KlimaBXsst
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:49 pm

So the Boom Overture... I fully expect it to evolve to a three abreast, Trans Atlantic liner and a slightly long range two abreast Trans Pacific liner.

Think DC-2 to DC-3.

Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end? My vote Evolutionary.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
zuckie13
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:09 pm

More than anything it's going to rely on finding the engine it needs. Those manufacturers won't commit to essentially designing a new engine without commitments, which they don't have right now.

If they can get an engine sorted out, it'll be at most evolutionary (or a dead end if they can't). By function, it's a smaller lighter Concorde with operating costs still putting fares out of reach for the masses.
 
c933103
Posts: 3793
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:52 am

It's supposed to fly on routes with premium demand and serve premium passengers. So while a larger version of the aircraft is possible, it's only going to occur if routes flown by the first generation aircraft have shown a really strong demand
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:24 am

zuckie13 wrote:
More than anything it's going to rely on finding the engine it needs. Those manufacturers won't commit to essentially designing a new engine without commitments, which they don't have right now.

If they can get an engine sorted out, it'll be at most evolutionary (or a dead end if they can't). By function, it's a smaller lighter Concorde with operating costs still putting fares out of reach for the masses.


On top of this, it's going to need a few hundred more nmi of range, to adequately serve the Asia/Pacific-focused markets which are the only ones that can support an SST fleet. The advertised still-air design range of 4500 nmi is short of having the safety margin needed to do nonstop SFO-NRT (4453 nmi GC), or to get from a tech stop in HNL to SYD (4403 nmi GC), or the get from the hubs of Northwestern Europe to a tech stop in ANC, via the North Sea and the Arctic Ocean, even assuming that this bird will be permitted to fly over Alaska, which is a big "if".

Apart from JFK-LHR and US-HNL-Australia, there just aren't premium-heavy, overwater routes for a 4500 nmi SST that don't touch Japan. That's a HUGE advantage for JL and NH, but overall it's just going to limit the sales, meaning no economies and no cost-cutting. Even at the 1/4 Concorde operating costs that Boom thinks they can achieve (with the right engine!), that's still not a recipe for financial success.

I wish them all the best, but I'll believe it when I seee it.
 
LTCM
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:29 am

No booms over land. Period.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6767
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:06 am

FWIW Boom is teaming up with Dassault.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski ... ir-travel/
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:33 am

Aviation dead end, unless they get military usage out of their supersonic aircraft. The future of aviation is electric (~400 mph), given that we will one day run out of fossil fuels.

Needless to say, environmental advocates are not happy...
Can someone please start a wikipedia list of failed startup airlines? I am interested in seeing just how long it would be...
 
catiii
Posts: 3077
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:44 am

Gulfstream500 wrote:
Aviation dead end, unless they get military usage out of their supersonic aircraft. The future of aviation is electric (~400 mph), given that we will one day run out of fossil fuels.

Needless to say, environmental advocates are not happy...


Go tell that to Zunum...
 
catiii
Posts: 3077
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:45 am

LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.


I thought they had solved for that with a boom (no pun intended) that protrudes from the nose and smooths out the sine wave that comes from a sonic boom. You may still hear the boom but it isn’t nearly as robust (or damaging) as a traditional boom
 
c933103
Posts: 3793
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:08 am

catiii wrote:
LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.


I thought they had solved for that with a boom (no pun intended) that protrudes from the nose and smooths out the sine wave that comes from a sonic boom. You may still hear the boom but it isn’t nearly as robust (or damaging) as a traditional boom

I believe those are part of other projects. If I recall correctly, Boom's approach is keep thing simple in order to lower the cost and thus not specifically engineered to totally avoid sonic boom, so that the project can be commercially feasible even when only oceanic routes can be used.
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
ethernal
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:18 am

c933103 wrote:
catiii wrote:
LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.


I thought they had solved for that with a boom (no pun intended) that protrudes from the nose and smooths out the sine wave that comes from a sonic boom. You may still hear the boom but it isn’t nearly as robust (or damaging) as a traditional boom

I believe those are part of other projects. If I recall correctly, Boom's approach is keep thing simple in order to lower the cost and thus not specifically engineered to totally avoid sonic boom, so that the project can be commercially feasible even when only oceanic routes can be used.



