WHAT’s Going On with BOOM Supersonic?! Will it Fail? 

Try free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription. speakly.app.link/Speakly

Concorde always fascinated me because the outside is timeless, almost futuristic looking even today, yet the cockpit looked like a WWII bomber!

I worked for BA at LHR at a time when Concorde was flying. The Offices emptied out every day to watch her take off. Even at take-off (obviously sub-sonic) she'd still cause the alarms in half of the cars to express their approval ♥ There was a waiting list that BA employees could put themselves on to travel on engineering flights. It was a loop over the coast, go supersonic, come back. I never prioritized it and I still regret it. Lastly, you can tell it was pre-9/11 because we used to cut-through Concorde's hanger on our way to the staff canteen for lunch. What I think surprised almost everyone was how much smaller she was in real life.

I remember back in the 90s seeing Concorde fly over my head numerous times as it descended above the London suburbs on its way to Heathrow. I didn't even need to look up to confirm it was Concorde - the sound was so completely different from any other plane.

A few years ago, I flew from New York (Newark) to London, looking out the window of that 747 while taxiing , I saw one of the retired Concordes sitting in the “back lot” I was so excited and saddened at the same time… I wish I had the chance to fly on that beauty! Keep up the great work Peter!

My all time favourite aircraft is the SR71. Not a civilian aircraft, but a beautiful piece of engineering that is also stunning to look at

Unfortunately, I feel like Boom is going to join the other defunct start-ups looking to create a new supersonic passenger jet. They're making a product looking for a market, which never works out well. There has to be a demand for it in the first place which just doesn't seem to be. As a result, it's not surprising no engine manufacturers want to take on the cost of R&D. While, as someone with an interest in aviation a new supersonic passenger jet would be exciting, I can't see it happening any time soon.

As an airline employee back in 1999 I bought a one way ZED fare on Concorde for $500 bucks ! Was the best money I have ever spent.

The B-36 had two different engines with five different subtypes: 4 jets and 6 props, subdivided into those turning, those burning, those choking, those smoking, and those unaccounted for.

I agree with Izzie. The fact that a company is pushing the envelope to re-establish commercial supersonic capabilities using modern aeronautic technology is extremely exciting; however, I do not believe there exists a significant market share for this type of transport to justify the immense costs and potential negative environmental effects such a project would entail. It seems like another glaring example of the tail wagging the dog.

Į know only one aircraft that had 2 different types of engines. Beginning with the B-36D, Convair added a pair of General Electric J47-19 jet engines suspended near the end of each wing; these were also retrofitted to all extant B-36Bs. Consequently, the B-36 was configured to have 10 engines, six radial propeller engines and four jet engines, leading to the B-36 slogan of "six turnin' and four burnin' ".

"I don't know if I've ever heard of any aircraft that had different engines on the same airframe." Here's one: the Hawker Siddeley Trident (used by British Airways) had a tiny Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet installed on its final 3B model that added 15% more thrust just for additional "hot and high" take off performance. This was easier than redesigning the whole aircraft to accommodate larger engines than the normal Spey models. As a kid, I remember seeing the Tridents around Heathrow in the 80's.

I was lucky enough to fly Concorde London - NY. It was like getting into a sports car, low to the floor, bucket seats. It was very loud. 1st Class on any top airline was vastly more luxurious and spacious BUT still, you did something so remarkable and rare. It was an Honor and worth doing once.

It seems a strange choice to choose "Boom" as the name of the company, considering that just draws correlation to the biggest drawback of supersonic air travel.Maybe their second choice was "Fuel Hog" so Boom was a better choice.

The Olympus engine also had marine and land-based variants, used for naval propulsion and gas turbines for electricity generation, and many are still in use in those roles so the development costs were well covered, which could not be said for a new engine as Boom needs.

There two things in aviation I would do if I could time travel; 1) Flying London - NYC in a Concorde 2) Land on Kai Tak in a 747

When they first came out I thought I recalled hearing that Boom was trying to make an aircraft with little to no sonic boom so that they could go supersonic over land? Sounded impossible and probably was since that goal seemed to disappear quickly. If they could had achieved that it would have been a game changer. Without it they won’t survive.

its one thing to create a beautiful graphic on a computer....its another thing to have a working, certified aircraft. We've seen this scenario play out so many times over the years

Grew up under final approach to DFW. I still remember everyone outside looking up as the Concorde flew overhead.

Here's the real problem: These are still commercial flights. You lose a LOT of time on each end dealing with security, navigating large commercial airports, baggage claim time, and more. New York to Paris is barely a 7 hour flight on a long range private jet. You can't shave enough off that with a commercial supersonic jet to overcome the inefficiencies of the airport itself. The truly wealthy have no use for a supersonic jet so these will remain a novelty for those a very narrow segment of people that can't afford private but want the novelty of going Mach 1+. The net is this: By improving airport inefficiencies, we could reduce travel times for ALL passengers on ALL flights, all the time. And we don't need faster aircraft. Money spent on this has a much broader benefit. I do agree, though, that new tech like this is super exciting to see.

Boom are great at talking and making posts on social media 🤔 I'm not too convinced their project will get off the ground

I think supersonic transport has a better future in business and charter jets, they are getting faster and faster anyway. For me as average Joe, the waiting times not flying, from the moment I set foot into the departure airport, to when I get my baggage are as significant as turning a six hour flight into a three hour one. As far as engines go, the Saab Viggen was equipped with essentally an afterburning version of the 737-100/200 engine and could go up to Mach 2.

I was fortunate to see a Concorde once back in the 80's. One flew into Omaha for a charter flight to England. It was beautiful to see it all flared out with the nose up to come in for a landing and then to have the pilot drop the nose, hit the throttles and do a fly by. I do not remember seeing the afterburners light, but it was still very loud. I went back to Epply Airfield the next morning to watch it take off. A truly beautiful aircraft.

As much as I enjoyed watching and hearing Concorde take off at EGLL, it doesn't come close to seeing and feeling the Eurofighter Typhoon at Bournemouth Air Festival, I'll never forget the spine tingling noise!

As a huge Concorde fangirl there’s nothing I’d love more than for something similar to return to the skies. Though like everyone else, I have a lot of doubts about the viability of the project. Just cross our fingers and hope 🤞🏼

Concorde still looks amazing way ahead of its time

The maximum passenger capacity of the Concorde was not 100. That was the configuration BA/AF chose. Original design was for 130 passengers, but not all First Class of course. Trouble was the extra passengers hence payload meant the aircraft would struggle to fly from Europe to the US East Coast. I flew Concorde twice. Once BA. The other time Braniff. Many have forgotten about that!

now i feel really old. all those iconic aircraft you listed, i've ridden on--even a Stretch-707 and a Connie, back when prices meant either you were well-to-do, or military. more or less the entire passenger cabin was "first class", booze, food, snacks, pillows and blankets, and plenty of room. the heyday of commercial aviation is gone forever. good vid, as always.

‘’Courage taught me no matter how bad a crisis gets ... any sound investment will eventually pay off."

I for one wish these supersonic companies all success.

I have seen a Concorde plane that is still parked outside , welcomming travellers in Paris airport.... What a sight....such magnifficent ellegance and beauty..... it would be awesome to see such kind of swans fly again....

14:53 "If you don't have an engine, you don't have an aircraft" Glider pilots: "... and I took that personally."

I know this video is 3 months old but fortunately Boom found an engine designer, FTT (Florida Turbine Technologies). This is fantastic news as Boom is currently building it's superfactory in North Carolina as we speak. The future of commercial supersonic flight has been saved!!!!

Boom also has a demonstrator that was supposed to fly 2 years ago

I can only wish for this technology to return to the public. Living in Australia and New Zealand having high speed flights to connect us to the rest of the world really would be incredible. Living on a plane for an entire day and the jet lag is a real problem. I can only wonder how cool it would be if Australian cities, places like Brisbane and Perth, would consider having specific hubs for supersonic flights: Perth to Europe; Brisbane to USA. Yes please. But get the fuel and environmental stuff sorted too of course!

My father inlaw worked on the Boeing 2707.

Just found your channel. I'm impressed. Pilot to pilot - you have a smooth style. Liked and subbed.

I once heard Concorde take off from the terminal at Heathrow. The sheer volume of those turbojets on reheat was amazing to experience. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be out on the tarmac. That said, I would rather pay $600-1000 to fly from Washington, DC to London on a 787 or 777, not several thousand.

My favorite is the 747. I got to fly on the Queen of the Skies once, from Frankfurt to Mumbai (I may have flown back on a 747 but I can't remember). That was the first time that I can remember flying on a four engined jet, so I was amazed. I didn't even know that a plane could be so big yet still fly.

Just finished Cpt Mike Bannister's book called Concorde and i think the british Concorde venture was technically profitaboe from 1984 onwards.. highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of Concorde and what happened in the subsequent court cases after the tragic crash in 2000

As much as I love Concorde, everyone else does too. So my number one pick (just) tips towards the L-1011. So ahead of its time, despite being a commercial flop. We also have the L-1011 to thank for the RB-211, which is still the core in basically all the big RR engines today. It is a bucket list item to fly on one, which may be possible with the Tristar experience, something I only just learned of.

Always loved the Concorde! I always thought (and hoped) that more commercial supersonic aircraft and routes would become available in the future. The one and only time one of the Concorde jets flew into my local airport - it was beautiful to watch! Although the local authorities evidently banned future flights because of the noise level. Still loved it!

Thank you for making a video spotlighting Boom and their efforts! And yep, you nailed it: Concorde is my favorite aircraft of all time. And for my money, the most beautiful machine humans have ever created.

This is a fantastic video and a joy to watch. Thank you for making it!

Thank you for bringing us these interesting topics. I can't believe I've never heard of Boom before and wouldn't have if not for your channel

I’d definitely like a video on the Rolls Royce ultra fan

Thanks again for another of your wonderfully interesting, complete and informative videos. As a retired airline pilot, I find your channel to be my most trusted link to the industry.

Always so very interesting. Thank you

I remember seeing the Concorde flying not far from my uncles as we were stood in the back garden here in England, west Yorkshire. i cant remember where it was landing that day but we knew it was going to be passing us. i remember hearing it long before we saw it. i dont think it was the first flight over here because i was about 3 year old then and im fairly sure i was older...

Trident 3B aircraft had 3 RR Spey 512 engines and 1 RB162 boost engine as standard (for hot and high / short runway operations) plus an APU.

my sadly now departed uncle did one of these fight experiences, i think in the late 90s, would have liked that myself

It's nice to see your videos back on Friday. The ones released on the weekend get buried and I often forget by the start of the weekday. (When I typically watch videos)

Boom reminds me of the Nikola Truck scam - big tech promises, without actually having the tech. The whole idea was to make people/media report about it(like Mentour Pilot) and get investors, which would fund the research. They made only the frame of the Truck and had it rolling down a hill, for videos. In the end, they were not able to develop the tech and the scam was exposed, but very late.

What did you expect from start-up bro dudes? Concorde had the best engineers in the world from the the UK & France and squillions of pounds to develop it and even then it was a monumental challenge

05:27 - "I don't know if I've ever heard about an aircraft that runs different engines on the same airframe" ...The Hawker Siddeley HS-121 Trident 3B comes to mind. In addition to its three Spey RB.163s , it had also a fourth engine, an RB 162.

Always covering the best news, Petter. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. A 15 hour flight to the Philippines sucks.

If you don't have an engine, you only have a glider.

Mentour, you look absolutely marvelous...plus hearing about Boom Aviation was super cook! Thank you!

Some re-engined 727 had updated outboard engines while the center engine could not be changed due to the S duct design so it literally had a different 3rd engine.

This company is on my same airport. I see them often testing there smaller version. Only ground runs so far. Thier hanger is always open and seeing the aircraft looks pretty sweet

Petter, I, unlike your core audience, am not interested in a future in aviation - mostly because that is an old dream and I'm in retirement. The reason I watch your channels is the other reason you teach aeronautics: to reduce ignorance in the general public about everything related to flying. And man, am I having a blast! Putting Tom Scott in the cockpit of a 737 simulator without Otto made my heart race. Thanks for the thrill :) Anyway, this channel about the ancillaries around flying is also interesting. Learning about the politics, economics and feasabilites seems just as interesting.

Excellent analysis, thanks!!!

Your reference to the Concorde being an example of 'early aviation gave me a good laugh. I guess it all about one's point of view. Keep up the good work.

For those curious, the B-36 Peacemaker had 2 different engines on it. Propeller and jet

We used to drive past Heathrow on a regular basis - I couldn't tell you the road, I was a kid at the time and this was a LONG time ago now. But at least twice a week we'd be going along and watching the planes land, or take off. Periodically, that plane would be Concorde. The landings were always amazing, but there's still nothing as incredible as feeling like you were racing Concorde as it took off parallel to you in the car.

Personal favorite... L1011. Amazing plane, and I loved flying on it back in the 90's on a route I flew a lot back in the day. I really miss it, it was well ahead of it's time.

Favorite airplane of all time: 747. Blessed to be finally flying it. Always a well delivered video. Great job.

I'd like to find a place to make a wager that Boom will never get even a prototype off of the ground, much less certified for commercial use.

I see the Concord as a aviation example of a "halo" car. A car built in small numbers to increase brand interest, ie the Lexus LFA or Acrura NSX. In this respect I think it did great, when you hear the name Concord you think Air France or BA.

It's pretty comon knowledge that BA did in fact make a profit from Concorde, though AirFrance did not. But they realised during the grounding that they made more money if pax flew in First pr Business on subsonic jets, combined with the fact that as Concorde aged, it needed a lot of work to keep flying, which caused rising maintenence costs, which would quickly eliminate any profits if Concorde had kept flying. The alternative would have been extensive refurbishment, but this would have been extremely expensive per plane due to how few there were, and Airbus simply weren't interested.

Was really enjoying that Petter, even moreso as just last week I saw Scotland's Concorde at the national museum of flight.

Peter, from the very beginning this has been a bust for me. I mean, to have ready and fully certified aircraft for commercial use by 2029, impossible. Even Rolls-Royce left the agreement. Let's look at Boeing 777X case, and we are talking about the already existing model. I remember myself, 6 years ago at EK, working as an Cabin Crew, and being informed about exciting news of getting first 777x by 2020. 6 years later....

Favourite aircraft for me has to be split into three categories: military with guns, without guns, and airliner. And that is the A10 warthog, SR-71, and obviously Concord

thx for the update.

Great job on video 👍

This looks more like a B58 all the time - as for Concorde? Golly that was incredible

What about the Lockheed Constellation? A truly beautiful and unique aircraft.

Awesome Video and also I am praying that boom supersonic succeeds in getting their plane into production and into passenger service.

Very informative video. Among other things, I've been curious about the apparent lack of variable-geometry air inlets on Boom. Anyway, regarding the comment at ~5:30 "...haven't heard of an aircraft running different engines on the same airframe..." The re-engined 727s still flying are using larger MD-80 engines on the #1 and #3 pylons, namely the JT8D-200 series, while still using the smaller original JT8D engine type on the centerline position. Apparently, the mounting bolt positions were the same, making the transition relatively easy, while the enclosed #2 engine was always going to have size limitations.

Hello Peter, I have a question maybe you can explain to us, is what are the new crew alert systems required by the FAA to certify the 737-7/10? what modification they need to do for 2023 regulations?

1 year later and the Baby Boom has yet to fly.

Great presentation !

I drove past the end of Heathrow 27L just as Concorde took off. The vibrations were incredible. Our home had huge plate glass windows that vibrated with the sonic boom every day.

Another thing is that Boom has been advertising routes on their website that the Overture doesn't have the range for like SYD to LAX

I'm not quite sure that naming the company BOOM was such a smart decision. BOOM is not generally a desired noise to associate with commercial planes, not to mention the desire to engineer away most of the sonic boom hinderance. Having said that, i do like to see some new crafts with unique designs, i hope to see an age of airships again.

Great video as usual , only airframe I know of w/ different engines would be the USAF B-36, six turnin four burnin as it was known

Perhaps already mentioned but the B-36 had both propeller and jet engines. Maybe not what you had in mind.

I have always felt ~Mach 3 or about 2000+ MPH. Also trans Pacific range. It came down to economics. At those speeds, you can double the number flights. Half as many pilots per flight. Also twice as many flights per airplane. I think Mach 3 flights from the the US to Japan could easily command good premiums. Add in savings from double the flights, would probably make it worth while.

Supersonic Aircraft have one major problem: Every bit of aircraft (and engine) design is currently going towards lower fuel consumption and lower climate impact - and since you can't change physics, supersonic flight will always be MUCH worse in these aspects. Also using SAF is a cheap excuse, that most people seem to just repeat without questioning it. SAF do not mean you have not climate impact. It still has a considerable climate impact, while being expensive to generate.

I'm happy to see your enthusiasm. Too many people sneer at great ideas. Looking back to history, some of the wildest ideas made today's technology a reality. Seriously, howe many of us saw a business case and economic sense when the iPhone appeared?

17:26 Amazing photo!

I wonder if the engine that is being developed by Reaction Engines in the UK could be used for the Boom design. It would not have to fly into space like the Skylon design but it might work... just saying...

Hi Mentour, thanks for making this video. I have been saying this online for months. Their scaled demonstrator now doesn't even look like the new design so how valid with the data be? And mimicking the B-2707-300 with those draggy engine pods? I would love to see another SST as I loved my Concorde flight in 1999. It was awesome to see the curvature of the Earth from 60,000' and to sit in the cockpit chatting with the pilots and Flight Engineer. The premature retirement of Concorde was forced by Airbus pulling the Type and Airworthiness Certificates because they could. This is unheard of for a manufacturer. Boeing still supports their airliners from the '60s and 70s. I suspect the problem was that Concorde dominated the First Class trans Atlantic market (soaking up 800 seats per day) and any airframe manufacturer has to sell First and Business to its customer because that is where all the profit is made. At the US major I worked for, if BusinessFirst on our trans Atlantic DC-10s was 75% full, the aircraft was paid for. All the rest of BF, economy and the freight was pure profit. That's how important this was. They weren't making much money from Concorde support and Air France made it quietly known that they wouldn't mind letting it go and being government owned at the time, had the influence to support Airbus in this. Not great for BA who had just refurbished 5 of their aircraft with new interiors, Kevlar liners and other upgrades. Reportedly they went to Airbus with a plan to go it alone but Airbus said 'Not at any price'. As for profitability, it made more than half a billion pounds in profit from the 5 aircraft in regular service. They were clever with using charters and round the world trips but across the Atlantic BA was profitable. It worked in its own division from 1982 so was not cross subsidised in any way. This is documented in numerous books and other sources and as BA is a public company, can be verified. Air France struggled with profitability with it and their mainline airline for years. The development costs are a separate issue as quite a few airliners never made back their costs (DC-10, L-1011,VC-10) but were profitable to operate. (No manufacturer charges back the development costs to a customer except a small portion in the sales price.) The major achievement for Concorde was being able to supercruise (fly supersonic without afterburner) for 3+ hours at Mach 2.0 something no other aircraft civil or military has ever matched. The supercruising bit is critical and supersonic aircraft require low bypass or turbojet engines as they need the high exhaust gas velocity. This means noise. Rolls Royce pulling out is almost fatal. There is no engine in sight and engines take up to 10 years to develop. The Olympus 593 was the most thermally efficient turbojet ever produced and its SFC is still impressive today. At 30,000lb dry and 38,000lb wet it is head and shoulders above anything available now and ever surpassed the J-58 in the SR71 by some distance. The dry figure is critical for supercruising. The Olympus' clever inlet and exhaust system produced 60% of the thrust at Mach 2.0 with the core providing the rest. You can find more about this amazing aircraft here www.heritageconcorde.com/ Best books are by Christopher Orlebar, Brian Trubshaw and Neil Kelly Concorde solved all the problems except noise and boom and I doubt that Overture will solve these either.

Watching those Concordes take off and land was a thing of beauty, Swan Lake danced in titanium.

Hello! I am a newcomer to your channel. I’m really enjoying it. Your videos are helping my extreme fear of flying. I am wondering why some aircraft have a shorter exhaust stream, and from others the stream appears to be very long. Your examples of good/poor CRM are so helpful to my career as a Registered Nurse! Thank you🎉

Is the use of afterburners inevitable for this sort of concept or would supercruise be feasable at Mach 1.7 with these types of engines?

What is about the bomber 4 burning and 6 turning? It had piston engines and jets two different types of power plants on the same plane

Thank you for sharing

People are reminiscing about Concorde The house my family has been in since the 1970's is under the usual outbound path from Heathrow, just where the Concorde flights usually split either south or west. We could identify the sound but they became route. Into the 1980s our house was doubly blessed by aviation, low(ish) demonstration and test flights by the then British Aerospace out of Dunsfold used to come in over the low population heathland and use our house, with it's distinctive colour roof, as an aim point and directly overhead. Later in the 90s and early 2000s I got to casually converse electronically with some of the people who had worked on the wing design and still worked, like I do, for the Ministry of Defence (people sometimes forget that a lot of the Concorde design and test work was done by military research and development establishments). Happy days, sat in the offices up on the hill during the Farnborough airshow with Airbuses up to the 380, various Boeings, An 225's, C17s and wotnots circling about overhead - and that's before we mention the Fast Jets. There was a fascinating (publicly available) book in the Farnborough library on the development process. IIRC it all began with some transatlantic fuel burn vs airspeed and flight time curves that showed that if you flew fast enough the extra fuel required to generate the airspeed was outweighed by that saved by the shorter flight time and the airspeed at which that happened was just within the technology practical for a civil aircraft at the time.

I really hope that Boom Supersonic succeeds.