Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
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
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
MohawkWeekend wrote:Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs
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."
Metchalus wrote:
61m in length, that's between the 787-8 and 787-9. This is a pretty big bird.
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.
MohawkWeekend wrote:Yeah - four engines just put another nail in it's operating costs
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.
af773atmsp wrote: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?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.
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?
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.”
Metchalus wrote:Capable of Mach 1.7 and a range of 4250nm.
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
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.
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.
...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.
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).
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.
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
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
Noshow wrote:Did they finally announce an engine for the big one?
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?!!!
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
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?
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
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