Which is unfortunate (but just a consequence of physics). I think the airliner would actually be very viable for short(er) haul flights over land. I get the appeal of taking an APAC flight down from 16 hours to 8 hours (with tech stops), but it really won't change travel patterns much. Especially since usually today 8 of those 16 hours are spent sleeping, so productivity loss is minimal.

I could see a *lot* of premium business travel markets for routes like SFO-JFK - cutting this route down to only about 2 hours is a game changer. A 9 AM flight out of JFK getting to SFO at 8 AM? A 5 PM flight out of SFO getting back to JFK at 10 PM? It's a productivity game changer for the armies of people that have transcon commutes, and even companies that are hesitant to pay a first class premium would likely pay for this service assuming the cost is only 75-150% the cost of a regular economy ticket.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2437
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:27 am

Lockheed Martin is making some promising headway on a supersonic airliner. Although it is small, they have the "pockets" to make it happen. Furthermore, I would love nothing more than to see an option to Airbus/Boeing come into the market.
 
ethernal
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:35 am

Apologies for the double post, but as an addendum, the good news for supersonic transport fans is that it will happen and be commercialized as scale - eventually. It is inevitable - and here's why.

Assuming the sonic boom issue can truly be fixed (it probably can be), the fundamental economic equation here is really one of energy usage: it takes more energy to make a plane fly faster. A plane going 2-3 times the speed of sound will use 3-5 times as much fuel - simply because of increasing air resistance. There are other complicating factors (supersonic transports tend to be smaller, tend to have less range, cost more to maintain, and so on) - but this is obviously the fundamental fact that cannot be improved or enhanced by engineering. Going faster means more fuel.

But.. the great thing is that the world continues to get richer. The energy intensity and cost per unit of GDP has steadily been declining since the 60's (and really even before that but there was a hiccup due to electricity and vehicles). In other words, energy is becoming relatively cheaper to other goods and services. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to assume it won't), then at some point an inflection will occur where the marginal cost of consuming more energy is less than the average customers' marginal value of time. This will obviously happen in different segments first (luxury / business), but ultimately it will distill down to all markets.

Mind you, that day isn't today - and may not be for another 50 or even 100 years - but it will happen one day. And I'm thankful that companies are testing the water to see how close we are to that inflection point.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:07 am

LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.


I don't see the reasoning behind such a statement. Why not no bus noise on land? Period? Or no children noisily playing?Period?

Policy should be based on noise level at the ground, additionally adjusting for the fact that punctuated noises can be more disturbing than noises that gradually rise and fall.

If a policy can be developed with a reasonable criteria for noise, and the aviation industry can come up with a design that at some speeds and altitudes meets those criteria, I don't see a problem. We know it's not going to be Mach 2 with the Concorde design, but if a newer, smaller design operating at lower speeds can muffle the boom sufficiently, why not allow them the chance to try out the market?

Gulfstream500 wrote:
Aviation dead end, unless they get military usage out of their supersonic aircraft. The future of aviation is electric (~400 mph), given that we will one day run out of fossil fuels.


We're a lot further than the potential market life of Boom's proposed aircraft away from running out of fossil fuels, especially if we stop using them in applications where energy density isn't as critical as it is for aviation.

Also, fossil fuels aren't the only way to get a high energy density liquid fuel.

zuckie13 wrote:
More than anything it's going to rely on finding the engine it needs. Those manufacturers won't commit to essentially designing a new engine without commitments, which they don't have right now.


They can get the engine they need if they can get money The engine makers can meet their relatively modest needs. It doesn't even need to be a masterpiece of optimization like the current generation of subsonic engines if the aircraft has no direct competitors.

Getting money means first of all convincing investors the project is technically viable. If their engineers are reasonably competent, the sub-scale demonstrator should provide decent confidence of that.

Then the hard part is convincing investors it is economically viable. My perhaps optimistic take on this is "it hasn't been ruled out yet."
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:12 am

The engines will be the key. Military engines might be "ready" but secret or otherwise not available to commercial users.
I really wonder what the Boom mini Concorde intends to use. They seem to advertise range and performance data but never name their engine.
 
musman9853
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:23 am

ethernal wrote:
Apologies for the double post, but as an addendum, the good news for supersonic transport fans is that it will happen and be commercialized as scale - eventually. It is inevitable - and here's why.

Assuming the sonic boom issue can truly be fixed (it probably can be), the fundamental economic equation here is really one of energy usage: it takes more energy to make a plane fly faster. A plane going 2-3 times the speed of sound will use 3-5 times as much fuel - simply because of increasing air resistance. There are other complicating factors (supersonic transports tend to be smaller, tend to have less range, cost more to maintain, and so on) - but this is obviously the fundamental fact that cannot be improved or enhanced by engineering. Going faster means more fuel.

But.. the great thing is that the world continues to get richer. The energy intensity and cost per unit of GDP has steadily been declining since the 60's (and really even before that but there was a hiccup due to electricity and vehicles). In other words, energy is becoming relatively cheaper to other goods and services. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to assume it won't), then at some point an inflection will occur where the marginal cost of consuming more energy is less than the average customers' marginal value of time. This will obviously happen in different segments first (luxury / business), but ultimately it will distill down to all markets.

Mind you, that day isn't today - and may not be for another 50 or even 100 years - but it will happen one day. And I'm thankful that companies are testing the water to see how close we are to that inflection point.


The thing is using 5 times as much fuel in a time where we need to cut our carbon emissions as much as possible is incredibly irresponsible and damaging for the environment
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:27 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end? My vote Evolutionary.

My vote: Stillborn and doomed from the start, due to wrong top level aircraft requirements.


zuckie13 wrote:
More than anything it's going to rely on finding the engine it needs. Those manufacturers won't commit to essentially designing a new engine without commitments, which they don't have right now. If they can get an engine sorted out, it'll be at most evolutionary (or a dead end if they can't). By function, it's a smaller lighter Concorde with operating costs still putting fares out of reach for the masses.

:checkmark:


c933103 wrote:
It's supposed to fly on routes with premium demand and serve premium passengers. So while a larger version of the aircraft is possible, it's only going to occur if routes flown by the first generation aircraft have shown a really strong demand

Taking into account the current business and first class capacities on airliners, the current design is already way too big, never mind a larger version.


PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
On top of this, it's going to need a few hundred more nmi of range, to adequately serve the Asia/Pacific-focused markets which are the only ones that can support an SST fleet.

According to the numbers in my hand, that's not the most important market.


LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Imagine the "1 %" booming the "99 %" legally while sipping champagne at 55,000 ft. Not gonna happen, no matter the shockwave signature. Why should the general public bear the repercussions while the rich reap the benefits?


TWA772LR wrote:
FWIW Boom is teaming up with Dassault.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski ... ir-travel/

BS. Read the article. Boom are buying CAD tools from Dassault. That can hardly be called teaming up.


catiii wrote:
Gulfstream500 wrote:
Aviation dead end, unless they get military usage out of their supersonic aircraft. The future of aviation is electric (~400 mph), given that we will one day run out of fossil fuels. Needless to say, environmental advocates are not happy...

Go tell that to Zunum...

Zunum: Out of money, staff laid off, abandoned by Boeing. So much for the electric future of aviation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga ... off-staff/


catiii wrote:
I thought they had solved for that with a boom (no pun intended) that protrudes from the nose and smooths out the sine wave that comes from a sonic boom. You may still hear the boom but it isn’t nearly as robust (or damaging) as a traditional boom

NIMBYs will not care, rightly so, because some startling sound will *always* be heard.


ethernal wrote:
I could see a *lot* of premium business travel markets for routes like SFO-JFK - cutting this route down to only about 2 hours is a game changer. A 9 AM flight out of JFK getting to SFO at 8 AM? A 5 PM flight out of SFO getting back to JFK at 10 PM? It's a productivity game changer for the armies of people that have transcon commutes, and even companies that are hesitant to pay a first class premium would likely pay for this service assuming the cost is only 75-150% the cost of a regular economy ticket.

