I was lucky enough to fly The Concorde 5 times and she was a beauty. It’s just upsetting that 70s austerity and Nixon administration made the project defaulting, otherwise there would be hundreds of Concordes in the sky nowadays and her successors. So I really hope, after 20 years of her retirement, the Boom will finally be the heir of The Concorde.
The Overture factory is being built in my town, Greensboro NC. I have my doubts to be honest but I do hope that it is able to fly since its providing a lot of new jobs for the area
Yes, it would be great to see an SST in the air again, after the demise of Concorde. As you indicate the program is tight. I guess 2033 for certification.
@@jf_knows_nothing Yeah, you are probably right. I was thinking 2035, until the latest announcements about the Symphony architecture and the engine, especially about the fan and the fact that most of the engine parts will already be certified.
It's not how certification works these days. If you have a finished aircraft then certification is well under way. That's something the Chinese at COMAC didn't get, so the C919 can't be certified in the West because they didn't do the right paperwork during development. But so far the design isn't even set in stone so a finished aircraft is very far away indeed.
@@aesma2522 West blocked C919 cuz it will be a safer plane than whatever the hell boeing is doing to planes like their 737 MAX. Boeing wants to be a monopoly and is already failing to Airbus
I was a Motorola employee back when they were developing and building out the Iridium satellite mobile phone system, with access to the manufacturing management and facility in Tucson, AZ. Was it a technical marvel? Yes. Being able to manufacture satellites in 30 days in horizontal position instead of NASA's 200 day/vertical launch position schedule was stunning. Designing a black box for each earth ground station that normalized the 4 mS to 11 mS transmission delay (based on satellite position at the moment), permitting the use of standard PBX switch gear was stunning. What was not stunning? The almost complete lack of a targeted marketing program. What demographic made up the target market? What fee structure could be maintained by that market? There was very much a "build it and they will come" attitude. Tremendous technical engineering. Weak go-to-market planning. I've got a feeling that Boom is treading the same ground. If it was my money to invest, I'd put it elsewhere.
@@phonicwheel933 Interesting. That's orders more magnitude more marketing research than went into Iridium. I was a member of the Motorola University consulting team (Six Sigma), managing Asia and Europe. I flew several million miles in that job. I would have LOVED to do it at supersonic speeds. On my twice monthly round-the-worlds (always going west), I spent 3 of the 9 nights per trip sleeping on airplanes. Spending all 9 nights in a hotel bed would have been a dream come true.
@@phonicwheel933how can you say that all seats will be quiet? There is no flying prototype and no engine? All the other claims you made, I already asked about it in your other replies in other threads. Thanks.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I make no claims. All the information is freely available, mainly on the Boom website. Why don't you check yourself, before posting?
@@phonicwheel933 why do you reply the same thing multiple times? I already replied to another comment with this exact same text that you wrote and I said that boom 's website is NOT a valid source of information. Have a nice day.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I didn't see any post where you said that Boom's website is not a valid source of information. I reply to the same comments that are posted over and over with the same reply. What else? Now we get to it. You don't believe that the information on Booms website is valid. So what are you basing your comments on?
I remember my grandad never talked about the practicability of concorde when he reminiscences about it, i dont think he even had time constraints when he flew on it, it seems like it was one of the most memorable experiences he has ever had.
The fact is that Concorde only generated good profits on the London New York route (and BA were given the planes!), it does make you wonder about its viability. Also, we now have a network of Executive Jet operators who can, within reason, abandon the usual schedules and offer routes from quieter airports far closer to where you are, and to where you want to go at far more convenient times. Or, if they need to use those larger airports, use dedicated terminals with quicker access from outside. No missing the flight, and less hanging around, as they can often depart from those smaller airports as soon as you board, which is often just a few minutes after you arrive at the airport. For a scheduled service between airports capable of handling Boom (physically and with enough demand to justify the service) If you include the longer journey time to the airport, the increased time to get to the plane, longer boarding to take off times and the associated delays at the other end as well as the extra journey time to your final destination, the non-flight additional time over the more convenient executive jet will certainly eat into the time saving gained when flying supersonically, possibly, even negate them. I just hope that someone has done that type of calculation.
Clearly this is someone's Pipe Dream and nothing more. More chance of making a profit buying millions of lottery tickets than investing in an aircraft which clearly has no future.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Boom will fly Mach 0.94 over land and Mach 1.7 over water.
@phonicwheel933 That may turn out to be true. However, I suspect that this is probably the 'best case scenario' - only time will tell. However, as true as what you commented may turn out to be, I was mainly highlighting its disadvantages when compared to a private jet, and as to whether the supersonic leg(s) would be sufficient to offset the inherent inconvenience with a scheduled service. When you consider the likely customers, you have to factor in what they want. To them, time and arriving refreshed are far more important than the price of the fare. The question is whether Boom can attract enough of those customers, even if it turns out to be as good as the hype. While not dismissing it out of hand, as yet, I have not been convinced.
@@neilpickup237 Good points when considering the owners of private jets as potential customers for Overture schedule service. But Boom and the airlines are targeting a much larger market, the 700 million long range business trips that are made each year worldwide, 400 million by Americans. BTW the cost of a private jet, or just tickets on a business jet, are colossal, and are not comparable to scheduled business class. In round figures, a private jet costs $10M to $100M, and the yearly cost ranges from $500K to $1M. A one way JFK/LHR ticket on a business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. The same trip on Overture, in quiet business class comfort, would probably cost $3,000 and take 4 hours, rather than 8 hours.
private supersonic travel could be possible. tho personally i think the winner is 300-400mph high fuel efficient jets with sub 500ft landing/takeoff, maybe 10ish passengers. especially if such a jet was supercar prices ie $300-700k rather than mllions@@neilpickup237
I tuned out this company when the CEO (who is a tech bro with no prior aerospace experience) pitched the idea of $100 tickets. The fact that they cannot even get their miniature airplane off the ground (always "later this year," year after year) is further validation for me. Also, no engine = no plane. It smacks of vaporware. I never assign 0% probability to anything, but in this case, it is less than 1%.
@@Bb13190 Yes, it is O'Sheas Service Station and Garage just south of Dublin, Southern Ireland. They are new to Jet engines but Paddy is a fast learner. In House design? What a joke. If Pratt & Whitney and now GE/Snecma are having problems then the only option will be a PIPE DREAM.
*_@dereklenzen2330_* You said: *_CEO ... pitched the idea of $100 tickets_* You misunderstood what Blake Scholl said, as I did. He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with advances in technology. Florida Turbine Technology started engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification. Rolls Royce were consultants on the Overture engine, and that work has now completed. It would not be viable for any of the tier one engine manufacturers to undertake the design and development themselves, with their huge costs and time scales. Blake Scholl hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer reflects the latest Symphony design, it may not fly, although it has done some taxying trials.
@@phonicwheel933 "He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with advances in technology." Ok, I can do even better. I see a future where every city has a teleport through which pods can pass that will transport people and their luggage to any other city in a matter of minutes. Each pod will work by deconstructing their contents into their constituent particles and beaming them down a vacuum tube, where they will be reconstructed at the other end. (Passengers will be sedated during this process.) The transport will be totally pain-free and will take a matter of minutes end-to-end. The best part is that, with future advances in technology, I reckon we can get the price down to only $25 per passenger. Hehehe. Ain't gonna happen. Getting back to Boom's CEO, just the fuel required to accelerate passengers to get anywhere on Earth in four hours will cost more than $100, not to mention all the other technical problems and costs associated with hypersonic flight. The laws of thermodynamics are a bitch. No way around them. The fact that current ultra-low-cost carriers offer short-haul routes for less than $100 is already quite impressive, and I think that is be real wave of the future, especially in the developing world. However, supersonic flight (let alone hypersonic flight) is in a totally different technical regime to subsonic flight. I can see a future where anyone can travel anywhere on Earth in 36 hours for less than $1,000 in today's money, which would be awesome. But pie-in-the-sky statements like the one coming from the CEO of Boom? Forget about it.
The last time I checked, Overture's range was not enough to fly over the pacific. They were also communicating on research with NASA to reduce the supersonic boom to allow for supersonic flight over land. But I really don't think this will be possible. So the route available for such an Aircraft are very few., so maybe the plane will fly, but I would not put my money on it.
A 16hr subsonic flight over the Pacific could be done with a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4= 9 hours total. Boom are communicating with NASA on quiet boom, but not for Overture, which will fly Mach 0.94 over land and Mach 1.7 over water. 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.
@@phonicwheel933 One of the biggest inefficiencies of supersonic flight is actually the acceleration up to that speed. The Concorde was reasonably efficient in cruise. So a mixed overland/water flight would be incredibly fuel inefficient if there's more than one stretch of water. And it would have to be a decently long stretch of water to justify the acceleration up to speed. I mean, just accelerating from 0.9 to 1.7 Mach probably takes around 100 miles, so the stretch of water really ought to be at least 400-500 miles minimum. Also, it will never be as efficient in the subsonic regime as a normal airliner, so if there's too much land on the route, the time savings might not be enough to entice customers for that route. That said, I'm sure the U.S. government would love to support such a project by essentially bribing other countries to permit over land supersonic flight. For example, pay off Panama and that opens up all sorts of routes to and from South America and the U.S. east coast.
It has been observed the process of the Concorde design, build, certification and into service was as big a project as the Apollo moon program. It also took just as much government input to achieve. With Concorde long gone and very different economic conditions it is hard to imagine that a private company, even a US one, could ever do the same.
I drove past the hangar yesterday. Fortunately, KGSO a major aircraft manufacturing and overhaul location. Someone will snap up the hangar if Boom fails.
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (20 September 2023): • The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected • Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly • Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine • Virgin have now let their Overture options laps • 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines • Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications • Boom awarded $60M STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications • Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign: • Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule • Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats • Empennage • Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods • Seats, 65 to 80, all business class • Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde) • Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde) • Height, 36 feet • Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet • Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine: • Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification • Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings. • Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box. • Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage. • Safran Landing Systems, • Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration • Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration • Flight Safety International, • GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing) • StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners: • Turbofan • Medium-bypass • No afterburner • Twin-spool • 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off • Air cooled multistage turbine • Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light • Low-pressure compressor stages: 3 • High-pressure compressor stages: 6 • High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled) • Low-pressure turbine stages: 3 • Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs • FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance • ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway. 17-2023.09.20
@@stuartlee6622 NO! They now have a minor engine manufacturer that has no experience of building commercially certified jet engines, let alone supersonic commercially certified jet engines, who is working to develop an engine that will have to meet far more stringent requirements than previous supersonic commercial jet engines had to, that is capable of being produced in relatively large numbers, that has high levels of reliability and that has a commercially viable unit cost when the hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development is factored in. Boom is still a long way from having an engine for the Overture.
Rolls Royce were consultants on the Overture engine, and that work has now completed. It would not be viable for any of the tier one engine manufacturers to undertake the design and development themselves, with their huge costs and time scales. Florida Turbine Technology started engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification.
One word why Boom will fail to do much: Slots. All of the major airport arrival and takeoff slots are basically full. JFK and Heathrow don't have any slots and they are not the only ones. Unless you can seat at least 300 people, it would take far more trips to move those people 80 seats at a time, and that means you would need far more arrival and takeoff slots to move the same number of people. A 3 class 787 carries almost 300 people and on an international flight, many of those people continue on to their destination via a connecting flight. If you only land 80 people, that means your connecting flights won't be full. The hub and spoke model is not well suited to airplanes with limited seating capacity. The other reason is cargo. A 787 can carry 21,000 kilograms of cargo, along with passengers and passenger baggage. This is actually a pretty big revenue producer, and the Boom likely has no cargo capacity. Now they may sell some to s few boutique airlines running between destinations with high organic demand (NY to London) but again, if you can make six round trips in a day, that means you need three arrival slots and three departure slots and that means that it will be a mighty battle with the big airlines to get so many slots unless the flights are at times that are not desirable to the traveler. It is all about slots and connecting flights, and there are not enough slots at the major international airports to accommodate a hundred supersonic transports.
Interesting why it’s so hard. We already had Concorde. Can they not just take that and fine turn the design and job done? Feels like it’s a reinvention of the wheel.
There were a lot of problems and challenges with Concorde, which is largely why it was stopped. Very inefficient and very expensive to run. The economics don't work anymore and it would not be approved by the public due to climate effects.
I doubt the Overture will ever get into commercial service. However, the 100% SAF compatible engine work could well be a valuable spinoff of the program. If they can get an engine that far along the development path before the whole thing folds, I can see one of the big engine manufacturers, or someone like Airbus buying up whats left of the organization for that. I can't see supersonic flight making a comeback though. Even with cleaner engines it's still horrendously inefficient, and there's not much you can do about it - it's basic physics, and the business travel market is shrinking as videoconferencing has become the norm, and even where business trips are still made, the time in flight is no longer unproductive thanks to laptops, in flight wifi and at seat charging. Combine all that and add in the image problem of having your employees flying around on supersonic jets in an era when corporate and elite aviation is regarded with loathing and derision from the general public, it's just not a compelling offer.
I would definitely want to try it out for one flight as a novelty, but in the long term, I just don't see myself going on this over a lie flat seat. Sure you get there faster, but there is no way they will be comparable cost. $100 tickets are complete BS and they know that.
You misunderstood what Blake Scholl said, as I did. He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with future technology. All 65 to 80 seats on Overture will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, and there will be ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class. JFK/LHR subsonic would take 8 hours. Boom will do it in 4 hours. A 16 hour trans Pacific flight would require a fuelling stop and would be done in 4+1+4=9 hours by Overture.
If they don't conquer the sonic boom problem I don't see them getting off the ground anytime soon. Airlines wont buy into something that wont make them any money.
Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (2x faster) over water. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds and will comply 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. All 65 to 80 seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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.
NGL this is a project I fully expect to go under. The market is too small to be profitable (for boom). Supersonic planes are just too inefficient compared to conventional planes (I believe big, slow, efficient planes will be more popular than smaller faster ones) and of course there are the restrictions of where you can fly supersonic, as that has caused issues in the past.
I'd love to see them succeed, but the odds are stacked against them. However, I've been proven wrong on a few predictions before. (Examples of my less than prophetic past statements: SpaceX is unlikely to beat established players like Boeing in producing a human rated spacecraft, Brightline is a pipe dream as no post-1971 private intercity passenger rail venture has succeeded in the US so be happy if you can get 1 or 2 Amtrak trains a day, and more recently, Boom Supersonic will fold like Aerion before they ever lay a foundation for their factory!)
Aside from the sonic boom problem with flights over land supersonic travel only makes sense on long flights. Transatlantic flights, yes, a transcontinental flight between New York and Los Angeles, yes. But for a long time now we've had subsonic transcontinental flights spanning the United States and many people are still willing to forego those non-stops if it means saving money on airfare. The door-to-door travel time, which includes the time to get to the airport, get through security, possible flight and boarding delays, landing delays and so forth diminish the time savings of non-stops in general and further diminish the advantage of flying at higher speed. Significant door-to-door time could be saved on transpacific routes from North America to Asia, or from Australia/New Zealand to Europe, but it is doubtful that supersonic airliners will ever have the range to fly those routes non-stop. Once an aircraft exceeds the speed of sound it has to push along a shock wave, which greatly lowers its lift to drag ratio and challenges flight fuel economy.
The 'Boom' won't cut it due to sole first class and airport woes. I was at The Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA) Melbourne Australia (AUS HEAD OFFICE) in the late 1950's. The Supersonic SOUND 'BOOM" was the major hurdle. So DCA decided to direct Concorde to be flown over 300 n.m. miles east of Darwin down 178 degrees (effecting 219 people) entering The Great Australian Bite going subsonic in and arcing and landing into the north at the upcoming Melbourne (12000ft) Tullamarine Airport. The upshot was the Concorde demo flight came to Australia and not matter how much advocacy took place airlines and Authorities were NOT convinced. Thus it flew the sole Heathrow NY Kennedy route. Only First Class (F27size) and noisy inside like a sardine can at higher than First Class...
*_@letsseeif_* Concorde created a sonic boom over Mach 1. It was also very loud subsonically at 120dB on take off. As you say, the cabin was cramped and noisy. Concorde also burnt a lot of fuel while flying at Mach 2, and gobbled fuel below that speed, especially subsonic. By comparison, Overture will create a sonic boom so it will only fly Mach 1.7 over water and over land it will fly Mach 0.94. Subsonic noise will comply with ICAO-14 regulations so it will be quieter than most airliners currently flying. This will allow Overture to use all international airports, without triggering protests. All 65 to 80 seats will be comfortable business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room and the cabin will be quiet. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Concorde's ticket prices varied from 30% above first class to 300% or more, depending on the period. Overture's ticket prices will be the same as subsonic business class. Subsonic the JFK/LHR trip takes 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours. A 16 hour trip across the Pacific will require a 1 hour refuelling stop giving a total journey time of 4+1+4=9 hours.
@@phonicwheel933where is the evidence for that? I see you replying in every single comment that has replies so I need to ask you 2 things: 1- what's in it for you? Like, are you representing boom? 2- you say "it will spend less", "it will make less noise" etc etc, where are the vidence that supports that? There is no engine, there is no flying prototype, please explain how do you know that will happen. Thanks.
@@phonicwheel933oh! Same applies to your claim about ticket prices, if there is no engine and no working prototype and so, no way of knowing how much fuel this will use or how much maintenance it will get, how do you know how much ticket prices will cost, specially in today's world of high inflation and ever changing fuel cost. Thanks.
When Concorde flew there were major issues that gave it an edge. Communication, less time out of touch with the office. NOW that is no longer an issue so a major advantage of supersonic flight has disappeared. Jet lag is not so much of an issue and the inability to fly supersonic across all of the USA is a major failing. It may be that will also be an issue across Europe which further reduces any advantage. If you can do basic kindergarten mathematics then it is difficult to find a model that allows for a ticket price that makes a profit. Shareholders your shares are more likely to go BOOM and disappear than the aircraft ever breaking the Sound Barrier. BOOM will soon be seen as "smoke and mirrors"?
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.
*_@JonathanStanley_* Also, the fin looks too small and the four huge engine pods (30.5 feet, by 7 feet diameter) look like they will cause a lot of drag. But Boom have done extensive simulations of the latest Overture design, so hopefully, all will be well.
@@johnnunn8688 Interesting observation. I hadn't thought about that. Apparently the nose comes up more at high altitudes to increase wing angle of attack and maintain lift in the thin air.
I don’t see battery powered airliners ever being a real thing at least in the near future. But boom is gonna happen. I live nearby where the plant is being built. And work right at PTI ( piedmont triad international) . We also have Honda jet here. And they had a hard time getting off the ground. So I know gonna take some time for this airliner. But like Honda jet it’ll succeed I really hope.
I hope it succeeds but I have to say, like Concorde, it looks like it will carry a limited number of passengers, more than Concorde but maybe not enough passengers to make it economical, Also it won't be as fast as Concorde as I think it will be less than Mach 2, but we need something fast in this day and age. Over 20 hours to get to Australia really did my t**ts in: both of them 😂
No, not more than Concorde, 20% less seats in fact. IF it ever gets built. I hope to be proved wrong, but the hubris demonstrated by Boom in the early days makes me wonder if they really understood the magnitude of their task. The complete redesign to a 4-engine airplane points to unrealistic assumptions from the start. Hard to see how they can hope to sell enough airframes to cover the development costs.
DJ, this is your best piece yet. I always comment, this plane is going NOWHERE. We won't see it. Or that stupid egg shaped plane. Or the Flying wing looking airliners. Total wastes of time. Sure. Small military applications for these things but not commercially viable.
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 made by Americans. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, 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. All 65 to 80 seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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. Boom have teamed with Grumman on government applications for Overture and they have won a 3 year $60M contract under the USAF STRATFI initiative.
All that information is based on their original design which was 75% the scale of Concorde. The new design is more of a fantasy that actually getting real, it features a 777 landing gear style ,meaning it's grown very much bigger in fuselage , then a windowless cockpit area and 4 engines! 4 engines!!!! Who on earth thought 4 supersonic engines are a great idea for fuel economy ????
@@kudacuda4350 Not sure what the first part of your post means but, taking the four engines that you seem to disapprove of: Four engines have the following advantages: 1) Allows a symmetrical design compared to three engines. 2) Facilitates the use of pods incorporating input and exhaust ducting (Symphony) 3) Easier servicing 4) Safer 5) Cheaper. 4 small supersonic engines are cheaper than two big supersonic engines 6) Standard parts can be used: turbines, blades etc. 7) Lower noise. 4 lower power engines are much quieter than 2 high power engines. 8) Allows the use of medium bipass engines at supersonic speeds for good economy and low landing noise. 9) More reliability The list could go on and on, and kit gets complex, but I think you will get the idea. 😊
On the market side if seats sold at $10K per each way transatlantic that is $680K per flight X 6 flights per day X 300 flight days/yr. = $1.23Bn annually . At 20 % EBITDA the airline clears $240Mn/yr. If the planes cost $1Bn to buy that is a 4.2 year payback for the airline . Not great but within the margin of error so can Boom sell the Overture for about $1Bn each ? Seems plausible , maybe probable . If Boom EBITDA is also 20% and costs $5Bn to get to market that is 15 plus year payback on the debt with no dividends and no share buy backs . Sounds like the UK to France Chunnel payback time . If they can float $4bn of 15 year bonds they could make it . Maybe do half that in equity and rest in bonds to cut payback on bonds to under 10 years which if a plane can stay in service 15 years it may make sense to build and fly profitably . Would love to see the operating model Boom shows the airlines.
Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water. Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will comply 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. All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class with ample room, and ticket prices will be the same as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of a subsonic airliner, should give the operators a good margin. Overture could be used as a business jet, but it is huge at 201 feet long, with a wing span of 106 feet, and may not be able to use some regional airports due to their relatively short runways. Overture cost would be high, at $200M against $80M for a Challenger 8000. Overture would only have half the range and the fuel consumption would probably be 3x.
@@johnnunn8688 My comment is relevant to the original post, but there are many interrelated factors to take into account. I addressed the two points in the original post and suggested why Overture will be viable for scheduled flights in the first part, and why it may not be suitable as a business jet in the second part. In both parts I gave reasons and parameters, as published by Boom, for this conclusion.
@@johnnunn8688 To be fair, the meaning of your first comment wasn't too clear. I thought you were implying that my comment was not relevant to the original post. To answer your first post, now that I know what you meant, you will find many of my original posts and replies to posts, not only on this TH-cam video, but most others dealing with Boom and supersonic travel.
Bring back supersonic travel, i feel aviation hasnt really advanced much in design or reducing time between countries since the demise of the Concorde. Its long overdue !
I’d love to know the thinking behind those engines in pods. One would think that there would be a huge amount of drag, particularly from the pylons but maybe they have an aerodynamic solution, where the air is formed into a ‘wedge’ of some kind, so the air flows around the pylons. IDK 🤷♂️, anyone?
DJ well presented and narrated, but rather pessimistic. BTW, Blake Scholl's statement about the $100 ticket is repeatedly misinterpreted. He is not saying that tickets on Overture will get down to $100. What he is saying is that is his hope for the future, with developments in aviation technology.
This whole thing reminds me a bit of Nikola Motors. Except instead of running an empty shell of a truck down the hill, they have a rolling prototype that will hopefully actually fly soon
Rolls Royce consultancy has now completed and after two years of studies, investigations, and simulation the Overture engine and Symphony power unit architecture was defined in early 2022. Florida Turbine Technology started detailed engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification.
*_@NeilMacedo_* Quite true, Boom have undertaken a huge task with risks on all fronts: financial, technical, and program but, if Overture gets certified, there should be a healthy demand. 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. Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (2x 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. All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet roomy business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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.
@@phonicwheel933I see your replyed all over this comment section... And I do mean "all over". So, I need to ask, what's in it for you? Like, do you work for the company?
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod It is quite true that I reply to a lot of posts about Boom and the their Overture, but it is only done out of interest. There in no gain for me, and let me reassure you that I have no connection whatsoever with Boom. In general, it would be great to see another SST in the air after the demise of Concorde.
@@phonicwheel933 ok, so you are claiming things you cannot possibly know like that the plane will be quiet, fuel efficient or even it's range. Thanks for the clarification and hope you have a nice day!
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I am not claiming anything. All the information I post is derived from the Boom website, TH-cam, newspaper articles, books, and the internet in general. Why don't you check for yourself instead of being so aggressive and submitting ill informed valueless posts.
I think your assumption that boom would cost as much to fly as Concorde is very wrong. Was Concorde a fuel guzzler, yes, but that was actually not the reason it was so expensive to fly. With current fuel prices, the bare fuel cost of crossing the Atlantic for one person would be today currently $530 one way, crossing with a 777 is about $90. While the added $460 is a considerable amount of money, its not even close to the about $1500 extra it cost to fly with Concorde. The reason had nothing to do with fuel cost. So how much would the fuel of a Boom cost. This do demand some speculations, but between $150 and $215 for a one way trip. Normally a airline need to spend 1/3 on fuel, 1/3 on crew and 1/3 on plain and maintenance. Here is the thing, you just use the crew half the time, and also the plane. If we fly with a boom overture from London to NYC, the plane can refuel and return with the SAME crew with in the allowed flight hours of that crew. They wouldn´t even need a extra pilot. This slashies the price of the crew not only by half, but pretty much by three. So say the 777 flight cost the airline about $100 for fuel, $100 for crew and $100 for the airplane. The boom overture would cost (potentially) $150 for the fuel, around €65 for the crew (the reason that its not $35 is that while the cost of cabin crew is cut by a 1/3, the cost of the pilots is almost the same) and the cost of the plane would probably be €100 again. So.. $315 cost of the airline for the Boom overture, and about $300 for the 777. (then cost booking cost, and lost capacity and so on, so the actual price is like $500-600) But what if... what if we are no longer flying from London, but we are flying from Oslo, and the plane we replace is no longer a 777 but a 757.
No I don't think it will ever fly. There are only two companies capable of building an SST. Airbus and Boeing. They both have the technical and manufacturing knowledge, but neither are interested.
@@spacedriver24 Still i want to know what specific part of a supersonic aircraft not pretty much anyone, even in the shed with some basic tool could not make. And yes, apart from engines. You actually don´t need supersonic engines. you can just use normal engine, then ram compress the air untill the speed of sound is sufficiently fast to be subsonic. Thats how most aircraft do it. Look at something like the fighter viggen, just using a almost standard engine from a DC9, and it can still do mach 2
@@matsv201 we are not talking about just a supersonic aircraft, it's a passenger aircraft, don't think you can build one of those in a "shed with basic tools"
There are laws in the US to stop companies ripping off investors. Besides which, Blake Scholl started Boom with $1M of his own money. Also, the USAF have awarded Boom a 3 year contract for $60M, and Japan Airways have invested $10M in teaming and options. You can be sure that they would have fully assessed Boom, much more than a casual observer could.
@@phonicwheel9331M? Wow! That's like... The money for a nice house! Very strange that all that money amounts to 71M which isn't even enough to buy a brand new 737 max at listing price, which is a very mass produced plane, designed to save on production cost, evolving from a plane that had it's initial costs made more than 40 years ago.... 71M in aviation is the equivalent of me having money for a coffee in my wallet.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod You said: *_1M? Wow! ... for a coffee in my wallet_* I am having a lot of trouble getting any sense out of your comment, or your point of view. Take a look at the definition of a strawman argument.
Given that Boom is already 6 years behind on the XB-1, designed without fly by wire to save time and money, and is flying using existing engines... There is no way on god's earth that the Overture, an infinitely more complicated engineering challenge and one that doesn't have any engines in production yet, is going to be entering service before 2040. Once the aircraft is more than 4 or 5 years overdue the airlines are going to bail out. What Boom are describing as "Firm orders" are, in fact, little more than statements of intent to purchase, something that involves very little outlay by the prospective purchasers and thus little financial risk should they pull out of the deal when the aircraft is 10 years overdue and two or three times its original quoted price. Then there is going to be the cost of development of the engines for the Overture, being carried out by a company now owned by Boom after every major engine manufacturer said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Boom's overtures (pun intended). The currently quoted purchase price for Overtures does not have the billions that developing the technology necessary to build engines capable of meeting Boom's requirements is going to cost factored in, mainly because neither Boom nor FTT have any true idea how much it is going to cost. They have given forecasts of the estimated cost but Boom's forecasts on every aspect of the Overture have been ridiculously optimistic. What makes anyone think that the cost estimates aren't going to go the same way as the XB-1s first flight dates. I think the biggest red flag is that Boom is now claiming that they had been developing the 4 engine design for many years before it was announced... Which would be believable if it wasn't for the fact that they designed the XB-1 as a proof of concept aircraft based upon what they believed the final configuration of the Overture would be, with three engines located in the rear of the fuselage. Surely, if they had been planning the 4 engined layout for several years, the XB-1 would have been built in that configuration, not one based upon a design that they had no intention of using. That isn't the only time that Boom industries has been economical with the truth and I am sure it will not be the last. I am hugely disappointed to be writing this as I loved watching Concorde fly over and would love there to be more SSTs, I have just lost all faith in Boom's truly fantastic deadlines and wildly exaggerated claims.
Not Theranos, no outright fraud. Possibly more like Hyperloop , an idea that could work with the right technical advances and marketing, but probably can't be realised with this decade's tech and the available funding.
Never going to happen, the Brits and French brought Supersonic flight to the World 50 years ago, all the Americans could do was a wooden mock up of a SST. Unfortunately Concorde was ground way to early due to the incompetence of the Fench
Difficult to understand Boom development presented as new. Concorde has been commercially demonstrated that supersonic flights are and will be very expensive and moreover very polluting which is to me the major point never discussed. Every country around the world try to reduce its carbon foot print in diminishing transportation véhicule. Boom is challenging that offering to very few selected people a fast but polluting solution to transport. I am not a green activist but I believe Boom is going in the wrong direction.
Just like the intake cowels need to stay square its a pinochle of the concord and also base market for a longer tubed with more passanger capacity and maybe not reaching the same speeds but meaning more reachable to other consumers in the commercial demands with an offset for more cost efficienty / offset all around and honestly same with the ffa is danm well a we the people agency so when the hell are the voices going ro be heard more ,look at some of the companies like tesela and other things like the self driving car so called dreams and the fact of them being allowed to exist and why because their quite but when everything else that builds and moved to shape this county/world wasn't, d.e. quote for the opposing ... "The would have to tie a kerosene rag around their ankles to keep the ants from crawling up and biting their candy as*es" i see no oppositions to this but am always open to see/hear where others thought maybe at for opposing, OVERTURE BOMB
Engine and economics will decide this airplane's date. They need engines that can fly supersonic. Do they have a vendor? They need $5-10B to develop the airplane. Do they have this money?
Pretty much any engine core can fly supersonic, just have to design the intake so that the engine receives the air at subsonic speeds. (Awaits question about other requirements, as reader missed the word ‘core’.)
$100 a seat??? 🤣🤣🤣. Spirit charges more than that for an aisle. Analysts said its $12,000 a seat. When 7-hour R/T JKF-Heathrow FIRST CLASS lie flat is $5k today. There is no business case for this jet that has to stay under M1.0 over land anyway.
So a business meeting on a super sonic jet is more important than VTC, Tele Conference, Zoom, and digital signature. TALK ABOUT GOING BACKWARDS AND INVESTORS WASTE OF PROFITS.
Yet another disgraceful video from DJ which is purely designed to boost his own personal income from the associated advertising. This is very old news regarding Boom which i h has been widely covered months ago. The project will never fly and DJ should be ashamed of himself from dragging up old news to make himself money. Would be interesting to his defence of this old news.
No engine... no plane... no boom. There is simply not enough interest in this plane to justify the development of a new engine by the main engine manufacturers that ultimately would only be sold in the low hundreds. If they could use a current military engine that would be a different situation but that is not the case. In addition, the noise these planned low bypass engine would no longer be acceptable in this day and age at any of the major airports around the world. As far as the price of this plane, and the price per passenger, the 100USD/seat is laughable. That is probably the price you would have to pay for your carry on bag! Eco friendly??? Compare to what? Burning fuel in a dumpster? Supersonic flight equals fuel guzzler, it's basic physics. Why investors keep investing this company just shows that there is a sucker born every day. Sure, who would not want to fly supersonic but when looking at all of the challenges, short of of a government funded project like the Concorde, no one would have enough money to build one of those again. The only thing that could change the equation for Boom would be the availability of off the shelf available military equipment.
I was lucky enough to fly The Concorde 5 times and she was a beauty. It’s just upsetting that 70s austerity and Nixon administration made the project defaulting, otherwise there would be hundreds of Concordes in the sky nowadays and her successors. So I really hope, after 20 years of her retirement, the Boom will finally be the heir of The Concorde.
You're lucky
The Overture factory is being built in my town, Greensboro NC. I have my doubts to be honest but I do hope that it is able to fly since its providing a lot of new jobs for the area
Black Scholl is incredible. He's going to change the world.
I hope they succeed, but I am afraid that the economic, technical and regulatory challenges are huge.
Agree. Boom have a lot issues to deal with: financial, technical and program, but like you, I hope they succeed.
I agree with you as well. Would be great to see supersonic flight again in our time.
Once a plane exists, a full size one. They will be at least 6 years from certification. I really hope they succeed. It would be amazing.
Yes, it would be great to see an SST in the air again, after the demise of Concorde. As you indicate the program is tight. I guess 2033 for certification.
@@phonicwheel933 I feel even that is too soon but it would be cool to be wrong.
@@jf_knows_nothing Yeah, you are probably right. I was thinking 2035, until the latest announcements about the Symphony architecture and the engine, especially about the fan and the fact that most of the engine parts will already be certified.
It's not how certification works these days. If you have a finished aircraft then certification is well under way. That's something the Chinese at COMAC didn't get, so the C919 can't be certified in the West because they didn't do the right paperwork during development.
But so far the design isn't even set in stone so a finished aircraft is very far away indeed.
@@aesma2522 West blocked C919 cuz it will be a safer plane than whatever the hell boeing is doing to planes like their 737 MAX. Boeing wants to be a monopoly and is already failing to Airbus
They want to reduce the sonic boom.... But called the company Boom 🤔
Joking aside though I wish them the best of luck, I'd love to see it fly
I was a Motorola employee back when they were developing and building out the Iridium satellite mobile phone system, with access to the manufacturing management and facility in Tucson, AZ. Was it a technical marvel? Yes. Being able to manufacture satellites in 30 days in horizontal position instead of NASA's 200 day/vertical launch position schedule was stunning. Designing a black box for each earth ground station that normalized the 4 mS to 11 mS transmission delay (based on satellite position at the moment), permitting the use of standard PBX switch gear was stunning. What was not stunning? The almost complete lack of a targeted marketing program. What demographic made up the target market? What fee structure could be maintained by that market? There was very much a "build it and they will come" attitude. Tremendous technical engineering. Weak go-to-market planning. I've got a feeling that Boom is treading the same ground. If it was my money to invest, I'd put it elsewhere.
@@phonicwheel933 Interesting. That's orders more magnitude more marketing research than went into Iridium. I was a member of the Motorola University consulting team (Six Sigma), managing Asia and Europe. I flew several million miles in that job. I would have LOVED to do it at supersonic speeds. On my twice monthly round-the-worlds (always going west), I spent 3 of the 9 nights per trip sleeping on airplanes. Spending all 9 nights in a hotel bed would have been a dream come true.
@@phonicwheel933how can you say that all seats will be quiet? There is no flying prototype and no engine?
All the other claims you made, I already asked about it in your other replies in other threads.
Thanks.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I make no claims. All the information is freely available, mainly on the Boom website. Why don't you check yourself, before posting?
@@phonicwheel933 why do you reply the same thing multiple times?
I already replied to another comment with this exact same text that you wrote and I said that boom 's website is NOT a valid source of information.
Have a nice day.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I didn't see any post where you said that Boom's website is not a valid source of information.
I reply to the same comments that are posted over and over with the same reply. What else?
Now we get to it. You don't believe that the information on Booms website is valid. So what are you basing your comments on?
I remember my grandad never talked about the practicability of concorde when he reminiscences about it, i dont think he even had time constraints when he flew on it, it seems like it was one of the most memorable experiences he has ever had.
The fact is that Concorde only generated good profits on the London New York route (and BA were given the planes!), it does make you wonder about its viability.
Also, we now have a network of Executive Jet operators who can, within reason, abandon the usual schedules and offer routes from quieter airports far closer to where you are, and to where you want to go at far more convenient times. Or, if they need to use those larger airports, use dedicated terminals with quicker access from outside.
No missing the flight, and less hanging around, as they can often depart from those smaller airports as soon as you board, which is often just a few minutes after you arrive at the airport.
For a scheduled service between airports capable of handling Boom (physically and with enough demand to justify the service) If you include the longer journey time to the airport, the increased time to get to the plane, longer boarding to take off times and the associated delays at the other end as well as the extra journey time to your final destination, the non-flight additional time over the more convenient executive jet will certainly eat into the time saving gained when flying supersonically, possibly, even negate them.
I just hope that someone has done that type of calculation.
Clearly this is someone's Pipe Dream and nothing more. More chance of making a profit buying millions of lottery tickets than investing in an aircraft which clearly has no future.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Boom will fly Mach 0.94 over land and Mach 1.7 over water.
@phonicwheel933 That may turn out to be true. However, I suspect that this is probably the 'best case scenario' - only time will tell.
However, as true as what you commented may turn out to be, I was mainly highlighting its disadvantages when compared to a private jet, and as to whether the supersonic leg(s) would be sufficient to offset the inherent inconvenience with a scheduled service.
When you consider the likely customers, you have to factor in what they want.
To them, time and arriving refreshed are far more important than the price of the fare. The question is whether Boom can attract enough of those customers, even if it turns out to be as good as the hype.
While not dismissing it out of hand, as yet, I have not been convinced.
@@neilpickup237 Good points when considering the owners of private jets as potential customers for Overture schedule service. But Boom and the airlines are targeting a much larger market, the 700 million long range business trips that are made each year worldwide, 400 million by Americans.
BTW the cost of a private jet, or just tickets on a business jet, are colossal, and are not comparable to scheduled business class. In round figures, a private jet costs $10M to $100M, and the yearly cost ranges from $500K to $1M. A one way JFK/LHR ticket on a business jet costs between $53,000 and $99,000. The same trip on Overture, in quiet business class comfort, would probably cost $3,000 and take 4 hours, rather than 8 hours.
private supersonic travel could be possible.
tho personally i think the winner is 300-400mph high fuel efficient jets with sub 500ft landing/takeoff, maybe 10ish passengers. especially if such a jet was supercar prices ie $300-700k rather than mllions@@neilpickup237
I tuned out this company when the CEO (who is a tech bro with no prior aerospace experience) pitched the idea of $100 tickets. The fact that they cannot even get their miniature airplane off the ground (always "later this year," year after year) is further validation for me. Also, no engine = no plane. It smacks of vaporware. I never assign 0% probability to anything, but in this case, it is less than 1%.
They are going to develop the engine in house with the help from a small supplier. But you are right, it does not smell good.
@@Bb13190 Yes, it is O'Sheas Service Station and Garage just south of Dublin, Southern Ireland. They are new to Jet engines but Paddy is a fast learner. In House design? What a joke. If Pratt & Whitney and now GE/Snecma are having problems then the only option will be a PIPE DREAM.
*_@dereklenzen2330_* You said: *_CEO ... pitched the idea of $100 tickets_*
You misunderstood what Blake Scholl said, as I did. He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with advances in technology.
Florida Turbine Technology started engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification.
Rolls Royce were consultants on the Overture engine, and that work has now completed. It would not be viable for any of the tier one engine manufacturers to undertake the design and development themselves, with their huge costs and time scales.
Blake Scholl hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer reflects the latest Symphony design, it may not fly, although it has done some taxying trials.
Valid points.
@@phonicwheel933 "He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with advances in technology."
Ok, I can do even better. I see a future where every city has a teleport through which pods can pass that will transport people and their luggage to any other city in a matter of minutes. Each pod will work by deconstructing their contents into their constituent particles and beaming them down a vacuum tube, where they will be reconstructed at the other end. (Passengers will be sedated during this process.) The transport will be totally pain-free and will take a matter of minutes end-to-end. The best part is that, with future advances in technology, I reckon we can get the price down to only $25 per passenger.
Hehehe. Ain't gonna happen. Getting back to Boom's CEO, just the fuel required to accelerate passengers to get anywhere on Earth in four hours will cost more than $100, not to mention all the other technical problems and costs associated with hypersonic flight. The laws of thermodynamics are a bitch. No way around them. The fact that current ultra-low-cost carriers offer short-haul routes for less than $100 is already quite impressive, and I think that is be real wave of the future, especially in the developing world. However, supersonic flight (let alone hypersonic flight) is in a totally different technical regime to subsonic flight. I can see a future where anyone can travel anywhere on Earth in 36 hours for less than $1,000 in today's money, which would be awesome. But pie-in-the-sky statements like the one coming from the CEO of Boom? Forget about it.
The last time I checked, Overture's range was not enough to fly over the pacific.
They were also communicating on research with NASA to reduce the supersonic boom to allow for supersonic flight over land. But I really don't think this will be possible.
So the route available for such an Aircraft are very few., so maybe the plane will fly, but I would not put my money on it.
A 16hr subsonic flight over the Pacific could be done with a 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a duration of 4+1+4= 9 hours total.
Boom are communicating with NASA on quiet boom, but not for Overture, which will fly Mach 0.94 over land and Mach 1.7 over water.
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.
@@phonicwheel933 One of the biggest inefficiencies of supersonic flight is actually the acceleration up to that speed. The Concorde was reasonably efficient in cruise. So a mixed overland/water flight would be incredibly fuel inefficient if there's more than one stretch of water. And it would have to be a decently long stretch of water to justify the acceleration up to speed. I mean, just accelerating from 0.9 to 1.7 Mach probably takes around 100 miles, so the stretch of water really ought to be at least 400-500 miles minimum.
Also, it will never be as efficient in the subsonic regime as a normal airliner, so if there's too much land on the route, the time savings might not be enough to entice customers for that route. That said, I'm sure the U.S. government would love to support such a project by essentially bribing other countries to permit over land supersonic flight. For example, pay off Panama and that opens up all sorts of routes to and from South America and the U.S. east coast.
It has been observed the process of the Concorde design, build, certification and into service was as big a project as the Apollo moon program. It also took just as much government input to achieve. With Concorde long gone and very different economic conditions it is hard to imagine that a private company, even a US one, could ever do the same.
XB 1 just completed a successful test flight 10 days ago in California.
I drove past the hangar yesterday. Fortunately, KGSO a major aircraft manufacturing and overhaul location. Someone will snap up the hangar if Boom fails.
Last I heard, they had no engine. All of the major OEM's are walking away from supersonic development.
Here is a rundown of Boom's latest position (20 September 2023):
• The factory at Greensboro North Carolina is now erected
• Boom has hinted that, as the XB-1 no longer represents Overture, it probably won't fly
• Boom have now finished their consultation with Rolls Royce on the Symphony engine
• Virgin have now let their Overture options laps
• 130 orders and pre orders from Japan Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines
• Boom and Northrop Grumman partnership for military and government applications
• Boom awarded $60M STRATFI contract by USAF for Overture fast transit applications
• Cutaway images of the engine and Symphony power module are now on Boom's site
In July 2022 Boom announced a major Symphony redesign:
• Fuselage, waisted to comply with area rule
• Wing, multi angle Delta gull, with computer controlled leading and trailing edge slats
• Empennage
• Engines, 4 medium bypass turbofans in under wing individual pods
• Seats, 65 to 80, all business class
• Length, 201 feet (same as Concorde)
• Wing span, 106 feet (greater than Concorde)
• Height, 36 feet
• Cruising speed, Mach 0.94 over land, Mach 1.7 over water, at 60,000 feet
• Range, 4,880 miles
Boom have appointed suppliers for major Overture items, including the engine:
• Florida Turbine Technologies, engine design, development and certification
• Aernnova (Spain), design and supply wings.
• Leonardo (Italy), design and build fuselage and wing box.
• Aciturri (Spain), design and develop empennage.
• Safran Landing Systems,
• Eaton, hydraulics, fuel and inertial systems collaboration
• Collins Aerospace, ice protection and systems collaboration
• Flight Safety International,
• GE Additive, additive engineering (3D printing)
• StandardAero, maintenance
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop and test an engine that matches the specific requirements of Overture. Engine development began in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team. The engine will use existing certified parts and materials, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will help throughout the Overture engine development program. The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, low profile, high flow, light
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance, especially relevant on take off and landing
The Symphony propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric supersonic intake, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. The propulsion system will be fuel efficient at both sub and supersonic speeds. The intake will be similar to the intakes on the Mach 3.2, SR-71, with a spike that slows the air to the engine, and probably generates forward thrust. Wind tunnel testing of the intake and exhaust are underway.
17-2023.09.20
No! They now have an engine!
@@stuartlee6622 NO! They now have a minor engine manufacturer that has no experience of building commercially certified jet engines, let alone supersonic commercially certified jet engines, who is working to develop an engine that will have to meet far more stringent requirements than previous supersonic commercial jet engines had to, that is capable of being produced in relatively large numbers, that has high levels of reliability and that has a commercially viable unit cost when the hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development is factored in. Boom is still a long way from having an engine for the Overture.
