Boom.

I watched live online. Seemed like the plane performed exactly as predicted. The folks at Boom seem to know what they are doing.
 
Nasa was doing work a while ago - X 59 - to create a profile of a plane that makes a small "thump" vs a sonic boom. Doesn't look like Boom is following that work, as they state the eventual airliner will be sub sonic over land.

I wonder if the X59 just didn't produce usable results, or if it just doesn't matter as the super sonic flights originating from the US only make sense over long distances, which means over water.
 
@WDD

X59 requires a massive and super long nose. Not practical on airliner scale, per an article I read about Boom a while ago.

@AvNacVom

BA and AF both used the excuse of the bad accident to shutdown the Concorde. They lost money on every flight, the engines were designed in the 60s and were very inefficient. The plane was mechanically complicated, required huge amounts of maintenance. Basically, it was a point of pride that flew a few decades longer than it should have from an economic standpoint.

To prevent the accident from re-occurring would have required significant "armor" added to the underside of the plane which would have caused weight problems, or changes to redo the landing gear so any FOD kicked up does not hit the plane. Neither solution was economically viable.

Tim
 
WDD said:
Nasa was doing work a while ago - X 59 - to create a profile of a plane that makes a small "thump" vs a sonic boom. Doesn't look like Boom is following that work, as they state the eventual airliner will be sub sonic over land.

I wonder if the X59 just didn't produce usable results, or if it just doesn't matter as the super sonic flights originating from the US only make sense over long distances, which means over water.
Click to expand...
The X-59 has not flown yet. Flight testing is 'expected' to start this year.

Nauga,
not with a bang but a whisper
 
nauga said:
The X-59 has not flown yet. Flight testing is 'expected' to start this year.
Click to expand...
Yup. A broad summary of the project schedule is available here:
www.nasa.gov

Quesst: The Mission Description

Quesst: The Mission Description
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov

Boom's development is not waiting for the results. However, as @tspear mentioned, one of the big "breakthroughs" seems to be a ginormous nosecone, which may be a tough design feature to practically implement anyway.
 
tspear said:
BA and AF both used the excuse of the bad accident to shutdown the Concorde. They lost money on every flight, the engines were designed in the 60s and were very inefficient. The plane was mechanically complicated, required huge amounts of maintenance. Basically, it was a point of pride that flew a few decades longer than it should have
Click to expand...
But what a ride. Afterburners on take off alone were worth the flight.
 
Longer video from their marketing team

Interesting looking jet. Landing gear looks over centered on the ground. Climb was pretty incredible.
 
tspear said:
To prevent the accident from re-occurring would have required significant "armor" added to the underside of the plane which would have caused weight problems, or changes to redo the landing gear so any FOD kicked up does not hit the plane. Neither solution was economically viable.
Click to expand...
From what I recall of this podcast with a former Concorde pilot, The accident started before the airplane ever taxied out. The FOD on the runway was just a link in the accident chain. Normally the FOD may have caused an emergency situation, but not the loss of the aircraft.

omegataupodcast.net

166 - Flying the Concorde

omegataupodcast.net omegataupodcast.net

Brian
 
AvNavCom said:
Isn't that what killed the utility of the Concorde, along with a high profile accident?
Click to expand...
All that and more is addressed on this Accident Lesson's Learned website...it's a very thorough account of the issues and what was done to fix all issues as a result of the Concorde accident. It even lists the ADs that resulted of that accident.

And....the answer to your questions is no. That's not what killed the Concorde.

 
UngaWunga said:
Longer video from their marketing team

Interesting looking jet. Landing gear looks over centered on the ground. Climb was pretty incredible.
Click to expand...
And augmented visual for take offs and landings so they don't need the "droop" nose that the Concorde had. Really good website.

1738284012080.jpeg
 
So, here's my question. Let's say the technology works. The aircraft creates its own cone of silence. The FAA updates its regs, and now you can fly the Boom (or a derivative) anywhere. Doesn't the fuel consumption/efficiency still make it a economic non-starter unless you're a billionaire?
 
Enough people are willing to pay for first class tickets. I'm sure marketing studies have been performed on their willingness to spend four times as much to get somewhere twice as fast.
 
kyleb said:
So, here's my question. Let's say the technology works. The aircraft creates its own cone of silence. The FAA updates its regs, and now you can fly the Boom (or a derivative) anywhere. Doesn't the fuel consumption/efficiency still make it a economic non-starter unless you're a billionaire?
Click to expand...
Boom is not trying to create an airplane with a sonic boom that would be acceptable over populated areas.

The goal is to have the airplane, the Overture, profitable at fare levels comparable to existing business class fares.
 
Bill said:
Anyone who ever sat in the back of an Eastern 727 knows there ain’t nothing whisper about those jets.
Click to expand...
Both my parents were smokers. I've sat in the last row of both the 727 and DC-9 often in my childhood listening to those engines drone.

Don't even get me started about TransTexas's PamperJets.
 
Boom is run by a guy I’m familiar with from a previous life. He is a genius at spending other people’s money. There is no engine being developed by any established manufacturer (GE, PWA,RR) for this pipe dream.

A single seat airframe powered by a grown up Quail decoy engine first flown in 1958 is hardly anything remotely useful for anything except separating fools from their cash.

I have never understood the business case how cutting a couple of hours or more off a flight while doing zero to the rest of the trip (TSA, Customs, house to airport, etc, etc) could be worth the enormous ticket price. Not to mention selling enough of these things to recoup the development costs for the airframe (and engine, which by the way would take 7 or so years to develop)

But like I said, toys like this are great for sucking up OPM. I include the Airlines who have put down “deposits” which I think are about a few hours of cash flow and probably a rounding error in their financial statements.
 
Last edited:
I'm taking their claimed results at face value, which I know is risky, but:
X3 Skier said:
A single seat airframe powered by a grown up Quail decoy engine first flown in 1956 is hardly anything remotely useful for anything except separating fools from their cash.
Click to expand...
Do you think demonstrating that it is possible to tailor shock wave propagation such that the ground audible signature is significantly reduced is not useful? That demonstrating their design tools were capable of somewhat reasonably predicting that would happen is not useful?
Beating NASA and a few other agencies around the world to the punch may not exactly be useful but it is certainly interesting.

There's a lot more in the results than a supersonic bizjet.

Nauga,
and his tech mat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top