Boom Supersonic Works on Its Own Engine, Shows the Overture Airliner’s Flight Deck - AIN 

The typical manager that has no clue how long development takes.

Ya this wont have its first flight till 2040. By then air travel will be outlawed for the poor people because of "climate change".

Both you and @lowmax4431 are correct! If they don't start the cert process well ahead of the completion of the first prototype, they will experience significant delays. Question: can certain subassemblies be certified independently? If so, they could work certifications in parallel to save some time.

​@@lowmax4431 It's not that the manager doesn't understand how long development takes. In fact, they know the timeline very well. However, they won't say our jet will be ready in 2035 because that would kill the excitement for investors and customers who have already placed orders. Instead, they'll say it's 2029, and when 2029 comes, they'll push it to 2030, and so on, until they reach the real timeline they expected all along. After all, nobody would want to invest if you told them 2035 in 2018

@@lowmax4431sounds like politicians

And it probably won’t, Concorde was honestly better much before its time and look how it turned out…. Expensive, noisy, inefficient and it could only fly over oceans and long flights….

Yes, & which boutique engine manufacturer is gonna make them!? They need a X-59 design to minimize sonic boom which would take a radical redesign to this Overture frame!

Exactly. This is complete BS. How do you stop a Sonic Boom? You cant.

@@EnglishLawyerunless we get a new batch of alien tech 👀 lol I’m sure the govt already has this tech.

@@EnglishLawyer NASA was/is working exactly on that. I don't know where they are right now but they have been trying to solve that problem.

Boom already has a smaller version of the aircraft flying.

I agree. 5 years is dreaming. They would need an incredible engineering team (top tier experienced engineers and a bunch of them) large enough to run development, testing, and certification. They would need flawless engineering, and even that is asking a lot in 5 years.

@@bnx200 a single pilot test aircraft is a very different proposition to a passenger ready version.

​@@bnx200it's not smaller version. It's tech demonstrator. The function is only to prove that they have capacity to design airframe and subsystem for the supersonic aircraft. The only thing tech demonstator can't demonstrate their capability is desigining/build engine.

@@swordsman1137 I think the engine will be the most difficult part. That's the one area where I can see the plane being delayed.

you ok now?

It’s just a pattern with every aircraft program. They get delayed 😑

Advancement of technology at this insane level, of course! Only fools think its development is a play in the park. 5 or 10 year more… it will come. Tech advancement is inevitable.

this fantasy was interesting back then. its wearing thin now.

Without negative interest rates I’m surprised they are still around.

@@idiedoof4339but others have something to show, at least a demonstrator.

Nothing like people looking for others to fail.

What an idiot.

Can't understand why people like you want to see others fail. Are we not supposed to move forward into the future?

@@justkiddin08 Sorry kid, but this ain't the future.

Isn’t F35 cockpit similar?

My Alpine aftermarket stereo has a tactile feel on its "buttons" on the screen. It gives a "click" when they are touched.

SpaceX Dragon uses screens with buttons in case of backup.

@@_bakedbeans6970 Yes

Rolls Royce I believe was who they went to originally and they refused to do the engine. Also I began questioning this company when they trashed the design they used to collect funding and produced the one shown in the video after funding was secured, a slap in the face to investors. That electric plane company United posted its Covid stimi into did the same- showed investors a clean sheet design Electric plane then once funding was secured rolled out a bombardier with a battery pack slapped onto it.

Nope. Hill helicopters is developing its own turbine engine to drive costs down. At firms like GE, Rolls Royce, and Pratt and Whitney, there are 50 year old engineers working 40 hour work weeks. At Overture, you have 25 year old engineers working 60 hour work weeks. A better example is the performance of a young SpaceX compared to an old NASA.

China can’t even make reliable jet engines yet they are extremely difficult

If Boom gets far enough with their engine and demonstrates a successful design, engine manufacturers will be asking how they can help with production. They would be dumb not to. Sort of like how Apple designed its own SOC but went to Samsung and TSC to build the chips.

@@NarasimhaDiyasena Your information is incorrect. The original concept Boom 3 engine aircraft was designed to use a variant of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and a modified version is in the F-35). The Boom Engine program manager was a major manager from the F119 program. The F119 engine was already capable of "super-cruise" which the Boom aircraft would need. If you look at the original Boom 3 engine concept aircraft and do the math you will see that the F119 engine had the thrust and super-cruise capabilities that aircraft concept needed. RR did not have an engine that matched that aircraft. Remove the vectoring nozzle, remove the afterburner, remove a few other military specific features, beef up the bearings and casing a bit so you can essentially use the same core while improving reliability and on wing life (military engines do not have nearly the reliability and on wing life of civilian jetliner engines; but it would work well enough for Boom). Then certify the engine for Civilian airline use. Note that all the original passenger jet engine airliners used military derived engines - with very short engine lives compared to today's engines. The concept of using military derived engines is not new at all - nor novel. I understand that there is a least 1 military derived engine that came in a few decades later because it was the perfect size as well. The fly in the ointment came when P&W told Boom that Boom would have to pay for the development of said engine variant up front as P&W did not see enough of an engine market to fund the development from future sales. Asking price is reported to be most of $1Billion to fund development, testing, and certification. Boom walked at that point; and then talked to RR. Apparently RR told Boom the same thing - for exactly the same reasons. I was a big supporter of Boom up to that point. I believe that had they gone to their investors and asked for the money up front that they would have gotten it - and would have had a viable engine with robust long term parts and service support. Now I view Boom as nothing more than an investor scam. It cost $billions to develop and test new civilian aircraft engines of that size range.... Who is going to actually fund that. Even $1 Billion for a derivative of an existing military engine is not out of line cost wise

your mom was trying not to scare you. Those were gunshots 😂

If they don't there will be death.

Now now, the Titan with all its flaws was actually built, this thing never ever will be.

@@colin-nekritz Unfortunately for submersible, yes.

Composite material works great for airplanes but not submarines.

Honestly I was just thinking the same thing, it really feels like a combination of "carbon fiber deep-sea submersible" meets "nikola motors". If this is the case the silver limning is they probably won't ever reach testing phase so no lives should be lost.

Most of the controls being on a touchscreen monitor, I can't see how that could possibly go wrong! Why not replace the control stick and levers with a PS4 controller while we're at it? 🤦

The Wright Brothers have an old four-pot lying around. Low miles, one owner🤷‍♂😅 Should slot right in there...

You're right about it being no easy task to design a new engine, but it kinda sounds like they didn't have a choice. I hope they can surprise the world. Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible. (It will be funny to see which of its competitors will be first to commit industrial espionage against them...)

@@horusfalcon as long as the investors understand this project is very high risk.

@@timgarrett203 Yeah, that's a given. They will need some latitude in the early stages of development, but, as things progress they will have to actually put up or shut up at some point. I'm just wanting to see another SST, even if we have to take baby steps to get there, and aspects of this engine design are fascinating. They will have to be very careful with the control over the tail spike, or fuel economy, efficiency, and noise level will all take a hit.

@@horusfalcon They had a choice - but balked at the money. The original engine concept was a civilianzed version of the P&W F119 engine (developed for the F-22, and modified for the F-35). The Boom Engine Manager was one of the F119 program managers (responsible for half of the F119 engine). P&W would have removed the vectoring nozzle, the afterburner, a few other military features, beefed up the engine a bit, and certified it for civilian use.... IF Boom had been willing to pay for that development and certification (my information was most of $1 Billion). That's very cheap for a new engine - and likely about 1/5th the cost of a purpose developed and certified engine. P&W did not see enough of an engine market for that specialized engine to warrant development of it from projected sales of the engine (unlike civilian jetliner engines that sells in the many thousands for decades). Boom did not want to pay for the development of their engine. They then went to talk to RR and essentially got told the same thing. That's when Boom went in my mind from an realistic proposal to an investment scam company. I believe that Boom could have gone to their investors and gotten the money to fund engine development. New from scratch engine of the size with super-cruise ability is likely in the $3-$5 Billion dollar range for development, refinement, testing, and certification for civilian use.

That's ok.. Since this is American made, the FAA will approve regardless of the boom.. The company calls itself boom.. Geez. And what's he smoking when he says the plane will not rattle window panes. The only way this will be.. If the plane flies sub sonic below 15-20k feet.

Concorde used afterburners to accelerate through the high-drag transsonic region as well. Counterintuitively, it’d take more fuel to accelerate from ~M.95-1.3 without afterburners than to just brute-force through.

Indeed. The future is looking biblical, truth be told. Whether humanity can finally work together to avert that is another matter. I wish Boom every success.

I agree so much. We need the faith that technological advances are able to solve the problems we’ve created. Environmental, social etc. And we need people who actually work on it. Nowadays people tend to be so cynical and laid back like it’s a given that the world is fucked and we are doomed to live in stagnation till the end.

Same here although the USA is light years behind U.K. and France in doing this. The US was pissed that U.K. and France did this first. The US also banned all overland supersonic commercial passenger flights apart from military thereby cutting off its nose to spite its face to quote a well know analogy

@@peterbest5938 nobody cares. You sound so bitter, go touch grass.

The cabin is larger than that of a CRJ so that's probably what you are looking at, but keep in mind, that still falls to the airlines at the end of the day.

None, I mean, the bathroom will be as big virtually as you want them, which is to say in make believe, because this plane will never exist outside of as seen in this video to bilk investors out of money, it’s pure vaporware.

Not to worry Sam, the plane is so fast by the time you think you have to pee, you have already peed

u should apply to be a consultant or engineer for them.

Finally someone who know something about engine. Not a coincident that almost all supersonic engines in production are turbojet/low bypass/ramjet. And the chance of a startup doing in-house design, manufacturing, and validation of an advanced supersonic airliner engine, I call it hard to believe at best, and money laundering most likely. Poor investors having more money than brain investing on the basis of a cool CGI advertisement and impossible promises.

@@LongTran-em6hc I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. In 2004 everyone thought those SpaceX fools were full of shit too! But, making an efficient medium bypass (2~3 bypass ratio) turbofan for supersonic cruise is NOT an engineering problem. It is a physics problem. -- Remember, with anything but a scramjet, you have to slow the incoming air to subspnic speeds before it hits the fan. You then have to accelerate that flow to greater than your supersonic cruise speed if you want to produce thrust. You do that mainly by compressing it then burning fuel in it. For every axial stage you get about 1.2~1.5x of compression -- 1.2 being similar to a 1st gen engine like a Jumo 004, 1.5 being a GE9x. Most supersonic engines are in the middle of the range mainly because of combustor temperature limits. -- As a rough rule of thumb, a 2 or 3 stage fan produces noting but drag. Just 10 stages of compression and no combustion produces minimal thrust. 10 stages of compression plus combustion produces plenty of thrust, but part of it has to be taken off to drive the turbine. Any or all of the flow that does not go through the combustor and turbine CAN make plenty of useful thrust if you dump fuel into the tail pipe and burn it at low compression -- that's called an afterburner.

The aircraft isn’t always at supersonic speed, so a medium bypass engine is a GREAT idea for reducing noise and fuel consumption at subsonic speeds.

@@j.heilig7239 LOL... the point of an SST is to fly at supersonic speeds. If you are not spending 80-90% of the trip supersonic you shouldn't be flying the SST. Optimizing the engine for 10~20% of the trip while making it drastically less efficient -- perhaps to the point of being unable to actually fly supersonic -- for overwhelming majority of the trip is the very definition of moronic engineering. -- Do you know how much less efficient bypass can make a supersonic engine? Remember the Tu-144? It's the Soviet Concordski. The use of a 0.6:1 bypass turbofan meant that it could not sustain supersonic flight without the afterburners being lit to some degree. The specific fuel consumption with the NK-144 engines was 1.81kg/kgfh at Mach 2.0 and a supersonic range of 1300 nm. Switching to RD-36 turbojets (no bypass) netted a TSFC of 1.22 kg/kgfh and a range of 2878 nm. -- That was just a 0.6 low bypass turbofan. And you think going to a medium bypass engine with 2~3:1 of the air flow making no thrust and creating a massively draggy nacelle is a "great" idea?

To be fair, they have Florida Turbine Technologies working with them on the development of the engine. People on the team worked on both the F-119 and F-135 engines of the F-22 and F-35 respectively. They also have backing from Northrop Grumman and the USAF themselves. Not saying it's going to be easy but I still have faith in this coming to fruition.

@WilliamRivera343 well that certainly makes a difference in how likely they are to succeed. I didn't know that.

Concorde did not exactly die, it simply lost financial viability. Paying much more to travel from the US to Europe in a sports car was not competing with taking longer to make the journey at a lower cost in a 5 star hotel. Most business travellers enjoyed their first flight on Concorde, but most of them never flew Concorde again. To be a success this new aircraft has to have a comfort level comparable to an A380.

You will have a better chance of seeing an albino unicorn that farts rainbows and speaks 15 languages in your lifetime than ever seeing one of these exist.

You were smart enough to be a pilot but not smart enough to detect this is exquisite load of garbage will never exist? Is this from you’re slowly becoming senile or from the medicine you’re on in old age? Hate to break it to you old man but this is 100% vaporware, it will never become reality.

ASAP is at least 5 years

Don't worry about it. This will never exist so its a non issue.

Do you think that having such a short time frame is realistic for an engine that I has never been built before? How difficult is the certification process for a new technology engine like that? I’d still trust you and your peers in controlling the take off and landing. Thank you for your years of service

He is a marketing dude, what does he know about flying and staying proficient. One of the main selling arguments for the L-1011 was the advanced autoland system, that was in 1970.

Current airliners have auto land.

There are already avionics system where the cockpit Displays are touch screen. Nothing new.

How did you make this comment?

The advancement of technology is inevitable. Our lives get better and safer and more efficient with it. Draw backs? Of course, like always. People screamed with the first locomotive or with the first aeroplane…..

As opposed to what?

@@Secretlyanothername Did you really compare flying a supersonic jet through technology....with a RU-vid comment? If you're not skeptical, even just a little, of our wholesale reliance on, not only technology, but technology that's supposed to keep us safe at 38,000ft+, flying at Mach 1.7....you're not paying any attention. Remember our little friend MCAS? Didn't end well for over 300 people a few years back. Nobody saw that coming. I guess it wasn't you or your loved ones, so whatevs. Nobody is saying that fear should halt progress, but these guys CLEARLY want to push technology through the pipeline fast so they can start seeing profits. That's the problem with over-reliance on technology, its FAR more often than not: not tested enough before full service. Look up "hubris", and you may understand.

@@j.heilig7239 Simplicity with redundancy is always safer than complexity with redundancy.

Really? Which Concorde are you talking about. Because the one flown by British Airways and Air France starting in the 1970s was powered by the Rolls-Royce Olympus TURBOJET. That’s according to Rolls-Royce, but what would they know?

Looks like it was a turbojet but the inlet system ahead of the engine did allow air to bypass around the engine, but it wasn’t driven by the fan.

All circuit breakers on the 787 I fly are virtual, not a single traditional CB in the cockpit. So it's already been done. But they don't have an engine yet and believe they are going to be delivering airplanes in five years...not going to happen

Did you see the video? Minute >>8:30 explain all that

@@michaeldiamondofficial I know it has synthetic vision, but that can go out. If there's no front window and no synthetic vision and no autopilot, they're screwed.

Sky Theranos is exactly what it is… vaporware.

Totally agree. I HATE touch screens on flight decks and having to go through several menus to get to an item.

Have you seen the cockpit of any modern airliner? Didn’t think so.

@@j.heilig7239 I haven’t. I just fly them for work.