I can't honestly see this plane ever flying. When Rolls Royce pulled out, that was it for me
If GE do it, who the heck is RR
Rolls Royce were consultants on the Overture engine, and that work has now completed. It would not be viable for any of the tier one engine manufacturers to undertake the design and development themselves, with their huge costs and time scales.
Florida Turbine Technology started engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification.
One word why Boom will fail to do much: Slots. All of the major airport arrival and takeoff slots are basically full. JFK and Heathrow don't have any slots and they are not the only ones. Unless you can seat at least 300 people, it would take far more trips to move those people 80 seats at a time, and that means you would need far more arrival and takeoff slots to move the same number of people. A 3 class 787 carries almost 300 people and on an international flight, many of those people continue on to their destination via a connecting flight. If you only land 80 people, that means your connecting flights won't be full. The hub and spoke model is not well suited to airplanes with limited seating capacity. The other reason is cargo. A 787 can carry 21,000 kilograms of cargo, along with passengers and passenger baggage. This is actually a pretty big revenue producer, and the Boom likely has no cargo capacity. Now they may sell some to s few boutique airlines running between destinations with high organic demand (NY to London) but again, if you can make six round trips in a day, that means you need three arrival slots and three departure slots and that means that it will be a mighty battle with the big airlines to get so many slots unless the flights are at times that are not desirable to the traveler. It is all about slots and connecting flights, and there are not enough slots at the major international airports to accommodate a hundred supersonic transports.
Teterboro, baby! Teterboro!!
Interesting why it’s so hard. We already had Concorde. Can they not just take that and fine turn the design and job done? Feels like it’s a reinvention of the wheel.
There were a lot of problems and challenges with Concorde, which is largely why it was stopped. Very inefficient and very expensive to run. The economics don't work anymore and it would not be approved by the public due to climate effects.
I doubt the Overture will ever get into commercial service. However, the 100% SAF compatible engine work could well be a valuable spinoff of the program. If they can get an engine that far along the development path before the whole thing folds, I can see one of the big engine manufacturers, or someone like Airbus buying up whats left of the organization for that.
I can't see supersonic flight making a comeback though. Even with cleaner engines it's still horrendously inefficient, and there's not much you can do about it - it's basic physics, and the business travel market is shrinking as videoconferencing has become the norm, and even where business trips are still made, the time in flight is no longer unproductive thanks to laptops, in flight wifi and at seat charging. Combine all that and add in the image problem of having your employees flying around on supersonic jets in an era when corporate and elite aviation is regarded with loathing and derision from the general public, it's just not a compelling offer.
great video, I hope it gets built....but who knows, all great market changing aircraft have major issues.....I hope it succeeds....
NASAs X59 will take flight prior to the XB1 which is insane considering how fast that turnaround time was
I would definitely want to try it out for one flight as a novelty, but in the long term, I just don't see myself going on this over a lie flat seat. Sure you get there faster, but there is no way they will be comparable cost. $100 tickets are complete BS and they know that.
You misunderstood what Blake Scholl said, as I did. He is not saying that Overture will achieve that price. He is saying that is his vision for the future, with future technology.
All 65 to 80 seats on Overture will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, and there will be ample room. Tickets will be the same price as subsonic business class.
JFK/LHR subsonic would take 8 hours. Boom will do it in 4 hours.
A 16 hour trans Pacific flight would require a fuelling stop and would be done in 4+1+4=9 hours by Overture.
If they don't conquer the sonic boom problem I don't see them getting off the ground anytime soon. Airlines wont buy into something that wont make them any money.
Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (2x faster) over water.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds and will comply 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.
All 65 to 80 seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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.
NGL this is a project I fully expect to go under.
The market is too small to be profitable (for boom). Supersonic planes are just too inefficient compared to conventional planes (I believe big, slow, efficient planes will be more popular than smaller faster ones) and of course there are the restrictions of where you can fly supersonic, as that has caused issues in the past.
I'd love to see them succeed, but the odds are stacked against them. However, I've been proven wrong on a few predictions before. (Examples of my less than prophetic past statements: SpaceX is unlikely to beat established players like Boeing in producing a human rated spacecraft, Brightline is a pipe dream as no post-1971 private intercity passenger rail venture has succeeded in the US so be happy if you can get 1 or 2 Amtrak trains a day, and more recently, Boom Supersonic will fold like Aerion before they ever lay a foundation for their factory!)
Aside from the sonic boom problem with flights over land supersonic travel only makes sense on long flights. Transatlantic flights, yes, a transcontinental flight between New York and Los Angeles, yes. But for a long time now we've had subsonic transcontinental flights spanning the United States and many people are still willing to forego those non-stops if it means saving money on airfare. The door-to-door travel time, which includes the time to get to the airport, get through security, possible flight and boarding delays, landing delays and so forth diminish the time savings of non-stops in general and further diminish the advantage of flying at higher speed. Significant door-to-door time could be saved on transpacific routes from North America to Asia, or from Australia/New Zealand to Europe, but it is doubtful that supersonic airliners will ever have the range to fly those routes non-stop.
Once an aircraft exceeds the speed of sound it has to push along a shock wave, which greatly lowers its lift to drag ratio and challenges flight fuel economy.
The 'Boom' won't cut it due to sole first class and airport woes. I was at The Dept of Civil Aviation (DCA) Melbourne Australia (AUS HEAD OFFICE) in the late 1950's. The Supersonic SOUND 'BOOM" was the major hurdle. So DCA decided to direct Concorde to be flown over 300 n.m. miles east of Darwin down 178 degrees (effecting 219 people) entering The Great Australian Bite going subsonic in and arcing and landing into the north at the upcoming Melbourne (12000ft) Tullamarine Airport. The upshot was the Concorde demo flight came to Australia and not matter how much advocacy took place airlines and Authorities were NOT convinced. Thus it flew the sole Heathrow NY Kennedy route. Only First Class (F27size) and noisy inside like a sardine can at higher than First Class...
*_@letsseeif_* Concorde created a sonic boom over Mach 1. It was also very loud subsonically at 120dB on take off. As you say, the cabin was cramped and noisy. Concorde also burnt a lot of fuel while flying at Mach 2, and gobbled fuel below that speed, especially subsonic.
By comparison, Overture will create a sonic boom so it will only fly Mach 1.7 over water and over land it will fly Mach 0.94. Subsonic noise will comply with ICAO-14 regulations so it will be quieter than most airliners currently flying. This will allow Overture to use all international airports, without triggering protests. All 65 to 80 seats will be comfortable business class, almost certainly with internet, with ample room and the cabin will be quiet.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde.
Concorde's ticket prices varied from 30% above first class to 300% or more, depending on the period. Overture's ticket prices will be the same as subsonic business class.
Subsonic the JFK/LHR trip takes 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours.
A 16 hour trip across the Pacific will require a 1 hour refuelling stop giving a total journey time of 4+1+4=9 hours.
Thanks for the update. Based on what you told me, i'm sure that once the 'Overture' fare well. Thanks again for your realistic update.@@phonicwheel933
@@letsseeif Glad you found my reply useful. Lets hope that Overture makes it to airline service.
@@phonicwheel933where is the evidence for that? I see you replying in every single comment that has replies so I need to ask you 2 things:
1- what's in it for you? Like, are you representing boom?
2- you say "it will spend less", "it will make less noise" etc etc, where are the vidence that supports that? There is no engine, there is no flying prototype, please explain how do you know that will happen.
Thanks.
@@phonicwheel933oh! Same applies to your claim about ticket prices, if there is no engine and no working prototype and so, no way of knowing how much fuel this will use or how much maintenance it will get, how do you know how much ticket prices will cost, specially in today's world of high inflation and ever changing fuel cost.
Thanks.
When Concorde flew there were major issues that gave it an edge. Communication, less time out of touch with the office. NOW that is no longer an issue so a major advantage of supersonic flight has disappeared. Jet lag is not so much of an issue and the inability to fly supersonic across all of the USA is a major failing. It may be that will also be an issue across Europe which further reduces any advantage. If you can do basic kindergarten mathematics then it is difficult to find a model that allows for a ticket price that makes a profit. Shareholders your shares are more likely to go BOOM and disappear than the aircraft ever breaking the Sound Barrier. BOOM will soon be seen as "smoke and mirrors"?
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.
The upward attitude of the fuselage when supposedly at cruise looks so weird... and when on the runway, the engines have a downward thrust angle...
*_@JonathanStanley_* Also, the fin looks too small and the four huge engine pods (30.5 feet, by 7 feet diameter) look like they will cause a lot of drag. But Boom have done extensive simulations of the latest Overture design, so hopefully, all will be well.
I can’t think of an aircraft that doesn’t fly nose up?
@@johnnunn8688 Interesting observation. I hadn't thought about that. Apparently the nose comes up more at high altitudes to increase wing angle of attack and maintain lift in the thin air.
