US 'Quiet' Concorde Successor is Ready For 2024 Supersonic Flight!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 жов 2024
- If there was one thing that could be changed when it comes to flights, most travelers would probably say the seemingly endless hours spent in the sky. So, what if that time could be substantially cut? Boom Supersonic, the US plane manufacturer, plans to have the answer with its new Overture jet, which is set to transport customers at twice the speed of today's fastest commercial aircraft, and is regarded as "the new Concorde". Today, we will talk about the latest developments from Boom and how these advancements are bringing the world closer to the return of supersonic passenger travel.
Its not the time in the air that I hate about flying, its the airports.
Yeah, give me half an hour taxi to gate, and 15 minutes gate to taxi, and I will happily spend the time saved in an airplane seat.
I'm old enough to remember when it was like that
Exactly this.
Oh yeah!
Exactly!
@@someonelse5847 RIght, however, in those days, which I remember well, the seats were comfortable, the flight attendants treated you well, and the passengers used shoes and deodorant.
I’ll believe it when it happens 😂
Don't hold your breathe😊
Me too, but it's fun to watch. I think it has no business case as an airliner, but a bizjet slightly larger than the prototype might attract interest.
Yep, When I saw the title I instantly had a vision of a bull pie.
But still I tried for few seconds.
Seeing that computer animated plane, my nostrils got overwhelmed with the smell of bull.
And when the boring presentation began I skipped to comments.
So, it 2024 plus few months I assume.
how many months? it will be a miracle to be 24.
2024 months maybe is too sarcastic.
100 months may be realistic if China decides to do it. Or India. Or Germany plus two other countries.
Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done at a profit? No f’kin way 🤣
@@spacedriver24 Breath?
So am I the only one who thinks ‘Boom’ is a rather unfortunate name for a company wishing to make supersonic flight normal over land where it wasn’t due to…yep you beat me to it, sonic bloody booms.
On another note what the hell is that voice over about? Either they have dug up a pre war British aviation engineer or this is one of the worst ai generated stereotype voice ever. Who says Concorde in that way? No Brit I have ever heard.
No you’re not & to my mind underpins the delusional nature of this whole project
You mean like the Chevy Nova? No va is Spanish for "It doesn't go". Or the Korean KIA (Killed In Action) automobile.
I'm betting "Thump Supersonic" didn't get past the focus groups.
I would've thought ZOOM was more appropriate
It will only be a Concord successor when it takes more than 140 passengers over the same range that Concord did decades ago. Concord is still unmatched.
CONCORDE
I think the point is that Overture would be allowed to fly supersonic over land and would meet current noise limits (see 4:00 in the video) on takeoff.
@@HarveyCohen the point is , it hasn't flown supersonic overland yet and it hasn't met current noise limits on take off because it's a CGI.
I thought Concorde was configured for 100 seats max?
140 pax? lol what have you been smoking
I flew on Concord and will be happy to fly on Overture
ME TOO! It was amazing... the acceleration kick you received flying from sub to super sonic,the powerful braking after landing ! Let's go Overture!
Funny that the Americans didn’t like the fact that we the the British and French aero industry were the first to build a supersonic passenger aircraft . They spent a lot of time trying to ban it , now , after the demise of Concorde suddenly are in favour of the idea . Jealousy of the fact that we did it first . I think that if the makers of Concorde had been able to continue the development of it , we would still be the ones in the vanguard of this. As with many early developments in engineering they are ahead of their time and are not appreciated . As a I was privileged to work on the development of some of the generator systems and automated fluid control devices in the late fifties and seventies, Inam proud of what we achieved in those early days.
Exactly the comment I came here to look for.
Wasn't this the era when Apollo 8 astronauts read part of Genesis, chapter 1 on Christmas Eve while circling the moon?
The narrator missed a very important issue regarding the Concorde. Altogether, disregarding the fact that on
25 July 2000, Concorde passenger jet on an international charter flight from Paris to New York, crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 109 people on board and four on the ground. It was the only fatal concord accident during its 27 year operational history. While taking off from Charles de Gaulle airport, Concorde flight 4590 ran over debris on the runway dropped by an aircraft during the preceding departure, causing a tire to explode and disintegrate. Tire fragments launched upwards at great speed rapidly spinning wheel, violently struck the underside of the wing, damaging parts of the landing gear - and therefore preventing its retraction and causing the fuel tank to rupture. Fuel leaking from the rupture ignited, causing a loss of thrust in the left -hand-side engines 1 and 2. The aircraft lifted off, but the loss of thrust, high drag from the extended landing gear, and fire damage to the flight controls made it impossible to maintain control. The jet crashed into a hotel in nearby Gonesse two minutes after takeoff. All nine crew and 100 passengers aboard perished, as well as four people in the hotel. Four other people sustained slight injuries. Source, Wikipedia. Look for (Concorde crash) videos on UA-cam
As you said it had an exceptional safety record and this crash although disastrous was used as an excuse to cancel concord which was probably a loss making flagship aircraft and service.
Why would you use AI narration?
Why indeed..it's so annoying..I guess the channel operator/s is dumbstruck..
You have to admit, it's getting pretty good to the point of almost indiscernible.
@@mvpfocus for sure it’s pretty close. Still the mispronunciation of certain words and lack of modulation is a dead giveaway. It’s just sad in my opinion and as a former broadcaster we feel the need to have AI do basic narration.
@@LetsGoOutdoors The "Boeing Seven Hundred and Forty Seven" made me laugh.
@@GarrickStaples Yep, that was a gaffe, for sure.
That is a supersonic airliner in the same way as Blue Origin's New Shepard is a spacecraft.
So far, neither company has done any of the difficult stuff!
They haven't settled on a design yet and somehow have over 130 orders.
Is that how the aircraft industry works now?
Exactly-ten years and no real aircraft yet?
Are those two scientists at 9:50 looking at an Apple keyboard and pretending it’s some kind of high tech tablet?
As someone who just sat on a 12 hour flight, I am hoping this becomes a reality!
It's very exciting, can't wait to see the full size aircraft in action.
That's unfortunate.
Boom is definitely on my bucket list. N.A. to Europe in four hours; fantastic!!
Continues success Boom Supersonic!
Can we ban it in the uk for five years to get our own back on the Americans
Europe will need to ban it too or no point
Engines will be built in San Antonio but the plane will be built in Greensboro, NC.
I heard the Concorde fly over my neighborhood in New York City. The engines operated at a shrieking, excruciating volume. The noise, at ground level, wasn't just distracting, it hurt. Many years later I walked through a Concorde cabin at The Intrepid Museum and was surprised at how small it was---something like a Greyhound bus in terms of headroom.
I think the problem with hypersonic flight is it's not worth the three or four hours of saved time. Why take a quick flight when you still have to waste two or three hours in each of two airports? The effort and expense would be better spent on roomier airplane cabins and speedier, more efficient customer service in the airports.
Fantastic! Can't wait
Can't wait to fly on Overture!
Great idea! Best of luck on completing the flight-testing phase and being approved for commercial operations.
I flew Concorde several times, and the convenience was wonderful. It was reasonably comfortable. There were some interesting/humorous differences between the French and British versions of the Concorde experience.
Yes, I remember a French travel journalist having an absolute melt down over getting served a cheese and bacon croissant on a British flight.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Ha. In a nutshell, I'd say the French food was much better, but the British service was much better.
9:25 I JUST WANNA BE PART OF YOUR SYMPHONYYYYYYY!! All jokes aside, I love this new concept/project. I am eager to see these in the skies.
You've got to be kidding me -- the narrator completely ignores the final nail in the Concorde's lifespan: the horrible crash of July 25th, 2000.
Because it wasn't really the reason it was cancelled ! Take into account it had no accidents in a 27 year service life and the crash was due to debris on a runway which should have been cleared before it departed.
This is going to Bee sooo good 😉
an ambitious project - let's hope they are able to pull it off :)
Remember hearing what I thought were 2 military jets flying overhead in the 1970's, but it was Concorde on a slow approach to Logan airport. Extremely loud even at a slow speed!
There is no way that the engines will be running in 2025. These things take years to develop by experienced companies, never mind an up start. Developing an engine for supersonic aircraft is even harder, maybe it will be ready for flight testing by 2030.
Correct
Research on the engines started years ago.
@@rapid13 Yeah, just look at how long it took for the US AF to develop their variable cycle engines (recently put on hold) or even relatively simple resizing of engines like what Boeing and Airbus have had issues with for some of their most recent models.
Look at the Hermeus Chimera engine.
Mach 5+.
Totally true. I posted a full explanation of the engine development concept and changes for the Boom aircraft as a main reply to this video. Please read it - it has details that most people do not know; and better explains the fantasy that the Symphony engine is.
From your very first statement, you prove that you just don't get it. I hope to never have to fly again, because of the ridiculous waiting and feeble yet intrusive security checks that I had to endure _on the ground_ . Once we were airborne, I kind of enjoyed the flight.
YEESSS!!!
Take my money!!!😂
Keep going Gentlemen.
#SemperFi
Flying that jet somewhere for $8k (80x$100) sounds painfully unrealistic.
Try $10-15K. They're in for a world of hurt if they think they can just give away supersonic seats.
8:17 Routine over the air upgrades. I'm wworried already.
This is another step forward in time travel, bravo
Fly anywhere for 100 dollars. I'm dreaming.
Yeah. That $100 price point might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t invest any money!
They didn’t do their research. Wikipedia states, “Boom plans to target $5,000 fares for a New York-to-London round-trip”.
If you had five $20 gold double eagle coins you could probably get at least two round trip tickets.
Nah, slated for service in 2029. By then we can go through hyperinflation in the U.S. and do the 1/1000 reset Mexico did many years ago. For a while, we might have $100 tickets. ;)
"Don't worry! All the latest technology in design and manufacturing tools, materials and processes and engine development will make it all happen cause we want it to!" I can remember a project requiring a high performance engine where the engine manufacture said "sure no problem". Never happened but hey it's good to have dreams and at least try! Best of luck to all!
Boom will go boom! This aint childs play
A hundred dollars a trip? Don’t make me pee myself laughing😂😂😂
This is and always will be a luxury for the ultra rich who think four or five hours of their time is worth a thousand times more than 99% of us ordinary folk.
At the Dubai airshow in 2016, Boom said it would be test flown the next year…
Looks like quite the money suck.
How do you say "a human is not reading this, and an app is translating text to the voice we hear" without saying "a human is not reading this, and an app is translating text to the voice we hear" ... Boeing Seven Hundred and Forty Seven... lol...747
Yep, that was a dead-giveaway, right there.
We complain about hours in a plane, but beats the hell out months in a horse drawn wagon.
100 USD ! you must be kidding
Yep. Even $1,000 is a laugher.
The sound barrier is the issue, not the ability. It will never replace jets.
Impressive; although the name BOOM reminds me of explosions and sonic booms; Things I would have thought they would not want to be associated with...
This is a Boom ad, right? The full text sounds as their PR leaflet and presentation being read out aloud. If they actually produce a "funcional core" in 2025 - a big IF - they might be getting a first flying prototype ready towards 2030. I guess Boom is currently looking for a new investment round? I guess some of the stuff they learn on the way will be able to be used for other, real aircraft though.
@@LogistiQbunnik very well said👍
I am so excited for this plane
I hope this plane is successful. Bruce
I think if they get as far as supersonic flight the only way the sonic boom will be quieter than Concorde is that it will be a home grown USA sonic boom, not a foreign one 😅
It's fascinating how concord is apparently the only supersonic plane so far!... at least according to this video.... what about Tu144?
No details about how they intend to quieten down the sonic "boom"? More details please.
The XB is definitely a Government fighter jet contract that is allowing the Overture project to continue. They just don't want to say it..
It’s impressive but what’s the point if it’s outrageously expensive thereby excluding most of the travelling public. Also I don’t think most people really have a problem with 7 hours. It’s the 14-15 hr journeys that are the real killer. Hell, I live in Australia and it’s ten hours minimum to anywhere substantial. What we need is an aircraft that actually leaves the atmosphere in order to truly travel long distances quickly but then I’m sure the cost again would be too high for the average punter.
At 1’58 it is not a Concorde cabin… Concorde seats were 2+2.
The standard rotation of a LEO satellite around the globe is 90 minutes at an altitude of only 250 miles. Flying a passenger from Los Angeles to London could take LESS THAN ONE HOUR if a rocket can be used. The boarding pass, however, will be larger to contain the printed cost......
Well, let's say that travelling - in LEO - from the space above Los Angeles to the space above London takes less than an hour ... but the transport vehicle (maybe let's call it a "space shuttle") first needs to get up almost into low earth orbit, and then also get down safely. With human passengers, the same high accelerations and decelerations as in an usual intercontinental ballistic missile are not possible, the suggested flight rather sounds comparable to a launch and deorbit of the old space Shuttles.
You guys got it wrong- Overture is not a low-boom design and will never be able to fly supersonically over land. You got it confused with the NASA/Lockheed-Martin X-59 QUEST proof of concept aircraft. Overture is not using that technology. Forget about the "thump". Regardless, I with them well and hope to see Overture flying to Europe some day.
The British Concorde first took flight from Filton, Bristol NOT Farnborough as stated here.
I think if they put a camera pointed towards the front of that aircraft and showed that it would feel like we are moving. Ina car you look forward way more than look out the side windows.
The crash of the Concorde in Paris, July 25, 2000, is not mentioned at all,
or as a reason for the retirement of the Concorde service.
" boom IS a commercial aircraft manufacturer"..... please tell me which commercial aircraft they have manufactured ....you can't , because they haven't.
The test pilot has put his test protocols on UA-cam, showing a speed of 300 KIAS (345 mph) before returning to base.
Just a 1/3rd scale demonstrator that flew in March 2024 . First flight of the actual and larger passenger plane is still years away.
Cool science experiment, but mark my words... We won't see this plane in commercial service.
Remember not to talk about the tires and landing speeds. They won't know any better.
The fuel consumption is well above the limit of acceptance for pollution, so the geeks in California will NOT allow it to come near local skies. The Concord lost its customers because the wait time at the Airport was 3 hours on the ground before the flight, another hour to collect your luggage. Only 17 Concords were built, 15 were sold, with no customer for the last 2 birds.
I don't think states have control over airspace.
FAA has rights of flight (passage), but does not have rights of Air Quality.
The Concord was allowed to reach NY from London/Paris, but could NOT fly any airspace west of NY. The other issue is that the landing process requires all other aircraft to maintain a VERY LARGE distance. Rockets are launched from California, but this is a very-well defined and in constricted space.
@@generaclesdey4622 I thought that was noise related.
Scott Manley has a really interesting visit to the test plane on his channel.
Not just time in the sky but the time in the airports which many times exceeds the time in the air.
So why hasn't the industry produced aircraft that travel just under the speed of sound at say 700 mph?
237 MPH is unbelievably...slow. Currently passenger jets fly between 480 and 575 MPH. You need to go at least 767 MPH to break the sound barrier.
There is so much greed by the airlines that there will never be $100 ticket price for supersonic travel!!!😂😅
Two major problems with this:
1) Any supersonic aircraft has to use a pure jet engine. It cannot use a more fuel-efficient and quieter high bypass ratio fanjet, because of the drag created by the intakes. So the sound of overflights at low altitude, especially takeoff, around airports near dense urban areas is always going to be unacceptable to urban populations that already struggle to accept current quiet aircraft engine noise. No "modern intake design" is going to change that.
2) Sonic booms created by high-altitude supersonic flights are always going to be a problem. No refinement of aircraft design is ever going to change that.
The only positive thing in favour of Boom will be that they are American. There will be an element of National pride that America has created something no other nation has, which will make it more acceptable to the American public and to the American transport regulatory organisations. I know, because as a Brit I was (and stil am) proud of Concorde for much the same reasons. But it means the Boom aircraft will only ever be allowed to fly supersonic routes over populated areas in American airspace, for the same reason that Concorde was banned for those areas, and will otherwise only be allowed oceanic routes in the same way that Concorde was.
So this video is not a factual assessment of this project, but an advert for it. It glosses over the problems and emphasises the advantages. Yes, a new era of supersonic flight, following where Concorde led, would be fantastic. But please don't gloss over the problems, and please recognise what a fantastic technical achievement Concorde represented.
Can the community guidelines extend to include honest headlines?
It is technically possible. But the regulators will almost certainly make it uneconomic. The development costs can be just too much..the Concord required the resources of two countries
I hope it’s electric powered or does net zero not matter this week?
Interesting. I was expecting another video about Hermeus and Quarterhorse.
Hermeus has its own passenger aircraft, Halcyon, being developed.
Halcyon will go Mach 5.
Much faster than BOOM's Mach 1.6.
The race is on.
This is just a Boom Supersonic commercial.
The 1st with a possibility of building a supersonic airliners were the NAZIs who expected to control the world and would need to move the overmenchen around the world. The USA was next as we had this crazy idea that 1st you built a fighter and then a bomber and then an airliner. The supersonic bomber was already built so the USA wanted to fund the airliner. The problem was that all supersonic flight is expensive. The US Congress decided that it didn't make sense to spend more money on supersonic airliners. France and Britain decided to go ahead with supersonic airliners. They did and list vast sums of money. The technology problems can be overcome but making it profitable is the challenge
Sounds like OceanGate.
I disagree. I think that most people would change the "hurry up and wait" queues when boarding a plane if given a choice...
Half a century ago, 100 people were drinking Champagne, at Mach 2.1, at 60,000 feet. All this video does is make me appreciate how amazingly advanced Concorde was.
Here's the rub though. Nobody really cares about journey time, if the journey is pleasant. The problem with international travel is that it's just a terrible experience, from parking your car at one end, to collecting your rental car at the other. Why spend billions getting across the Atlantic a bit quicker if it takes 2 hours to get through Customs/Immigration, and into your rental car??
Surely it's cheaper, and would affect more people, to cut down the time spent being fcked about in the 2 airports?? No??
Oh goody. Another toy for the .01% -Just what we all need.
Didn't you hear, there's a lot more people in that group today. There's been a huge increase in the numbers of millionaires and billionaires in the 2020s.
You would think that they would like to contribute more in taxes, but many of them are greedy bastards. 😅
@@paul5683: I remember when they used to build schools, libraries, hospitals, and parks, rather than personal penis-spaceships to satisfy their limitless egos. Billionaires need us, but WE do not need them. It is time to tax them appropriately.
Does anyone remember the UK hotol Jet. It could take off a plane and then enter near orbit on air breathing engines to do a loop, cutting travel time from the e.g. UK to long distance jumps by massive amounts of time
@@stephendoherty8291 I sure can , if only the Brits had the money of the US
The so-called "sonic boom" isn't a momentary event as it is often perceived by an individual standing on the surface of the earth. A supersonic aircraft makes noise. A lot of noise. But since it moves faster than the noise, it "drags" the noise behind it like a cone. That cone moves continuously along with the aircraft, passing over the land like a shadow or a wave. Every point on the surface of the earth beneath the flight path will be struck by the leading edge of this cone, sort of like a buoy bobbing in the ocean and struck by a moving wave.
The force of this wave diminishes with the distance between the aircraft and the point where the wave strikes. The technology that Boom is developing is an attempt to make this dissipation occur more efficiently, so the wave is "softer" where it impacts the surface beneath the flight path. The hope is that this would create a path for Boom to be allowed to fly over mainland US and Europe at supersonic velocity, which Concorde was not allowed to do.
But the main noise complaints about the Concord weren't sonic boom related. Most of them came from London, near Heathrow. To fly at supersonic velocities, you need giant, extremely powerful motors. Which are very loud. The Concord wasn't supersonic over London, but it was bloody loud because of its roaring engines. Boom is also working on quieting that part with more modern engine designs.
In the end, though, all of that is lipstick on a pig. No matter what, supersonic flight drags a cone of concentrated sound pressure that strikes the earth with a certain force; and no matter what, getting to that speed requires giant, extremely powerful (and therefore extremely loud) motors.
Furthermore, there is the cost. Supersonic flight consumes a LOT of fuel per mile. These aircraft can't be very large. The giant cost has to be amortized over the small number of seats in the plane. Each seat is going to be super expensive. Many air carriers nowadays are introducing super-luxury class accommodations in their long-range wide-body aircraft. Some are almost like small hotel suites. A wealthy traveler will have high-end options: (a) a cramped seat on a supersonic plane that gets you there about twice as fast as normal; or (b) a luxury space on a normal plane. I can't see how a supersonic plane can compete economically with the super-luxury market. I don't think there are that many flyers who would routinely choose speed over luxury.
Keep in mind that small executive airlines also compete for this business. Modern executive jets have a range almost as long as a modern wide body. They fly at the same speeds as commercial, they offer super luxury accommodations, but in addition to all of that they can fly into/out of virtually any small airport anywhere. A rich guy in London can fly his family directly to Aspen. Etc. A supersonic plane can never offer that level of pinpoint convenience. A busy executive can use the aircraft as a workspace during the trip, which eliminates any benefit of the speed of supersonic.
The first sentence of this script is so poorly formed and sounds even worse when spoke by a digital facsimile of Jared Harris. Didn't listen any further. So much junk on YT now.
Yea, can’t even pronounce Concorde.
and Boeing Seven hundred forty seven?
Nobody ever says that.
Can they not hint to the AI speaker how the script should be read?
It’s not conKORD. it’s Concorde.
No mention of Tupolev TU-144.
can cargo planes fly faster as staff is just cockpit and then cargo
Concorde was grounded because of the fatal crash, not mentioned in this video.
Wait-wait-wait....who's building this aircraft? ...Not BOEING, right?
The 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crash, didn't help Concorde much either.
So they have proven that they could reduce the boom to a thump, or they expect to do so?
How many carbon credits should be required to qualify to buy a supersonic flight ticket?
We need to spend billions of dollars so that 80 people can cut a couple hours off their intercontinental flying time.
This video contains so many inaccuracies they are not worth correcting
The AI voice over is certainly authorative and easy to listen to with the English upper class accent.
How about the energy consumption? Not even talking about green energy.
Why do we accept even the title of this piece when they clearly state the engine won’t even be ready until 2025? The title implies that overture will be flying in 2024. There is so much wrong with what I have heard about this new airplane. Even the graphics of overture show two completely different designs. I don’t know if I would drop a dime on this company.
I hope the UK and France ban it flying over their air space as the US did for the concord, which was the real reason why concord didn't last. Had it been able to fly supersonic to the west coast of US it would still be flying today.
Get this done already.
Seems overkill to install such an advanced cockpit when the main cost is the supersonic capability and that risk metric plus fuel burn. Why not just an advanced private jet cockpit as offered currently. I would note that the first flight was essentially - it can fly like a normal jet and at normal altitudes. No sign it could get even close to near subsonic speeds much less supersonic at any altitude
I hope they actually use green fuel.
Alright, let's see it then.
I hope the jet doesn't go BOOOOM.
"this is promising"