Widebody and Turbulence, I think your assumptions are a little wrong. To make a M.95 plane and have supersonic flow around it would be quite stupid. If you have supersonic flow, then better go the full way and make a real supersonic plane.
But it may be just about possible to reach M.95 and still keep the fastest air flow at no more than M.99. I am pretty sure that it's what Boeing is talking about.
But it would be a plane with a dramatically different view compared to ordinary M.8x airliners.
It is a little strange that Boeing hasn't released any information about the plane. But it is quite obvious for aerodynamic people how the poperties of a M.95 plane with max. M.99 airflow must be:
The fuselage must be long, narrow and pointed in both ends, something not very dissimilar to the Concorde.
The pax would call it cramped. The main cabin section of the fuselage would probably not be a straight tube, but instead gradually increase diameter until its thickest point from where it would gradually decrease diameter all way to the tail.
Ordinary windscreens, which the pilots could look out of, would be a difficult subject. To give the pilots some forward view during take-off and landing an artificial view system (TV) would be more likely than the Concorde's drooping nose.
The wing would also have to be different. A wide cord delta wing could be likely.
The only thing, which could come almost off the shelves, would be the engines. Unlike a real supersonic plane a M.95 plane could fly with today's high bypass ratio fan engines without much modification. And since it would not generate a sonic boom, then it can, unlike the supersonic plane, be operated over populated land.
As you see, to make a M.95 airliner is a completely different sort of animal, and it is nothing like putting some more power and some "new technology" on an old 747.
But the main point is that it is so totally unnecessary. If only ground service, baggage handling and traffic imposed delays could be made a lot more efficient, then most of us would gladly travel on a M.50 or M.60 plane instead.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs