United has agreed to buy 15 of them, provided milestones are met.

“CHICAGO and DENVER, June 3, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- United Airlines today announced a commercial agreement with Denver-based aerospace company Boom Supersonic to add aircraft to its global fleet as well as a cooperative sustainability initiative – a move that facilitates a leap forward in returning supersonic speeds to aviation…”

https://hub.united.com/2021-06...onic-2653216403.html

Cool. I hope it is a success.

Proposed Mach 2.2
4,500nmi range
Non-afterburner turbofans (3) w/ 15-20k lbf thrust
Est $200M unit price
Est $5k fares

I worry about pollution

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Proposed Mach 2.2
4,500nmi range

That's plenty for trans-Atlantic flights but they'd really be onto something if they could get the range over 6,500 nautical miles. You'd be able to fly from LA to Hong Kong or Sidney in about 5 hours, which would be truly revolutionary.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Proposed Mach 2.2
4,500nmi range

That's plenty for trans-Atlantic flights but they'd really be onto something if they could get the range over 6,500 nautical miles. You'd be able to fly from LA to Hong Kong or Sidney in about 5 hours, which would be truly revolutionary.

Yeah, the bit I pulled those specs from mentioned that trans-Pacific flights would require a refueling stop. LA>Sydney was quoted at <7hrs and SF>Tokyo between 5-6hrs.

$5K isn’t a bad figure really considering Business Class is frequently more than that for trans-Atlantic/Pacific flights.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
$5K isn’t a bad figure really considering Business Class is frequently more than that for trans-Atlantic/Pacific flights.

Especially, considering Concorde was around $12k round-trip.
Closer to $20k adjusted for inflation.

That would be a fun ride. Except I hate flying lol

I get the play on words but “Boom” seems like an unfortunate name for an aircraft manufacturer. I guess it beats splash though.....

Interesting timing seeing as another company (Aerion) that was designing a supersonic business jet and had plans for a 50 seat airliner just shut down. A former employer of mine was the launch customer for the AS2 business jet, going so far as to plunk down deposits and display a mockup in the HQ lobby. That says a lot more about the ego of said company's "dear leader" than the feasibility of the aircraft.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/d...as-they-are-amazing/

https://aerionsupersonic.com/

I don't suppose they'll use one of those for the Portland-to-Seattle shuttle route, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Proposed Mach 2.2
4,500nmi range

That's plenty for trans-Atlantic flights but they'd really be onto something if they could get the range over 6,500 nautical miles. You'd be able to fly from LA to Hong Kong or Sidney in about 5 hours, which would be truly revolutionary.

San Francisco to Seoul is 10 hours, Tokyo is 11 hours, Beijing 12, Shanghai 13 hours, Hong Kong 14 hours. So yeah 5-7 hours from west coast to Asia if they can get the range to 6500+.

But I like drinking free booze in business class, falling asleep watching a movie, and waking up sober, finishing the movie before landing, and getting to the hotel by late afternoon.

quote:

Interesting timing seeing as another company (Aerion) that was designing a supersonic business jet and had plans for a 50 seat airliner just shut down. A former employer of mine was the launch customer for the AS2 business jet, going so far as to plunk down deposits and display a mockup in the HQ lobby. That says a lot more about the ego of said company's "dear leader" than the feasibility of the aircraft.

From the Forbes article:

quote:

Yet it had, after 17 years trying, failed to build even one actual airplane; not even a working scale model of its much-hyped AS2 10-passenger supersonic passenger plane, let alone a prototype.

Wonder where all of the investor's money went?

[/QUOTE]Wonder where all of the investor's money went?[/QUOTE]

Judging by their fancy website I'd say most of it went to advertising and promotional events. Brings me back to the old adage: if you want to make a small fortune in aviation start with a large one!

I've done Newark to Hong Kong non-stop a few times and there's just about nothing I wouldn't pay to cut that misery in half or more.

A big part of making a long distance run is capability enroute after a failure; a pressurization, or a failure of one or more engines. All planning revolves around that, not necessarily what the aircraft can do with all engines operating.

Speed is great, but speed is irrelevant after an engine-out, especially when the flight requires a descent lower altitude where those speeds aren't possible, where fuel consumption skyrockets, and where a diversion to an alternate airport becomes necessary.

The airplane may have long legs based on all-engines operating and the capability to fly at its optimum altitudes, but it all goes out the window with a failure. That's when the true capabilities of the airplane, and it's limitations, will come into play. The aircraft still requires the ability to divert to an alternate airfield with the capability to handle that aircraft, and the weather to do it. At lower altitudes and speeds, that range doesn't exist, and that's the real range that must be considered when flight planning a trip.

Look familiar?

Concorde - First flight March 1969.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/Concorde

Grounded after a French plane dropped some crap on the runway and caused the most horrendous public accident.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

The airplane may have long legs based on all-engines operating and the capability to fly at its optimum altitudes, but it all goes out the window with a failure. That's when the true capabilities of the airplane, and it's limitations, will come into play. The aircraft still requires the ability to divert to an alternate airfield with the capability to handle that aircraft, and the weather to do it. At lower altitudes and speeds, that range doesn't exist, and that's the real range that must be considered when flight planning a trip.

Great point. I would be interested in seeing if that aircraft could manage a mid-point abort if(when) it loses an engine out in the middle of the Atlantic. Also, delta-wing aircraft typically have high landing speeds, so that would reduce the number of airfields that could safely act as diversion fields.

It seems to have 3 engines, so a single mechanical failure taking out more than one engine seems unlikely. It would be interesting to see how it would handle asymmetric thrust in case one of the outboard engines goes out.

I actually hope they build and put this thing into service. I have always wanted a supersonic flight; since they retired the Concorde, my options decreased significantly.

It's not a matter of whether an aircraft can "handle" a diversion during an atlantic (or any other) crossing. It's a requirement to operate the aircraft. Every flight is planned with ETP's, or equal time points, at which the aircraft will have the capability of reaching a pre-planned diversionary field, with a very minimal fuel reserve. That requirement may limit the aircraft: again, it's not what the aircraft can do, but the operational requirements that may limit it.

Losing one of three engines doesn't mean that a third of the thrust or performance is lost. Considerably more is gone, from overcoming the drag of the windmilling engine to accounting for excess thrust; performance equates to excess thrust above that required to maintain a present condition. If the numbers given above for engine thrust are correct, those are tiny, miniscule engines with very low thrust ratings.

Loss of an engine is only one scenario. An onboard fire or other emergency is another. A medical emergency another. A depressurization another. Each scenario may pose differing requirements, and loss of engines also equates to loss of bleed air for pressurization, loss of a generator, hydraulic power, and associated aircraft systems run by that engine. That could mean loss of some braking capability, or power to flight controls, steering, spoilers/speed brakes, flaps, etc. It could mean loss of an autopilot system, which could limit approach or landing capability, or crosswind capability, and could affect landing distance. Loss of power means drift down, flight at less efficient altitudes, which means reduced range, slower true or equivalent airspeeds, fewer options, less fuel reserves, etc. All part of designing and aircraft and developing a system for operating it.

So far, not even the single seat demonstrator for this aircraft has flown; it's all promises and slick drawings.

So far as multiple engines, that didn't save the Concorde, nor UAL232's DC-10 at Sioux City, or a number of other aircraft that have lost multiple engines to cascading failures, volcanic ash, or other reasons. All that doom and gloom doesn't make it common, but an airplane of the capability being discussed will depend on all-engine operation; loss of systems, engines, etc, will have a significant impact on the airplane once it can't fulfill it's design intent, and it's planning for that which will dictate how flights are conducted. We plan every takeoff for loss of engines, after all, and every long distance flight for multiple kinds of diversions. It's the engine-out performance on takeoff that limits us, not the normal all-engines operating capability. We plan for failures and calculate accordingly. Climb performance and speed is a function of excess thrust. Take that away, and we revert to a much more conservative performance world, and a host of limitations that follow. The company may promise the moon, but physics intervene.