XB-1 Baby Boom Goes Supersonic - Jet Planes, Starlink & iPhones

Yesterday, over the skies of the Mojave desert a flight of 3 high performance aircraft edged above Mach 1 in a test flight to gather data, and demonstrate to investors that you don't need government support to build a supersonic aircraft.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@philippayne6655]

This really makes you appreciate the engineering that went into Concord 60 years ago.

[@spacedriver24]

@@philippayne6655 Concorde

[@evanfinch4987]

money

[@spacedriver24]

@evanfinch4987 and years and years of experience building aircraft and engines.

[@tandemcharge5114]

​@@evanfinch4987Yes, that's how it works, dum dum, you use the money to make stuff

[@Triple_J.1]

Concorde borrowed heavily from fighter and supersonic bomber design. It was more elegant, primarily due to the ogive wing. It also had a remarkable range. Few people point this out, but it used afterburner for takeoff, climb and acceleration. But it super-cruised above mach 2. It could not have flown 3,000nm unrefueled if it didn't.

[@drmaudio]

Apparently, the "Knock it off" call was due to a F16 practicing spin recovery that presented a possible conflict..

[@hammerth1421]

It still is Edwards AFB. While they will have been highly prepared for this test, they don't just stop military operations because a commercial test is happening in the same airspace.

[@Keenath]

@@hammerth1421 Sure, of course not, but the AFB controllers do know there's a test vehicle in the supersonic corridor and they're supposed to keep other flights away from the area. It was certainly a mistake that another training flight was allowed to get close enough to be concerning.

[@kathrynck]

@@Keenath I suspect, that due to the nature of the test vehicle (ie: what' it's exploring technologically), that it may have been more about "noise interference" than safety. But I could be wrong.

[@DrakyHRT]

@@kathrynck you mean the f16 would be making too much noise ? but then why would they even have chase vehicles ?

[@phizc]

​@@DrakyHRTnoise in the test data, I assume.

[@eazymoneyracing]

Fun fact. If you look up the tail number of that T-38 (N638TC), you will see that it has a historic movie career, including Hot Shots and Airwolf

[@evanfinch4987]

reminded me of how much hot shots sucks

[@KCM25NJL]

Most iconic of all..... Top Gun (aka the MIG 28)

[@JarrodFLif3r]

​@@evanfinch4987 yet Hot shots is still more realistic than Top Gun

[@littleapeman]

Pretty sure that’s a Mirage F1

[@eazymoneyracing]

​@@littleapemanthe 3rd jet. Did you watch the video?

[@Aravail]

When Scott said the first chase plane was a mirage, for a split second my dumb brain was like "nooo, that looks so real"

[@theinspiringengineer-scien6393]

LOL :D

[@circuit10]

I guess that’s a type of plane?

[@danilooliveira6580]

in my case I was confused because I was thinking of the Mirage 3, not F1. so I was very confused for a second.

[@kukuc96]

@@circuit10 Yeah, it's a family of military aircraft made by the Franch company Dassault. This one specifically looks like a Mirage F1, which is fighter from the 60s-70s.

[@garymartin9777]

What if it had been a Phantom ??

[@adamdapatsfan]

Boom has a great article about their Starlink setup - including how they tested it in an old Miata by doing 100mph down a runway.

[@ac583]

But no engine

[@kennethc2466]

WOW! A private company did what was done 60 years ago, for a pump and dump scam. I'm so impressed!

[@DavidPawson-d7h]

@@kennethc2466 Boom? What was done 60 years ago. Starlink? Make sense with some context.

[@SledgeOfHouseHammer]

Once again Miata Is Always The Answer.

[@kennethc2466]

@@DavidPawson-d7h Ask the T-38 pilot what that plane does that his doesn't. Then look up when the T-38 first flew.

[@ThePhotographyRebuttal]

Can totally relate - I've been Mach 2 and don't remember feel a thing crossing the sound barrier. The take off thrust - now I totally remember THAT feeling! Concorde rules!

[@poindextertunes]

well yeah because the sound is constantly behind you but you should know that right?

[@ThePhotographyRebuttal]

@@poindextertunes I was 7 years old, Didn't quite learn that yet

[@theoccupier1652]

@@poindextertunes He said Felt not heard ;)

[@owensmith7530]

Yes the take off acceleration was amazing on my Concorde flight Heathrow to JFK in 2003. I also felt the reduction in acceleration a few minutes after takeoff when reheat was turned off (afterburners in US speak).

[@icaleinns6233]

That was a sweet touchdown. Not only on centerline, but also just before the 1000' lines. That can't be easy in that plane. Butter!

[@primrosereceptionist611]

The Test Pilot was a Naval Aviator with 200 Carrier Landings.

[@icaleinns6233]

@@primrosereceptionist611 That explains a lot. Thanks!

[@actually5004]

@@primrosereceptionist611 I guess we know the landing gear can't break now.

[@DavidPawson-d7h]

@@icaleinns6233 with two planes guiding you in via a headset it’s easy. Learning to fly instrument landings uses a face shield that blocks your vision or VFR, visual flight rules.

[@icaleinns6233]

@@DavidPawson-d7h True. But that last portion of an IFR flight is usually flown with a lot of VFR input (if possible) in order to set down precisely where the pilot wants. Like mentioned, that plane has video systems for VFR input for this phase. Learning how to use that precisely must have taken a minute or two.

[@Kratos364]

Livestreaming an Iphone video through a Starlink array to observe a experimental test flight. A little jank but it I dig it.

[@jpdemer5]

Total cost of the video documentation is hilariously small. (After you've paid for the Mirage and T-38, of course...)

[@evanfinch4987]

you should change your sn to arrayman bc you know it makes you smart

[@Quebster]

Love that they have the choice to inexpensively do that rather than say it would be too expensive and not show us anything at all! I think everyone has learned from SpaceX that we like to watch, damnit!

[@andybreuhan]

This iPhone story doesn't makes sense. If you look carfefully, you can see interlace -> progessive scan lines. iPhones don't record in interlace.

[@jpdemer5]

@@andybreuhan We don't know what hardware the video passed through before it showed up on YT.

[@sam-ej7sq]

for those wondering, the two chase planes where a trainer mirage f1 and the t38 was a trainer f-5. both 1960's planes

[@fallinginthed33p]

Props to the F-1 for looking contemporary or at least recent. It looks like it could have come out in the early 2000s as a trainer or low cost fighter.

