by spatulon on 8/16/22, 2:18 PM with 515 comments
by galgot on 8/16/22, 3:53 PM
https://www.airway.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Boom_Ov...
to a very scaled down Boeing 2707-300 configuration :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
(that tiny fin tho...). While reducing cruise speed to 1.7 mach. I see no visible changes to deal with the sonic booms problem. So operation would be like Concorde I suppose, subsonic (or hi-subsonic) over land and Supersonic over ocean only. Unless the super-rich manage the regulation to change.
EDIT : ah yes :) "2x FASTER OVER WATER" and "20% FASTER OVER LAND"...
Also : Maybe good to remember that 18 airlines had once placed orders for Concorde, with only the 2 national carriers flying it in service eventually. And that The Boeing 2707 was ordered by 27 airlines before the program being canceled…
by alphabetting on 8/16/22, 2:37 PM
Probably will be very expensive but it's exciting for future possibilities
by JCM9 on 8/16/22, 2:42 PM
Of course things didn’t work out that way with Concorde, which was not commercially successful and more of a spectacle than something founded in business fundamentals. But if Boom can make supersonic passenger travel economics work out it would certainly be hugely disruptive.
by bragr on 8/16/22, 2:37 PM
I guess that's not nothing given how these sorts of contracts usually give the big name brand company lots of outs if the speculative company goes bust, but by bragging about it without specifying the amount, I'm guessing it's a low amount.
by flerchin on 8/16/22, 2:41 PM
by plegresl on 8/16/22, 2:35 PM
by danvoell on 8/16/22, 3:11 PM
by namirez on 8/16/22, 9:20 PM
by panick21_ on 8/16/22, 4:36 PM
So why should I trust that their main airliner is anywhere even close to on-time.
by sktrdie on 8/16/22, 3:23 PM
I've learned to appreciate slow-travel using trains and have been a supporter of electric planes for reaching further places.
by HPsquared on 8/16/22, 2:47 PM
by paxys on 8/16/22, 2:48 PM
by ds on 8/16/22, 4:01 PM
Wouldnt be surprised if American put less than 1m down, which makes this nothing more than a slightly expensive PR campaign.
by pinewurst on 8/16/22, 3:17 PM
by starwind on 8/16/22, 3:30 PM
On a personal note, this company is based out of Centennial Airport (KAPA) which is in my neighborhood
by janef0421 on 8/16/22, 11:04 PM
by pdx_flyer on 8/16/22, 4:44 PM
by skellera on 8/16/22, 3:03 PM
by ucha on 8/16/22, 5:22 PM
The costs of flying an airplane isn't proportional to its fuel usage. The faster an aircraft is, the more flights it can perform per day.
The carbon emissions impact of flying a gas-guzzling supersonic aircraft aren't evident either. Of course, more gas is used per trip but fewer planes need to be manufactured. Since there is no supersonic business jet, it could also make sense for some people who used to fly private for the speed and convenience to reconsider as they may get faster to their destination by flying supersonic.
by bell-cot on 8/16/22, 3:21 PM
I'll guess that American's "non-refundable deposit" for the first 20 Boom aircraft was pretty small, and came out of American's marketing budget. Or was a negotiating tactic, to help American get a better price from some real aircraft manufacturer.
by nwatson on 8/16/22, 6:21 PM
I live in a neighboring town not far from the boutique Triad Semiconductor, which designs digital/analog chips and components for many applications, including space.
by ChicagoBoy11 on 8/16/22, 4:04 PM
by mertnesvat on 8/16/22, 5:14 PM
My humble opinion is that it's aviation company without huge innovation or disruption of the industry. More like a fast horse rather than car.
by gbronner on 8/16/22, 2:39 PM
This is slower and smaller than concorde, so we'll see if the market really values speed over convenience / luxury. Boeing made the opposite decision 20 years ago when they cancelled the sonic cruiser.
by pinky1417 on 8/16/22, 6:15 PM
However, although I'm rooting for any company that's making a sincere (as opposed to fraudulent) attempt at bringing back supersonic travel, the hardest challenges may still be ahead for Boom. The biggest one is the need to find or build a new engine. They've recently redesigned the Overture to use four engines instead of two, which should ease required engine specs, but there's no engine that would meet the reliability, noise, fuel consumption, and dimension requirements for a supersonic passenger aircraft.
Related to the engines: money. It sounds impressive that boom raised at least $150 million, including $60 million from the US Air Force (which has the added advantage of creating a new customer segment in the military)... until you learn engine development alone would require in the ballpark of $6 BILLION of capital. Aviation history is rife with examples of amazing, innovative aircraft designs that failed because no suitable engine was available.
