It still is Edwards AFB. While they will have been highly prepared for this test, they don't just stop military operations because a commercial test is happening in the same airspace.
Concorde borrowed heavily from fighter and supersonic bomber design. It was more elegant, primarily due to the ogive wing. It also had a remarkable range. Few people point this out, but it used afterburner for takeoff, climb and acceleration. But it super-cruised above mach 2. It could not have flown 3,000nm unrefueled if it didn't.
@@circuit10 Yeah, it's a family of military aircraft made by the Franch company Dassault. This one specifically looks like a Mirage F1, which is fighter from the 60s-70s.
Can totally relate - I've been Mach 2 and don't remember feel a thing crossing the sound barrier. The take off thrust - now I totally remember THAT feeling! Concorde rules!
Yes the take off acceleration was amazing on my Concorde flight Heathrow to JFK in 2003. I also felt the reduction in acceleration a few minutes after takeoff when reheat was turned off (afterburners in US speak).
I'd be very curious to hear about what sort of sonic boom it created. After all, the whole point is to reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas.
That's like the most important part of their project, and if this is not a scale model of the big plane I don't know if this plane is even relevant at all
"[...]reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas[...]" is that possible? The plane will make a continuous shock wave and I don't understand how you can get around that?
Love that they have the choice to inexpensively do that rather than say it would be too expensive and not show us anything at all! I think everyone has learned from SpaceX that we like to watch, damnit!
Kansas has instituted the Kansas Supersonic Transportation Corridor spanning the entire length of the state for testing supersonic aircraft over 39000 feet.
And just east of the Springs, so good place for it. (And west of Missouri.) Look for SpaceX to apply to use it when they get E2E going in about 10 years or so.
@@icaleinns6233 with two planes guiding you in via a headset it’s easy. Learning to fly instrument landings uses a face shield that blocks your vision or VFR, visual flight rules.
@@DavidPawson-d7h True. But that last portion of an IFR flight is usually flown with a lot of VFR input (if possible) in order to set down precisely where the pilot wants. Like mentioned, that plane has video systems for VFR input for this phase. Learning how to use that precisely must have taken a minute or two.
A team of 50 technicians and engineers in various disciplines have acheived it. They have validated their airframe design in the supersonic phase. So they must have captured a lot of valueable data. They can validate their simulation and windtunnel models now with authority. The control and avionics approach is also validated. They are talking about developing non afterburner engine that will have enough thrust to take their full scale aircraft to mach 1.7. It seems they are already working wiith Rolls Royce on that. It is really an exciting project. It is a big ambitious project for a scrappy startup. We need more dream projects like this. Aviation seem to be stuck after the Concorde. That was a massive engineering effort and Concorde failed due to the sheer cost of the project and the aircraft. So I think if these guys can make it happen at a far economically viable track, they have a solid future.
Rolls Royce dropped out a long while ago... now Boom is largely doing the engine design in-house. I wish them the best, but needing to design a novel engine to go along with your novel airframe doesn't usually work if your not a global super power.
Why is Bill Conti's soundtrack for The Right Stuff going through my head? "There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, 750 miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier. Then, they built a small plane, the X-1, to try and break the sound barrier. And men came to the high desert in California to ride it. They were called test pilots. And no one knew their names."
He should've said "And Bell Aircraft had all the plans, design and data dumped in their lap from the guys in the UK at Miles Aircraft who'd worked out the all moving tail that stopped the demon hurling pilots into the ground during the transonic regime. Bell were stuck, and the fawning, weak, indebted to the americans by design, British government gave it's own 1,000mph aircraft, the Miles .52, lock, stock & barrel, to the snide, let's claim all the glory for us boys, stupid, blundering to Bell who still only just managed creep past Mach 1. Did they ever acknowledge the help they'd received? Well, you know americans... What do you think?
It actually reminded me of a goose taking flight, with those long dangly legs... Maybe not the image you want for your new ultra-futuristic airplane, but geese are excellent long-distance flyers so it could be worse.
Xb-1 has given them enough aerodynamic data to confidently move with the overture design. This is definitely not gonna fail, the worst that could happen would be a delay. They already have a super factory too. Most other sst startups ended up like aerion
@ A factory without the tooling is just a building. So they need to build a much larger aircraft now that’s suitable for a production and a much longer lifespan. Then they also need to make the engines, which is probably about as hard as making the aircraft itself.
They lost major OEM support for the engine design though. This testbed is a great accomplishment but designing a supersonic jet engine in-house from scratch is going to be a huge challenge.
idk exactly why but the picture of the starlink module propped up to the canopy of the T38 made me laugh😂i love how thats the solution they came up with, no over engineering in sight
"no over engineering in sight"- a word used by no mechanical/electrical engineer. Meanwhile, reliance on third party JUNK is, by definition, a lack of engineering... and avionics.
Back in the day, I was told to follow the KISS system when designing something. Keep It Simple Stupid! And it always serves me well. Zoom ahead to the present, and I now have a grandson studying engineering. He is building a small car from scratch with other students, with some of the professors overseeing their projects. He has been praised for keeping design of parts simple for easy manufacturing. I asked him if he had been taught the KISS system, and he asked what that was. He was tickled about that, and said he was taking that back to school with him. Hope Grandpa doesn't get into trouble!
@@kennethc2466 Are you sure it's a lie? Yes they're better for a while, but there are 80+ years old carburetors still working... What's best is seldom absolute.
On one memorable Sunday afternoon with two of my best flying buddies while on a returning home flight from 4 days of discovery in Baja , we were about to turn left and go around Edwards when we decided to give them a call and see if they were "hot" (busy). The reply, proceed on present heading. Wow, a privileged to remember, the three amigos right over a very special piece of airspace. Then soon looking up from our 12,505 ASL, 12,707 AGL elev. Mt. Whitney.
And people wonder why I talk about my life growing up in Mojave. I don't know about you. But I don't know anywhere else in the world where a civilian can grow up around advancement in technology like this. Yes, I'm proud of where I grew up and yes, I'm glad I had the life I did. I wouldn't trade my life for no ones..
@@LolTollhurst Why would he need to see china’s test facilities? All he would need to do is see what the US military was testing 20 years back to get an idea of the tech china has stolen and is still trying to reverse engineer into usable planes that function in the same way as the US hardware does 😅😅
@@jazzmusiccontinues1134haha massive coping after release of deepseek? I love the arrogance of Americans. You’re just following the track of fallen empires. You stay arrogant to the collapse
Back in the early ’50’s NACA demonstrated that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing leading to the use of short-span, thin trapezoidal wings as used by Concorde (the slender delta). The Baby Boom is following the path adopted by RAE in SST design and its HP-115 test bed aircraft.
The Mirage is an F.1B or D. The T-38 may only have been a trainer in US service, but it's essentially the same aircraft as the F-5 series which absolutely _were_ fighters. An F-5B is basically a T-38 with weapon pylons (yes, there are other differences). Much as I'd love to be wrong, I don't see a commercial future for this. Mass air travel is still, and always has been, dependent on seat-mile costs, not speed. For the vast majority of passengers, it's the fact that they can afford to fly at all that matters, not whether they're flying at 500kts or 700kts. As long as it's faster than a train or a ship, then their needs are met. Indeed, the thrust of likely future developments seems more in the direction of "slower and greener" than faster. Only a minority of passengers (first class and _some_ business class) have both the desire to fly as fast as possible AND the money to pay for it. if you take them out of the "cattle-truck" airliners and put them in a separate fleet of supersonic airliners with much greater overheads, then they won't be subsidising the cattle-trucks any more, which means the latter's ticket prices will go up and their passenger volumes will go down. At best, I see Boom getting a supersonic business jet out of this, which will be a limited production toy/status symbol for the ultra rich. At worst, I see them going bust in a few years' time, like literally hundreds of little aerospace companies, run by people who think they've got a clever idea, have done over the history of aviation.
The Concorde cabin was so narrow it could only handle 2+2 seats, but it still sold hundreds of seats. On could imagine flights from the Gulf to Asia flying over the Indian Ocean could be profitable with seating of 100-120 passengers (or 70 with fancy seating). Considering the Concorde running costs, no I don't think any subsidising occurred.
Part of the cost argument was that a supersonic plane can make two trip to every one of a conventional jet, reducing the cost of hardware by 1/2. Whether that's enough to make up for higher fuel costs is another question, but it apparently works for SpaceX boosters. I imagine that four hours in cattle-class seating beats eight hours in first class for most high-end passengers. And it's probably cattle-class with no middle seats. So ticket prices of 10x should be conservative.
@ Concorde tickets were only affordable, and Concorde "profitable", because the UK and French governments wrote off the development costs and gave the aircraft to their flag carriers essentially for free. Basically, those tickets were subsidised by UK and French taxpayers.
@ Yes, but if you extract those high-end passengers from the cattle-trucks and put them on their own plane, what does that do to ticket prices on the cattle-trucks? Most economy class passengers are holiday-makers whose choice is flying/not-flying depending on how much money they can spare, not slow/fast depnding on how much time they can spare. They have zero brand-loyalty: put ticket prices up at one airline and they go elsewhere. Put them up across the board and they stay home in droves.
That is a great looking plane! This video reminds me of the old American X-Planes. Bright blue sky, white clouds, lots of sand below and mountains in the distance. There really is something magical about it.
I'm super interested in you perhaps doing a video about the development challenges they'll face for designing the engines, that to me really feels like the make it or break it challenge in this
The engines for this at least are J-85's, off the shelf engines designed over 60 years ago. For any full-scale, that is probably going to take more modern and more powerful fan engines similar to fighter jets... F-404, F-110, etc.
When I was quite young my grandparents had a home in the Mojave desert and I grew up thinking it was normal to have sonic booms rattling your windows. It was always exciting when the space shuttle was coming back as we could always hear the booms as it transitioned making its approach to Edward's AFB. I was at their house watching Challenger launch the mission it exploded. One of my cousins is involved with NASA's passenger supersonic project that this is part of.
@lucasread1743 We had Concorde 40 years ago that did exactly the same thing but the yanks were jealous they couldnt work it out and blocked it from travelling over the US, a nail in the coffin for a project that was designed to make travel between the US and Europe quicker. If you want to go supersonic go back in time to the UK or France and see the future we could have had if it wasnt for the US throwing a strop like a toddler.
My understanding about the ban on supersonic overland flight had nothing to do with protecting US Aerospace business interests. Boeing had a conceptual competitor to the Concorde as well as a larger concept and would absolutely have built them if it could make the business case. My understanding of the supersonic overland ban was as a result of FAA Sonic boom testing over Oklahoma City in the 60's with Operation Bongo II, where the general public said the booms were a nuisance and did not want that to be a common occurrence in daily life.
if you have ever heard a sonic boom, you will understand why it was banned (for good reason). It is fun to hear a fighter jet fly over you with the sonic boom but hearing it multiple times a day is annoying as hell.
Having just retired from publishing the FAA/EASA/CAAC certification reports for a large engine company (the largest!), I can tell you that relying on getting new, efficient supersonic engines from a company who has no history on larger power plants kinda scares me. The last large engine we certified, even though it was heavily derived from a legacy engine, cost more than two billion dollars from design to production. _Billion with a 'B'._ Oh, and emissions are a thing now, beyond the noise.
Don't worry. The US aviation industry has a recent history of quality workmanship and unparalleled levels of quality control. What could possibly go wrong?
The full scale production airliner will never fly and this entire project is just a well orchestrated investment scam that pays the salaries and bonuses of their management and employees for a while before reality sinks in and the money dries up. So far the marketing is going very well. The engines have always been my focus, the intakes to be more specific. Not only are they trying to design new engines from the ground up, but for the intake design to recover enough pressure for this bird to cruise supersonic, they are going to need something with the efficiency of the SR-71 or Concorde intake systems. Most people don't realize that more than half of the total propulsion force comes from the intake systems, with the Concorde squeezing out an amazing 63% from hers.(Actually 75% of total thrust minus 12% due to the negative thrust or drag of the intake ramp) The engines are basically just above idle when it's screaming along at max cruise speed, feeding on supersonic shock waves. This will never happen at Boom assuming they don't get better engine system partners and add about 10 years to their target date.
@@shmaknapublarintake and compressor are cold. Though it is magic to me how the modern engines in F-35 or F-22 compress so high in such a low number of stages and no stall. But the hot turbine ? Why does every small country in the world now build cheap composite supersonic fighters without a problem at the intake ? What engines do they use. China is still hampered by inferior engines. I am looking forward to a supersonic fan. After all, even today the tips already go supersonic.
@@shmaknapublar I think their plan is to be slower than the Concorde so there isn’t any variable geometry to the inlets. So the shock cones in the renderings will be placed so they are most effective at the cruise speed and just “acceptable” everywhere else. But the rest of the engine is still going to be as big of a project as the airframe.
This is called a CAN-DO atitude. USA is full of it but forgets sometimes. Scared? Zero reason. These are great engineers and humans doing what Boeing forgot to do. Good people stepping up to the plate to do great work.
I live less than 50 miles south of where this plane was flying supersonic and didn't notice any noise. I forgot about this until I saw the live feed on X right before it went supersonic. Would be interesting if they eventually did overflights of Victorville to see if they get noise complaints. More testing is needed. But I don't mind eventually being a guinea pig for overflights.
They also had 2 other aircraft going supersonic next to it so that would cover any noise it made. I am curious what it sounds like too though, would be interesting for a future flight to keep the chase planes subsonic and record the audio from the ground
As the commentary on the live stream implied, had today’s small camera tech and video quality been available at the time of Concorde, it would likely have been considered or used in place of the droop snoot.
Scott surprised me during yesterday's LEGO build stream when I thought Boom had not yet gone supersonic and he informed us about this event and corresponding stream. Thanks for keeping us in the loop and the Baby Boom LEGO model looks 👌Edit: I would like to know why showed me the Boom stream from a week ago with the plane at .95 MACH and not the more recent one 🤔
They dont even have engines for their actual plane (every big maker turned them down, so they are trying to make their own). This product is never getting built, let alone ever get working.
you feeling old I waited years for Concorde to make its first flight. I was however fortunate to be able to watch it doing takeoffs and landings in Johannesburg while it was doing hot and high testing and even had the good fortune to meet the chief test pilot Brian Trubshaw.
A pitot tube is a tube. Nothing fancy. Supersonic flow into a pitot inlet creates a normal-shock at the inlet. This causes an instantaneous pressure jump across the shock.
@@zachhoefs9543 Funny coming from a yank, as he said in the video the original supersonic liner Concorde could fly at mach 2 and you guys threw a fit and blocked it going over US soil because the sonic boom made people cry... Although in reality we all know its because you were jealous and didnt want muricans to know they wernt the best.
This is the first time I've heard about problems with ADI data when breaching the sound barrier, interesting. Historically there was another factor at play with our then quite limited design knowledge of supersonic jets. When some early experimental and suboptimal supersonic airframes went severely transsonic, the multitude of pretty severe local shocks induced a fair amount of drag. The a bit underpowered afterburning engines had to be firewalled to push through, then throttled back to maximum continuous power. The phenomenon was confirmed with radar data for product development, it had been sort of seen in supersonic wind tunnel data but that doesn't fully represent the full scale thing.
my hypothesis is the pitot is working fine but the static pressure reading is briefly erroneously high due to a normal shock forming in front of the static port (and then resolves when it moves aft of the static port), resulting in both speed and altitude indications being erroneously low
At around min 13:00 you mention the build-up of shock waves on the wing and fuselage during subsonic flight above the critical Mach number. Conversely to what you said though, the pressure over a shock (whether normal or oblique) is going UP, not down, accompanied by temperature, density and entropy, while Mach number, absolute speed of flow and total pressure are decreasing. The gradients over the shock are very steep, almost discontinously. Shock waves are a compression phenomena. (see i.e. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, part 3, chapter 7.6)
I didn’t know the T38 even could go supersonic, but there’s the proof. This showed the true capability of a standard Starlink terminal and service. It’s truly phenomenal what that network is enabling. Hopefully they can get some real speed up in future flights to test how the shockwaves sound on the ground which is the whole point of the design. Slowly but surely we are seeing a supersonic travel future in a time where international business travel is becoming less of a requirement.
@@davidhowe6905 65 knot/75 mph sustained wind? Maybe the airspeed indicator just isn't accurate below a certain point and it doesn't matter enough for this test platform to worry about it.
Watching this on fullscreen my 2017 iMac 5k that has had a few video card glitches(section of screen blanking out for like a 1/4 second every once in a while) and the glitch at 5:16 gave me a heart attack
Your summary of the flight was very well done Scott. May I call you Scott? I think I will. I watched it live yesterday (watching it from Boom’s inception really) and it was a marvelous production. Saw your video last year with Tristan and that is one brilliant engineer/pilot. I can’t wait to see this tech uploaded to the large passenger product. Since I didn’t notice a huge Mach impact, I know they, and I, would love to see this bird fly across the U.S. Too bad this attempt was stopped in the 1970’s. Small minded people don’t see the future like us geeks and nerds do. Dweebs even. Love your stuff, Scott!
Private company, private funding. No government contract. Etc, etc. This is the first completely private supersonic turbojet aircraft. Scaled SpaceShipOne is the first private supersonic aircraft, and it accelerated to mach 3+ in a pure vertical climb. This in 2002.
Mirage isn't the subject here but manufacturer is Dassault Aviation, maker of successful Rafale. Mirage is actually a range of military aircraft : Mirage F1 this one here is likely the CR variant, a reconnaissance aircraft. Other aircraft types in the series are are Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000 (C,D, N, -5 variants). Dassault also do business jets and a subsidiary Dassault Systemes does the Catia, CAD software that Airbus, Boeing and many car manufacturer use.
Riding in a supersonic aircraft is kinda a silly thing to want, but as person who has flown in a lot of small single engine planes, I want it. I want to go real fast:)
It's going to make noise. Overture is intended to fly ocean routes like Concorde did. Concorde didn't only have a problem with sonic booms - it was also ridiculously expensive to fly.
Yes. Concorde burned 20 T/ h jetA1 during climb / acceleration. It was in dry in cruise at 2.2 M. Level 600 !Autopilot was then in temperature mode. Higher speeds were possible if the outside air was cold.
The Boom Overture passenger aircraft won't even have afterburners. It will supercruise at Mach 1.7 on turbofans. This aircraft is using off-the-shelf engines, not the supercruise turbofans.
After getting out of the navy I went to work for a NASA contractor at Edwards. As a submariner, I didn't expect sonic booms to startle me that much. I swear to god every single sonic boom would make me trip, drop something, spill coffee. I was a nervous wreck constantly lol
Hoping someone can fill in some missing details: why is this interesting? I'm not trying to belittle the achievement! I'm an engineer and love this stuff. But what NEW technology is being tested that could change air travel and makes this an interesting achievement? It's still AB supersonic flight, so fuel costs will be astronomical. Billionaires will be thrilled they can save a few hours getting across the pond, but it's rather hard to get excited about that. What am I missing?
Yeah, it's absolutely going to be a luxury airliner if it ever gets into commercial service, nothing more. 50% reduction in travel time for 10x the ticket price, or something like that. We have seen the potential of supersonic passenger air travel over several decades of Concorde operation. It's not revolutionary in any way.
You're missing what they're doing here. This isn't the super cruise passenger aircraft. The is a custom built technology testbed to prove designs for the final aircraft. The passenger aircraft will supercruise without afterburners. Concorde wasn't a composite aircraft. They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing. They need a testbed to design the flight software and test sensors and control surfaces.
@@stargazer7644 "They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing" Now that, I will be excited to see tested, as it doesn't currently exist! Composite supersonic aircraft have, however, been done before. So as of today we have a test bed and the promise of future tech.
A starlink panel just kinda shoved into the cockpit of a plane going supersonic to run wifi for an iPhone is both a totally logical conclusion of true "internet everywhere" and also completely bonkers to me
I didn't know about Star Wars Canyon until I happened to be taking in the view at Father Crowley Point when a fighter jet came over the hill and flew through the canyon below us. A second one flew through shortly after. Made my day!
Always fair commentary Scottie. Thank you. I did watch it live from beginning to end. Heard the knock-it-off call. Momentarilly worrisome. The whole test and production showed HUGE confidence in their team and the BOOM concept. Rightfully so. I would love to hear what audio data they got on the corrider as it went super. Just how loud was it in DB? They touted quietness. I still say prove it. But I did love how that critter was climbing at 5k FPM+ and not even sneezing.
For anyone wondering. The point of XB-1 and Overture is NOT to reduce the noise of sonic booms (although they will probably incorporate technology from the NASA X-59). The point is for a privately funded operation to build, and for airlines to operate, and for us to fly on economically. Unlike the Concorde and TU-144 were.
The Concorde was profitable for both operators that ran it. The real reason it failed is because US manufacturers lobbied the government to ban it from flying over the USA, which would've been it's largest market
What gets me all tingly is looking at the air intakes for the engines. A guarantee that those were highly modeled by computers to just the right airflow and shock wave formations inside the engines. Feeding a jet engine in transonic flight is tricky. There are some very good articles about the SR-71 engines. So much went into getting that intake air slowed down enough so that combustion could actually take place. Because those were just gas turbine engines, not ramjets or scramjets. But even so, they managed to get the blackbird up to record holding speeds for a long time.
One summer in the early/mid 60s we used to hear sonic booms from our home outside NYC (Westchester County.)We thought they sounded cool: less loud by far than a thunder storm. We were told this was testing for upcoming SST passenger planes or maybe the military trying out new toys. Which was fine because we kids believed the military was always helping avoid WWIII, which was a genuine fear we grew up with. You could tell a sonic boom: two booms close together:ba-boom!
@@goldgamercommenting2990 I am not dunking on Boom, merely highlighting how... sensitive... the US TSA can be and how easily a joke about their name could be taken out of context.
The banning of supersonic flight in the US had nothing to do with Concorde. The cancellation of the domestic SST program in 1971 and the later banning of supersonic flight over US territory in 1973 was due to US public concerns over noise issues and high altitude ozone depletion. This was proven out years before by B-59 and XB-70 programs. The rules are still in effect 50 years later and also apply to US military aircraft. The US did grant Concorde service routes to DC, NYC, and Dallas. Multiple countries preemptively banned supersonic overflight specifically regarding Concorde: Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, West Germany, Malasia.
that's what they tell us.. but I don't believe that. It's very convenient that US plane companies didn't have to compete with European supersonic aircraft.
@@acasualviewer5861 They didn't have to, Concorde was a complete financial disaster. Scott seems to have missed that. But he never misses a chance to bash America, unsubscribed.
hahahah no it was because they were jealous , simple as, if the US had managed to make a supersonic airliner they would be flying them everywhere without giving a sh*t about noise or the environment. You just watch, now they finally made one of their own that ban will be lifted.
@@jockhorror103 it was a financial disaster because its main market was supposed to be the US to Europe routes and the US blocked them, Concorde was literally designed for that very purpose ,if the US had managed to win the supersonic race their planes would be flying all over the world right now. Just admit it, the American ego couldnt handle finding out they wernt the best so they just banned it and pretended it didnt exist. Its the American way, either win or make sure everyone else fails.
It's more like Northrop developed both the T-38 and the F-5 from the same prototype. Park them side by side and you'll see there are quite a few differences between the trainer and the fighter.
Yes, some private defense contractors, like Draken International or Paramount Group use Mirage F1 and other legacy fighter jets to provide adversary training to air forces.
6:32 Watching the ground crewman installing the hatch cover with what *_looks_* like a Harbor Freight #2 Philips head screwdriver and checking tightness by smacking it to listen for rattles is slightly disconcerting.
All chasing supersonic gets you is a *slightly* faster panorama out the window and *much less* legroom. It’ll probably be a hit with the megalomaniacs who super-commute with private jets on the daily, though.
...and the workers in Filton and Toulouse back then were trained to use torque wrenches to tighten fixings, in a generally similar way to those in Seattle nowadays.
@stargazer7644 The Olympus was a low bypass turbofan. The noise (whether in reheat or not) was glorious and reminded us of the importance of looking up.
Can't help but hear the music to The 6 Million Dollar man when watching. Just super glad it ended up way different then that show did. LOL Congratulations all involved! Well done. 😎
What am I missing here. Boom has after many years accomplished what Yeager and the US military did 7 decades ago. Concord only used fuel guzzling and noisy afterburners for takeoff whereas boom needs them to to maintain Mach 1.1. I don’t see anything here that even remotely resembles the concord replacement that they are promoting. At this rate of progress the SST airliner is very far away.
I always suspected that the US government wasn’t happy with Concordes leap and blocked it from succeeding domestically. Imagine being able to travel from NY to LA in just 2-3 hrs in the 70s!