[@DC2022]

@@fallinginthed33p while it's a 70's fighter 🙂

[@nutburger123]

Kansas has instituted the Kansas Supersonic Transportation Corridor spanning the entire length of the state for testing supersonic aircraft over 39000 feet.

[@poindextertunes]

Theres not much in central kansas so I doubt they mind 😂

[@RossReedstrom]

@@poindextertunes Cows. That's about it. Oh, and one tree.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

Imma sue! That sonik bumes are kurdling my kows milk!

[@michaelmicek]

And just east of the Springs, so good place for it. (And west of Missouri.) Look for SpaceX to apply to use it when they get E2E going in about 10 years or so.

[@DavidPawson-d7h]

@@nutburger123 High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn’t care because it can’t hear.

[@therocinante3443]

I'd be very curious to hear about what sort of sonic boom it created. After all, the whole point is to reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas.

[@dosmastrify]

Agreed, I think they may find themselves regretting calling the company boom later on too for this reason.

[@hectoraccented5312]

That's like the most important part of their project, and if this is not a scale model of the big plane I don't know if this plane is even relevant at all

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

Boom is not trying to do that. NASA's X-59 is unrelated to this.

[@DoRullings]

"[...]reduce the boom so much that they can fly over populated areas[...]" is that possible? The plane will make a continuous shock wave and I don't understand how you can get around that?

[@hectoraccented5312]

@ You NEED to do that or this project isn't going anywhere

[@nevadahamaker7149]

Why is Bill Conti's soundtrack for The Right Stuff going through my head? "There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, 750 miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier. Then, they built a small plane, the X-1, to try and break the sound barrier. And men came to the high desert in California to ride it. They were called test pilots. And no one knew their names."

[@Aengus42]

He should've said "And Bell Aircraft had all the plans, design and data dumped in their lap from the guys in the UK at Miles Aircraft who'd worked out the all moving tail that stopped the demon hurling pilots into the ground during the transonic regime. Bell were stuck, and the fawning, weak, indebted to the americans by design, British government gave it's own 1,000mph aircraft, the Miles .52, lock, stock & barrel, to the snide, let's claim all the glory for us boys, stupid, blundering to Bell who still only just managed creep past Mach 1. Did they ever acknowledge the help they'd received? Well, you know americans... What do you think?

[@wilboersma9441]

I love that soundtrack!

[@ah244895]

Sound a bit bitter about it.

[@phlogistanjones2722]

@@Aengus42 Bit of a whinge there old chap! Stiff upper lip! Don't want to be taken for a ponce. Peaceful Skies

[@mrflippant]

Fuckin'-A, bubba.

[@gamernerd7139]

A team of 50 technicians and engineers in various disciplines have acheived it. They have validated their airframe design in the supersonic phase. So they must have captured a lot of valueable data. They can validate their simulation and windtunnel models now with authority. The control and avionics approach is also validated. They are talking about developing non afterburner engine that will have enough thrust to take their full scale aircraft to mach 1.7. It seems they are already working wiith Rolls Royce on that. It is really an exciting project. It is a big ambitious project for a scrappy startup. We need more dream projects like this. Aviation seem to be stuck after the Concorde. That was a massive engineering effort and Concorde failed due to the sheer cost of the project and the aircraft. So I think if these guys can make it happen at a far economically viable track, they have a solid future.

[@TheOwenMajor]

Rolls Royce dropped out a long while ago... now Boom is largely doing the engine design in-house. I wish them the best, but needing to design a novel engine to go along with your novel airframe doesn't usually work if your not a global super power.

[@brendonwood7595]

Drag causing high fuel costs will most likely kill any viable supersonic passenger aircraft and why noone tried again after concorde was built.

[@rogerphelps9939]

Pointless waste of CO2 generating resources.

[@HuntingTarg]

​@@brendonwood7595In other words, you're saying there can't be a viable supersonic civilian airliner. Concorde was never economical because of the size and limited market for it, both in terms of passengers and airlines. As global industrialization and commerce have changed things dramatically, there is a much larger market for a new, more efficient design such as this one. Cutting flight times can reduce travel costs due to layovers and hotel stays, and make it easier to plan events and live conferences. There are lots of routes this new project could be used for, particularly over the Pacific Ocean.

[@brendonwood7595]

@@HuntingTarg modern tech has made the demand for high cost high speed flights even less than it was when concord was built. The use case was predominantly short business trips that video conference has replaced.

[@lawrencew498]

That long leggedy take off footage immediately had me thinking 'TSR2...'

[@Zadster]

Very much so!

[@leedavies9158]

Take away the top engine and the aircraft resembles a rounded TSR2

[@cujet]

That is a great looking plane! This video reminds me of the old American X-Planes. Bright blue sky, white clouds, lots of sand below and mountains in the distance. There really is something magical about it.

[@DavidKutzler]

I have always thought that the T-38 is a particularly beautiful plane. The lines of the fuselage are so graceful.

[@LolTollhurst]

The nose isn’t round. It's got a big dent in it. It's got more upsetting linework than a MiG-27

[@Ghost_Hybrid]

It's a cool little airplane. Amazing how long we have had them too! In service since 1961!

[@hunterreeves6525]

idk exactly why but the picture of the starlink module propped up to the canopy of the T38 made me laugh😂i love how thats the solution they came up with, no over engineering in sight

[@kennethc2466]

"no over engineering in sight"- a word used by no mechanical/electrical engineer. Meanwhile, reliance on third party JUNK is, by definition, a lack of engineering... and avionics.

[@ronfullerton3162]

Back in the day, I was told to follow the KISS system when designing something. Keep It Simple Stupid! And it always serves me well. Zoom ahead to the present, and I now have a grandson studying engineering. He is building a small car from scratch with other students, with some of the professors overseeing their projects. He has been praised for keeping design of parts simple for easy manufacturing. I asked him if he had been taught the KISS system, and he asked what that was. He was tickled about that, and said he was taking that back to school with him. Hope Grandpa doesn't get into trouble!

[@stoatzsanswich8744]

Yeah, if you look close, you can see the duct tape.

[@kennethc2466]

@@ronfullerton3162 That 'philosophy' says carburetors are more reliable than EFI engines... which would be a lie.

[@davidkottman3440]

​@@kennethc2466 Are you sure it's a lie? Yes they're better for a while, but there are 80+ years old carburetors still working... What's best is seldom absolute.

[@AudraK]

9:30 it’s so goofy looking while taking off

[@ddkapps]

It actually reminded me of a goose taking flight, with those long dangly legs... Maybe not the image you want for your new ultra-futuristic airplane, but geese are excellent long-distance flyers so it could be worse.

[@michaelmicek]

Paul Graham, citing the original Porsche 911, claimed that "slightly funny" can be a sign of excellent design. ("Taste for Makers" 2002)

[@Steyr6500]

​@@ddkapps Form vs function

[@ProjectPlanetree]

Kind of turkey-like...

[@MDE_never_dies]

Goofy ahhh takeoff roll

[@vampdan]

When I was quite young my grandparents had a home in the Mojave desert and I grew up thinking it was normal to have sonic booms rattling your windows. It was always exciting when the space shuttle was coming back as we could always hear the booms as it transitioned making its approach to Edward's AFB. I was at their house watching Challenger launch the mission it exploded. One of my cousins is involved with NASA's passenger supersonic project that this is part of.

[@garymartin9777]

I recall hearing them as a child in the early 60's by planes flying just off the Virginia coast.

[@Austin-cn8vh]

J-85 engines. The tiny jet engine that simply refuses to stop doing cool things.

[@NuclearFalcon146]

The T-38 chase plane itself has two of them.

[@davidholder3207]

Back in the early ’50’s NACA demonstrated that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing leading to the use of short-span, thin trapezoidal wings as used by Concorde (the slender delta). The Baby Boom is following the path adopted by RAE in SST design and its HP-115 test bed aircraft.

[@ryanb9749]

A couple of years ago I said they would never go supersonic. So great job to Boom.

[@danh6720]

Yep, I get that. Like most similar ambitious projects I expect it to fail, but hope it succeeds. Glad they’ve made it this far.

[@lennywallace9201]

Xb-1 has given them enough aerodynamic data to confidently move with the overture design. This is definitely not gonna fail, the worst that could happen would be a delay. They already have a super factory too. Most other sst startups ended up like aerion

[@danh6720]

@ A factory without the tooling is just a building. So they need to build a much larger aircraft now that’s suitable for a production and a much longer lifespan. Then they also need to make the engines, which is probably about as hard as making the aircraft itself.

[@brendonwood7595]

@@danh6720 And then they need to make it efficient enough to be commercially viable. That is the hurdle no one has thought was clearable.

[@ant0n1o13]

They lost major OEM support for the engine design though. This testbed is a great accomplishment but designing a supersonic jet engine in-house from scratch is going to be a huge challenge.

[@KougaJ7]

How cute, they called it Baby Boom!

[@josecardenas4944]

Its name is in honor of a generation that is now between 70 and 80 years old ☄

[@KougaJ7]

@@josecardenas4944 I didn't even look at it that way yet. Now I see! 🤯

[@Juan-qv5nc]

@@KougaJ7 millennial...

[@racookster]

@@josecardenas4944 - Between 60 and 80, actually.

[@my_dear_friend_]

Nice play on words indeed. But of course it is 'simply' the smaller version of the planned passenger jet.

[@MrHws5mp]

The Mirage is an F.1B or D. The T-38 may only have been a trainer in US service, but it's essentially the same aircraft as the F-5 series which absolutely _were_ fighters. An F-5B is basically a T-38 with weapon pylons (yes, there are other differences). Much as I'd love to be wrong, I don't see a commercial future for this. Mass air travel is still, and always has been, dependent on seat-mile costs, not speed. For the vast majority of passengers, it's the fact that they can afford to fly at all that matters, not whether they're flying at 500kts or 700kts. As long as it's faster than a train or a ship, then their needs are met. Indeed, the thrust of likely future developments seems more in the direction of "slower and greener" than faster. Only a minority of passengers (first class and _some_ business class) have both the desire to fly as fast as possible AND the money to pay for it. if you take them out of the "cattle-truck" airliners and put them in a separate fleet of supersonic airliners with much greater overheads, then they won't be subsidising the cattle-trucks any more, which means the latter's ticket prices will go up and their passenger volumes will go down. At best, I see Boom getting a supersonic business jet out of this, which will be a limited production toy/status symbol for the ultra rich. At worst, I see them going bust in a few years' time, like literally hundreds of little aerospace companies, run by people who think they've got a clever idea, have done over the history of aviation.

[@theangryotaku3361]

maybe taylor swift could get one to save some time on those 15 minute flights she loves to take

[@StewartEvans-e3z]

The Concorde cabin was so narrow it could only handle 2+2 seats, but it still sold hundreds of seats. On could imagine flights from the Gulf to Asia flying over the Indian Ocean could be profitable with seating of 100-120 passengers (or 70 with fancy seating). Considering the Concorde running costs, no I don't think any subsidising occurred.

[@captsorghum]

Part of the cost argument was that a supersonic plane can make two trip to every one of a conventional jet, reducing the cost of hardware by 1/2. Whether that's enough to make up for higher fuel costs is another question, but it apparently works for SpaceX boosters. I imagine that four hours in cattle-class seating beats eight hours in first class for most high-end passengers. And it's probably cattle-class with no middle seats. So ticket prices of 10x should be conservative.

[@MrHws5mp]

@ Concorde tickets were only affordable, and Concorde "profitable", because the UK and French governments wrote off the development costs and gave the aircraft to their flag carriers essentially for free. Basically, those tickets were subsidised by UK and French taxpayers.

[@MrHws5mp]

@ Yes, but if you extract those high-end passengers from the cattle-trucks and put them on their own plane, what does that do to ticket prices on the cattle-trucks? Most economy class passengers are holiday-makers whose choice is flying/not-flying depending on how much money they can spare, not slow/fast depnding on how much time they can spare. They have zero brand-loyalty: put ticket prices up at one airline and they go elsewhere. Put them up across the board and they stay home in droves.

[@SinisterMD]

The intake for the middle engine looks like the outline of a 747 hitching a ride.

[@philiplangford9434]

Scott - always enjoy the content you produce. Would suggest for another video a discussion of the correlation between airspeed and fuel consumption which has (I believe) always been the limiting factor in supersonic commercial flight. The need for low drag with a small diameter fuselage limits the seating. Add in the required large fuel capacity for supersonic flight results in very high cost seats. Boom Supersonic may solve the shockwave problem, but they will still have the fuel consumption problem. I submit that like Concord, there may be a market for it but it will be limited to those passengers willing to pay a lot of money for a seat.

[@linesided]

Congrats the whole team. Really exciting!

[@lucasread1743]

Indeed I’m very exited for the future of air travel! Let’s go Boom supersonic!!!

[@toekneekerching9543]

@lucasread1743 We had Concorde 40 years ago that did exactly the same thing but the yanks were jealous they couldnt work it out and blocked it from travelling over the US, a nail in the coffin for a project that was designed to make travel between the US and Europe quicker. If you want to go supersonic go back in time to the UK or France and see the future we could have had if it wasnt for the US throwing a strop like a toddler.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Having just retired from publishing the FAA/EASA/CAAC certification reports for a large engine company (the largest!), I can tell you that relying on getting new, efficient supersonic engines from a company who has no history on larger power plants kinda scares me. The last large engine we certified, even though it was heavily derived from a legacy engine, cost more than two billion dollars from design to production. _Billion with a 'B'._ Oh, and emissions are a thing now, beyond the noise.

[@zg8626]

Don't worry. The US aviation industry has a recent history of quality workmanship and unparalleled levels of quality control. What could possibly go wrong?

[@shmaknapublar]

The full scale production airliner will never fly and this entire project is just a well orchestrated investment scam that pays the salaries and bonuses of their management and employees for a while before reality sinks in and the money dries up. So far the marketing is going very well. The engines have always been my focus, the intakes to be more specific. Not only are they trying to design new engines from the ground up, but for the intake design to recover enough pressure for this bird to cruise supersonic, they are going to need something with the efficiency of the SR-71 or Concorde intake systems. Most people don't realize that more than half of the total propulsion force comes from the intake systems, with the Concorde squeezing out an amazing 63% from hers.(Actually 75% of total thrust minus 12% due to the negative thrust or drag of the intake ramp) The engines are basically just above idle when it's screaming along at max cruise speed, feeding on supersonic shock waves. This will never happen at Boom assuming they don't get better engine system partners and add about 10 years to their target date.

[@ArneChristianRosenfeldt]

@@shmaknapublarintake and compressor are cold. Though it is magic to me how the modern engines in F-35 or F-22 compress so high in such a low number of stages and no stall. But the hot turbine ? Why does every small country in the world now build cheap composite supersonic fighters without a problem at the intake ? What engines do they use. China is still hampered by inferior engines. I am looking forward to a supersonic fan. After all, even today the tips already go supersonic.

[@danh6720]

@@shmaknapublar I think their plan is to be slower than the Concorde so there isn’t any variable geometry to the inlets. So the shock cones in the renderings will be placed so they are most effective at the cruise speed and just “acceptable” everywhere else. But the rest of the engine is still going to be as big of a project as the airframe.

[@tjmcguire9417]

This is called a CAN-DO atitude. USA is full of it but forgets sometimes. Scared? Zero reason. These are great engineers and humans doing what Boeing forgot to do. Good people stepping up to the plate to do great work.

[@beefgoat80]

@2:23 back in the day, you had to wait for a Nova special on PBS to see this kind of footage. Lol

[@KLRJUNE]

I'm old enough to remember when sonic booms were often heard and the noise was the issue, not US aircraft manufacturers' sales numbers.

[@LarsFL]

I'm super interested in you perhaps doing a video about the development challenges they'll face for designing the engines, that to me really feels like the make it or break it challenge in this

[@golanheights9000]

The engines seemed to work fine.

[@kurtbjorn3841]

The engines for this at least are J-85's, off the shelf engines designed over 60 years ago. For any full-scale, that is probably going to take more modern and more powerful fan engines similar to fighter jets... F-404, F-110, etc.

[@kukuc96]

@@kurtbjorn3841 They will also have to be a lot more efficient if they hope to be economically viable.

[@lennywallace9201]

The engines are the only major thing left for boom supersonic before they develop the full scale plane

[@Nuschel]

Seeimg these Aircraft rolling out looks so cool. Damn, planes are cool.

[@roqua]

Scott surprised me during yesterday's LEGO build stream when I thought Boom had not yet gone supersonic and he informed us about this event and corresponding stream. Thanks for keeping us in the loop and the Baby Boom LEGO model looks 👌Edit: I would like to know why showed me the Boom stream from a week ago with the plane at .95 MACH and not the more recent one 🤔

[@garreth629]

I live less than 50 miles south of where this plane was flying supersonic and didn't notice any noise. I forgot about this until I saw the live feed on X right before it went supersonic. Would be interesting if they eventually did overflights of Victorville to see if they get noise complaints. More testing is needed. But I don't mind eventually being a guinea pig for overflights.

[@joyfuflower]

They also had 2 other aircraft going supersonic next to it so that would cover any noise it made. I am curious what it sounds like too though, would be interesting for a future flight to keep the chase planes subsonic and record the audio from the ground

[@kain0m]

I live near a military base where they sometimes also fly supersonic. The boom is quite impressive.

[@ThePhiphler]

I hope they optimized the sonic boom to sound like a very loud verbal callout of the company name.

[@pplusbthrust]

On one memorable Sunday afternoon with two of my best flying buddies while on a returning home flight from 4 days of discovery in Baja , we were about to turn left and go around Edwards when we decided to give them a call and see if they were "hot" (busy). The reply, proceed on present heading. Wow, a privileged to remember, the three amigos right over a very special piece of airspace. Then soon looking up from our 12,505 ASL, 12,707 AGL elev. Mt. Whitney.

[@jennitro]

I seem to remember that the X1 seemed to "pause" at .97 or .98 or something before jumping supersonic, too.

[@therocinante3443]

Just the nature of pitot tubes!

[@eamonnator]

yeah they talked about that. something about how the airspeed measuring tube freaks out in transonic flow

[@dosmastrify]

It's not pausing, it's the sensor.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@eamonnator Because the shockwave is starting to form around the craft and creating lower and higher pressures at specific points?

[@Triple_J.1]

A pitot tube is a tube. Nothing fancy. Supersonic flow into a pitot inlet creates a normal-shock at the inlet. This causes an instantaneous pressure jump across the shock.

[@AubriGryphon]

I love how smoothly the nose blends into the canopy. With the sun glaring off it during landing rollout, you can hardly tell the canopy is even there.

[@PDQkevin77]

I grew up in the San Fernando valley and I can remember fairly frequent sonic booms particularly from when I was in fifth grade.

[@oleran4569]

Same here in rural Kentucky. Mom hated the booms. We kids thought they were cool.

[@Yoda63]

I guess the landing by video screen is an alternate solution to the same problem that had the Concorde designed with a rotating cockpit?

[@mattilindstrom]

This is the first time I've heard about problems with ADI data when breaching the sound barrier, interesting. Historically there was another factor at play with our then quite limited design knowledge of supersonic jets. When some early experimental and suboptimal supersonic airframes went severely transsonic, the multitude of pretty severe local shocks induced a fair amount of drag. The a bit underpowered afterburning engines had to be firewalled to push through, then throttled back to maximum continuous power. The phenomenon was confirmed with radar data for product development, it had been sort of seen in supersonic wind tunnel data but that doesn't fully represent the full scale thing.

[@stargazer7644]

This is generally why the air data sampling system is put out on a boom well in front of the nose - to keep it out of air disturbed by shockwaves.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

my hypothesis is the pitot is working fine but the static pressure reading is briefly erroneously high due to a normal shock forming in front of the static port (and then resolves when it moves aft of the static port), resulting in both speed and altitude indications being erroneously low

[@peter4210]

Is it a supersonic civilian plane if the snoot does not droop.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Concorde's nose did not droop in flight, it is hinged and is pointed downward for landings and take-offs so the pilots could see the runway.

[@Torby4096]

Droopy snoot seems to describe me today😂

[@dougaltolan3017]

​@@paulmichaelfreedman8334Yup, but only because cctv cameras were a 2' cube at the time 😅

[@peter4210]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yes I know, but it still had a droopable snoot. the baby boom has a camera instead.

[@KiloOneThree]

As the commentary on the live stream implied, had today’s small camera tech and video quality been available at the time of Concorde, it would likely have been considered or used in place of the droop snoot.

[@FlorianBinsker]

At around min 13:00 you mention the build-up of shock waves on the wing and fuselage during subsonic flight above the critical Mach number. Conversely to what you said though, the pressure over a shock (whether normal or oblique) is going UP, not down, accompanied by temperature, density and entropy, while Mach number, absolute speed of flow and total pressure are decreasing. The gradients over the shock are very steep, almost discontinously. Shock waves are a compression phenomena. (see i.e. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, part 3, chapter 7.6)

[@desa1865]

Finally one project that actually works

[@spacedriver24]

@@desa1865 I thought the " project" was overture and that hasn't been built yet ?

[@hectoraccented5312]

This plane is just the first big step inside the project that's overture

[@nicholastaylor3031]

They dont even have engines for their actual plane (every big maker turned them down, so they are trying to make their own). This product is never getting built, let alone ever get working.

[@techietisdead]

@@spacedriver24 This to overture is sn15 to starship

[@spacedriver24]

​@@techietisdeadBut starship actually exists!!!!!!!

[@Istandby666]

And people wonder why I talk about my life growing up in Mojave. I don't know about you. But I don't know anywhere else in the world where a civilian can grow up around advancement in technology like this. Yes, I'm proud of where I grew up and yes, I'm glad I had the life I did. I wouldn't trade my life for no ones..

[@DeathValleyDazed]

I’m jealous!

[@LolTollhurst]

USA#1 says unbiased american who hasn't been to any other countries test site, especially not chinas.

[@jazzmusiccontinues1134]

@@LolTollhurst Why would he need to see china’s test facilities? All he would need to do is see what the US military was testing 20 years back to get an idea of the tech china has stolen and is still trying to reverse engineer into usable planes that function in the same way as the US hardware does 😅😅

[@f-86zoomer37]

@@jazzmusiccontinues1134haha massive coping after release of deepseek? I love the arrogance of Americans. You’re just following the track of fallen empires. You stay arrogant to the collapse

[@AccAkut1987]

Love using a Mirage F1 for camera service 😁

[@ricahrdb]

I didn't recognise it at first. Then I remembered that Dassault did one type of Mirage that didn't feature a delta wing.

[@tjmcguire9417]

I believe you will find most of the Starlink/iPhone film was from the T-38 as the Mirage was always in frame on the port side of The Boom.

[@ObamaGaming49]

@@tjmcguire9417 it used a camera pod, so we could watch the footage live, i bet it will be released soon, in much higher quality than the phone.

[@slebetman]

Can't wait to see its big sister fly

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

learn to wait

[@olasek7972]

I doubt it will ever happen

[@stratometal]

I love the Mirage design. Beautiful jet.

[@AubriGryphon]

To be fair to the lawmakers who said Concorde couldn't go supersonic over the US, the early days of supersonic flight were riddled with people calling in complaints to all levels of government about the noise of military aircraft going supersonic. So it wasn't just to kill Concorde, there was a legitimate public outcry about sonic booms overall. (Now, would sonic booms at Concorde's cruising altitude have actually been a problem, compared to low-level military jets? I have no idea.) One can only hope Boom will be able to incorporate the lessons from NASA's Quesst research.

[@olasek7972]

Actually Boom has given up on the idea on sonic boom reduction, they plan to fly subsonic while over land

[@kenoliver8913]

In fact there was a large study of high altitude supersonic booms over Denver (using NASA and USAF planes) designed precisely to gauge the effects of supersonic airliners overflying cities. The results were more than enough to convince Congress to ban overland flights by Concorde - there were LOTS of broken windows in Denver.

[@m40dot]

Nothing better than hearing Scott say 'Mach' multiple times.

[@RSGTomcat]

My understanding about the ban on supersonic overland flight had nothing to do with protecting US Aerospace business interests. Boeing had a conceptual competitor to the Concorde as well as a larger concept and would absolutely have built them if it could make the business case. My understanding of the supersonic overland ban was as a result of FAA Sonic boom testing over Oklahoma City in the 60's with Operation Bongo II, where the general public said the booms were a nuisance and did not want that to be a common occurrence in daily life.

[@dougaltolan3017]

It was 100% protectionism.

[@Forest_Fifer]

If Boeing had a working SST you can guarantee that supersonic overland flight would have been allowed.

[@12pentaborane]

​@@dougaltolan3017 Are you sure that's not blind cynicism?

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

@@Forest_Fifer Well, europe had the concorde and it was banned from doing supersonic overland flights over here too..

[@MHWGamer]

if you have ever heard a sonic boom, you will understand why it was banned (for good reason). It is fun to hear a fighter jet fly over you with the sonic boom but hearing it multiple times a day is annoying as hell.

[@Lolifail01]

Moments like this remind us just how revolutionary the Concorde was when it was designed six decades ago.

[@bigianh]

Christ is it 20 years since Concorde was taken out of service? Feeling old!

[@ecomandurban7183]

you feeling old I waited years for Concorde to make its first flight. I was however fortunate to be able to watch it doing takeoffs and landings in Johannesburg while it was doing hot and high testing and even had the good fortune to meet the chief test pilot Brian Trubshaw.

[@Avboden]

Feels like you should mention the difficult with Overture existing without engines.

[@olasek7972]

yes, engines are their biggest headache

[@aalhard]

That is a high AOA for Mach 1!😮 3:15

[@gordonrichardson2972]

13:57 shows a rather thin airfoil, so most of the lift is generated by alpha angle.

[@aalhard]

@gordonrichardson2972 I understand, but all the effort to minimize air disturbance and you whack it with a fly swatter. 😉

[@MCsCreations]

Fascinating! Thanks, Scott! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@7cle]

Mirage isn't the subject here but manufacturer is Dassault Aviation, maker of successful Rafale. Mirage is actually a range of military aircraft : Mirage F1 this one here is likely the CR variant, a reconnaissance aircraft. Other aircraft types in the series are are Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000 (C,D, N, -5 variants). Dassault also do business jets and a subsidiary Dassault Systemes does the Catia, CAD software that Airbus, Boeing and many car manufacturer use.

[@ecomandurban7183]

that F1 is probably one of the ex South African Airforce machines now flying in the USA

[@MrHws5mp]

It's a two-seater, so it's either an F.1B or an F.1D.

[@MN-vz8qm]

I remember watching on french tv the accident which led to the end of the Concorde. Back then we knew the Concorde was not profitable, the only suitable market was the US, which weren't really interrested by a european bird, because just as nowadays, europeans and americans aircraft manufacturers were fighting for market shares. I only regret never taking one, my parents did, and the experience was apparently interresting. I hope this one will have more success.

[@forenamesurname1183]

during flight testing, you have to go at +10% of max speed and push the envelope, so a G650 will have gone to M 1.025 (ish)

[@speedstyle.]

Not in level flight though. Boom had a lot of caveats lol

[@forenamesurname1183]

@@speedstyle. quite true

[@sylak2112]

Pretty cool and sleek looking aircraft they have there. Congrats. that went smoothly. I'm happy to see a Mirage. I like those planes, they look very cool too.

[@davetremaine9688]

Watching this on fullscreen my 2017 iMac 5k that has had a few video card glitches(section of screen blanking out for like a 1/4 second every once in a while) and the glitch at 5:16 gave me a heart attack

[@Charlie-wq1gi]

Can't help but hear the music to The 6 Million Dollar man when watching. Just super glad it ended up way different then that show did. LOL Congratulations all involved! Well done. 😎

[@DanDavisHistory]

Very cool. Seeing some people asking what's the market for this. Good question but the point of startups is to demonstrate viability and then sell to a big company who will do nothing with it. Not to be overly cynical. This is still very cool tho.

[@HuntingTarg]

You're way less cynical than those calling Boom an elaborate investment scam. However, if they do get a working prototype of the Symphony, then it make everybody wrong and become a subcontractor or a subsidiary. Only a bilious and asanine executive board would take over instead of absorbing intact an already succeeding engineering project. (Yes, those companies exist, and yes, it could happen.)

[@joecastellow8008]

Dude this was awesome 👍😎 I watched it live.

[@tonyennis1787]

4:00 I'm totally ok with an aircraft not flying supersonic over my house.

[@zachhoefs9543]

Do you also call to report thunder?

[@poindextertunes]

@@zachhoefs9543 yes bcuz those two things are the same 🤦‍♂️

[@kain0m]

​@@zachhoefs9543sonic boom was way, way more thump than a lightning strike (even a very close one)

[@toekneekerching9543]

@@zachhoefs9543 Funny coming from a yank, as he said in the video the original supersonic liner Concorde could fly at mach 2 and you guys threw a fit and blocked it going over US soil because the sonic boom made people cry... Although in reality we all know its because you were jealous and didnt want muricans to know they wernt the best.

[@Logan4661]

@@toekneekerching9543 List the countries that allowed Concorde to fly supersonic overland, alphabetically please.

[@neilmchardy9061]

The progenitor of the concord was the Fairey Delta an aircraft made from stainless steel.

[@spacedriver24]

A beautiful aircraft built and flown nearly 70....yes 70 years ago🇬🇧

[@MrHws5mp]

The Fairey Delta 2 wasn't made from stainless steel. It was an aluminium airframe with a tailless 60-degree delta wing, designed for high mach research, that turned out to be much faster than anticipated, and actually took the world air speed record, breaking the previous record (F-100 Super Sabre IIRC) by the biggest margin ever. Later it was adapted for Concorde research as the Fairey 221 with an all-new curvaceous Concorde-shaped wing. I suspect the all-stanless-steel aircraft you're thinking of is the Bristol 188, which was also intended for high-mach research, but which was an abject failure. Fun fact: Peter Twiss, who flew the FD.2 on it's record-breaking runs, was also driving one of the speedboats chasing James Bond at the end of From Russia With Love. Fairey had a boat division too, and made the lovely old-school speedboats used in the movie.

[@samfromportadown]

Was the Concorde not a civilian aircraft?

[@PerErikKarlsson]

The development was state sponsored. Boom have a lot of qualifiers on their claims.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

yes. this is the first american one at least it would be if it were real

[@Triple_J.1]

Private company, private funding. No government contract. Etc, etc. This is the first completely private supersonic turbojet aircraft. Scaled SpaceShipOne is the first private supersonic aircraft, and it accelerated to mach 3+ in a pure vertical climb. This in 2002.

[@gustaveliasson5395]

The BD-10 was a civilian aircraft as well.

[@zachhoefs9543]

​@@physicswithpark3r-x3xok grandpa, nap time

[@sundragon7703]

What a snoozer of a test flight! It's the most incredible thing I have seen in years. On the surface, an ideal test flight cause no one said anything about a noticeable sonic boom.

[@SirNuk3]

Is that a Mirage F1???

[@ricahrdb]

Yes

[@DorifutoRabbit]

I'm curious to see if the DARPA jet can pull off supersonic without the sound problem

[@mill2712]

If these guys could, I think DARPA could too. But it's more likely DARPA might just work with them instead if not already.

[@ThatOpalGuy]

Like how it's so fast it did 0.1 mach sitting on the ground.

[@davidhowe6905]

I thought the same, maybe there was a strong headwind?

[@ez_theta_z9317]

mach 0.1's only about 120km/h, just a bit above highway speeds

[@krtwood]

@@davidhowe6905 65 knot/75 mph sustained wind? Maybe the airspeed indicator just isn't accurate below a certain point and it doesn't matter enough for this test platform to worry about it.

[@davidhowe6905]

@@krtwood That sounds much more plausible! also, the sound speed would be even larger on the ground, where the air is warmer.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

the airspeed indicator doesn't work below a certain speed (they ought to blank it in the feed to avoid people wondering about it)

[@tjmcguire9417]

Always fair commentary Scottie. Thank you. I did watch it live from beginning to end. Heard the knock-it-off call. Momentarilly worrisome. The whole test and production showed HUGE confidence in their team and the BOOM concept. Rightfully so. I would love to hear what audio data they got on the corrider as it went super. Just how loud was it in DB? They touted quietness. I still say prove it. But I did love how that critter was climbing at 5k FPM+ and not even sneezing.

[@AlecThilenius]

Hoping someone can fill in some missing details: why is this interesting? I'm not trying to belittle the achievement! I'm an engineer and love this stuff. But what NEW technology is being tested that could change air travel and makes this an interesting achievement? It's still AB supersonic flight, so fuel costs will be astronomical. Billionaires will be thrilled they can save a few hours getting across the pond, but it's rather hard to get excited about that. What am I missing?

[@olasek7972]

it is interesting because someone is sinking big $$$$ into it with little chance of return 😂😂

[@AlecThilenius]

@@olasek7972 Touché 😂

[@cube2fox]

Yeah, it's absolutely going to be a luxury airliner if it ever gets into commercial service, nothing more. 50% reduction in travel time for 10x the ticket price, or something like that. We have seen the potential of supersonic passenger air travel over several decades of Concorde operation. It's not revolutionary in any way.

[@stargazer7644]

You're missing what they're doing here. This isn't the super cruise passenger aircraft. The is a custom built technology testbed to prove designs for the final aircraft. The passenger aircraft will supercruise without afterburners. Concorde wasn't a composite aircraft. They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing. They need a testbed to design the flight software and test sensors and control surfaces.

[@AlecThilenius]

@@stargazer7644 "They're designing special high efficiency engines for the real thing" Now that, I will be excited to see tested, as it doesn't currently exist! Composite supersonic aircraft have, however, been done before. So as of today we have a test bed and the promise of future tech.

[@Crunch_dGH]

That’s out by Naval Weapons Center (NWC) where I had my first job out of UCLA. I recognized the Panamint Mtn. range below & Whitney on the horizon.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

It had to be of afterburner full time, Concorde could do Mach 2.0 in without needing the burners on full time.

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

The full scale airliner is being designed for supercruise too. XB-1 was not, since it's using off-the-shelf engines.

[@7cle]

Yes. Concorde burned 20 T/ h jetA1 during climb / acceleration. It was in dry in cruise at 2.2 M. Level 600 !Autopilot was then in temperature mode. Higher speeds were possible if the outside air was cold.

[@stargazer7644]

The Boom Overture passenger aircraft won't even have afterburners. It will supercruise at Mach 1.7 on turbofans. This aircraft is using off-the-shelf engines, not the supercruise turbofans.

[@zacklewis342]

@@stargazer7644 Oh, really? Which engines can do this for Overture?

[@stargazer7644]

@@zacklewis342 That's the goal of the Symphony engines for Overture.

[@arry78]

love the "Geppetto" writing next to he cockpit!

[@mattdrahos2662]

Riding in a supersonic aircraft is kinda a silly thing to want, but as person who has flown in a lot of small single engine planes, I want it. I want to go real fast:)

[@lodragan]

The F5 Tiger and F20 Tigershark is a combat up-engined version of the T-38 Talon; its essentially the same airframe. The fighter versions were used in Dissimilar Air Combat training to serve as analogs to Soviet aircraft.

[@MrHugemoth]

I didn't know about Star Wars Canyon until I happened to be taking in the view at Father Crowley Point when a fighter jet came over the hill and flew through the canyon below us. A second one flew through shortly after. Made my day!

[@danielburges8176]

Were they bullseyeing wamp-rats?

[@jeromethiel4323]

What gets me all tingly is looking at the air intakes for the engines. A guarantee that those were highly modeled by computers to just the right airflow and shock wave formations inside the engines. Feeding a jet engine in transonic flight is tricky. There are some very good articles about the SR-71 engines. So much went into getting that intake air slowed down enough so that combustion could actually take place. Because those were just gas turbine engines, not ramjets or scramjets. But even so, they managed to get the blackbird up to record holding speeds for a long time.

[@muddyboots1881]

F1 still graceful as anything

[@jefreagan]

Your summary of the flight was very well done Scott. May I call you Scott? I think I will. I watched it live yesterday (watching it from Boom’s inception really) and it was a marvelous production. Saw your video last year with Tristan and that is one brilliant engineer/pilot. I can’t wait to see this tech uploaded to the large passenger product. Since I didn’t notice a huge Mach impact, I know they, and I, would love to see this bird fly across the U.S. Too bad this attempt was stopped in the 1970’s. Small minded people don’t see the future like us geeks and nerds do. Dweebs even. Love your stuff, Scott!

[@99kitfox]

For anyone wondering. The point of XB-1 and Overture is NOT to reduce the noise of sonic booms (although they will probably incorporate technology from the NASA X-59). The point is for a privately funded operation to build, and for airlines to operate, and for us to fly on economically. Unlike the Concorde and TU-144 were.

[@deth3021]

Billionaire's publicly funded private jet.

[@jebise1126]

how? will it do supercruise or not?

[@bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb_]

The Concorde was profitable for both operators that ran it. The real reason it failed is because US manufacturers lobbied the government to ban it from flying over the USA, which would've been it's largest market

[@kkobayashi1]

@@bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb_ The Concorde was "profitable" for the airlines only because they bought the planes at a substantial discount.

[@michaelmicek]

Concorde was expensive and uncomfortable. If it's cheaper to have a private bunk and sleep through the time subsonic takes, why not do that?

[@whodom]

I thought I heard you mention afterburners. I thought I read it doesn’t have afterburners, but maybe that was in regard to the engines they’re developing for the full-sized version.

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

Correct, the Symphony engine for the full scale airliner doesn't have afterburners. The XB-1's engines do.

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Sources seem to be confusing, with several stating that the XB1 uses the civillian (non-afterburning) engine.

[@stargazer7644]

@@gordonrichardson2972 The Symphony engine doesn't exist yet.

[@inerlogic]

Lol.... i don't care how fast it is, i'm NEVER flying in a plane with "BOOM" written all over it, lol

[@Xaqaria]

Imagine the bad jokes and TSA conversations that would follow...

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

@@Xaqaria Sonic “BOOM” That boom not explosions but what I can tell now They are far better than airbus

[@anngo4140]

They shouldve gone with "bang"

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Why not? In Dutch, "boom" is just a tree.

[@Xaqaria]

@@goldgamercommenting2990 I am not dunking on Boom, merely highlighting how... sensitive... the US TSA can be and how easily a joke about their name could be taken out of context.

[@colinvanoverdijk5855]

Saw it live, but you explained it much better, thanks!

[@KaRlaZalGrez]

5:52 The pilot name wrote in the cokpit is "Geppetto" like the father of pinocchio. And looking the nose, i under stand why.

[@Valery0p5]

Lol, they seem to spout way less BS compared to other companies...

[@ChrisVasquezNow]

Hello, I flew in the back of the Mirage F-1 you mentioned and would like to share we flew four Red Raptor cameras filming at 8K.

[@thevector]

Is it common to see an old demilitarized (one assumes) Mirage in civilian possession? Talk about the coolest toys!

[@maleprincess62]

Not too terribly uncommon, there's an old harrier for sale right now you could buy

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

yes, a bunch of venture capitalists are taken for a ride here

[@Jeddacoder]

​@@maleprincess62Maybe next month. Had to change my tyres last week.

[@kilianortmann9979]

Yes, some private defense contractors, like Draken International or Paramount Group use Mirage F1 and other legacy fighter jets to provide adversary training to air forces.

[@thevector]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x It does play out that way a lot of the time. Paid for many of my paychecks over the years, but no jets sadly. I'm just labor.

[@mrxmry3264]

i was at hatton cross when a concorde took off from 09R. in the twilight i could clearly see the exhaust gas was so hot it was glowing purple. don't remember seeing mach diamonds, tho'. another time, also at hatton cross, a concorde took off from 09R, and the noise triggered LOADS of car alarms.

[@meetoo594]

I used to live under its flight path. Every evening around 6 you would hear the 2 thumps as it reached the coast. On clear days you could see the plane go overhead and hear the booms and its engine noise about 30 seconds later. Beautiful plane, such a shame they grounded them.

[@zg8626]

Just like a Concorde!! But at a much much earlier development stage and slower, obviously. Well done! Back to the future!

[@ah5779]

And concorde did it in 1969 at mach 2

[@zg8626]

...and the workers in Filton and Toulouse back then were trained to use torque wrenches to tighten fixings, in a generally similar way to those in Seattle nowadays.

[@stargazer7644]

@@ah5779 And this will takeoff quietly and economically with turbofan engines WITHOUT afterburners. So NOT just like a Concorde.

[@zg8626]

@stargazer7644 The Olympus was a low bypass turbofan. The noise (whether in reheat or not) was glorious and reminded us of the importance of looking up.

[@nicholas_james]

I can't believe I hadn''t subscribed 'til this video... Holy Cow! I've been watching for years!

[@banzaiib]

Compared to Concord, it won't need a droop nose, has better composites, but other than that, i don't really see how this is new or revolutionary. Am I missing something?

[@markevans8206]

If it’s quiet enough to operate over land and inexpensive enough to maintain and operate, that’s a big deal.

[@FlyingNDriving]

It's Slower, less passengers, and won't be more quiet than Concorde

[@spacedriver24]

@@banzaiib agreed....by the way , it's Concorde.

[@PoRRasturvaT]

The fuel efficiency. And given the size of the tanks, this will allow trans-pacific routes. Silicon-valley to Taiwan at supersonic speeds could be a big deal.

[@FlyingNDriving]

@@PoRRasturvaT from engines that are on the drawing board and everything being made up and hypothetical....

[@bagpipe1979]

Well explained. I appreciate this. Wonderful flight

[@jaimeduncan6167]

What about the noise? That was the main problem with Concorde, not the USA companies pulling a European on the French.

[@stargazer7644]

It's going to make noise. Overture is intended to fly ocean routes like Concorde did. Concorde didn't only have a problem with sonic booms - it was also ridiculously expensive to fly.

[@Oldtanktapper]

Damn thing was loud enough without going supersonic, you didn’t need to look up to know when it was overhead!

[@1346crecy]

My Dad passed last year aged 89 my mum passed 8 months before. They worked hard all their life and were normal working/middle class people. One day they decided to go to New York on Concorde from London for the weekend, return trip . So they saved, went and they loved it. That means that both of them travelled at twice the speed of sound and that was 40 years ago. So my point is ,I suppose, that they as normal working people had the disposable income to do that. Secondly that we have not been able to do that, apart from fighter pilots, since 2003.

[@th3narrat0r5]

I hate to say it but I don’t see the business case or viability of the Boom supersonic system. Like it’s competing with the speed of light for the business traveler (zoom and telepresence) and for the economy passengers, beyond novelty, your average Joe won’t be able to afford a single ticket and the fuel consumption is going to be monsterous to…carry less passengers than concord. And they’ve never answered the question of how their sonic boom is quiet as I understand it the physics haven’t changed, a sonic boom is a sonic boom is a sonic boom, even the “thump” they advertise still isn’t going to be cleared for travel over most countries. Not to mention the massive stresses that an airframe suffers going supersonic making maintenance costs skyrocket. All of which is solved by being…subsonic. Not to mention the environmental catastrophe this represents by carrying less passengers with more fuel and also the possible destructive effects on the upper atmosphere. The rich who this could cater to don’t use airlines, they use charter jets. Edit: after looking into it and as others have pointed out my understanding of the sonic boom issue is incomplete, disregard that section but I would still note that a quieter sonic boom still is only part of the issue

[@spacedriver24]

Agreed

[@JYF921]

If boom super starts opening routes to Asia from western us over the pacific there might be a business case for it. Asia is a lot richer now than when Concorde was around

[@th3narrat0r5]

@ yeah but that’s competing with telepresence and massive maintenance costs of a supersonic airframe which I cannot emphasize enough is massive. Just go subsonic for the cost there

[@chrisc8156]

The same guys who buy $700 million yachts will buy it. Beyond that I agree.

[@volvo09]

Concorde also went mach 2... What are these guys hoping to reach?

[@robertobruselas3952]

Thank you Scott for emphasizing this beautiful plane.

[@kaesees]

Had to be rough for the XB-1 crew, getting intercepted by a MiG-28 like that during a test flight.

[@Barrett_Fodder]

You can fly supersonic above 35k feet msl (or) within defined special use airspace. It's fairly anticlimactic when you punch through that mach barrier and depending on the vehicle it can get a bit bumpy at the transonic area, but usually gets buttery smooth on the other side.