonic flight and pressurization cycles, you can't fly it forever like you could with a DC3 (parts permitting)
I am old enough to remember Concorde and all the complaints and defined corridors of travel. It will be most interesting to see what this noise reduction system is. Ok, Super Cruise. Still waiting to hear this thing at it’s maximum Mach numbers
Out of the tail and under the wing means maintenance is easier, but less easy than a twin engine. Given how airlines have settled on twin engine designs as the default, they'll have to charge a lot to justify the additional cost. Hope it makes it, but there's a lot of metaphorical runway yet to pass over.
Interesting, it's a supercruise aircraft. So while very expensive to run and fuel thirsty compared to what's out there now. A lot more efficient than Concorde. This is obviously going to be a niche product as Concorde was so I doubt it's something I will ever fly on. Not with the trend upwards wise on terms of aviation costs.
But unlike Concorde, the Boom Supersonic can fly non-stop between Tokyo and Los Angeles at supersonic speeds, which means the potential to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney with only one fuel stop.
@@Sacto1654 Are you sure about that? 4,250nm range and Tokyo to LA is 4,768 nautical miles, add in the need for over the water fuel reserves and general flight reserves and it's got no where near the range for that. Not even close. Concorde had 3900 NM range. Its range is not much more than Concorde.
Take of without reheat will open it up to a lot more airports but as a big fan of Concorde it misses some of that excitement. I wonder how they are designing the engine air intakes for supersonic flight.
Its not reheat that is the main engine noise problem. It's that for supersonic speed you can only use low-bypass turbofans (see how much skinnier they are than subsonic engines?) because you need very high exhaust gas velocity. Higher speed gas automatically means higher decibels. I'm very sceptical that you can build an engine efficient at supersonic speeds which is not unaccceptably noisy on takeoff and climbout, even without reheat.
@@kenoliver8913 concorde always used reheat on take off and turned it off about 20 seconds after it got into the air. It was a noisy beast. By the look of the cgi they are planing on the use of blackbird type air intakes rather than the ramp design of concorde, no jet engine can deal with supersonic air into the first turbine, hence the use of ramps and cones.
This would be a great pitch to the airlines. This focused airplane, would land orders, and impress the airlines with Supersonic travel, but the problem is, something of this magnitude, can be a very tough gamble. It would take an awful lot planning to get this airplane into a reality. Look at what happened to the British Concorde, which did actually get developed, and put into service, but was scrutinized, because it was so expensive to create. The Russian TU-144 also had the same issues, but was very limited. This, program, would be extraordinary if it actually became a reality. It would make the Concorde, and the TU-144 look completely obsolete. This airplane does look a lot like the Boeing 2707 Supersonic transport, that never came to be.
I also was meant to say the French Concorde also. I'm sorry for that. The French, and the British Aerospace Cooperation had a "shared" partnership involving the Concorde. Though it was a complicated project at the time costing a pretty hefty sum, to develop this airplane, the Concorde only saw 16 examples ever built, and were used only by Air France, and British Airways. It became an iconic marvel even though it had limitations. The Russian Tupolev TU-144 on the other hand, was a concept airplane, and did involve pretty hefty research also. I don't know if it later was used for airline service, and if it really did, it must have been very limited for this particular role. One of the prototypes was involved in a fatal air crash at an Air Show back in 1973. But to my understanding, were there only two of these aircraft built?? Someone fill me in on this.......
@@Dan.d649 I don’t really know a lot about the tu-144 but I think it wasn’t safe at all compared to the Concorde that has imo an impeccable safety record (without mentioning the crash which wasn’t the Concorde’s fault)
so the range is Transatlantic, and LA - Tokyo, but not Syd-LA, Sin-LHR. so assuming it "gets off the ground" it will have a few routes, but not the longest distance, most time consuming ones... Interesting what sort of market that gives it.
@@matsv201 content if that is the case. Concorde grew a few inches in length as full speed because of the heat generated on the surface by friction of the air passing over it. That was more than 30c.
Very beautiful design. Quite different from the original 50 seat, 3 engine design with square engine nacelles. Looks a little like an old delta wing bomber with 4 underwing pods from 50s. General Dynamics, I think
The Overture cockpit will be similar to the cockpit on a subsonic airliner, except there will be no front windows. Instead monitors will display the terrain for take off and landing.
I hope they are also looking at the wake turbulence issues this aircraft could cause. I remember lining up behind Concord in a 737-400 at LHR and having 4 minutes hold because of wake turbulence. We are held 2 minutes behind an A380 that has five or six times the passenger capacity of the Overture so too many of these could seriously impact airport capacity.
