Yes. Because configuration wise, it's representative of what we were doing in the eighties which was much better aerodynamically than an F-105. Where it improves on the eighties tech is in terms of materials, propulsion, and being able to use cameras/spatial computing for the cockpit so one doesn't need the windshield and/or the lowering nose for vision cockpit vision, allowing for much better cockpit integration and lower weight. I'm sure there are other areas I'm missing, but the key is in getting the costs down compared to what was done before.Is it really a huge leap in aerodynamics over, say, the F-105 that went supersonic on its maiden flight in 1955?
Yes.Is it really a huge leap in aerodynamics over, say, the F-105 that went supersonic on its maiden flight in 1955?
Yes.
for example, in the 1970s, Nasa developed a supersonic supercritical wing, which greatly improves efficiency (lower drag, lower fuel burn).
The whole idea of shaping to reduce boom effects is something that wasn't even realized as possible until the late 1990s!
I thought they were? That super long nose looks like it's for boom reduction, for example.Remember that Boom is not doing shaping for sonic boom reduction. Their scheme is to take off and fly subsonic at partial thrust over land and only go supersonic outside the 12-mile limit.
The aircraft had a SAS system on board for first flight. It just wasn't active.FAA Clears Boom For XB-1 Supersonic Tests | Aviation Week Network
The special flight authorization is the first ever issued by the FAA for tests of a civil supersonic aircraft.aviationweek.com
As guessed earlier the lateral stability and AoA were problematic. It is then understandable that adding the SAS for the next flight takes them time. I am only wondering why it wasn´t part of the first flight configuration.
They may be doing some minor boom shaping efforts but it's not a significant part of the design now.I thought they were? That super long nose looks like it's for boom reduction, for example.
How is Boom dealing with the sonic boom?
When flying over land, Overture can fly significantly faster than subsonic commercial jets—about Mach 0.94, without breaking the sound barrier. This is about 20% faster than subsonic flight.
Globally, there are more than 600 mostly transoceanic routes on which Overture offers a compelling speedup without changes to today’s overland flight regulations.
Makes sense, the X59 needs to establish what the acceptable boom limits are before it's worth spending a lot of design time/$$ shaping to minimize boom.They may be doing some minor boom shaping efforts but it's not a significant part of the design now.
From their website FAQ:
Did Boom hire some of the former Aerion folks? Aerion provided nothing from the outset but I guess they were consistent? Depending how this plays out, we are Boom Supersonic, then I'll have the soup.Boom opens a "Giga factory*" (the size of regular boutique hangar shop**) that will start producing next year a plane that hasn´t been completed, flown, tested or certified (but get State support):
https://www.wral.com/story/boom-sup...sboro-bringing-2-400-jobs-to-region/21486650/
Humm, what´s your delusional level Tars?
Not fair, I can´t really gawk at it, Cooper.
*Notice that AW reports 200k sqft when it´s 25% less with 150k only dedicated to manufacturing. In case G. Norris reads these lines, I advise him to revisit the chapter on rounding numbers in his mathematics textbook.
**As an example, the giant production line of the A380 is rated at 1,6M sqft
Edit:
The video featuring the surrealistic CEO speech seems to have been deleted in no times.
Yes, their flight testing allows them to verify the computer model they developed, and that is a HUGE step forward.All joking aside (until next time), I would really like Boom to succeed, they flew their XB-1 and they need to complete their flight test program. I think we are at the cusp of a reasonable supersonic platform. Put the giga factory on-hold and finish testing at Mojave, really crunch the data and progress properly.
The problem is, they really need something like F101s. A CFM56 with a 2-stage or 3-stage fan some 55" in diameter, with an afterburner.Boom needs to seriously work with an engine maker and do not make the mistake of prematurely unveiling grandiose plans for the future, that will sink them just like Aerion.
The problem is that the F101s would be entirely too loud to operate from most airports. Any operators would either need a waiver, pay whatever fines there are per flight if that is an option, or figure out a way to quiet the engines if paying a fine per flight is not an option.@Scott Kenny : many airplane started their life with subpar engines, not fully adapted to their innovative design philosophy. I would tend to think that rationally nobody could care much that F101 engines are fitted to the earliest model. Customer will adapt to the exceptional abilities of the plane that would be a market breaker, leaving room for aggravated user constraints and overpriced seating.
Yes, their flight testing allows them to verify the computer model they developed, and that is a HUGE step forward.
They've made one test flight which achieved 238 knots. Given the completely different configuration proposed for Overture, I don't know how much validation that can provide.
They still have the predictions the computer made for the test article. If flight tests show that the predictions are lining up with the actual results, then it's likely to be accurate for the Overture as well.They've made one test flight which achieved 238 knots. Given the completely different configuration proposed for Overture, I don't know how much validation that can provide.
Who said one flight test would validate the model? No, it's going to take a lot of flights to validate the model, all the way into supersonic speeds.You are too kind with them and... Science. Nobody with its right mind would consider one single test flight as being a blank check to validate anything. Especially the one we were given to see. Especially with a startup that has produced nothing.
Must have missed that!And also that they do have their own plans for a new engine that is not an F101 and does not involve an afterburner. From this time last year:
Boom - FlyBy - Boom Announces Significant Overture Program Advances at Paris Air Show
Tier-one structure suppliers announced for Overture’s wing, fuselage, and empennage; Overture systems configuration revealed; Symphony™ design accelerated with engine architecture unveiled, and initial production partner signedboomsupersonic.com
Now, I'm also skeptical about whether they can actually pull off this engine but let's critique their actual plans, not ones we make up.
There is indeed a difference that I have myself been alerting on in the debate. Still, I would expect we understand that Producing an airplane is something different from manufacturing a single experimental airframe.And note that Boom has produced SOMETHING, their demo plane. Which flies. You're thinking of Aerion(sp?), another company that talked a lot of stuff for a supersonic transport and didn't even make a demo plane before running out of other people's money.
I'm still willing to give Boom a lot more credit than any of the other modern SST companies, because they built a demonstrator to validate their computer model.There is indeed a difference that I have myself been alerting on in the debate. Still, I would expect we understand that Producing an airplane is something different from manufacturing a single experimental airframe.
Garage build are not industrial products.
Interestingly it looked like Concorde (except the third engine) whilst they used the services of the wonderful ex Concorde engineer/regular genius Ted Talbot. A while after Ted pass away it went all Boeing 2707-esk. My guess is an old fellow from that project replaced him.I'm also oddly amused at how much their current proposed airframe looks like a 2707.