Boom's Supersonic Aircraft: How Will Airlines Manage To Turn A Profit?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июл 2023
- Boom Supersonic, a startup supersonic aircraft manufacturer, burst onto the scene in 2014 and has continued to gain more and more recognition as time passes. Boom’s activities are centered around the construction of the Overture, a 65-88 seat passenger airliner. Picking up where the Concorde left off, the firm has championed itself as the leader in future supersonic transport.
Let’s look at the business model of operating a supersonic passenger aircraft in today’s video…
Article: simpleflying.com/boom-superso...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
When I lived in Osaka, Tokyo was 3h away by Shinkansen, one day had a conference in Tokyo that started at 9:30am, but a room for the night was 70-100USD, so went the dial prior was a waste, I could take a night bus with flat seats for 140USD and start the journey at 10:00pm to be in Tokyo at 7:30am... but I could take the 6:00am Shinkansen for 150USD go to the conference and later to rest to the hotel, the advantage was speed, reliability, and relaxed journey to work all day at the arrival.
NY to London is not a good example, but London to NY is a very good route you could take the plane in the first hours of the day in London, and arrive at the same time in the first hours of the day in NY
*_@loodwich_* Interesting comparisons. The Shinkansen sounds fantastic and wins hands down.
The JFK/LHR trip is complicated by the fact that JFK is 5 hours behind LHR, which, as you say, is fine going from LHR to JFK, but not so good on the return flight.
You could leave LHR at 9am on Overture and arrive at JFK at 8am local time.
On the return flight you could leave JFK at 3pm and arrive at LHR at 12 midnight.
That way you could attend to almost a day's business and still be home on the same day.
Firms don’t think about what time their staff arrive at or how much rest they have. They only think about the dollars. So at the end of the day, the popularity of Boom will be entirely based on the cost of a ticket and it can’t be much more than a standard business class ticket on a normal plane.
Hell many don't even pay for premium economy on long haul.
Unless of course it's for the 3 letter jobs. Then they suddenly have the money!
yes it can be much more than a standard business class ticket on a normal plane, because that normal plane has hundreds of other paying passengers that the Boom will not.
It inevitably will be much more expensive due to the cost on fuel and lower number of passengers. Airlines would have to very heavily subsidise this service just for the prestige.
@@phonicwheel933 if that were the case, there would already be lots of them around. That there aren't, suggest your dream is of the pipe variety.... Sorry.
Its range, 4 engines instead of 2 for such a relatively short range, working remotely and the fact that international meetings via the likes of zoom are so easily organised make me wonder if this plane really is commercially viable.
Exactly. If a person needs to be across the Atlantic for a lunch or dinner meeting why not just use zoom lol.
Obviously not everything can be done over zoom but its infinitely cheaper
*_@eamonahern7495_* The fact is that 400 million Americans make long range business trips each year for various reasons. The world figure would probably double that. So there would be a huge number of potential customers for Overture, regardless of how many remote meetings there may or may not be.
And, conversely, if a person is staying longer for more in-depth collaboration, then saving 9 hours is probably not that important.
Still waiting for anything other than a computer rendering that prove a small startup can somehow harness the money, engineering and building prowess needed to build something it took entire countries to bring to fruition.
*_@probableflaws_*
Quite right. On the surface Boom don't seem to have achieved much since start up in 2014, apart from, the now defunct XB-1. One thing favourable about Boom though, assuming that they have some top notch aeronautical engineers, is that they seem to do a lot of studies and simulations before actually cutting metal. Boom say that the latest Overture design is the culmination of 26 million core-hours of simulated software designs, five wind tunnel tests, and the careful evaluation of 51 full design iterations. Of course, that could be interpreted another way!
As far as the mid 2022 Overture redesign goes, I think it is a good thing, if it leads to a better solution. Concorde had three major redesigns: 1963, 1965, 1968, causing a delay of 3 years to the development program, but they ended up with an outstanding aircraft. As Boom didn’t build a mark 1 Overture, the cost probably wasn’t that great, and they must have learned a lot in the process.
If Boom succeeds it will be because they are a small company, and their cost base and time scales are a less. The other advantage they have is modern technology, especially CAD and simulations. The Concorde program, on the other hand, was a huge disaster, both in time and cost. And a lot of that was because there were two countries governments involved, and two big companies.
@@phonicwheel933 The XB-1 isnt defunct
@@Tommy.Gaming 'Defunct', probably wasn't the correct word. I should have said, 'may not fly', but the position with the XB-1 is not clear.
At the 2022 Paris Air Show Blake Scholl announced a complete revision of Overture (4 engines, empennage), which meant that the 3 engine XB-1 was no longer representative.
XB-1 did some taxi trials.
At the 2023 Paris Air Show Blake Scholl said that, as XB-1 no longer represented Overture XB-1, it might not fly.
Then in August 2023 it was announced that XB-1 had been cleared for experimental flight.
@@phonicwheel933 that’s not the point the point is that it shows that they can actually make an aircraft
Whether or not it ever flies paying passengers, let alone profitably, one has to agree, that is one good-looking aircraft.
Well if the drawing looks good, what are we waiting for? Just 3D print the picture and voi-la!!! LOL!!!!!
Looked good back in the late 60s too, when Boeing used a very similar design for the 2707-300.
For me to sleep on a plane is allways difficult, so I think that Booms flight would be better. Also you only consider oversea flights.
Pretty sure over land flights are still banned because of the noise
In another blow to Boom, Virgin Atlantic decided to let their options for the Overture lapse.
*_@heidirabenau511_* Virgin's finances are stretched, they have a habit of pulling out of options, and they are perusing their own supersonic program, Virgin Galactic. But, if Symphony ever gets into airline service, Virgin would still be a likely customer.
I want so bad to believe in the boom project.. but you know, reality..
*_@niconico2328_* That's just how I feel. It would be great to see an SST in the air again after the demise of Concorde, but Boom have got a lot of bridges to cross before they can get a Symphony prototype in the air. Once they reach that milestone though, financial support should pour in, but until then funding will be a stretch.
Boom Ouverture has so many issues to address:
-It flies slower than Concorde (mach 1,7 cruising speed vs mach 2,02 for Concorde)
-It has barely 300 nm more range than Concorde (who had 3900 nm)
-It has even fewer seats than Concorde (66-88 to Concorde´s 100) meaning seats will be proportionally more expensive
-The current price of jet fuel is higher than during Concorde´s time
-Only two airlines have placed orders so far after 9 years of development (Concorde had 100+ pre-orders at one point before the Oil Crisis)
-Airplanes now provide internet, which wasn´t the case during most of Concorde´s time, making supersonic travel legitimately convenient to time constrained businesses
-The two national-owned airlines operating Concorde were more or less forced to because of the bi-lateral agreement between France and the UK, guaranteeing it´s launch into operation, which Boom doens´t have. United and AA are more or less sponsors at this point.
-They don´t have an engine for it yet (I might be wrong though) while Concorde borrowed and optimized the Avro Vulcan´s engines for itself
How are they going to sell this airplane?!?
It doesn´t offer anything than Concorde hasn´t provided already. I have the feeling that all of Boom´s activity is simply vanity and wishful thinking.
Let´s leave supersonic travel alone and the sacred legacy of Concorde.
P.S.: yes, I am a Concorde fan. I still wish Boom good fortune and success.
Very good and well explained argument! It is a shame, but you're right - the market has just changed too much since the days of Concorde.
I highly doubt that AA, UA and JAL, the only customers for the Overture, are fully committed to taking the type on and have given Boom a deposit.
I think Boom is trying to solve an old problem that no longer exists. Would have made more sense if they tried to build a fully electric aircraft. That would have been a game changer.
@@heidirabenau511 Japan Airways also invested $10M in Boom as part of the option deal, so they are fairly serious.
@@kunti_putra Are you saying that people don't want to travel faster anymore? At least the technology for Overture is available. Not so for electric aircraft.
Unfortunately I don’t think there’s a market for this aircraft. We all want it , but without subsidies I don’t see it operating for long
Well, they even not have plan for what engine that will be used
@@swordsman1137 FTT started developing the Overture engine in January 2023.
*_@Pwj579_* Subsidies will not be required. Overture will not compete for the mass market, which is already well served by the big companies like Boeing and Airbus. It is aimed primarily at business travellers who value their time. There are 700 million long range business trips per year, worldwide. To support this, Boom and airline surveys show the feasibility of Overture, and they have identified 500 viable routes as opposed to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde.
Unlike Concorde, the accommodation will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, and the ticket prices will be comparable with business class tickets on a subsonic airliner. Also, Overture will be more economical than Concorde, which drank fuel at supersonic speeds and guzzled it at subsonic speeds.
(based on information from Boom website, interviews, newspaper articles, and the net)
I drove by the factory at KGSO a couple of days ago. The construction is well underway.
At the moment.
That's nice. But how does it fly without an engine?
@@andrewjackson5127
Engine development began in January 2023. Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop, and test a bespoke engine that matches the unique requirements of Overture. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team.
The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners, and will use already certified parts, including the core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the design and development program.
Engine features:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
The Overture propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric intake, and a variable-geometry low-noise exhaust nozzle. This will make the engine efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and compliant with international noise regulations.
10-2023.08.22
*_@edinnorthcarolina--ovelhog5786_* You said: *_I drove by the factory at KGSO a couple of days ago. The construction is well underway._*
Good to hear. Some of us hope it will be a big success.
I think that trans-pacific routes are the only that really make sense for supersonic travel, its a shame the overture doesnt have the range to facilitate them
I'm cautiously optimistic for Boom.
The thing is, for me at least, there’s no such thing as a “complete rest” on any transatlantic flight I’ve been on (including in lie flat business class). I’d much rather have a faster trip
*_@arrowlogproductions2509_* Well said. You are just the type of person that Overture is intended for. The accommodation on Overture will be quiet business class, and the prices will be similar to subsonic business class.
A JFK/LHR return trip on Symphony will be, $5,000. Subsonic the trip would take 8 hours. Symphony will do it in 4 hours.
Why on earth is this not Marketed as a Private Jet ?... Its perfect for a HNI to travel Multiple destinations in a Day
As far as I’m aware Concord wasn’t allowed to fly routes over land which would certainly limit where you could fly it; I don’t know if that would still be the case for the Boom Overture
@@ashwinnarasimhan2729 Boom is doing some tests with the FAA to fly overland.With NASAs help
@@gleitsonSalles Not yet...
That is actually the only market I can see for it. Mega wealthy individuals who can't help but show off at every opportunity. People who think a Gulfsream G550 is too low rent.
The G800 almost hits Mach 1 and fits the bill. Delivery soon
How will they overcome the issue that Concorde had with regard to not being able to fly supersonic over most land masses due to countries restriction on the sonic boom?
*_@MrMakeDo_* Overture will create a sonic boom when it flies supersonic, so it will fly subsonic over land, but 10% to 20% faster at Mach 0.94. Overture will be a much more practical aircraft than Concorde. One of it's big advantages will be that it will be economic at both sub and supersonic speeds, so that Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, as opposed to just 2 viable Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overtures accommodation will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet, and Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, which means it will be able to use most large airports.
The problem is that Boom may run out of money before they get an Overture prototype into the air. Lets hope they make it.
For trans-Pacific flights, how does making a fuel stop in Alaska affect the time issue. I'm not sure how many subsonic passenger planes still make that stop as many current planes have enough range to go from Asia to America's west coast nonstop.
In a Boom 1 stop flight versus a nonstop regular flight, will Boom still have enough of a time advantage to be relevant on these routes?
*_@mityace_* Overture would do a 16 hour subsonic trip across the Pacific in two legs with a 1 hour refuelling stop. 4+1+4=9 hours total time.
Etihad airways could use the Boom Overture from Abu Dhabi to London Heathrow, where the flight could be for economy class only, making it profitable. As long as Etihad purchases them, that is.
They could have trans-Pacific flights if they just have a stopover somewhere like Honolulu. Which is why I don’t think they will be an issue.
That would make the flights less competitive compared to sub-sonic flights.
@@heidirabenau511 Barely... you are talking like landing refueling and continuing again... Would take like 45 mins. You would EASILY make up that time by flying supersonic. Sure not _as_ fast as direct, but still MUCH faster than current flights.
@@andykillsuHardly anyone is going to pay hundreds, if not thousands of more dollars to fly trans-Pacifc, with a stop in HNL supersonic, when they can save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to fly non stop, sub sonic.
@@heidirabenau511 LOL then you don’t understand why supersonic flights existed in the first place.
*_@andykillsu_* You said: *_They could have trans-Pacific flights if they just have a stopover somewhere like Honolulu. Which is why I don’t think they will be an issue._*
That's right. A 16 hour subsonic trip would require a 1 hr refuelling stop with Overture, giving a total time of 4+1+4 =9 hours.
The ticket prices would be comparable at around $6,000 business class (all accommodation on Overture will be business class).
The case study uses the London JFK route, doesn't look that convenient for business travellers, but maybe it's better on shorter routes
*_@paulinejackson5861_* The JFK/LHR trip is complicated by the fact that JFK is 5 hours behind LHR, which is fine going from LHR to JFK, but not so good on the return flight.
You could leave LHR at 9am on Overture and arrive at JFK at 8am local time.
On the return flight you could leave JFK at 3pm and arrive at LHR at 12 midnight.
That way you could attend to almost a day's business and still be home on the same day.
Hello everyone! May I ask, has anyone flown in first or business class with a lie-flat bed and actually slept well? Were you able to get off the plane and go to work and concentrate as you normally would? Just curious.
I flew BOS-HNL 11 hours in a lie-flat bed. It was comfortable. But I am not sure why it was so hard to sleep. Maybe the excitement of getting to fly First or just the amazing Hawaiian Airline Service? Not sure but the same was true for the way home. I did not fall a sleep for any length of time that would make a difference.
@@AviationCommercials I imagine I would be the same. I’ve never flown business or first class with a lie-flat seat. But I can’t imagine falling asleep unless I’m really, really exhausted. If I have a connecting flight I’d probably stay up thinking about all the possible scenarios where I would miss my connection 😕. If don’t have a connection then the aviation nerd in me would keep me awake to experience every moment of the flight 😂.
Often depends on turbulence. If it’s a steady flight, sure. If it’s rocky then no.
@@MrMakeDo Good point.
We still don’t know who will make the engines, on top of all the rest
Florida Turbines Technologies and GE Additive (A subsidiary of GE) are two of the three companies working on the "Symphony", the engine for the Overture. Whether these companies go bankrupt before the engine takes shape, only time will tell...
*_@markiangooley_*
Engine development began in January 2023. Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, will design, develop, and test a bespoke engine that matches the unique requirements of Overture. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team.
The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners, and will use already certified parts, including the core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the design and development program.
Engine features:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
The Overture propulsion system will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric intake, and a variable-geometry low-noise exhaust nozzle. This will make the engine efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and compliant with international noise regulations.
10-2023.08.22
Should the actual question be: "How versatile is Overture?" Using the last 20 years as a reference, a moderate economic downturn could halt operations if the business model relied upon customers with deeper than the average pockets. Why purchase an asset if the moment the air travel market has a case of the hiccups, the asset goes to some southwest North American storage yard? Assets need to at least function with minimal financial bleeding during stagnant/recession periods.
*_@sundragon7703_*
Overture is aimed at the 700 million long range business trips made worldwide each year, 400 million are by US business people. So Overture is not liable to saturate that market.
Overture will be very versatile, compared to Concorde. One of it's main strengths will be fuel economy at both sub and supersonic speeds, which will allow 500 viable routes, some mixed land/water, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde The accommodation will be quiet business class, almost certainly with internet. Its buying cost will be reasonable, at $200M, as will be its maintenance costs, and it will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use most airports.
In general, the commercial aviation business is highly risky, both for the manufacturers and the airlines. The big manufacturers have to put their companies at risk quite often when they undertake a major new product. Boeing nearly went under with the 747 and RR did go bankrupt with the RB211, and we all know about Concorde. Then there is the Airbus 380. Airlines have a very difficult task choosing the appropriate airliners and routes. In the mainline economy market their margins are wafer thin. As a result many have failed, including the iconic Pan Am.
I gotta be honest I have my doubts. I wanna see them succeed but I don’t have that feeling that they ll make it. Nonetheless. We have no precedent for this. The Concord was so different. You would need to do so much research just to get a probability of they ll succeed. But tbh I don’t think that we have any chance to know. Only time will tell
*_@thejedikid1537_* Quite right. With a high tech project like Overture you can't tell how it will turn out. One thing seems certain though, Boom are not going to achieve certification by 2029. I recon 2033. Like you, I hope they make it but the cash flow must be getting critical.
Realistically, I do not think we will see any serious progress on a Boom type project until mid-century. Even though there is interest in it I do not believe there is enough serious interest to keep it on time, according to their timeline. At 5:15, it is also said the LAX-NRT route is 5500 nm. I have looked on FlightAware, but it is just less than 5500 statue miles, not nautical miles.
*_@Wheninflight_* Blake Scholl is reported to have said that the current Overture development program forecast is tight, but he is still working towards certification by 2029. I think 2033 is more realistic.
An LAX/NRT subsonic one way flight business class on American Airlines would cost around $7,400 and would take 11 hours. It would require a 1 hour refuelling stop on Overture and would take 2.75+1+2.75= 6.5 hours total. The cost would be about $6,000 for business class on Overture.
If the ticket prices are not significantly lower than hiring a private jet, than I don’t think it will be economically viable. Looking at economical tendencies, it seems that the gap between “normal” and “rich” people seems to increase, so the potential target audience for business class is decreasing (people are more likely to choose economy class or a private jet). This is also part of why the Concorde was taken out of service. The speed is also irrelevant in this regard, since getting a private jet on demand is much quicker than waiting for the next scheduled flight which may or may not have free seats.
well, all the questioning about the logistics it´s very interesting, but, we already know which engines will power this aircraft?
the range is such a limiting factor as well, for example an a380, it has 8,200 nautical-mile range, and for a business travel that does not care about budgets they can get the suite and be far more confortable, the a350 has 8,700 nautical miles of range and can also be quite confortable, don´t get me wrong I would be very happy to see super sonic flights again, even if I can not test them right away, is just they don´t make much sense at the moment, they really don´t have much new to offer, maybe in R&D but if you can not find a practical use for it then it´s kind of useless right now
*_@gilbertoandrescastanoriver4935_*
Boom is aimed at business travellers who value their time. There are 700 million long range business trips, per year worldwide, and Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. All Overture's seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. Ticket costs will be comparable to subsonic business class.
A subsonic airliner would do the JFK/LHR trip in 8 hours, compared to 4 hours for Overture, at a cost of $5,000 return. A 16 hour trip, across the Pacific, for example, could be done in two legs, with a 1 Hr refuelling stop, taking 4+1+4=9 hours total, at cost of about $6,000.
So, as far as business class travellers are concerned there would be no downsides to travelling on Overture, but there would be a 10% to 20% saving of time on land routes, variable time saving on mixed land/water routes, and a halving of time on water routes.
(based on information from Boom website, interviews, newspaper articles, books, and the net)
Sorry to comment that your example on a subsonic flight is far from reality. First, you chose a business or first-class seat, which not all companies are due to pay for their employees. Secondly, having the flight departing early evening from JFK means a hassle to get to the airport, assuming the plane leaves on time. Then, SF forgot to mention that the service on those classes is endless and time-consuming, not always leaving the pax to relax as mentioned. And what is the employee supposed to do after arriving in London at 7 am, when offices start after 9am? Poor example. I have taken such a flight in the past, and never ever again. I very much prefer the early morning flight out of JFK, arriving early evening in London, grab a beer and have a good nice sleep at any hotel rather than on a plane.
*_@franklinsternberg4528_* Good points. JFK being 5 hours behind LHR makes it awkward when flying from JFK to LHR. Would this work on Overture:
day 1 leave JFK 1pm arrive LHR 10pm hotel
day 2 business 9am to 5pm leave LHR 6pm arrive JFK 5pm
All seats on Overture will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and the ticket price would be the same as business class subsonic, at about $5,000, but instead of being stuck on an aircraft for 16 hours total, you would only be on an aircraft for 8 hours total.
Or if you were really pushed for time in an emergency:
leave JFK 11pm arrive LHR 8am business 9am to 5pm leave LHR 6pm arrive JFK 5pm
As cool as the project is, I think trends have shown that Supersonic transport has fallen out of favor with consumers and more importantly with the airlines.
*_@Cynsham_* I think you will find that Concorde fell out of favour with the consumers and airlines, rather than SST per se, and for very good reason, as widely publicised. But Overture will be a completely different aircraft that overcomes the problems of Concorde.
There’s no remote possibility this plane is ever going to enter service. This is going to be another Theranos.
*_@KyIieMinogue_* Comparing Boom with Theranos is a travesty and makes no sense at all. Theranos was a slick company that for 12 years completely hoodwinked the public. It got $700M from venture capitalists and at one stage Theranos was valued at $10bn. On the other hand, Boom's business model is universally doubted and they only have $160M of funding. The company is probably valued at $80M.
Two airlines have obviously done the math and decided it works for them, but I just don't see it. I also thought 4-engine planes were on their way out. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Their orders are more like placeholders. IF the jet works, they MIGHT proceed with the order. It's not a binding contract, far from it, they can change their minds at any time and retract their "order".
*_@sergioortiz8219_* American Airlines, United Airlines, and Japan Airlines have between them 170 orders and pre orders. Japan Airlines have invested $10M in Boom.
Its quite true that in the main market, where low cost is the driving force, two- engine airliners are taking over. But Overture is not aimed at the main market, which is fully served by the big companies, like Boeing and Airbus.
Instead, Overture is aimed at the business traveller who values his time. Even so, the ticket cost on Overture will be comparable to business class on a subsonic airliner. The accommodation on Overture will all be business class.
An Overture will cost $200M so the airline pay back should be OK, as should the operating margin. By comparison, a Boeing 727-800 is $100M. Although the fuel economy of Overture will be lower than a 727-800, Overture's time economy will be x2.
@@phonicwheel933 noted, but I just don't think there are that many business execs who wouldn't rather arrive at their destination nicely rested after an overnight flight and sleeping in a lie-flat bed, than arriving in half the time. I'm also not sure that "the ticket cost on Overture will be comparable to business class on a subsonic airline". I don't know where you got that from, if it's from the manufacturer's literature or what, and I'm no expert on the economics of air travel costs, but I would be very surprised if that turns out to be the case. And given that Boom's range isn't enough to cross the Pacific, it doesn't make sense for JAL to buy it. But like I said, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
@@sergioortiz8219 There are many more options than choosing between shorter and rested, but as you imply it depends on personal taste. BTW the accommodation on Overture will be business class just like the subsonic airliner, except Overture will not have the option of flat beds. There are 700 million long range business trips each year, worldwide, so there should be plenty of travellers who preferer the quicker journey.
As far as the ticket prices go, they are based on two statements by Blake Scholl: 'Overture seat prices will be comparable with subsonic business class' and 'a two way JFK/LHR ticket on Symphony will be $5,000', and a calculation based on margin per seat compared to a Boeing 747. Ticket prices vary wildly, depending on the route. One of the most competitive is JFK/LHR.
JAL's business is not just across the Pacific, but even so, the Pacific can be crossed by Overture by doing the journey in two hops, with a 1 hour refuelling stop. A 16 hour subsonic flight would take 4+1+4 = 9 hours total on Overture.
Of course, all this depends on Overture actually flying, one day.
In case you like reading, here is a post I did which explains why Symphony should succeed in the market, and includes some info on pricing:
*Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?*
*_Introduction_*
Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever.
*_Aviation_*
Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world.
*_Technology_*
Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft.
*_Flight_*
Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles.
*_Airframe_*
Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known.
*_Engines_*
Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise.
*_Costing_*
Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation.
*_Operation_*
Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests.
*_Ticket Cost_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 value
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
^^^^ $5,000 return
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours.
*_Market_*
Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes.
*_Conclusion_*
Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST.
_22-2023.09.04_
Not enough range needs to be at least 6000 miles
your my favourite youtuber (first)
🥇 😊
Why has their single seater demonstrator still not flown? It's been doing taxi tests for years at this point. Where are the cockpit windows on the new renders of the Overture? Looks like there is zero forward visibility on the thing.
*_@pyromcr_* Since the Overture redesign in mid 2022, the XB-1 demonstrator has little value and will almost certainly not fly.
You are right. There are no cockpit windows. Overture will save the weight, cost, and complexity of forward windows and a droop snout by using external cameras and displays in the cockpit, so that the pilots can see the terrain when taking off and landing (which may be automatic anyway).
@@phonicwheel933 Why does Boom keep promising that the XB-1 will fly? The whole point of the thing was to validate manufacturing processes anyways, it shared almost nothing with the original design of the Overture anyways.
If that is their plan this thing is not only dead in the water but it has moved into outright scam territory. 14 CFR 25.773 explicitly mandates cockpits of transport category aircraft have windows.
@@pyromcr Things change in a development program. For example Concorde had 3 major redesigns. Blake Scholl is no longer saying that the XB-1 will fly. In fact at the 2023 Paris air show he implied that it would not fly. From what you say XB-1 has achieved it's objective, without flying, because it has validated the manufacturing process.
About the windows, I don't know enough to comment on what you point out, except that I believe that there are other planned aircraft that will use cameras and displays rather than windows.
BTW I am nothing to do with Boom and have similar doubts about their success as you have. But I don't believe they are a scam like people keep repeating and I would like to see another SST in the air again after the demise of Concorde.
@@phonicwheel933 You can't validate manufacturing processes without flight testing the thing. There are many instances of structural and other system issues only being caught in flight testing. They recently moved it to a new airport and have still been doing engine and taxi tests so they are planning something for the thing.
The only plane I can think of that isn't a wild concept and actually currently exists without windows is the X-59 but that's an experimental military aircraft so no rules apply and the levels of acceptable safety are much lower.
@@pyromcr The only thing that I can suggest is that Boom must have some aeronautical engineers who know what they are doing, so they must have taken the points that you make into consideration. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
I am actually that Management Consultant. The business model has completely changed over the last 10 years. Many "meetings" are now via Skype or other camera based technologies. Over the whole length of the Gorgon project, I only went to London once and SEA dozens of times, but I was there in 5 hours, so what's the big deal? . It was easy for me to schedule a visit without any particular urgency involved. I do not need Boom.
*_@idanceforpennies281_* Quite right. From what you say, Overture is not for you, especially as your meetings can be done remotely, and you are happy with the occasional 5 hour journey. Boom are targeting business people who value their time and need to fly, especially over long distances.
There are 700 million long range business trips a year, worldwide, so there should be plenty of potential customers for Overture, especially as all seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet, and ticket prices will be similar to subsonic business class. As Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde.
Sounds like an interesting job consulting on the Gorgon project.
The airlines' orders were a lot like me saying I will call a one-night-stand date tomorrow. It's not a contract, and it's not likely to actually happen. Boom is the Theranos of the aviation industry.
*_@andrewjackson5127_* Boom may not survive long enough to get the Overture prototype flying, but comparing them to Theranos is a travesty, and makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe it should be New York JFK to the Philippines.
*_@Thomas-hw3re_*
JFK to MNL is 8,509 miles, and trip takes from 17 hours to 29 hours subsonic, depending on the flight. Overture might just be able to do the trip with a single 1 hour refuelling stop, giving a total time of 4+1+4 =9 hours. All seats on Overture will be business class, and the cost would probably be $6,000.
If not, two 1 hour refuelling stops may be required, giving 3.2+1+3.2+1+3.2=11.6 hours total
There must be a very specific (and rich) number of people, who have to be physically present in a meeting across the Atlantic.
Maybe that CEO has been warned about internet security for doing Teams, Skype, etc.
Yeah I guess so. I think this will remain in the realms of super-rich people.
*_@glynnmorgan3345_* There are 700 million long distance business trips in a year, worldwide. The reason for the trips, or the wealth of the travellers, in not important to the airlines. What counts is the number of travellers.
“If it can get regulatory approval” it can’t though so 🤷
*_@bryanhuang542_* Do you mean that Overture won't be able to fly supersonic over land? If so, that is correct. But, as Overture will be fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, Boom and the airlines have identified 500 viable routes, compared to just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. The routes are over water, and mixed water/land.
Over land, Overture will fly Mach 0.94, 10% to 20% faster than subsonic airliners, and over water it will fly Mach 1.7, twice as fast as subsonic airliners. All seats will be business class, and ticket prices will be similar to subsonic business class. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers over a range of 4,880 miles. Longer trips would require a 1 hour refuelling stop.
@@phonicwheel933 I do not think they will be able to get regulatory approval for this aircraft at all. It will not enter commercial service. Overture will not be anything but a failed project, it won't "fly at Mach 0.94" etc. because it won't fly.
Why would the average traveler want or need, supersonic speed?
United Airlines is the Biggest Airline customer
*_@Wongwanchungwongjumbo_* That's right: deposit on 15 Overtures and options for 35.
I really want this to be a success, but I don't think it will. 😔
*_@waltjie_* Me too, but I am afraid that Boom will run out of money before the Overture prototype takes off.
Luxurious and private first-class suites with a desk and bed, as well as high-speed internet access over oceans, have undermined the economic case for supersonic transportation. I just don't see a sizable market for the Overture, and for that reason I highly doubt it will ever be built. In addition, the CEO of Boom (Blake Scholl) is prone to making outlandish claims, like his statement about flying anywhere on Earth in 4 hours for 100 dollars; I cannot take him seriously, so therefore I will not take Boom seriously, either.
*_@dereklenzen2330_* I suspect that you misunderstood Blake Scholl's statement as I did at first. He is not saying that Overture will get anywhere on earth in 4 hours for $100, what he is saying is that it is his hope for the future. It is quite possible too, if near earth orbit travel becomes reality, but probably not for the foreseeable future. We have had the technology since the 1960s but the problem is the mammoth development cost.
The ultimate solution would be to fly at, or above, the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed. Only the power to overcome the drop due to gravity would be required (by choosing the correct height and speed satellites, are able to circle the earth for tens of years with no power).
The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.
*_@dereklenzen2330_* There should be a healthy market for Overture if it reaches production and meets its specification. Overture is not aimed at the main line economy market, which is more than adequately served by Boeing and Airbus, for example. Instead Overture is targeting the 700 million long range business trips made yearly, world wide (despite remote conferencing, the internet, etc). Just like there are sectors in the market: regional, short haul, medium haul, long haul, Overture may form an addition niche sector, rather like Concorde did, except a lot bigger.
Overtures will carry 65 to 80 passengers in business class seats, almost certainly with internet. Ticket prices will be comparable, with subsonic business class. It will fly economically over land at Mach 0.94, 10% faster than subsonic airliners, and Mach 1.7 over water. This means that Overture will have 500 viable routes, compared to just two Atlantic routes for Concorde. Its cost of ownership will be much lower than Concorde, with better availability and cheaper maintenance. Also a flight engineer will not be required. It will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, so it will be able to use all airports, without attracting protests.
Take a JFK/LHR flight. A subsonic airliner will do the crossing in 8 hours. Overture will do it in 4 hours. A ticket would probably cost $3,000 one way, and $5,000 return.
Longer flights, across the Pacific for example, would require a fuelling stop, of say 1 hour. A subsonic airliner would take 16 hours. Overture would do it in 4+1+4=9 hours total. A ticket would probably cost $6,000.
Boom estimate that Overture's development costs will be $8bn. The unit cost of Overture has been set at $200M, so at a guess, the development payback would be 150 aircraft. This means 600 engines plus spares. Assuming 72 passengers and 8 hours flying a day average, 365, airline payback would probably be 10 years. Of course, there would be other options like leasing, and airlines normally get a large discount on the list price of an aircraft.
If it all turns out as I suggest, there would be myriad opportunities for related versions of Overture, just as there have been with other aircraft, especially the Boeing 737. So there may be a military version, stretched version, long range version, business jet version, and so on. There may even be a market for the Symphony engine or complete power module.
10-2023.08.28
Boom never got their XB-1 off the ground. Not a good look.
It will "totally" happen in 2024
*_@chadwaynebradley_* Since the Overture redesign in mid 2022, the XB-1 no longer has relevance. Blake Scholl has hinted that it will not fly.
Concorde was very profitable
So profitable that it was retired and no replacement was ever built?
@@shrimpflea British airways profited 750 million, but you wouldn't have such an ignorant comment if you knew anything
They should add an extra gas tank so the jet could go for 8000 to 10000 miles
*_@GLOATINGMAPLE01_* It is not as simple as that, especially on a Mach 1.7 supersonic airliner. If you add more fuel you would have to reduce the number of passengers. There are a lot of other factors to consider as well. It is quite possible, if Overture is established, that a longer range version may be developed, as has happened with subsonic airliners. With a 1 hour refuelling stop, Overture would have a range of 9,760 miles, so a 16 hour subsonic flight could be done on Overture in, 4+1+4=9 hours total.
I see a lot of United Airlines employees pensions being lost to this bad idea.
So, who is manufacturing a super cruise power plant for them?
FTT and GE Additive are two of the three companies building the "Symphony."
*_@boondockduane_*
Florida Turbine Technologies, a division of Kratos Defence, began the Overture engine development in January 2023. Engineers, who were involved in the design of the engines for the supersonic F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, will be on the design team.
The engine will have the same basic architecture as engines that currently power all modern airliners, and will use already certified materials and parts, including blades, rotors, accessories, and core. The manufacturers of these parts will assist throughout the design and development program.
Engine features:
• Turbofan
• Medium-bypass
• No afterburner
• Twin-spool
• 35,000 pounds of thrust on take off
• Air cooled multistage turbine
• Single stage, 72 inch diameter fan, for quiet operation
• Low-pressure compressor stages: 3
• High-pressure compressor stages: 6
• High-pressure turbine stages: 1 (passively cooled)
• Low-pressure turbine stages: 3
• Additive manufacturing for lightness, low part count, reduced assembly costs
• FAA Part 33 and EASA CS 33 compliance
• ICAO Chapter 14 noise compliance
Symphony, the Overture propulsion system, will have a Boom-designed axisymmetric intake, similar to the spike on the SR-71, and variable-geometry exhaust nozzle. This will make the engine fuel efficient at sub and supersonic speeds, and compliant with ICAO-14 noise regulations.
10b-2023.08.22
I think most people traveling on Boom are paid salary. So paying for those eight hours doesn't matter
*_@EvoLancer211_* Eight wasted hours are eight wasted hours whoever is paying for them.
@@phonicwheel933 Seriously. I'm on salary and my employer cares very much about wasted hours.
@@shrimpflea Same here. On many business trips Overture would have been an absolute godsend. Concorde was too expensive and only had a couple of routes.
Oh, we're still pretending this company has a snowball's chance in hell of actually releasing a tangible, certified, for-sale, flight ready aircraft? Pardon, but I won't be holding my breath...
*_@pinecone01_* Very wise.😊
Baby Boom is taking too long. I think that the company has serious problems.
And 4th!
Yay, 4th 🏅
@awatercolourist
Well, people do keep mentioning that they're first as though it's some kind of achievement. I wasn't far behind! 😂🤣😂
@@oxcart4172 Oh, I love it! I don’t care what number you are. There is a sense of community fostering doing this 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th thing 😂.
*_@oxcart4172_* Since the Overture redesign in mid 2022, the XB-1 demonstrator has little value and will almost certainly not fly.
@@phonicwheel933
Thanks for the information!
How are we struggling to find a profitable route? Clearly Newark to JFK is a hidden gem 😅
*_@vladimirulyanov7855_* In a Mustang at FL000 😊
They can't. I am sure your video was fine, but no need.
This video makes no sense. The employer pays 8.5 hours for 3.5 hours of elapsed time due to the time zone difference? Are you serious? When I travel on business I have to pick a time zone and clock all of my hours relative to that time zone. On a flight from JFK to LHR I could pick Pacific Time for all my employer cares, they aren't paying me an extra hour for every meridian. And even if they were, it would be nullified on the return flight. A rare misstep for this channel, you picked one use case and hinged your argument on sleeping on the plane.
My Best wishes 👍. However by the time this plane becomes commercial with viable routes, Elon Musk would already be running an electric plane probably for sub sonic heights which potentially may disrupt the current aviation fuel planes in air.
*_@raghunathkrishnan5124_* Yes, you can never tell how much development there will be in aviation between 2033 and 3033. At the moment, electric aircraft, and then only small size, have a range limited to about 100 miles, so batteries would have to improve by 100 times in energy density and weight to take over from jet fuel, and that is a tall order.
No doubt, in time, a new energy source will be developed, which will make our present forms seem barbaric. But, whatever energy source emerges, it should still be applicable to current aircraft, including Overture, if it is flying that is.
Transonic near earth orbit is probably the wave of aviation transport in the distant future.
The woman in the mock up of the interior looks like she is super pissed to be flying on a super sonic plane.
Its a fantasy project.
Paper plane
*_@tomAkelife-ff9tf_* Carbon Composite.
Boom Supersonic doesn’t exist anymore. All airlines have cancelled orders.
*_@celebrityrog_* Not true. Japan Airline has invested $10M in Boom with options for 20 Overtures. United has put deposits on 15 Overtures and options for 35 more. American has put deposits on 20 Overtures. But even if there were no orders or options it still would not mean that Overture did not exist.
@@phonicwheel933 The plane doesn't exist yet. All those orders can be cancelled and probably will.
@@shrimpflea I was addressing @celebrityrog's original post. But taking your pessimistic sounding post:
You said: *_The plane doesn't exist yet_* Hardly, Overture is in the development phase, just like all other aircraft have been, including, Comet, B707, Concorde, B727, B747...all of which underwent radical design changes during their development programs.
You said: *_All those orders can be cancelled_* Of course they can, but even so the deposits are non refundable, including the $10M from JAL. Besides, its possible for all orders to be cancelled, including in the case of the above mentioned aircraft. That's how the order system works And, like I said, even if all current airline orders were cancelled, it would not mean, per se, that Overture would fail.
You said: *_(All those orders can be cancelled) and probably will._* What is that dire prediction based on?
There are 6 general views about Boom:
(1) Boom is a money making scam
(2) Overture is technically impossible
(3) There will not be a market for Overture
(4) Overture should not be built on environmental grounds
(5) Boom cannot handle such a mammoth undertaking and will run out of money
(6) Overture will be a success
I am genuinely interested to know your point of view.
This clip is perplexing; It sounds like its supportive of this effort, while providing contradictory information! Why is there such a futile effort to revive 20th Century tech? Forget SS travel! Current conditions/ knowledge precludes its success! Move on to HST or beyond! All you need is another Musk.
Not realistic at all. Even if they only use SAF, this means that overall SAF in the glove will be consumed by this aircraft which was supposed to be consumed by more fuel efficient aircraft. Competition to use SAF then will start. Hence this aircraft is not environmentally sustainable, ultimately.
*_@sho1715_* Quite right. It's like all theses people who put posts on RUclips about the environment. Don't they realise how much power is used by computers, the telephone network, and all the servers and data centres world wide, which typically use a million watts each. Those same people buy products and food from overseas with no regard to the massive waste of energy caused by shipping, when they could quite easily use local items.
They also heat every room in their houses rather than simply putting on warmer clothes. Then there are the millions of self indulgent people who unnecessarily fly to holiday destinations ever year... If we could get rid of all the people, the world would be a much better place to live in!
Should have invested time and money into trying to build an electric aircraft instead. Here they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
*_@cobrabite007_* At least there is a chance that Boom will produce a viable SST, whereas there is no chance of a viable electric aircraft, with present technology. What is the problem that doesn't exist?
So wait.... It cannot fly non-stop from the west coast to Tokyo? Seriously? What the fuck is the point? At mach 1.7, just how fast can they refuel in Anchorage to not eat up the whole time advantage? Plus that means taking the fuel required for not one but 2 takeoff's! Expensive and wasteful.
*_@expletivedeleted7853_* LAX/NRT takes 11 hours non stop on a subsonic airliner. Overture would require a 1 hour refuelling stop, so the total journey time would be 2.75+1+2.75=6.5 hours. Overture accommodation is all business class, almost certainly with internet, and the ticket prices would be comparable with subsonic on that route, at around $5,000.
What a Con Job : 150 Boom staff 787 Dreamliner 2000 people Yeah some ones getting paid :D