@@mcdiamond2463 I didn't say it was carrying five or six times the number of passengers, I said they had five or six times the capacity. However all of the post-pandemic flights I have taken have been over 80% capacity so there could be a noticeable effect on the number of passenger movements if Overture flights become common. My concern is more about the wake turbulence holding time. Part of the problem is an ogive wing (like Concorde) was it resulted in greater wake turbulence than the swept wings on transonic aircraft. This resulted in reduced movements per hour on the runway, with longer holding times and higher costs for all the other carriers burning extra fuel waiting for the wake turbulence to clear. I am concerned that the noise issues are being addressed but there has not been any statements addressing the wake turbulence issues that were also present with Concorde.
Sooo, their design will still have to fly below Mach 1 over land. Looks like the only real innovation, and this is a bit of a stretch, the proposed airplane will not require after burners. So it hasn't solved the main problem associated with supersonic passenger aircraft; that of the sonic boom. Then why bother?
what about it's effect on the environment? Because that was a big problem with prior supersonic aircraft. Does anything state on it's pollution levels compared to regular airliners? 🤔
The engines are existing technology, the flight control systems are existing tech - only the design of aircraft has been tweaked to cater to supersonic flight - because today we have power of computer simulations while designing - which means this aircraft could see production !
I know that United's plan to purchase Boom aircraft was nothing more than a publicity stunt for attention but maybe it'll help Boom make some progress nonetheless. It would be interesting to see supersonic airliners again before I retire from the airline industry in another 25ish years.
I really think a supersonic jet would do better today with more efficient quieter engines but i dont know if it could compete with the SUPER efficient jets offered by Airbus and Boeing
So no super sonic over land - why even build it? At that range it can't really do trans pacific, so this is being built for what? A large business jet for oil despots? 60 years later and they carry less people than a Concorde, they are slower than a Concorde, and still can't go SS over land - how is this progress? All they have done is made a smaller carbon fiber knockoff of the Concorde. Come back when you can carry at least as many people as a 737, with a range of 8 to 9K miles, and can get approval to fly SS over land - if you can't do that, don't even bother.
Better to have a hybrid turbojet/ramjet design like the SR-71 - in effect a turbojet at lower speeds and a ramjet at high speeds. Scramjets do not exist yet and in any case are only efficient above Mach 3.
That range puts it - wait for it - squarely into the same mission profile Concorde had, except slower. Sorry, this gets capped at MAYBE 50 units, tops. And that's if it's even produced at all.
I'm not the target market of this aircraft but i really hope Boom will able to realize this concept. We saw so many cool airplanes never reach production phase and i hope this aircraft will reach production phase.
Yes, because the wealthy absolutely need more toys, especially toys that make everyone else miserable.
It’s called the concorde
@Dimitri Medrividev No, it's not a new concept at all, it's at least 60 years old (Concorde first flew in 1969, not sure when its design started)
Concorde was not paying for itself at the end of its service, and with at most 80 passengers, this most likely won't either.
Who is the target market of this aircraft and why is it not you?
Overture is not aimed at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately catered for by Boeing and Airbus, for example. Instead, it is targeting the 700 million long range business trips made each year globally, 400 million by Americans.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will be compliant with ICAO-14 subsonic noise regulations, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Commercial supersonic flight over land is effectively banned worldwide, so Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water.
A subsonic airliner does the JFK/LHR trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours.
A 16 hour subsonic trip across the Pacific would require a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4=9 hours total on Overture.
All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of subsonic airliners, would give a good margin for the airlines.
still skeptical of this plane becoming a reality in the civil aviation market
No doubt
I’m in total agreement, but hey! One can only hope. That being said, progress certainly needs to be made on engines as I mentioned on my social media. While Boom notes progress has been made, nothing firm has come to fruition and the clock is ticking.
@@DjsAviation yeap, time will only tell as it doesn't wait for the next step in the aviation world where one can get left behind.
@@DjsAviation yup im the most suspicious with no engine decided
But Imagine a fuel efficient concorde that can go over land
This airplane reminds me of Boeing’s 2707 and I do HOPE that Boom Supersonic is SUCCESSFUL because I would SO LIKE to ride in this EVENTUALLY because my dad has rode the Concorde before it was retired and THANK YOU SO MUCH @Dj’s Aviation for covering this and YOU are doing SUCH a GREAT JOB
Yes, a "carbon" copy.
Boeing 2707-300 fixed wing
the overture went from being concorde 2.0 to star wars spaceship. i’m not complaining though, it looks really cool, especially with its 747-like hump on the front of the aircraft.
That is called area ruling. It reduces drag.
“65 to 80 passengers.” Wait until low cost carriers discover this
😂
Ryanair: I’ll take them all!
TUI: I'll take it to replace the 767
Turn around times would be insane
Sadly its to narrow to cram 4 seats in width, but they can certanly cram more in langth. They could do almost 120 if they do full ryan packing
Hallelujah! It’s about time! I hope this marches through to production. ‘We feel the need for speed!’
