I thought we already had something awesome going with Boom Supersonic and the Overture, but if NASA's X-59 test aircraft actually leads to a MACH 4 PASSENGER JET, oh boy. You gotta see this if you haven't already.

[-]

CPTMotrin@reddit

Unlike Boom, at least this research includes many well experienced aviation companies with vast aeronautical knowledge. Will be interesting to see if this bears fruit.

[-]

nil0lab@reddit

https://www.fastcompany.com/91277425/boom-supersonic-flight-plane-design

[-]

Interesting read. It seems Boom wants to fly over land at a much reduced supersonic speed. Which would negate much of the time advantage for transcontinental travel. This problem hampers the business case for this type of aircraft. The plan is also for a rather limited passenger payload. Again this works against the business case. And now for the worst part. Ask Boeing what it is like trying to certify new aircraft models (777X) and derivative models (Max 7 & 10). It’s not the old days. So certifying any new commercial aircraft will take at least $30 Billion on the low side. Engines multiple billions more. Raising that kind of venture capital is where the real problem kills the project.

[-]

nil0lab@reddit

Smaller aircraft are more easily certified, have fewer requirements. More like JSX.

[-]

RoboJ1M@reddit

Boom just seems bizarre.
We cracked Mach 2.04 passenger aircraft in the 1960s.
Want to go fast?
Pay the British to build you a go fast plane.
Rather than their, what, Mach 1.7 plane with no engine?

[-]

Ramenastern@reddit

It's research. They're not developing a pax plane. They're researching the feasibility, much like they did when they reactivated that Tu-144 in the 90s.

[-]

Enough_Membership_22@reddit

Russia was an ally in this era. Now it’s more enemy. We had the chance to maintain good relations with Russia.

[-]

Ramenastern@reddit

Russia had the chance of maintaining good relations with the West, too, but chose a different path.

[-]

yayfishnstuff@reddit

still one of the weirder things theyve done IMO

[-]

KoldKartoffelsalat@reddit

Needed some place to hide corruption, eh?

[-]

aquayle@reddit

? Boom is on the Northrop Grumman team.

[-]

nil0lab@reddit

https://www.fastcompany.com/91277425/boom-supersonic-flight-plane-design

[-]

aviationevangelist@reddit

The X-59 is set to do Mach 1.4 over land…

[-]

Infinite-Painter-497@reddit

one quick question, IS THERE EVEN GONNA BE A COCKPIT IN THE PLANE?

[-]

agha0013@reddit

Boom is only exciting on paper, the reality is bleak, they are really really good at getting investment, but so far have absolutely nothing to show for it except constantly watered down promises.

As of today, their latest promises are for something slower than Concorde and with all the same restrictions due to all the same problems. The airframe might be lighter, but it has no engine (and the engine they were hoping for wouldn't have been particularly efficient) it can't fly supersonic over land, it can't cross the pacific without needing a stop along the way...

X-59 at least isn't promising anything to any clients, it's pure research to see if they can finally do something about the sonic boom issue.

[-]

tambrico@reddit

They have a demonstrator doing taxi tests with first flight soon. I wouldn't say they have absolutely nothing

[-]

AlphaConKate@reddit

Three airlines plus the US Air Force put in orders for this aircraft.

[-]

agha0013@reddit

they had that four years ago, then they buried it, and like I mention, it no longer has anything in common with the latest complete re-design.

That tech demonstrator was supposed to be flying in 2019.

[-]

BidGroundbreaking913@reddit

'they are really good at getting investment'

That statement in a nutshell is the whole reason Boom and others exist.

I struggle to comprehend the apparent naivety of investors for such projects.

They appear to me to be classic pump and dumps or tax write offs.

[-]

P1xelHunter78@reddit

It’s just a scam. Promise a sensational product say “oh whoops, but hey we really tried!” And pocket the cash. Boom top level tech bro vapor ware grift

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

They have just started taxi testing their prototype. So they have got further than most vapourware companies.

I do agree to some extent. A lot of these startups seem to be all about trying to be the next big tech failure than actually achieving anything.

[-]

P1xelHunter78@reddit

it's not a porotype, its a 1/3 scale tech demonstrator using engines that first ran in the 60's. They built a model. In no way shape or form is that a "prototype". Any you are correct, Boom at this point is just trying to be the next big tech failure...but they know they have to deliver something to not go to jail. it'll probably make a test flight or two next year (maybe) and they'll raise some more cash, pocket it and say "whoops we tired!"

[-]

AlphaConKate@reddit

They are building an actual factory in Greensboro to build the aircraft. Three airlines plus the US Air Force put in orders for these aircraft. They found engines as well. The test flight is supposed to happen this year. NASA keeps delaying theirs.

[-]

Ok-Dust-@reddit

They’ve gotten further by lowering their promises. How far can it taxi without engines?

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

Well, I watched a video of the test ptotype going down the runway under its own power. They haven't even started to build the finished product.

[-]

P1xelHunter78@reddit

old J58 engines.

[-]

Ok-Dust-@reddit

Oh we’re back XB1. Copy

[-]

BidGroundbreaking913@reddit

I once spent a day marveling at the SEC filings of one Baltia Airlines now USGlobal Airways. I found myself fascinated by the excuses written in the terminology of the filings. The excuses were Indeed "oh whoops, but hey we really tried!” but added "just stay with us you will be rich " .As a beancounter to trade I could translate it but to those not conversant they must have come away feeling "Wow that's bad luck but they know what they are doing". Great story, but then again I haven't invested in it.

Formed 1989

Inaugural Flight ...........eh eh well just as soon as we can.......

[-]

Secret_Diet7053@reddit

SAm Altman is involved with Boom,I doubt he would invest in vapor ware

[-]

juanmlm@reddit

It’s SpaceX FOMO. Investors are often finance people without a background in engineering who are given a ton of money and are told to find the next SpaceX. From the standpoint of a company like Boom, it’s easy money: some renders, a mockup, big numbers, a visionary CEO… and there you go, 50 million.

SpaceXs and Rocketlabs are few and far between.

[-]

BidGroundbreaking913@reddit

Yes my experience in dealing with large financial institutions has been that. While perhaps technically competent in the financial sector, in the far more technically demanding (IMHO) engineering area investment decision makers are at a disadvantage. There are of course persons who are qualified and experienced in engineering and finance but I think that is perhaps rare? FOMO. Yes and a surplus of liquidity.

[-]

ilias80@reddit

If this is going to be using alternative energy meand or at least lower the carbon footprint, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't care much about comes out of it on the commercial side.

[-]

cherokeesix@reddit

Boom is like the Fyre Festival of aviation. Total grifters.

[-]

FZ_Milkshake@reddit

If supersonic is coming back then only for private/biz-jets. The problem for commercial flights imho is not the flight duration but the check in times at most major airports.

[-]

ChampionshipLow8541@reddit

Huh? London to New York is about 7 hours. Concorde did it in 3.5 hours. A Mach 4 plane might do it in under 2 hours.

Paris to L.A. might be possible in just over 3 hours instead of 12.

How’s the check-in time the problem here?

The real issues, as with Concorde, are (a) cost, and (b) speed restrictions over land due to the sonic boom.

[-]

FZ_Milkshake@reddit

7 hours travel time plus 2 hours check in, 1 hour baggage claim/customs makes it 10 hours vs 6.5 hours on a good day. So no longer half the time but only 50% less.

[-]

PC-12@reddit

7 hours travel time plus 2 hours check in, 1 hour baggage claim/customs makes it 10 hours vs 6.5 hours on a good day. So no longer half the time but only 50% less.

Pax flying SST aren’t showing up 2 hours ahead of the flight. Typically, SST is like F on steroids. Dedicated check in section, if not a dedicated terminal. Expedited security, dedicated lounge. My guess is most show up 30-45 mins prior to departure.

Dedicated customs on arrival is the norm for regular SST/F service as well. In a new evolution of SST travel, I’d expect at least some airports to have a dedicated terminal for this. Such a facility would drastically reduce customs and baggage times too.

[-]

ChampionshipLow8541@reddit

The people who care about speedy air travel - like me - don’t show up two hours prior, and sure as hell don’t spend an hour at the baggage claim.

My record international arrival in the US (Miami): 12 minutes plane to Uber.

[-]

jeb_hoge@reddit

That is a really fascinating way to look at it.

[-]

retard-is-not-a-slur@reddit

Transatlantic/transpacific travel is where SST makes the most sense. Overland routes are not economically feasible unless tickets are well into the thousands of dollars for economy. Fuel burn is the #1 issue and it’s a physics issue that they’re not going to be able to solve.

[-]

Ramenastern@reddit

Overland routes are not economically feasible unless tickets are well into the thousands of dollars for economy. Fuel burn is the #1 issue and it’s a physics issue that they’re not going to be able to solve.

That latter part actually applies to transatlantic/transpacific routes as well.

[-]

retard-is-not-a-slur@reddit

I agree. I kind of left out the other part of what I wanted to say, which is that the time reduction on overland routes isn't significant enough to be worth so much extra money. Determining economic variability of routes, all the busiest air routes in the world are domestic short haul flights. Narrowing in on the US, JFK-LAX, LAX-SFO, LGA-ORD, LAX-ORD, and ATL-MCO are the top 5 routes. Of those 5, LAX-SFO and ATL-MCO are too short to bother with SST.

Theoretically, JFK-LAX takes 6 hours. If we could halve it to 3, but at 4x or more cost, I don't think most would find it worth it. Maybe there's a space to have 1-4 flights there and back in a day since there are enough wealthy people to fill a smaller jet, but not more. It'd have to be similar to Concorde pricing. LGA-ORD would be interesting too, albeit at just under 3 hours now, I don't think there'd be too much appetite for a faster option, even if it got down to an hour. LAX-ORD is 4 hours, so again, I think the issues are similar to LGA-ORD.

Transoceanic though? Count me in. I love aviation but do not want to be inside of an airliner for 8+ hours. Granted, I've never flown on a widebody so maybe they aren't as dry, but in any case my ears kill me on descent. Cutting 8 hours down to 4 or less? Worth it given how infrequently I'd do it. Goes for double crossing the pacific.

[-]

premer777@reddit

operating expenses

I use the term "SST prices" frequently when referring to expensive deluxe travel ticket prices

[-]

Spin737@reddit

“NASA is developing a supersonic passenger aircraft that will reportedly have a top speed of Mach 4 (~3000mph), which will not make it twice as fast as the Concorde but also faster than the legendary SR-71.”

I think you a word.

[-]

PyroWizza@reddit

Missed

[-]

dodgerblue1212@reddit

The only supersonic flying Boom will be doing is right to bankruptcy

[-]

P1xelHunter78@reddit

And grifting investors on the way there. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors, but I bet the management is doing a good job protecting their assets and scooping up as much money as possible in the mean time.

[-]

allnamestaken1968@reddit

No worries, neither will lead to anything that’s economically feasible supersonic transport for the typical passenger.

[-]

Magictank2000@reddit

eh, id rather be amazed at the prospect of sst returning than be pessimistic like you

[-]

NYPuppers@reddit

Fool us 10 times shame on you, fool us 11 time shame on us.

(It’s not pessimistic. We just don’t want to support grifters and govt waste and that’s all these ever are… SST burns 5x the fuel to uncomfortably get people to a limited number of places in a shortened amount of time that doesn’t really lend much benefit given time zone differences.)

[-]

P1xelHunter78@reddit

This. It’s fuel burn. Jets are already thirsty enough velocity cubed is a mathematical problem that’s difficult to get around when it comes to drag. Good for you not buying into the SST razzle dazzle

[-]

En4cr@reddit

Exactly, there's so much to appreciate here.

Even though physics are not in favor of SSTs the world would be incredibly boring if everyone just followed the status quo, and I still like to think there are major breakthroughs in the horizon in terms of propulsion and materials that will improve our travel experience.

[-]

gianni071@reddit

Not only that, flying super/hypersonic results in an estimated temperature increase per flight 30x higher than the increase of a regular subsonic flight.

Almost all temperature response is caused by water vapour and NOx emissions at very high altitude. Water vapour emitted in the stratosphere has a residence time of a couple of years.

So in terms of climate impact super/hypersonic flying is extremely bad. What frustrates me most is Boom advertising their aircraft as ‘sustainable’ because it will be CO2 neutral, while CO2 is a very small portion of its climate impact.

[-]

ShuantheSheep3@reddit

Meh, I’d still rather have the chance to be waiting in a 737 and see one of these landings, even if full of millionaires. Might even save up for a flight myself.

[-]

RowAwayJim91@reddit

I mean, I’m happy enough just to see one fly in my lifetime. Never saw a Concorde fly

[-]

747ER@reddit

Neither will become a viable SST? Maybe. Neither will lead to a viable SST? Almost certainly not.

These are the first designs for a new era of flying; one where we can safely and efficiently transport passengers at supersonic speeds. The first few designs are going to be rubbish, but the lessons we learn from them will make us build better and better jets. Did the Wright Flyer lead to anything economically feasible?

[-]

FrankLloydWrong_3305@reddit

It's pretty basic physics.

That energy has to come from somewhere, and it has to be in a form which can be utilized.

SST was and never again will be.

[-]