Boom Supersonic Works on Its Own Engine, Shows the Overture Airliner’s Flight Deck - AIN
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- U.S. start-up Boom is convinced it can bring a 21st century supersonic airliner to market by 2030, shrinking the time it takes to cross oceans. Former British Airways Concorde chief pilot Mike Bannister and Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl shared their insights on how the Overture aircraft will move the technology forward, with new engines and a modern flight deck.
___________________________________________________
Visit www.ainonline.com for all the latest on the aviation industry, and AIN sister site bjtonline.com for the most comprehensive resource available for anyone using-or interested in trying-private flight. Visit www.ainonline.... for all the news on developing aviation technology.
Subscribe to the daily AIN Alerts newsletter: www.ainonline....
Subscribe to the FutureFlight newsletter: connect.ainonl...
Subscribe to BJT Waypoints: www.bjtonline....
Follow AIN on Instagram / ain_online
Like AIN on Facebook / ainpublications
Follow AIN on Twitter / ainonline
Follow AIN on LinkedIn / aviationinternationalnews
Follow FutureFlight on Instagram / futureflightain
Like FutureFlight on Facebook / futureflightain
Follow FutureFlight on Twitter / futureflightain
Follow FutureFlight on LinkedIn / futureflight
Follow BJT on Instagram / bjtonline
Like BJT on Facebook / business.jet.traveler
Follow BJT on Twitter / bjtonline
Follow BJT on Linkedin / business-jet-traveler
Aviation International News www.ainonline.com
Business Jet Traveler www.bjtonline.com
FutureFlight www.ainonline....
#aviation #travel #technology #airplane
That's a LOT of technology to certify in that time frame.
The typical manager that has no clue how long development takes.
Ya this wont have its first flight till 2040. By then air travel will be outlawed for the poor people because of "climate change".
Both you and @lowmax4431 are correct! If they don't start the cert process well ahead of the completion of the first prototype, they will experience significant delays. Question: can certain subassemblies be certified independently? If so, they could work certifications in parallel to save some time.
@@lowmax4431 It's not that the manager doesn't understand how long development takes. In fact, they know the timeline very well. However, they won't say our jet will be ready in 2035 because that would kill the excitement for investors and customers who have already placed orders. Instead, they'll say it's 2029, and when 2029 comes, they'll push it to 2030, and so on, until they reach the real timeline they expected all along. After all, nobody would want to invest if you told them 2035 in 2018
@@lowmax4431sounds like politicians
The engine is super quiet because it doesn't even exist yet
And it probably won’t, Concorde was honestly better much before its time and look how it turned out…. Expensive, noisy, inefficient and it could only fly over oceans and long flights….
Yes, & which boutique engine manufacturer is gonna make them!? They need a X-59 design to minimize sonic boom which would take a radical redesign to this Overture frame!
Exactly. This is complete BS. How do you stop a Sonic Boom? You cant.
@@EnglishLawyerunless we get a new batch of alien tech 👀 lol I’m sure the govt already has this tech.
@@EnglishLawyer NASA was/is working exactly on that. I don't know where they are right now but they have been trying to solve that problem.
Five years from certified, customer ready aircraft and nothing but mock ups, 3D animation and talk of designing and engineering new tech to enable it all. Sorry. Can’t see it happening.
Boom already has a smaller version of the aircraft flying.
I agree. 5 years is dreaming. They would need an incredible engineering team (top tier experienced engineers and a bunch of them) large enough to run development, testing, and certification. They would need flawless engineering, and even that is asking a lot in 5 years.
@@bnx200 a single pilot test aircraft is a very different proposition to a passenger ready version.
@@bnx200it's not smaller version. It's tech demonstrator. The function is only to prove that they have capacity to design airframe and subsystem for the supersonic aircraft.
The only thing tech demonstator can't demonstrate their capability is desigining/build engine.
@@swordsman1137 I think the engine will be the most difficult part. That's the one area where I can see the plane being delayed.
I clicked because it calls itself “news” not “10 minutes of corporate bloviating”
you ok now?
they said "five years from now" 5 years ago...🤣😂😁 lololol
It’s just a pattern with every aircraft program. They get delayed 😑
Advancement of technology at this insane level, of course! Only fools think its development is a play in the park. 5 or 10 year more… it will come. Tech advancement is inevitable.
this fantasy was interesting back then. its wearing thin now.
Without negative interest rates I’m surprised they are still around.
@@idiedoof4339but others have something to show, at least a demonstrator.
Can't wait for the follow-up video "When Boom went Bust"
Nothing like people looking for others to fail.
What an idiot.
Can't understand why people like you want to see others fail. Are we not supposed to move forward into the future?
@@justkiddin08 Sorry kid, but this ain't the future.
When they test the engine I might believe it’s all more than hype.
Screens are inferior to tactile controls. You can feel a tactile knob or switch without looking a it. I think we've already learned this from cars. Why do we have to learn it a second time for aircraft?
Isn’t F35 cockpit similar?
My Alpine aftermarket stereo has a tactile feel on its "buttons" on the screen. It gives a "click" when they are touched.
SpaceX Dragon uses screens with buttons in case of backup.
@@_bakedbeans6970 Yes
Don't get me wrong, I love all things aviation (mostly), but when I found out that they're going to develop their own engine I lost all hope for this project. Not happening. Maybe other (non aviation) ancillary motives at play here.
Rolls Royce I believe was who they went to originally and they refused to do the engine. Also I began questioning this company when they trashed the design they used to collect funding and produced the one shown in the video after funding was secured, a slap in the face to investors. That electric plane company United posted its Covid stimi into did the same- showed investors a clean sheet design Electric plane then once funding was secured rolled out a bombardier with a battery pack slapped onto it.
Nope. Hill helicopters is developing its own turbine engine to drive costs down. At firms like GE, Rolls Royce, and Pratt and Whitney, there are 50 year old engineers working 40 hour work weeks. At Overture, you have 25 year old engineers working 60 hour work weeks.
A better example is the performance of a young SpaceX compared to an old NASA.
China can’t even make reliable jet engines yet they are extremely difficult
If Boom gets far enough with their engine and demonstrates a successful design, engine manufacturers will be asking how they can help with production. They would be dumb not to. Sort of like how Apple designed its own SOC but went to Samsung and TSC to build the chips.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena Your information is incorrect. The original concept Boom 3 engine aircraft was designed to use a variant of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and a modified version is in the F-35). The Boom Engine program manager was a major manager from the F119 program. The F119 engine was already capable of "super-cruise" which the Boom aircraft would need. If you look at the original Boom 3 engine concept aircraft and do the math you will see that the F119 engine had the thrust and super-cruise capabilities that aircraft concept needed. RR did not have an engine that matched that aircraft.
Remove the vectoring nozzle, remove the afterburner, remove a few other military specific features, beef up the bearings and casing a bit so you can essentially use the same core while improving reliability and on wing life (military engines do not have nearly the reliability and on wing life of civilian jetliner engines; but it would work well enough for Boom). Then certify the engine for Civilian airline use.
Note that all the original passenger jet engine airliners used military derived engines - with very short engine lives compared to today's engines. The concept of using military derived engines is not new at all - nor novel. I understand that there is a least 1 military derived engine that came in a few decades later because it was the perfect size as well.
The fly in the ointment came when P&W told Boom that Boom would have to pay for the development of said engine variant up front as P&W did not see enough of an engine market to fund the development from future sales. Asking price is reported to be most of $1Billion to fund development, testing, and certification.
Boom walked at that point; and then talked to RR. Apparently RR told Boom the same thing - for exactly the same reasons.
I was a big supporter of Boom up to that point. I believe that had they gone to their investors and asked for the money up front that they would have gotten it - and would have had a viable engine with robust long term parts and service support.
Now I view Boom as nothing more than an investor scam. It cost $billions to develop and test new civilian aircraft engines of that size range.... Who is going to actually fund that. Even $1 Billion for a derivative of an existing military engine is not out of line cost wise
I'll believe when and if they actually get it certified. I'm not optimisitc.
In Chicago as a child I heard sonic booms a lot. I asked my mom what it was and she explained it was from an airplane. The booms were certainly loud! I've always wanted to fly on Concorde. Perhaps I may get a chance to fly supersonic with this 2nd generation one!
your mom was trying not to scare you. Those were gunshots 😂
5:27 How’s that gonna work during turbulence when your arm is bouncing around? With a physical knob you can hold on while you’re turning it. With a physical switch, even if it isn’t protected by panel flanges (or whatever those protrusions are called that guard the sides of the button), you can feel when your finger is right over it.
I really hope these guys succeed
If they don't there will be death.
Why does this sound like a “carbon fiber” deep-sea submersible 😝
Now now, the Titan with all its flaws was actually built, this thing never ever will be.
@@colin-nekritz Unfortunately for submersible, yes.
Composite material works great for airplanes but not submarines.
Honestly I was just thinking the same thing, it really feels like a combination of "carbon fiber deep-sea submersible" meets "nikola motors". If this is the case the silver limning is they probably won't ever reach testing phase so no lives should be lost.
Most of the controls being on a touchscreen monitor, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong!
Why not replace the control stick and levers with a PS4 controller while we're at it? 🤦
They are selling a dream. Overture is basically Theranos all over again.
Do a video when they have a flying prototype
“Wanna turn off a circuit breaker. Tap tap tap.” So how do you turn off the controls that control the circuit breakers? And whatever they do with the engine it’s still going to have a sonic boom so will likely only ever be supersonic over the oceans giving a huge amount of time subsonic.
Well done for digging up Mike Bannister, but otherwise this CEO is deluded.
Well they have the cockpit all ready to go. Anyone else notice the concord pilot landing off centerline?
Now they just have to invent, test, build and certify a brand new engine that GE, Pratt and Rolls Royce didn’t want to touch. Also the inlet and nozzle.
Easy, peezy.
Don’t hold your breath…
The Wright Brothers have an old four-pot lying around. Low miles, one owner🤷♂😅 Should slot right in there...
You're right about it being no easy task to design a new engine, but it kinda sounds like they didn't have a choice. I hope they can surprise the world. Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible. (It will be funny to see which of its competitors will be first to commit industrial espionage against them...)
@@horusfalcon as long as the investors understand this project is very high risk.
@@timgarrett203 Yeah, that's a given. They will need some latitude in the early stages of development, but, as things progress they will have to actually put up or shut up at some point. I'm just wanting to see another SST, even if we have to take baby steps to get there, and aspects of this engine design are fascinating. They will have to be very careful with the control over the tail spike, or fuel economy, efficiency, and noise level will all take a hit.
@@horusfalcon They had a choice - but balked at the money. The original engine concept was a civilianzed version of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and modified for the F-35).
The Boom Engine Manager was one of the F119 program managers (responsible for half of the F119 engine).
P&W would have removed the vectoring nozzle, the afterburner, a few other military features, beefed up the engine a bit, and certified it for civilian use.... IF Boom had been willing to pay for that development and certification (my information was most of $1 Billion). That's very cheap for a new engine - and likely about 1/5th the cost of a purpose developed and certified engine.
P&W did not see enough of an engine market for that specialized engine to warrant development of it from projected sales of the engine (unlike civilian jetliner engines that sells in the many thousands for decades).
Boom did not want to pay for the development of their engine. They then went to talk to RR and essentially got told the same thing.
That's when Boom went in my mind from an realistic proposal to an investment scam company. I believe that Boom could have gone to their investors and gotten the money to fund engine development.
New from scratch engine of the size with super-cruise ability is likely in the $3-$5 Billion dollar range for development, refinement, testing, and certification for civilian use.
After the grounding of the Concord which was such a sad moment in aviation history, I’m delighted to see another company’s vision of supersonic flight take us into the future👍👍
In the 60's going from propeller to jet made people fly more to save time. Now people will opt for a stop over that makes the trip 4 hours longer if it saves 100 bucks.
"i believe we're going to need more supersonic aircraft than subsonic aircraft. so 1, that means we're gonna have to build a whole lot of these, and we'll need to be bigger than boeing or airbus to fill that demand"
this fries my brain. not his belief we'll need more SSTs than regular aircraft -- it's the fact he thinks when that happens, boom is the only company who will be able to provide them?! that's either tenacity or one of those bad -isms or -pathy's
edit: "and the autopilot -- of course this has an *advanced* autopilot" people are giving this guy money. maybe some of yours, from your retirement account or taxes.
We have a term for this sort of project: vapourware. There is no way that Boom will be able to develop its own engines. GE, Rolls, Safran could but not a startup with little engine manufacturing experience.
Looks like the old Concorde pilot has become a slick and smooth talking salesman.
The multi-billion dollar investment to design, manufacture and certify an engine for only one airframe will kill this project. There are sound business reasons P&W, GE and RR opted out of supplying engines for Boom Supersonic.
Annnnd nothing about the actual 'boom', The largest crux in supersonic travel.
That's ok.. Since this is American made, the FAA will approve regardless of the boom.. The company calls itself boom.. Geez. And what's he smoking when he says the plane will not rattle window panes. The only way this will be.. If the plane flies sub sonic below 15-20k feet.
As far as I remember, the Concorde only used afterburner to take of and climb.
It would super cruise rest of the flight.
Concorde used afterburners to accelerate through the high-drag transsonic region as well. Counterintuitively, it’d take more fuel to accelerate from ~M.95-1.3 without afterburners than to just brute-force through.
Need a separate detailed video about the Engine Technology.
My God, Boom should have won an Oscar for self promotion, I'll get interested once others mention the results!
They are still dreaming, re-designing and sucking money from investors after 10 years. All the major players have pulled out, so, good luck to anyone who has thrown their money into this project. IMHO It has absolutely NO chance of being commercial by 2030.
This is one of the few projects today that inspires hope in both science and technology... We need FAR more of that Tomorrowland stuff to make the future worth living for... Right now for most folks the future feels bleak and it needn't be!
Indeed. The future is looking biblical, truth be told. Whether humanity can finally work together to avert that is another matter. I wish Boom every success.
I agree so much. We need the faith that technological advances are able to solve the problems we’ve created. Environmental, social etc.
And we need people who actually work on it.
Nowadays people tend to be so cynical and laid back like it’s a given that the world is fucked and we are doomed to live in stagnation till the end.
Very exciting to see this - flying Concorde is one thing I am so happyI was able to experience in my time and I am thrilled that this may be a possibility for my nephews and nieces lifetime!
Same here although the USA is light years behind U.K. and France in doing this. The US was pissed that U.K. and France did this first. The US also banned all overland supersonic commercial passenger flights apart from military thereby cutting off its nose to spite its face to quote a well know analogy
@@peterbest5938 nobody cares. You sound so bitter, go touch grass.
It’s coming to Greensboro where I live. I really want a career there! Already coming from Freightliner OEM and corporate world, working on my PPL I’d love to intertwine my manufacturing corporate experience with my dream of aviation! 🥵
Its all talk, and I doubt it will ever see the sky, even a prototype. There is a reason why airbus and boeing have given up on SST.
I wish them luck, but I’m not holding my breath until I can fly on it.
My main question is how much space does a bathroom on a Boom Overture have?
The cabin is larger than that of a CRJ so that's probably what you are looking at, but keep in mind, that still falls to the airlines at the end of the day.
None, I mean, the bathroom will be as big virtually as you want them, which is to say in make believe, because this plane will never exist outside of as seen in this video to bilk investors out of money, it’s pure vaporware.
Not to worry Sam, the plane is so fast by the time you think you have to pee, you have already peed
Medium bypass for supersonic flight is a STUPID IDEA. Why? Because that bypass flow produces basically no thrust at all at supersonic speeds. A bypass ratio of about 2 will at best produce a fan pressure ratio of about 1:2. You simply cannot squeeze supersonic exhaust out of 1:2 pressure ratio. The air in your car's tires is at greater than 1:3 from ambient, good luck getting a supersonic jet from it! What that means is that the only thing producing thrust is the core. The low pressure turbine driving the fan is taking power from the engine to drive a big fan and pull along a big nacelle that produces nothing but drag.
--
If they are going to go the vertically integrated route and do their own engines, they should go for a Variable Bypass Engine (VBE). At low speeds, half or more of the fan flow goes into the bypass duct for noise reduction and lower thrust specific fuel consumption. At supersonic cruise, almost all of the fan flow goes through the high pressure compressor for higher exhaust velocity. To manage combustion temperature, it may be necessary for part of the compressor output to bypass the combustor. But at least it is a much higher pressure flow now at something between 1:15 and 1:30. It is not a new concept, working engines of this kind have been run since the late 1980s. The GE YF120 is one example. The recent GE XA100 and P&W XA101 are additional stabs at this idea using 3-streams to add a cooling stream to serve heat exchangers.
u should apply to be a consultant or engineer for them.
Finally someone who know something about engine.
Not a coincident that almost all supersonic engines in production are turbojet/low bypass/ramjet.
And the chance of a startup doing in-house design, manufacturing, and validation of an advanced supersonic airliner engine, I call it hard to believe at best, and money laundering most likely. Poor investors having more money than brain investing on the basis of a cool CGI advertisement and impossible promises.
@@LongTran-em6hc I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. In 2004 everyone thought those SpaceX fools were full of shit too! But, making an efficient medium bypass (2~3 bypass ratio) turbofan for supersonic cruise is NOT an engineering problem. It is a physics problem.
--
Remember, with anything but a scramjet, you have to slow the incoming air to subspnic speeds before it hits the fan. You then have to accelerate that flow to greater than your supersonic cruise speed if you want to produce thrust. You do that mainly by compressing it then burning fuel in it. For every axial stage you get about 1.2~1.5x of compression -- 1.2 being similar to a 1st gen engine like a Jumo 004, 1.5 being a GE9x. Most supersonic engines are in the middle of the range mainly because of combustor temperature limits.
--
As a rough rule of thumb, a 2 or 3 stage fan produces noting but drag. Just 10 stages of compression and no combustion produces minimal thrust. 10 stages of compression plus combustion produces plenty of thrust, but part of it has to be taken off to drive the turbine. Any or all of the flow that does not go through the combustor and turbine CAN make plenty of useful thrust if you dump fuel into the tail pipe and burn it at low compression -- that's called an afterburner.
The aircraft isn’t always at supersonic speed, so a medium bypass engine is a GREAT idea for reducing noise and fuel consumption at subsonic speeds.
@@j.heilig7239 LOL... the point of an SST is to fly at supersonic speeds. If you are not spending 80-90% of the trip supersonic you shouldn't be flying the SST. Optimizing the engine for 10~20% of the trip while making it drastically less efficient -- perhaps to the point of being unable to actually fly supersonic -- for overwhelming majority of the trip is the very definition of moronic engineering.
--
Do you know how much less efficient bypass can make a supersonic engine? Remember the Tu-144? It's the Soviet Concordski. The use of a 0.6:1 bypass turbofan meant that it could not sustain supersonic flight without the afterburners being lit to some degree. The specific fuel consumption with the NK-144 engines was 1.81kg/kgfh at Mach 2.0 and a supersonic range of 1300 nm. Switching to RD-36 turbojets (no bypass) netted a TSFC of 1.22 kg/kgfh and a range of 2878 nm.
--
That was just a 0.6 low bypass turbofan. And you think going to a medium bypass engine with 2~3:1 of the air flow making no thrust and creating a massively draggy nacelle is a "great" idea?
Developing an aero jet engine is a huge task. Rolls Royce aero engines has decades of experience and each new engine requires huge numbers of engineers and large amounts of money. Good luck to them if they can get the funding.
It's very ambitious. Especially developing the engines themselves. The cockpit technology seems feasible when considering what's available today, even in cars with the likes of reverse cameras, parking sensors and lane assist. But developing the engines themselves is what looks like the most challenging aspect considering they don't have someone like Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney or General Electric backing them with their resources. But they appear to know what they're doing. I reckon certification will cause the biggest delays as they are the first of its kind since the death of concorde.
To be fair, they have Florida Turbine Technologies working with them on the development of the engine. People on the team worked on both the F-119 and F-135 engines of the F-22 and F-35 respectively. They also have backing from Northrop Grumman and the USAF themselves. Not saying it's going to be easy but I still have faith in this coming to fruition.
@WilliamRivera343 well that certainly makes a difference in how likely they are to succeed. I didn't know that.
Concorde did not exactly die, it simply lost financial viability.
Paying much more to travel from the US to Europe in a sports car was not competing with taking longer to make the journey at a lower cost in a 5 star hotel.
Most business travellers enjoyed their first flight on Concorde, but most of them never flew Concorde again.
To be a success this new aircraft has to have a comfort level comparable to an A380.
You will have a better chance of seeing an albino unicorn that farts rainbows and speaks 15 languages in your lifetime than ever seeing one of these exist.
We’ve been waiting for this for a long time 😊!
With so many spaced-apart powerful engines, won’t you need more than one small rudder?
A start up company taking on a big project, good luck.
That release schedule is crazy!!
I am looking forward to fly on it ASAP. Smart move on Overture to make the engines in-house and keep tight controls on manufacturing and QA. Former F/A with Eastern Airlines 1976 to 1989.
You were smart enough to be a pilot but not smart enough to detect this is exquisite load of garbage will never exist? Is this from you’re slowly becoming senile or from the medicine you’re on in old age? Hate to break it to you old man but this is 100% vaporware, it will never become reality.
ASAP is at least 5 years
The scariest thing their CTO said is that the aircraft is just like a phone with updates OTA.
That is terrifying to me with regards to an airplane.
Boeing’s biggest f-ups weren’t doors falling off. They were glitched updates that screwed flight control and brought down an airliner and almost another.
I watched Tesla’s glitch out of control before to. I love tech but that’s terrifying.
I know Boom will be very successful with the New Symphony Engine I have faith in everything it will be
VERY cool music! I just downloaded the song on iTunes. Thanks for giving credit to the artist! 😎👍🏽👍🏽
No way.
There is thinking,there is talk,there is action. I love the way these CEOs talk,talk,talk. The day they produce anything even close to Concorde and its testing I will say WOW.
Its better if they just did the thing they say they will do and then say"look at this". Concorde had 5000 testing hours. Jumbo 747 had 1500. Theres a reason for that.
Hope these guys can come up with something even close but its a long way off.
Is someone blowing smoke? I feel a breeze on my back side, and smells like french fries. I can't imagine.
8:31 Autoland on most landings?!?! As an “old school” airline pilot this airplane seems to be removing what I enjoy the most about my profession. Specifically watching the sun set or rise and the physical beauty of our word below. I also pride myself in the skill required to hand fly an approach to landing. Perhaps this aircraft is meant for the next generation of pilots. I still love takeoffs and landings..
Don't worry about it. This will never exist so its a non issue.
Do you think that having such a short time frame is realistic for an engine that I has never been built before? How difficult is the certification process for a new technology engine like that? I’d still trust you and your peers in controlling the take off and landing. Thank you for your years of service
He is a marketing dude, what does he know about flying and staying proficient.
One of the main selling arguments for the L-1011 was the advanced autoland system, that was in 1970.
Current airliners have auto land.
“It’s all controlled by this game controller.”
BOOM: I NEED MORE MONEY, GIVE ME, GIVE ME!
I also redesigned the jet and rocket engines, essentially combining them into one, with a complex, toggle locked, piston system, designed to recycle the pressure of combusting gasses, in zero g.
It was designed with no air intake, with the intention of being a space-plane motor, but could be modified to have an air intake.
And a military prototype was built, with a similar concept of motor, running on solid fuel, and that design is capable of using a silencer, which is just a propeller connected to the turbine with some exhaust port.
This reduces the volume to that of a helicopter. This was in 2022.
Anyone remember the SST museum in Kissimmee, Florida back in the 1970's? As a high school student of that time, I do.
First commercial flight in no less than 10 years
Now that's an interesting video. I guess my only concern would be, and I'm no Pilot, so, the touch screens. I just wonder with something so sensitive as a touch screen, if you accidently touched the wrong thing, the consequences that could follow.
That may be something they've worked out, and honestly, if I thought of it, they surely did.
There are already avionics system where the cockpit Displays are touch screen. Nothing new.
That's even better and easier to fly the plane with touch screen displays and side stick controller's and you are always aware of what you are doing and what it's doing
Hopefully this works❤
The campaign to get brand new engine from Design to get certified for flight will take you at least 10 years. No way these plans are realistic.
When this was originally announced, as a start up concept, they stated it would take 200 passengers to make it commercially viable, compared to Concorde (100 passengers), it would also match the speed of Concorde to make it as efficient in terms of saving time. This latest version takes only 80 passengers and is slower, I really do hope it becomes a reality but there are too many obstacles and limited customer interest at the moment.
I really really hope they succeed and supersonic travel becomes a normal travel option. But.... the technical innovations that are needed to do what Boom is claiming is monumental to say the least. The engines alone would be revolutionary if it can do what they are claiming to do, I don't know why but this video gives me a vibe that it was made to make Boom much more viable in the investors eyes to pull in more capitol, I really hope the investors are rewarded for taking this huge risk.
Interesting that Concorde was designed in the 1950s. Part in metric, in France. And part in imperial, in the UK long before CAD. It was built in the 1960s long before robotic manufacturing. So when watching Concorde, you’re watching the future, yet it’s now long past. Oh, Concorde also had auto-land. Yes, 50+ yrs ago.
Blake Scholl looks like the younger version of John Leahy, former chief commercial officer of Airbus SE.
Hi! I'm from the year 2031. Just thought I'd stop by to let you know that this never happened.
Love how the Concorde was the future of air travel in the 80s until one of them caught fire and then the whole thing was scrapped... Kind of like the whole world was waiting for an excuse. Yes it may have been too expensive to be scalable in its era but it really was the story of the thing everyone loved until the day everyone hated it. Curious.
Ironically, their name is Boom. Makes me think "quiet".
Make it Soo I want to see this Aircraft built and flying soon
great to see x plane 11 in action
All digital is great, but sometimes people just want to have physical controls. That’s exactly what happened to some American warships. They had lots of digital control, but the navy eventually had to revert to physical controls because the crews were complaining about the non practicality of all digital.
nice i like the new approach of clean design and control
Think of the time one saves using Overture when in a holding pattern over EWR
This is really cool but the reliance on so much technology is kinda scary
How did you make this comment?
The advancement of technology is inevitable. Our lives get better and safer and more efficient with it. Draw backs? Of course, like always. People screamed with the first locomotive or with the first aeroplane…..
As opposed to what?
@@Secretlyanothername Did you really compare flying a supersonic jet through technology....with a RUclips comment? If you're not skeptical, even just a little, of our wholesale reliance on, not only technology, but technology that's supposed to keep us safe at 38,000ft+, flying at Mach 1.7....you're not paying any attention.
Remember our little friend MCAS? Didn't end well for over 300 people a few years back. Nobody saw that coming. I guess it wasn't you or your loved ones, so whatevs.
Nobody is saying that fear should halt progress, but these guys CLEARLY want to push technology through the pipeline fast so they can start seeing profits. That's the problem with over-reliance on technology, its FAR more often than not: not tested enough before full service.
Look up "hubris", and you may understand.
@@j.heilig7239 Simplicity with redundancy is always safer than complexity with redundancy.
Exciting!!!🔥🔥🔥
Concorde still looks so much more elegant in design and futuristic than this overture model.And it first flew in 1969.So ahead of its time.!.
I'll go ahead and make that correction: the RR Olympus engine that powered Concorde *was* actually a low-bypass turbofan not a turbojet as Mr. Scholl suggests. Pedantic, I know. I'm OK with it 😏
Really? Which Concorde are you talking about. Because the one flown by British Airways and Air France starting in the 1970s was powered by the Rolls-Royce Olympus TURBOJET. That’s according to Rolls-Royce, but what would they know?
Looks like it was a turbojet but the inlet system ahead of the engine did allow air to bypass around the engine, but it wasn’t driven by the fan.
OTA Updates like my phone?
Sounds so safe! Touchscreens? Good luck if one breaks
Love the idea of the Boom and a new player in the market. I just feel like the idea is so farfetched for a new manufacturer. Designing the plane AND such a complex engines, that’s already a red flag for me. Circuit breakers are within touch display? Seems like an issue during if there is an electrical fire.
I hope they prove me wrong!
All circuit breakers on the 787 I fly are virtual, not a single traditional CB in the cockpit. So it's already been done. But they don't have an engine yet and believe they are going to be delivering airplanes in five years...not going to happen
I live near Greensboro, NC. I believe it when I see it. How will his one make $$ when Concord lost $$$. Wish them well.
Development of a new aircraft and a new engine in 6 years by a company that has never developed either. Admire their ambition and enthusiasm but no new commercial aircraft or engine program (by organizations with extensive airframe and engine development) has ever been brought in on time or under budget, usually at least doubling the development time and often quadrupling the budget. How can you make the economics of all of this work for a couple of hundred aircraft is a mystery to me. I don’t think passengers will pay six figures for a fast seat across the Atlantic.
Much more to this than they are saying, sonic boom can be reduced, yes.. but they won't get to fly supersonic near major metropolises, and will be restricted to pre accepted routes away from other flight traffic below. NY to LAX or DFW might be doable.. but less likely NY to ORD. I'd like to see the business case for this instead of projections I doubt about progress and first flights. ( that are very very speculative since X-59 only recently flew it's 1st ) Once X 59 is tested along competitive routes on East Coast without issues, then they might get support for more opportunities.
I don’t understand all the negativity. I do understand skepticism though. But who cares if it takes longer than the estimated timeframe? Investors yeah… but in terms of innovation, let it take its time. If Boom supersonic needs 10+ more years then that’s better than rushing it
It will be interesting to see how well Boom does at engine development. That they would take on such a daunting task is a signal of the resistance in the industry to further advancement, and that's a bloody shame. I see, reading other comments here, that some feel they insulted their investors by changing their design. From my own aerospace experience, it is not uncommon for an aircraft maker to forsake a flawed design early rather than pour more money into something that won't work. That is nothing unusual in the long history of aviation. So long as they communicated the change in a way to reassure their investors, all is well. (I don't know for certain whether that happened, though.)
I hope they know what they are doing, and that they surprise everyone who is presently saying, "It can't be done..." I wish them every success, and hope I get to see one of theirs fly.
One thing that wasn't addressed in the video was sonic boom. Are they using the new NASA pioneered aerodynamics which would allow them to fly supersonic overland'?
Faster was never cheaper for the masses.
Is BOOM a good name for an airplane company though?
This project has tech issues and business model issues. 75 percent chance they’ll overcome the tech issues. Zero chance they’ll overcome the business model issues.
Ugghhh. I like this thing I really do, but its clear this guy is thinking silicon valley bull crap and less JFK airport realities. First, the update thing is a nighmare to get certified for airliners, I know I worked on certifying aircraft avionics for 4 years. I also have 5000 hours in the cockpit. I love the fact that they have force feeback side sticks but about 8 out of 10 Airbus crashes are due to pilots mismanagement or pilot error (typically because the automation did something and they didnt know how to recover). And for you Boeing haters, Airbus started having crashed thanks to its flight deck design immediately after the A320 was built. And for a Boeing hit, that update concept was what the engineers originally came up with for MCAS. Also, for a Concorde pilot, his landing was terrible. Most airlines specify if you cannot land the aircraft in the first 1/3 of the runway its a go around, and while i get it, its a poorly made sim, hes not even aiming to land on the first 3rd. Also, most pilots use autoland, most pilots HATE autoland, and only use it when necessary. Maybe I should say nost US pilots hate autoland.
That being said, I appreciate the real challenges here and I like the fact that they are proceeding on dispite the curve balls being throne at them. The engine manufacturers not developing an enigne for them was less them being mean and more them being broke. GE is the reason the 777X is so behind schedule and Rolls Royce has produced 3 engines in the past 2 decades, all with major issues. Even Pratt and Whittney is bogged down with issues. But they are probably also hoping they will incure the development cost so they can swoop in and buy the tech afterwards. I say good luck, but stop trying to act like this is a cellphone. Its not.
There is basically zero chance that any paying customers will ever fly on this plane. The concord did not fail because it was loud, it failed because super sonic flight is stupidly inefficient and it was almost impossible to turn a profit. The economics have not changed.
I think most of the people who could actually afford the 20k price tag of the ticket are also fine to sit a bit longer in 1st class for 25% of the costs.
I went on the concord in 2003 because I got a few upgrade from 1st class due to a bad mixup. It was cool and all, but also very cramped very, very loud. I found 1st class and business class to be more relaxing.
Wish we had them NOW
Slick animation and paying for testimonials is the easy part, developing that engine must be a monumental challenge. If it could be done and profitable, why isn’t GE or Rolls doing it?
If pilots need to rely on augmented reality and cameras and things like that for flying the airplane, that's just one more piece of equipment that can break, and will break at some point, and as much redundancy as you have, it means there's more things that can cause delays on flights.
Does it still have a front window?
Did you see the video?
Minute >>8:30 explain all that
@@michaeldiamondofficial I know it has synthetic vision, but that can go out. If there's no front window and no synthetic vision and no autopilot, they're screwed.
Hmm ... I think I'll hold my "belief" until I see and hear it flying. The simple fact that no other aviation company will even invest in the new engine kills it DEAD. Until it flies, I'm just going to consider this another aviation failure-in-waiting!
Supersonic passenger flight in my time. cant wait.
5:50 man landed on left side of the runway lol
The name of this company is Boom. Explosions go boom.
I don't understand this logic. 6 months to train a commercial pilot for supersonic flight vs 2 months for subsonic flight. It's along the lines of a public transit bus should be able to drive 300+MPH. The driver just needs extra training is all... or is it all?
This company feels too much like Theranos.
Sky Theranos is exactly what it is… vaporware.
Autoland? Brought to you by Disneyland. Im sorry, good luck, Boom.
Put some real gauges and buttons in there, you don't need to bury everything in a menu on a screen. You don't want to flip through on screen displays when you have an emergency.
It's also extremely ambitious timeline if they were just building the plane, now they're building the engine too? I wish them success but they should be more realistic about their time frames.
Totally agree. I HATE touch screens on flight decks and having to go through several menus to get to an item.
Have you seen the cockpit of any modern airliner? Didn’t think so.
@@j.heilig7239 I haven’t. I just fly them for work.