I have lived under the london hethrow flightpath my entire life, and have never complained about the noise. Its something that people who dont live here think is a problem for us, when in actuality, more planes benifits the area rather then hinders it.
I rember concorde as a kid, and every day at 7am and 7pm, you would get a boom no louder then shutting a door. It realy wasnt that bad. Just a bit of an overreaction from people who dont understand.
Well I remember Concorde as an adult and you never heard a sonic boom anywhere near Heathrow, it went super once over the Bristol Channel, Concorde must be the only plane ever that people would actually go outside to watch in awae and pride.
Concorde didn't go supersonic until it was no longer over land. You may have heard the engine signature over Hounslow and Windsor (and it was indeed significantly louder than everything else) but not a sonic boom
It was never the boom for me. It was, however one of the loudest planes on the ground because of those beautiful Olympus engines. I worked at DFW Airport when Braniff had two of them landing at the same time to announce the start of service. S beautiful sight! Touching down on the opposite sides of the airport and taxied to the Braniff gates and ended up almost diagonally nose to nose. Much smaller than I had imagined. More like an MD80 or 717. Very tall! Beautiful, like a runway model. But it WAS loud. I didn't have a single complaint about it.
Buddy it depends where you are relative to the boom...
Last year a rafale flew supersonic above Paris... Believe me that it was heard like a damn explosion in a 15 km radius
This refined design looks way better than the previous. I really hope to see it in person some day!
Whitcomb Area Rule. To minimize aerodynamic problems encountered near and at transonic speeds, the change of overall cross sectional area of the aircraft viewed from the front must be as smooth as possible. With a Delta winged design, this naturally leads to a fatter front fuselage cross section.
I'm not sure why some folks make a big deal about the "Area Rule". It's *not* a recent innovation. It's been widely applied since the 1950s -- such as the Convair F102A. The Citation X and even the A380 also use Area Rule.
Ps. It would surely have been an oversight if the Overture design didn't use it.
@@martinfendt1305 Oh my, yes. Check out the anti-shock bodies on the Convair 990 wings.
@@martinfendt1305 and the Buccaneer.
@@langdalepaul also the BAC Lightening Mk6 -- Its extended ventral tank optimised the area-rule on that aircraft.
Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it. As much as I would love to see another Concorde style plane, I doubt it will happen again in my lifetime.
They just partnered up with Northropp Grumman who has taken interest in this plane. I think it will become a reality.
@@Ven100 theyve taken interest in the money that is being pumped into it.
It would have to have something of a F1 monocot ,halo design
Согласен с вами, конкорд, а ещё раньше ту144.
Over 200 are ordered. I think the pressure is on now to make it work. But i think it could take another 15 years
I have just started training to become a commercial pilot I really hope this comes to market and I get a chance to fly it 😀
The design is a bit reminiscent of the Convair B-58 Hustler from the late 50's and 60's which had a short but interesting USAF career. I'm old enough to remember the days before the ban on sonic booms. Where I lived it wasn't all that bad. It reminds me of people that build houses near airports and then complain about the noise the airplanes make. Oh well.
Spot on about the B-58.
also like Boeing SST design .
genuinely one of the most beautiful aircraft designs I have ever seen in my entire life. If form follows function, then this will be a hell of an aircraft. However my biggest concern is not with the design but with the prospects of this ever being a real viable airliner in the open market
Have you seen RQ-170? or at least SR-71? With engines out and on pillars this is an absolute aerodynamic nightmare with aesthetics of a washing machine with it's guts on the outside. People who designed this have no concept of proportion, let alone aerodynamics. Form follows function, yeah, haha. Only if function is to captivate minds of uneducated gawkers on the internet.
It is not even a finished design, Joel. The nacelles are represented by basic pipes stuck under the wing because they have no clue what to do for engines. Ditto for many other details. I cannot believe that major airlines have put in orders (perhaps they are hedging their bets... have early orders in in case this goes anywhere, not much money lost if this pans out in the most likely way).
The Concorde looked way better. This is like someone was asked to draw the concorde from memory
@@normaluser333 it's almost like they can't make it look exactly like the Concorde 🤪🤪
I really hope this comes to fruition
I'd say the massive news is yet another speed reduction. Originally it was mach 2.2 along with the fanfare that it would be faster than Concorde. Then it was dropped to mach 1.8 making it slower than Concorde. Now its been dropped again to mach 1.7. That's a bad look if I ever saw one.
What's even worse is that these new supersonic planes were supposed to be able to fly supersonic over land and now they said it will not.
@@Islamisthecultofsin It still can, it just need the law to be changed. And there still are places on earth you can fly supersonic over ground
Wow, a paper only design that looks like a 50 year old Boeing 2707, which also never left the ground!
It honestly looks like the 2707 now with this redesign
What an elegant airplane
Yes go for it. I'll buy a ticket.😃
Is about time. Planes haven’t evolved nearly as much as the should have ever since the birth of aviation
I'm not sure how many airlines will want to order it now that it has 4 engines that will burn considerably more fuel than existing quadjets which have already fallen out of favor and its limited range of 4,250NM severely restricts the number of routes it can fly on. With the increase in size I expected an increase in range to at least 6,000NM to be viable on transpacific routes where supersonic flight could see immense time savings and attract East Asian airlines to order the type so I'm quite disappointed.
Yes - and on what engines does it get this 4250NM range? I'd think "less passengers but 6000NM" would be more of a sweet-spot for considering modern business reliance on Asia.
I think this does have a chance because of the void left by Concorde. Like that one, its not for the masses, yet updated with modern quieter technology to regain access in some airspaces. I think this will be a first class/business type only for long distance where it makes sense. Only down i see is the name of the company which kinda projects the opposite lol.
I thought four engines = more fuel, but none of the engines need afterburners now so without the fuel consumption of reheat it will kind of balance out.
@@jimmyjango5213 But the range should also increaseby at least 50% without reheat.
@@freeculture i can already see the headlines in the media.
I think making this a 4-engine aircraft is the death blow to the project. Maintenance costs are going to be incredibly high!
Not necessarily, if it uses GE Aviation's _Affinity_ engine.
But it'll reduce noise allowing for shorter more economically viable routes to be taken especially over land. Not to mention making it easier for the passengers inside.
There are many trade-offs in subsonic airliner design, and many more in supersonic airliner design. Overture will be the same length as Concorde, but will have a bigger wing with empennage. Overture will also be lighter and possibly more streamlined, but the 2 aircraft bear some comparison for illustration.
The speed range for Overture is zero, for take off at sea level to Mach 1.7 for cruise at 60,000 feet. The take off noise will be compliant with ICAO-14 regulations, slightly quieter than current subsonic airliners. In comparison, Concorde generated an awesome 120 dB noise level.
Each of Concorde's four engines, generated a take off thrust of 37,000 pounds with reheat. At 40,000 feet, due to low air density, the thrust dropped to 10,000 pounds, and at 60,000 feet it fell more to 6,800 pounds, while cruising at Mach 2.0. This reduction in thrust with altitude is normal for jet engines and the same order is to be expected for Overture's engines. BTW subsonic airliner engines typically only have 33% of their sea level thrust at 30.000 feet.
Boom also intend that Overture will be fuel efficient at sub (Mach 0.94) and supersonic (Mach 1.7) speeds, compared to Concorde's great thirst, especially at subsonic speeds. This will be achieved by using a supersonic medium bypass engine with spike input diffuser and variable geometry exhaust nozzle, which will also reduce noise, as will the use of 4 engines, with no reheat.
This just covers some of the main factors, but there are a load more, which Boom's engineers, Florida Turbine Technology, and the consulting engineers will have simulated when they chose 4 engines, rather than 2.
Awesome Video Awesome News
The entire industry is dropping four engine aircraft to the point where it is scrapping perfectly usable units, and this is said to be the future?
I was at the Farnborough air show when a new fuel efficient Boeing 787 was being shown alongside a new super-capacity Airbus A380. Both were going to be the future.
Concorde was an amazing machine, and it was fantastic that it came along when it did, as it was the right time to live its longest life. But high running cost, limited market machines do not make a good business plan.
The engine they have is not sufficiently powerful to propel it at mach 1.7 with only two engines. 3 is needed. Still 3 is a maintenance head ache. So general 4 is actually cheaper.
The first supersonic aircrafts will be needed to be 3 or 4 engines to be of economical size.
I guess when they refined it, they can make the aircraft quite a bit larger with retaining the number of engines, eventually getting better engines and reduce it to two.
@@matsv201 The downside of waiting for technology to catch up is that as these engines get more efficient, so do all engines. As this airframe becomes more economical to fly, so to do the already more economical aircraft.
It will never close the gap on profitability of subsonic aircraft. It will always remain a higher running cost machine catering to a limited market by comparison, no matter how good the technology becomes.
It's just a fact of diminishing returns.
@@smada36 True, most carriers now are going for models such as the Airbus A321 XLR and the A350 and other 2 engine variants which are super fuel efficient and can hold lots of PAX. 4 engine jets are being phased out and also to make their money back whilst only carrying ~70 PAX per journey they're going to have to charge a huge amount for tickets which will put people off.
Turbofans are just so efficient now and airlines are more looking to squeeze every bit of efficiency out of them anyway, going fast doesn't really matter to them.