Yep , my thoughts exactly, They complained about the dangers of the sonic boom, funny how the yanks dont mind that supersonic boom over their territory now its their planes that are doing it... Basically they were and still are jealous.
Yeah, that's just a myth that was created to help justify why the Concorde failed. France also banned supersonic flight around the same time, so much for a conspiracy if the country that built the Concorde did the same thing.
@@TheOwenMajorwhen the US denied access with supersonic overflight, foreign orders for the Concorde were cancelled as the business model was destroyed. Very much a reality and the intended purpose of the ban. Boeing didn't have a supersonic competitor to the Concord.
The F5 Tiger and F20 Tigershark is a combat up-engined version of the T-38 Talon; its essentially the same airframe. The fighter versions were used in Dissimilar Air Combat training to serve as analogs to Soviet aircraft.
Compared to Concord, it won't need a droop nose, has better composites, but other than that, i don't really see how this is new or revolutionary. Am I missing something?
The fuel efficiency. And given the size of the tanks, this will allow trans-pacific routes. Silicon-valley to Taiwan at supersonic speeds could be a big deal.
The economy is what is driving that. The planes that are parked are not economical to fly anymore. The planes that they can't get enough of are the ones that fly so much cheaper that they cause that result. Not many people commute to work in 1970s land yachts anymore either.
Apparently, the "Knock it off" call was due to a F16 practicing spin recovery that presented a possible conflict..
It still is Edwards AFB. While they will have been highly prepared for this test, they don't just stop military operations because a commercial test is happening in the same airspace.
This really makes you appreciate the engineering that went into Concord 60 years ago.
@@philippayne6655 Concorde
money
@evanfinch4987 and years and years of experience building aircraft and engines.
@@evanfinch4987Yes, that's how it works, dum dum, you use the money to make stuff
Concorde borrowed heavily from fighter and supersonic bomber design. It was more elegant, primarily due to the ogive wing. It also had a remarkable range. Few people point this out, but it used afterburner for takeoff, climb and acceleration. But it super-cruised above mach 2. It could not have flown 3,000nm unrefueled if it didn't.
When Scott said the first chase plane was a mirage, for a split second my dumb brain was like "nooo, that looks so real"
Hahaha
LOL :D
I guess that’s a type of plane?
in my case I was confused because I was thinking of the Mirage 3, not F1. so I was very confused for a second.
@@circuit10 Yeah, it's a family of military aircraft made by the Franch company Dassault. This one specifically looks like a Mirage F1, which is fighter from the 60s-70s.
Fun fact. If you look up the tail number of that T-38 (N638TC), you will see that it has a historic movie career, including Hot Shots and Airwolf
reminded me of how much hot shots sucks
Most iconic of all..... Top Gun (aka the MIG 28)
@@evanfinch4987
yet Hot shots is still more realistic than Top Gun
Pretty sure that’s a Mirage F1
@@littleapemanthe 3rd jet. Did you watch the video?
Boom has a great article about their Starlink setup - including how they tested it in an old Miata by doing 100mph down a runway.
But no engine
WOW! A private company did what was done 60 years ago, for a pump and dump scam. I'm so impressed!
@@kennethc2466 Boom? What was done 60 years ago. Starlink? Make sense with some context.
Once again Miata Is Always The Answer.
@@DavidPawson-d7h Ask the T-38 pilot what that plane does that his doesn't. Then look up when the T-38 first flew.
Can totally relate - I've been Mach 2 and don't remember feel a thing crossing the sound barrier. The take off thrust - now I totally remember THAT feeling! Concorde rules!
well yeah because the sound is constantly behind you but you should know that right?
@@poindextertunes I was 7 years old, Didn't quite learn that yet
@@poindextertunes He said Felt not heard ;)
Yes the take off acceleration was amazing on my Concorde flight Heathrow to JFK in 2003. I also felt the reduction in acceleration a few minutes after takeoff when reheat was turned off (afterburners in US speak).
I'd be very curious to hear about what sort of sonic boom it created. After all, the whole point is to reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas.
Agreed, I think they may find themselves regretting calling the company boom later on too for this reason.
That's like the most important part of their project, and if this is not a scale model of the big plane I don't know if this plane is even relevant at all
Boom is not trying to do that. NASA's X-59 is unrelated to this.
"[...]reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas[...]" is that possible? The plane will make a continuous shock wave and I don't understand how you can get around that?
@ You NEED to do that or this project isn't going anywhere
Livestreaming an Iphone video through a Starlink array to observe a experimental test flight. A little jank but it I dig it.
Total cost of the video documentation is hilariously small. (After you've paid for the Mirage and T-38, of course...)
you should change your sn to arrayman bc you know it makes you smart
Love that they have the choice to inexpensively do that rather than say it would be too expensive and not show us anything at all! I think everyone has learned from SpaceX that we like to watch, damnit!
This iPhone story doesn't makes sense. If you look carfefully, you can see interlace -> progessive scan lines. iPhones don't record in interlace.
@@andybreuhan We don't know what hardware the video passed through before it showed up on YT.
Kansas has instituted the Kansas Supersonic Transportation Corridor spanning the entire length of the state for testing supersonic aircraft over 39000 feet.
Theres not much in central kansas so I doubt they mind 😂
@@poindextertunes Cows. That's about it. Oh, and one tree.
Imma sue! That sonik bumes are kurdling my kows milk!
And just east of the Springs, so good place for it.
(And west of Missouri.)
Look for SpaceX to apply to use it when they get E2E going in about 10 years or so.
@@nutburger123 High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn’t care because it can’t hear.
That was a sweet touchdown. Not only on centerline, but also just before the 1000' lines. That can't be easy in that plane. Butter!
The Test Pilot was a Naval Aviator with 200 Carrier Landings.
@@primrosereceptionist611 That explains a lot. Thanks!
@@primrosereceptionist611 I guess we know the landing gear can't break now.
@@icaleinns6233 with two planes guiding you in via a headset it’s easy. Learning to fly instrument landings uses a face shield that blocks your vision or VFR, visual flight rules.
@@DavidPawson-d7h True. But that last portion of an IFR flight is usually flown with a lot of VFR input (if possible) in order to set down precisely where the pilot wants. Like mentioned, that plane has video systems for VFR input for this phase. Learning how to use that precisely must have taken a minute or two.
A team of 50 technicians and engineers in various disciplines have acheived it. They have validated their airframe design in the supersonic phase. So they must have captured a lot of valueable data. They can validate their simulation and windtunnel models now with authority. The control and avionics approach is also validated. They are talking about developing non afterburner engine that will have enough thrust to take their full scale aircraft to mach 1.7. It seems they are already working wiith Rolls Royce on that. It is really an exciting project. It is a big ambitious project for a scrappy startup. We need more dream projects like this.
Aviation seem to be stuck after the Concorde. That was a massive engineering effort and Concorde failed due to the sheer cost of the project and the aircraft. So I think if these guys can make it happen at a far economically viable track, they have a solid future.
Rolls Royce dropped out a long while ago... now Boom is largely doing the engine design in-house.
I wish them the best, but needing to design a novel engine to go along with your novel airframe doesn't usually work if your not a global super power.
Drag causing high fuel costs will most likely kill any viable supersonic passenger aircraft and why noone tried again after concorde was built.
for those wondering, the two chase planes where a trainer mirage f1 and the t38 was a trainer f-5. both 1960's planes
That long leggedy take off footage immediately had me thinking 'TSR2...'
Very much so!
Take away the top engine and the aircraft resembles a rounded TSR2
Why is Bill Conti's soundtrack for The Right Stuff going through my head?
"There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, 750 miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier. Then, they built a small plane, the X-1, to try and break the sound barrier. And men came to the high desert in California to ride it. They were called test pilots. And no one knew their names."
He should've said "And Bell Aircraft had all the plans, design and data dumped in their lap from the guys in the UK at Miles Aircraft who'd worked out the all moving tail that stopped the demon hurling pilots into the ground during the transonic regime.
Bell were stuck, and the fawning, weak, indebted to the americans by design, British government gave it's own 1,000mph aircraft, the Miles .52, lock, stock & barrel, to the snide, let's claim all the glory for us boys, stupid, blundering to Bell who still only just managed creep past Mach 1.
Did they ever acknowledge the help they'd received?
Well, you know americans... What do you think?
I love that soundtrack!
9:30 it’s so goofy looking while taking off
It actually reminded me of a goose taking flight, with those long dangly legs... Maybe not the image you want for your new ultra-futuristic airplane, but geese are excellent long-distance flyers so it could be worse.
Paul Graham, citing the original Porsche 911, claimed that "slightly funny" can be a sign of excellent design.
("Taste for Makers" 2002)
@@ddkapps Form vs function
Kind of turkey-like...
A couple of years ago I said they would never go supersonic. So great job to Boom.
Yep, I get that. Like most similar ambitious projects I expect it to fail, but hope it succeeds. Glad they’ve made it this far.
Xb-1 has given them enough aerodynamic data to confidently move with the overture design. This is definitely not gonna fail, the worst that could happen would be a delay. They already have a super factory too. Most other sst startups ended up like aerion
@ A factory without the tooling is just a building. So they need to build a much larger aircraft now that’s suitable for a production and a much longer lifespan. Then they also need to make the engines, which is probably about as hard as making the aircraft itself.
@@danh6720 And then they need to make it efficient enough to be commercially viable. That is the hurdle no one has thought was clearable.
They lost major OEM support for the engine design though. This testbed is a great accomplishment but designing a supersonic jet engine in-house from scratch is going to be a huge challenge.
idk exactly why but the picture of the starlink module propped up to the canopy of the T38 made me laugh😂i love how thats the solution they came up with, no over engineering in sight
"no over engineering in sight"- a word used by no mechanical/electrical engineer. Meanwhile, reliance on third party JUNK is, by definition, a lack of engineering... and avionics.
Back in the day, I was told to follow the KISS system when designing something. Keep It Simple Stupid! And it always serves me well. Zoom ahead to the present, and I now have a grandson studying engineering. He is building a small car from scratch with other students, with some of the professors overseeing their projects. He has been praised for keeping design of parts simple for easy manufacturing. I asked him if he had been taught the KISS system, and he asked what that was. He was tickled about that, and said he was taking that back to school with him.
Hope Grandpa doesn't get into trouble!
Yeah, if you look close, you can see the duct tape.
@@ronfullerton3162 That 'philosophy' says carburetors are more reliable than EFI engines... which would be a lie.
@@kennethc2466 Are you sure it's a lie? Yes they're better for a while, but there are 80+ years old carburetors still working... What's best is seldom absolute.
On one memorable Sunday afternoon with two of my best flying buddies while on a returning home flight from 4 days of discovery in Baja , we were about to turn left and go around Edwards when we decided to give them a call and see if they were "hot" (busy). The reply, proceed on present heading. Wow, a privileged to remember, the three amigos right over a very special piece of airspace. Then soon looking up from our 12,505 ASL, 12,707 AGL elev. Mt. Whitney.
And people wonder why I talk about my life growing up in Mojave.
I don't know about you. But I don't know anywhere else in the world where a civilian can grow up around advancement in technology like this.
Yes, I'm proud of where I grew up and yes, I'm glad I had the life I did. I wouldn't trade my life for no ones..
I’m jealous!
USA#1 says unbiased american who hasn't been to any other countries test site, especially not chinas.
@@LolTollhurst Why would he need to see china’s test facilities? All he would need to do is see what the US military was testing 20 years back to get an idea of the tech china has stolen and is still trying to reverse engineer into usable planes that function in the same way as the US hardware does 😅😅
@@jazzmusiccontinues1134haha massive coping after release of deepseek? I love the arrogance of Americans. You’re just following the track of fallen empires. You stay arrogant to the collapse
J-85 engines. The tiny jet engine that simply refuses to stop doing cool things.
The T-38 chase plane itself has two of them.
Back in the early ’50’s NACA demonstrated that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing leading to the use of short-span, thin trapezoidal wings as used by Concorde (the slender delta).
The Baby Boom is following the path adopted by RAE in SST design and its HP-115 test bed aircraft.
How cute, they called it Baby Boom!
Its name is in honor of a generation that is now between 70 and 80 years old ☄
@@josecardenas4944 I didn't even look at it that way yet. Now I see! 🤯
@@KougaJ7 millennial...
@@josecardenas4944 - Between 60 and 80, actually.
Nice play on words indeed. But of course it is 'simply' the smaller version of the planned passenger jet.
I have always thought that the T-38 is a particularly beautiful plane. The lines of the fuselage are so graceful.
The nose isn’t round. It's got a big dent in it. It's got more upsetting linework than a MiG-27
It's a cool little airplane. Amazing how long we have had them too! In service since 1961!
@2:23 back in the day, you had to wait for a Nova special on PBS to see this kind of footage. Lol
The Mirage is an F.1B or D. The T-38 may only have been a trainer in US service, but it's essentially the same aircraft as the F-5 series which absolutely _were_ fighters. An F-5B is basically a T-38 with weapon pylons (yes, there are other differences).
Much as I'd love to be wrong, I don't see a commercial future for this. Mass air travel is still, and always has been, dependent on seat-mile costs, not speed. For the vast majority of passengers, it's the fact that they can afford to fly at all that matters, not whether they're flying at 500kts or 700kts. As long as it's faster than a train or a ship, then their needs are met. Indeed, the thrust of likely future developments seems more in the direction of "slower and greener" than faster. Only a minority of passengers (first class and _some_ business class) have both the desire to fly as fast as possible AND the money to pay for it. if you take them out of the "cattle-truck" airliners and put them in a separate fleet of supersonic airliners with much greater overheads, then they won't be subsidising the cattle-trucks any more, which means the latter's ticket prices will go up and their passenger volumes will go down.
At best, I see Boom getting a supersonic business jet out of this, which will be a limited production toy/status symbol for the ultra rich. At worst, I see them going bust in a few years' time, like literally hundreds of little aerospace companies, run by people who think they've got a clever idea, have done over the history of aviation.
maybe taylor swift could get one to save some time on those 15 minute flights she loves to take
The Concorde cabin was so narrow it could only handle 2+2 seats, but it still sold hundreds of seats. On could imagine flights from the Gulf to Asia flying over the Indian Ocean could be profitable with seating of 100-120 passengers (or 70 with fancy seating). Considering the Concorde running costs, no I don't think any subsidising occurred.
Part of the cost argument was that a supersonic plane can make two trip to every one of a conventional jet, reducing the cost of hardware by 1/2. Whether that's enough to make up for higher fuel costs is another question, but it apparently works for SpaceX boosters.
I imagine that four hours in cattle-class seating beats eight hours in first class for most high-end passengers. And it's probably cattle-class with no middle seats. So ticket prices of 10x should be conservative.
@ Concorde tickets were only affordable, and Concorde "profitable", because the UK and French governments wrote off the development costs and gave the aircraft to their flag carriers essentially for free. Basically, those tickets were subsidised by UK and French taxpayers.
@ Yes, but if you extract those high-end passengers from the cattle-trucks and put them on their own plane, what does that do to ticket prices on the cattle-trucks? Most economy class passengers are holiday-makers whose choice is flying/not-flying depending on how much money they can spare, not slow/fast depnding on how much time they can spare. They have zero brand-loyalty: put ticket prices up at one airline and they go elsewhere. Put them up across the board and they stay home in droves.
That is a great looking plane! This video reminds me of the old American X-Planes. Bright blue sky, white clouds, lots of sand below and mountains in the distance. There really is something magical about it.
I'm super interested in you perhaps doing a video about the development challenges they'll face for designing the engines, that to me really feels like the make it or break it challenge in this
The engines seemed to work fine.
The engines for this at least are J-85's, off the shelf engines designed over 60 years ago. For any full-scale, that is probably going to take more modern and more powerful fan engines similar to fighter jets... F-404, F-110, etc.
@@kurtbjorn3841 They will also have to be a lot more efficient if they hope to be economically viable.
The engines are the only major thing left for boom supersonic before they develop the full scale plane
When I was quite young my grandparents had a home in the Mojave desert and I grew up thinking it was normal to have sonic booms rattling your windows. It was always exciting when the space shuttle was coming back as we could always hear the booms as it transitioned making its approach to Edward's AFB. I was at their house watching Challenger launch the mission it exploded. One of my cousins is involved with NASA's passenger supersonic project that this is part of.
I recall hearing them as a child in the early 60's by planes flying just off the Virginia coast.
Congrats the whole team. Really exciting!
Indeed I’m very exited for the future of air travel! Let’s go Boom supersonic!!!
