Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Metchalus
Topic Author
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:46 pm

Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 10:51 am

Boom supersonic unveil new configuration. Gone from a trijet to 4 engines

65-80 passengers.

61m in length, that's between the 787-8 and 787-9. This is a pretty big bird.

Capable of Mach 1.7 and a range of 4250nm.

Their demonstrator looks a lot ess like the finished aircraft.

I mean it looks awesome, but I have little faith in this aircraft ever existing.

This has Aerion vibes, they announced a new configuration and then shutdown soon afterwards.

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/bo ... -suppliers
 
FGITD
Posts: 2184
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:14 am

Almost looks like a B58 Hustler…

It is a little odd that after a few years of alleged development, they come out with…a different aircraft
 
GDB
Posts: 16242
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:20 am

FGITD wrote:
Almost looks like a B58 Hustler…

It is a little odd that after a few years of alleged development, they come out with…a different aircraft


Or something of a mini me version of the Lockheed submission to the US SST program in 1966, mixed with the eventual configuration of the winner of that competition, the B2707, after the ‘winning’ variable geometry version was axed.
Doesn’t auger well?
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:59 am

FGITD wrote:
Almost looks like a B58 Hustler…

It is a little odd that after a few years of alleged development, they come out with…a different aircraft


That's exactly what I thought when I saw it too.
 
eal
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:51 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:00 pm

They've said since the beginning of their program they'd come out with a demonstrator first, so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone...

Maybe look into the wider history of the company before launching criticisms
 
Noshow
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:31 pm

Did they finally announce an engine for the big one?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:45 pm

Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs
 
amstone17
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:37 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:50 pm

Metchalus wrote:
Boom supersonic unveil new configuration. Gone from a trijet to 4 engines

65-80 passengers.

61m in length, that's between the 787-8 and 787-9. This is a pretty big bird.

Capable of Mach 1.7 and a range of 4250nm.

Their demonstrator looks a lot ess like the finished aircraft.

I mean it looks awesome, but I have little faith in this aircraft ever existing.

This has Aerion vibes, they announced a new configuration and then shutdown soon afterwards.

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/bo ... -suppliers


keep changing the specs, keep reducing the speed. Despite the ridiculous amounts of money they've raked in, they continue to not produce anything more than ever changing specs.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:54 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs

They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."
 
Noshow
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:54 pm

What is the final engine type selected? What do they base their performance data on? For so many years they avoid naming it. Now they change from three to four. Call me not convinced yet.
 
af773atmsp
Posts: 2586
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:58 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs

They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."


How will four engines decrease noise and costs? For awhile it's been less engines=less cost, unless it's somehow different for a supersonic aircraft.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:26 pm

6 wheel main boogie? How heavy is this thing?
 
hitower3
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:30 pm

They might consider a cooperation with Rekkof for their experience in the field of hypothetical aircraft.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:41 pm

How about cooperating with Tupolev? For the Boo-144?
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 2090
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:07 pm

Metchalus wrote:

61m in length, that's between the 787-8 and 787-9. This is a pretty big bird.



Much of the length is in the elongated nose section, required to reduce drag for supersonic flight.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13820
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:23 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Metchalus wrote:

61m in length, that's between the 787-8 and 787-9. This is a pretty big bird.



Much of the length is in the elongated nose section, required to reduce drag for supersonic flight.

Yes. It’s about the same length as the Concorde.
 
N757ST
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:33 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this thing to have low or zero sonic boom allowing supersonic ops over land?

Without that this becomes as niche if not more niche then Concorde considering airport saturation etc. No one in their right mind would use this on transcon routes to save a half hour to 45 mins of flight time.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 2323
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:40 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs

But not for military purposes…
Remember, MD is now a partner.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:42 pm

The military would not need something like this. Even as a cover project for something else this is not credible. It still feels like vaporware.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 2090
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:45 pm

N757ST wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this thing to have low or zero sonic boom allowing supersonic ops over land?

Without that this becomes as niche if not more niche then Concorde considering airport saturation etc. No one in their right mind would use this on transcon routes to save a half hour to 45 mins of flight time.


Yes, they've dropped the low-boom claim. Lockheed and NASA have a low-boom demonstrator in the X-59, but it's untested and not clear if it will scale up to commercial airliner size, it it works. Also not clear if the boom reduction would be sufficient for the FAA to allow supersonic flight over populated areas.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:51 pm

Three variants planned: Overture-M (MSFS), Overture-F (FlightGear), Overture-X (X-plane).
 
SocalApproach
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:08 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:53 pm

4 Engines 4 Long Haul. I wasn't a believer at first but I'm sold now :hyper:
 
ReverseFlow
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:40 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:06 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs

They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."


How will four engines decrease noise and costs? For awhile it's been less engines=less cost, unless it's somehow different for a supersonic aircraft.
I did wonder that but the only thing I could think of is perhaps maintenance costs as it's easier to get to the engines as opposed to having one in the tail?
 
MrNuke
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:37 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:17 pm

N757ST wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this thing to have low or zero sonic boom allowing supersonic ops over land?

I don't thank Scholl or Boom have ever claimed that. You may be confusing it with Lockheed's X-59 prototype. Boom's marketing materials as well as those of "customers" like United, have always centered around U.S. East Coast to Europe and U.S. West Coast to Asia with a fuel stop in HNL.

the Overture remains point-designed for unrestricted operations over water. “The strategy remains the same,” says Scholl. “We’re focused on transoceanic routes where we can offer a big speedup for as little cost as possible with proven technology and the shortest possible development timeline.”

Scholl concedes that low-boom technology has a future. “[But it will be] a long time before anyone knows how quiet is quiet enough,” he says. “The last thing you want to do is make a big investment in it, and then miss it by a decibel and then all is for naught. You also give up efficiency for quiet. So we are still more convinced than ever that there’s a meaningful market for transoceanic [travel] where the most important thing is efficiency and low-boom doesn’t really help you.”

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/bo ... monstrator
 
n797mx
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:28 pm

Metchalus wrote:
Capable of Mach 1.7 and a range of 4250nm.

What kind of routes are they planning with that range? Yeah, it'll get you to Europe out of EWR, but Asia, the pacific, and a good portion of South America is out for United.
 
B764er
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:31 pm

It looks more like a Boeing SST. I wonder if Tupolev will build a Boomski.
 
af773atmsp
Posts: 2586
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:48 pm

MrNuke wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this thing to have low or zero sonic boom allowing supersonic ops over land?

I don't thank Scholl or Boom have ever claimed that. You may be confusing it with Lockheed's X-59 prototype. Boom's marketing materials as well as those of "customers" like United, have always centered around U.S. East Coast to Europe and U.S. West Coast to Asia with a fuel stop in HNL.

the Overture remains point-designed for unrestricted operations over water. “The strategy remains the same,” says Scholl. “We’re focused on transoceanic routes where we can offer a big speedup for as little cost as possible with proven technology and the shortest possible development timeline.”

Scholl concedes that low-boom technology has a future. “[But it will be] a long time before anyone knows how quiet is quiet enough,” he says. “The last thing you want to do is make a big investment in it, and then miss it by a decibel and then all is for naught. You also give up efficiency for quiet. So we are still more convinced than ever that there’s a meaningful market for transoceanic [travel] where the most important thing is efficiency and low-boom doesn’t really help you.”

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/bo ... monstrator


I thought on the 60 Minutes segment about Boom they hoped to reduce the sonic boom so flying supersonic over land would be possible, whether that's for transcontinental routes or trans-Atlantic/Pacific routes that partially fly over land (e.g. ORD-London).
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:02 pm

I like the concept of supersonic flight, but two things that grab me:
1) landing gear appears too close to the inner engines on either wing (just appears odd to me).
2) If this is to be used for military purposes I would think countries are going to have to constantly verify: is this U.S. military flying over or United Airlines?
 
fabian9
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:27 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:31 pm

Looks more and more like Concorde.

Droop nose next when they realise they can't look out the window during landing due to high AoA requirement on delta wings.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:46 pm

fabian9 wrote:
Looks more and more like Concorde.

Droop nose next when they realise they can't look out the window during landing due to high AoA requirement on delta wings.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

...and join the engines in two-engine pods "flush" with the wing when they start doing some boundary layer calculations in the area between nacelles and wing.

In other words it looks like engineering reality is catching up with them, and they are converging toward a 2020-tech Concorde, i.e., something technically feasible (engines permitting). Hopefully financial reality will follow: the expected cost of this airplane (e.g., cost to certification and operating cost) is immense.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:57 pm

IADFCO wrote:
fabian9 wrote:
Looks more and more like Concorde.

Droop nose next when they realise they can't look out the window during landing due to high AoA requirement on delta wings.


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

...and join the engines in two-engine pods "flush" with the wing when they start doing some boundary layer calculations in the area between nacelles and wing.

In other words it looks like engineering reality is catching up with them, and they are converging toward a 2020-tech Concorde, i.e., something technically feasible (engines permitting). Hopefully financial reality will follow: the expected cost of this airplane (e.g., cost to certification and operating cost) is immense.


Ah-ha! Now we're all starting to head down the same path...aircraft length, fuselage shape, change in engine layout, main bogeys growing in size, engine count increasing...more and more its following the same path that lead to the eerily similar design of the Concord and Tupolev.

Based on the size of the engine pods and need for 4 engines, what can we extrapolate in terms of available engine choices that match? Are they proposing something akin to a GE Passport 20, RR AE3007 or Pearl 700? Or could this be something bigger?
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:58 pm

Several things about Boom Supersonic don't ring true: 1) The company has only 150 employees, with administrators and consultants outnumbering the engineers. 2) They lack experience in designing & manufacturing large aircraft. 3) Boom's leadership is made up of mostly venture capital experts, not engineers. 4) Four years from their ambitious "first flight" date in 2026, they completely change their design. 5) Those airline "orders" are just LOI's, although JAL and UA may have tossed a few million into Boom's VC pool. 6) They still don't have a suitable engine.

But at #7 comes the kicker: How does Boom build this aircraft in light of the upcoming 2027 ICAO emissions edict? This plane will burn copious amounts of Jet A, or SAF, or whale oil, or whatever. For airlines, the operating costs of the Overture most likely would be economically unsustainable.

Boom seems to be doing a lot of PowerPoint engineering. Now Boom has given up the (designed but never proven) reduced sonic boom SST design for a traditional SST design from the 1960's. This will greatly limit the utility of the aircraft. And the proposed 4,250 nm range is just a number on a PowerPoint page.
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:25 pm

Looking at the presentation, my bet it will never be come to fruition. I even think the project is dead in about two years. United does not need THIS aircraft. The world does not need this aircraft anyway. The orignal concept was rather promising, but this is pure disappointment now.
 
MrNuke
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:37 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:34 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
MrNuke wrote:
N757ST wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this thing to have low or zero sonic boom allowing supersonic ops over land?

I don't thank Scholl or Boom have ever claimed that. You may be confusing it with Lockheed's X-59 prototype. Boom's marketing materials as well as those of "customers" like United, have always centered around U.S. East Coast to Europe and U.S. West Coast to Asia with a fuel stop in HNL.

the Overture remains point-designed for unrestricted operations over water. “The strategy remains the same,” says Scholl. “We’re focused on transoceanic routes where we can offer a big speedup for as little cost as possible with proven technology and the shortest possible development timeline.”

Scholl concedes that low-boom technology has a future. “[But it will be] a long time before anyone knows how quiet is quiet enough,” he says. “The last thing you want to do is make a big investment in it, and then miss it by a decibel and then all is for naught. You also give up efficiency for quiet. So we are still more convinced than ever that there’s a meaningful market for transoceanic [travel] where the most important thing is efficiency and low-boom doesn’t really help you.”

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/bo ... monstrator


I thought on the 60 Minutes segment about Boom they hoped to reduce the sonic boom so flying supersonic over land would be possible, whether that's for transcontinental routes or trans-Atlantic/Pacific routes that partially fly over land (e.g. ORD-London).

The 60 minutes program wasn't solely about Boom itself, but rather the potential for upcoming supersonic travel in general (i.e. Boom and the Lockheed X-59). The transcript is available online here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supersonic ... 022-07-10/

The only people talking about over land flight or reducing sonic boom to allow that are people related to the X-59 project.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24421
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:45 pm

The comparison to Rekkof is so true. Permanent vaporware with just concept images. Aren't they behind schedule on the demonstrator?

af773atmsp wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs

They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."


How will four engines decrease noise and costs? For awhile it's been less engines=less cost, unless it's somehow different for a supersonic aircraft.

4 engines for the same thrust increase weight and fuel burn over 3. That is 4 engines instead of 3 to maintain and inspect... I cannot come up with a cost reduction.

As noise goes as the 8th power of exhaust velocity, going to more engines allows for lesser takeoff and climb throttle settings to reduce noise. So I can believe a noise reduction.

Lightsaber
 
2175301
Posts: 2307
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:58 pm

My guess is that their original engine concept was a combination of too expensive and not reliable enough for normal commercial service. So they were forced to abandon it and look at other engines available.

Buried in the old Boom threads was a discussion about the estimated required thrust when combined with the need for supercruise ability led to just 1 base engine in existence: The base engine for the F22, or its more modern derivatives (minus the movable nozzle). You will also note that the Lead Engine Program Manager worked on the F22 Engine program prior to being hired by Boom.

While both the F22 and F35 engines were designed to be more reliable than previous military engines... they are nowhere near the reliability commonly accepted for commercial passenger aircraft (and apparently the F35 engine has turned out to have lots of issues and the Pentagon is looking at a replacement engine).

I heard rumblings a few years ago that Pratt & Whitney was willing to produce a civilian version of the F22 engine for Boom... but at a much higher cost than Boom anticipated (and requiring something like a $billion dollar prepayment for them to get started).

Note that early commercial jet aviation started with civilian versions of military engines and they lived with the reliability issues. Only later were the engines ruggedized to become much more reliable. So the concept is not new (it's very old); and perhaps in the case of a Supersonic aircraft with premium passenger fares you could absorb the increased maintenance cost to get a proven engine that works at super-cruise. I think the problem is that Pratt & Whitney saw the program as requiring several hundred+ engines and not several thousand engines.... and P&W has to be paid for their engineering and incremental development cost.

So, I think Boom then went looking for other existing engines that would work... and now we have 4 engines instead of 3.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The comparison to Rekkof is so true. Permanent vaporware with just concept images. Aren't they behind schedule on the demonstrator?

af773atmsp wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."


How will four engines decrease noise and costs? For awhile it's been less engines=less cost, unless it's somehow different for a supersonic aircraft.

4 engines for the same thrust increase weight and fuel burn over 3. That is 4 engines instead of 3 to maintain and inspect... I cannot come up with a cost reduction.

As noise goes as the 8th power of exhaust velocity, going to more engines allows for lesser takeoff and climb throttle settings to reduce noise. So I can believe a noise reduction.

Lightsaber


The "Baby Boom" proof of concept demonstrator was supposed to have a first flight in 2018. Now it is supposed to fly in 2022, which is now more than half over. However, since the proof of concept demonstrator bears little to nothing in common with the newly-proposed design of the Overture, I wonder if Boom doesn't shut that part of the program down to save that valuable VC cash.
 
MaksFly
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:50 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 7:44 pm

And this is how you separate investors from their money. =)

The bird looks cool, but let's be real... in the world of Grettas and rising fuel prices... this is a pipe dream.
If they want to make a commercially feasible project, they should focus on the people who don't care about the Grettas and for whom convenience is more important than money.... the business market.
 
cpd
Posts: 7491
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 7:58 pm

eal wrote:
They've said since the beginning of their program they'd come out with a demonstrator first, so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone...

Maybe look into the wider history of the company before launching criticisms


Why look at history? Isn’t in enough to see “sst” and launch into full on attack against the proposal! ;)

I’m still unsure it will ever become commercial reality. But a bigger plane with four engines does seem like they are getting closer towards the idea of Concorde. I’m surprised the engines aren’t mounted similarly.

I’m unsure why M1.7, why not just M2.0 and be done with it.

4250nm is a reasonable range however, but not greatly more than Concorde (which could do 7000km flights).
Last edited by cpd on Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17418
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:05 pm

Noshow wrote:
Did they finally announce an engine for the big one?


My guess is 4xGE passports.

The engine placement and intake looks wrong to:3 for efficient supersonic, especially if noise is a concern. I would have expected a box shaped intake to choke the air entering the engine to be subsonic.
 
Chemist
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:05 pm

And they have a supersonic aircraft that they say is also for West Coast US - Asia, but refuel in Hawaii? So they'll fly supersonic but then slow, descend, land, taxi, refuel, taxi, takeoff, climb, and then go supersonic again to Asia?

What part of this picture doesn't look right?!!!
 
cpd
Posts: 7491
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:14 pm

Chemist wrote:
And they have a supersonic aircraft that they say is also for West Coast US - Asia, but refuel in Hawaii? So they'll fly supersonic but then slow, descend, land, taxi, refuel, taxi, takeoff, climb, and then go supersonic again to Asia?

What part of this picture doesn't look right?!!!


Hawaii to LAX is a fair distance. Depends how quickly this thing can accelerate and climb. And how quickly will it descend and decelerate.

Non stop West Coast to Japan would have been a bigger selling point.
 
hinckley
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 9:25 pm

So this plane can't fly over land, just like Concorde.

It doesn't have true intercontinental range, just like Concorde.

It'll carry 15 - 35% fewer passengers than Concorde.

And celebrities, the ultra-rich and corporate hot-shots, Concorde's bread and butter market, now fly PJs.

What am I missing?
 
Metchalus
Topic Author
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:46 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Tue Jul 19, 2022 11:10 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The comparison to Rekkof is so true. Permanent vaporware with just concept images. Aren't they behind schedule on the demonstrator?

af773atmsp wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
They claim four engines will actually decrease costs.

"Additionally, the four-engine design reduces noise while also decreasing costs for airline operators."


How will four engines decrease noise and costs? For awhile it's been less engines=less cost, unless it's somehow different for a supersonic aircraft.

4 engines for the same thrust increase weight and fuel burn over 3. That is 4 engines instead of 3 to maintain and inspect... I cannot come up with a cost reduction.

As noise goes as the 8th power of exhaust velocity, going to more engines allows for lesser takeoff and climb throttle settings to reduce noise. So I can believe a noise reduction.

Lightsaber

Atleast they're building a demonstrator. All Rekkof ever produced was a stupid name.

Maybe the engines are buy 4 get one free?

If there was somehow a fuel saving with 4 instead of 3, that'd surely be eaten up by increased maintenance costs.
 
cpd
Posts: 7491
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:02 am

Engines under the wing might be simpler than one in the tail. it might well be quieter on takeoff too, but if I'm not mistaken, these are not reheated engines so they should be reasonably quiet anyway.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1182
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:07 am

hinckley wrote:
So this plane can't fly over land, just like Concorde.

It doesn't have true intercontinental range, just like Concorde.

It'll carry 15 - 35% fewer passengers than Concorde.

And celebrities, the ultra-rich and corporate hot-shots, Concorde's bread and butter market, now fly PJs.

What am I missing?

Concorde didn't have a power point.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:23 am

It seems the future for quick travel is harnessing the VirginGalactic sub-space flight idea, using sub-space as the "sling shot." That seems a way better investment strategy. The supersonic wheel has already been invented with Concord (as alluded to above posts). Re-inventing the wheel will prove a challenging business strategy when future possibilities of alternative travel will become more attainable as new technologies emerge tandem to an inevitably decreasing value proposition of continued Boom capital deployment. Let's go Richard! Give us the real future!!!
 
User avatar
Exrampieyyz
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:04 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 1:30 pm

FGITD wrote:
Almost looks like a B58 Hustler…

It is a little odd that after a few years of alleged development, they come out with…a different aircraft

With engines spaced out on the wings like that, didn't the B-58 have a major issue with the tail coming off when the outbound engine failed at high speeds.
Even if the tail survived it be a pretty scary yaw for the passengers
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 10021
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:01 pm

Exrampieyyz wrote:
FGITD wrote:
Almost looks like a B58 Hustler…

It is a little odd that after a few years of alleged development, they come out with…a different aircraft

With engines spaced out on the wings like that, didn't the B-58 have a major issue with the tail coming off when the outbound engine failed at high speeds.
Even if the tail survived it be a pretty scary yaw for the passengers


Yes, it did, several lost. The SR had a similar control problem when the engines “unstarted”., violent yaw. I don’t remember if one was lost that way.
 
KCaviator
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Boom Supersonic new configuration.

Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:21 pm

It's funny because we all know this will never happen.

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