Boom Supersonic has completed its supersonic passenger plane factory, is flying a supersonic demonstrator plane and will have a new upgraded engine core by late 2025. They have over a total of over $700 million in funding. They are targeting 2030 for operation of a Mach 1.7 supersonic passenger jet.
Current plan is only fly supersonic over the ocean or larger lakes. They will fly at 750 mph or whatever air conditions allow for just barely subsonic over land. The over land speed will still be 20% faster than other planes. They are about 3X more fuel efficient than Concord. The Boom ticket price will be $5000 vs $20,000 for Concord.
Boom has accelerated development of a full-scale engine core, which will be operational in late 2025. Engine core testing will analyze performance of the compressor, combustor, and turbine section.
The 50-80 people in the plane will all be first-class or business class.
Overture will also be made with composite materials instead of metal, which makes aircraft lighter and more fuel efficient. The Concorde used afterburners to accelerate during liftoff but Boom will not. This will reduce fuel costs. The inflation adjusted price of Concord tickets was $20,000 but Boom will price at about $5000.
Boom says it has identified up to 600 profitable and mostly transoceanic routes. Boom must gain Federal Aviation Administration certification before carrying any passengers. The target is 2029 FAA certification. Boom has some preliminary certifications from the FAA.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Symphony
[ double speed, three times fuel for passenger/(nautic mile) (?) ]
If they are going to require FAA approval, they better make sure to make large donations to the DNC, and have zero ties to Elon Musk.
That’s not how it works. Please, deal with reality. But if Trump becomes President again, here-to-for independent agencies, will no longer be independent. Hope you have your own bunker…You’ll need it.
Lets look at this from a practical economic POV. Back in the 1980’s, I flew on the Concord. Why? Because it was cool, and very expensive. Guess what? I waited in line to check in, Like everyone else. And it took longer to get my luggage at my destination then it took me flying supersonic across the Atlantic. I swear to God what I say is true. So I ask what makes the greater economic quotient? A plane that fly’s very fast between two points, or a plane that fly’s fast enough to get you and your luggage between two points at the same reasonable amount of time? This ain’t a trick question. If you ever flew on a commercial plane, you know it’s not.
For most people there’s no reason their checked luggage has to fly with them at all. It could be sent in advance on a slower plane and still be waiting for you at the destination. This decoupling of air travel from luggage just requires customers getting comfortable with it, not new technology. Maybe Boom supersonic would bundle this sort of checked luggage service.
True. When flying Concord I had to check almost anything larger then a wallet or purse. I have a wallet, never a purse. Should of had a damn purse. Could of had spare underwear and a tooth brush. Exceptions were detailed and weirdly complicated. A single newspaper was OK, also a notepad, but a notebook? Maybe not. A briefcase? OK, depending on what’s in it. (Mine would have at least underwear and and a toothbrush) Gold bars or lead bricks are a MAJOR NO-NO. A few years later, I found out the “logic” behind this Byzantium weirdness’.
It’s all based on weight. There are several ways to fly faster and/or farther. You can use more energy, use energy more efficiently, or design aircraft that need less energy to fly. Once again, I digress. But I’ve flown over every ocean on Earth, taking many hours with only carry-on. Your right, we really don’t need to take “much stuff” when we fly, with us. I wouldn’t send it ahead, it’s easier to track something from where you are, then where you were.
Though what you suggest is logical, there’s actually a psychological impediment to your idea. People have an aversion to being separated from “their stuff”. Once you check luggage, you don’t see it again until your destination. Hopefully, your luggage is on the same plane you are. We “assume” that. Today, with associating checked bags with actual passenger’s, this “nomad luggage” event happens much less often.
Anyway, just how much stuff does anyone really need to travel with?
So they are developing their own engine. I know the deal with Roll Royce fell through.
I did not hear that. Perhaps their trying to source an engine from GE? Only GE and Roll’s Royce are the reliable suppliers of commercial aircraft engines. There are a few other smaller companies whose product’s seem “credible”. But GE and Royce have huge production volumes. Making a lot of something as complex as a jet engine means the more you make, the better you get at it.
But if there making their own engine? Oh good Lord, and good luck.
Maybe I’m wrong, but aren’t ramjets relatively simple aside from the turbojet component? It’s just a precooler and geometry. So they should be able to source something off the shelf for the turbojet and do the rest themselves? Not sure.