I don’t see battery powered airliners ever being a real thing at least in the near future. But boom is gonna happen. I live nearby where the plant is being built. And work right at PTI ( piedmont triad international) . We also have Honda jet here. And they had a hard time getting off the ground. So I know gonna take some time for this airliner. But like Honda jet it’ll succeed I really hope.
but the old design looked so much better
It looked soo much more realistic, I can't imagine many people think the new design will make to flight
I hope it succeeds but I have to say, like Concorde, it looks like it will carry a limited number of passengers, more than Concorde but maybe not enough passengers to make it economical, Also it won't be as fast as Concorde as I think it will be less than Mach 2, but we need something fast in this day and age. Over 20 hours to get to Australia really did my t**ts in: both of them 😂
No, not more than Concorde, 20% less seats in fact. IF it ever gets built. I hope to be proved wrong, but the hubris demonstrated by Boom in the early days makes me wonder if they really understood the magnitude of their task. The complete redesign to a 4-engine airplane points to unrealistic assumptions from the start. Hard to see how they can hope to sell enough airframes to cover the development costs.
They will never be better than concorde
It will with modern tech and safety improvements
DJ, this is your best piece yet. I always comment, this plane is going NOWHERE. We won't see it. Or that stupid egg shaped plane. Or the Flying wing looking airliners. Total wastes of time. Sure. Small military applications for these things but not commercially viable.
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 made by Americans.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, 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.
All 65 to 80 seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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.
Boom have teamed with Grumman on government applications for Overture and they have won a 3 year $60M contract under the USAF STRATFI initiative.
All that information is based on their original design which was 75% the scale of Concorde.
The new design is more of a fantasy that actually getting real, it features a 777 landing gear style ,meaning it's grown very much bigger in fuselage , then a windowless cockpit area and 4 engines! 4 engines!!!! Who on earth thought 4 supersonic engines are a great idea for fuel economy ????
@@kudacuda4350 Not sure what the first part of your post means but, taking the four engines that you seem to disapprove of:
Four engines have the following advantages:
1) Allows a symmetrical design compared to three engines.
2) Facilitates the use of pods incorporating input and exhaust ducting (Symphony)
3) Easier servicing
4) Safer
5) Cheaper. 4 small supersonic engines are cheaper than two big supersonic engines
6) Standard parts can be used: turbines, blades etc.
7) Lower noise. 4 lower power engines are much quieter than 2 high power engines.
8) Allows the use of medium bipass engines at supersonic speeds for good economy and low landing noise.
9) More reliability
The list could go on and on, and kit gets complex, but I think you will get the idea.
😊
This thing is slightly bigger than Concord but looks smaller in renders for some reason.
On the market side if seats sold at $10K per each way transatlantic that is $680K per flight X 6 flights per day X 300 flight days/yr. = $1.23Bn annually . At 20 % EBITDA the airline clears $240Mn/yr. If the planes cost $1Bn to buy that is a 4.2 year payback for the airline . Not great but within the margin of error so can Boom sell the Overture for about $1Bn each ? Seems plausible , maybe probable . If Boom EBITDA is also 20% and costs $5Bn to get to market that is 15 plus year payback on the debt with no dividends and no share buy backs . Sounds like the UK to France Chunnel payback time . If they can float $4bn of 15 year bonds they could make it . Maybe do half that in equity and rest in bonds to cut payback on bonds to under 10 years which if a plane can stay in service 15 years it may make sense to build and fly profitably . Would love to see the operating model Boom shows the airlines.
It's doomed because of pax capacity. Will make a nice private jet for beez or musk though.
Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (x2 faster) over water.
Because Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and will comply 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.
All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet business class with ample room, and ticket prices will be the same as subsonic business class. This, coupled with twice the utilisation of a subsonic airliner, should give the operators a good margin.
Overture could be used as a business jet, but it is huge at 201 feet long, with a wing span of 106 feet, and may not be able to use some regional airports due to their relatively short runways. Overture cost would be high, at $200M against $80M for a Challenger 8000. Overture would only have half the range and the fuel consumption would probably be 3x.
@@phonicwheel933, is your comment in the wrong place?
@@johnnunn8688 My comment is relevant to the original post, but there are many interrelated factors to take into account. I addressed the two points in the original post and suggested why Overture will be viable for scheduled flights in the first part, and why it may not be suitable as a business jet in the second part. In both parts I gave reasons and parameters, as published by Boom, for this conclusion.
@@phonicwheel933 calm down, matey. I merely thought your comment deserved to be in the main thread. Jeez!
@@johnnunn8688 To be fair, the meaning of your first comment wasn't too clear. I thought you were implying that my comment was not relevant to the original post.
To answer your first post, now that I know what you meant, you will find many of my original posts and replies to posts, not only on this TH-cam video, but most others dealing with Boom and supersonic travel.
I realy see it coming in 2030. To me, it's like the Corvette compared to the Camry market....it will happen.
Could there be a jet engine Or other aircraft engine that’s electrical power by generator and possibly diesel engine
The Concorde was in service for 27 years, so it did work. What comes after will be made on the backs of giants.
Yeah SpaceX has a better chance of making a supersonic passenger vessel
i was very optimistic for boom until the announcement that they would have to develop an in house power plant
hell yeah! I'll buy 1
its big challenge....no.1 is material they will use...when a plane travelling at 2x tsos...
Bring back supersonic travel, i feel aviation hasnt really advanced much in design or reducing time between countries since the demise of the Concorde. Its long overdue !
Ironic because Overture will certainly be ‘Overdue’. (Over budget, over-delayed.)
But will they reduce the sonic boom which that is including
pie in the sky...
Wowowowow like supersonic cause is very very great
Are you a little more optimistic now that they done their first test flight ?
I’d love to know the thinking behind those engines in pods. One would think that there would be a huge amount of drag, particularly from the pylons but maybe they have an aerodynamic solution, where the air is formed into a ‘wedge’ of some kind, so the air flows around the pylons. IDK 🤷♂️, anyone?
Nevermind that , how about the fact that it has 4 engines, 4 of them!!!
@@kudacuda4350 B52 has 8 but it’s not supersonic. So, what’s your point?
Ty dj!!
Another amazing video 👍
DJ well presented and narrated, but rather pessimistic.
BTW, Blake Scholl's statement about the $100 ticket is repeatedly misinterpreted. He is not saying that tickets on Overture will get down to $100. What he is saying is that is his hope for the future, with developments in aviation technology.
Mach 3 and you're really knocking the time down. 1.7 is no man's land
This whole thing reminds me a bit of Nikola Motors. Except instead of running an empty shell of a truck down the hill, they have a rolling prototype that will hopefully actually fly soon
Blake Scholl has indicated that, as XB-1 no longer represents Overture, XB-1 may not fly.
Very Nikola motos indeed.
@@phonicwheel933 So a fraud ???????????????????????????????
@@naughtyUphillboy Why a fraud? Just a change of direction which is all part of a development program.
And no engine manufacturer has shown the slightest interest in working with Boom.
Rolls Royce consultancy has now completed and after two years of studies, investigations, and simulation the Overture engine and Symphony power unit architecture was defined in early 2022.
Florida Turbine Technology started detailed engine development in January 2023. The engine will use certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the engine design and certification.
I hope that overture will succeed, but I feel that it won’t fly. There’s too many delays, and I think that there won’t be enough demand
*_@NeilMacedo_* Quite true, Boom have undertaken a huge task with risks on all fronts: financial, technical, and program but, if Overture gets certified, there should be a healthy demand.
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. Overture will fly Mach 0.94 (10% to 20% faster) over land and Mach 1.7 (2x 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.
All 65 to 80 seats will be quiet roomy business class, almost certainly with internet, and 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.
@@phonicwheel933I see your replyed all over this comment section... And I do mean "all over". So, I need to ask, what's in it for you? Like, do you work for the company?
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod It is quite true that I reply to a lot of posts about Boom and the their Overture, but it is only done out of interest. There in no gain for me, and let me reassure you that I have no connection whatsoever with Boom.
In general, it would be great to see another SST in the air after the demise of Concorde.
@@phonicwheel933 ok, so you are claiming things you cannot possibly know like that the plane will be quiet, fuel efficient or even it's range.
Thanks for the clarification and hope you have a nice day!
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod I am not claiming anything. All the information I post is derived from the Boom website, TH-cam, newspaper articles, books, and the internet in general. Why don't you check for yourself instead of being so aggressive and submitting ill informed valueless posts.
I think your assumption that boom would cost as much to fly as Concorde is very wrong. Was Concorde a fuel guzzler, yes, but that was actually not the reason it was so expensive to fly.
With current fuel prices, the bare fuel cost of crossing the Atlantic for one person would be today currently $530 one way, crossing with a 777 is about $90. While the added $460 is a considerable amount of money, its not even close to the about $1500 extra it cost to fly with Concorde. The reason had nothing to do with fuel cost.
So how much would the fuel of a Boom cost. This do demand some speculations, but between $150 and $215 for a one way trip.
Normally a airline need to spend 1/3 on fuel, 1/3 on crew and 1/3 on plain and maintenance. Here is the thing, you just use the crew half the time, and also the plane. If we fly with a boom overture from London to NYC, the plane can refuel and return with the SAME crew with in the allowed flight hours of that crew. They wouldn´t even need a extra pilot. This slashies the price of the crew not only by half, but pretty much by three.
So say the 777 flight cost the airline about $100 for fuel, $100 for crew and $100 for the airplane. The boom overture would cost (potentially) $150 for the fuel, around €65 for the crew (the reason that its not $35 is that while the cost of cabin crew is cut by a 1/3, the cost of the pilots is almost the same) and the cost of the plane would probably be €100 again. So.. $315 cost of the airline for the Boom overture, and about $300 for the 777. (then cost booking cost, and lost capacity and so on, so the actual price is like $500-600)
But what if... what if we are no longer flying from London, but we are flying from Oslo, and the plane we replace is no longer a 777 but a 757.
No I don't think it will ever fly. There are only two companies capable of building an SST. Airbus and Boeing. They both have the technical and manufacturing knowledge, but neither are interested.
@@spacedriver24 what exact part of the airframe would no other be able to make?
@@matsv201 Oh none...... with decades of experience and billions of pounds , anyone could do it....we haven't even mentioned the engines .
@@spacedriver24 Still i want to know what specific part of a supersonic aircraft not pretty much anyone, even in the shed with some basic tool could not make. And yes, apart from engines.
You actually don´t need supersonic engines. you can just use normal engine, then ram compress the air untill the speed of sound is sufficiently fast to be subsonic. Thats how most aircraft do it.
Look at something like the fighter viggen, just using a almost standard engine from a DC9, and it can still do mach 2
@@matsv201 we are not talking about just a supersonic aircraft, it's a passenger aircraft, don't think you can build one of those in a "shed with basic tools"
As much as I would like to see them move ahead with this without an engine manufacturer they are SOL.
I highly doubt that they will succeed cause it is a very hard task and the many restrictions of supersonic noise around major US Cities.
it has a hump
Good analysis, I have had similar sentiments. Cool concept but there is zero chance it will fly by 2030, if ever.
Why are they reinventing the wheel, take what already exists and bring it up to date.
Curious of your credentials. So you are smarter than all the company of Boom Supersonic?
all that "investor" money is simply going into the hucksters, and animators, pockets.
There are laws in the US to stop companies ripping off investors. Besides which, Blake Scholl started Boom with $1M of his own money. Also, the USAF have awarded Boom a 3 year contract for $60M, and Japan Airways have invested $10M in teaming and options. You can be sure that they would have fully assessed Boom, much more than a casual observer could.
@@phonicwheel9331M? Wow! That's like... The money for a nice house!
Very strange that all that money amounts to 71M which isn't even enough to buy a brand new 737 max at listing price, which is a very mass produced plane, designed to save on production cost, evolving from a plane that had it's initial costs made more than 40 years ago....
71M in aviation is the equivalent of me having money for a coffee in my wallet.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod You said: *_1M? Wow! ... for a coffee in my wallet_* I am having a lot of trouble getting any sense out of your comment, or your point of view. Take a look at the definition of a strawman argument.
@@phonicwheel933, if he hadn’t used that million, the tax would have had it.
@@johnnunn8688 How do you know?
4 jet engines? We've learned this is not cost effective on any level. Trijet for ETOPS, maybe?
I think this will happen because there are quite a few aviation engineers attached to this project.
Given that Boom is already 6 years behind on the XB-1, designed without fly by wire to save time and money, and is flying using existing engines... There is no way on god's earth that the Overture, an infinitely more complicated engineering challenge and one that doesn't have any engines in production yet, is going to be entering service before 2040. Once the aircraft is more than 4 or 5 years overdue the airlines are going to bail out. What Boom are describing as "Firm orders" are, in fact, little more than statements of intent to purchase, something that involves very little outlay by the prospective purchasers and thus little financial risk should they pull out of the deal when the aircraft is 10 years overdue and two or three times its original quoted price.
Then there is going to be the cost of development of the engines for the Overture, being carried out by a company now owned by Boom after every major engine manufacturer said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Boom's overtures (pun intended).
The currently quoted purchase price for Overtures does not have the billions that developing the technology necessary to build engines capable of meeting Boom's requirements is going to cost factored in, mainly because neither Boom nor FTT have any true idea how much it is going to cost. They have given forecasts of the estimated cost but Boom's forecasts on every aspect of the Overture have been ridiculously optimistic. What makes anyone think that the cost estimates aren't going to go the same way as the XB-1s first flight dates.
I think the biggest red flag is that Boom is now claiming that they had been developing the 4 engine design for many years before it was announced... Which would be believable if it wasn't for the fact that they designed the XB-1 as a proof of concept aircraft based upon what they believed the final configuration of the Overture would be, with three engines located in the rear of the fuselage. Surely, if they had been planning the 4 engined layout for several years, the XB-1 would have been built in that configuration, not one based upon a design that they had no intention of using.
That isn't the only time that Boom industries has been economical with the truth and I am sure it will not be the last.
I am hugely disappointed to be writing this as I loved watching Concorde fly over and would love there to be more SSTs, I have just lost all faith in Boom's truly fantastic deadlines and wildly exaggerated claims.
The real question is can Boom compete with Zoom?
Is Boom going to be the next Theranos ?
Not Theranos, no outright fraud. Possibly more like Hyperloop , an idea that could work with the right technical advances and marketing, but probably can't be realised with this decade's tech and the available funding.
No, Thanos.
Boom will go out with a bang
With zoom, skype, whatsapp video call. No need to travel quickly with boom supersonic. If you really need to travel, it's better to use airbus A380
You are short sighted !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Never going to happen, the Brits and French brought Supersonic flight to the World 50 years ago, all the Americans could do was a wooden mock up of a SST. Unfortunately Concorde was ground way to early due to the incompetence of the Fench
Overture will succeed... In 50 years.
Theranos with wings..
Great report!
Yes
Difficult to understand Boom development presented as new. Concorde has been commercially demonstrated that supersonic flights are and will be very expensive and moreover very polluting which is to me the major point never discussed. Every country around the world try to reduce its carbon foot print in diminishing transportation véhicule. Boom is challenging that offering to very few selected people a fast but polluting solution to transport. I am not a green activist but I believe Boom is going in the wrong direction.
Just like the intake cowels need to stay square its a pinochle of the concord and also base market for a longer tubed with more passanger capacity and maybe not reaching the same speeds but meaning more reachable to other consumers in the commercial demands with an offset for more cost efficienty / offset all around and honestly same with the ffa is danm well a we the people agency so when the hell are the voices going ro be heard more ,look at some of the companies like tesela and other things like the self driving car so called dreams and the fact of them being allowed to exist and why because their quite but when everything else that builds and moved to shape this county/world wasn't, d.e. quote for the opposing ... "The would have to tie a kerosene rag around their ankles to keep the ants from crawling up and biting their candy as*es" i see no oppositions to this but am always open to see/hear where others thought maybe at for opposing, OVERTURE BOMB
Engine and economics will decide this airplane's date.
They need engines that can fly supersonic. Do they have a vendor?
They need $5-10B to develop the airplane. Do they have this money?
Pretty much any engine core can fly supersonic, just have to design the intake so that the engine receives the air at subsonic speeds. (Awaits question about other requirements, as reader missed the word ‘core’.)
Boom is great at CGI. Not so much at flying.
Concorde was faster.
Trying to eradicate the sonic boom is like trying to make humans immortal - its impossible !
wow seemed really close to a smear piece, not sure the reason this video needed to exist
The program will remain dormant. There is just too many things to consider this ever being a reality.
earth is flat
(Y’all better be angry on this one)
Not your problem.
$100 a seat??? 🤣🤣🤣. Spirit charges more than that for an aisle.
Analysts said its $12,000 a seat. When 7-hour R/T JKF-Heathrow FIRST CLASS lie flat is $5k today. There is no business case for this jet that has to stay under M1.0 over land anyway.
Fail, it is to small..
They should just turn that factory into A Walmart now LOL
I hope they fail
It is Guaranteed to fail.
Why?
Why?
boom is like this channel,, a fail
So a business meeting on a super sonic jet is more important than VTC, Tele Conference, Zoom, and digital signature. TALK ABOUT GOING BACKWARDS AND INVESTORS WASTE OF PROFITS.
IS Boom going to fail nor ARE Boom. Learn English FFS.
Yet another disgraceful video from DJ which is purely designed to boost his own personal income from the associated advertising.
This is very old news regarding Boom which i h has been widely covered months ago.
The project will never fly and DJ should be ashamed of himself from dragging up old news to make himself money.
Would be interesting to his defence of this old news.
No engine... no plane... no boom.
There is simply not enough interest in this plane to justify the development of a new engine by the main engine manufacturers that ultimately would only be sold in the low hundreds. If they could use a current military engine that would be a different situation but that is not the case. In addition, the noise these planned low bypass engine would no longer be acceptable in this day and age at any of the major airports around the world.
As far as the price of this plane, and the price per passenger, the 100USD/seat is laughable. That is probably the price you would have to pay for your carry on bag!
Eco friendly??? Compare to what? Burning fuel in a dumpster? Supersonic flight equals fuel guzzler, it's basic physics.
Why investors keep investing this company just shows that there is a sucker born every day. Sure, who would not want to fly supersonic but when looking at all of the challenges, short of of a government funded project like the Concorde, no one would have enough money to build one of those again. The only thing that could change the equation for Boom would be the availability of off the shelf available military equipment.
The Concorde was in service for 27 years, so it did work. What comes after will be made on the backs of giants.