Also, Boom leadership has set some ambitious goals, which makes me a bit skeptical. They plan on using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Great! But now they not only need to create a new engine, they need to create a new engine that runs off of a new fuel. Additionally, they've set a goal price of $5,000 for a New York to London roundtrip whereas Concorde would've cost $20,000 for the same route. Heck, I once paid $8,000 for a Boston to Tokyo roundtrip business class flight. Nothing wrong with setting such a goal (and Boom isn't even the party that sets route prices) and it's OK for marketing claims to be a tad optimistic, but this tests the limits of credibility.
Lastly, there's the issue of possible routes, which is primarily limited by noise constraints. Unlike the Concorde, which needed afterburners to produce sufficient thrust for takeoff, Boom is going for a no-afterburner design. While this should expand the number of airports the Overture can use since afterburners won’t be blasting the neighborhood, you’re still not going to be able to fly over land. Boom suggest 500 routes are supersonically viable[1], which I’d assume means “pairs of international airports separated mostly by water”. We might be talking about something like 50 actual airports. only a fraction of those routes are not just supersonically viable, but economically viable. Of course, commercial aircraft are designed for particular types of routes. An Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet and the Boeing 787 long-range wide-body jet fly different routes. I’m not expert on this though; maybe 500 routes is plenty for a “total addressable market” in the aviation industry,
To bring it all together: my big issues with Boom are, one, engine development and, two, the choice of “hard problems” they decided to take on (specifically, SAF & cheap tickets). My hopes are that the engines are in development, using SAF instead of conventional fuel isn’t a big deal if you design for from the start, and the $5,000 thing is more about saying how low, hypothetically, an airline could price tickets while making money. I’d also like to know what the current status of the state-of-the-art is in quiet supersonic flight. NASA’s quiet supersonic demonstrator, the Lockheed Martin X-59 QuSST, combined with regulators’ desire to decide on supersonic overland travel in 2028, would open up new routes like JFK-LAX for planes meeting noise requirements, should regulators decide to allow it.
My hypothesis on Boom’s design choices? Quiet supersonic cruise is still technically challenging and has an uncertain regulatory future, and the political tide may be turning towards greater regulation on fossil fuels. So, by using SAF, Boom ensures that their plan will at least fly in an uncertain regulatory future, even if there’s no overland flight. And, using what they learned developing the Overture, they’ll be in a position to develop a quiet supersonic transport should regulators give the green light.
[1] I’d interpret routes to be something like airport-pairs, as in Laguardia-Heathrow would be one route. If you Boom could fly from three airports in the US to or from three airports in Europe, you’d have nine routes (3*3). This article talks a bit about the lack of clarity with Boom’s “route” number: <https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/04/hotr-500-destinations-for-...>
by choletentent on 8/16/22, 3:47 PM
by makz on 8/16/22, 4:06 PM
by ZeroGravitas on 8/16/22, 3:03 PM
by HPsquared on 8/16/22, 3:04 PM
by Bubble_Pop_22 on 8/16/22, 7:00 PM
7hrs London to NYC are more than acceptable, too bad it ends up being 10hrs
by MR4D on 8/17/22, 1:18 AM
by leecarraher on 8/16/22, 8:29 PM
by TheDudeMan on 8/16/22, 3:56 PM
So, possibly zero. OK, thanks for the update.
by malkia on 8/16/22, 5:15 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/28/irish-lessors-have-terminate...
"Aircraft Leasing Ireland (ALI), members of which include SMBC Aviation Capital, Avolon, Aircastle and AerCap Holdings, which is the world’s biggest aircraft leasing company, said that all of its members have complied fully with the sanctions."
by onychomys on 8/16/22, 2:37 PM
Pretty glad I don't own American stock right now, because they're apparently led by madmen.
by pdx_flyer on 8/16/22, 4:01 PM
by mbg721 on 8/16/22, 3:38 PM
by simonebrunozzi on 8/16/22, 4:05 PM
"American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic"
When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA.
Instead, it's "just" an order of 20 aircrafts.
Note that this is not a new move by Boom, they played this card when raising money when they pitched at YC demo day, and they're doing it again. The problem I have with this is the following:
> agreement to purchase up to 20 Overture aircraft, with an option for an additional 40. American has paid a non-refundable deposit on the initial 20 aircraft
It's "up to 20", and not "20", and there is a non-disclosed non-refundable deposit. If it's a, say, $10,000 per aircraft, total of $200,000 (ouch, should I say... up to $200,000?), it's a just a cheaper ad for AA, and ammo for the CEO when the board asks "where are you innovating?".
Good luck to Boom, but I am unconvinced this is a viable company and a viable business.
by testing654321 on 8/16/22, 5:25 PM
by mmaunder on 8/16/22, 4:42 PM
There is so much opportunity for innovation in areas of aviation where we desperately need to innovate: Getting rid leaded avgas, moving away from fossil fuels altogether which includes fields like energy storage and electric propulsion, developing an efficient trainer to replace the piston lead-gasoline burning C172 that is so ubiquitous and makes up much of the 1500 required hours for an ATP license. So many opportunities.
Aviation is ripe for innovation. This ain't it.
