Weren't they looking at EJ200 at one point? Not sure why that isn't a viable option. If lifespan is a problem surely downrating the engine will help. I'm wondering if EJ200's supposed 1.5mach top supercruise speed is the sticking point.
 
Nervous investors always make it hard to explore the edge. That said, in this case, had I been one of the investors (laugh) I might have been hard pressed not to agree with the decision. There has not been a great business case put forward.
 
Weren't they looking at EJ200 at one point? Not sure why that isn't a viable option. If lifespan is a problem surely downrating the engine will help. I'm wondering if EJ200's supposed 1.5mach top supercruise speed is the sticking point.
Isn't EJ200 too small? F101 look like the right size.
 
Isn't EJ200 too small? F101 look like the right size.


Probably, but there are growth options for EJ200 from what I understand, taking to just over 70kn dry and over 100kn with reheat. Strangely I think R-R are responsible for at least the first growth option; Perhaps they could have used Boom to launch an updated EJ200 which they could have then offered out to Eurofighter users/customers. I'm sure they probably thought of that and decided against it.
 
Military turbofans are not adapted to the airline world.
Concorde's Olympus was - and in its commercial form it was the first engine capable of supercruise.
The P&W F-119 is also capable of supercruise, possibly only the second such, and is a tad more powerful than the Olympus 593 running dry. Adapting it for civilian use, via attention to cost, reliability and no doubt removing classified technology, would lead to some downgrading of available thrust, which should be acceptable as the Overture is to be smaller and sleeker than Concorde. This would likely be the lowest-cost and fastest-track option out there. But P&W are not renowned for their charity to small markets.
Who paid for the development of the 593? There might be a lesson in there for Boom.
 
Last edited:
Guys, I am not sure that a straightforward installation of a fighter jet turbofan will pass nose abatement requirements. Think of a pack of 4x EJ-200 or F-404 at takeoff thrust!

There is a little bit more that needs to be done like bypass or augmented flow (noisy), blown or shaft mounted fans etc...

The great news is that Boom went from 3 to 4 engines what allows some extra margin to run the engines at a lower thrust setting and decrease the needs in reliability.
 
Military turbofans are not adapted to the airline world.
Concorde's Olympus was - and in its commercial form it was the first engine capable of supercruise.
The P&W F-119 is also capable of supercruise, possibly only the second such, and is a tad more powerful than the Olympus 593 running dry. Adapting it for civilian use, via attention to cost, reliability and no doubt removing classified technology, would lead to some downgrading of available thrust, which should be acceptable as the Overture is to be smaller and sleeker than Concorde. This would likely be the lowest-cost and fastest-track option out there. But P&W are not renowned for their charity to small markets.
Who paid for the development of the 593? There might be a lesson in there for Boom.
The British military first, for the Vulcan and then for the TSR.2. And the French government too, but it was for a "prestige" (vanity ?) project akin to Apollo.
Was the Olympus "polished" for civilian use when evolved from TSR.2 to Concorde engine ? its takeoff noise was still a major issue.
Not sure Boom can benefit from both trends in our days - the military perhaps (your F119 example) but "prestige by a government", no such thing for them.
Air Force One will be a 747-8, not a Boom SST.
Still, big government vanity (pork barrel ?) projects are not dead: see the SLS, Senate Launch System.

Going that way, maybe Boom should try to sell their project to the UAE or to MBs, Saudia Arabia new naboob (the one that like to chop political oponents into tiny bits, but that's another story)
 
Guys, I am not sure that a straightforward installation of a fighter jet turbofan will pass nose abatement requirements. Think of a pack of 4x EJ-200 or F-404 at takeoff thrust!

There is a little bit more that needs to be done like bypass or augmented flow (noisy), blown or shaft mounted fans etc...

The great news is that Boom went from 3 to 4 engines what allows some extra margin to run the engines at a lower thrust setting and decrease the needs in reliability.
Go with VG and the takeoff issue becomes much easier. That does lead to some problems with certification, but that might be cheaper than funding a new engine.
 
Was the Olympus "polished" for civilian use when evolved from TSR.2 to Concorde engine ? its takeoff noise was still a major issue.
Very much so. Concorde supercruised at Mach2+, but back in the day that was beyond a dream and so an afterburner was developed to get TSR-2 up to that level of performance. The 593 for Concorde was radically revised - one of our denizens here was involved in that and dressed me down good and proper when I suggested it would have been a bit of a sub-optimal bodge. But Concorde still needed the afterburner to overcome the high drag of its wing at takeoff speeds; this was what made all the noise and smoke that so upset everybody, it was fine once it got up a decent flying speed and the afterburner was shut down.

Overture's MTOW is significantly less and it has a more efficient wing - also with a tailplane to replace Concorde's relatively inefficient rear wing area. (Personally I'd have gone for a canard foreplane or retractable moustache, Tu-114 style, as this would have offloaded the wing during takeoff instead of adding to its burden and offsetting some of the new wing's gains.) My best guess (and that is all it is), is that drag during takeoff and climbout will therefore be significantly lower, and the dry thrust of the F-119 is comfortably enough, but perhaps the final design might have to lose half a dozen seats to provide adequate margin for a derated civilian version.
 
Was the Olympus "polished" for civilian use when evolved from TSR.2 to Concorde engine ? its takeoff noise was still a major issue.
Very much so. Concorde supercruised at Mach2+, but back in the day that was beyond a dream and so an afterburner was developed to get TSR-2 up to that level of performance. The 593 for Concorde was radically revised - one of our denizens here was involved in that and dressed me down good and proper when I suggested it would have been a bit of a sub-optimal bodge. But Concorde still needed the afterburner to overcome the high drag of its wing at takeoff speeds; this was what made all the noise and smoke that so upset everybody, it was fine once it got up a decent flying speed and the afterburner was shut down.

Overture's MTOW is significantly less and it has a more efficient wing - also with a tailplane to replace Concorde's relatively inefficient rear wing area. (Personally I'd have gone for a canard foreplane or retractable moustache, Tu-114 style, as this would have offloaded the wing during takeoff instead of adding to its burden and offsetting some of the new wing's gains.) My best guess (and that is all it is), is that drag during takeoff and climbout will therefore be significantly lower, and the dry thrust of the F-119 is comfortably enough, but perhaps the final design might have to lose half a dozen seats to provide adequate margin for a derated civilian version.
Is there any design space for COTS turbofan engines to be optimized at 60,000ft, cruise altitude of the Overture? Or, could adaptive cycle engine, such as a derivative of XA100, be a economical alternative?
 
Is there any design space for COTS turbofan engines to be optimized at 60,000ft, cruise altitude of the Overture? Or, could adaptive cycle engine, such as a derivative of XA100, be a economical alternative?
One of the main reasons the Overture is the size it is, is because there are several engines with cores of about the right size, that could be adapted for its high-altitude supercruise.
Intake and fan/compressor geometry, bypass ratio and exhaust geometry would all need extensive revision, along with the associated research and development, just as they did for the Olympus on Concorde.The design space is there all right. But the business and funding space may not be.
As for new technologies such as adaptive fans, they may need whole new engines to get any real advantage from them. Either way, they push out the timescale, cost and risk, almost certainly way beyond any viable business model for such a small market.
 
One of the main reasons the Overture is the size it is, is because there are several engines with cores of about the right size, that could be adapted for its high-altitude supercruise.
Eureka ! Smart people there. I have this sneaking suspicion they closely followed Aerion quest for an engine of dual legacy (JT8D then CFM56 cores: which are part civilian, part supersonic-military) and decided to try the same method BUT tackling the issue from "above" with a larger aircraft.
Aerion in a sense might (I say: might) have had an interesting "engine idea" but whatever "dual legacy turbofan" presently available (say, a CFM56 core) resulted in engines grossly oversized for a SSBJ.

So Boom followed the oversized engine cores and grew their bird closer from a Concorde: far beyond the perenial SSBJ MTOW.

As a matter of fact, two CFM56s can get a 97 tons MTOW A321neo off the ground: those engines are massively powerful. Even if supersonic flight of course is markedly different.

A B-1B with four... CFM56 cores (half joking, I meant F101s obviously) can get 216 tons off the ground.

Heaviest twin-jet supersonic bomber ever AFAIK is the Tu-22M at 125 tons.

Must be some kind of "in between" for a three engine bird...
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that takeoffs will have to be done at reduced settings in most of the case for noise abatement (low bypass fans are more noisy). Hence the maximum takeoff power does not say it all ;)
 
One of the main reasons the Overture is the size it is, is because there are several engines with cores of about the right size, that could be adapted for its high-altitude supercruise.
Eureka ! Smart people there. I have this sneaking suspicion they closely followed Aerion quest for an engine of dual legacy (JT8D then CFM56 cores: which are part civilian, part supersonic-military) and decided to try the same method BUT tackling the issue from "above" with a larger aircraft.
Aerion in a sense might (I say: might) have had an interesting "engine idea" but whatever "dual legacy turbofan" presently available (say, a CFM56 core) resulted in engines grossly oversized for a SSBJ.

So Boom followed the oversized engine cores and grew their bird closer from a Concorde: far beyond the perenial SSBJ MTOW.

As a matter of fact, two CFM56s can get a 97 tons MTOW A321neo off the ground: those engines are massively powerful. Even if supersonic flight of course is markedly different.

A B-1B with four... CFM56 cores (half joking, I meant F101s obviously) can get 216 tons off the ground.

Heaviest twin-jet supersonic bomber ever AFAIK is the Tu-22M at 125 tons.

Must be some kind of "in between" for a three engine bird...
The latest designs are four engined.
 
 
Which three are those? FlightGlobal wants money or tracking data or both off me before it will let me read that.
 
Sorry, here we go!

In the wake of Rolls-Royce’s departure from Boom Supersonic’s Overture programme, three additional propulsion specialists have indicated they have no interest in developing powerplants for supersonic civilian aircraft, leaving fresh questions about who will supply the jet’s engines.

Boom is developing Overture, a four-engined airliner it says will carry 65-80 passengers, fly at Mach 1.7 and have range of 4,250nm (7,871km). First delivery is scheduled for 2029.

However, as yet, there is no engine supplier. That issue was brought into focus last week when Rolls-Royce announced it was exiting the project having completed contracted engineering studies.

Now GE Aviation, Honeywell and Safran Aircraft Engines tell FlightGlobal they also have no interest in developing engines for civil supersonic aircraft.

GE Aviation had been tipped to step in to the Overture programme using a version of the Affinity engine it had been working on to power a supersonic business jet being developed by now-defunct Aerion, a US company that failed in May 2021 amid financial difficulties.

But the engine manufacturer rules itself out: “Civil supersonic is not a segment that we are currently pursuing,” GE Aviation says.

Another of the relatively few companies capable of developing such a powerplant – Pratt & Whitney – declines to comment on the Overture programme. But a top P&W executive stresses that the company remains focused on subsonic engines.

“We haven’t added [civil supersonic] into our overall business strategy,” P&W chief sustainability officer Graham Webb says. He calls supersonic civil aircraft “tangential” to P&W’s core market, and cites efficiency concerns. Indeed, a 2022 report from The International Council on Clean Transportation found that supersonic passenger aircraft would use 7-9 times more fuel per passenger, per kilometre, than subsonic jets burning fossil fuel. ICAO cited the study in its 2022 Environmental Report.

For those reasons, P&W is dumping resources into boosting the efficiency of its geared turbofan. It aims to have an improved powerplant available for the narrowbody jets Airbus and Boeing are expected to field in the mid-2030s, Webb says. “There’s a bit of risk – in terms of distracting your resources, your engineering team – on something that is kind of in a different sector.”

Boom insists Overture will be environmentally sustainable, offsetting its carbon output by burning sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

“This is the first airplane that is… capable of meeting net-zero carbon,” Boom chief executive Blake Scholl says. “We care deeply about making this not just good for passengers, not just good for airlines, but also good for the planet.”

ICAO’s report calls supersonic jets a “poor use of scarce SAF supplies”, saying their fuel burn largely negates SAF benefits in relation to subsonic jets burning fossil fuel.

Aerospace analysts say few other engine manufacturers could take on the Overture project. “Nobody else can do an engine in this class, realistically, although Honeywell and Safran aren’t inconceivable,” says Richard Aboulafia with AeroDynamic Advisory.

But those companies are also apparently out. “Honeywell has no plans right now to develop a supersonic engine for civilian aircraft,” it says. Honeywell makes turbofans for business jets and Leonardo’s M-346 light-attack/trainer aircraft.

“Supersonic is not part of Safran Aircraft Engines commercial propulsion strategy,” adds the French engine maker.

Safran holds a massive chunk of the civil turbofan market via its CFM International joint venture with GE, which produces Leap engines for Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies.

Safran remains “strongly focused on the RISE initiative to develop the technologies for the next generation of narrowbody aircraft engines,” Safran says.

RISE – Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines – is a joint Safran-GE effort to develop an open-rotor powerplant, delivering a 20% fuel-burn saving at service entry, likely in the mid-2030s. RISE aligns with a broad push by the aerospace industry to reduce emissions.

Michael Merluzeau, aerospace consultant with AIR, says International Aero Engines (IAE) could “theoretically” have an engine for Boom. A consortium including P&W, MTU Aero Engines and Japanese Aero Engines, IAE makes V2500s, which power aircraft including first-generation A320s and the Embraer C-390.

“That does not, however, mean the engine can be adapted for the Overture [and] can deliver maintenance, fuel burn and performance required, Merluzeau says.

Overture needs “more firm [order] commitments and a firmer industrial roadmap” to attract an engine supplier, he adds. “Without an effective propulsion system, this is a programme that is not going anywhere any time soon.”

R-R on 8 September said it was departing the Boom programme. “After careful consideration, Rolls-Royce has determined that the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us and, therefore, will not pursue further work on the programme at this time,” it said.

In response, Boom said: “It became clear that Rolls’ proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture’s future airline operators or passengers”.

Despite many questions, Scholl insists Overture development is on track, reiterating the company will soon announce an engine partner. He points to order commitments from customers including American Airlines and United Airlines.

“We would not have the customer relationships we have if the airplane that we’re building was not one that the airlines wanted, and so, I think… that speaks for itself,” Scholl says.

In June 2021, United said it had signed a “commercial agreement” – that included a deposit for an undisclosed amount – to buy 15 Overtures contingent on “demanding safety, operating and sustainability requirements”.

Then in August, American said it too had paid a “non-refundable deposit” – it also did not say how much – as part of an agreement to buy up to 20 of the jets.

Boom’s other partners include Safran Landing Systems, Collins Aerospace, fuel-system company Eaton and Northrop Grumman, which is helping with a military variant.

”I feel really good about this – very, very confident we are going to have a great answer. We are looking at multiple offers,” Scholl says.

Story updated on 16 September to note that GE’s engine is called Affinity and that The International Council on Clean Transportation completed the research cited in ICAO’s study.
 
Definitively, engines makers that source a large portion of their profits with private subsonic jets but also with turbofans for airliners have zero interest in mowing down their long term profits. And building engines for the civilian industry is all about long term projections...

First, a Supersonic large capacity jets, such as Boom's will attract private business jets owner out of a traditional market where buying conventional business jets is very profitable for the industry ; see for example my earlier post on the same subject. The multiplication of maintenance contracts is exponentially increased as passengers start to become airplane owners. See what did happen when ground transportation passengers began trading their habits of journeying with trains for cars.

Supersonic jets will agregate this demand into a much smaller number of jets. This is why, the argumentation around SAF is utterly stupid and if not, dishonest. More people flying less planes is de-facto long term sustainement of scarce ressources. Per essence, should I say. :cool:
Even more when the same number of planes can make further rotations than slower ones. Less airframe are needed. And that's not something that please much the industry. More supersonics is less A320, B737, fewer CFM, RR, GE or PW engines...

This is why the industry is in effect blocking the emergence of a Supersonic as imagined by Boom. And this is why also an agile strategy is necessary. Bypassing the bigest players by following and innovative way with an untraditional architecture is probably the only way to get into business quickly. It doesn't import much that this engine would be perfectly functional for 20 years, offer billions of hours b/w overhaul or can be sustained in less than 24hrs all across the world...
No, this is your aircraft, your customers and a few dozen of destinations. You can have tailored service centers at both end of a route swapping engines at a much more frequent rate than what today industry is used to. For God Sake, this industry was born out of piston engines that had to be rebuilt after hundred of hours only when each crossing took 20 hours of flight!

Once the market would have been breached, engines makers will gallop to be the ones that fit those aircraft.

What amazes me however, is that the so called Startup cast of aerospace entrepreneurs, so enamored of claiming how real innovation starts and ends with them, hasn't come around a solution for so long.

Probably that, among the lot, there isn't much of them left with... the Right stuff.
:(

Test pilots - Not Startuppers:

1663531748820.png
 
Last edited:
Supersonic jets will agregate this demand into a much smaller number of jets. This is why, the argumentation around SAF is utterly stupid and if not, dishonest. More people flying less planes is de-facto long term sustainement of scarce ressources. Per essence, should I say. :cool:
Even more when the same number of planes can make further rotations than slower ones. Less airframe are needed. And that's not something that please much the industry. More supersonics is less A320, B737, fewer CFM, RR, GE or PW engines...
Will it though? In theory today you could use 1 A380 to replace 6.5 A320s to fly sunskeers from Grimshire Airport to Costa del Sunny Climes. But the economics would break Cheapo Airways' overdraft limit.
Could have packed 1,000 passengers in the L-500 60 years ago (something like 10 737-100 loads) but it never happened. Bigger didn't prove to be better once engine technology enabled the twin turbofan airframe to outstrip all others for economy. And finding enough passengers to fill a larger airliner to a profitable margin is not easy.

Boom are gambling that a lot of fliers want to get somewhere quicker and pay a premium for it. All the analysts of 1965 fell over themselves predicting by 1990 nobody would be flying subsonic. Well we saw how that turned out. There might be market, but there have been multiple opportunities since 1965 and its never happened yet. Even the heady hyper-capitalist 1990s didn't produce a supersonic bizjet and still hasn't despite serving a very rich niche market (you'd have thought all those BBJ and ACJ owners would have preferred splashing cash on a speedster from their deep pockets than a 73A20 with plush furnishings).

Until a major lessor steps up for a large fleet I don't see many airlines taking a punt off their own backs. And fuel costs are only ever going to get higher and higher and when downturns hit the airlines they hit big. Boom has to time its entrance at peak economic boom time, nobody in a global recession has time for gambling on one company's optimistic market forecasts.
 
Some notes on scale:

The idea of the industry blocking large aircraft is utterly untenable. By that argument they would never have built any widebody types. For example the lack of sales has forced Airbus to pull A380 production before its time and take a financial hit, not the other way round.

The move from four to two engines was made possible by a big increase in reliability and excess thrust reserves. Until then, the risk that a twin would lose thrust totally on one side and the other would not be able to sustain flight until the plane reached an airport was too high, so the extra engine on each side was necessary. And these new engines are BIG, the aeroplane size reduction from the original 747 is not that drastic.

Engines are sized and added to suit the planes, not the other way round. And the planes follow the markets. The move away from 800+ seat giants was prompted by a move away from hub-to-hub flights, in hub-and-spoke operations where a passenger may have to change planes a couple of times, and towards lower-volume direct routes. Market expansion was what made these direct routes sufficiently busy to be viable and allowed the change to make economic sense.

Like everybody else today, Boom are building a plane to fly more routes with less grandiose capacities. It is only the thrust requirements of supercruise, vs. the engines currently available for conversion, that demand four engines.

But now the wind may be swinging back again. Global warming, Covid and war in Ukraine have drastically reversed that expansion and commentators are increasingly doubting that commercial aviation will ever recover. Direct flights are being cancelled right, left and centre as the demand collapses; Airbus are even beginning to receive feelers for new hub-to-hub A380s again.

But as someone said recently, there are better ways to use precious Sustainable Aviation Fuel than burning it off at Mach 1.7. Moreover, adapting to SAF is not so much an issue for the airframe as for the engine. That is something which Boom doesn't yet have, and may well never do. Size is not going to make any difference to that, either way.
 
Last edited:
@Hood : let's be serious, do you see 300+ executives lining up in order to embark and deplane?!

Boom aircraft size is middle size for that reason. You have to be able to board and deplane nearly as fast and easily as with a business jet.

Regarding the A380, the problem was more with the quality of execution from Airbus management
It was way too much draggy to be much profitable for their customers.

@steelpillow : a Mach 1.5+ 100- passengers aircraft is the absorbing element of airliners. It will dissolve into the void a significant portion of executive jets. In that way, it is a more efficient way to burn-off scarce ressources and dilapidate earth capital.

Nobody is gonna fly a Mach 0.8 expensive business jet when the layman can fly twice faster on the same route.
Do you still see night train fares as popular as they were?
 
Nobody is gonna fly a Mach 0.8 expensive business jet when the layman can fly twice faster on the same route.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of bizjet routes. I bet most flights are point to point via secondary airports (e.g. Greenwich to a second home for a NY billionaire or Cincinnati Municipal to Brussels to Geneva to Newcastle back to Cincinnati for a P&G executive going on a Europe tour).

No commercial route (subsonic or supersonic) is going to compete with the scheduling and route flexibility of a bizjet (especially one with shorter runway capability like a Falcon or such) so they will serve different markets, with only some overlap on the transatlantic and transpacific hub-to-hub routes which may not be a giant market (and where a supersonic flight with all carbon externalities priced in is lot less green than a seat in first class).
 
Last edited:
Well simply because nobody is gonna compete. Tailored routes for a single passenger is not what airlines are doing. The Limo business is not a competitor.

But a majority of executive jets are fleet owned.
 
@Hood : let's be serious, do you see 300+ executives lining up in order to embark and deplane?!

Boom aircraft size is middle size for that reason. You have to be able to board and deplane nearly as fast and easily as with a business jet.

Regarding the A380, the problem was more with the quality of execution from Airbus management
It was way too much draggy to be much profitable for their customers.

@steelpillow : a Mach 1.5+ 100- passengers aircraft is the absorbing element of airliners. It will dissolve into the void a significant portion of executive jets. In that way, it is a more efficient way to burn-off scarce ressources and dilapidate earth capital.

Nobody is gonna fly a Mach 0.8 expensive business jet when the layman can fly twice faster on the same route.
Do you still see night train fares as popular as they were?
My point about size was more about larger aircraft = fewer smaller ones being a fallacy. Narrowjets have always outnumbered the 'jumbos'. Larger aircraft are fine on high density routes but otherwise the economics do not stack up.

Your point about faster turnaround is good but might not be as decisive as it seems. You might end up under utilising the aircraft if there isn't sufficient passenger traffic to keep the aircraft filled. There are only so many execs in the world after all, so some kind of premium economy class would be required. At best all Boom might do is syphon off business class users enabling airlines to convert their subsonic spamcan business class seats into more economy class seats.

Is there enough business class traffic to sustain a standalone, well this is Wikipedia's list of Business Class airlines, hardly a glowing endorsement given they were all operating fairly standard airliners:
Air Atlanta (defunct)
Eos Airlines (defunct)[21]
L'Avion (defunct)
La Compagnie
Legend Airlines (defunct)
Air1 (defunct)
MAXjet Airways (defunct)
MGM Grand Airways (defunct)
Midwest Airlines (Stopped offering all business class service from 2003[22])
OpenSkies (Now with economy class cabin[23])
Regent Airlines[citation needed]
Silverjet (defunct)
UltrAir (defunct)
 
Great point. But this is exactly my point (if you happen to have read my earlier post dated from one or two weeks ago): airlines are not gonna look too much at the economy to reacquire this profitable clientele.

Boom has certainly no particular reasons to search for the perfect and most effective propulsion mean. At least untill market breach.

They just did their homework, touring most major manufacturers. Now, DIY. And that will be perfectly fine with their investors.
 
It would be interesting to see an analysis of bizjet routes.

I found some good data on transatlantic routes from the EBAA biz aviation website:

Top 3 bizjet destinations US <-> Europe (2019)
London <-> US: 14 bizjet flights/day (ie. 7 each way)
Paris <-> US: 4 bizjet flights/day (ie. 2 each way)
Nice <-> US: 2 bizjet flights/day

All other major European cities are around 1 bizjet flight/day or even less (Madrid, Rome, Amsterdam, Geneva, Zurich, Brussels, Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin, Barcelona, Milan).

Again these are flights to the entire US… need to further sub-divide between New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami/Palm Beach and at least 10 other major American cities.

**********
My takeaways:
1) The transatlantic “hub to hub” bizjet market seems awfully thin outside of possibly London <-> NYC.

2) If airlines are looking into supersonic jets it’s not to go after bizjet flyers but more likely to win over mainline first/business class travelers from their competitors

3) That is not good for the environment
 
Last edited:
The latest takedown of Boom:

No engines, billions shy, devastating enviro analysis, Boom’s CEO still exudes optimism​

 
did anyone have any optimism in this project?
I always thought the idea was dead on arrival, so the lack of suitable engines and interest from engine companies was no surprise.

still, it surprised me that so many have invested in it so far.
 

REG Davies already tackled the issues associated with building an SST way back in the 90's. Too much money and resources have to be spent to create an aircraft as well as a new powerplant that will have very limited sales. One thing all 3 previous SST projects had in common was massive government support. Heck, even the Soviets could not make a viable engine for their TU-144. They came tantalizingly close with the final version of the TU-144D that had the Kolesov RD-36-51A but by that point the whole project was collapsing.


Now if a serious player like Lockheed Martin finds a way to design an SST with a mitigated sonic boom that permits supersonic operations over land, which opens up a wide range of markets, maybe they could persuade companies like Rolls Royce to roll the dice with a new powerplant. But a startup like Boom with no credibility whatsoever ? No way.

Also, on their website the cabin interiors have very large windows. Didn't the Concorde as well as the TU-144 specifically have tiny windows because of the dangers of losing cabin pressure at the high altitudes that an SST would fly at ? Did Boom's engineers not take that into consideration ?
 

Attachments

  • united-interior.jpg
    united-interior.jpg
    170 KB · Views: 11
Technology has improved drastically. Today cabin windows are more robusts, lighter weight and can then be made larger.
 
From the above post, what may really kill Boom is not only the lack of engine, but also the present, growing debate over aviation almost impossible transition to a non-kerosene fuel.
Or maybe they should shift to an NH3/LH2 mix, but even then, supersonic flight in a fuel hog, that's basic physics. Crossing the sound barrier is no small feat. In fact things go down the drain from Mach 0.92 - guess why the fastest Cessnas and Dassault bizjets stop right there ? Boeing also learned that the bitter way with Sonic Cruiser 20 years ago. Mach 0.92 to Mach 1.4 is an aviation no man's land or graveyard, really.
The engine debate is as old as Concorde (Olympus, GE4 were peculiar powerplants) but the recent debate over "green aviation" may be another killer.
 
did anyone have any optimism in this project?
I always thought the idea was dead on arrival, so the lack of suitable engines and interest from engine companies was no surprise.

still, it surprised me that so many have invested in it so far.

Never underestimate the average American's determination to burn fossil fuels in the teeth of all reason and sanity.

But I'd agree with you. The idea of rolling out sufficient SAF production capacity to feed a fleet of 1,000 SST's during their lifetime is transparently absurd. The airline "orders" are just reservations that have surely come out of the marketing/publicity budget and not from any sense of forward planning.

I stated my belief a while ago that Boom's only real hope is Uncle Sam. Unless they can hook the US military on a fast-response troop transport, we will presently be seeing the headline "Boom to Bust!"
 
Last edited:
[Quote from FlightGlobal]

Boom said: “It became clear that Rolls’ proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture’s future airline operators or passengers”.

So R-R do appear to have been deeper in than their admission of contracted studies into vague "issues" would suggest. What was this secret project for an engine design, what aspects led to a "legacy business model" that could not be trivially negotiated away, and why aren't we being told?
 
did anyone have any optimism in this project?
I always thought the idea was dead on arrival, so the lack of suitable engines and interest from engine companies was no surprise.

still, it surprised me that so many have invested in it so far.

Never underestimate the average American's determination to burn fossil fuels in the teeth of all reason and sanity.

But I'd agree with you. The idea of rolling out sufficient SAF production capacity to feed a fleet of 1,000 SST's during their lifetime is transparently absurd. The airline "orders" are just reservations that have surely come out of the marketing/publicity budget and not from any sense of forward planning.

I stated my belief a while ago that Boom's only real hope is Uncle Sam. Unless they can hook the US military on a fast-response troop transport, we will presently be seeing the headline "Boom to Bust!"
Your posts have really made it clear that Boom’s whole economic model is something of a pipe dream. It really sounds like the wrong idea at completely the wrong time.
 
Never underestimate the average American's determination to burn fossil fuels in the teeth of all reason and sanity.

But I'd agree with you. The idea of rolling out sufficient SAF production capacity to feed a fleet of 1,000 SST's during their lifetime is transparently absurd. The airline "orders" are just reservations that have surely come out of the marketing/publicity budget and not from any sense of forward planning.

I stated my belief a while ago that Boom's only real hope is Uncle Sam. Unless they can hook the US military on a fast-response troop transport, we will presently be seeing the headline "Boom to Bust!"
Your posts have really made it clear that Boom’s whole economic model is something of a pipe dream. It really sounds like the wrong idea at completely the wrong time.
That is my personal opinion of the civil/commercial SST market, yes. Giant passenger airships and lifting-bodies, VTOL feederliners and personal jetpacks are similar perennial projects that survive principally on gulling investors with fantasy scenarios. But never underestimate the American military's determination to burn money and fossil fuels in the pursuit of early arrival at the battle zone.
 
That is my personal opinion of the civil/commercial SST market, yes. Giant passenger airships and lifting-bodies, VTOL feederliners and personal jetpacks are similar perennial projects that survive principally on gulling investors with fantasy scenarios. But never underestimate the American military's determination to burn money and fossil fuels in the pursuit of early arrival at the battle zone.
I was editing a business paper a while back that charted how genuine innovations found a small niche at first and expanded from it. Rather than ambitious plans to be game changers, innovators sought to solve a problem that was both unsolvable by most means and worth the expense, or the initial expense produces significant longer-term savings in that niche. From that basis, they expand into wider adoption as users find unanticipated applications and then market volume becomes sufficient for real competition and economies of scale. TLDR version: provide a solution in a clearly defined area that nobody else can provide where it's much needed, then cross fingers and be ready to respond. BTW, that seems to be Reaction Engines' current strategy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom