Concorde the sequel?
Aug 17, 2022, 12:54 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: West Sussex
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 897
Concorde the sequel?
AA just signed a deal to potentially buy 20 of the new Boom Overture supersonic aricraft, due to be ready in 2025. Max speed of Mach 1.6, and runs on SAF (sustainable airfuel). I see that United and JAl have also dropped non-refundable deposits.
American Airlines signs agreement to buy Boom Supersonic aircraft
Interested to see whwther BA follow suit and resurrect a form of transatlatic Concorde?
I was surprised that BA were not mentioned in any way, even within a partnership with AA. Given the dominance of the LON-NYC routes, and the historical demand for such a fast translatic flight on those routes.
American Airlines signs agreement to buy Boom Supersonic aircraft
Interested to see whwther BA follow suit and resurrect a form of transatlatic Concorde?
I was surprised that BA were not mentioned in any way, even within a partnership with AA. Given the dominance of the LON-NYC routes, and the historical demand for such a fast translatic flight on those routes.
Aug 17, 2022, 1:14 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,499
It’s nowhere near a Concorde even though it is indeed supersonic. I think there is no doubt supersonic will be back - we’ve all known it would, but I guess many airlines are still wondering if this one is the particular winning formula for the time being or if someone will come up with something better (not least more seats).
Aug 17, 2022, 1:51 am
#4
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,218
I'd love for Boom to succeed, and in all honesty I'd give quite a lot to be able to fly on their XB-1 testbed, when it eventually does, for I think it's coolest-looking plane since the days of the SR-71 Blackbird, but I see some BIG problems ahead for them. In no particular order:
- Noise regs. They don't have any of the 'quiet boom' technology that NASA was exploring; they claim the plane's noise on take-off and landing will be similar to a 777's, but the industry is actually moving beyond those levels. A320 neos, MAXes, 787s and 350s are all quieter than 777s. And the emphasis on the plane going supersonic above water, which can be gleaned from the media releases recently, makes me think they might be having trouble securing the right to fly above ground at supersonic speeds.
- Engine. If, as I understand it, they want to be able to go supersonic without afterburners the field with which to choose is rather limited. They are working with Rolls Royce, which is part of the consortium building the Eurofighter's engine (which I believe is capable of such performances) but the little I know of export restrictions and reuse of products made for military applications make me think that reusing that will be rather hard. Also, I'd hazard the guess that the EJ200 engine isn't really designed with the same parameters that are paramount for civilian applications (fuel consumption, longevity). In fact, in the past 40 years the civilian engine industry moved towards high-bypass engines... which isn't what Boom needs. So there's a LOT of ground to cover and it doesn't bode well for Boom that they're still very, very, very coy about the powerplant. We know literally nothing about it, which is a bit weird considering it ought to be flying in 3 years' time.
- Money. Developing the 787 costed $50bn in development and industrialisation. The RR Trent engine costed Ł1bn. Boom has, as far as I understand it, about $250m in its coffers. Sure, once they have a viable product I'm sure more will flood in, and perhaps a big name will swoop them (Boeing?) but, as Elon Musk famously said, prototyping is nowhere as hard as industrialising.
- Business viability. The rumour within BA was that Concorde never made any money. It's not really Boom's problem, more the airlines', but I do wonder how the business case will stack up. How much fares will they need to be in order for a Boom fleet to be valuable? It loops back to engines, because if they're guzzling fuel then it might really not work. Plus, the range might limit the number of routes to those that are currently flown under 7/10hr, and is it really that much of an advantage to be flying those in half the time? Will be taking 3hrs to JFK worth the "x" price differential?
Aug 17, 2022, 1:58 am
#5
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,242
AA just signed a deal to potentially buy 20 of the new Boom Overture supersonic aricraft, due to be ready in 2025. Max speed of Mach 1.6, and runs on SAF (sustainable airfuel). I see that United and JAl have also dropped non-refundable deposits.
American Airlines signs agreement to buy Boom Supersonic aircraft
Interested to see whwther BA follow suit and resurrect a form of transatlatic Concorde?
I was surprised that BA were not mentioned in any way, even within a partnership with AA. Given the dominance of the LON-NYC routes, and the historical demand for such a fast translatic flight on those routes.
American Airlines signs agreement to buy Boom Supersonic aircraft
Interested to see whwther BA follow suit and resurrect a form of transatlatic Concorde?
I was surprised that BA were not mentioned in any way, even within a partnership with AA. Given the dominance of the LON-NYC routes, and the historical demand for such a fast translatic flight on those routes.
currently this company produced a 1/3 size model aircraft. Never addressed seriously any concerns or potential issues. AA CEO says the MIA-LHR will be under 5 hours when currently the flight time is 8 hours. Is there really a demand to save 3 hours??
SAF is available to any aircraft’s and make it a claim that this plane will only run on SAF is just wrong. The reason SAF hasn’t picked up more because of significant cost increase plus restricted availability.
So which electric truck company pulled a “prototype “ truck to a hill and roll it down by gravity??? They made a beautiful promotional video though.
when in 2025 they roll out their test aircraft and will fly and get certified then I would really believe that a supersonic aircraft might able to enter to the market. Which market thought in 2029 when they claim to start transporting passengers well who knows.
Aug 17, 2022, 2:04 am
#6
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Godalming, Surrey, UK.
Programs: Nowt of note.
Posts: 1,628
Being discussed in the AA forum here: American announces agreement to buy up to 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic
Aug 17, 2022, 2:05 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,499
Did we?
I'd love for Boom to succeed, and in all honesty I'd give quite a lot to be able to fly on their XB-1 testbed, when it eventually does, for I think it's coolest-looking plane since the days of the SR-71 Blackbird, but I see some BIG problems ahead for them. In no particular order:
I'd love for Boom to succeed, and in all honesty I'd give quite a lot to be able to fly on their XB-1 testbed, when it eventually does, for I think it's coolest-looking plane since the days of the SR-71 Blackbird, but I see some BIG problems ahead for them. In no particular order:
- Noise regs. They don't have any of the 'quiet boom' technology that NASA was exploring; they claim the plane's noise on take-off and landing will be similar to a 777's, but the industry is actually moving beyond those levels. A320 neos, MAXes, 787s and 350s are all quieter than 777s. And the emphasis on the plane going supersonic above water, which can be gleaned from the media releases recently, makes me think they might be having trouble securing the right to fly above ground at supersonic speeds.
- Engine. If, as I understand it, they want to be able to go supersonic without afterburners the field with which to choose is rather limited. They are working with Rolls Royce, which is part of the consortium building the Eurofighter's engine (which I believe is capable of such performances) but the little I know of export restrictions and reuse of products made for military applications make me think that reusing that will be rather hard. Also, I'd hazard the guess that the EJ200 engine isn't really designed with the same parameters that are paramount for civilian applications (fuel consumption, longevity). In fact, in the past 40 years the civilian engine industry moved towards high-bypass engines... which isn't what Boom needs. So there's a LOT of ground to cover and it doesn't bode well for Boom that they're still very, very, very coy about the powerplant. We know literally nothing about it, which is a bit weird considering it ought to be flying in 3 years' time.
- Money. Developing the 787 costed $50bn in development and industrialisation. The RR Trent engine costed Ł1bn. Boom has, as far as I understand it, about $250m in its coffers. Sure, once they have a viable product I'm sure more will flood in, and perhaps a big name will swoop them (Boeing?) but, as Elon Musk famously said, prototyping is nowhere as hard as industrialising.
- Business viability. The rumour within BA was that Concorde never made any money. It's not really Boom's problem, more the airlines', but I do wonder how the business case will stack up. How much fares will they need to be in order for a Boom fleet to be valuable? It loops back to engines, because if they're guzzling fuel then it might really not work. Plus, the range might limit the number of routes to those that are currently flown under 7/10hr, and is it really that much of an advantage to be flying those in half the time? Will be taking 3hrs to JFK worth the "x" price differential?
in many ways you are illustrating my point exactly. I personally don’t have any doubt whatsoever that supersonic flying will be back; I’m just not convinced that Boom has successfully answered the challenges that has prevented it from happening so far. all the points you raise are technical issues, and science and technology are precisely there to address technical problems. The cost, the environmental impact, the viability are just technical issues like miniaturising chips, disconnecting phones from cables or creating electrical engines with decent power and autonomy once were.
i definitely do t think we’ll be stuck to subsonic flying forever but it will need to be the right type of medium for high speed flying - something ticking more boxes than Boom does in my view and likely prompted bu a mixture of technological breakthrough yet to come and regulatory change (not in terms of allowing pollution currently banned but more likely in terms of something banning kerosene powered jets as we know them and forcing their replacement by new types of birds once the technology for an alternative looks ripe enough.
Aug 17, 2022, 2:53 am
#8
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,218
im telling you about supersonics and you are answering me about Boom in many ways you are illustrating my point exactly. I personally don’t have any doubt whatsoever that supersonic flying will be back; I’m just not convinced that Boom has successfully answered the challenges that has prevented it from happening so far.
in many ways you are illustrating my point exactly. I personally don’t have any doubt whatsoever that supersonic flying will be back; I’m just not convinced that Boom has successfully answered the challenges that has prevented it from happening so far.all the points you raise are technical issues, and science and technology are precisely there to address technical problems. The cost, the environmental impact, the viability are just technical issues like miniaturising chips, disconnecting phones from cables or creating electrical engines with decent power and autonomy once were.
i definitely do t think we’ll be stuck to subsonic flying forever but it will need to be the right type of medium for high speed flying - something ticking more boxes than Boom does in my view and likely prompted bu a mixture of technological breakthrough yet to come and regulatory change (not in terms of allowing pollution currently banned but more likely in terms of something banning kerosene powered jets as we know them and forcing their replacement by new types of birds once the technology for an alternative looks ripe enough.
i definitely do t think we’ll be stuck to subsonic flying forever but it will need to be the right type of medium for high speed flying - something ticking more boxes than Boom does in my view and likely prompted bu a mixture of technological breakthrough yet to come and regulatory change (not in terms of allowing pollution currently banned but more likely in terms of something banning kerosene powered jets as we know them and forcing their replacement by new types of birds once the technology for an alternative looks ripe enough.
Aug 17, 2022, 2:57 am
#9
Join Date: Aug 2019
Programs: BA Exec Club
Posts: 90
Did we?
- Business viability. The rumour within BA was that Concorde never made any money. It's not really Boom's problem, more the airlines', but I do wonder how the business case will stack up. How much fares will they need to be in order for a Boom fleet to be valuable? It loops back to engines, because if they're guzzling fuel then it might really not work. Plus, the range might limit the number of routes to those that are currently flown under 7/10hr, and is it really that much of an advantage to be flying those in half the time? Will be taking 3hrs to JFK worth the "x" price differential?
Aug 17, 2022, 3:26 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,499
on the broader point, it seems that you think supersonic flying will never get there (bar a miracle) and we’ll just agree to disagree on that. To me, the level of problems that worry you - including likely cost - have been levelled at everything from high speed rail to electric cars, flat screens, wireless technology, natural language processing, and ai in the past and it is the nature of scientific challenges to appear not worth it/practical till people see them as a given instead. When it happens, it becomes widespread enough to replace older options and become affordable too. The question is always whether there is value and to me very high speed long distance transportation will be deemed to, so my personal belief is it will be resolved and a reality, and within decades, people will be able to go from Paris to New York or London to Singapore in a much shorter time than they can now. One day, the thinking of people like me who think that problems are there to be solved will be proved wrong. Maybe this will be the time but I’d be surprised. Don’t count on me to give a time scale though.
Aug 17, 2022, 3:41 am
#11
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,218
Concorde operated with BA for 27 years and 19 of those were post privatisation. It wasn't kept going out of sentiment. (Lord King would of pulled the plug in the mid 80's if the losses continued). Yes it had a shaky start without any proper marketing effort and no real plan from BA but from the mid 80's through until 2000 Concorde made a significant contribution to BA's profits. The huge financial commitment to not only complete mandatory technical mods after the Paris crash but to go a step further and invest in brand new cabins and interiors to see Concorde through until the 2010's would not of been done had it never made any money. Of course, had they of known about 9/11 and the subsequent downturn that followed then the investment would of likely then been questionable. There was a market and demand for Supersonic Transatlantic travel then. I guess the question is, does that demand still exist today?
I agree there's demand for supersonic travel. I'd love to fly supersonic, for Pete's sake! I just have a suspicion that the price I'm willing/able to pay for it won't be enough for it to be viable, and I don't know about the entire market.
i disagree. There plenty of people working on very high speed long distance transportation - at both pure and applied research levels from traditional engineering to quantum physics approaches. Boom are the only ones who believe that through traditional engineering, they have reached a level which makes their product commercially viable already and I don’t agree with them on that. Good research takes time and to me they haven’t resolved enough of the problems yet.
on the broader point, it seems that you think supersonic flying will never get there (bar a miracle) and we’ll just agree to disagree on that. To me, the level of problems that worry you - including likely cost - have been levelled at everything from high speed rail to electric cars, flat screens, wireless technology, natural language processing, and ai in the past and it is the nature of scientific challenges to appear not worth it/practical till people see them as a given instead. When it happens, it becomes widespread enough to replace older options and become affordable too. The question is always whether there is value and to me very high speed long distance transportation will be deemed to, so my personal belief is it will be resolved and a reality, and within decades, people will be able to go from Paris to New York or London to Singapore in a much shorter time than they can now. One day, the thinking of people like me who think that problems are there to be solved will be proved wrong. Maybe this will be the time but I’d be surprised. Don’t count on me to give a time scale though.
on the broader point, it seems that you think supersonic flying will never get there (bar a miracle) and we’ll just agree to disagree on that. To me, the level of problems that worry you - including likely cost - have been levelled at everything from high speed rail to electric cars, flat screens, wireless technology, natural language processing, and ai in the past and it is the nature of scientific challenges to appear not worth it/practical till people see them as a given instead. When it happens, it becomes widespread enough to replace older options and become affordable too. The question is always whether there is value and to me very high speed long distance transportation will be deemed to, so my personal belief is it will be resolved and a reality, and within decades, people will be able to go from Paris to New York or London to Singapore in a much shorter time than they can now. One day, the thinking of people like me who think that problems are there to be solved will be proved wrong. Maybe this will be the time but I’d be surprised. Don’t count on me to give a time scale though.
Going forward, I surely agree we won't be constrained to subsonic travel forever. I'd love to be able to see a future where we can fly on electric-powered eVTOLs (like the Lilium jet) to an airport where we can either hop on an H2-powered shorthauler or a suborbital longhauler or, even, the 2001: Space Odissey moon shuttle!
Aug 17, 2022, 3:41 am
#12
Join Date: Jun 2018
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 160
It would suprise me if they can develop and produce the plane on time and budget. Production is hard, serial production even harder. Maybe if they have a viable plane that they end up as a Boeing or Airbus product (akin the A22x). Futhermore, going faster means more drag and thus needed power (probably why the topspeed is lower then Concorde). Now I am sure it can be done more effcient than Concorde but they don't even have a engine manufactoror at the moment. There may be a market but the plane will be very sensitive to fuel prices, has relativily few seats. I don't see it working for a scheduled service.
Aug 17, 2022, 4:16 am
#14
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: LHR Air Traffic Control
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 875
Did we?
Engine. If, as I understand it, they want to be able to go supersonic without afterburners the field with which to choose is rather limited. They are working with Rolls Royce, which is part of the consortium building the Eurofighter's engine (which I believe is capable of such performances) but the little I know of export restrictions and reuse of products made for military applications make me think that reusing that will be rather hard. Also, I'd hazard the guess that the EJ200 engine isn't really designed with the same parameters that are paramount for civilian applications (fuel consumption, longevity). In fact, in the past 40 years the civilian engine industry moved towards high-bypass engines... which isn't what Boom needs. So there's a LOT of ground to cover and it doesn't bode well for Boom that they're still very, very, very coy about the powerplant. We know literally nothing about it, which is a bit weird considering it ought to be flying in 3 years' time.
Engine. If, as I understand it, they want to be able to go supersonic without afterburners the field with which to choose is rather limited. They are working with Rolls Royce, which is part of the consortium building the Eurofighter's engine (which I believe is capable of such performances) but the little I know of export restrictions and reuse of products made for military applications make me think that reusing that will be rather hard. Also, I'd hazard the guess that the EJ200 engine isn't really designed with the same parameters that are paramount for civilian applications (fuel consumption, longevity). In fact, in the past 40 years the civilian engine industry moved towards high-bypass engines... which isn't what Boom needs. So there's a LOT of ground to cover and it doesn't bode well for Boom that they're still very, very, very coy about the powerplant. We know literally nothing about it, which is a bit weird considering it ought to be flying in 3 years' time.
From The Air Current, 1 Aug 2022:
Rolls-Royce has been working with Boom to design a conceptual engine for its Mach 1.7 airliner. However, with its studies now complete, Rolls’ CEO Warren East said he wouldn’t commit to a business relationship where the engine maker alone would fund development of supersonic propulsion.
“We’re not making anything speculative for anybody,” said East, who added that speculative meant in the near term: “We’re not spending our dollars on new engine developments. Our new engine developments are around our business jet engines and around our UltraFan. That’s it.”
Related: Rolls-Royce CEO says Pratt & Whitney spin-off ‘might’ guide rekindled collaboration
As part of a wide-ranging on-the-record interview with The Air Current, Rolls-Royce’s outgoing chief executive said, “No,” when asked if the company currently has a development team designing an engine for Boom’s Overture airliner slated to fly in early 2026.
“We’re not making anything speculative for anybody,” said East, who added that speculative meant in the near term: “We’re not spending our dollars on new engine developments. Our new engine developments are around our business jet engines and around our UltraFan. That’s it.”
Related: Rolls-Royce CEO says Pratt & Whitney spin-off ‘might’ guide rekindled collaboration
As part of a wide-ranging on-the-record interview with The Air Current, Rolls-Royce’s outgoing chief executive said, “No,” when asked if the company currently has a development team designing an engine for Boom’s Overture airliner slated to fly in early 2026.