Stunning aircraft
This is actually a really interesting design
Now THIS is what I wanted to see, and I needed to set aside time for when I have no distractions and am all patience. My biggest question with the redesign - which apparently is also the finalized production design - is where the cockpit is, but I'm sure they already have that covered. I kind of liked the previous design better: looked simpler, was a trijet, and overall, just highly resembled Concorde. This on the other hand, clearly shows me just how far Overture and in turn Boom Supersonic have come in development. This plane is no longer simply a Concorde 2.0, but its own thing altogether. It looks like the lovechild of the famous Anglo-French airliner and the never completed Boeing 2707, and a downright beast. Dare I say, Overture is now an even more beautiful looking plane than Concorde was. As always, Boom sound like they know what they're doing, and I continue to have high hopes for them in the future. Now onto the more business side of things.
How far they have come in development of 3D graphics? Sure.
Thanks for sharing Dan.
It’s a very nice aircraft overall but I think people are very skeptical about it because of what have to the British airways concord. I’d be surprised if it made it into service but I don’t know if the major airlines would buy it for the that same reason. Definitely would make a difference in the airline industry. Keep up the great work!
I love how we are chasing 1970s technology. The XB70 was capable of mach 2+ cruise on very little fuel due to compression lift. One bad crash and government funding killed 50 years of advancement.
And the XB-70 itself was just not at fault in this accident.
It looks like a mix between the Boeing 2707 and the Tu-244
Huge fan of the Boeing 2707. This is pretty close. Nice airplane ✈️
You mean TU-144
@@heidirabenau511 no I meant the B2707. Even though it wasn’t built. Still one of my favorites. If it was built, of course it would’ve been my favorite airplanes ✈️
@@heidirabenau511 no i mean 244
the 244 was a concept
I think there is a reason for this change: Boom has gotten access to GE Aviation's _Affinity_ engine, which was temporarily shelved when the Aerion AS2 project ended last year. It may mean GE Aviation could have a testbed engine running by 2024.
Not likely they shut the program down and too low volume for GE to be concerned.
No, the affinity is dead. If Boom had switched engine suppliers from Rolls, they would have said so.
That Rolls-Royce won the engine development contract with Boom in spite of having no engine to offer, nor one in development, speaks volumes for how realistic this whole programme is.
The Affinity and the RR engine Overture use suppose to have about the same performance. The change probobly have more to due with balance and maintenance.
An aircraft is more efficient the more space there is between the wing and the stabilizer. If the stabilizer is in the back, as in pretty much every airliner. The more forward the COG is, the more efficient is the aircraft. But if you make a aircraft 3 engined, there is really just one place to put the third engine. This also make maintenance much worse.
For example, the A340, that many people see as failed aircraft, was actually more efficient than the MD11, despite having more engines. It was also much cheaper to maintain.
Now.. i don´t see it as impossible for GE to revive the Affinity engine of Overture is a success. The new engines is pretty much a new era of aircraft engines, like the JT9D once was, that defined an generation. Pretty much every aircraft was build around that as a standard (747,767, A300, L1011, DC10) even some of them never used that engine, the size and capacity defined there counterparts.
Cheers for the update, this one finally looks like it will happen
Hmm, had no idea about this..cheers for the upload.
I remember seeing the Concorde fly over from Heathrow when I left Thorpe Park once, it set off all of the car alarms in the car park and I've never heard anything like it since
With good reason: the takeoff required full reheat (afterburner) operation, which is very noisy and fuel consuming.
The vertical stabilizer looks awfully small in these renderings.
Agree
Excellent stuff bro
Brits and French peoples reaction: Been there, done that and better. In all seriousness though it would be nice to see a new supersonic airliner so good luck to the people behind this project, I hope they succeed.
Thank you for your channel
Yesssss finally here
A: "We need to increase efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions."
B: "Time for a supersonic airplane that caters to few wealthy passengers!"
And going from 3 to 4 engines with a reduction in speed to Mach 1.7
Yeah chief, I don't have a good feeling about this one.
the few wealthy don't fly commercial either
This is a business-class, fuel-efficient aircraft, so Overture will not be anything like Concorde in terms of ticket prices and economical performance. As for how it will increase efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions, one, you should've heard a little bit in this video. Two, go look up the rest of that stuff on their website.
Just plant more forests and let mother nature deal with us..
@@AirShark95 The speed have been 1.7 since 2017.
Love the design really hoping for the best with boom
Conical inlets under the wings small tail elevon the Overture looks now like a mini Boeing SST
Everyone was excited for the Concorde. All of the airlines wanted one until they actually built it. They couldn’t make any money off of it, and it’ll probably be a similar situation here. I hope it works, and is a success, but the way things are going, I have my doubts.
I know many are skeptical about this project, but so was the case with Concorde back in the days. Concorde was an aircraft well ahead of its time.
What a gorgeous plane!
Hi, this looks to me like what Concorde might have become had it been iterated and allowed to evolve with time and technology. It's just a shame it's slower, Concordes defining attraction was it's ability to push mach 2, seriously shrinking the time between major business centres. After the pandemic though, virtual meetings have taken the world by storm, so I'm skeptical it will ever fly.
And this is the commercial problem with Boom. It is subsonic over land, and maxes out at Mach 1.7 over sea. So it won't save enough time to justify the much higher fuel and maintenance costs.
Awesome video and I really love the the new shape. Is the cockpit going to be windowless? I'm asking because there's no windshields on the new design, but I think it would look better if it were to have a normal windshield.
The window is probably hidden in the black coloring (like Airbus with its mask design).
@@AFoxGuy Hopefully!
@@OwenConcorde I'm worried though, because every official render (even united and USAF) is showing that mask. Slightly worried it's non optional.
@@noah_dpk do you know where I could find the United and USAF renders in the new design? All of the ones I've seen are just in the boom render. I'm just curious.
@@n908qd7 the partnership page of their website.
When looking slightly at an angle and from behind (3:21), the aircrafts front part looks like a hump from the 747!
It’s coming!!!!
Let me start by saying this is beautiful aircraft and I wish Boom well in the endeavors, but I see a major hurdle for Boom to overcome and that is the cost for available seat mile being too high for carriers to make money with the aircraft.
Especially if you realise Concorde sported 100 seats, way more than this Boom project. it requires a lot of time and money to design something entirely new.
Overture is not aimed at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately catered for by Boeing and Airbus, for example. Instead, it is targeting the 700 million long range business trips made each year globally, 400 million by Americans.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will be compliant with ICAO-14 subsonic noise regulations, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Commercial supersonic flight over land is effectively banned worldwide, so Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water.
A subsonic airliner does the JFK/LHR trip in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours.
A 16 hour subsonic trip across the Pacific would require a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4=9 hours total on Overture.
All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of subsonic airliners, would give a good margin for the airlines.
So it a small version of the never built for Boeing 2707. Curious how their shaping will redue boom characteristics compared to the 2707. I hope it comes to life.
By the shape of the wing it would land at 250 knots minimum!!
Looks like it has flaps though and it seems that the aspect ratio is higher than Concorde? So it should land about the same if not less speed. Also, since it's light on landing, I don't think 250kn, prob more like ~190kn
@@junxianglan2907 with (presumably) 4 thrust reversers the plane can probably slow down really quickly (especially with it’s size).
Who are you a computer? What AI do you have allowing you to calculate the required landing speed just by looking at a wing? Dear god.
Not really. Concorde have a 3.2ton/meter span while landing, Overture will have about 2.2ton/meter span. Just doing the math it would imply the landing speed of Overture would be about 155knots. Sure the shape have some impact on the landing speed, but its really span and weight that is dominating the equation
*_@jungbolosse3034_* Concorde take off speed was 217kn (250mph), which was crazy fast, and caused tyre bursts. Its landing speed was 162kn (187mph), which was also very fast.
Overture speeds should be a lot less than this, because it will be lighter, with a bigger wing and also leading and trailing edge flaps. Not sure if the empennage will also allow slower speeds.
A better Concorde, wow what a leap forward.
except it hasn't flown yet.
@@LiveFromLondon2 Its really not a question if it will fly. If it have wings and an engine.. it will fly.
The question is if it will be economical.
Yeah… when we see the first proto fly, I’ll start to believe it could be possible, until then, it’s pure fiction or a great Microsoft Flight Sim add on.
I have high hopes for this one. I really want to see this come true and it seems like it's getting further than the other concepts
Great video and love your content.
The new Boom sst design looks pretty similar to the Boeing 2707-300 design from 1968!
So the massive news is that we may be able to take a virtual trip aboard the boom Overture this decade
I think the last design looked better but I still think this is really cool. Hopefully it actually turns into reality unlike the being 7e7
So it's almost as big as a Concorde, but considerably slower and with much less pax capacity... Progress!!!!
If you've seen the inside of the Concorde, the space for each passenger is actually almost the same as a regular commercial airliner in Economy class but with only a little more legroom. The Boom Supersonic is all business class seating with circa 70 passengers or so.
There is no power plant available to this operating profile. I mean the centre piece is missing.
Qaud jet?!? This project isnt that viable in the first place, but if it isnt a twin jet then it will not sell nearly as well
It will have sells cuz it's a supersonic aircraft
Imagine if it can supercruise - mach 1 without afterburner
It is a quad jet for noise reduction they are just a bit smaller and use less so they will just equel the tri jet design
@@alienbeef0421 it does not have afterburners, so it super-cruises the full flight
@@quinndenver4075 yep, realized that - commented midway through the vid 😂
Would a re-engined Concorde suffice?
