Both you and @lowmax4431 are correct! If they don't start the cert process well ahead of the completion of the first prototype, they will experience significant delays. Question: can certain subassemblies be certified independently? If so, they could work certifications in parallel to save some time.
@@lowmax4431 It's not that the manager doesn't understand how long development takes. In fact, they know the timeline very well. However, they won't say our jet will be ready in 2035 because that would kill the excitement for investors and customers who have already placed orders. Instead, they'll say it's 2029, and when 2029 comes, they'll push it to 2030, and so on, until they reach the real timeline they expected all along. After all, nobody would want to invest if you told them 2035 in 2018
And it probably won’t, Concorde was honestly better much before its time and look how it turned out…. Expensive, noisy, inefficient and it could only fly over oceans and long flights….
Yes, & which boutique engine manufacturer is gonna make them!? They need a X-59 design to minimize sonic boom which would take a radical redesign to this Overture frame!
Now I'm fired up because of the misuse of the term "sustainable". It's become a new catch phrase along with "organic" and "environmentally friendly". Unfortunately, this is not the case. Although carbon emissions will be significantly reduced, the methods used for growing biofuels is still harmful to the environment. Yes, i am being another "woo woo", tree hugging, "save the planet" stereotype. I'm actually just someone intelligent who wants to shift the narrative so that we can move away from misdirected information and move towards real, tangible solutions without destroying the economy as well. As for the triggered people here, go look up the information on how the industrial military complexes of big food, big pharma and big education's corporate lobbyists are making us and the planet very sick so that they can increase profits. They're literally sacrificing our lives.
5:27 How’s that gonna work during turbulence when your arm is bouncing around? With a physical knob you can hold on while you’re turning it. With a physical switch, even if it isn’t protected by panel flanges (or whatever those protrusions are called that guard the sides of the button), you can feel when your finger is right over it.
Five years from certified, customer ready aircraft and nothing but mock ups, 3D animation and talk of designing and engineering new tech to enable it all. Sorry. Can’t see it happening.
I agree. 5 years is dreaming. They would need an incredible engineering team (top tier experienced engineers and a bunch of them) large enough to run development, testing, and certification. They would need flawless engineering, and even that is asking a lot in 5 years.
@@bnx200it's not smaller version. It's tech demonstrator. The function is only to prove that they have capacity to design airframe and subsystem for the supersonic aircraft. The only thing tech demonstator can't demonstrate their capability is desigining/build engine.
It's not even about the engine it's about the testing and blowing up of set engine multiple times. And it's also about testing Safety Systems multiple times. All of this without Decades of real world experience.
Screens are inferior to tactile controls. You can feel a tactile knob or switch without looking a it. I think we've already learned this from cars. Why do we have to learn it a second time for aircraft?
Advancement of technology at this insane level, of course! Only fools think its development is a play in the park. 5 or 10 year more… it will come. Tech advancement is inevitable.
Don't get me wrong, I love all things aviation (mostly), but when I found out that they're going to develop their own engine I lost all hope for this project. Not happening. Maybe other (non aviation) ancillary motives at play here.
Rolls Royce I believe was who they went to originally and they refused to do the engine. Also I began questioning this company when they trashed the design they used to collect funding and produced the one shown in the video after funding was secured, a slap in the face to investors. That electric plane company United posted its Covid stimi into did the same- showed investors a clean sheet design Electric plane then once funding was secured rolled out a bombardier with a battery pack slapped onto it.
Nope. Hill helicopters is developing its own turbine engine to drive costs down. At firms like GE, Rolls Royce, and Pratt and Whitney, there are 50 year old engineers working 40 hour work weeks. At Overture, you have 25 year old engineers working 60 hour work weeks. A better example is the performance of a young SpaceX compared to an old NASA.
If Boom gets far enough with their engine and demonstrates a successful design, engine manufacturers will be asking how they can help with production. They would be dumb not to. Sort of like how Apple designed its own SOC but went to Samsung and TSC to build the chips.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena Your information is incorrect. The original concept Boom 3 engine aircraft was designed to use a variant of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and a modified version is in the F-35). The Boom Engine program manager was a major manager from the F119 program. The F119 engine was already capable of "super-cruise" which the Boom aircraft would need. If you look at the original Boom 3 engine concept aircraft and do the math you will see that the F119 engine had the thrust and super-cruise capabilities that aircraft concept needed. RR did not have an engine that matched that aircraft. Remove the vectoring nozzle, remove the afterburner, remove a few other military specific features, beef up the bearings and casing a bit so you can essentially use the same core while improving reliability and on wing life (military engines do not have nearly the reliability and on wing life of civilian jetliner engines; but it would work well enough for Boom). Then certify the engine for Civilian airline use. Note that all the original passenger jet engine airliners used military derived engines - with very short engine lives compared to today's engines. The concept of using military derived engines is not new at all - nor novel. I understand that there is a least 1 military derived engine that came in a few decades later because it was the perfect size as well. The fly in the ointment came when P&W told Boom that Boom would have to pay for the development of said engine variant up front as P&W did not see enough of an engine market to fund the development from future sales. Asking price is reported to be most of $1Billion to fund development, testing, and certification. Boom walked at that point; and then talked to RR. Apparently RR told Boom the same thing - for exactly the same reasons. I was a big supporter of Boom up to that point. I believe that had they gone to their investors and asked for the money up front that they would have gotten it - and would have had a viable engine with robust long term parts and service support. Now I view Boom as nothing more than an investor scam. It cost $billions to develop and test new civilian aircraft engines of that size range.... Who is going to actually fund that. Even $1 Billion for a derivative of an existing military engine is not out of line cost wise
In Chicago as a child I heard sonic booms a lot. I asked my mom what it was and she explained it was from an airplane. The booms were certainly loud! I've always wanted to fly on Concorde. Perhaps I may get a chance to fly supersonic with this 2nd generation one!
Well they have the cockpit all ready to go. Anyone else notice the concord pilot landing off centerline? Now they just have to invent, test, build and certify a brand new engine that GE, Pratt and Rolls Royce didn’t want to touch. Also the inlet and nozzle. Easy, peezy. Don’t hold your breath…
You're right about it being no easy task to design a new engine, but it kinda sounds like they didn't have a choice. I hope they can surprise the world. Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible. (It will be funny to see which of its competitors will be first to commit industrial espionage against them...)
@@timgarrett203 Yeah, that's a given. They will need some latitude in the early stages of development, but, as things progress they will have to actually put up or shut up at some point. I'm just wanting to see another SST, even if we have to take baby steps to get there, and aspects of this engine design are fascinating. They will have to be very careful with the control over the tail spike, or fuel economy, efficiency, and noise level will all take a hit.
@@horusfalcon They had a choice - but balked at the money. The original engine concept was a civilianzed version of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and modified for the F-35). The Boom Engine Manager was one of the F119 program managers (responsible for half of the F119 engine). P&W would have removed the vectoring nozzle, the afterburner, a few other military features, beefed up the engine a bit, and certified it for civilian use.... IF Boom had been willing to pay for that development and certification (my information was most of $1 Billion). That's very cheap for a new engine - and likely about 1/5th the cost of a purpose developed and certified engine. P&W did not see enough of an engine market for that specialized engine to warrant development of it from projected sales of the engine (unlike civilian jetliner engines that sells in the many thousands for decades). Boom did not want to pay for the development of their engine. They then went to talk to RR and essentially got told the same thing. That's when Boom went in my mind from an realistic proposal to an investment scam company. I believe that Boom could have gone to their investors and gotten the money to fund engine development. New from scratch engine of the size with super-cruise ability is likely in the $3-$5 Billion dollar range for development, refinement, testing, and certification for civilian use.
I don’t understand all the negativity. I do understand skepticism though. But who cares if it takes longer than the estimated timeframe? Investors yeah… but in terms of innovation, let it take its time. If Boom supersonic needs 10+ more years then that’s better than rushing it
After the grounding of the Concord which was such a sad moment in aviation history, I’m delighted to see another company’s vision of supersonic flight that will take us into the future👍👍
I've been thinking for 35-years about aircraft going digital and have been excited & impatient to see it happen. Each time I wondered through digital ideas, I kept in mind that digital flight control systems need a useful analog fallback or just-in-case safety system included. These analog flight controls are limited to handle the unexpected, unplanned, & the not anticipated gracefully. Digital Fly-by-wire, advanced instrument panels, & flight controls are fantastic. You will learn many new ideas hopefully finding a path that improves flight safety. --JSW
Developing an aero jet engine is a huge task. Rolls Royce aero engines has decades of experience and each new engine requires huge numbers of engineers and large amounts of money. Good luck to them if they can get the funding.
“Wanna turn off a circuit breaker. Tap tap tap.” So how do you turn off the controls that control the circuit breakers? And whatever they do with the engine it’s still going to have a sonic boom so will likely only ever be supersonic over the oceans giving a huge amount of time subsonic. Well done for digging up Mike Bannister, but otherwise this CEO is deluded.
The scariest thing their CTO said is that the aircraft is just like a phone with updates OTA. That is terrifying to me with regards to an airplane. Boeing’s biggest f-ups weren’t doors falling off. They were glitched updates that screwed flight control and brought down an airliner and almost another. I watched Tesla’s glitch out of control before to. I love tech but that’s terrifying.
We have a term for this sort of project: vapourware. There is no way that Boom will be able to develop its own engines. GE, Rolls, Safran could but not a startup with little engine manufacturing experience.
Honestly I was just thinking the same thing, it really feels like a combination of "carbon fiber deep-sea submersible" meets "nikola motors". If this is the case the silver limning is they probably won't ever reach testing phase so no lives should be lost.
Most of the controls being on a touchscreen monitor, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong! Why not replace the control stick and levers with a PS4 controller while we're at it? 🤦
Concorde used afterburners to accelerate through the high-drag transsonic region as well. Counterintuitively, it’d take more fuel to accelerate from ~M.95-1.3 without afterburners than to just brute-force through.
This is one of the few projects today that inspires hope in both science and technology... We need FAR more of that Tomorrowland stuff to make the future worth living for... Right now for most folks the future feels bleak and it needn't be!
Indeed. The future is looking biblical, truth be told. Whether humanity can finally work together to avert that is another matter. I wish Boom every success.
I agree so much. We need the faith that technological advances are able to solve the problems we’ve created. Environmental, social etc. And we need people who actually work on it. Nowadays people tend to be so cynical and laid back like it’s a given that the world is fucked and we are doomed to live in stagnation till the end.
In the 60's going from propeller to jet made people fly more to save time. Now people will opt for a stop over that makes the trip 4 hours longer if it saves 100 bucks.
"i believe we're going to need more supersonic aircraft than subsonic aircraft. so 1, that means we're gonna have to build a whole lot of these, and we'll need to be bigger than boeing or airbus to fill that demand" this fries my brain. not his belief we'll need more SSTs than regular aircraft -- it's the fact he thinks when that happens, boom is the only company who will be able to provide them?! that's either tenacity or one of those bad -isms or -pathy's edit: "and the autopilot -- of course this has an *advanced* autopilot" people are giving this guy money. maybe some of yours, from your retirement account or taxes.
I also redesigned the jet and rocket engines, essentially combining them into one, with a complex, toggle locked, piston system, designed to recycle the pressure of combusting gasses, in zero g. It was designed with no air intake, with the intention of being a space-plane motor, but could be modified to have an air intake. And a military prototype was built, with a similar concept of motor, running on solid fuel, and that design is capable of using a silencer, which is just a propeller connected to the turbine with some exhaust port. This reduces the volume to that of a helicopter. This was in 2022.
Very exciting to see this - flying Concorde is one thing I am so happyI was able to experience in my time and I am thrilled that this may be a possibility for my nephews and nieces lifetime!
Same here although the USA is light years behind U.K. and France in doing this. The US was pissed that U.K. and France did this first. The US also banned all overland supersonic commercial passenger flights apart from military thereby cutting off its nose to spite its face to quote a well know analogy
The multi-billion dollar investment to design, manufacture and certify an engine for only one airframe will kill this project. There are sound business reasons P&W, GE and RR opted out of supplying engines for Boom Supersonic.
It’s coming to Greensboro where I live. I really want a career there! Already coming from Freightliner OEM and corporate world, working on my PPL I’d love to intertwine my manufacturing corporate experience with my dream of aviation! 🥵
I am looking forward to fly on it ASAP. Smart move on Overture to make the engines in-house and keep tight controls on manufacturing and QA. Former F/A with Eastern Airlines 1976 to 1989.
You were smart enough to be a pilot but not smart enough to detect this is exquisite load of garbage will never exist? Is this from you’re slowly becoming senile or from the medicine you’re on in old age? Hate to break it to you old man but this is 100% vaporware, it will never become reality.
The cabin is larger than that of a CRJ so that's probably what you are looking at, but keep in mind, that still falls to the airlines at the end of the day.
None, I mean, the bathroom will be as big virtually as you want them, which is to say in make believe, because this plane will never exist outside of as seen in this video to bilk investors out of money, it’s pure vaporware.
I really really hope they succeed and supersonic travel becomes a normal travel option. But.... the technical innovations that are needed to do what Boom is claiming is monumental to say the least. The engines alone would be revolutionary if it can do what they are claiming to do, I don't know why but this video gives me a vibe that it was made to make Boom much more viable in the investors eyes to pull in more capitol, I really hope the investors are rewarded for taking this huge risk.
It's very ambitious. Especially developing the engines themselves. The cockpit technology seems feasible when considering what's available today, even in cars with the likes of reverse cameras, parking sensors and lane assist. But developing the engines themselves is what looks like the most challenging aspect considering they don't have someone like Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney or General Electric backing them with their resources. But they appear to know what they're doing. I reckon certification will cause the biggest delays as they are the first of its kind since the death of concorde.
To be fair, they have Florida Turbine Technologies working with them on the development of the engine. People on the team worked on both the F-119 and F-135 engines of the F-22 and F-35 respectively. They also have backing from Northrop Grumman and the USAF themselves. Not saying it's going to be easy but I still have faith in this coming to fruition.
Concorde did not exactly die, it simply lost financial viability. Paying much more to travel from the US to Europe in a sports car was not competing with taking longer to make the journey at a lower cost in a 5 star hotel. Most business travellers enjoyed their first flight on Concorde, but most of them never flew Concorde again. To be a success this new aircraft has to have a comfort level comparable to an A380.
You will have a better chance of seeing an albino unicorn that farts rainbows and speaks 15 languages in your lifetime than ever seeing one of these exist.
There is not a snowball’s chance that this plane will fly in 10 years, much less 5. Yeah, 16 months ago the engine was just a concept and now it is a full blown concept.
I didn't have a clue that a turbofan could be viable in the transsonic spectrum. That technology however, compared to afterburners explains why the Boom plane won't go as fast as the Concorde, but mach 1.7 is still a huge improvement over mach 0.85 by todays airliners.
@@michaeldiamondofficial I know it has synthetic vision, but that can go out. If there's no front window and no synthetic vision and no autopilot, they're screwed.
All digital is great, but sometimes people just want to have physical controls. That’s exactly what happened to some American warships. They had lots of digital control, but the navy eventually had to revert to physical controls because the crews were complaining about the non practicality of all digital.
I'll go ahead and make that correction: the RR Olympus engine that powered Concorde *was* actually a low-bypass turbofan not a turbojet as Mr. Scholl suggests. Pedantic, I know. I'm OK with it 😏
Really? Which Concorde are you talking about. Because the one flown by British Airways and Air France starting in the 1970s was powered by the Rolls-Royce Olympus TURBOJET. That’s according to Rolls-Royce, but what would they know?
The Boom Overture looks very promising and I hope that it succeeds it being certified for commercial service. It would bring some much needed prestige back to the American aerospace industry that was lost by the Boeing fiasco. Developing the new engine will be biggest challenge for Boom Technology, but if they can succeed in developing it and having it successfully tested and certified, the Boom Overture has a chance to restore supersonic travel.
8:31 Autoland on most landings?!?! As an “old school” airline pilot this airplane seems to be removing what I enjoy the most about my profession. Specifically watching the sun set or rise and the physical beauty of our word below. I also pride myself in the skill required to hand fly an approach to landing. Perhaps this aircraft is meant for the next generation of pilots. I still love takeoffs and landings..
Do you think that having such a short time frame is realistic for an engine that I has never been built before? How difficult is the certification process for a new technology engine like that? I’d still trust you and your peers in controlling the take off and landing. Thank you for your years of service
He is a marketing dude, what does he know about flying and staying proficient. One of the main selling arguments for the L-1011 was the advanced autoland system, that was in 1970.
Now that's an interesting video. I guess my only concern would be, and I'm no Pilot, so, the touch screens. I just wonder with something so sensitive as a touch screen, if you accidently touched the wrong thing, the consequences that could follow. That may be something they've worked out, and honestly, if I thought of it, they surely did.
It will be interesting to see how well Boom does at engine development. That they would take on such a daunting task is a signal of the resistance in the industry to further advancement, and that's a bloody shame. I see, reading other comments here, that some feel they insulted their investors by changing their design. From my own aerospace experience, it is not uncommon for an aircraft maker to forsake a flawed design early rather than pour more money into something that won't work. That is nothing unusual in the long history of aviation. So long as they communicated the change in a way to reassure their investors, all is well. (I don't know for certain whether that happened, though.) I hope they know what they are doing, and that they surprise everyone who is presently saying, "It can't be done..." I wish them every success, and hope I get to see one of theirs fly.
Medium bypass for supersonic flight is a STUPID IDEA. Why? Because that bypass flow produces basically no thrust at all at supersonic speeds. A bypass ratio of about 2 will at best produce a fan pressure ratio of about 1:2. You simply cannot squeeze supersonic exhaust out of 1:2 pressure ratio. The air in your car's tires is at greater than 1:3 from ambient, good luck getting a supersonic jet from it! What that means is that the only thing producing thrust is the core. The low pressure turbine driving the fan is taking power from the engine to drive a big fan and pull along a big nacelle that produces nothing but drag. -- If they are going to go the vertically integrated route and do their own engines, they should go for a Variable Bypass Engine (VBE). At low speeds, half or more of the fan flow goes into the bypass duct for noise reduction and lower thrust specific fuel consumption. At supersonic cruise, almost all of the fan flow goes through the high pressure compressor for higher exhaust velocity. To manage combustion temperature, it may be necessary for part of the compressor output to bypass the combustor. But at least it is a much higher pressure flow now at something between 1:15 and 1:30. It is not a new concept, working engines of this kind have been run since the late 1980s. The GE YF120 is one example. The recent GE XA100 and P&W XA101 are additional stabs at this idea using 3-streams to add a cooling stream to serve heat exchangers.
Finally someone who know something about engine. Not a coincident that almost all supersonic engines in production are turbojet/low bypass/ramjet. And the chance of a startup doing in-house design, manufacturing, and validation of an advanced supersonic airliner engine, I call it hard to believe at best, and money laundering most likely. Poor investors having more money than brain investing on the basis of a cool CGI advertisement and impossible promises.
@@LongTran-em6hc I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. In 2004 everyone thought those SpaceX fools were full of shit too! But, making an efficient medium bypass (2~3 bypass ratio) turbofan for supersonic cruise is NOT an engineering problem. It is a physics problem. -- Remember, with anything but a scramjet, you have to slow the incoming air to subspnic speeds before it hits the fan. You then have to accelerate that flow to greater than your supersonic cruise speed if you want to produce thrust. You do that mainly by compressing it then burning fuel in it. For every axial stage you get about 1.2~1.5x of compression -- 1.2 being similar to a 1st gen engine like a Jumo 004, 1.5 being a GE9x. Most supersonic engines are in the middle of the range mainly because of combustor temperature limits. -- As a rough rule of thumb, a 2 or 3 stage fan produces noting but drag. Just 10 stages of compression and no combustion produces minimal thrust. 10 stages of compression plus combustion produces plenty of thrust, but part of it has to be taken off to drive the turbine. Any or all of the flow that does not go through the combustor and turbine CAN make plenty of useful thrust if you dump fuel into the tail pipe and burn it at low compression -- that's called an afterburner.
@@j.heilig7239 LOL... the point of an SST is to fly at supersonic speeds. If you are not spending 80-90% of the trip supersonic you shouldn't be flying the SST. Optimizing the engine for 10~20% of the trip while making it drastically less efficient -- perhaps to the point of being unable to actually fly supersonic -- for overwhelming majority of the trip is the very definition of moronic engineering. -- Do you know how much less efficient bypass can make a supersonic engine? Remember the Tu-144? It's the Soviet Concordski. The use of a 0.6:1 bypass turbofan meant that it could not sustain supersonic flight without the afterburners being lit to some degree. The specific fuel consumption with the NK-144 engines was 1.81kg/kgfh at Mach 2.0 and a supersonic range of 1300 nm. Switching to RD-36 turbojets (no bypass) netted a TSFC of 1.22 kg/kgfh and a range of 2878 nm. -- That was just a 0.6 low bypass turbofan. And you think going to a medium bypass engine with 2~3:1 of the air flow making no thrust and creating a massively draggy nacelle is a "great" idea?
That's ok.. Since this is American made, the FAA will approve regardless of the boom.. The company calls itself boom.. Geez. And what's he smoking when he says the plane will not rattle window panes. The only way this will be.. If the plane flies sub sonic below 15-20k feet.
That's even better and easier to fly the plane with touch screen displays and side stick controller's and you are always aware of what you are doing and what it's doing
One thing that wasn't addressed in the video was sonic boom. Are they using the new NASA pioneered aerodynamics which would allow them to fly supersonic overland'?
The advancement of technology is inevitable. Our lives get better and safer and more efficient with it. Draw backs? Of course, like always. People screamed with the first locomotive or with the first aeroplane…..
@@Secretlyanothername Did you really compare flying a supersonic jet through technology....with a UA-cam comment? If you're not skeptical, even just a little, of our wholesale reliance on, not only technology, but technology that's supposed to keep us safe at 38,000ft+, flying at Mach 1.7....you're not paying any attention. Remember our little friend MCAS? Didn't end well for over 300 people a few years back. Nobody saw that coming. I guess it wasn't you or your loved ones, so whatevs. Nobody is saying that fear should halt progress, but these guys CLEARLY want to push technology through the pipeline fast so they can start seeing profits. That's the problem with over-reliance on technology, its FAR more often than not: not tested enough before full service. Look up "hubris", and you may understand.
There is thinking,there is talk,there is action. I love the way these CEOs talk,talk,talk. The day they produce anything even close to Concorde and its testing I will say WOW. Its better if they just did the thing they say they will do and then say"look at this". Concorde had 5000 testing hours. Jumbo 747 had 1500. Theres a reason for that. Hope these guys can come up with something even close but its a long way off.
More like you want to crash grab investor money by hyping vaporware you could to come up with PR mumbojumbo for people with barely two brain cells will buy into.
If pilots need to rely on augmented reality and cameras and things like that for flying the airplane, that's just one more piece of equipment that can break, and will break at some point, and as much redundancy as you have, it means there's more things that can cause delays on flights.
It's been technically possible for a supersonic commercial aircraft for a long time, more than 50 years in fact, but there is one problem that kinda sucks -- drag. No technology can bypass Physics and with SST's the extreme speed produces exponentially higher drag. If a 777 or similar plane flies a long haul route the ticket price might be $1000 to $2000 or there abouts for most people and more for first class. An SST will only have value when the routes are long enough that the time savings amounts to more than an hour or so and for routes like that the ticket price for typical passengers is pretty high but it will be much higher for an SST for two reasons: first, the much higher drag requires much more thrust such that the cost per passenger is much higher for fuel alone; and second, an SST is necessarily smaller to have any chance of being aerodynamically slick enough to even be possible so they tend to carry far fewer passengers, making the cost per passenger that much higher. The Concorde had the same problem and it was only the subsidies they received from France and Brittan the ticket price would be too high for even the high rollers that could afford it. That's right folks, you the taxpayer in the UK and France were helping your rich countrymen out, lowering the price they paid, for a plane most people will never be able to fly on. And if that isn't bad enough, many of the passengers were not even British or French -- but they also benefitted from the reduced ticket price paid for by the working class in the UK and France. Let's hope they don't try that game here in the USA.
Much more to this than they are saying, sonic boom can be reduced, yes.. but they won't get to fly supersonic near major metropolises, and will be restricted to pre accepted routes away from other flight traffic below. NY to LAX or DFW might be doable.. but less likely NY to ORD. I'd like to see the business case for this instead of projections I doubt about progress and first flights. ( that are very very speculative since X-59 only recently flew it's 1st ) Once X 59 is tested along competitive routes on East Coast without issues, then they might get support for more opportunities.
When this was originally announced, as a start up concept, they stated it would take 200 passengers to make it commercially viable, compared to Concorde (100 passengers), it would also match the speed of Concorde to make it as efficient in terms of saving time. This latest version takes only 80 passengers and is slower, I really do hope it becomes a reality but there are too many obstacles and limited customer interest at the moment.
Interesting that Concorde was designed in the 1950s. Part in metric, in France. And part in imperial, in the UK long before CAD. It was built in the 1960s long before robotic manufacturing. So when watching Concorde, you’re watching the future, yet it’s now long past. Oh, Concorde also had auto-land. Yes, 50+ yrs ago.
What about refueling, because i'm sure its only capable of short flights. Any time savings out the window if you need a layover. Normal jets probably have the best balance of both.
The company and the Overture are supremely impressive. My concern about over-the-air software updates is that the system could be hacked. Encrypted or not. Passwords can be stolen by other means, for example spies in the company, etc. That would be bad. I sure wish they would re-think that and require direct access to the cockpit for any kind of update.
Love the idea of the Boom and a new player in the market. I just feel like the idea is so farfetched for a new manufacturer. Designing the plane AND such a complex engines, that’s already a red flag for me. Circuit breakers are within touch display? Seems like an issue during if there is an electrical fire. I hope they prove me wrong!
All circuit breakers on the 787 I fly are virtual, not a single traditional CB in the cockpit. So it's already been done. But they don't have an engine yet and believe they are going to be delivering airplanes in five years...not going to happen
Put some real gauges and buttons in there, you don't need to bury everything in a menu on a screen. You don't want to flip through on screen displays when you have an emergency. It's also extremely ambitious timeline if they were just building the plane, now they're building the engine too? I wish them success but they should be more realistic about their time frames.
Love how the Concorde was the future of air travel in the 80s until one of them caught fire and then the whole thing was scrapped... Kind of like the whole world was waiting for an excuse. Yes it may have been too expensive to be scalable in its era but it really was the story of the thing everyone loved until the day everyone hated it. Curious.
They are still dreaming, re-designing and sucking money from investors after 10 years. All the major players have pulled out, so, good luck to anyone who has thrown their money into this project. IMHO It has absolutely NO chance of being commercial by 2030.
That's a LOT of technology to certify in that time frame.
The typical manager that has no clue how long development takes.
Ya this wont have its first flight till 2040. By then air travel will be outlawed for the poor people because of "climate change".
Both you and @lowmax4431 are correct! If they don't start the cert process well ahead of the completion of the first prototype, they will experience significant delays. Question: can certain subassemblies be certified independently? If so, they could work certifications in parallel to save some time.
@@lowmax4431 It's not that the manager doesn't understand how long development takes. In fact, they know the timeline very well. However, they won't say our jet will be ready in 2035 because that would kill the excitement for investors and customers who have already placed orders. Instead, they'll say it's 2029, and when 2029 comes, they'll push it to 2030, and so on, until they reach the real timeline they expected all along. After all, nobody would want to invest if you told them 2035 in 2018
@@lowmax4431sounds like politicians
The engine is super quiet because it doesn't even exist yet
And it probably won’t, Concorde was honestly better much before its time and look how it turned out…. Expensive, noisy, inefficient and it could only fly over oceans and long flights….
Yes, & which boutique engine manufacturer is gonna make them!? They need a X-59 design to minimize sonic boom which would take a radical redesign to this Overture frame!
Exactly. This is complete BS. How do you stop a Sonic Boom? You cant.
@@EnglishLawyerunless we get a new batch of alien tech 👀 lol I’m sure the govt already has this tech.
@@EnglishLawyer NASA was/is working exactly on that. I don't know where they are right now but they have been trying to solve that problem.
I'll believe when and if they actually get it certified. I'm not optimisitc.
I clicked because it calls itself “news” not “10 minutes of corporate bloviating”
you ok now?
Now I'm fired up because of the misuse of the term "sustainable". It's become a new catch phrase along with "organic" and "environmentally friendly". Unfortunately, this is not the case. Although carbon emissions will be significantly reduced, the methods used for growing biofuels is still harmful to the environment. Yes, i am being another "woo woo", tree hugging, "save the planet" stereotype. I'm actually just someone intelligent who wants to shift the narrative so that we can move away from misdirected information and move towards real, tangible solutions without destroying the economy as well.
As for the triggered people here, go look up the information on how the industrial military complexes of big food, big pharma and big education's corporate lobbyists are making us and the planet very sick so that they can increase profits. They're literally sacrificing our lives.
5:27 How’s that gonna work during turbulence when your arm is bouncing around? With a physical knob you can hold on while you’re turning it. With a physical switch, even if it isn’t protected by panel flanges (or whatever those protrusions are called that guard the sides of the button), you can feel when your finger is right over it.
Five years from certified, customer ready aircraft and nothing but mock ups, 3D animation and talk of designing and engineering new tech to enable it all. Sorry. Can’t see it happening.
Boom already has a smaller version of the aircraft flying.
I agree. 5 years is dreaming. They would need an incredible engineering team (top tier experienced engineers and a bunch of them) large enough to run development, testing, and certification. They would need flawless engineering, and even that is asking a lot in 5 years.
@@bnx200 a single pilot test aircraft is a very different proposition to a passenger ready version.
@@bnx200it's not smaller version. It's tech demonstrator. The function is only to prove that they have capacity to design airframe and subsystem for the supersonic aircraft.
The only thing tech demonstator can't demonstrate their capability is desigining/build engine.
@@swordsman1137 I think the engine will be the most difficult part. That's the one area where I can see the plane being delayed.
When they test the engine I might believe it’s all more than hype.
It's not even about the engine it's about the testing and blowing up of set engine multiple times.
And it's also about testing Safety Systems multiple times.
All of this without Decades of real world experience.
Screens are inferior to tactile controls. You can feel a tactile knob or switch without looking a it. I think we've already learned this from cars. Why do we have to learn it a second time for aircraft?
Isn’t F35 cockpit similar?
My Alpine aftermarket stereo has a tactile feel on its "buttons" on the screen. It gives a "click" when they are touched.
SpaceX Dragon uses screens with buttons in case of backup.
@@_bakedbeans6970 Yes
The screens and avionics he's talking about are nothing new, touchscreens are commonplace in modern aircraft today. They work fine.
they said "five years from now" 5 years ago...🤣😂😁 lololol
It’s just a pattern with every aircraft program. They get delayed 😑
Advancement of technology at this insane level, of course! Only fools think its development is a play in the park. 5 or 10 year more… it will come. Tech advancement is inevitable.
this fantasy was interesting back then. its wearing thin now.
Without negative interest rates I’m surprised they are still around.
@@idiedoof4339but others have something to show, at least a demonstrator.
Don't get me wrong, I love all things aviation (mostly), but when I found out that they're going to develop their own engine I lost all hope for this project. Not happening. Maybe other (non aviation) ancillary motives at play here.
Rolls Royce I believe was who they went to originally and they refused to do the engine. Also I began questioning this company when they trashed the design they used to collect funding and produced the one shown in the video after funding was secured, a slap in the face to investors. That electric plane company United posted its Covid stimi into did the same- showed investors a clean sheet design Electric plane then once funding was secured rolled out a bombardier with a battery pack slapped onto it.
Nope. Hill helicopters is developing its own turbine engine to drive costs down. At firms like GE, Rolls Royce, and Pratt and Whitney, there are 50 year old engineers working 40 hour work weeks. At Overture, you have 25 year old engineers working 60 hour work weeks.
A better example is the performance of a young SpaceX compared to an old NASA.
China can’t even make reliable jet engines yet they are extremely difficult
If Boom gets far enough with their engine and demonstrates a successful design, engine manufacturers will be asking how they can help with production. They would be dumb not to. Sort of like how Apple designed its own SOC but went to Samsung and TSC to build the chips.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena Your information is incorrect. The original concept Boom 3 engine aircraft was designed to use a variant of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and a modified version is in the F-35). The Boom Engine program manager was a major manager from the F119 program. The F119 engine was already capable of "super-cruise" which the Boom aircraft would need. If you look at the original Boom 3 engine concept aircraft and do the math you will see that the F119 engine had the thrust and super-cruise capabilities that aircraft concept needed. RR did not have an engine that matched that aircraft.
Remove the vectoring nozzle, remove the afterburner, remove a few other military specific features, beef up the bearings and casing a bit so you can essentially use the same core while improving reliability and on wing life (military engines do not have nearly the reliability and on wing life of civilian jetliner engines; but it would work well enough for Boom). Then certify the engine for Civilian airline use.
Note that all the original passenger jet engine airliners used military derived engines - with very short engine lives compared to today's engines. The concept of using military derived engines is not new at all - nor novel. I understand that there is a least 1 military derived engine that came in a few decades later because it was the perfect size as well.
The fly in the ointment came when P&W told Boom that Boom would have to pay for the development of said engine variant up front as P&W did not see enough of an engine market to fund the development from future sales. Asking price is reported to be most of $1Billion to fund development, testing, and certification.
Boom walked at that point; and then talked to RR. Apparently RR told Boom the same thing - for exactly the same reasons.
I was a big supporter of Boom up to that point. I believe that had they gone to their investors and asked for the money up front that they would have gotten it - and would have had a viable engine with robust long term parts and service support.
Now I view Boom as nothing more than an investor scam. It cost $billions to develop and test new civilian aircraft engines of that size range.... Who is going to actually fund that. Even $1 Billion for a derivative of an existing military engine is not out of line cost wise
Can't wait for the follow-up video "When Boom went Bust"
Nothing like people looking for others to fail.
What an idiot.
Can't understand why people like you want to see others fail. Are we not supposed to move forward into the future?
@@justkiddin08 Sorry kid, but this ain't the future.
@@richpryor9650 And you know how?
In Chicago as a child I heard sonic booms a lot. I asked my mom what it was and she explained it was from an airplane. The booms were certainly loud! I've always wanted to fly on Concorde. Perhaps I may get a chance to fly supersonic with this 2nd generation one!
your mom was trying not to scare you. Those were gunshots 😂
I really hope these guys succeed
If they don't there will be death.
Well they have the cockpit all ready to go. Anyone else notice the concord pilot landing off centerline?
Now they just have to invent, test, build and certify a brand new engine that GE, Pratt and Rolls Royce didn’t want to touch. Also the inlet and nozzle.
Easy, peezy.
Don’t hold your breath…
The Wright Brothers have an old four-pot lying around. Low miles, one owner🤷♂😅 Should slot right in there...
You're right about it being no easy task to design a new engine, but it kinda sounds like they didn't have a choice. I hope they can surprise the world. Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible. (It will be funny to see which of its competitors will be first to commit industrial espionage against them...)
@@horusfalcon as long as the investors understand this project is very high risk.
@@timgarrett203 Yeah, that's a given. They will need some latitude in the early stages of development, but, as things progress they will have to actually put up or shut up at some point. I'm just wanting to see another SST, even if we have to take baby steps to get there, and aspects of this engine design are fascinating. They will have to be very careful with the control over the tail spike, or fuel economy, efficiency, and noise level will all take a hit.
@@horusfalcon They had a choice - but balked at the money. The original engine concept was a civilianzed version of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and modified for the F-35).
The Boom Engine Manager was one of the F119 program managers (responsible for half of the F119 engine).
P&W would have removed the vectoring nozzle, the afterburner, a few other military features, beefed up the engine a bit, and certified it for civilian use.... IF Boom had been willing to pay for that development and certification (my information was most of $1 Billion). That's very cheap for a new engine - and likely about 1/5th the cost of a purpose developed and certified engine.
P&W did not see enough of an engine market for that specialized engine to warrant development of it from projected sales of the engine (unlike civilian jetliner engines that sells in the many thousands for decades).
Boom did not want to pay for the development of their engine. They then went to talk to RR and essentially got told the same thing.
That's when Boom went in my mind from an realistic proposal to an investment scam company. I believe that Boom could have gone to their investors and gotten the money to fund engine development.
New from scratch engine of the size with super-cruise ability is likely in the $3-$5 Billion dollar range for development, refinement, testing, and certification for civilian use.
I don’t understand all the negativity. I do understand skepticism though. But who cares if it takes longer than the estimated timeframe? Investors yeah… but in terms of innovation, let it take its time. If Boom supersonic needs 10+ more years then that’s better than rushing it
They are selling a dream. Overture is basically Theranos all over again.
why do you say this?
After the grounding of the Concord which was such a sad moment in aviation history, I’m delighted to see another company’s vision of supersonic flight that will take us into the future👍👍
I've been thinking for 35-years about aircraft going digital and have been excited & impatient to see it happen. Each time I wondered through digital ideas, I kept in mind that digital flight control systems need a useful analog fallback or just-in-case safety system included. These analog flight controls are limited to handle the unexpected, unplanned, & the not anticipated gracefully. Digital Fly-by-wire, advanced instrument panels, & flight controls are fantastic. You will learn many new ideas hopefully finding a path that improves flight safety.
--JSW
Developing an aero jet engine is a huge task. Rolls Royce aero engines has decades of experience and each new engine requires huge numbers of engineers and large amounts of money. Good luck to them if they can get the funding.
“Wanna turn off a circuit breaker. Tap tap tap.” So how do you turn off the controls that control the circuit breakers? And whatever they do with the engine it’s still going to have a sonic boom so will likely only ever be supersonic over the oceans giving a huge amount of time subsonic.
Well done for digging up Mike Bannister, but otherwise this CEO is deluded.
Do a video when they have a flying prototype
The scariest thing their CTO said is that the aircraft is just like a phone with updates OTA.
That is terrifying to me with regards to an airplane.
Boeing’s biggest f-ups weren’t doors falling off. They were glitched updates that screwed flight control and brought down an airliner and almost another.
I watched Tesla’s glitch out of control before to. I love tech but that’s terrifying.
Missed out on flying on the Concord- anxiously waiting for Boom.
We have a term for this sort of project: vapourware. There is no way that Boom will be able to develop its own engines. GE, Rolls, Safran could but not a startup with little engine manufacturing experience.
My God, Boom should have won an Oscar for self promotion, I'll get interested once others mention the results!
We’ve been waiting for this for a long time 😊!
Need a separate detailed video about the Engine Technology.
Why does this sound like a “carbon fiber” deep-sea submersible 😝
Now now, the Titan with all its flaws was actually built, this thing never ever will be.
@@colin-nekritz Unfortunately for submersible, yes.
Composite material works great for airplanes but not submarines.
Honestly I was just thinking the same thing, it really feels like a combination of "carbon fiber deep-sea submersible" meets "nikola motors". If this is the case the silver limning is they probably won't ever reach testing phase so no lives should be lost.
Most of the controls being on a touchscreen monitor, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong!
Why not replace the control stick and levers with a PS4 controller while we're at it? 🤦
As far as I remember, the Concorde only used afterburner to take of and climb.
It would super cruise rest of the flight.
Concorde used afterburners to accelerate through the high-drag transsonic region as well. Counterintuitively, it’d take more fuel to accelerate from ~M.95-1.3 without afterburners than to just brute-force through.
This is one of the few projects today that inspires hope in both science and technology... We need FAR more of that Tomorrowland stuff to make the future worth living for... Right now for most folks the future feels bleak and it needn't be!
Indeed. The future is looking biblical, truth be told. Whether humanity can finally work together to avert that is another matter. I wish Boom every success.
I agree so much. We need the faith that technological advances are able to solve the problems we’ve created. Environmental, social etc.
And we need people who actually work on it.
Nowadays people tend to be so cynical and laid back like it’s a given that the world is fucked and we are doomed to live in stagnation till the end.
In the 60's going from propeller to jet made people fly more to save time. Now people will opt for a stop over that makes the trip 4 hours longer if it saves 100 bucks.
"i believe we're going to need more supersonic aircraft than subsonic aircraft. so 1, that means we're gonna have to build a whole lot of these, and we'll need to be bigger than boeing or airbus to fill that demand"
this fries my brain. not his belief we'll need more SSTs than regular aircraft -- it's the fact he thinks when that happens, boom is the only company who will be able to provide them?! that's either tenacity or one of those bad -isms or -pathy's
edit: "and the autopilot -- of course this has an *advanced* autopilot" people are giving this guy money. maybe some of yours, from your retirement account or taxes.
Looks like the old Concorde pilot has become a slick and smooth talking salesman.
I also redesigned the jet and rocket engines, essentially combining them into one, with a complex, toggle locked, piston system, designed to recycle the pressure of combusting gasses, in zero g.
It was designed with no air intake, with the intention of being a space-plane motor, but could be modified to have an air intake.
And a military prototype was built, with a similar concept of motor, running on solid fuel, and that design is capable of using a silencer, which is just a propeller connected to the turbine with some exhaust port.
This reduces the volume to that of a helicopter. This was in 2022.
VERY cool music! I just downloaded the song on iTunes. Thanks for giving credit to the artist! 😎👍🏽👍🏽
Very exciting to see this - flying Concorde is one thing I am so happyI was able to experience in my time and I am thrilled that this may be a possibility for my nephews and nieces lifetime!
Same here although the USA is light years behind U.K. and France in doing this. The US was pissed that U.K. and France did this first. The US also banned all overland supersonic commercial passenger flights apart from military thereby cutting off its nose to spite its face to quote a well know analogy
@@peterbest5938 nobody cares. You sound so bitter, go touch grass.
The multi-billion dollar investment to design, manufacture and certify an engine for only one airframe will kill this project. There are sound business reasons P&W, GE and RR opted out of supplying engines for Boom Supersonic.
It’s coming to Greensboro where I live. I really want a career there! Already coming from Freightliner OEM and corporate world, working on my PPL I’d love to intertwine my manufacturing corporate experience with my dream of aviation! 🥵
Say what you want, but that aircraft is absolutely gorgeous.
Anyone remember the SST museum in Kissimmee, Florida back in the 1970's? As a high school student of that time, I do.
I am looking forward to fly on it ASAP. Smart move on Overture to make the engines in-house and keep tight controls on manufacturing and QA. Former F/A with Eastern Airlines 1976 to 1989.
You were smart enough to be a pilot but not smart enough to detect this is exquisite load of garbage will never exist? Is this from you’re slowly becoming senile or from the medicine you’re on in old age? Hate to break it to you old man but this is 100% vaporware, it will never become reality.
ASAP is at least 5 years
My main question is how much space does a bathroom on a Boom Overture have?
The cabin is larger than that of a CRJ so that's probably what you are looking at, but keep in mind, that still falls to the airlines at the end of the day.
None, I mean, the bathroom will be as big virtually as you want them, which is to say in make believe, because this plane will never exist outside of as seen in this video to bilk investors out of money, it’s pure vaporware.
Not to worry Sam, the plane is so fast by the time you think you have to pee, you have already peed
A start up company taking on a big project, good luck.
I really really hope they succeed and supersonic travel becomes a normal travel option. But.... the technical innovations that are needed to do what Boom is claiming is monumental to say the least. The engines alone would be revolutionary if it can do what they are claiming to do, I don't know why but this video gives me a vibe that it was made to make Boom much more viable in the investors eyes to pull in more capitol, I really hope the investors are rewarded for taking this huge risk.
It's very ambitious. Especially developing the engines themselves. The cockpit technology seems feasible when considering what's available today, even in cars with the likes of reverse cameras, parking sensors and lane assist. But developing the engines themselves is what looks like the most challenging aspect considering they don't have someone like Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney or General Electric backing them with their resources. But they appear to know what they're doing. I reckon certification will cause the biggest delays as they are the first of its kind since the death of concorde.
To be fair, they have Florida Turbine Technologies working with them on the development of the engine. People on the team worked on both the F-119 and F-135 engines of the F-22 and F-35 respectively. They also have backing from Northrop Grumman and the USAF themselves. Not saying it's going to be easy but I still have faith in this coming to fruition.
@WilliamRivera343 well that certainly makes a difference in how likely they are to succeed. I didn't know that.
Concorde did not exactly die, it simply lost financial viability.
Paying much more to travel from the US to Europe in a sports car was not competing with taking longer to make the journey at a lower cost in a 5 star hotel.
Most business travellers enjoyed their first flight on Concorde, but most of them never flew Concorde again.
To be a success this new aircraft has to have a comfort level comparable to an A380.
You will have a better chance of seeing an albino unicorn that farts rainbows and speaks 15 languages in your lifetime than ever seeing one of these exist.
There is not a snowball’s chance that this plane will fly in 10 years, much less 5.
Yeah, 16 months ago the engine was just a concept and now it is a full blown concept.
I know Boom will be very successful with the New Symphony Engine I have faith in everything it will be
I didn't have a clue that a turbofan could be viable in the transsonic spectrum. That technology however, compared to afterburners explains why the Boom plane won't go as fast as the Concorde, but mach 1.7 is still a huge improvement over mach 0.85 by todays airliners.
Does it still have a front window?
Did you see the video?
Minute >>8:30 explain all that
@@michaeldiamondofficial I know it has synthetic vision, but that can go out. If there's no front window and no synthetic vision and no autopilot, they're screwed.
nice i like the new approach of clean design and control
All digital is great, but sometimes people just want to have physical controls. That’s exactly what happened to some American warships. They had lots of digital control, but the navy eventually had to revert to physical controls because the crews were complaining about the non practicality of all digital.
I'll go ahead and make that correction: the RR Olympus engine that powered Concorde *was* actually a low-bypass turbofan not a turbojet as Mr. Scholl suggests. Pedantic, I know. I'm OK with it 😏
Really? Which Concorde are you talking about. Because the one flown by British Airways and Air France starting in the 1970s was powered by the Rolls-Royce Olympus TURBOJET. That’s according to Rolls-Royce, but what would they know?
Looks like it was a turbojet but the inlet system ahead of the engine did allow air to bypass around the engine, but it wasn’t driven by the fan.
The Boom Overture looks very promising and I hope that it succeeds it being certified for commercial service. It would bring some much needed prestige back to the American aerospace industry that was lost by the Boeing fiasco. Developing the new engine will be biggest challenge for Boom Technology, but if they can succeed in developing it and having it successfully tested and certified, the Boom Overture has a chance to restore supersonic travel.
That release schedule is crazy!!
8:31 Autoland on most landings?!?! As an “old school” airline pilot this airplane seems to be removing what I enjoy the most about my profession. Specifically watching the sun set or rise and the physical beauty of our word below. I also pride myself in the skill required to hand fly an approach to landing. Perhaps this aircraft is meant for the next generation of pilots. I still love takeoffs and landings..
Don't worry about it. This will never exist so its a non issue.
Do you think that having such a short time frame is realistic for an engine that I has never been built before? How difficult is the certification process for a new technology engine like that? I’d still trust you and your peers in controlling the take off and landing. Thank you for your years of service
He is a marketing dude, what does he know about flying and staying proficient.
One of the main selling arguments for the L-1011 was the advanced autoland system, that was in 1970.
Current airliners have auto land.
Now that's an interesting video. I guess my only concern would be, and I'm no Pilot, so, the touch screens. I just wonder with something so sensitive as a touch screen, if you accidently touched the wrong thing, the consequences that could follow.
That may be something they've worked out, and honestly, if I thought of it, they surely did.
There are already avionics system where the cockpit Displays are touch screen. Nothing new.
It will be interesting to see how well Boom does at engine development. That they would take on such a daunting task is a signal of the resistance in the industry to further advancement, and that's a bloody shame. I see, reading other comments here, that some feel they insulted their investors by changing their design. From my own aerospace experience, it is not uncommon for an aircraft maker to forsake a flawed design early rather than pour more money into something that won't work. That is nothing unusual in the long history of aviation. So long as they communicated the change in a way to reassure their investors, all is well. (I don't know for certain whether that happened, though.)
I hope they know what they are doing, and that they surprise everyone who is presently saying, "It can't be done..." I wish them every success, and hope I get to see one of theirs fly.
Hi! I'm from the year 2031. Just thought I'd stop by to let you know that this never happened.
Medium bypass for supersonic flight is a STUPID IDEA. Why? Because that bypass flow produces basically no thrust at all at supersonic speeds. A bypass ratio of about 2 will at best produce a fan pressure ratio of about 1:2. You simply cannot squeeze supersonic exhaust out of 1:2 pressure ratio. The air in your car's tires is at greater than 1:3 from ambient, good luck getting a supersonic jet from it! What that means is that the only thing producing thrust is the core. The low pressure turbine driving the fan is taking power from the engine to drive a big fan and pull along a big nacelle that produces nothing but drag.
--
If they are going to go the vertically integrated route and do their own engines, they should go for a Variable Bypass Engine (VBE). At low speeds, half or more of the fan flow goes into the bypass duct for noise reduction and lower thrust specific fuel consumption. At supersonic cruise, almost all of the fan flow goes through the high pressure compressor for higher exhaust velocity. To manage combustion temperature, it may be necessary for part of the compressor output to bypass the combustor. But at least it is a much higher pressure flow now at something between 1:15 and 1:30. It is not a new concept, working engines of this kind have been run since the late 1980s. The GE YF120 is one example. The recent GE XA100 and P&W XA101 are additional stabs at this idea using 3-streams to add a cooling stream to serve heat exchangers.
u should apply to be a consultant or engineer for them.
Finally someone who know something about engine.
Not a coincident that almost all supersonic engines in production are turbojet/low bypass/ramjet.
And the chance of a startup doing in-house design, manufacturing, and validation of an advanced supersonic airliner engine, I call it hard to believe at best, and money laundering most likely. Poor investors having more money than brain investing on the basis of a cool CGI advertisement and impossible promises.
@@LongTran-em6hc I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. In 2004 everyone thought those SpaceX fools were full of shit too! But, making an efficient medium bypass (2~3 bypass ratio) turbofan for supersonic cruise is NOT an engineering problem. It is a physics problem.
--
Remember, with anything but a scramjet, you have to slow the incoming air to subspnic speeds before it hits the fan. You then have to accelerate that flow to greater than your supersonic cruise speed if you want to produce thrust. You do that mainly by compressing it then burning fuel in it. For every axial stage you get about 1.2~1.5x of compression -- 1.2 being similar to a 1st gen engine like a Jumo 004, 1.5 being a GE9x. Most supersonic engines are in the middle of the range mainly because of combustor temperature limits.
--
As a rough rule of thumb, a 2 or 3 stage fan produces noting but drag. Just 10 stages of compression and no combustion produces minimal thrust. 10 stages of compression plus combustion produces plenty of thrust, but part of it has to be taken off to drive the turbine. Any or all of the flow that does not go through the combustor and turbine CAN make plenty of useful thrust if you dump fuel into the tail pipe and burn it at low compression -- that's called an afterburner.
The aircraft isn’t always at supersonic speed, so a medium bypass engine is a GREAT idea for reducing noise and fuel consumption at subsonic speeds.
@@j.heilig7239 LOL... the point of an SST is to fly at supersonic speeds. If you are not spending 80-90% of the trip supersonic you shouldn't be flying the SST. Optimizing the engine for 10~20% of the trip while making it drastically less efficient -- perhaps to the point of being unable to actually fly supersonic -- for overwhelming majority of the trip is the very definition of moronic engineering.
--
Do you know how much less efficient bypass can make a supersonic engine? Remember the Tu-144? It's the Soviet Concordski. The use of a 0.6:1 bypass turbofan meant that it could not sustain supersonic flight without the afterburners being lit to some degree. The specific fuel consumption with the NK-144 engines was 1.81kg/kgfh at Mach 2.0 and a supersonic range of 1300 nm. Switching to RD-36 turbojets (no bypass) netted a TSFC of 1.22 kg/kgfh and a range of 2878 nm.
--
That was just a 0.6 low bypass turbofan. And you think going to a medium bypass engine with 2~3:1 of the air flow making no thrust and creating a massively draggy nacelle is a "great" idea?
Annnnd nothing about the actual 'boom', The largest crux in supersonic travel.
That's ok.. Since this is American made, the FAA will approve regardless of the boom.. The company calls itself boom.. Geez. And what's he smoking when he says the plane will not rattle window panes. The only way this will be.. If the plane flies sub sonic below 15-20k feet.
OTA Updates like my phone?
Sounds so safe! Touchscreens? Good luck if one breaks
Nice explanation...
Hopefully this works❤
I wish them luck, but I’m not holding my breath until I can fly on it.
That's even better and easier to fly the plane with touch screen displays and side stick controller's and you are always aware of what you are doing and what it's doing
One thing that wasn't addressed in the video was sonic boom. Are they using the new NASA pioneered aerodynamics which would allow them to fly supersonic overland'?
Exciting!!!🔥🔥🔥
The campaign to get brand new engine from Design to get certified for flight will take you at least 10 years. No way these plans are realistic.
This is really cool but the reliance on so much technology is kinda scary
How did you make this comment?
The advancement of technology is inevitable. Our lives get better and safer and more efficient with it. Draw backs? Of course, like always. People screamed with the first locomotive or with the first aeroplane…..
As opposed to what?
@@Secretlyanothername Did you really compare flying a supersonic jet through technology....with a UA-cam comment? If you're not skeptical, even just a little, of our wholesale reliance on, not only technology, but technology that's supposed to keep us safe at 38,000ft+, flying at Mach 1.7....you're not paying any attention.
Remember our little friend MCAS? Didn't end well for over 300 people a few years back. Nobody saw that coming. I guess it wasn't you or your loved ones, so whatevs.
Nobody is saying that fear should halt progress, but these guys CLEARLY want to push technology through the pipeline fast so they can start seeing profits. That's the problem with over-reliance on technology, its FAR more often than not: not tested enough before full service.
Look up "hubris", and you may understand.
@@j.heilig7239 Simplicity with redundancy is always safer than complexity with redundancy.
With so many spaced-apart powerful engines, won’t you need more than one small rudder?
Ironically, their name is Boom. Makes me think "quiet".
Think of the time one saves using Overture when in a holding pattern over EWR
Supersonic passenger flight in my time. cant wait.
There is thinking,there is talk,there is action. I love the way these CEOs talk,talk,talk. The day they produce anything even close to Concorde and its testing I will say WOW.
Its better if they just did the thing they say they will do and then say"look at this". Concorde had 5000 testing hours. Jumbo 747 had 1500. Theres a reason for that.
Hope these guys can come up with something even close but its a long way off.
I love what they are trying to do. Did they solve the sonic boom? This isn’t caused by the engine.
Boom Technologies: You want something done, you gotta do it yourself.
More like you want to crash grab investor money by hyping vaporware you could to come up with PR mumbojumbo for people with barely two brain cells will buy into.
Where and who from is supplying all the development funds?
Is BOOM a good name for an airplane company though?
will they make the overture capable of mach 2?
If pilots need to rely on augmented reality and cameras and things like that for flying the airplane, that's just one more piece of equipment that can break, and will break at some point, and as much redundancy as you have, it means there's more things that can cause delays on flights.
It's been technically possible for a supersonic commercial aircraft for a long time, more than 50 years in fact, but there is one problem that kinda sucks -- drag. No technology can bypass Physics and with SST's the extreme speed produces exponentially higher drag. If a 777 or similar plane flies a long haul route the ticket price might be $1000 to $2000 or there abouts for most people and more for first class. An SST will only have value when the routes are long enough that the time savings amounts to more than an hour or so and for routes like that the ticket price for typical passengers is pretty high but it will be much higher for an SST for two reasons: first, the much higher drag requires much more thrust such that the cost per passenger is much higher for fuel alone; and second, an SST is necessarily smaller to have any chance of being aerodynamically slick enough to even be possible so they tend to carry far fewer passengers, making the cost per passenger that much higher. The Concorde had the same problem and it was only the subsidies they received from France and Brittan the ticket price would be too high for even the high rollers that could afford it. That's right folks, you the taxpayer in the UK and France were helping your rich countrymen out, lowering the price they paid, for a plane most people will never be able to fly on. And if that isn't bad enough, many of the passengers were not even British or French -- but they also benefitted from the reduced ticket price paid for by the working class in the UK and France. Let's hope they don't try that game here in the USA.
If Boom ever comes to fruition and takes commercial passengers, will airports/gates need to redesigned?
Much more to this than they are saying, sonic boom can be reduced, yes.. but they won't get to fly supersonic near major metropolises, and will be restricted to pre accepted routes away from other flight traffic below. NY to LAX or DFW might be doable.. but less likely NY to ORD. I'd like to see the business case for this instead of projections I doubt about progress and first flights. ( that are very very speculative since X-59 only recently flew it's 1st ) Once X 59 is tested along competitive routes on East Coast without issues, then they might get support for more opportunities.
It seems to me the challenge would be to make the planes that can withstand the heat the engines have been here for awhile
When this was originally announced, as a start up concept, they stated it would take 200 passengers to make it commercially viable, compared to Concorde (100 passengers), it would also match the speed of Concorde to make it as efficient in terms of saving time. This latest version takes only 80 passengers and is slower, I really do hope it becomes a reality but there are too many obstacles and limited customer interest at the moment.
Interesting that Concorde was designed in the 1950s. Part in metric, in France. And part in imperial, in the UK long before CAD. It was built in the 1960s long before robotic manufacturing. So when watching Concorde, you’re watching the future, yet it’s now long past. Oh, Concorde also had auto-land. Yes, 50+ yrs ago.
Wish we had them NOW
Make it Soo I want to see this Aircraft built and flying soon
What about refueling, because i'm sure its only capable of short flights. Any time savings out the window if you need a layover. Normal jets probably have the best balance of both.
The company and the Overture are supremely impressive. My concern about over-the-air software updates is that the system could be hacked. Encrypted or not. Passwords can be stolen by other means, for example spies in the company, etc. That would be bad. I sure wish they would re-think that and require direct access to the cockpit for any kind of update.
Love the idea of the Boom and a new player in the market. I just feel like the idea is so farfetched for a new manufacturer. Designing the plane AND such a complex engines, that’s already a red flag for me. Circuit breakers are within touch display? Seems like an issue during if there is an electrical fire.
I hope they prove me wrong!
All circuit breakers on the 787 I fly are virtual, not a single traditional CB in the cockpit. So it's already been done. But they don't have an engine yet and believe they are going to be delivering airplanes in five years...not going to happen
Put some real gauges and buttons in there, you don't need to bury everything in a menu on a screen. You don't want to flip through on screen displays when you have an emergency.
It's also extremely ambitious timeline if they were just building the plane, now they're building the engine too? I wish them success but they should be more realistic about their time frames.
Totally agree. I HATE touch screens on flight decks and having to go through several menus to get to an item.
Have you seen the cockpit of any modern airliner? Didn’t think so.
@@j.heilig7239 I haven’t. I just fly them for work.
Fly by cable may be way heavier on he pilots but there's so much room for error/malfunction with fly by touch screen....
That's why systems have redundancy, and the ones you fit to aircraft need to hit high reliability standards in the first place
Microsoft Flight Simulation has basically been proving the Virtual View concept.
The name of this company is Boom. Explosions go boom.
How much cost of the ticket
Love how the Concorde was the future of air travel in the 80s until one of them caught fire and then the whole thing was scrapped... Kind of like the whole world was waiting for an excuse. Yes it may have been too expensive to be scalable in its era but it really was the story of the thing everyone loved until the day everyone hated it. Curious.
They are still dreaming, re-designing and sucking money from investors after 10 years. All the major players have pulled out, so, good luck to anyone who has thrown their money into this project. IMHO It has absolutely NO chance of being commercial by 2030.
It’s still good to test this technology for use in the future
Harrison Ford up front around 5:50 tryna land on another taxiway
I live near Greensboro, NC. I believe it when I see it. How will his one make $$ when Concord lost $$$. Wish them well.