The Return Of Supersonic Flight?

Since the retirement of Concorde in the early 2000s, many companies have come and gone in their attempts to bring back Supersonic Travel. But, following a significant design overhaul at the 2022 Farnborough Airshow, could Boom Supersonic be the company to bring back supersonic flight before the end of the decade with their four-engined Overture? In today's deep dive analysis, I explore the company, recent design changes, difficulties they may incur, and much more.
Become a MEMBER of Dj's Aviation:
➡ / @djsaviation
Dj's Aviation
➡ Twitter: / djsaviation
➡ Discord / discord
➡ Soundcloud: / djsaviation
➡ Patreon: / djsaviation
➡ Facebook: / djsaviation
➡ LinkedIn: / djs-aviation
➡ Merchandise: djs-aviation-shop-3.creator-s...
➡ Instagram: / djsaviation
➡ Dj's Transport: / djstransport
Business Opportunities / Enquiries
➡ Email: [e-mail]
Listen to the Podcast
➡ Apple Podcast: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
➡ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
➡ Google: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcastGoogle
Sources / Images / Videos / More
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
➡ Boom Supersonic
Outro Track:
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfDfb...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
Remembering 99carnot
"Soaring to New Heights" - © Dj's Aviation 2022
Big Thank you to my Cabin Crew+ Patrons!
➡ Dean Roberts, Michael Cairl, Jeffery Poe, Neil Macedo, Robert Goldwein, Doug Nolen, Shoaib Quader, Ash Stanley, Unknownguy54, Thomas Webster, Mike Olague, GREGORY J FEAZELL, Elliot Olinder, 747forever, Nick Circosta, Brandon Fortino, Don Gortner, Jam, Joel, Amelia Ross
#supersonic #aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing #usa #boom #unitedstates #airshow #concorde #hypersonic #overture

[@DjsAviation]

A diffetrent kind of video for Dj's Aviation - A lot more in-depth, a lot longer and with the added benefit of stock footage, something you all voted that you'd like to see in a community poll. Let me know if you like it. Today's coverage is on Boom's Overture, purely as I have so many assets I can play around with. Maybe something on Airbus next if you like this style?

[@MatchingUser]

lol typo, In all seriousness, I do hope Boom gets to see the day their Overture have a full future. Love the new format

[@fredashay]

Will it have the same design flaws as the Concorde?

[@kupua]

I believe in the Overture, it most likely will come. But NOT the goal of $100 a ticket. That’s a pipe dream.

[@SpudderRail]

especially considering it's a small aircraft with 4 engines

[@kwektans]

$100 a ticket? Are they getting fuel for free, who pays for pilots, who pays for maintenance, who pays to airspace rights, landing fees? Why do people even believe stuff like this?

[@matsv201]

well the $100 was for a far future (probobly) inflation adjusted. People tend to belive that there is something inherent that make faster planes use more fuel, but that is really not the case. For medium and long haul jet airliner consume way less fuel at mach 0.85 than propeller aircraft do at mach 0.45. For very short haul the prop is still superior because it don´t need to fly that high, saving on energy when starting and landing. The same is effectively true for mach 0.85 to mach 1.7 as well, but there is an issue, mach effects. between mach 0.9 and 1.3 the mach effects is significant. Making it not possible to just progressively increase the speed of an aircraft. Even at that, overture will still at least initially be handicapped a bit because the technology for mach 0.85 is so far ahead, even if some is reengineered for faster speed, the industry need to be large before it really can keep up. Also, remember, Overture is a small aircraft, it should not be compared to a 777x, a fairer comparison would be a E2-195 that is about the same size

[@kwektans]

@@matsv201 I disagree. Your prop analogy is a design problem not an energy problem. Airplanes loose a lot of energy due to drag at higher speeds. Bird’s deal with that by having adjustable wings which is not the case here. Now; If even you solve the drag problem you will still have the thermodynamics efficiency(2nd law) issue where you end up with heat engines with upper limits of 40% efficiency if I’m being generous. Is there any supercar(Ferrari) that consumes less for the given amount of people it can carry than an average car(Toyota)? You can’t cheat physics. Current aircraft are slower than those we had in the past because that is the speed sweet spot for highest efficiency and lowest cost. Going faster will always cost you more and not less.

[@matsv201]

@@kwektans "Airplanes loose a lot of energy due to drag at higher speeds" Try to get the terminology right here.. It matters in this case. Drag increase in speed, but that is not the only thing effecting drag. You have to consider all details to get a full picture, and with out it, your calculation will not be correct. "Bird’s deal with that by having adjustable wings which is not the case here." Not really, at least not compared to aircraft in this way. The reason why F14 adjust there wings have nothing to do with drag. The drag is still the same, it have to do with mach effect and low speed landing. There is other ways of doing that. "Now; If even you solve the drag problem you will still have the thermodynamics efficiency" You are confusing the two. They are independent, not codependent. "Is there any supercar(Ferrari) that consumes less for the given amount of people it can carry than an average car(Toyota)?" Cars don´t operate in the same region as a aircraft, but yes, there is Koenigsegg gemera. "You can’t cheat physics. Current aircraft are slower than those we had in the past because that is the speed sweet spot for highest efficiency and lowest cost" The slower aircraft myth.. its not true. Yea i see people claiming it all the time, but its not actually true. Check any given aircraft at the same size. Also worth saying that larger turbine give more efficiency as lower speed, so even if it was, there could have been a reason. (Compare the speed of a Comet and a E2-195 jet, they are about the same size) "Going faster will always cost you more and not less." Wrong. It depends on a number of things. If you don´t belive me. Take any car. reset the fuel messuring thingi. Drive 5km in 70km/h. Then drive the same 5km in 20km/h.. check what took the most fuel. Any car produced the last 30 year, will consume more fuel in 20km/h than 70

[@ovt3220]

I really like supersonic planes like the Concorde, never tried it, sadly.

[@alexmcwhirter6611]

I was fortunate enough to sample Concorde transatlantic. It was an experience that I shall never forget. Perhaps the only long distance flight I was reluctant to disembark from ! My regret is that I never sampled AF's Concorde.

[@mickyday2008]

It’s just Concorde not the Concorde

[@mstrmren]

I belive in Supersonic commercial flight when the first aircraft takes off in an airline livery. Until then I think it's never going to be commercially viable.

[@andymicklewright3749]

We had supersonic transport that would have worked very well if the USA hadn’t have put up all of the objections to it purely because THEY didn’t have one! Because (I assume) this is an American project the whole world will be forced to buy it so it WILL HAVE TO BE A success.

[@InTeCredo]

@@andymicklewright3749 Actually, it was the environmental groups that pushed the Congress to kill SST programme in 1971 due to the fear about the sonic boom, nitrogen oxide and water vapour deposit in the stratosphere (leading to the diminished solar heat), etc.

[@131freeskier]

check out the wendover future of supersonic video he states the last few months before concord retired they dropped the price and it was actually viable and profitable at that point because it sold out more often than not but whos to say it was nostalgia filling the seats but it was interesting and now there is the internet/zoom

[@acegarcia3719]

I expect the boom to eventually pave the way for mainstream mach 1-2 commercial airliners, that day will come within the next 10-30 years.

[@diggingattycho7908]

That's always been the promise, soon enough to come out in your lifetime. But far enough away... I first heard that kind of talk back in the eighties, how long ago was that? Have any of these wonders of technology come about? I'm still waiting.

[@chitchatwchuck]

Seriously? No, really, seriously? They said the same thing about the Concorde, and voila!, the Concorde is everywhere, wait, no its not! Try learning some aviation history.

[@MrUandB]

As ruthless as the aviation market is for margins, and as long a process as FAA/EASA certification, I have absolutely zero faith in this ever making it to market. Let alone profitability.

[@Dexter037S4]

@@GlobalTossPot The only customers will likely be Bezos and Musk as private jets.

[@thilosabin3868]

Thanks DJ for the new vid. I wish BOOM and Overture good luck and that it may happen soon. The design of Overture shown here reminds me 100% with upgrades of that 50yrs old Boeing SST though?

[@darrellsnuffer8730]

Thank ya for the info very informative

[@leezinke4351]

Great video!

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@LMays-cu2hp]

Very nice and thank you for sharing..

[@elliotwizerd]

This was a realy nice video and informative. God jobb Dan Can not wait for more of this type of content

[@DjsAviation]

Thank you !

[@timothyschuft3539]

Enjoyed this very much thank you 😊

[@aurorajones8481]

3:00 Just stunningly beautiful. I find it fascinating that wind makes the most fantastic looking airplanes via the wind tunnel but when that same wind is stuck on a car we get the hideous egg shape that is great for wind but horrible to the eye. Now why is that? Ok here is my vastly naive thought. The wind makes good looks on the high end of speed where the low end its ugly?

[@jackamos9828]

I like this video and the style 👍

[@Dan.d649]

The dream of supersonic travel, is in the cards, but will we ever get to experience it again, like the Concorde. It's going to take a lot of creative thinking, and careful planning, to get to step onboard, and actually fly on this airplane. I like the fact that they are very serious about this, and to get the airlines to jump into this project. However, it will be very tough to conceive something of this magnitude. There's one presumable goal, and that's to beat the speed of the Concorde across the pond. That airplane was able to achieve speed, and it succeeded, but was only limited to only 16 built. It would take a whole bundle of research to achieve this goal, but that's not to say they can't have the resources to do it.

[@tjking1909]

A beautiful aircraft I hope it works out and the Airlines don’t chicken out this time.

[@TheDrummingWarrior]

I’d love to see how they slow down the air into the engines past Mach 1 when they’re mounted like that assuming that’s what they’ll look like

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

See the Convair B-58.

[@mickyday2008]

I’ve flown from New York to London in 3 hours. Brilliant

[@pmsagdeo]

The plane appears to be too small and too slow to make a commercial impact. It also seems to have a vertical tail that is too small for directional stability, particularly at low speeds. Top it off with four engines as yet not known with certainty, it looks like the time line is very ambitious. Only time will tell. Thanks.

[@barackobama780]

I love ur vids :]

[@DjsAviation]

Thank you!

[@craigdavid7792]

Good video

[@InTeCredo]

At first, I was wondering why the Overture design looked so familiar: ah, it's Boeing 2707-300 (the heavily revised prototype with fixed wings after the colossal engineering failure of swing wings) as pointed out by DJS.

[@thedoctor4637]

I really like the Tri-jet layout, both being a callback to DC-10/MD-11, and L-1011 and possible lower fuel consumption compared to 4.

[@Arkan_Fadhila]

Please i need Boom to announce the engine they will use this year or i will not believe in their promises

[@CP-012]

I think this design is similar to the B58 hustler. Delta wing, four engine pods, and similar shape. The B58 was a fast one, broke a lot of speed records.

[@lometatron357]

Exactly!! I love that damm plane!!!🖐🏾

[@matthewchang4706]

That's dope

[@antonnym214]

Rolls Royce is developing a geared turbofan with a variable pitch fan system, called the Ultrafan. It is scheduled to be available in 2025 with at least 25% improvement in fuel burn, compared to similarly sized conventional Trent engines, and up to 100,000lbf thrust per engine. It will use carbon fiber blades and save 750lbs per engine, compared to the use of titanium. To me that seems like something the company would be looking at, given the more urgent need for fuel efficiency and that Boom already has a relationship with RR.

[@jackroutledge352]

Ultrafan is completely unsuitable for this aircraft. You need a low bypass turbofan or a turbojet with much lower compression ratios for this design. This would need a clean sheet design

[@Arational]

Imagine Tokyo to New York in under an hour on a SpaceX Starship.

[@stevenward4162]

Good video! I've watched the Boom Overture's website video several times for this new jet and I still can't see any kind of cockpit windscreens on their newest 4-engine version! Surely, this plane will have cockpit windscreens of some kind instead of sensors, if and when it comes to fruition! Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'm also, still waiting for engine choice to be revealed!

[@Kaidhicksii]

Finally someone besides myself who's wondering this. I have no doubt that the plane has a cockpit and windscreen - I mean it kind of has to - and that it's probably located somewhere in the forward black paint. Boom has also said that they will use cameras located at the front of the plane to help the pilots see the runway, rather than reuse the droop snoot from Concorde. There is no way they will fully automate Overture to take off and land with only sensors.

[@stevenward4162]

@@Kaidhicksii Good! I can see when the Overture was originally a 3-engine design, it did have cockpit windshields! Now that it is being changed to a 4-engine ride, why maybe the website's animation just has not factored in the windshields yet! I think airline passengers and business jet executives would be a little hesitant to get on an aircraft with no windshields anyway! We introduced the SVS (synthetic vision system) on Gulfstreams when I worked there - for certain IFR landings/conditions - and I have no doubt a similar enhanced vision system will also be installed on the Overture, ....and also windshields!

[@aurorajones8481]

Id love to see an Air Force One variant of this.

[@MrFlyboy1313]

I agree but, they will need to design it to refuel inflight in case of needing to remain airborne for several hours or even days in an emergency.

[@mmontalvan1848]

Try to see Hermeus company, thats the plane Air Force is planning to use.

[@antonnym214]

Based on the Foreign Object Debris (FOD) problem that brought down Air France Flight 4590 in July 2000; I'm not in love with the engines being below the wing. I wonder if Boom considered putting them on top of the wing. If they thought of that, maybe they rejected that idea because of noise to the passengers, but active noise cancellation might have ameliorated that problem. At any rate, it is good to see at least the possibility of supersonic transportation. All good wishes!

[@jaslarja]

Can you make a video on SAF and the exact emissions and production?

[@davidgrisez]

Building a new supersonic speed commercial aircraft sounds like a very ambitious endeavor. However there are some issues with this type of an aircraft. One issue is the sonic boom when traveling faster than the speed of sound. This is what limited the Concorde to traveling over seas and not over land. It is likely that this aircraft will be limited to traveling over seas. Another issue is that traveling at supersonic speed burns a lot more jet fuel for the same distance than traveling at subsonic speeds. So like the Concorde the ticket price for this aircraft will be a lot more expensive than flight tickets for a subsonic jet aircraft. So it is likely that only a few of these supersonic airplanes will be built and used. Also it will only appeal to very wealthy people that can afford the high ticket prices. I suspect that even if this airplane is built and used the vast majority of air travel will remain at the same subsonic speeds that are used today.

[@lonwaslien104]

Hope this returns

[@MrRicardo361]

It seems too small to make any dent in mainstream operations. I assume would be more of a hyper-premium option only given the exclusivity. If it were closer to A321 size that would be a different thing altogether!

[@matsv201]

Well yes, its under optimal size. But it might not be totally with out benefit. Aircraft in the 100 PAX capacity is really not that uncommon. Both Embraer and the A220 series is filling this market. And i would suggest that the A320 and the 737 sort of grew out of there own optimal market. A benefit for having a small aircraft that is supersonic is that the cost of the pilot is almost as large as the cost of the fuel, in effect canceling out much more of the increased fuel cost.

[@codyschlenker6821]

American technology man. Tech capitol of the world.

[@citylimits8927]

People are always using New York to London or Paris and Los Angeles to Tokyo as examples. However I wonder if Boom will manage to get the sonic boom noise lowered enough to service major interior cities such as Chicago, Toronto, Dallas/Fort Worth, Munich, Chongqing, Delhi, Vegas, Chengdu, etc.? Either that or enable Overture to cruise efficiently at high subsonic speeds over populated areas to efficiently reach those cities.

[@PastTime777]

This is exactly what I was thinking. However, it's been proven that the best efficiency of jet engines is between .76 and .85 the speed of sound depending on the aircraft.

[@andrewjackson5127]

They have already announced that this jet will not fly over land so it's going to fly the same routes as Concord basically

[@citylimits8927]

@@andrewjackson5127 Actually the latest information on Boom's website says that Overture will be able to fly at high subsonic speeds over land (20% faster than current aircraft). They also at one time had a map showing routes to into mid-continent destinations. If they can serve interior cities, it will be a plus.

[@AdmiralZest]

I wonder if cargo airlines will use the overture for postal and cargo.

[@aurorajones8481]

Well if i were Boom id certainly create a SS cargo variant. Just keep the shell intact w/ out puncturing out the window holes. Youd have to find a way for easy cargo ingress and egress. Plus the shape is coke bottle so you cant have standardized containers. It would be interesting.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@aurorajones8481 Air Cargo Market is very niche. It is very few things that require Next Day Air. Let alone beyond the speed of sound delivery. I would just settle for having doordash show up in 30 minutes.

[@tinyblackmage]

Singapore ✈️ to New York in *8hrs* 💪🏻

[@alwaleedalthani9624]

There is definitely a market but the transpacific and transatlantic routes are the only ones that are over water the Middle East is all over land but Middle East to Japan or China are possibility

[@frankdoll4556]

American Airlines just ordered 20 with an option for up to 40 more.

[@louisbeerreviews8964]

No

[@zachmali4071]

As a pilot I hope to fly one of these but it will all come down to the engine. It will probably be something like the 747 where it would be a new type of designe.

[@Kaidhicksii]

I'm betting on that too. After all, this is an SST, not your regular conventional aircraft. It's only natural that the engines are one-of-a-kind in order to help it fly at supersonic speeds while remaining efficient at subsonic speeds and relatively quiet.

[@karlossargeant3872]

I'm watching this Video Topic on Supersonic flight return to Aviation Industry The Boom Overture will be Nice to fly on for Long Haul Routes from America which I will go for 100% Awesome Video DJ's Aviation dream Big on Aviation man 100%

[@blowinkk9396]

Wow a whole 5 wind tunnel test in 8 years? Interesting

[@aurorajones8481]

aaAZOOOM!

[@jeanettenorman7052]

The notion of travelling has well and truly lost its luster for me DJ. Loved when you could simply walk in walk out arrive when you felt like it - went places often - since we have monetised travel from fear since 9/11 l gave up - couldn't stand the bullies at airports - however l would come out of seclusion for another Concorde

[@jonrutland7801]

Expect Boom to go bust.

[@jackroutledge352]

I'll start to pay attention when any of the engine majors show the slightest hint of interest. Until then, then is just the next Theranos in waiting.

[@Space_facts_1]

I have my doubts about boom supersonic, I doubt that they will get approved by the FAA/EASA. With the fact that the aircraft will be supersonic, the effigy will be poor, and how now most customers are looking for more efficient aircraft, boom will struggle in the market. Boom supersonic might be a dream that might never come true.

[@crwmdp9]

To make it viable for airlines, it too, will need to be a twin engined aircraft .

[@Nobi36]

Modern 2707?

[@ahdhudbbh]

Precisely that. Just like the 2707, it won't get past the drawing board.

[@Nobi36]

@@ahdhudbbh booms is promising tho and its we have more modern technology than 1969

[@ler3968]

Here we go again, the dream of regular Mach 1.7--2.0 flights. But with today's & future inflation, if they can get the tickets priced below $30,000 one way the aircraft might fly for one year. As usual for these large air travel projects, there will be years of delays, huge overruns on budget, environmental lawsuits, and limited airports for landings sites. In 20 years if it does not fly via 80-100% electric power many countries will just say NO not in my airspace. I wish this company luck, if the Wright bro's didn't dream we would still rely on trains and ships I guess.

[@geicoman5]

I believe they will succeed. Not top sure about the ticket cost being that cheap however.

[@alankohn6709]

Sadly from what has been announced it's Concord 1.1- and it will have all the same problems Short range, Limited ability to use its speed , Low capacity. Fast + Small + Short Ranged = Expensive. So it boils down to this it's main route will be London to New York the Seattle to Tokyo is at the bleeding edge of the announced range of for Boom. So London to New York is half the time in the air worth paying multiple times the ticket price. I am also less than impressed with them having a couple of Airlines on board Concord had multiple airlines from Pan Am to Qantas interested till they crunched the numbers and the only airlines to fly it where the state airlines that were forced to fly it. I wish them luck and hope the succeed

[@chitchatwchuck]

Now this is a man who knows his aviation history! Thank you. I was reading some of the comments and was wondering how stupid people are these days. Your assessment is something I can consider and agree. Thanks!

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

Will these be 4 x (future) GE Passport/ RR Pearl

[@theussmirage]

It's a shame GE canceled the Affinity engine, it would have been the perfect fit for Overture, and it was really the only engine in development specifically designed for SSTs

[@RonPiggott]

I am unsure of where the $100 price tickets came from.

[@texasranger24]

I am sure they can design and built the airframe. And it'll do what they say. Engines? No. They would basically need an old, declassified military engine, a turbofan with a bypass ratio of maybe 0.4 which is hardly efficient. But none of the modern stuff is allowed to leave the classified military fighters. It can be done, but at that point you are neither quiet nor efficient, and thus you can't be affordable. We can all travel to any point in the world in 30 minutes, if we can afford a SpaceX missile to get there. But most of us can't.

[@wlento58]

Why are the engines on the overture angled down slightly

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

It's called weathercocking. Read up on the SR-71. Don't think they're using it correctly here. Should look like the Boeing 2707.

[@louisbeerreviews8964]

British airways needs to get this

[@Perich29]

probably would be $500 each way per person or same price on subsonic jetliner from New York to England., but it might be cheaper than subsonic flight because of less air time spent, and hours rate for labors and less crew required on these plane.

[@aarontheaviationaddict3643]

You have a good point. But what about the cost of fuel burn per trip and per seat? It'll be more fuel-efficient than the Concorde, sure, but how will it compare to those of existing twin-jet airliners? And with only 65-80 seats, I'm concerned about the fuel burn per seat.

[@Perich29]

@@aarontheaviationaddict3643 since that plane will be bypass Turbo Fan instead of Afterburners like on Concord, it should burn less fuel, and the delta wings design will reduce drags.

[@aarontheaviationaddict3643]

@@Perich29 Yes. As I already said, it’ll be more fuel-efficient than Concorde. But I’m talking about it’s fuel efficiency compared to twin-jets. With a quad-jet configuration and only 65-80 pax, I’m worried about the fuel burn per seat, even if the higher speed means slightly less fuel burn per trip - which is a big if.

[@Perich29]

@@aarontheaviationaddict3643 the plane are made out of Composite materials, powered by 4 small Rolls Royce bypass turbo fan which produce 20,000 lb of thrust and uses 100 percent sustainable aviation fuel.

[@aarontheaviationaddict3643]

@@Perich29 They are low-bypass turbofans, which are less fuel-efficient than high-bypass turbofans on most airliners. And yes, the high speed and composite materials can offset the fuel burn to be comparable to those of existing twin-jets. But then again, the limited capacity of only 65-80 pax is gonna raise the cost of fuel burn per seat significantly; most jetliners today carry about 120-270 pax each.

[@Posttrip]

Let it be so. Long overdue.

[@terminal2004]

The CEO is a former director from Groupon. Does that mean something?

[@PRAY1211]

I think am Indian airline maybe "Air India" should also purchase the Boom Overture

[@ahuehuete4703]

More vaporware. How long has Boom been promising an SST?

[@OfficialRegulatededitss]

Total redesign?! What the heck?

[@sailaab]

TCAS has resigned and left the chat

[@markastor6740]

I'm excited to see the return of supersonic travel. but it seems that they have spent a great deal of time and money to come up with basically the same design as Concorde, which was designed back in the 1950's and 60's. However this new plane is slower and carries less passengers. Even if Mach 1.7 gives them the extended range of Concorde, surely a plane that can carry at least 150 people would have been a more viable design.

[@TheOwenMajor]

Absolutely not. Modern airlines rely on aircraft being as close to 100% passenger capacity as possible to make a profit. The reality is Boom is going after the business class market, and if you simply can't fill 150 business class seats with any regularity. The point of making it smaller is so airlines can actually fill the plane, something Concorde always struggled with. Also going slower reduces the fuel burn, helping fight higher fuel costs.

[@markastor6740]

@@TheOwenMajor I appreciate the response, Thankyou. It will be interesting to see how many of the airlines buy it.

[@marksinthehouse1968]

One thing I doubt you’ll see when it comes into Heathrow is Londoners blocking the Roads crying their eyes out like New Yorkers did when our Concorde was on test ,or manufacture and oil crisis

[@jangschoen1019]

Personally, I think Boom is being a bit unrealistic. Then again, getting engines would be a major milestone, and I do hope they will succeed.

[@AITF045]

Agreed. I’m worried that the sustainable fuel will be its downfall. I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to do too many new things in the same aircraft. Seeing how much of aviation still relies on leaded gas, I can’t see a new fuel being introduced and produced in any meaningful amount

[@letsseeif]

Tell Blake that he's dreaming.

[@matthewclarke6522]

I'm all in favour of supersonic flight, but it has to be a commercial certainty before it becomes a physical reality - and right now, they don't have the engines for it. It needs to be better than concorde , and it isn't . It needs to be certified for world wide operation, it isn't, despite the American acquiescence... we'll see >>>

[@user-zh9kc7tw4n]

Will they find an engine now RR has pulled out!?...

[@drewsale7288]

If this happens it will mainly be for people who fly private.

[@AAA-wc7dh]

it would have to be able to stop like 3x faster

[@nillojr1]

Muito bonitos os desenhos e projeções, mas parece mais uma enganação igual ao AERION S2, logo as grandes airbus e boeing compram o projeto da boom e engavetam para nunca sair do papel.

[@tjking1909]

And they finally found out the the boom didn’t ruin the Ozone layer. I live in the distant flight path of JFK departing and incoming flights. And I could tell you from years of experience the Concorde was not that much louder than a regular jet. Too bad PanAM was unable to go ahead with its 300 seats supersonic jet.

[@christopherkozal7987]

Ahhhh, the “Ozone layer Hole” hoax! So happy we “healed” it.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

It wasn't noise that was the problem with the ozone layer. It was the exhaust. Any aircraft operates subsonic on Landing.

[@jackroutledge352]

@@christopherkozal7987 But we actually did? The hole was caused by CFCs, and we banned them, solving the problem. Not everything is a hoax.

[@Ashura4665]

This is dangerous for the ozone layer and I don't think super sonic flight should be aloud now

[@kfl16]

Bro what they just said they’ll use sustainable fuel

[@dZeal]

Today, technology has advanced to all but eliminate the "boom" from sonic booms. With the aid of new light weight materials and sophisticated aircraft designs, a low-boom jet is capable of producing a boom measuring less than 80 decibels. This is 100 times quieter than the Concorde, or about as loud as a motorcycle driving by.

[@jackroutledge352]

Notably though, that technology is not on the Overture. Boom acknowledge that this won't be able to fly at supersonic speed over land.

[@Arado_Missile]

Although I like supersonic planes I doubt the overture will be affordable for regular ppl it’ll probably only be affordable for the rich for now

[@jondoherty3884]

Supersonic flight should never have gone away This day and age 6hours to gat New York joke Only concern is how long is the under cart off the ground

[@martinirving153]

Right I'm probably gonna get hate for this. But unless you are racing home for a family emergency. Have a life or death situation on your hands. Want to half the time of a London to Australia 20+ hour flight. I find no real reason for the ordinary traveler to have to get to their destination so quickly. Now if every airliner achieved this kind of speed then yes this would fall into the common place category and these speeds should be expected. But like I said the ordinary traveller, the current airliners quite suffice.

[@ILoveQazaqstan]

No, no you have a point my guy

[@kiwislop2077]

Can’t argue with the logic, but for those of us who live a minimum 3 hour flight from anywhere (all over water), it does still carry a great appeal!

[@christainmarks106]

🤔IF the overture is a slam dunk and the market for supersonic passenger travel is BACK. Full steam. There is NO WAY Boeing can just sit by and let one plane manufacturer own the market share on supersonic passenger plane. I wouldn’t be shocked if they revise and resurrect the 2707.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I don't think the market is really there? And how much are you willing to pay to get there? Today a flight New York to London is about 7 hours and somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 bucks.

[@christainmarks106]

@@WALTERBROADDUS The market never left for supersonic travel we must keep this in mind. What happened was gas prices Rose through the roof and the market for passenger supersonic travel became too expensive But the need for passenger supersonic travel has never left. And as an added layer America just went through 9/11 so plane travel was down tremendously.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@christainmarks106 the jumbo jet was always the better bet than supersonic travel. These aircraft don't have enough tourists that are going to fly to make money. At you can already fly New York to London for about $560 and 7 hours. What are you gaining by spending double or triple that to get there in three?

[@Ant008]

Like an updated Concorde but not as pretty

[@ljre3397]

They still won’t be able to fly over populated areas. Big disadvantage.

[@atilllathehun1212]

Almost as long as Concorde (with more span) but considerably slower and much less pax capacity.....Yay...........

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

We have an invention called the zoom call. No business is going to Fork over thousands of dollars just so you can get to London a little faster. And the tourist Market is not going to pull me up that kind of money,

[@JMGilberto]

With 4 engines, the thought of making two of the engines fanless ramjet/scramjet designs is possible. Variable inlet nozzle design could make a ramjet/scramjet hybrid for two of them. It could take off with the fanjets, and light the ramjets at speed.

[@eliseumalo4069]

I hope it happens but not holding my breath. This is another pipe dream in a string of pipe dreams over the last 2 decades.

[@andrewjackson5127]

1,000 units? They'll be lucky to sell 100. LOL. The same economics that killed the Concorde still exist.

[@trevoranderson4404]

Like,,,,,,

[@bestamerica]

' england = france did made the beautifully concorde airplane... ' come on america... american airplane company can make their own many more supersonic airplanes... how come never make it so far

[@standrewpics]

Them engines do not look as sleek as Concordes , looks very much like Concorde. With the ever increasing cost of fuel I can not see this getting off the ground .I suppose there is a few millionaires , and probably not so few oligarchs. Sleek copycat Concorde design .

[@heidirabenau511]

The Overture doesn't have afterburners

[@PastTime777]

It looks like the jet engines in these videos don't have huge turbo fans. This means the jet will use a lot of fuel above the speed of sound and won't save much fuel below it. It's a similar problem space ships have getting a rocket into space then using a vacuum engine (SpaceX).

[@will3346]

@@PastTime777 huge turbo fans are completely incompatible with supersonic flight. Boom will likely use a bypass ratio of 3ish. Also it’s not that similar to unoptimized rocket engines. A jet engine with a high bypass ratio 8+ pushes a large amount of air slowly which is more efficient than pushing a small amount of air fast. An unoptimized rocket nozzle is inefficient due to under or over expansion (a difference between ambient pressure and in nozzle pressure). The larger the bell the lower the in nozzle pressure. So in a vacuum the bell should be as big as possible. Rocket engines are most efficient when they are exactly expanded.

[@thecockerel86]

The plane will not fly by 2026. It doesn't even have an engine yet and we're over half way through 2022. And there isn't one anywhere near being announced in the near future. Remember, we're talking about a powerful, smallish engine, capable of powering a supersonic passenger jet using sustainable aviation fuel, a technology in its infancy.

[@louisbeerreviews8964]

It’s will

[@redakteur3613]

Looks like Nikola, empty promises with big wishlist and videography

[@StrikerSG]

Look like scam...

[@javev1772]

4 engines for 67 passengers! The Concorde never made money an carried 100 people. Sorry but this is not happening

[@sergiolaurencio7534]

It just not business class passenger. In sure one that another millionaire would like this

[@3520506]

Huge flop! The angel investors that invested into this project should prepare themselves for a huge loss!

[@DonQuixote7480]

another scam.

[@alexanderordinary2110]

70pax? who will fly them? I guess regional pilots will fly them. No self respecting pilot who flies 300-400 pax ( where the big bucks are) wont touch this thing, I dont care if it can go mach 4.