The airframes of the Concordes are really old. Because of the stresses involved with supersonic flight and pressurization cycles, you can't fly it forever like you could with a DC3 (parts permitting)
I am old enough to remember Concorde and all the complaints and defined corridors of travel. It will be most interesting to see what this noise reduction system is. Ok, Super Cruise. Still waiting to hear this thing at it’s maximum Mach numbers
Looking of for this plane! Hope the best for boom and that they manage to succeed from the obstacles coming 👍
Out of the tail and under the wing means maintenance is easier, but less easy than a twin engine. Given how airlines have settled on twin engine designs as the default, they'll have to charge a lot to justify the additional cost. Hope it makes it, but there's a lot of metaphorical runway yet to pass over.
If this aircraft is becoming reality this is going to be so cool 😎
Fingers crossed it can be! However, there's certainly lots of questions that remain.
I've been seeing proposals for new supersonics for thirty years.
Interesting, it's a supercruise aircraft. So while very expensive to run and fuel thirsty compared to what's out there now. A lot more efficient than Concorde. This is obviously going to be a niche product as Concorde was so I doubt it's something I will ever fly on. Not with the trend upwards wise on terms of aviation costs.
But unlike Concorde, the Boom Supersonic can fly non-stop between Tokyo and Los Angeles at supersonic speeds, which means the potential to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney with only one fuel stop.
@@Sacto1654 Are you sure about that? 4,250nm range and Tokyo to LA is 4,768 nautical miles, add in the need for over the water fuel reserves and general flight reserves and it's got no where near the range for that. Not even close. Concorde had 3900 NM range. Its range is not much more than Concorde.
Concorde was super cruise as well.
I can't see this being mich more efficient than Concorde. There isn't any new significant technology here.
@@jackroutledge352 Concorde I always thought needed the lowest afterburner setting to maintain mach 2. I stand corrected.
Take of without reheat will open it up to a lot more airports but as a big fan of Concorde it misses some of that excitement. I wonder how they are designing the engine air intakes for supersonic flight.
Its not reheat that is the main engine noise problem. It's that for supersonic speed you can only use low-bypass turbofans (see how much skinnier they are than subsonic engines?) because you need very high exhaust gas velocity. Higher speed gas automatically means higher decibels. I'm very sceptical that you can build an engine efficient at supersonic speeds which is not unaccceptably noisy on takeoff and climbout, even without reheat.
@@kenoliver8913 concorde always used reheat on take off and turned it off about 20 seconds after it got into the air. It was a noisy beast.
By the look of the cgi they are planing on the use of blackbird type air intakes rather than the ramp design of concorde, no jet engine can deal with supersonic air into the first turbine, hence the use of ramps and cones.
This would be a great pitch to the airlines. This focused airplane, would land orders, and impress the airlines with Supersonic travel, but the problem is, something of this magnitude, can be a very tough gamble. It would take an awful lot planning to get this airplane into a reality. Look at what happened to the British Concorde, which did actually get developed, and put into service, but was scrutinized, because it was so expensive to create. The Russian TU-144 also had the same issues, but was very limited. This, program, would be extraordinary if it actually became a reality. It would make the Concorde, and the TU-144 look completely obsolete. This airplane does look a lot like the Boeing 2707 Supersonic transport, that never came to be.
I thought the same thing regarding the Boeing SST
Why do you guys keep saying British Concorde as if it wasn’t French too
I also was meant to say the French Concorde also. I'm sorry for that. The French, and the British Aerospace Cooperation had a "shared" partnership involving the Concorde. Though it was a complicated project at the time costing a pretty hefty sum, to develop this airplane, the Concorde only saw 16 examples ever built, and were used only by Air France, and British Airways. It became an iconic marvel even though it had limitations. The Russian Tupolev TU-144 on the other hand, was a concept airplane, and did involve pretty hefty research also. I don't know if it later was used for airline service, and if it really did, it must have been very limited for this particular role. One of the prototypes was involved in a fatal air crash at an Air Show back in 1973. But to my understanding, were there only two of these aircraft built?? Someone fill me in on this.......
@@Dan.d649 nah my bad if I sounded agressive bro I didn’t mean that
@@Dan.d649 I don’t really know a lot about the tu-144 but I think it wasn’t safe at all compared to the Concorde that has imo an impeccable safety record (without mentioning the crash which wasn’t the Concorde’s fault)
They need to work with Asobo / Microsoft and get this into MSFS. Free advertising
If it can match traditional airliner fuel efficiency at 720-730 mph then it’ll be really profitable.
Never happen.
I’ve travelled supersonic. It’s great
My aerodynamics is rather rusty, but those engine intakes were not an appropriate shape for supersonic engines.
The intakes are the same as the intakes on the Mach 3.2 SR-71 Blackbird.
@@phonicwheel933 oh yeah I replayed it. You can see a spike.
so the range is Transatlantic, and LA - Tokyo, but not Syd-LA, Sin-LHR. so assuming it "gets off the ground" it will have a few routes, but not the longest distance, most time consuming ones... Interesting what sort of market that gives it.
Assuming the composite structure can handle the surface temperatures generated at supersonic speeds
Its like 30C at mach 1.7, so its really not an issue
If you really want high temperatures there is carbon-carbon composite that can handle 800C.
@@matsv201 content if that is the case. Concorde grew a few inches in length as full speed because of the heat generated on the surface by friction of the air passing over it. That was more than 30c.
@@nicholasgething2163 No Concorde fly faster, hence are warmer. Around 60C. SR71 is even warmer.
Very beautiful design. Quite different from the original 50 seat, 3 engine design with square engine nacelles. Looks a little like an old delta wing bomber with 4 underwing pods from 50s. General Dynamics, I think
How does the cockpit of the new design look like thi
The Overture cockpit will be similar to the cockpit on a subsonic airliner, except there will be no front windows. Instead monitors will display the terrain for take off and landing.
Have they removed the windows from the cockpit?
The longer they develop it the more it looks like the Concorde.
The opposite really. Now it looks like the 2707
"Everyone just forgets about the Boeing 2707. Looks at the overture and calls it revolutionary" 😂
Hopefully it doesn't crash like the concord
Nothing beats Concorde 👍
Have they released any information on the range?
they will if they can find an engine
4,880 miles
I hope they are also looking at the wake turbulence issues this aircraft could cause. I remember lining up behind Concord in a 737-400 at LHR and having 4 minutes hold because of wake turbulence. We are held 2 minutes behind an A380 that has five or six times the passenger capacity of the Overture so too many of these could seriously impact airport capacity.
@Graham Baker not every widebody airliner flight is always a full capacity flight and you know it
@@mcdiamond2463 I didn't say it was carrying five or six times the number of passengers, I said they had five or six times the capacity. However all of the post-pandemic flights I have taken have been over 80% capacity so there could be a noticeable effect on the number of passenger movements if Overture flights become common. My concern is more about the wake turbulence holding time. Part of the problem is an ogive wing (like Concorde) was it resulted in greater wake turbulence than the swept wings on transonic aircraft. This resulted in reduced movements per hour on the runway, with longer holding times and higher costs for all the other carriers burning extra fuel waiting for the wake turbulence to clear. I am concerned that the noise issues are being addressed but there has not been any statements addressing the wake turbulence issues that were also present with Concorde.
Sooo, their design will still have to fly below Mach 1 over land. Looks like the only real innovation, and this is a bit of a stretch, the proposed airplane will not require after burners. So it hasn't solved the main problem associated with supersonic passenger aircraft; that of the sonic boom. Then why bother?
I really hope this succeeds. However, I don’t see how it is sustainable as it would cost a lot.
what about it's effect on the environment? Because that was a big problem with prior supersonic aircraft. Does anything state on it's pollution levels compared to regular airliners? 🤔
The engines are existing technology, the flight control systems are existing tech - only the design of aircraft has been tweaked to cater to supersonic flight - because today we have power of computer simulations while designing - which means this aircraft could see production !
I know that United's plan to purchase Boom aircraft was nothing more than a publicity stunt for attention but maybe it'll help Boom make some progress nonetheless. It would be interesting to see supersonic airliners again before I retire from the airline industry in another 25ish years.
It’s Concorde not ‘the’ Concorde. Thanks
Wonderful plane
I really think a supersonic jet would do better today with more efficient quieter engines but i dont know if it could compete with the SUPER efficient jets offered by Airbus and Boeing
So no super sonic over land - why even build it? At that range it can't really do trans pacific, so this is being built for what? A large business jet for oil despots? 60 years later and they carry less people than a Concorde, they are slower than a Concorde, and still can't go SS over land - how is this progress? All they have done is made a smaller carbon fiber knockoff of the Concorde. Come back when you can carry at least as many people as a 737, with a range of 8 to 9K miles, and can get approval to fly SS over land - if you can't do that, don't even bother.
will this new plain be flyable for and passengers bc my dream was to fly as a passenger on concord but they sed concord ticket was sky hight
Looks like a hybrid of the concorde and boeing 2707 doesnt it? Super impressive looking thats for sure !
Just like a smaller 2707-300 fixed wing
Plane should have a large shallow scram jet underneath the body for supersonic speed and use the regular engines for lower speed flight.
Better to have a hybrid turbojet/ramjet design like the SR-71 - in effect a turbojet at lower speeds and a ramjet at high speeds. Scramjets do not exist yet and in any case are only efficient above Mach 3.
That range puts it - wait for it - squarely into the same mission profile Concorde had, except slower. Sorry, this gets capped at MAYBE 50 units, tops. And that's if it's even produced at all.