Posted on 10/10/2024 7:17:22 PM PDT by Red Badger
Boom's XB-1 supersonic jet took its fifth test flight out of Mojave Air & Space Port on Oct 7th, 2024 setting a few new records in the process. The XB-1 is the one-third-scale platform that Boom is using as the foundation for its eventual Overture aircraft that aims to bring back commercialized supersonic passenger flight.
It's been over 20 years since the Concorde took its last flight. It went supersonic in 1969, able to fly at Mach 2 (about 1,354 mph / 2,180 km/h). Though it could fly passengers from New York to London in under three hours (compared to the typical seven to eight-hour journey), it had two major issues: first, the Concorde was very thirsty. It would burn 5,638 gallons (25,629 L) of fuel per hour at that speed. Secondly, it was very noisy. The sonic booms it would create caused issues when it would fly over land and subsequently, supersonic travel over populated areas was restricted. Oh, and it was really expensive to book a flight in. We're talking US$12,000 for a luxury round trip.
As a result, the Concorde – an icon of commercial travel and aviation history – was taken out of service on October 24th, 2003, relegating commercial supersonic travel to the annals of history.
Colorado-based Boom Supersonic is looking to change all that.
In March of this year, the world's first privately developed supersonic jet took flight for the very first time with pilot Bill "Doc" Shoemaker at the controls. This flight took place in what might be considered hallowed airspace, as the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California is also the location where the Bell X-1 first broke the sound barrier in 1947.
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
“Thus the drag at that speed is 5.5 times greater. Fuel burn will kill it as a commercial success.”
And, conversely, the drag at 60,000 feet is roughly half that at 38,000 feet. Plus the aircraft naturally has a much lower drag coefficient than a typical airliner.
Turbo Wax BOOSTED 2.0
https://turbowax.com/products/turbo-wax-boosted-2-0
I don’t know that I would fly with an airline named BOOM.
Yeah, more “click-baity” type poor “journalism”: the “Mojave Air & Space Port” is NOT Edwards Air Force Base (Muroc AAF/NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center) where the Bell X-1 was tested. Close but no cigar! Mojave is home to some cool A/C tho...mostly from Scaled Composites/Burt Rutan.
https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/first-generation-x-1/
https://scaled.com/portfolio/stratolaunch/
Also, you may have 3 X the rate of fuel consumption per unit time but only for 1/3 the total time of flight.
To be built in Greensboro, North Carolina:
https://boomsupersonic.com/overture
https://www.flyingmag.com/how-north-carolina-got-booms-overture-superfactory/
https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/boom-opens-supersonic-factory-north-carolina-1235657781/
Drag is also a function of air density and Boom thinks its airplanes will fly much higher than commercial jets today.
That said, Boom is a pump-n-dump, IMHO. They claim they will solve a new physics model and have engines that do things no engine maker thinks is physically possible.
Boom, like several airplane companies before it at Centennial airport, Colorado, is terribly underfunded to get something certified.
No, one burning up on takeoff is what doomed the Concord.
There are plenty of hyper rich people willing to pay to justify a few of these in operation.
The ticket price will be insane, but just like the concord, there will be people willing to pay it. It won’t be a ton of people, but I would expect like the concord, you likely will have a few daily trans atlantic flights out of NYC. If they handle the sonic boom issue and get that nautical mileage up to 5000 give or take, they can do direct LA to PARIS which would likely be a viable route as well.
You are correct. My example was for two aircraft with the same drag coefficient, same altitude but different speeds. Relative to drag coefficient the Supersonic Concord was .017 and the 787 dreamliner is .024 thus the Concord is about 30% less. Concords wing was a delta wing which is excellent for supersonic flight. That wing sucks at low speeds thus the very high pitch angle on takeoff and landing.
I think I dated her
I see the author had to throw in the SAF business. The green mantra of Sustainable Aviation Fuel.
Name me one time in history, that the cheap (relatively speaking) and available as well as sustainable real aviation fuel whether gasoline variety or jet fuel has not been sustainable as well as cheap in comparison to the very expensive stuff being touted as SAF?
At least four times expensive, from my view but totally dependent on tax subsidies and regulations to make it viable to any degree.
Deliver me from the green agenda, please!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.