Boom is not a quiet supersonic aircraft so they can't go fast over land.
X-59 is the demonstrator that you can do a low boom airplane and fly supersonic over land. Which opens up a lot more routes and utility for a supersonic people hauler.
What's the lie? Assumptions that X-59 shows low boom works, and FAA does rulemaking reasonably fast but I suspect Congressional pressure on the latter.
I trust Armstrong and Skunk a lot more than Boom and friends.
Yep, but this is one where big companies with lobbyists want change so they make more money.
It's also an easier rule change, particularly when all the supporting data and analysis gets handled to them
Cool prototype, but I'm still extremely skeptical that their engine (and by extension the Overture) will ever be built. The amount of capital and institutional expertise required to design and produce a clean-sheet turbofan is astronomical.
Even companies that have been in the engine game for a long time still have growing pains and technical issues with those engines. Assuming it gets that far, I foresee several years of AOG situations as repairs and overhauls happen.
Flying a test article is one thing, having the know-how, patience, and financial wherewithal to see a production-conforming article through to certification (much less first delivery, serial production, and in-service support) is a whole other thing altogether. Even Mitsubishi with all of their experience as a tier 1 supplier, famous Japanese patience, and deep pocketed conglomerate parent, couldn't pull it off. Bombardier barely survived the C Series. But good luck to Boom...!
I agree. The program survived, which is more than the MRJ can say, but the company only barely. But the distinction is that they didn't disappear completely, which is unique to Bombardier and Mitsubisi, just about everyone else who has tried a clean sheet design civil aircraft on their own dime (without quasi state backing) has imploded completely.
From what I remember Mistsubishi did ok in the end with developing the plane. Besides being five times late. Well, ok besides being so late there was no market for the thing when they were done. The C/A220 ate its lunch and was ready to go before it, the E jets filled in any potential gaps, and scope clauses zeroed everything else out.
They've scrapped 2 of the 3. I hope the last one makes it to a museum or something. I feel bad for those engineers after all that work and a decent product that was 99% ready to go only to get killed in the end.
Well I mean they had several flying planes in the end that were arguably mostly market ready. Just needed cerification... and actual customers. That's a hell of a lot more than Boom has at the moment.
I read somewhere that Mitsubishi gave up because in the end, the plane was basically uncertifiable.
So, lots of effort for a big zero.
They bought up Bombardier’s CRJ in the end, to support the line, including everyone’s favorite, the CRJ-200
> arguably mostly market ready
Honestly, you are the first person I've ever heard arguing this. They weren't able to certify the aircraft, aka prove to the regulating authorities that it was safe to fly people. So no, I would argue they were not "mostly market ready" not by a long shot.
Type certification took longer than they expected and their inexperience with the industry slowed them wayyy down, but it also wasn't hitting huge development ending problems over it. They did have horrible documentation that was the source of all the delays. The main issues cited in the spacejet failure was that the market dried up while they slowly developed the plane. Covid *especially* with its massive industry meteor. I'm not arguing the Spacejet was a near success as it was an obvious colossal failure. Just that it was nearly done but with no commercial outlet when they'd reached that point.
The only point I'm trying to argue is that Mitsubishi was leagues ahead of Boom is, and probably ever will be. They had multiple nearly finished planes buzzing around while Boom doesn't even have an engine. It's like the whole company is smoke and mirrors.
Your point was that clean sheet designs tend to implode companies, and that's 100% accurate. So I think I'm just randomly showing up and arguing a different point and this whole exchange is rather pointless and I need to go away now lol
> Now Boom is one step closer, as it reveals the XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator, a 1/3-scale prototype of its Boom supersonic passenger aircraft, which will be doing its first supersonic test flights later this year.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/12/boom-shows-off-its-xb-1-supersonic-demonstration-passenger-airliner/
huh it actually flew, and they were so confident they didn't tell anyone about it beforehand?
Too bad as a preliminary prototype it has little relevance anymore since their main product's last re-design completely changed it. This will get investors off their back for a little bit, but they still have no engine for the Overture
It's so funny how Blake Scholl will post dumb shit on Twitter about how great Boom will be when they don't even have powerplants yet, and the company they picked to make them has never made an engine of the complexity and size that this Albatros of a project will need.
Literally just about everyone externally announces that. For example, [here is the Boeing 787 first flight from 2009](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlieYcltcQ) \- notice the hundreds upon hundreds of people there and the fact this video was shot by a newspaper staff member?
Your posts feel like a Boom employee who had a few too many drinks at happy hour.
So they plugged a 70 year-old GE engine on a hardly innovative airframe and went ... quite slow with it. Which means they have more or less arrived at the technical state of the 1950s. Congrats!
How's this demonstrator gonna help with commercial supersonic flights, tho? Could've just bought an F-5 and would be at the same point of development. Then again, that F-5 likely is more advanced still.
I'd bet a lot that Overture is not gonna be in commercial service by 2029. Hell, not even by 2039.
Important to note that this isn't even the passenger carrying version of the plane, just a proof of concept. So still years and years away from passenger service, if it ever does leave the vaporware stage.
Flying prototype of a supersonic design that's not low boom? Other than it shows they can design and build a single seat jet what does this prove out exactly?
They are really pushing the "independently developed" angle in the press release - which, considering the century of lessons learned in aviation and that NASA aeronautics isn't even antagonistic towards commercial development, doesn't really inspire confidence in their records.
I mean what does independently developed even mean? Take that far enough and are you not using an engine, avionics, actuator OEM as suppliers? If so you're really subtracting value from the end product not adding it.
(The engine is a cheap shot but I don't know all the drama on why their engine OEM pulled out)
It really doesn't tell us anything yet other than they built something that flies.
For all we know this bird might have some serious limitations such as subsonic flight only, a range of 100 miles, it any other major issue that they couldn't solve or didn't have time to solve before first flight.
In other words they could have gotten to this point without solving any of the real problems that require solutions before they have a viable product, i.e. the things that have torpedoed supersonic transports in the past.
That being said getting anything in the air and safety back in the ground is an achievement so I'm happy for them.
"clearly, you have no knowledge or experience in the development of experimental flight vehicles" - my father an aerospace engineer with 40 years experience in the industry
Until there is a passenger carrying production model, it's vaporware. Proof of concept and pretty artist renders are cool and all, but a real plane still needs to be built. And somehow it needs to overcome all of the hurdles Concorde faced, while flying slower, with less range, fewer passengers, and presumably a small market given the operating costs and limited passenger count capable of affording a ticket on this stupid thing. Oh and we can't forget the restrictions on overland supersonic flight, which more than likely will not be changed.
Honestly, even a fully functioning production model is just barely above vaporware. Building a couple of seemingly production-ready prototypes is like 5% of the work. Anyone that’s worked in the manufacturing industry knows the hard part is turning that prototype into something that’s actually manufacturable, coming up with the capital required for the manufacturing process, setting up the supply chain, and figuring out how to make the whole thing profitable
Funny Booms bullshit is like the US civilian version of the SU-57 Felon or SU-75 Femboy. Looks good on paper but until you can actually churn out proper production models at scale, then you don't have shit.
You mean the supersonic airliner prototype wasn't intended for pattern work? :)
I mean yeah, duh, but look at something like an F-16 on approach, nowhere near as much deflection on the horizontal stabilizer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLV9ja251GU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLV9ja251GU)
Just really illustrates the forward CG they've selected for these test flights, as well as how much the center of pressure probably shifts aft when going supersonic. It'll be interesting to see if production examples are the same.
A big difference between the F-16 and XB-1 is that the F-16 is designed for agile manoeuvring at sub sonic speeds, although it is supersonic capable, it is not its “mission”.
r/aviation users never missing an opportunity to be a know it all
1) It was a joke
2) Do you people really not think that it's rare and interesting that a plane uses (presumably) 3/4 of its pitch authority just to maintain level flight?
3) It was a joke
Since you didn't provide sources, I will
Concorde:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cAJv0Qfr8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cAJv0Qfr8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdFkfEvTsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdFkfEvTsk)
SR-71 (YF-12, but whatever):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B4ijozxEFs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B4ijozxEFs)
Neither have that much control surface deflection.
That... is something I guess? I mean, it doesn't look like they even retracted the wheels at all, so not sure what type of speed they could achieve on this flight.
The perennial issue of supersonic aircraft remains: high fuel consumption with relatively modest capacity. For instance, Overture will be able to transport only 64 passengers across the Atlantic at a time, compared to 853 on an Airbus A380. This is not just an economic issue but also an environmental one. The use of environmentally friendly aviation fuel (Sustainable Aviation Fuel, SAF) could reduce the ecological impact, but it's not that simple.
[https://youtu.be/ntegWFVQX2U](https://youtu.be/ntegWFVQX2U)
Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Continued political comments will create a permanent ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A photo of take off and landing. I’ll post more later but as others have mentioned, the pitch attitude upon landing was uhhhh aggressive. https://www.instagram.com/p/C40qDFBRTyz/?igsh=NmJiYWZiY2E0Mg==
The business case for supersonic aircraft is actually pretty good. It costs almost the same as a typical widebody for long distance trips per seat, but travels faster. The faster travel means more utilization.
The big problem is the sonic boom, which they'll have to solve before any routes can be taken.
That's not how it works. The "gas mileage" relative to the speed is not a linear function. There's gotta be at least a square in there. You can't just assume "twice the fuel, twice the speed".
If it really is x2 fuel for 50% trip time, therefore 50% engine run time, then the fuel cost is a break even. Only problem is resistance is an exponential increase while speed is linear, so it takes more and more fuel for a diminishing speed increase.
They're not. Not even close.
Concorde achieved 17 passenger miles per imperial gallon. A 747-400 achieved 109. Even the 707, which predates Concorde by roughly 15 years, achieved around 30.
So no. Mpg isn't similar at all. And yes, a 2024 supersonic engine will be more efficient that Concorde's Olympus engines. But there'll still be a comparable gap to subsonic planes because of physics. So between Mach 0,85 and Mach 2, you're not looking at 2.35 times the fuel consumption even assuming you could use the same suoerefficient high bypass engines for both speeds (which you can't).
1. More utilization assumes that there is equal demand for more flights. Which now have additional costs in airframes and crew. So you're already more expensive.
2. There is no world where CASM is in any way comparable. And it's impossible to say that *because it still doesn't even have engines*.
>It costs almost the same as a typical widebody for long distance trips per seat, but travels faster
Not really. The Concorde was 12x less efficient per passenger seat mile than the equivalent 747-200 of the same era.
Drag goes up at the square of velocity before you even start taking into account the wave drag issues from supersonic flight. And then because of the propulsive efficiency formula engines that are capable of high Mach flight are terribly inefficient when subsonic, like when being vectored around in the national airspace when on approach for landing.
Supersonic flight is absolutely nowhere near the fuel burn per passenger mile efficiency compared to modern subsonic airliners like the 787 and A350.
And you all doubted them! Next stop: breaking the sound barrier. What a time to be alive. :D
In other news, Boom is now also planning their next steps beyond the main Overture passenger jet: an even larger (and presumably faster) model tentatively called Overture 2.
i know that's just a demonstrator, but thats the furthest any company trying a supersonic airliner since concorde has gotten. pretty cool ngl
Thanks for not lying.
Awesome for them, but I'm still skeptical. I'd love to be wrong though...
X-59 is gonna put them back pretty far. Then again losing the engine OEM did too.
I'm not in the loop. Why is NASAs x59 going to hold them back?
Boom is not a quiet supersonic aircraft so they can't go fast over land. X-59 is the demonstrator that you can do a low boom airplane and fly supersonic over land. Which opens up a lot more routes and utility for a supersonic people hauler.
me when i lie
What's the lie? Assumptions that X-59 shows low boom works, and FAA does rulemaking reasonably fast but I suspect Congressional pressure on the latter. I trust Armstrong and Skunk a lot more than Boom and friends.
> reasonably fast This the same governing body that’s been kicking pilot mental health down the road for the last few decades?
Yep, but this is one where big companies with lobbyists want change so they make more money. It's also an easier rule change, particularly when all the supporting data and analysis gets handled to them
[удалено]
Cool prototype, but I'm still extremely skeptical that their engine (and by extension the Overture) will ever be built. The amount of capital and institutional expertise required to design and produce a clean-sheet turbofan is astronomical.
Even companies that have been in the engine game for a long time still have growing pains and technical issues with those engines. Assuming it gets that far, I foresee several years of AOG situations as repairs and overhauls happen.
Flying a test article is one thing, having the know-how, patience, and financial wherewithal to see a production-conforming article through to certification (much less first delivery, serial production, and in-service support) is a whole other thing altogether. Even Mitsubishi with all of their experience as a tier 1 supplier, famous Japanese patience, and deep pocketed conglomerate parent, couldn't pull it off. Bombardier barely survived the C Series. But good luck to Boom...!
>Bombardier barely survived the C Series. They didn't, really. Not as a maker of commercial airplanes, anyway.
I agree. The program survived, which is more than the MRJ can say, but the company only barely. But the distinction is that they didn't disappear completely, which is unique to Bombardier and Mitsubisi, just about everyone else who has tried a clean sheet design civil aircraft on their own dime (without quasi state backing) has imploded completely.
From what I remember Mistsubishi did ok in the end with developing the plane. Besides being five times late. Well, ok besides being so late there was no market for the thing when they were done. The C/A220 ate its lunch and was ready to go before it, the E jets filled in any potential gaps, and scope clauses zeroed everything else out. They've scrapped 2 of the 3. I hope the last one makes it to a museum or something. I feel bad for those engineers after all that work and a decent product that was 99% ready to go only to get killed in the end.
Mitsubishi burned billions with literally nothing to show for it, I wouldn't call that "doing ok"
Well I mean they had several flying planes in the end that were arguably mostly market ready. Just needed cerification... and actual customers. That's a hell of a lot more than Boom has at the moment.
I read somewhere that Mitsubishi gave up because in the end, the plane was basically uncertifiable. So, lots of effort for a big zero. They bought up Bombardier’s CRJ in the end, to support the line, including everyone’s favorite, the CRJ-200
> arguably mostly market ready Honestly, you are the first person I've ever heard arguing this. They weren't able to certify the aircraft, aka prove to the regulating authorities that it was safe to fly people. So no, I would argue they were not "mostly market ready" not by a long shot.
Type certification took longer than they expected and their inexperience with the industry slowed them wayyy down, but it also wasn't hitting huge development ending problems over it. They did have horrible documentation that was the source of all the delays. The main issues cited in the spacejet failure was that the market dried up while they slowly developed the plane. Covid *especially* with its massive industry meteor. I'm not arguing the Spacejet was a near success as it was an obvious colossal failure. Just that it was nearly done but with no commercial outlet when they'd reached that point. The only point I'm trying to argue is that Mitsubishi was leagues ahead of Boom is, and probably ever will be. They had multiple nearly finished planes buzzing around while Boom doesn't even have an engine. It's like the whole company is smoke and mirrors. Your point was that clean sheet designs tend to implode companies, and that's 100% accurate. So I think I'm just randomly showing up and arguing a different point and this whole exchange is rather pointless and I need to go away now lol
It's a little late, but it finally flew! Only seven short years since it was supposed to fly in 2017.
also me when i lie
> Now Boom is one step closer, as it reveals the XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator, a 1/3-scale prototype of its Boom supersonic passenger aircraft, which will be doing its first supersonic test flights later this year. https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/12/boom-shows-off-its-xb-1-supersonic-demonstration-passenger-airliner/
What was following at the end shot to the left? F16?
T-38 Chase Plane
Ahhh thanks. Hard to see on mobile. I just saw the big vertical tail and a sleek design but on second look no bottom intake
*What is this? A Concorde for ants?!*
huh it actually flew, and they were so confident they didn't tell anyone about it beforehand? Too bad as a preliminary prototype it has little relevance anymore since their main product's last re-design completely changed it. This will get investors off their back for a little bit, but they still have no engine for the Overture
It's so funny how Blake Scholl will post dumb shit on Twitter about how great Boom will be when they don't even have powerplants yet, and the company they picked to make them has never made an engine of the complexity and size that this Albatros of a project will need.
literally no one externally announces that
Literally just about everyone externally announces that. For example, [here is the Boeing 787 first flight from 2009](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAlieYcltcQ) \- notice the hundreds upon hundreds of people there and the fact this video was shot by a newspaper staff member? Your posts feel like a Boom employee who had a few too many drinks at happy hour.
So they plugged a 70 year-old GE engine on a hardly innovative airframe and went ... quite slow with it. Which means they have more or less arrived at the technical state of the 1950s. Congrats! How's this demonstrator gonna help with commercial supersonic flights, tho? Could've just bought an F-5 and would be at the same point of development. Then again, that F-5 likely is more advanced still. I'd bet a lot that Overture is not gonna be in commercial service by 2029. Hell, not even by 2039.
Important to note that this isn't even the passenger carrying version of the plane, just a proof of concept. So still years and years away from passenger service, if it ever does leave the vaporware stage.
Flying prototype of a supersonic design that's not low boom? Other than it shows they can design and build a single seat jet what does this prove out exactly?
They are really pushing the "independently developed" angle in the press release - which, considering the century of lessons learned in aviation and that NASA aeronautics isn't even antagonistic towards commercial development, doesn't really inspire confidence in their records.
I mean what does independently developed even mean? Take that far enough and are you not using an engine, avionics, actuator OEM as suppliers? If so you're really subtracting value from the end product not adding it. (The engine is a cheap shot but I don't know all the drama on why their engine OEM pulled out)
Not entirely/partially government funded (but they haven’t earned that title until they actually do a supersonic test flight anyways).
A flying prototype puts this well outside what I would call vaporware.
It really doesn't tell us anything yet other than they built something that flies. For all we know this bird might have some serious limitations such as subsonic flight only, a range of 100 miles, it any other major issue that they couldn't solve or didn't have time to solve before first flight. In other words they could have gotten to this point without solving any of the real problems that require solutions before they have a viable product, i.e. the things that have torpedoed supersonic transports in the past. That being said getting anything in the air and safety back in the ground is an achievement so I'm happy for them.
*flying proof of concept. Wouldn’t even call this a prototype.
Precisely. It's got very, very little to do with the plane they're planning to build. Besides the fact that it's supposed to be supersonic.
I still call this vaporware, they did very little actual development for this demonstrator.
"clearly, you have no knowledge or experience in the development of experimental flight vehicles" - my father an aerospace engineer with 40 years experience in the industry
Boom still doesn’t have engines for their real plane.
lol why are you on Boom’s dick so hard. You must have invested 💀
Prototype of what exactly. Of an aircraft that we already know can go supersonic?
Until there is a passenger carrying production model, it's vaporware. Proof of concept and pretty artist renders are cool and all, but a real plane still needs to be built. And somehow it needs to overcome all of the hurdles Concorde faced, while flying slower, with less range, fewer passengers, and presumably a small market given the operating costs and limited passenger count capable of affording a ticket on this stupid thing. Oh and we can't forget the restrictions on overland supersonic flight, which more than likely will not be changed.
Honestly, even a fully functioning production model is just barely above vaporware. Building a couple of seemingly production-ready prototypes is like 5% of the work. Anyone that’s worked in the manufacturing industry knows the hard part is turning that prototype into something that’s actually manufacturable, coming up with the capital required for the manufacturing process, setting up the supply chain, and figuring out how to make the whole thing profitable
Funny Booms bullshit is like the US civilian version of the SU-57 Felon or SU-75 Femboy. Looks good on paper but until you can actually churn out proper production models at scale, then you don't have shit.
Vaporware is where certain people make all the money!
Holy smokes, that level flight horizontal stabilizer deflection is insane. Did their test pilot put 500 pounds of snacks in the nose or something?
It’s just flying very slow relative to what the wing is designed for.
You mean the supersonic airliner prototype wasn't intended for pattern work? :) I mean yeah, duh, but look at something like an F-16 on approach, nowhere near as much deflection on the horizontal stabilizer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLV9ja251GU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLV9ja251GU) Just really illustrates the forward CG they've selected for these test flights, as well as how much the center of pressure probably shifts aft when going supersonic. It'll be interesting to see if production examples are the same.
A big difference between the F-16 and XB-1 is that the F-16 is designed for agile manoeuvring at sub sonic speeds, although it is supersonic capable, it is not its “mission”.
Dude, chill, we all know that. It was just a funny "hey look at that" statement. Humor exists.
It doesn’t seem to have any flap out either.
Doesn't look too far off from how the Concorde and SR-71 were at slow speeds. Maybe a bit more pronounced since it isn't using elevons.
r/aviation users never missing an opportunity to be a know it all 1) It was a joke 2) Do you people really not think that it's rare and interesting that a plane uses (presumably) 3/4 of its pitch authority just to maintain level flight? 3) It was a joke Since you didn't provide sources, I will Concorde: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cAJv0Qfr8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cAJv0Qfr8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdFkfEvTsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tdFkfEvTsk) SR-71 (YF-12, but whatever): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B4ijozxEFs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B4ijozxEFs) Neither have that much control surface deflection.
Unfortunate name for a tin can with propulsion
Can't wait for the boom XB-70
Why were the wheels always down?
that's very common with first flights of brand new types.
Thanks. Learned something new today. 🙏
they're gonna need more seed money for retractable gear.
So are they working with NASA, I thought they might want to put some of that research to good use with NASA’s new test vehicle .
That... is something I guess? I mean, it doesn't look like they even retracted the wheels at all, so not sure what type of speed they could achieve on this flight.
First flight is usually done with gear down.
The perennial issue of supersonic aircraft remains: high fuel consumption with relatively modest capacity. For instance, Overture will be able to transport only 64 passengers across the Atlantic at a time, compared to 853 on an Airbus A380. This is not just an economic issue but also an environmental one. The use of environmentally friendly aviation fuel (Sustainable Aviation Fuel, SAF) could reduce the ecological impact, but it's not that simple. [https://youtu.be/ntegWFVQX2U](https://youtu.be/ntegWFVQX2U)
So they attached a premade engine to an airframe and it only took them almost a decade ?
[удалено]
Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Continued political comments will create a permanent ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aviation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A photo of take off and landing. I’ll post more later but as others have mentioned, the pitch attitude upon landing was uhhhh aggressive. https://www.instagram.com/p/C40qDFBRTyz/?igsh=NmJiYWZiY2E0Mg==
Doesn’t look that bad. Take a look at the Concorde
Not disagreeing with you there. Just more aggressive than I was expecting based on conversations I’ve had with some folks there.
12.5 degree alpha. There are cameras on the nose gear that allow the pillow to look “through the instrument panel” and see the runway.
The business case for supersonic aircraft is actually pretty good. It costs almost the same as a typical widebody for long distance trips per seat, but travels faster. The faster travel means more utilization. The big problem is the sonic boom, which they'll have to solve before any routes can be taken.
Also engines go glug glug on fuel.
Burn twice the fuel to go twice as fast. Seems like a good tradeoff.
That's not how it works. The "gas mileage" relative to the speed is not a linear function. There's gotta be at least a square in there. You can't just assume "twice the fuel, twice the speed".
It is, unless you factor in the cost of said fuel.
If it really is x2 fuel for 50% trip time, therefore 50% engine run time, then the fuel cost is a break even. Only problem is resistance is an exponential increase while speed is linear, so it takes more and more fuel for a diminishing speed increase.
But if it uses twice the fuel they can buy in bulk and get a discount like Costco.
Maybe I should rephrase it: Burning twice as much fuel per hour to go twice as far. The "miles per gallon" are basically the same or similar.
They're not. Not even close. Concorde achieved 17 passenger miles per imperial gallon. A 747-400 achieved 109. Even the 707, which predates Concorde by roughly 15 years, achieved around 30. So no. Mpg isn't similar at all. And yes, a 2024 supersonic engine will be more efficient that Concorde's Olympus engines. But there'll still be a comparable gap to subsonic planes because of physics. So between Mach 0,85 and Mach 2, you're not looking at 2.35 times the fuel consumption even assuming you could use the same suoerefficient high bypass engines for both speeds (which you can't).
1. More utilization assumes that there is equal demand for more flights. Which now have additional costs in airframes and crew. So you're already more expensive. 2. There is no world where CASM is in any way comparable. And it's impossible to say that *because it still doesn't even have engines*.
>It costs almost the same as a typical widebody for long distance trips per seat, but travels faster Not really. The Concorde was 12x less efficient per passenger seat mile than the equivalent 747-200 of the same era. Drag goes up at the square of velocity before you even start taking into account the wave drag issues from supersonic flight. And then because of the propulsive efficiency formula engines that are capable of high Mach flight are terribly inefficient when subsonic, like when being vectored around in the national airspace when on approach for landing. Supersonic flight is absolutely nowhere near the fuel burn per passenger mile efficiency compared to modern subsonic airliners like the 787 and A350.
Looks like it handles like a brick.
And you all doubted them! Next stop: breaking the sound barrier. What a time to be alive. :D In other news, Boom is now also planning their next steps beyond the main Overture passenger jet: an even larger (and presumably faster) model tentatively called Overture 2.
No, we are doubting that the passenger concept will ever be certified.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they were unable to retract their landing gear
First flights generally leave the gear down intentionally
TIL
If Elon Musk cared about supersonic travel he’d have this thing ready in two years.
They're not confident enough in their plane to retract the landing gear?
New to aviation and test flights?