@lucasread1743 We had Concorde 40 years ago that did exactly the same thing but the yanks were jealous they couldnt work it out and blocked it from travelling over the US, a nail in the coffin for a project that was designed to make travel between the US and Europe quicker. If you want to go supersonic go back in time to the UK or France and see the future we could have had if it wasnt for the US throwing a strop like a toddler.
I love how smoothly the nose blends into the canopy. With the sun glaring off it during landing rollout, you can hardly tell the canopy is even there.
My understanding about the ban on supersonic overland flight had nothing to do with protecting US Aerospace business interests. Boeing had a conceptual competitor to the Concorde as well as a larger concept and would absolutely have built them if it could make the business case.
My understanding of the supersonic overland ban was as a result of FAA Sonic boom testing over Oklahoma City in the 60's with Operation Bongo II, where the general public said the booms were a nuisance and did not want that to be a common occurrence in daily life.
It was 100% protectionism.
If Boeing had a working SST you can guarantee that supersonic overland flight would have been allowed.
@@dougaltolan3017 Are you sure that's not blind cynicism?
@@Forest_Fifer Well, europe had the concorde and it was banned from doing supersonic overland flights over here too..
if you have ever heard a sonic boom, you will understand why it was banned (for good reason).
It is fun to hear a fighter jet fly over you with the sonic boom but hearing it multiple times a day is annoying as hell.
Having just retired from publishing the FAA/EASA/CAAC certification reports for a large engine company (the largest!), I can tell you that relying on getting new, efficient supersonic engines from a company who has no history on larger power plants kinda scares me.
The last large engine we certified, even though it was heavily derived from a legacy engine, cost more than two billion dollars from design to production. _Billion with a 'B'._
Oh, and emissions are a thing now, beyond the noise.
Don't worry. The US aviation industry has a recent history of quality workmanship and unparalleled levels of quality control. What could possibly go wrong?
The full scale production airliner will never fly and this entire project is just a well orchestrated investment scam that pays the salaries and bonuses of their management and employees for a while before reality sinks in and the money dries up. So far the marketing is going very well.
The engines have always been my focus, the intakes to be more specific. Not only are they trying to design new engines from the ground up, but for the intake design to recover enough pressure for this bird to cruise supersonic, they are going to need something with the efficiency of the SR-71 or Concorde intake systems. Most people don't realize that more than half of the total propulsion force comes from the intake systems, with the Concorde squeezing out an amazing 63% from hers.(Actually 75% of total thrust minus 12% due to the negative thrust or drag of the intake ramp) The engines are basically just above idle when it's screaming along at max cruise speed, feeding on supersonic shock waves. This will never happen at Boom assuming they don't get better engine system partners and add about 10 years to their target date.
@@shmaknapublarintake and compressor are cold. Though it is magic to me how the modern engines in F-35 or F-22 compress so high in such a low number of stages and no stall.
But the hot turbine ?
Why does every small country in the world now build cheap composite supersonic fighters without a problem at the intake ? What engines do they use. China is still hampered by inferior engines.
I am looking forward to a supersonic fan. After all, even today the tips already go supersonic.
@@shmaknapublar I think their plan is to be slower than the Concorde so there isn’t any variable geometry to the inlets. So the shock cones in the renderings will be placed so they are most effective at the cruise speed and just “acceptable” everywhere else. But the rest of the engine is still going to be as big of a project as the airframe.
This is called a CAN-DO atitude. USA is full of it but forgets sometimes. Scared? Zero reason. These are great engineers and humans doing what Boeing forgot to do. Good people stepping up to the plate to do great work.
The intake for the middle engine looks like the outline of a 747 hitching a ride.
I live less than 50 miles south of where this plane was flying supersonic and didn't notice any noise. I forgot about this until I saw the live feed on X right before it went supersonic.
Would be interesting if they eventually did overflights of Victorville to see if they get noise complaints. More testing is needed. But I don't mind eventually being a guinea pig for overflights.
They also had 2 other aircraft going supersonic next to it so that would cover any noise it made. I am curious what it sounds like too though, would be interesting for a future flight to keep the chase planes subsonic and record the audio from the ground
I live near a military base where they sometimes also fly supersonic. The boom is quite impressive.
Is it a supersonic civilian plane if the snoot does not droop.
Concorde's nose did not droop in flight, it is hinged and is pointed downward for landings and take-offs so the pilots could see the runway.
Droopy snoot seems to describe me today😂
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334Yup, but only because cctv cameras were a 2' cube at the time 😅
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yes I know, but it still had a droopable snoot. the baby boom has a camera instead.
As the commentary on the live stream implied, had today’s small camera tech and video quality been available at the time of Concorde, it would likely have been considered or used in place of the droop snoot.
Scott surprised me during yesterday's LEGO build stream when I thought Boom had not yet gone supersonic and he informed us about this event and corresponding stream. Thanks for keeping us in the loop and the Baby Boom LEGO model looks 👌Edit: I would like to know why showed me the Boom stream from a week ago with the plane at .95 MACH and not the more recent one 🤔
Finally one project that actually works
@@desa1865 I thought the " project" was overture and that hasn't been built yet ?
This plane is just the first big step inside the project that's overture
They dont even have engines for their actual plane (every big maker turned them down, so they are trying to make their own). This product is never getting built, let alone ever get working.
@@spacedriver24 This to overture is sn15 to starship
@@techietisdeadBut starship actually exists!!!!!!!
I grew up in the San Fernando valley and I can remember fairly frequent sonic booms particularly from when I was in fifth grade.
Same here in rural Kentucky. Mom hated the booms. We kids thought they were cool.
Can't wait to see its big sister fly
learn to wait
I doubt it will ever happen
I only just realised this is not the NASA X-59 plane.
Christ is it 20 years since Concorde was taken out of service? Feeling old!
you feeling old I waited years for Concorde to make its first flight. I was however fortunate to be able to watch it doing takeoffs and landings in Johannesburg while it was doing hot and high testing and even had the good fortune to meet the chief test pilot Brian Trubshaw.
I hope they optimized the sonic boom to sound like a very loud verbal callout of the company name.
I seem to remember that the X1 seemed to "pause" at .97 or .98 or something before jumping supersonic, too.
Just the nature of pitot tubes!
yeah they talked about that. something about how the airspeed measuring tube freaks out in transonic flow
It's not pausing, it's the sensor.
@@eamonnator Because the shockwave is starting to form around the craft and creating lower and higher pressures at specific points?
A pitot tube is a tube. Nothing fancy.
Supersonic flow into a pitot inlet creates a normal-shock at the inlet. This causes an instantaneous pressure jump across the shock.
Love using a Mirage F1 for camera service 😁
I didn't recognise it at first. Then I remembered that Dassault did one type of Mirage that didn't feature a delta wing.
I believe you will find most of the Starlink/iPhone film was from the T-38 as the Mirage was always in frame on the port side of The Boom.
4:00 I'm totally ok with an aircraft not flying supersonic over my house.
Do you also call to report thunder?
@@zachhoefs9543 yes bcuz those two things are the same 🤦♂️
@@zachhoefs9543sonic boom was way, way more thump than a lightning strike (even a very close one)
@@zachhoefs9543 Funny coming from a yank, as he said in the video the original supersonic liner Concorde could fly at mach 2 and you guys threw a fit and blocked it going over US soil because the sonic boom made people cry... Although in reality we all know its because you were jealous and didnt want muricans to know they wernt the best.
@@toekneekerching9543 List the countries that allowed Concorde to fly supersonic overland, alphabetically please.
This is the first time I've heard about problems with ADI data when breaching the sound barrier, interesting. Historically there was another factor at play with our then quite limited design knowledge of supersonic jets. When some early experimental and suboptimal supersonic airframes went severely transsonic, the multitude of pretty severe local shocks induced a fair amount of drag. The a bit underpowered afterburning engines had to be firewalled to push through, then throttled back to maximum continuous power. The phenomenon was confirmed with radar data for product development, it had been sort of seen in supersonic wind tunnel data but that doesn't fully represent the full scale thing.
This is generally why the air data sampling system is put out on a boom well in front of the nose - to keep it out of air disturbed by shockwaves.
my hypothesis is the pitot is working fine but the static pressure reading is briefly erroneously high due to a normal shock forming in front of the static port (and then resolves when it moves aft of the static port), resulting in both speed and altitude indications being erroneously low
At around min 13:00 you mention the build-up of shock waves on the wing and fuselage during subsonic flight above the critical Mach number. Conversely to what you said though, the pressure over a shock (whether normal or oblique) is going UP, not down, accompanied by temperature, density and entropy, while Mach number, absolute speed of flow and total pressure are decreasing. The gradients over the shock are very steep, almost discontinously. Shock waves are a compression phenomena. (see i.e. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, part 3, chapter 7.6)
I didn’t know the T38 even could go supersonic, but there’s the proof. This showed the true capability of a standard Starlink terminal and service. It’s truly phenomenal what that network is enabling.
Hopefully they can get some real speed up in future flights to test how the shockwaves sound on the ground which is the whole point of the design.
Slowly but surely we are seeing a supersonic travel future in a time where international business travel is becoming less of a requirement.
Like how it's so fast it did 0.1 mach sitting on the ground.
I thought the same, maybe there was a strong headwind?
mach 0.1's only about 120km/h, just a bit above highway speeds
@@davidhowe6905 65 knot/75 mph sustained wind? Maybe the airspeed indicator just isn't accurate below a certain point and it doesn't matter enough for this test platform to worry about it.
@@krtwood That sounds much more plausible! also, the sound speed would be even larger on the ground, where the air is warmer.
the airspeed indicator doesn't work below a certain speed (they ought to blank it in the feed to avoid people wondering about it)
I love the Mirage design. Beautiful jet.
Watching this on fullscreen my 2017 iMac 5k that has had a few video card glitches(section of screen blanking out for like a 1/4 second every once in a while) and the glitch at 5:16 gave me a heart attack
during flight testing, you have to go at +10% of max speed and push the envelope, so a G650 will have gone to M 1.025 (ish)
Not in level flight though. Boom had a lot of caveats lol
@@speedstyle. quite true
I guess the landing by video screen is an alternate solution to the same problem that had the Concorde designed with a rotating cockpit?
Your summary of the flight was very well done Scott. May I call you Scott? I think I will.
I watched it live yesterday (watching it from Boom’s inception really) and it was a marvelous production.
Saw your video last year with Tristan and that is one brilliant engineer/pilot.
I can’t wait to see this tech uploaded to the large passenger product. Since I didn’t notice a huge Mach impact, I know they, and I, would love to see this bird fly across the U.S.
Too bad this attempt was stopped in the 1970’s. Small minded people don’t see the future like us geeks and nerds do. Dweebs even.
Love your stuff, Scott!
Was the Concorde not a civilian aircraft?
The development was state sponsored. Boom have a lot of qualifiers on their claims.
yes. this is the first american one
at least it would be if it were real
Private company, private funding. No government contract. Etc, etc.
This is the first completely private supersonic turbojet aircraft.
Scaled SpaceShipOne is the first private supersonic aircraft, and it accelerated to mach 3+ in a pure vertical climb. This in 2002.
The BD-10 was a civilian aircraft as well.
@@physicswithpark3r-x3xok grandpa, nap time
Dude this was awesome 👍😎 I watched it live.
Mirage isn't the subject here but manufacturer is Dassault Aviation, maker of successful Rafale. Mirage is actually a range of military aircraft : Mirage F1 this one here is likely the CR variant, a reconnaissance aircraft. Other aircraft types in the series are are Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000 (C,D, N, -5 variants). Dassault also do business jets and a subsidiary Dassault Systemes does the Catia, CAD software that Airbus, Boeing and many car manufacturer use.
that F1 is probably one of the ex South African Airforce machines now flying in the USA
It's a two-seater, so it's either an F.1B or an F.1D.
Saw it live, but you explained it much better, thanks!
Riding in a supersonic aircraft is kinda a silly thing to want, but as person who has flown in a lot of small single engine planes, I want it. I want to go real fast:)
Thank you Scott for emphasizing this beautiful plane.
What about the noise? That was the main problem with Concorde, not the USA companies pulling a European on the French.
It's going to make noise. Overture is intended to fly ocean routes like Concorde did. Concorde didn't only have a problem with sonic booms - it was also ridiculously expensive to fly.
Damn thing was loud enough without going supersonic, you didn’t need to look up to know when it was overhead!
Thanks Scott!
F1 still graceful as anything
Seeimg these Aircraft rolling out looks so cool. Damn, planes are cool.
It had to be of afterburner full time, Concorde could do Mach 2.0 in without needing the burners on full time.
The full scale airliner is being designed for supercruise too. XB-1 was not, since it's using off-the-shelf engines.
Yes. Concorde burned 20 T/ h jetA1 during climb / acceleration. It was in dry in cruise at 2.2 M. Level 600 !Autopilot was then in temperature mode. Higher speeds were possible if the outside air was cold.
The Boom Overture passenger aircraft won't even have afterburners. It will supercruise at Mach 1.7 on turbofans. This aircraft is using off-the-shelf engines, not the supercruise turbofans.
@@stargazer7644 Oh, really? Which engines can do this for Overture?
@@zacklewis342 That's the goal of the Symphony engines for Overture.
After getting out of the navy I went to work for a NASA contractor at Edwards. As a submariner, I didn't expect sonic booms to startle me that much. I swear to god every single sonic boom would make me trip, drop something, spill coffee. I was a nervous wreck constantly lol
Hoping someone can fill in some missing details: why is this interesting? I'm not trying to belittle the achievement! I'm an engineer and love this stuff. But what NEW technology is being tested that could change air travel and makes this an interesting achievement? It's still AB supersonic flight, so fuel costs will be astronomical. Billionaires will be thrilled they can save a few hours getting across the pond, but it's rather hard to get excited about that. What am I missing?
it is interesting because someone is sinking big $$$$ into it with little chance of return 😂😂
@@olasek7972 Touché 😂
Yeah, it's absolutely going to be a luxury airliner if it ever gets into commercial service, nothing more. 50% reduction in travel time for 10x the ticket price, or something like that. We have seen the potential of supersonic passenger air travel over several decades of Concorde operation. It's not revolutionary in any way.
You're missing what they're doing here. This isn't the super cruise passenger aircraft. The is a custom built technology testbed to prove designs for the final aircraft. The passenger aircraft will supercruise without afterburners. Concorde wasn't a composite aircraft. They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing. They need a testbed to design the flight software and test sensors and control surfaces.
@@stargazer7644 "They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing" Now that, I will be excited to see tested, as it doesn't currently exist! Composite supersonic aircraft have, however, been done before. So as of today we have a test bed and the promise of future tech.
A starlink panel just kinda shoved into the cockpit of a plane going supersonic to run wifi for an iPhone is both a totally logical conclusion of true "internet everywhere" and also completely bonkers to me
I didn't know about Star Wars Canyon until I happened to be taking in the view at Father Crowley Point when a fighter jet came over the hill and flew through the canyon below us. A second one flew through shortly after. Made my day!
Were they bullseyeing wamp-rats?
Always fair commentary Scottie. Thank you. I did watch it live from beginning to end. Heard the knock-it-off call. Momentarilly worrisome. The whole test and production showed HUGE confidence in their team and the BOOM concept. Rightfully so. I would love to hear what audio data they got on the corrider as it went super. Just how loud was it in DB? They touted quietness. I still say prove it. But I did love how that critter was climbing at 5k FPM+ and not even sneezing.
For anyone wondering. The point of XB-1 and Overture is NOT to reduce the noise of sonic booms (although they will probably incorporate technology from the NASA X-59).
The point is for a privately funded operation to build, and for airlines to operate, and for us to fly on economically. Unlike the Concorde and TU-144 were.
Billionaire's publicly funded private jet.
how? will it do supercruise or not?
The Concorde was profitable for both operators that ran it. The real reason it failed is because US manufacturers lobbied the government to ban it from flying over the USA, which would've been it's largest market
@@bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb_ The Concorde was "profitable" for the airlines only because they bought the planes at a substantial discount.
Concorde was expensive and uncomfortable.
If it's cheaper to have a private bunk and sleep through the time subsonic takes, why not do that?
What gets me all tingly is looking at the air intakes for the engines. A guarantee that those were highly modeled by computers to just the right airflow and shock wave formations inside the engines. Feeding a jet engine in transonic flight is tricky. There are some very good articles about the SR-71 engines. So much went into getting that intake air slowed down enough so that combustion could actually take place. Because those were just gas turbine engines, not ramjets or scramjets.
But even so, they managed to get the blackbird up to record holding speeds for a long time.
Is that a Mirage F1???
Yes
One summer in the early/mid 60s we used to hear sonic booms from our home outside NYC (Westchester County.)We thought they sounded cool: less loud by far than a thunder storm. We were told this was testing for upcoming SST passenger planes or maybe the military trying out new toys. Which was fine because we kids believed the military was always helping avoid WWIII, which was a genuine fear we grew up with.
You could tell a sonic boom: two booms close together:ba-boom!
5:52 The pilot name wrote in the cokpit is "Geppetto" like the father of pinocchio. And looking the nose, i under stand why.
Lol, they seem to spout way less BS compared to other companies...
What a beautiful-looking aircraft. So sleek.
Lol.... i don't care how fast it is, i'm NEVER flying in a plane with "BOOM" written all over it, lol
Imagine the bad jokes and TSA conversations that would follow...
@@Xaqaria
Sonic “BOOM”
That boom not explosions but what I can tell now
They are far better than airbus
They shouldve gone with "bang"
Why not? In Dutch, "boom" is just a tree.
@@goldgamercommenting2990 I am not dunking on Boom, merely highlighting how... sensitive... the US TSA can be and how easily a joke about their name could be taken out of context.
The banning of supersonic flight in the US had nothing to do with Concorde. The cancellation of the domestic SST program in 1971 and the later banning of supersonic flight over US territory in 1973 was due to US public concerns over noise issues and high altitude ozone depletion. This was proven out years before by B-59 and XB-70 programs. The rules are still in effect 50 years later and also apply to US military aircraft. The US did grant Concorde service routes to DC, NYC, and Dallas. Multiple countries preemptively banned supersonic overflight specifically regarding Concorde: Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, West Germany, Malasia.
that's what they tell us.. but I don't believe that. It's very convenient that US plane companies didn't have to compete with European supersonic aircraft.
@@acasualviewer5861 They didn't have to, Concorde was a complete financial disaster. Scott seems to have missed that. But he never misses a chance to bash America, unsubscribed.
hahahah no it was because they were jealous , simple as, if the US had managed to make a supersonic airliner they would be flying them everywhere without giving a sh*t about noise or the environment. You just watch, now they finally made one of their own that ban will be lifted.
@@jockhorror103 it was a financial disaster because its main market was supposed to be the US to Europe routes and the US blocked them, Concorde was literally designed for that very purpose ,if the US had managed to win the supersonic race their planes would be flying all over the world right now. Just admit it, the American ego couldnt handle finding out they wernt the best so they just banned it and pretended it didnt exist. Its the American way, either win or make sure everyone else fails.
@@toekneekerching9543 I admit it, Europe can't do a thing without America.
Scott your channel is the best.
The F-5 Freedom Fighter & F-20 Tigershark are the combat variants of the T-38 Talon trainer 🇺🇲🫡
🌌🔭
It's more like Northrop developed both the T-38 and the F-5 from the same prototype. Park them side by side and you'll see there are quite a few differences between the trainer and the fighter.
Growing up in the Mach Zone was cool.
You heard and felt sonic booms a few times a day.
Is it common to see an old demilitarized (one assumes) Mirage in civilian possession? Talk about the coolest toys!
Not too terribly uncommon, there's an old harrier for sale right now you could buy
yes, a bunch of venture capitalists are taken for a ride here
@@maleprincess62Maybe next month. Had to change my tyres last week.
Yes, some private defense contractors, like Draken International or Paramount Group use Mirage F1 and other legacy fighter jets to provide adversary training to air forces.
@@physicswithpark3r-x3x It does play out that way a lot of the time. Paid for many of my paychecks over the years, but no jets sadly. I'm just labor.
great focus on the camera. great job.
6:32 Watching the ground crewman installing the hatch cover with what *_looks_* like a Harbor Freight #2 Philips head screwdriver and checking tightness by smacking it to listen for rattles is slightly disconcerting.
Better than Boeing...
Seems like a publicity shot rather than it being any actual work on the plane
I helped with that pod! Crazy advanved cameras in there, they actually had four imax cameras!!
I really really hope we'll have supersonic passenger service again eventually. I want to go supersonic so bad!!
You might be disappointed. Going supersonic feels no different from travelling subsonic.
All chasing supersonic gets you is a *slightly* faster panorama out the window and *much less* legroom.
It’ll probably be a hit with the megalomaniacs who super-commute with private jets on the daily, though.
Start saving money.
This is a toy for the 0.01% which is very unlikely to ever include you
Pick the right eastbound flight from the states and you can go supersonic in a jumbo (ground speed).
Moments like this remind us just how revolutionary the Concorde was when it was designed six decades ago.
Just like a Concorde!! But at a much much earlier development stage and slower, obviously. Well done! Back to the future!
And concorde did it in 1969 at mach 2
...and the workers in Filton and Toulouse back then were trained to use torque wrenches to tighten fixings, in a generally similar way to those in Seattle nowadays.
@@ah5779 And this will takeoff quietly and economically with turbofan engines WITHOUT afterburners. So NOT just like a Concorde.
@stargazer7644 The Olympus was a low bypass turbofan. The noise (whether in reheat or not) was glorious and reminded us of the importance of looking up.
Can't help but hear the music to The 6 Million Dollar man when watching.
Just super glad it ended up way different then that show did. LOL
Congratulations all involved! Well done. 😎
What am I missing here. Boom has after many years accomplished what Yeager and the US military did 7 decades ago. Concord only used fuel guzzling and noisy afterburners for takeoff whereas boom needs them to to maintain Mach 1.1.
I don’t see anything here that even remotely resembles the concord replacement that they are promoting.
At this rate of progress the SST airliner is very far away.
clearly there are a few things you do not understand
this is a private company
It's an investment scam. The $10-20 Billion they would need to even attempt it won't be forthcoming.
I can't believe I hadn''t subscribed 'til this video... Holy Cow! I've been watching for years!
Had to be rough for the XB-1 crew, getting intercepted by a MiG-28 like that during a test flight.
that is a gorgeous craft.
I always suspected that the US government wasn’t happy with Concordes leap and blocked it from succeeding domestically. Imagine being able to travel from NY to LA in just 2-3 hrs in the 70s!
Yep , my thoughts exactly, They complained about the dangers of the sonic boom, funny how the yanks dont mind that supersonic boom over their territory now its their planes that are doing it... Basically they were and still are jealous.
Yeah, that's just a myth that was created to help justify why the Concorde failed. France also banned supersonic flight around the same time, so much for a conspiracy if the country that built the Concorde did the same thing.
@@TheOwenMajorwhen the US denied access with supersonic overflight, foreign orders for the Concorde were cancelled as the business model was destroyed. Very much a reality and the intended purpose of the ban. Boeing didn't have a supersonic competitor to the Concord.
The US had multiple, superior SST concepts in process that were killed off due to the ban, which by the way, pretty much every country has.
@@TheOwenMajor 1973 US banned supersonic overflights. 1973 QANTAS cancelled order for 6 planes.
The F5 Tiger and F20 Tigershark is a combat up-engined version of the T-38 Talon; its essentially the same airframe. The fighter versions were used in Dissimilar Air Combat training to serve as analogs to Soviet aircraft.
Compared to Concord, it won't need a droop nose, has better composites, but other than that, i don't really see how this is new or revolutionary. Am I missing something?
If it’s quiet enough to operate over land and inexpensive enough to maintain and operate, that’s a big deal.
It's Slower, less passengers, and won't be more quiet than Concorde
@@banzaiib agreed....by the way , it's Concorde.
The fuel efficiency.
And given the size of the tanks, this will allow trans-pacific routes.
Silicon-valley to Taiwan at supersonic speeds could be a big deal.
@@PoRRasturvaT from engines that are on the drawing board and everything being made up and hypothetical....
Definitely didn't need a SpaceX like live stream but cool to see this moving forward
Baby boomer plane lol
Such an elegant looking plane, imo.
Whats interesting are the hordes of airliners in storage at the background. And all this while huge aircraft shortages. Economy is weird sometimes.
by weird you mean manipulated by rich folks for their own benefit
The economy is what is driving that. The planes that are parked are not economical to fly anymore. The planes that they can't get enough of are the ones that fly so much cheaper that they cause that result. Not many people commute to work in 1970s land yachts anymore either.