Then, when the FAA finally comes up with a specification for maximum footprint noise level and profile (not just sheer overpressure or decibels, but whether one large boom or multiple smaller booms etc), Boom will have confidence that what their computer models say will happen actually will happen on the full scale prototype.

Boom isn't trying for quiet supersonic. Their plan is to fly subsonic (at Stage 4 noise levels, IIRC) until they get over water, then crank it. Which is why they can't make it as a bizjet, because bizjets aren't often used exclusively for overwater routes.
 
That is if they are building with sonic boom suppression in mind. Boom is not. They are building for routes where sonic boom is not an issue - i.e. - over water for the most part.
Combined response:
Boom isn't trying for quiet supersonic. Their plan is to fly subsonic (at Stage 4 noise levels, IIRC) until they get over water, then crank it. Which is why they can't make it as a bizjet, because bizjets aren't often used exclusively for overwater routes.
I believe that is a terrible business model.

Assuming that their airframes do get bought, that means that any airline who bought Boom would be disadvantaged compared to a company that bought quiet supersonics. (I'm using the SouthWest Airlines model here, one pool of pilots, one pool of mechanics, etc)
 
I'm baffled by the fact that the pilot doesn't appear to have an ejection-seat.
My best guess is because it's not meant to operate in a hostile/combat/unknown environment/flight envelope.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how that works, orders for what exactly?

Regards,
It's a paper option. So the airline pays a negotiated payment as sort of a down payment on a purchase option at a set price per airframe.
Boom says, I'll sell you X-number of airframes for $150m. United says, I'll give you Y-dollars to secure a rolling option for X-number of airframes at $150m if you can deliver by 2035.

Because Boom has nothing to sell but hope to investors right now, the options are probably extremely cheap. They might be willing to take a loss on the first orders just to secure the funding now and have the orders in the pocket.

It's good for the airline because it gets their name in the paper with the word supersonic next to it and it locked down a price. Even if Boom later decides to price it at $200m per airframe later, the airline has a contracted option at X-number for $150m. It gives Boom a relatively small amount of money up front, and they can tell investors they have pre-orders.
Win-win. Usually. Airlines do it seed technology they want and will use for a relatively very small amount of money up front. They are gambling with their spare change knowing the preorder helps get Boom to the finish line and locks down what is usually a bargain price for purchasing.

If they buy options or a rolling option from Airbus, it's going to be much more expensive, because Airbus is selling a well-defined purchase date or product. From a start up, it's just seed money and a locked in price.
 
I am all for Boom but I think at this stage we are all wondering how much they spent to get beyond the Mach wall. I see a lot of video and many short flights in restricted airspace. I fear now it's time to increase that pace to get to their test corner faster.
We haven't yet seen things that regulators will embrace, like stalls and spins, max Alpha and cross wind landing, aborted takeoff and heavy touch downs... An airliner, even a fast one, is a bit more than a needle than can zip through the air. Safety is first, even beyond the Mach speed.
 
Decision to do our own engines was probably the single most important one in Boom history. Company most likely would have died waiting for the big guys to get stuff done.
I wish them the best of luck, but it is a fact that the entire history of aviation shows that prototypes which also used brand new, untested engines didn't fare very well... A proven engine will allow to focus solely on fixing the airframe's problems. But when both the airframe and the engine are new, it's harder to tell if the aircraft's problems result from one or the other, or a combination of both.
 
This Flight Defines the Next 100 Years of Aviation
This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, if my grandmother could run supersonic we would call her a Concorde.

It's a paper option. So the airline pays a negotiated payment as sort of a down payment on a purchase option at a set price per airframe.
Boom says, I'll sell you X-number of airframes for $150m. United says, I'll give you Y-dollars to secure a rolling option for X-number of airframes at $150m if you can deliver by 2035.

Because Boom has nothing to sell but hope to investors right now, the options are probably extremely cheap. They might be willing to take a loss on the first orders just to secure the funding now and have the orders in the pocket.

It's good for the airline because it gets their name in the paper with the word supersonic next to it and it locked down a price. Even if Boom later decides to price it at $200m per airframe later, the airline has a contracted option at X-number for $150m. It gives Boom a relatively small amount of money up front, and they can tell investors they have pre-orders.
Win-win. Usually. Airlines do it seed technology they want and will use for a relatively very small amount of money up front. They are gambling with their spare change knowing the preorder helps get Boom to the finish line and locks down what is usually a bargain price for purchasing.

If they buy options or a rolling option from Airbus, it's going to be much more expensive, because Airbus is selling a well-defined purchase date or product. From a start up, it's just seed money and a locked in price.

Fun fact: Concorde by 1972 also had 130 -something "orders". Guess what happened the next year, even before the first oil shock in october ? the orders dried out, right off January 1973 starting with PanAm. https://simpleflying.com/concorde-orders/

I believe that is a terrible business model.

Readily agree. Supersonic over water only ? it's like saying aloud "oops, we didn't properly solve that pesky sonic boom issue." It's a suicide note.
Concorde back in the day ran against sonic booms, because NIMBY angry people. Back then global warning and CO2 emissions were not a concern. Today however : they are. Massively.
Just ask Boeing and Airbus which trend is the most important : going faster, or going with less CO2 ?
Boom is running straight into a brickwall, like Aerion before them.
They are running against their time. Also "flying supersonic is a rich man pollution fest."
 
Last edited:
I am all for Boom but I think at this stage we are all wondering how much they spent to get beyond the Mach wall. I see a lot of video and many short flights in restricted airspace. I fear now it's time to increase that pace to get to their test corner faster.
We haven't yet seen things that regulators will embrace, like stalls and spins, max Alpha and cross wind landing, aborted takeoff and heavy touch downs... An airliner, even a fast one, is a bit more than a needle than can zip through the air. Safety is first, even beyond the Mach speed.
Their current design they are working on is so far removed from this prototype that I'm not sure the regulatory aspect plays into it yet.
This is current flight test program is essentially about saying, "We have competent engineers and can actually build hardware that works, and our models we're using to design (hopefully) have demonstrated high fidelity to flight test conditions."
Things investors like to hear.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom