Why Boom Supersonic Will Succeed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 янв 2024
- It's been more than two decades since Concorde last took to the skies. Various factors such as high fuel consumption, limited routes, combined with high operational costs led to its ultimate downfall. Today, many startups have launched ambitious plans to bring back supersonic flight, but can they actually succeed? Watch to find out!
#supersonic #boom #overture #united #concorde
Being named BOOM is not gonna make it hard for the media to make fun of if anything goes wrong
LMAO
To address the time over comfort question, I need only call back a historical example: the ocean liner vs the airliner.
Who will win: a giant floating city capable of crossing the Atlantic in under a week carrying 1,000s of paying passengers in unmatched comfort offering all the space and amenities one can ask for to do as they please, OR, a jet-powered aluminum tube that flies really fast?
Historically, one constant humanity has always pushed for is faster, faster, faster. History as my witness, coupled with 60 years of advances in aviation technology, I wouldn't worry about Overture with airlines.
I love how he puts topics like this in a easy to understand and fun way.😃
Underrated Channel
Concorde was a success in capturing a small niche market of very rich and powerful people who needed to minimise their time spent travelling between Europe and USA and vice versa, and were prepared to pay c.£3,000 for the return flight. But only 14 were 'sold', to the flag carriers of Britain and France. There aren't many airline routes in the world that a) have a big enough proportion of passengers who will pay the premium for supersonic travel b) Are entirely over water because supersonic flight over land is banned (this rules out Europe to Middle East) c) Are only 3000-4000 miles (rule out trans-Pacific routes. So Boom Overture is a hard sell. (I'm not a plane nerd I used to work for British Airways as a business analyst etc from 1987-94).
Finally somebody talking sense. Bear in mind they are struggling with design issues with several changes there's just soo much "up in the air" with the whole project from logistical issues and engineering issues. Any half decent graphics designer can make all sorts of CGI where you can ignore economic realities and physics. I too like you, am an industry professional.
The kid who made this video does not understand the realities as to why supersonic transportation died. While the Concord accidents may have been the final nail in the coffin the only reason it stayed remotely viable as long as it did was because it essentially was a government subsidized program.
With boom we are talking about an aircraft that hasn't even been built or tested (which stands to reveal its own issues as it always does) much less certified.
There's no support network in place for maintenance and parts, not only will pilots have to be trained but so will the crews that work with the aircraft from flight attendants to mechanics. We are talking about some serious money to actually get this thing into service nevermind profitable service.
Pre-orders mean nothing in the scheme of things if they are never going to actually be delivered. I believe the only reason it has gotten the orders it has this far is for publicity and marketing. There is a value to that.
I don't think anyone who is actually a serious industry professional expects this thing to come to market because I don't.
But maybe I'm wrong.
@@FloorItDuh Thank you. But the thing is there's an opportunity cost to this. All that venture capital attention and money could be going to other projects.
Oh good another bean counter.
@@Flygupp15 Haha I was an award winning software developer.
@@FloorItDuhI’m an FO for a legacy U.S. carrier that has shown interest in the boom overture. I personally do believe that it will come to the market from the non-public information i have read.
IMHO, today, in internet ZOOM, Teams, Skype and other online video conference software, with authenticated electronic sign probably not. But the supersonic flight is very big attraction, so there is possibility for economical success. And take off from London in the darkness, then race with Sun shadow on Earth's surface and land in New York in daylight of same day is even bigger attraction. It is Concorde's theory of the relativity - in mid Atlantic - for ships on the surface nice sunset, for Concorde passengers on LHR - JFK trip nice sunrise. This is the reason, why I like to fly with Concorde in flightsim.
I feel like you missed the point a little when it came to excecutives. While yes, usually they fly out of smaller airports due to 2 reasons mainly.
1. they need to get to a specific place, and it can save a lot of time to get a direct flight
2. they don't have to taxi for as long and wait, and also is very expensive
Both of these reasons come down to time, for them, time is money. For example, Walmart has a fleet of private jet, because it's cheaper to fly them with private than to pay for the trip AND pay for their time for a commercial flights, which often includes connections and overnight stays.
So if it's quicker to fly through a major hub, then they will do that.
Good video!
The big issue with the Overture is the range. At 6:50 you either show or mention routes like SFO-ICN (5,658 mi) or LAX-NRT (5,451 mi). Those definitely would be desirable routes. Except Boom admit Overture is only designed to fly 4,250 mi and that "for longer routes, Overture may require a refueling stop". That's ridiculous, a refueling stop would completely negate the fast travel benefit of flying supersonic.
How many of their "600 routes" are similarly fake/impossible?
I don't think it's that big an issue. Refueling stops don't have to take that long. Aircraft sometimes stop to refuel with passengers staying onboard, then leaving afterwards. Even if that adds 1-2 hours, that would still save several hours on a long flight. And even if we get only half of the planned 600 routes, that still leaves hundreds of routes still open.
I think there's a good chance supersonic travel will work long term, because people are willing to pay for speed. Rail travel is much cheaper and fuel-efficient than air travel, and shipping is the most fuel-efficient travel of all. So why do people still pay for air travel? Because it's much faster. There has always been and probably always will be a demand for faster travel.
I love your videos man keep it up
Who is building the engines for Overture? Last I heard all the major manufacturers had declined.
Boom contracted Kratos’ Florida Turbine Technologies to develop Overture’s engines. There are some former GE employees who work there as GE’s HQ used to be in Florida before they moved to Boston.
There is no point talking about Boom overture now. I will come back to check on it, towards the end of 2026.
Very unlikely, but Airbus owns the patents for Concorde so they could technically step in and create some competition with Boom. I still think Overture will succeed though.
Idk why, but Overture gives me CargoLifter or OceanGate Vibes.
just have to trust the FAA again
its made of carbon fiber so obviously it doesn’t need faa certification 😂
Paring back of as many of Concorde's special qualities as possible save the just supersonic speed isn't really advancing humanity, is it?
Why would the President and his staff purchase the supersonic airliner as a replacement to the 757 if the super sonic airliner would only travel over seas to limited destinations like london, makes no sense at all.
Of course it will
Bro the space ex hq is at Hawthorne
Id wait 3 years after the plane enter passenger service because I need to see how the plane hold up because we saw what happened to the Dehavilland Comet, and Boeing 737 Max. When new type of planes enter revenue service, don't just be the first one to fly like the other passenger are doing otherwise you could get killed, wait 3 years to see how it does.
Suprecruise is already there in F22 ,not sure why they cannot commercialize this
Good point. The biggest challenge with supercruise is not that we don’t have the technology to do it, rather it might not be commercially viable due to factors like fuel efficiency, passenger demand, etc
Spacex is literally @ hawthorne airport
i feel like the X-59 will do this role and much better, think about it.
boom does nothing to adress one of the reasons concorde was even retired; sonic boom legislature. it's basicly a concorde without the droop snoot, lighter, more fuel efficent and slightly slower which will still be affected by the said legislature. Whereas the X-59's goal is a testbed to lower the damage of the sonic boom, allowing it to fly right on by the laws against the booms. And yet more; Lockheed Martin has far greater expirence with supersonics than Boom; the SR-71, F-22, F-35, SR-72, hell, expirence in space for that matter; OV-100 to OV-105, creating satelites, X-33, the list goes on and on. both have even rolled out their prototypes; the XB-1 and the demonstator X-59. Which is why I think Lockheed will win over Boom in the long run
They built the most complex planes like SR 71, U2 , B2 bomber, and now the B 21 bomber, F35 with a lift fan, F22, but can't build a frikking supersonic airliner? Something doesnt add up 🤣 , some lobby is preventing it.
The government was making a supersonic plane around the time of the concord but didn’t because it’s stupid
There is little to no reason it’s too expensive for people and transports too few people makes more sense to make regular planes faster or more efficient than doing this
Starship earth to earth will have longer range, much higher speed, and higher capacity. Only coastal areas will be served though, but that's fine, higher speeds are only interesting for intercontinental travel.
Starship earth to earth is a horrible idea for a lot of other reasons. I’ll link a video below that summarizes it better than I could.
ruclips.net/video/jQUiIdre-MI/видео.htmlsi=rWuR8QmtgHwOQeKV
You are wrong. It goes Mach 1.7 over *land* and 2x faster over water (Mach 3.4)
Not true, it cannot cross the sound barrier over land. and I highly doubt it can go over Mach 2 let alone Mach 3.4. Its cruise speed is designed to be Mach 1.7
It doesn't go anything, it hasn't been built yet , Hype Hype Hype.
I highly doubt it’s getting to that speed without afterburners
Why is Overture slower than Concorde????
higher efficiency gains, especially for turbofan jet engines which are far more efficient than concorde style turbojets, but can only function at a more limited, slower speed. efficiency and speed are direct tradeoffs
He is wrong. It is Mach 1.7 over land and 2x faster over water (Mach 3.4)
@@Glowing1234 I hope you are right, but I haven't heard this before.
@@Glowing1234 i HIGHLY doubt that to say the least, because youre saying that medium bypass turbofan engines are going to make it to and then supercruise at mach 3.4. that, in the most respectful way, is a ridiculous statement and really needs a source. it took the sr 71 turboramjets to make it and sustain at such a speed, and somehow what is not even at bare minimum a low bypass turbofan is going to make it? my apologies, but that is extraordinarily hard to believe.
@@Glowing1234you ain’t getting to let alone supercruseing at 3.4 with that engine type
And then it crashes
Starship will put them out of business.
>Engine hasn't been built or tested yet > will be in service and flight tested in 5 years. This is pure delusion
no way.
1) how much time between the demonstrator ( last weeek) and the real thing?
2 ) how much time between the real thing and the first commercial flight?
3) and most important: what about regulations, consumption, and finallly, profitability?
Stay away from supersonic commercial flight its only a niche not value for money for a commercial airline
DUDE YOU LITTLE- don't call yourself a nerd call urself smart
Full carbon fibre aircraft’s have been tried and failed.
Hopefully they dont Boeing. If concorede wasnt very safe, its going to take alot of work to turn CGI into something real. Who knows, maybe Boom can replace Boeing😂.
The concord was safe
27 years and one fatal accident. Ahh, so dangerous. But really, most planes would kill for that kind of safety record. Or maybe not, because that's how they stain their record.
@@j.paulm.1575 and that fatal accident was because of another plane. You can guess from which company that plane was
@@noa-3053 McDonnell Douglas
This plane will never come to be. Because it cannot, the economies will never match, not just on operating costs but on R&D and production. If it could have, Boeing, Airbus, or any of the other established aerospace companies would have. If the only people who will fly this aircraft are billionaires, there is a fairly small market. This video is a bust.
All that & the enviro-nazees will protest this thing constantly.
cringe