Maybe this has been discussed already but I don't understand how there were discussions on here saying Boom wasn't targetting quiet flight but simply using technology advances to be more efficient.

Now out of nowhere they go boomless? Did they change direction, seems they pulled it out of nowhere.

As we discussed, they seem to be talking about the totally normal but kind of obscure phenomenon of Mach cutoff. I have a sneaking suspicion they had forgotten about it until XB flew and they started noticing that their marginally Mach 1+ flights were inaudible on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this has been discussed already but I don't understand how there were discussions on here saying Boom wasn't targetting quiet flight but simply using technology advances to be more efficient.

Now out of nowhere they go boomless? Did they change direction, seems they pulled it out of nowhere.
I think it's an attempt to get supersonic over land without annoying the locals.

Also, the speeds you need to go for this are still in the worst of the transonic drag spike.
 
Present airliners have slowed down from Mach 0.85 to Mach 0.80 for fuel efficiency.
Only bizjets venture to Mach 0.94.
Boom wants to turn the tables but there is a non negligeable risk they get another CV-880 / CV-990 (mach 0.91).
Or Sonic Cruiser (Mach 0.98, remember).
Or that they go faster only to run into peak transonic drag (Mach 1.15 like that hold Handley Page SST from 1960).

Overall, Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1 background and past history are not encouraging. We shall see...
 
Last edited:
As we discussed, they seem to be talking about the totally normal but kind of obscure phenomenon of Mach cutoff. I have a sneaking suspicion they had forgotten about it until XB flew and they started noticing that their marginally Mach 1+ flights were inaudible on the ground.
Agreed.
 

Regards,
 

Regards,
Boom Aero isn't even mentioned in this article.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom