Boom Supersonic Overture M1.8 SST

[Flyaway]

I have some Aerionish feeling about all that...
XB-1 rolled out 10 month ago, no maiden flight still. Yet, XB-1 is a scaled down demonstrator for an early Overture aerodynamic configuration, now dramatically changed.

Amazing how many people on an aviation based forums seem to jump to negative conclusions about these kind of projects. You see this kind of thing said about Blue Origin for example but TBH I don’t think anyone without an axe to grind doesn’t expect Blue to deliver what they say even if it is late.

 

[TomS]

Bunch of pics from their website, saved here for posterity, just in case.

Looking like the hybrid spawn of a B-58 and Concorde now.

Still no word on what the actual engines are, I think. Are RR still involved?

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1549329381222490113

View: https://twitter.com/AIR_Intl/status/1549329381222490113

 

[H_K]

Boom milestones. Saving this for posterity.

2022: Superfactory groundbreaking
2024: Production launch
2025: Rollout
2026: First flight (early 2026 according to Flight)
2029: First deliveries and passengers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1549324300691324928

View: https://twitter.com/Pilling44/status/1549324300691324928?s=20&t=Pm3I824Cf453AiYsCKSvAQ

 

[H_K]

And specs from Flight:

The aircraft is slated to travel at Mach 1.7 over water, and 0.94M over populated areas, never creating a sonic boom. It will have a range of 4,250nm (8,056km) and will seat 64-80 passengers. From nose to tail the aircraft measures 61.3m (201ft) and 32.3m (106ft) wingtip-to-wingtip.

Boom Supersonic reveals new design for Overture

Supersonic aircraft developer Boom has introduced a new design for its Overture flagship aircraft, which it hopes to fly for the first time in early 2026.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Such a good SST looking design that you might want to look after those 1970s elephant pants & blue jeans your 1960 mother bought for your daddy:

Who's saying that engineering ain't cool?!

 

[TomS]

Farnbrough 2022: Boom reveals new supersonic design and industry partnerships | Aerospace Testing International

Boom supersonic revealed a refined design and new industry partnerships at the Farnborough Airshow 2022

www.aerospacetestinginternational.com

Meanwhile the company is continuing to progress work on its one-third scale prototype XB-1 towards flight testing.

Scholl said, “We did XB-1 to learn the lessons that we need to make Overture a success. Overture’s design has been able to evolve based by what we have learnt from XB-1. Most of the team has shifted away from XB-1 to Overture but XB-1 is progressing well with brake tests today and the first taxi tests tomorrow.”

Overture has departed so far from XB-1 aerodynamically that there can't be a whole lot left to learn from actual flight testing, which explains the big shift in staff away from XB-1. Assuming it actually does fly, it may be as much to exercise their flight test infrastructure than to actually learn anything more for Overture.

 

[djfawcett]

I have some Aerionish feeling about all that...
XB-1 rolled out 10 month ago, no maiden flight still. Yet, XB-1 is a scaled down demonstrator for an early Overture aerodynamic configuration, now dramatically changed.

I agree with Flateric. The new Boom planform and Aerion past planform almost overlay one another.

 

[H_K]

Overture has departed so far from XB-1 aerodynamically that there can't be a whole lot left to learn form actual flight testing

I expect most of the learning on XB-1 was less about the design specifics and more « How to design a supersonic jet 101 », « What tools and processes should we use » and « Who on our team is good and who is crap ».

(I work in a software startup leveraging the latest agile practices where the first 5 years of code had to be junked. All built by very « smart » engineers, but who had never really worked on this exact product before. There were some good engineers but no guarantees that they were listened to - a lot depended on who shouted the loudest. $500 million dollars later we are on at least our 4th iteration of the product… and it still barely works!)

 

[TomcatViP]

Well, this is not that simple. If you move your staff from a prototyping and test flight project toward a pure EMD phase, you're going to make a lot of savings. Your daily expenses will drop drastically.

This is a startup. You'd never guess what are the true intends of their owners.

IMOHO, they should not have made such awkward announcements at the onset of the largest airshow in the world. This now needs some more public releases.

 

[alberchico]

I have some Aerionish feeling about all that...
XB-1 rolled out 10 month ago, no maiden flight still. Yet, XB-1 is a scaled down demonstrator for an early Overture aerodynamic configuration, now dramatically changed.

Amazing how many people on an aviation based forums seem to jump to negative conclusions about these kind of projects. You see this kind of thing said about Blue Origin for example but TBH I don’t think anyone without an axe to grind doesn’t expect Blue to deliver what they say even if it is late.

I think people are just being realistic about these projects with their sky high promises and unrealistic timelines. This company will never fly a full scale prototype of what we just saw today by 2026. I've read almost every book ever published that tells the story of the Concorde and the main takeaway was that designing such a complex aircraft was the European equivalent of the Apollo project. Just because there have been enormous advances in aviation technology in the field of composites, engines, avionics as well as CAD tools to help with the design of an airframe, doesn't mean designing an SST will be a walk in the park. The idea that a startup like Boom with no experience can pull this off is laughable. The radical change in configuration also means that their demonstrator is rendered obsolete before its first flight.

 

[Flyaway]

Farnbrough 2022: Boom reveals new supersonic design and industry partnerships | Aerospace Testing International

Boom supersonic revealed a refined design and new industry partnerships at the Farnborough Airshow 2022

www.aerospacetestinginternational.com

Meanwhile the company is continuing to progress work on its one-third scale prototype XB-1 towards flight testing.

Scholl said, “We did XB-1 to learn the lessons that we need to make Overture a success. Overture’s design has been able to evolve based by what we have learnt from XB-1. Most of the team has shifted away from XB-1 to Overture but XB-1 is progressing well with brake tests today and the first taxi tests tomorrow.”

Overture has departed so far from XB-1 aerodynamically that there can't be a whole lot left to learn form actual flight testing, which explains the big shift in staff away from XB-1. Assuming it actually does fly, it may be as much to exercise their flight test infrastructure than to actually learn anything more for Overture.

Be kind of a shame if it didn’t fly at least a few times.

 

[Flyaway]

I have some Aerionish feeling about all that...
XB-1 rolled out 10 month ago, no maiden flight still. Yet, XB-1 is a scaled down demonstrator for an early Overture aerodynamic configuration, now dramatically changed.

Amazing how many people on an aviation based forums seem to jump to negative conclusions about these kind of projects. You see this kind of thing said about Blue Origin for example but TBH I don’t think anyone without an axe to grind doesn’t expect Blue to deliver what they say even if it is late.

I think people are just being realistic about these projects with their sky high promises and unrealistic timelines. This company will never fly a full scale prototype of what we just saw today by 2026. I've read almost every book ever published that tells the story of the Concorde and the main takeaway was that designing such a complex aircraft was the European equivalent of the Apollo project. Just because there have been enormous advances in aviation technology in the field of composites, engines, avionics as well as CAD tools to help with the design of an airframe, doesn't mean designing an SST will be a walk in the park. The idea that a startup like Boom with no experience can pull this off is laughable. The radical change in configuration also means that their demonstrator is rendered obsolete before its first flight.

LOL and what Blue Origin isn’t a start up and you think designing a large scale space launcher is any less complicated. Yes Blue has a huge amount of money, but money doesn’t solve anything as Blue have found out the hard way. But again I have no doubt New Glenn will fly even late as it is. My point being I think at least at this time Boom should be given the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side we then have people on here making unrealistic claims about Starship and when it will fly, let alone enter service. You really cannot have it both ways criticising some companies for being late yet at the same time expecting others to deliver things on unrealistic time scales.

 

[H_K]

@Flyaway I wouldn’t be surprised if an SST is an order of magnitude more complicated than a rocket like Blue Origin.

Between the air breathing engine, low speed aerodynamics, complex moving parts, and certification requirements… the number of things that could go wrong seems much higher.

 

[flateric]

The idea that a startup like Boom with no experience

Both Aerion and Boom had/has very experienced engineering teams - bunch of ex-Gulfstream people with say G650 and supersonic projects background in case of Boom.

 

[Archibald]

Didn't helped Aerion in the end, unfortunately !

Bottom line: engineers certainly know since the 1960's at least, how to build a supersonic bizjet. What we still don't know is to build a supersonic bizjet that makes some commercial sense. The margins are razor thin and the market remains as desperately small as ever, or as in the 1990's. Just ask Dassault what happened to their 1999 SSBJ. And I'm not saying that because I'm french (oh please - nationalism is absolute shit to my eyes), but if goddam Dassault couldn't pull it out, then who can ? Sukhoi also tried, also in 1999. Didn't went much farther than Dassault.

If Sukhoi and Dassault (and Gulfstream, from "the other side" of the fence) can't pull it out, then who can ? They have build thousands of supersonic combat jets, for frack sake (not Gulfstream of course, replace that with "bizjets").

Note: Dassault couldn't pull it out because the engines were not there.
- big civilian turbofans were, well, too big and too slow
- small military turbofans were powerful and fast, but maintenance nightmares (like an Indycar or F1 engine - exciting but very short life)
- perfect turbofan "from scratch" ended too expensive to develop for a market smaller than 500 airframes - best case.

The above issue - of the engine - hasn't been solved satisfactorily since 1999. Aerion tried with JT8D, then went for a brand new engine that sunk the company.

Show us a viable engine, and a SSBJ will happen thereafters. Not the other way around. The engine is the SSBJ kiss of death (with the sonic boom, btw).

 

[Flyaway]

@Flyaway I wouldn’t be surprised if an SST is an order of magnitude more complicated than a rocket like Blue Origin.

Between the air breathing engine, low speed aerodynamics, complex moving parts, and certification requirements… the number of things that could go wrong seems much higher.

New Glenn isn’t just another launcher but an aspiring reusable launcher that immediately adds yet another layer of complexity just ask Space X.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Archibald : please, notice how Boom isn't building a Supersonic bizjet... But an airliner, what makes sense (capta tion of the high end customers back from the bizjet industry - airlines will pay real gold for that).

 

[Sundog]

I''m not going to lie, watching their development of overture makes me laugh. In the past few years they basically covered the first three decades of SST development within the U.S. They finally arrived at the same conclusion, with regard to configuration, that the U.S. aerospace industry came to thirty years ago. They should have just started there. I do like the new design, though.

 

[Moose]

Flight global coverage:

Boom Supersonic reveals new design for Overture

Supersonic aircraft developer Boom has introduced a new design for its Overture flagship aircraft, which it hopes to fly for the first time in early 2026.

www.flightglobal.com

I find myself not far removed from where I was before this update: wary of red flags but hopeful that something comes of it.

 

[Flyaway]

I would just find it depressing that in my lifetime the only supersonic transport aircraft that I’ve seen flying in the flesh would be Concorde if this goes the way of other projects.

 

[bobbymike]

Northrop teams with Boom Supersonic for ‘special missions’ aircraft - Breaking Defense

"I'm really excited about what sort of offerings we can give for requirements that, frankly, we might not even fully understand yet. There's a really good marriage of capabilities," said Northrop exec Tom Jones.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Archibald]

@Archibald : please, notice how Boom isn't building a Supersonic bizjet... But an airliner, what makes sense (capta tion of the high end customers back from the bizjet industry - airlines will pay real gold for that).

Ah yes, you are right, the miniature 80 seats Concorde ? (from memory !)

They are kind of brave (if not bold, or perhaps downward suicidal - we shall see in a few years) to try and tackle the "civilian supersonic" issue from a different perspective.

Larger aircraft than a 10-seat bizjet may be harder and cost more development money - but perhaps the necessary larger engines could be more closely derived from classic airliner turbofans ?

The basic recipe of "supersonic civilian aircraft" has failed at both ends - SSBJ and Concorde / Tu-144 / 2707. Maybe they are right to try and hit the problem where nobody ever tried before ?

Concorde after all started as a 80-seat "supersonic Caravelle" to fly between Paris and Algiers in record time.

 

[TomcatViP]

Concorde after all started as a 80-seat "supersonic Caravelle" to fly between Paris and Algiers in record time.

I did not know that. Please, more!

 

[TomS]

I'm wrestling with the cabin volume of Overture. The overall plane is basically the same length as Concorde now. But unless the cabin is proportionally much longer, I don't see how they can fit their claimed passenger load.

Concorde had 4-abreast seating for 80-128 people (20-32 rows depending on seat pitch -- the usual 100-seat cabin had ~37-inch pitch).

From the few cabin illustrations so far, Overture has 2-abreast seating and we're told the capacity is for 65-88 (33-44 rows). Which means that it must have substantially longer cabin than Concorde just to match that 37-inch pitch. And 37 inches would be considered premium economy rather than true business class. (Wider seats can help but only so much). Probably the higher capacity seating plans are at least 3 abreast?

 

[TomcatViP]

37inches pitch (!) is only something you'd see when the pinnacle of human development was a fat public servant with unchecked access on public money.

 

[Archibald]

That's one of those pesky issues with flying supersonic, you can't stack two decks of passengers, one above the other.

Concorde was 200 ft+ long for 140 Pax maximum; the Boeing 2707 (whatever the iteration) would have been 300 ft long for 250 passengers. Even with a wider body than Concorde, piling 250 passengers into a supersonic airframe is no small feat.

If you think the XB-70 Valkyrie was huge, consider the fact it was "only" the size of Concorde and thus would have been dwarfed by the 2707 (or its mockup at least).

And the Valkyrie was already as long as two SR-71s, nose to tail !

The 2707-300 would have been the pinnacle of 20th century aviation development(s) in many ways. Imagine: 700 000 pounds of titanium, 200 ft long, flying at Mach 2.7 (not Mach 2.2 like that snail Concorde. Mach 2.7 is the bare minium to make moar New York / Europe rotations in a single day, and the more rotations, the better the economic case).

Took me some times to realize Concorde, Valkyrie and 747 had (give or take) the same length of 60 meters+. But the 2707 would have dwarfed them: close from 100 m long ! (300 ft is a bit less than 92 meters).
That thing would have been longer than even the (late) An-225 !

 

[TomS]

37inches pitch (!) is only something you'd see when the pinnacle of human development was a fat public servant with unchecked access on public money.

??? 37 inches is about typical for long-haul Premium Economy seating these days.

 

[TomS]

OK, really interesting: This doc released today says the cabin interior is 79 feet long. I assume this number is just for seating and excludes galley and lavs because it's impossibly short if it includes them. (Compare with 129 feet from the flight deck door to the aft pressure bulkhead in Concorde, including lavs and galley.)

That means that contrary to the pictures, seating probably has to be 3-wide -- 65 passengers (22 rows) gives a decent seat pitch of 43 inches. And maybe 88 pax is 4 abreast instead of 3, which also gives 22 rows and about 43 inches of pitch. Or perhaps the area ruling means some sections are 2-3 abreast and others are 3-4.

Also, height is "up to 6'5" (1.96 m) at the aisle" which suggests some of the aisle is less than that.

 

[TomcatViP]

37inches pitch (!) is only something you'd see when the pinnacle of human development was a fat public servant with unchecked access on public money.

??? 37 inches is about typical for long-haul Premium Economy seating these days.

Fair but not totally unfair:

Airline Seat Pitch Guide | SKYTRAX

Check Airline Seat Pitch dimensions and Airline Seat size information for world airlines in First Class, Business Class, Premium Economy and Economy Class

www.airlinequality.com

Boom's blabla, at a couple hundred dollars per seat, is not compatible with that.

 

[TomS]

37inches pitch (!) is only something you'd see when the pinnacle of human development was a fat public servant with unchecked access on public money.

??? 37 inches is about typical for long-haul Premium Economy seating these days.

Fair but not totally unfair:

Boom blabla at a couple hundred dollar seat is not compatible with that.

Boom has been claiming costs comparable to business class. That's not "a couple hundred dollars" per seat. It's about $5000 over their proposed routes.

 

[Flyaway]

@Archibald : please, notice how Boom isn't building a Supersonic bizjet... But an airliner, what makes sense (capta tion of the high end customers back from the bizjet industry - airlines will pay real gold for that).

Ah yes, you are right, the miniature 80 seats Concorde ? (from memory !)

They are kind of brave (if not bold, or perhaps downward suicidal - we shall see in a few years) to try and tackle the "civilian supersonic" issue from a different perspective.

Larger aircraft than a 10-seat bizjet may be harder and cost more development money - but perhaps the necessary larger engines could be more closely derived from classic airliner turbofans ?

The basic recipe of "supersonic civilian aircraft" has failed at both ends - SSBJ and Concorde / Tu-144 / 2707. Maybe they are right to try and hit the problem where nobody ever tried before ?

Concorde after all started as a 80-seat "supersonic Caravelle" to fly between Paris and Algiers in record time.

I am not sure if such comparisons carry a lot of weight being as they aren’t at all recent. After all would you compare a car designed and built in the seventies with one designed and built today.

 

[alberchico]

That's one of those pesky issues with flying supersonic, you can't stack two decks of passengers, one above the other.

Concorde was 200 ft+ long for 140 Pax maximum; the Boeing 2707 (whatever the iteration) would have been 300 ft long for 250 passengers. Even with a wider body than Concorde, piling 250 passengers into a supersonic airframe is no small feat.

If you think the XB-70 Valkyrie was huge, consider the fact it was "only" the size of Concorde and thus would have been dwarfed by the 2707 (or its mockup at least).

And the Valkyrie was already as long as two SR-71s, nose to tail !

The 2707-300 would have been the pinnacle of 20th century aviation development(s) in many ways. Imagine: 700 000 pounds of titanium, 200 ft long, flying at Mach 2.7 (not Mach 2.2 like that snail Concorde. Mach 2.7 is the bare minium to make moar New York / Europe rotations in a single day, and the more rotations, the better the economic case).

Took me some times to realize Concorde, Valkyrie and 747 had (give or take) the same length of 60 meters+. But the 2707 would have dwarfed them: close from 100 m long ! (300 ft is a bit less than 92 meters).
That thing would have been longer than even the (late) An-225 !

This updated design really reminds me of the rejected Lockheed L-200 proposal. With all the experience they had with the SR-71 project, they may very well have gotten a prototype in the air that could have persuaded Congress to continue funding for an SST. Then again, the 1973 oil crisis would have likely killed it off anyway.

https://www.hotcars.com/the-l2000-lockheeds-lost-supersonic-transport/

 

[Archibald]

I am not sure if such comparisons carry a lot of weight being as they aren’t at all recent. After all would you compare a car designed and built in the seventies with one designed and built today.

I see your point, but there some basic physics issues with supersonic flight that don't change with time. Even if technological progress obviously helps.

 

[Bounce]

The good thing about the new engine placement means sexy long ass landing gear for engine/fod clearance.

 

[TomcatViP]

Boom has been claiming costs comparable to business class. That's not "a couple hundred dollars" per seat. It's about $5000 over their proposed routes.

Boom’s founder, Blake Scholl, told The New York Times that the goal is to deliver passengers anywhere in the world within four hours for $100. In comparison, tickets from New York to London aboard Concorde cost thousands of dollars.

Curious About Boom Supersonic? Here Are Five Things to Know - FLYING Magazine

Colorado-based company aims to get passengers in the sky by 2029.

www.flyingmag.com

 

[TomS]

Boom has been claiming costs comparable to business class. That's not "a couple hundred dollars" per seat. It's about $5000 over their proposed routes.

Boom’s founder, Blake Scholl, told The New York Times that the goal is to deliver passengers anywhere in the world within four hours for $100. In comparison, tickets from New York to London aboard Concorde cost thousands of dollars.

Curious About Boom Supersonic? Here Are Five Things to Know - FLYING Magazine

Colorado-based company aims to get passengers in the sky by 2029.

www.flyingmag.com

That $100 is an "aspirational" number for some future Boom aircraft (in other words, it's fiction). The realistic price that even Scholl admits to for Overture is equivalent to a business class airfare.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/business/supersonic-plane-travel-concorde.html

These engines — as well as modern materials, building methods and efficiencies introduced since the 1970s supersonic vogue — would let Boom operate for 75 percent less than the Concorde, Mr. Scholl said, although he added that his goal was to be 95 percent less expensive. Even so, he estimated initial fares at about the cost of a business-class ticket. “Still a long way from $100,” he acknowledged.

 

[TomcatViP]

This is why I called that Boom blabla.

Still, they are not going to dimension their cabin with the higher pitch seating. That would only lead to unused space. Something you absolutely don't want to identify at the last moment.

In what we are concerned here, their cabin design will then be similar to a regular airliner. First there is the seating capacity that we have overly discussed but, secondly, the reduced flight time will allow them to offer reduced pitch seating to premium customers. This is part of their economic plan to make their plane profitable to airlines: instead of premium services (that are demanding in manpower and non standards, low series, amenities) reduced journey time with standardized equipment and crew.

Standardized means that airlines could capture the premium passenger segment and distribute them easily, in quantity, into their more classical services (hub and spoke) and be more attractive to airports and alliances (premium spend more and often).

If some people here think that bizjet owners will continue to ride their subsonic jets where an airline offers a Supersonic route, let me tell them bluntly that they are wrong.
It's even more spectacular when you think that service and maintenance cost will positively impact their market penetration (hence why bother with a trijet when, in fact, you don't care the extra cost having 4!).*

Obviously, this weird logic is capped by a maximum that represents what airlines are ready to pay. But the more premium are basculing toward private jets, the more major airlines will be ready to invest to attract back this profitable lost segment of their clientele.

*Maintenance cost and services are more a relevant parameter to private owners

 

[Archibald]

Interesting.

boom boom song - Google Search

 

[TomS]

If some people here think that bizjet owners will continue to ride their subsonic jets where an airline offers a Supersonic route, let me tell them bluntly that they are wrong.

Private aircraft offer so many benefits over scheduled service that I suspect they will survive for a long, long time, even in the face of supersonic service.

1) Overture and its ilk can only be viable on relatively long over-water routes. The vast majority of routes inside the US are inaccessible to them due to noise/sonic boom considerations unless low-boom tech actually happens or noise rules change.

2) Bizjets often provide access to alternative airports with less traffic, easier access to urban centers, etc. There are real reasons to prefer flying into Teterboro instead of JFK or LaGuardia, for example.

3) The ability to largely bypass the usual crowds and delays associated with airport security screening processes make bizjets attractive to some people (celebrities, corporate senior officers, etc.) who don't want to associate with normal people for security or personal reasons.