I tend to agree. However, it's over land => not gonna happen, no matter what NASA and others might tell you.


ethernal wrote:
Apologies for the double post, but as an addendum, the good news for supersonic transport fans is that it will happen and be commercialized as scale - eventually. It is inevitable - and here's why.
Assuming the sonic boom issue can truly be fixed (it probably can be), the fundamental economic equation here is really one of energy usage: it takes more energy to make a plane fly faster. A plane going 2-3 times the speed of sound will use 3-5 times as much fuel - simply because of increasing air resistance. There are other complicating factors (supersonic transports tend to be smaller, tend to have less range, cost more to maintain, and so on) - but this is obviously the fundamental fact that cannot be improved or enhanced by engineering. Going faster means more fuel.
But.. the great thing is that the world continues to get richer. The energy intensity and cost per unit of GDP has steadily been declining since the 60's (and really even before that but there was a hiccup due to electricity and vehicles). In other words, energy is becoming relatively cheaper to other goods and services. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to assume it won't), then at some point an inflection will occur where the marginal cost of consuming more energy is less than the average customers' marginal value of time. This will obviously happen in different segments first (luxury / business), but ultimately it will distill down to all markets.
Mind you, that day isn't today - and may not be for another 50 or even 100 years - but it will happen one day. And I'm thankful that companies are testing the water to see how close we are to that inflection point.

This might be right, if there wasn't one factor getting more and more importance, which is environmental responsibility. It remains to be seen what will overweigh, the drop of energy cost or the rise of taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.
 
c933103
Posts: 3793
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:39 am

kyu wrote:
c933103 wrote:
It's supposed to fly on routes with premium demand and serve premium passengers. So while a larger version of the aircraft is possible, it's only going to occur if routes flown by the first generation aircraft have shown a really strong demand

Taking into account the current business and first class capacities on airliners, the current design is already way too big, never mind a larger version.

There are still plenty of airlines, like JAL that have invested into Boom, offer more than 55 premium seats in at least some of their aircrafts.
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:41 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.

I don't see the reasoning behind such a statement. Why not no bus noise on land? Period? Or no children noisily playing?Period?

That's because a single coast-to-coast flight would benefit a handful of people, while it would effectively disturb millions of people. Period.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:53 am

c933103 wrote:
There are still plenty of airlines, like JAL that have invested into Boom, offer more than 55 premium seats in at least some of their aircrafts.

The average ticket price these premium passengers pay (keeping in mind all the upgraders and mile-users) would still be way below what would be needed to make a 55-seat supersonic aircraft economically viable.
Also, the supersonic airliner would suddenly be able to do twice the flights, effectively doubling the capacity. Where would all the pax come from?
Btw, what reason would profit-oriented airlines have to move all of their premium pax into a supersonic cabin? Skyrocketing their cost of ownership whilst barely generating more revenue?

The Japanese have been dreaming of civil supersonic flight for a long time. They are still pursuing that dream, short of really looking into economic realities.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:56 am

double posting
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:24 am

It may work if the factors everybody else stated (not including the over-pessimists) actually get sorted out, but either way it's a niche aircraft. No doubt if it works it could bring major change, but we're in an age where we're bringing down carbon emissions, and a supersonic plane doesn't help that.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
c933103
Posts: 3793
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:48 am

kyu wrote:
c933103 wrote:
There are still plenty of airlines, like JAL that have invested into Boom, offer more than 55 premium seats in at least some of their aircrafts.

The average ticket price these premium passengers pay (keeping in mind all the upgraders and mile-users) would still be way below what would be needed to make a 55-seat supersonic aircraft economically viable.
Also, the supersonic airliner would suddenly be able to do twice the flights, effectively doubling the capacity. Where would all the pax come from?

Answer to both of your two questions depends on whether they can truly offer tickets at price "same as modern business class fare" in subsonic jet, as they have advertised
Btw, what reason would profit-oriented airlines have to move all of their premium pax into a supersonic cabin? Skyrocketing their cost of ownership whilst barely generating more revenue[/quote]
It probably make more sense for new company to offer that service, and compete against current carriers
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:50 am

While it is great to discuss new ideas and innovations there is no obligation to be euphoric and believe in everything to work out. Sometimes some reality check has to kick in. That's the beauty of a forum like this that you get some qualified discussion not only overblown marketing bingo.
Many startups just want investor's money promising whatever phantasy they might consider possible.
Having said that there are many serious inventors and it is much fun to see great innovatons coming out of that. Like reusable, backwards landing rockets and such.
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:16 am

TWA772LR wrote:
FWIW Boom is teaming up with Dassault.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski ... ir-travel/


With Dassault Systèmes, which is different from Dassault Aviation. Dassault Systèmes already provide CAD software to Airbus and Boeing so it's not really surprising.

Speaking about Dassault Aviation they would have the savoir-faire to produce supersonic airliners, as they are well-known for their combat aircrafts and their business jets. I cannot think of a better placed company to do it. Guess the market is not there.

It will be really hard for Boom to get the engine they wants. That's their weakest point (if we forget regulations).
Caravelle lover
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:32 am

c933103 wrote:
kyu wrote:
c933103 wrote:
There are still plenty of airlines, like JAL that have invested into Boom, offer more than 55 premium seats in at least some of their aircrafts.

The average ticket price these premium passengers pay (keeping in mind all the upgraders and mile-users) would still be way below what would be needed to make a 55-seat supersonic aircraft economically viable.
Also, the supersonic airliner would suddenly be able to do twice the flights, effectively doubling the capacity. Where would all the pax come from?

Answer to both of your two questions depends on whether they can truly offer tickets at price "same as modern business class fare" in subsonic jet, as they have advertised

With their seat capacity, the fare would actually have to be lower.


c933103 wrote:
kyu wrote:
Btw, what reason would profit-oriented airlines have to move all of their premium pax into a supersonic cabin? Skyrocketing their cost of ownership whilst barely generating more revenue

It probably make more sense for new company to offer that service, and compete against current carriers

Yup.
 
GDB
Posts: 13235
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:01 am

LaunchDetected wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
FWIW Boom is teaming up with Dassault.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimvinoski ... ir-travel/


With Dassault Systèmes, which is different from Dassault Aviation. Dassault Systèmes already provide CAD software to Airbus and Boeing so it's not really surprising.

Speaking about Dassault Aviation they would have the savoir-faire to produce supersonic airliners, as they are well-known for their combat aircrafts and their business jets. I cannot think of a better placed company to do it. Guess the market is not there.

It will be really hard for Boom to get the engine they wants. That's their weakest point (if we forget regulations).


The engine is key and is likely the limiting factor.
Back in the late 90's we used to get visitors to our Concorde Engineering operation at BA, I would often be asked 'why has nothing been built to replace it?'

To answer in layman's terms was easy, since we would often share hangar space and most times there was a detached RB211-524, or GE90, then later Trent 800, also quite often a spare Olympus 593 and if not, the engine cowlings were open on the Concorde. So I would just point out that any new SST needed to combine what those high bypass turbofans do, in terms of noise, emissions and being fuel efficient at subsonic speeds, with the supercruise optimized Olympus powerplants, even someone with little knowledge of aviation could see that these were very different engines.

Our RR rep reckoned that while it was not expected that any new SST could beat the Concorde/Olympus 593 combo for efficiency at Mach 2/50,000 ft+, meeting the needs for the rest of the flight envelope was likely insurmountable, at least not without a massive effort in time and expense.
So 20 years later here we are, technology might have improved but the laws of physics haven't changed and as for noise and even more so, emission concerns, they have only got tighter and will continue to do so.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:14 am

Does Boom want those Rafale engines now? (SNECMA M88)
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:27 am

Noshow wrote:
Does Boom want those Rafale engines now? (SNECMA M88)

Due to export control constraints, military engines most probably won't be seen on civil supersonic designs.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:15 pm

AFAIK they had eyed some technically matching supersonic cruise missile engine from the US first that finally cannot be made available for civil uses.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:21 pm

Noshow wrote:
AFAIK they had eyed some technically matching supersonic cruise missile engine from the US first that finally cannot be made available for civil uses.

They were clueless from the start. But who cares, if there's enough dumb money to be had. That's the Silicon Valley mindset.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:39 pm

For my taste it is taking too long to announce their engine choice. No engine - no boom. We have waited for years now. I still hope they will find one but I'm not holding my breath.
 
ethernal
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:13 pm

musman9853 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
Apologies for the double post, but as an addendum, the good news for supersonic transport fans is that it will happen and be commercialized as scale - eventually. It is inevitable - and here's why.

Assuming the sonic boom issue can truly be fixed (it probably can be), the fundamental economic equation here is really one of energy usage: it takes more energy to make a plane fly faster. A plane going 2-3 times the speed of sound will use 3-5 times as much fuel - simply because of increasing air resistance. There are other complicating factors (supersonic transports tend to be smaller, tend to have less range, cost more to maintain, and so on) - but this is obviously the fundamental fact that cannot be improved or enhanced by engineering. Going faster means more fuel.

But.. the great thing is that the world continues to get richer. The energy intensity and cost per unit of GDP has steadily been declining since the 60's (and really even before that but there was a hiccup due to electricity and vehicles). In other words, energy is becoming relatively cheaper to other goods and services. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to assume it won't), then at some point an inflection will occur where the marginal cost of consuming more energy is less than the average customers' marginal value of time. This will obviously happen in different segments first (luxury / business), but ultimately it will distill down to all markets.

Mind you, that day isn't today - and may not be for another 50 or even 100 years - but it will happen one day. And I'm thankful that companies are testing the water to see how close we are to that inflection point.


The thing is using 5 times as much fuel in a time where we need to cut our carbon emissions as much as possible is incredibly irresponsible and damaging for the environment


The implication here is that there are not ways to produce the requisite fuel using renewable sources. With energy cheap enough (which will happen as the price of photovoltaics continues to collapse), one can create hydrocarbon fuels directly from H2O and CO2 if you wanted to. We don't because energy is expensive, and it is energy intensive do to this. It's much cheaper to dig up dead fossilized algae (or, even worse, destroy the environment and cause mass extinctions by farming our fuel, e.g., ethanol from corn).

In 50 years, energy at certain times of the day (when the sun is bright) will be effectively free and produced by low pollution energy sources (I say low pollution because no energy source is pollution free - even photovoltaics or wind - as mining, refinement, and production of these items have environmental impacts). Taking excess grid energy when energy prices go negative or close to zero and using that to produce liquid fuels is a perfectly reasonable expectation as liquid fuels are still optimal for specific energy specific applications (e.g., air travel).
Last edited by ethernal on Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
queb
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:13 pm

Not gonna happen. Established players take huge risks and billions to develop traditional airliners (and often go bankrupt) . A tri-engine Mach 2.2 airliner with 55 premium seats and a CRFP wing will cost at least $10 billions. JAL invested $10 millions in the project....
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:05 pm

kyu wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
LTCM wrote:
No booms over land. Period.

I don't see the reasoning behind such a statement. Why not no bus noise on land? Period? Or no children noisily playing?Period?

That's because a single coast-to-coast flight would benefit a handful of people, while it would effectively disturb millions of people. Period.


Every noise-generating activity "benefits" only a handful of people. That's inherent to my point.

So treat the activities as equally as possible.

You're proposing to ban a specific noise even if it can be reduced to the same impact as the countless other noises we deal with daily.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:12 pm

musman9853 wrote:
The thing is using 5 times as much fuel in a time where we need to cut our carbon emissions as much as possible is incredibly irresponsible and damaging for the environment


Where did your five times figure come from? Are you comparing to economy seat footprints? That is not an apt comparison unless you apply the same baseline to business class travel in general.

It is not as simple as scaling based on the standard drag formula, because that assumes a fixed Cd and does not account for transsonic effects or for the completely different design and therefore completely different Cd of a subsonic optimized airframe and a supersonic optimized one.
 
kyu
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:53 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
kyu wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
I don't see the reasoning behind such a statement. Why not no bus noise on land? Period? Or no children noisily playing?Period?

That's because a single coast-to-coast flight would benefit a handful of people, while it would effectively disturb millions of people. Period.

Every noise-generating activity "benefits" only a handful of people. That's inherent to my point.
So treat the activities as equally as possible.
You're proposing to ban a specific noise even if it can be reduced to the same impact as the countless other noises we deal with daily.

This is about proportionality. Benefits for very few, disturbance for a great many. It's not comparable to your examples where good and bad things are in reasonable balance.

Btw, it remains highly doubtful whether the technological low-boom approach will turn out successful. 60 years of research notwithstanding, there are still no plausible solutions for acceleration and maneuvering super-booms, atmospheric variability, indoor rattling, off-track booms. I can hardly imagine them getting as far as to venture a legislative push.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:59 am

kyu wrote:
c933103 wrote:
There are still plenty of airlines, like JAL that have invested into Boom, offer more than 55 premium seats in at least some of their aircrafts.

(1) The average ticket price these premium passengers pay (keeping in mind all the upgraders and mile-users) would still be way below what would be needed to make a 55-seat supersonic aircraft economically viable.
(2) Also, the supersonic airliner would suddenly be able to do twice the flights, effectively doubling the capacity. Where would all the pax come from?
(3) Btw, what reason would profit-oriented airlines have to move all of their premium pax into a supersonic cabin? Skyrocketing their cost of ownership whilst barely generating more revenue?

The Japanese have been dreaming of civil supersonic flight for a long time. They are still pursuing that dream, short of really looking into economic realities.


(1) Perhaps. That's one of the big questions. I don't think the answer is obvious at this time. We can do some rough order of magnitude calculations to see if there are obvious problems with the business case. For example, supposing they spend $10 billion developing it, sell half as many as they claim there is a market for, and charge a rather exorbitant $200 million for it. The development cost per airframe then is in the same ballpark as the 787, as I understand it ($32 billion / 1400 frame accounting block).

If they average 2 legs per day at 75% load factor for 20 years, then that airframe cost breaks down to $370 per passenger trip. If they burn 5 times as much fuel per seat as an economy sub-sonic aircraft as suggested by another poster, then that ~12.5 L/100km/passenger (about 25% better than Concorde) at $2/gallon for a 5600km (NY-London) flight works out to another $330 per passenger trip.

The Wall Street Journal has previously reported these two categories amount to 45% of the average cost of airline operations, which suggests about $1550 each way for what is intended to be a business class level of service. That doesn't seem out of line. From a quick search, I see NY-London business class seats for as low as $1500 each way for limited days and times, but typically $2500 or more. I don't know what the real average revenue is after accounting for spending frequent flier miles, etc, but would welcome any data others might have.

(2) There's currently 4500 widebody aircraft in service, with probably 30 to 40 business and first class seats on average, as well as non-trivial number of narrow body's in international configurations with a handful of similar seats each. The IATA and both major manufacturers expect those numbers to roughly double over the next 20 years. That would likely be mid way through the Boom Overture's production life if it actually succeeds. Again assuming half as many aircraft as they claim there is a market for, they would account for 8% of the premium seats around 2040, or 16% if treating the capacity as doubled due to speed.

(3) First of all, not all of their passengers. As you've already argued, supersonic overland flights are in doubt, so routes may have to be mainly over water to provide meaningful time benefits. It seems highly likely that most premium seats would still be on conventional aircraft. Secondly, the same reason they invested in expensive business class configurations and service: first movers take revenue away from other airlines. Other airlines then follow suit to protect their revenue.
 
Thunderbolt500
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:01 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:33 am

How fast is a mach?
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:12 am

Thunderbolt500 wrote:
How fast is a mach?

Speed of sound.
 
musman9853
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:21 pm

ethernal wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
Apologies for the double post, but as an addendum, the good news for supersonic transport fans is that it will happen and be commercialized as scale - eventually. It is inevitable - and here's why.

Assuming the sonic boom issue can truly be fixed (it probably can be), the fundamental economic equation here is really one of energy usage: it takes more energy to make a plane fly faster. A plane going 2-3 times the speed of sound will use 3-5 times as much fuel - simply because of increasing air resistance. There are other complicating factors (supersonic transports tend to be smaller, tend to have less range, cost more to maintain, and so on) - but this is obviously the fundamental fact that cannot be improved or enhanced by engineering. Going faster means more fuel.

But.. the great thing is that the world continues to get richer. The energy intensity and cost per unit of GDP has steadily been declining since the 60's (and really even before that but there was a hiccup due to electricity and vehicles). In other words, energy is becoming relatively cheaper to other goods and services. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to assume it won't), then at some point an inflection will occur where the marginal cost of consuming more energy is less than the average customers' marginal value of time. This will obviously happen in different segments first (luxury / business), but ultimately it will distill down to all markets.

Mind you, that day isn't today - and may not be for another 50 or even 100 years - but it will happen one day. And I'm thankful that companies are testing the water to see how close we are to that inflection point.


The thing is using 5 times as much fuel in a time where we need to cut our carbon emissions as much as possible is incredibly irresponsible and damaging for the environment


The implication here is that there are not ways to produce the requisite fuel using renewable sources. With energy cheap enough (which will happen as the price of photovoltaics continues to collapse), one can create hydrocarbon fuels directly from H2O and CO2 if you wanted to. We don't because energy is expensive, and it is energy intensive do to this. It's much cheaper to dig up dead fossilized algae (or, even worse, destroy the environment and cause mass extinctions by farming our fuel, e.g., ethanol from corn).

In 50 years, energy at certain times of the day (when the sun is bright) will be effectively free and produced by low pollution energy sources (I say low pollution because no energy source is pollution free - even photovoltaics or wind - as mining, refinement, and production of these items have environmental impacts). Taking excess grid energy when energy prices go negative or close to zero and using that to produce liquid fuels is a perfectly reasonable expectation as liquid fuels are still optimal for specific energy specific applications (e.g., air travel).


Sure but that day is a long way off. And to my knowledge there isn't a liquid fuel that has the energy density of gas.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
KlimaBXsst
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:18 am

Technically, a staggered seat Embraer E2 type 3 abreast seat cabin concept offers much potential for the Overture.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
ethernal
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Boom Overture? Evolutionary, Revolutionary, or Aviation dead end?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:04 pm

musman9853 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
musman9853 wrote:

The thing is using 5 times as much fuel in a time where we need to cut our carbon emissions as much as possible is incredibly irresponsible and damaging for the environment


The implication here is that there are not ways to produce the requisite fuel using renewable sources. With energy cheap enough (which will happen as the price of photovoltaics continues to collapse), one can create hydrocarbon fuels directly from H2O and CO2 if you wanted to. We don't because energy is expensive, and it is energy intensive do to this. It's much cheaper to dig up dead fossilized algae (or, even worse, destroy the environment and cause mass extinctions by farming our fuel, e.g., ethanol from corn).

In 50 years, energy at certain times of the day (when the sun is bright) will be effectively free and produced by low pollution energy sources (I say low pollution because no energy source is pollution free - even photovoltaics or wind - as mining, refinement, and production of these items have environmental impacts). Taking excess grid energy when energy prices go negative or close to zero and using that to produce liquid fuels is a perfectly reasonable expectation as liquid fuels are still optimal for specific energy specific applications (e.g., air travel).


Sure but that day is a long way off. And to my knowledge there isn't a liquid fuel that has the energy density of gas.


Negative / zero daytime grid prices will likely happen in the next 10-20 years in many parts of the country.

Other than scale, there are no hurdles to creating hydrocarbons (= gas; we can chain as many hydrocarbons together as needed to get any fuel we want, again it just takes lots of energy) via reverse electrolysis. The reason we don't do it today is because it's too expensive.

My point wasn't that this was right around the corner, but on a 30-50 year horizon all of the above is table stakes from an economic and technological feasibility perspective.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos