If some people here think that bizjet owners will continue to ride their subsonic jets where an airline offers a Supersonic route, let me tell them bluntly that they are wrong.

Private aircraft offer so many benefits over scheduled service that I suspect they will survive for a long, long time, even in the face of supersonic service.

1) Overture and its ilk can only be viable on relatively long over-water routes. The vast majority of routes inside the US are inaccessible to them due to noise/sonic boom considerations unless low-boom tech actually happens or noise rules change.

2) Bizjets often provide access to alternative airports with less traffic, easier access to urban centers, etc. There are real reasons to prefer flying into Teterboro instead of JFK or LaGuardia, for example.

3) The ability to largely bypass the usual crowds and delays associated with airport security screening processes make bizjets attractive to some people (celebrities, corporate senior officers, etc.) who don't want to associate with normal people for security or personal reasons.

One of my stepbrothers has landed a job at Le Bourget, where Dassault has a standing army to caretake bizjets and their expensive passengers. Le Bourget - not Orly, not Charles de Gaulle. For the exact reasons specified above.

And I'm still convinced that rocketing suborbital to 7 km/s is the way to go, with a pair of turbofans for quiet landings. This can carry you to the other side of the world in barely 1 hour, with no sonic boom and even greener propellants if you want (hydrogen, but not necessarily).
 
@TomS :

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that bizjet will hit the scrapyard en masse, just that where there will be scheduled Supersonic services, bizjet owners will take them.

Obviously, business jet aviation presents much more advantages than just flying from city A to B.
 
Last edited:
@TomS :

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that bizjet will hit the scrapyard en masse, just that where there will be scheduled Supersonic services, bizjet owners will take them.

Obviously, business jet aviation presents much more advantages than just flying from city A to B.
I think that just like what happened in subsonic markets, rigidly scheduled supersonic airline services could actually open a niche for shared/leased/exclusively owned (I'm looking at you, Arabian Peninsula) SSBJs for people who want flexibility, privacy and exclusivity.
 
OK, really interesting: This doc released today says the cabin interior is 79 feet long. I assume this number is just for seating and excludes galley and lavs because it's impossibly short if it includes them. (Compare with 129 feet from the flight deck door to the aft pressure bulkhead in Concorde, including lavs and galley.)

That means that contrary to the pictures, seating probably has to be 3-wide -- 65 passengers (22 rows) gives a decent seat pitch of 43 inches. And maybe 88 pax is 4 abreast instead of 3, which also gives 22 rows and about 43 inches of pitch. Or perhaps the area ruling means some sections are 2-3 abreast and others are 3-4.

Also, height is "up to 6'5" (1.96 m) at the aisle" which suggests some of the aisle is less than that.

And there it is:
Boom’s announcement also suggests a change to Overture’s passenger accommodations. Earlier Boom renderings showed only one seat on each side of the aisle, but Scholl says that would change to a two-by-two layout in the front portion of the cabin, then two-by-one in the narrower fuselage above the wing. The jets are expected to have a range of 65 to 80 seats.
 
Consolidating some tweets from Boom about their collaboration with NG on special mission versions of Overture for military/government use.

ICYMI: We announced a market-expanding alliance with @northropgrumman to develop special mission variants for the U.S. Government and its allies. What does that entail?
Together with @northropgrumman, we will pursue use cases for Overture to support government and military operations that require rapid response, including quick-reaction surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, as well as mobility and logistics missions such as emergency medical and troop transport.

The "quick-reaction ISR" thing doesn't ring very true to me. ISR loiters but doesn't really need to get to its orbit ultra-fast (see RQ-4). Speed for a recce bird mostly matters for evading air defenses, but Overture is no SR-71. Same logic argues against C2.

The only potential winners, IMO, are on the mobility/logistics side. I could see a desire to have a few for rapid response forces -- the Tier 1 hostage rescue teams, for example. But unless you add in-flight refueling, Overture doesn't seem to have the legs for the task. Ground refueling stops for special operations flights are security problems and often diplomatic challenges as well.

Urgent logistics for relatively small, low-density parts and supplies? Maybe, but it seems like a rare use case. Medical Evacuation? Possible, but for now, we seem content to use existing slow transports (including C-130). Maybe some for intra-theater VIP airlift? COCOMs might appreciate shaving hours off their trips around their AORs.
 
Last edited:
There's potentially some edge cases for "tight window ISR," taking advantage of openings in A2/AD networks punched by suppression missions, but it's hard to see someone making a successful case for the money. There is the argument, most recently used in support of P-8, that getting to an orbit faster means an aircraft can spend a greater percentage of its total flight time on station, but the fuel burn for going past the speed of sound blows that out of the water no matter how efficient they can make the aircraft run in subsonic mode.
 
Two things about this "production" design worry me.

First, the engine location speaks of a strong yawing moment in the event of engine failure, and the tail fin is far too small to compensate. Consider how the Concorde and TU-144 had engines further in and still needed larger tail fins than this. The Hustler's fin was taller still. The only way this design could be approved is if engine reliability can be high enough to discount the both-on-one-side failure scenario, and the engines have sufficient excess thrust to shut down the one opposite the failed engine and complete the flight on two engines. We may live in hope that Boom are shooting for this.

Second, where is all the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to be sourced? This is not just an SR-71 style occasional operation, this is for a fleet of regularly scheduled long-distance airliners; that feedstock is going to have to keep on coming, 365 days a year, and in substantial volumes. Where are the industrial-scale production technologies and renewable resources to be turned over to SAF feedstock? At best the Overture can aim to be SAF-ready, but IMHO the reality is not going to happen. Still, it looks good in the sales brochure.

In passing, I note that those fantasy dreams of sonic boom mitigation over land have now evaporated. Just like Concorde, Overture will only be hitting Mach 1 over the sea, though its critical Mach number and overland cruising speed might be a touch higher. But does that leave a viable market for Boom? Perhaps only as a rapid-deployment military transport if Uncle Sam feels up to it (though why not shoot for Mach 2.2 in that case)? They might yet get to find out.
 
I think, at this stage, we should not pay too much attention to the details of the render but the overall configuration.
But indeed, the vertical looks quite small.
 
In passing, I note that those fantasy dreams of sonic boom mitigation over land have now evaporated.
FWIW, Boom never sought sonic boom reduction -- it was never in their plan. They just push for Mach 0.94 cruise over land for time (but not fuel) efficiency and aim to service mainly over-water routes. I don't know if there's really a market there but at least they are consistent.

NASA continues to push for boom reduction with the X-59. From the commercial side, Aerion is obviously dead but Exosonic still exists (apparently). And if X-59 actually works, you might see Gulfstream or someone else with a real track record try to commercialize that tech.
 
I think that even if Gulfstream or another major can't use X-59 technology to make it available for cruise across long distance but only for short hops over land, it will still be a market success.
With a Supersonic dash only, fuel size and mass increase will be mitigated, something that directly drives costs. IMOHO, customers will without doubts lined up to get the new vib and adapt their usage.

I see it as an error about to be fixed to have searched for a private long range supersonic cruiser as a market entry.
 
In passing, I note that those fantasy dreams of sonic boom mitigation over land have now evaporated.
FWIW, Boom never sought sonic boom reduction -- it was never in their plan. They just push for Mach 0.94 cruise over land for time (but not fuel) efficiency and aim to service mainly over-water routes. I don't know if there's really a market there but at least they are consistent.
My apologies, it is some of their rivals who have been making such claims. However, Boom are explicitly seeking a reduction: "Boom has stated that its plane will go supersonic only over water. Even so, the company is 'shaping the aircraft optimally for sonic-boom reduction,' according to its website." -- https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-new-supersonic-boom. And indeed, at the time of writing, if you follow the IEEE's link to the Boom site, that is what they are saying.
 
Last edited:
In passing, I note that those fantasy dreams of sonic boom mitigation over land have now evaporated.
FWIW, Boom never sought sonic boom reduction -- it was never in their plan. They just push for Mach 0.94 cruise over land for time (but not fuel) efficiency and aim to service mainly over-water routes. I don't know if there's really a market there but at least they are consistent.

NASA continues to push for boom reduction with the X-59. From the commercial side, Aerion is obviously dead but Exosonic still exists (apparently). And if X-59 actually works, you might see Gulfstream or someone else with a real track record try to commercialize that tech.
My apologies, it is some of their rivals who have been making such claims. However, Boom are explicitly seeking a reduction: "Boom has stated that its plane will go supersonic only over water. Even so, the company is 'shaping the aircraft optimally for sonic-boom reduction,' according to its website." -- https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-new-supersonic-boom

The Spectrum story links that sentence to a blog post by Boom. But I think the blog makes it clear that sonic boom reduction is pretty far down Boom's list of concerns. The full quote:

Community noise is a concern for every aircraft that takes flight, supersonic or subsonic. With Overture, we’re incorporating the latest noise-reducing technologies into the engine and airframe, and Overture will not change existing airport noise footprints. Sonic boom represents an additional noise source that we, as a supersonic manufacturer, have to address — and thanks to modern aerospace composites, we have more freedom in shaping the aircraft optimally for sonic-boom reduction. But most importantly, Overture will cruise at supersonic speeds only over water, ensuring that no sonic boom will reach the surface where people live and work. We also incorporate “coastal buffer zones” into our route planning, ensuring that Overture only cruises above Mach 1 once it reaches a safe distance from the shore of every landmass.

So, maybe some shaping. But not enough to even consider trying for supersonic over land.

 

So, maybe some shaping. But not enough to even consider trying for supersonic over land.

Yeah it’s so far down that it’s not something I was that aware they had even made a claim about it. It seems an odd stick to beat them with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/hharteveldt/status/1555948868159750144


With no suitable engine in the pipeline this project has no viable prospect of moving forward. Boom can't absorb the development costs of both a new airframe and new engine, and no engine maker will take that kind of risk for an aircraft with such a small market. And modifying an existing engine will likely not give this aircraft the performance figures they are looking for.

Edit: Also, if the project doesn't have a designated engine yet, then how did Boom come up with the performance figures that they presented to the media ? Did they just take an educated guess ?
 
Last edited:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/hharteveldt/status/1555948868159750144


With no suitable engine in the pipeline this project has no viable prospect of moving forward. Boom can't absorb the development costs of both a new airframe and new engine, and no engine maker will take that kind of risk for an aircraft with such a small market. And modifying an existing engine will likely not give this aircraft the performance figures they are looking for.
Huh - who would have thought...
 
Huh - who would have thought...

Me. That issue sunk Dassault's SSBJ back in 1999, and it hasn't been properly solved since then.
- airliner engine: too big and too slow, turbofan build for slow and economic cruise
- fighter engine: good size and performance, atrocious maintenance cost, short lifespan
- clean sheet engine: perfect, but expensive as frack.

With no suitable engine in the pipeline this project has no viable prospect of moving forward. Boom can't absorb the development costs of both a new airframe and new engine, and no engine maker will take that kind of risk for an aircraft with such a small market. And modifying an existing engine will likely not give this aircraft the performance figures they are looking for.


"L'étoile filante de Dassault" - Dassault's shooting star. That was discussing the SSBJ and was damn interesting reading. June 1999. When I read alberchico paragraph above, I'm reminded that I red very similar words in that magazine... 23 years ago. Heck I still have it at mom's old house, 100 miles south.
 
Last edited:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/hharteveldt/status/1555948868159750144


With no suitable engine in the pipeline this project has no viable prospect of moving forward. Boom can't absorb the development costs of both a new airframe and new engine, and no engine maker will take that kind of risk for an aircraft with such a small market. And modifying an existing engine will likely not give this aircraft the performance figures they are looking for.

Edit: Also, if the project doesn't have a designated engine yet, then how did Boom come up with the performance figures that they presented to the media ? Did they just take an educated guess ?

RR did some conceptual work. That's probably enough to get reasonably close estimates of performance. But without external funding for the engine design, Boom will be a bust.

Original source reporting here, BTW.

 
Gosh, same exact thing happened to Dassault. They kickstarted the SSBJ at EBACE 1997 in Las Vegas( bizness jets annual big show) hoping they could tweak the Rafale's M88. SNECMA also had done the CFM56 with a F101 core and yet...it wasn't enough. Same for tweaking big airliner turbofans, didn't worked. And the brand new engine option failed for the exact same reasons as above. Dassault found they couldn't pay the big expense for a potential market of much less than 500 airframes.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes "
 
Yes, yes, but Dassault-Aviation at the time was looking for a BJ. It is much more difficult to start with 500 private owners than it will be with airlines and leasing companies.

The priority for Boom is to de-risk the RoI for a Supersonic. That includes the engine. If they can come around a Block 1 solution with an existing tweaked engine (military obviously), then there will be enough incentives for engines makers to offer a solution.

I see RR involvement here as a Longshot strategy. Just make sure that they have enough knowledge to build the engine and then come back to them once you have sufficient orders to justify a business case.

For example, there is plenty of J-79 cores around with enough sustainability to start an adventure with it (J-79 are very popular as energy production turbines). You have a core easily rebuilt with stainless steel that would be a positive factor for long sustained supersonic flight and cheap replacement. Etc... Etc...
 
Last edited:
In light of the engine issue I am more than willing to forgo my more optimistic stance on the project and concede the naysayers are probably correct. I just cannot see how they get past the engine issue.
US military sponsorship for the rapid-response transport? A NASA X-plane hydrogen-fuelled hypercruise engine technology demonstrator? No, I'm not waiting up either.
 
Last edited:
Random thought. Earlier in the thread we discussed the GE Affinity engine, which is supposed to be optimized to around Mach 1.4. So, that got me wondering, now that Overture has dropped to Mach 1.7, would Affinity be anywhere close to suitable? Development stopped in May 2021, when Aerion died, but perhaps it got further along than RR's efforts.
 
If Boom can fly XB-1 and prove it's boom mitigation configuration and in parallel get an engine for the production aircraft, hopefully they won't go the way of Aerion and may have a chance. At least Boom has the XB-1 (hopefully?). Aerion was a vapor trail from the beginning and now they are gone. I am really surprised, I knew and worked way back with some of the Aerion execs at NG.
 
If Boom can fly XB-1 and prove it's boom mitigation configuration and in parallel get an engine for the production aircraft, hopefully they won't go the way of Aerion and may have a chance. At least Boom has the XB-1 (hopefully?). Aerion was a vapor trail from the beginning and now they are gone. I am really surprised, I knew and worked way back with some of the Aerion execs at NG.

I don't think Boom ever claimed boom mitigation? They only mentioned lower take-off noise due to lack of afterburners?
 
I saw that. Maybe they will work with them. I have often thought caddies learn more than any MBA...and this smacks of a golf deal where at the 19th-watering-hole some old money duffers fuss about air travel...want to out-do that kid Musk...and feel sorry for their oldest member-an aerospace man recovering from a stroke....etc. That's Boom's only hope-that and the oil sheiks flying them to LIV, right? Let us paupers get jet-lag on a 767.
 
Last edited:
I think a few people have been shown what they believe to be compelling information. To the point where commitments are being made.


This makes American the third airline to make some sort of offer on Overture (behind JAL and United). But I don't think any of them are firm orders. United's contract is described as a "non-refundable deposit" but we don't know how much money is actually involved. The eventual order will only be executed only if Overture meets United's "safety, operating and sustainability requirements." Not having a viable engine is going to blow holes in that, as is not being able to fly them on 100% biofuel as promised.

IMO, These are FOMO (fear of missing out) tokens, not hard and fast commitments. I suspect there are financial incentives to put some money down now but they still have a very long way to go to actually flying in rev service.

The big problem for Boom is that the money they need now is shifting from the really speculative VCs who are willing to throw (relatively) small money at a bunch of very high-risk projects in hopes that they will have a stake in one big winner. Now they need money in amounts that only comes from investors who aren't willing to lose that much all in one hit and are going to do a lot more due diligence before they pony up the cash.
 
Last edited:

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom