Return of SuperSonic Flight

What a waste of time and effort. I don't believe supersonic flight is viable for commercial or private travel. Too inefficient and the airframes will require too much runway to use most of the 5,000' or so airfields that provide the point to point convenience of private air travel.

The play should be "Show me one and we'll quickly write permissive rules around it while it is undergoing certification".
 
NASA and several aerospace companies have been conducting R&D on "low boom" airplanes and tools to develop and verify them for decades. The more recent push has been to develop and demonstrate in flight a quiet supersonic airplane, and to show that it is possible to accurately predict the perceived loudness of the pressure wave (the 'sonic boom') using new tools. All of this was to position the aerospace industry to petition ICAO ti reduce restritions regarding supersonic flight. Back in March ICAO announced they are adopting new supersonic aircraft noise regulations, specifically for takeoff and landing at this time, which is a huge step towards making them viable from a regulatory standpoint. The subject executive order smells like an acknowledgement that things are happening and just might better position the US for additional ICAO changes - it may also be intended to push ICAO into acting faster.

These rule changes are not intended to pass judgement on the viability of any of the current crop of (mostly research) airplanes or future certificated airplanes. It's simply to open the door to companies willing to take on the risk of developing something new rather than be limited by regulation instead of physics.

Nauga,
N-waving goodbye
 
(looks around, orders beer, starts timer...)
giphy.gif
 
I can easily see the US accepting sonic booms in certain situations, but will destination countries follow suit?
Not much use if they won’t.
I guess there could be a domestic use, but mostly people are talking about trans-oceanic, no?
 
Boom was on the front page of WSJ’s Weekend edition. Timing on this is interesting, but if it helps them get back to transoceanic supersonic flight, I’m all for it.
 
AKiss20 said:
They could make a silent SST and the economics would still make it unviable.
Click to expand...
A G800 is unviable for most people...yet Gulfstream produces them for those who can afford them, and has made significant contributions to low-noise supersonic flight research. Sure, it's an appeal to authority, but there's enough industry interest to keep the various programs alive, and with the exception of a couple of upstarts the industry is driven by marketability.

Nauga,
with coffee for closers
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
… unviable for most people...
Click to expand...
Not arguing, leveraging.

If advancement can improve cruise from .78M on the E-3 to .86M+ on the VC-25, to .92M or better on some bizjets and we can swing that to .98M for transcon and 1.0M+ for transoceanic why shouldn’t we? Part of that is getting the regulatory environment to a point where that’s acceptable. Again, why shouldn’t we? Just because we can doesn’t mean we’re able to.

Make it permissible.
 
nauga said:
A G800 is unviable for most people...yet Gulfstream produces them for those who can afford them, and has made significant contributions to low-noise supersonic flight research. Sure, it's an appeal to authority, but there's enough industry interest to keep the various programs alive, and with the exception of a couple of upstarts the industry is driven by marketability.

Nauga,
with coffee for closers
Click to expand...
Multiple SST bizjets have been tried before, all failed, including Gulfstream’s own attempt. Most recently Aerion, who also promised “boomless” tech and had partnerships with all the big names. If you can’t make it work trying to sell to billionaires engaging in a ****ing contest with more money than god….

There’s a fundamental energy cost to going that fast that you just won’t get around. Basically no one’s time is worth that, especially in the era of remote work and increasingly online communication. When we have essentially free energy and incredibly power and energy dense storage, maybe.
 
Let the market decide if it's viable. If nothing else, transoceanic supersonic flights would be great... unless you love sitting in coach for 13 hours.
 
Even if it is technically doable, which it isn’t under Boom’s plan, primarily because the engine is pure vaporware and will remain so, the business case is ridiculous.

The people who know how to design, build and produce Jet Engines, like PWA, GE and RR, have all passed on this pipe dream for good reasons according to my friends there. Blake Scholl’s back up plan is getting some parts from someplace, making some parts, putting them together and PRESTO, FAA Certified engines, in production and meeting all promised requirements.

Shaving 2-3 hours off a typical 24 hour Portal to Portal transatlantic trip isn’t worth buying a mega million plane and hoping to recoup the purchase price. Even more ridiculous is a transcontinental case of saving minutes gate to gate.Anyone who thinks they can price a ticket equal to today’s first class and make money with this kind of “benefit” has never met P T Barnum.

As far as the airline “interest”, $10 Million is probably about what they spend on plastic cups and pop cans for Plebes like me in steerage in a day. I’m with The Delta CEO who passed on this fiasco.

As I often told my engineers back in the day, just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Boom’s Technical approach fails the first so no need to apply the second.

Of course when you have a source of Other People’s Money who know ZERO about the technical challenges of a program, It is a lot of fun to spend it on a hobby.
 
Last edited:
Are we discounting a military application?

From its operating altitude of 85k+, did the SR-71 create a sonic boom at ground level?
Do current attack fighters approach targets at supersonic speed?

Would quiet supersonic technology be of interest to the military?
Could quiet supersonic tech be incorporated into hypersonic weapons?
 
Domenick said:
Are we discounting a military application?
Click to expand...
Yes Any need for supersonic speed has been met since the 1960’s Century Series Fighters. The real need is Hypersonic (Mach 3+) weapons. Blake Scholl’s Folly has little if any Military Utility. Sonic Booms actually have a little utility to scare the S*** out of enemy ground troops.
 
nauga said:
The I in ICAO does stand for International ;)

Nauga,
listening to what the man says
Click to expand...
which in no way means that individual countries will accept anything that affects their enjoyment of peace & quiet or environmental harm. European nations are very protective of both those things. We shall see.
 
Bob Noel said:
Let the market decide if it's viable. If nothing else, transoceanic supersonic flights would be great... unless you love sitting in coach for 13 hours.
Click to expand...
The market has decided, it’s called Concorde and every failed attempt at SST since. Concorde failed even with the highly subsidized development program by the Brits and French.

SST could possibly succeed in building niche effectively one offs for the 100+ billion net worth crowd if they wanted to spend some 1bn each for R&D and acquisition. Don’t think it would be very popular to allow like 10 Uber-wealthy people to constantly boom everyone underneath their flight paths so they can shave a few hours off their trans-continental flights though.
 
Domenick said:
…Do current attack fighters approach targets at supersonic speed?
…
Click to expand...
Air to Ground? No, but to get on station, supersonic isn’t out of the question if it’s worth the gas. The A/G game usually needs some loiter time to build SA on the ground situation anyways; it can be done en route or from the CAS wheel. Digital SA is helpful, but eyes on is necessary although EO/IR imagery can increase the range that SA can be built at.

For Air to Air, been doing supersonic intercepts since the 60s. Speed is your friend for lots of reasons in the BVR game and can be help or hurt in the visual/merged arena.
 
AKiss20 said:
Don’t think it would be very popular to allow like 10 Uber-wealthy people to constantly boom everyone underneath their flight paths...
Click to expand...
I think you've missed the entire point of current pressure wave shaping R&D and the ICAO's willingness to revisit supersonic SARPs.
Noise levels of past airplanes are non-starters. Current research has and will include public acceptance tests of perceived loudness, and rather than (in the case of the US) a flat out prohibition it is expected that future regs will specify acceptable noise levels.

Nauga,
and his sneak pass
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
Of course when you have a source of Other People’s Money who know ZERO about the technical challenges of a program, It is a lot of fun to spend it on a hobby.
Click to expand...
US, EU, and Japanese aerospace R&D agencies are all sponsoring low noise supersonic aircraft research. Of course they use OPM, but in my experience (primarily with NASA and to a much lesser extent JAXA) they know far more than ZERO about the technical challenges.

FWIW, the X-59 uses a single GE F414. Boom may be forced to roll their own but other engine shops are far from uninvolved in other work in the area.

Nauga,
listening up
 
nauga said:
US, EU, and Japanese aerospace R&D agencies are all sponsoring low noise supersonic aircraft research. Of course they use OPM, but in my experience (primarily with NASA and to a much lesser extent JAXA) they know far more than ZERO about the technical challenges.

FWIW, the X-59 uses a single GE F414. Boom may be forced to roll their own but other engine shops are far from uninvolved in other work in the area.

Nauga,
listening up
Click to expand...
I was speaking specifically about Venture Capital people (OPM) who are providing the bulk of the money to this Chimera called Boom. Those R&D outfits are smart enough to buy existing turbine engines for their test beds.

F414 has been in production for years and the Boom Demo plane used J85's, first use in the Quail Decoy Missile back in the '50's sand out of production since 1988. Scholl is talking about a new Centerline Engine that is yet to be started by his Hobby Shop. No Engine Company has decided to participate in the development of a new motor for him but would certainly sell anybody some existing engines off the production line
 
X3 Skier said:
I was speaking specifically about Venture Capital people (OPM) who are providing the bulk of the money to this Chimera called Boom.
Click to expand...
And I am discussing industry-wide efforts to make rule changes to support civilian supersonic flight over land. There have been many developments in that area outside of those by a single upstart. I'm not going to lose sight of the work being done by the industry at large because of the perceived non-viability of one player's project.

Nauga,
diffuse or defused?
 
I was wondering about turbulence and impact to other aircraft. My guess is that it would be in RVSM airspace.


 
kontiki said:
I was wondering about turbulence and impact to other aircraft. My guess is that it would be in RVSM airspace.
Click to expand...
I'd bet any supersonic cruising flight will take place at over 45K'. RVSM or not, they will be above 99% of air traffic.
 
nauga said:
And I am discussing industry-wide efforts to make rule changes to support civilian supersonic flight over land. There have been many developments in that area outside of those by a single upstart. I'm not going to lose sight of the work being done by the industry at large because of the perceived non-viability of one player's project.

Nauga,
diffuse or defused?
Click to expand...
Rule changes are one thing among many.that aren’t bound by the laws of physics like aircraft and engines. Economics of supersonic civilian aircraft are another thing that also don’t but have their own analytical tools.

Efforts to date to develop a civilian supersonic economically viable transport plane have not been too successful. The Concorde consumed vast amounts of public funds and in the was too big a money drain to operate.

If they ever appear, kudos to those that make it happen but a dollar to a donut it won’t be Boom.

Of interest to me is Scholl’s original estimate of 6-8 Billion to get into production is now 1-2 Billion to get to the point where customers will come up with the rest.
 
If my Wiki is right, SpaceShipOne was built 20 years ago for about 25 million and went mach 3. Also pretty sure the Wright Flyer wasn't an example of an economically viable mode of transportation.

I don't think the market for supersonic flight is with regular people. I think if there's a market it's for people that can buy whatever they want who want to go 3000 mph, just for fun and bragging rights. That's not cheap or easy, but it's cheaper and easier than going into orbit.
 
Albany Tom said:
If my Wiki is right, SpaceShipOne was built 20 years ago for about 25 million and went mach 3. Also pretty sure the Wright Flyer wasn't an example of an economically viable mode of transportation.

I don't think the market for supersonic flight is with regular people. I think if there's a market it's for people that can buy whatever they want who want to go 3000 mph, just for fun and bragging rights. That's not cheap or easy, but it's cheaper and easier than going into orbit.
Click to expand...
SpaceShipOne was a one off experiment. Boom plans a fleet of Commercial transports with regularly scheduled flights by numerous airlines. Good luck raising 6-8 Billion dollars to produce them. Might take a while to recover the money flying 75 people a plane at $1700-$2000 a seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top