back to article Boom's XB-1 jet nails supersonic flight for first time

The US civilian aviation sector has achieved what Concorde managed half a century ago – piloted supersonic flight in a domestically built jet. More than 20 years since the supersonic airliner last flew, Boom Supersonic took its XB-1 demonstrator aircraft to Mach 1.122 in the same airspace where US pilot Chuck Yeager broke the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    USA USA USA

    Smaller than Concorde

    Slower than Concorde

    Later than Concorde

    Wow the USA is really excelling.

    MAGA MAGA MAGA

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: USA USA USA

      And only 20% of the range - assuming that it achieves the range in the brochure AND assuming a brand new supersonic aircraft gets the same ETOPS rating from the FAA as a 787 - it might just about be allowed to fly across the Gulf of Mexico Cuba America

      1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

        Re: USA USA USA

        Not sure where you get 20% of range from. Its irrelevant for the demonstrator and Overture should have comparable range to Conky.

        "Overture is designed to fly 4,250 nautical miles. At this max range, Overture can fly nonstop on routes like New York to Frankfurt or Tokyo to Seattle."

    2. Zolko Silver badge

      Re: USA USA USA

      and they even had to use a French-made Mirage F1 as chase-plane. Or is that an homage ?

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: USA USA USA

      This is the test model aircraft for proving the design. I guess it's the equivalent of the 1954 Fairey Delta 2, which was also slower, smaller and with a fraction of the range but did much of the testing and development flying for Concorde.

      1. Alfie Noakes

        Re: USA USA USA

        ...so by 2040 we can look forward to the first commercial flights, although not in the UK, as Millipede will have banned planes and Heathrow runway 3 will be a solar farm ;)

        1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

          Re: USA USA USA

          As it should be if we want to have a hope in hell of staving off climate change.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: USA USA USA

            "As it should be if we want to have a hope in hell of staving off climate change." - Gordon 10.

            I'm old enough to remember the climate "experts" saying there was no point building the Thames Barrier because the whole of London would be 10 metres underwater by the year 2000 due to the melting Ice Caps. Which means that the building I am sitting in, in not-quite-sunny Eastbourne, should also have been underwater by now.

            And yet, somehow, photographs of Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings piers all show sea levels to be where they were TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

            I don;t know about you Mr 10, but I think I see a slight error in their predicitions...

            (Anon because my employer is a True Believer in the climate scare money-making machine and takes a dim view of the worker drones voicing any other opinion)

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Petty

    Do we get petty here in the UK and stop it from going supersonic close to our shores like the is did to Concorde?

    1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

      Re: Petty

      Of course! NIMBY is not US-only any more. Maybe, in my life time, we will see supersonic aircrafts which don't boom (lowercase b here). Technique, math and tests already proved it works, the rest is a question of money and possibly politics.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Petty

        It has a range of <1000nm so to reach our shores they would need to install their own airbases in Canada, Greenland and Iceland

        1. IGotOut Silver badge

          Re: Petty

          Well, they are all US territories now. C'mon as if he doesn't want Iceland as well now. Make cheap burgers great again!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Petty

            He gets confused and orders the invasion of Aldi

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Petty

              > He gets confused and orders the invasion of Aldi

              But that's forgivable as it's only a Lidl mistake

            2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

              Re: Petty

              > He gets confused and orders the invasion of Aldi

              And Aldi does what Aldi does: Serve all customers!

            3. ChrisElvidge Silver badge

              Re: Petty

              Shouldn't that be the invasion of Bejam?

        2. that one in the corner Silver badge

          Re: Petty

          Range of less than a thousand nanometres?

          Might need a few more refuelling stops just to get to Canada!

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Petty

          1000 nm (nano metres)? That would require 192 million airbases within the length of one XB-1.

          Methinks they meant either nmi or NM, either of which stand for Nautical Miles. However, nm is used (in error) by a surprising number of sources to mean Nautical Miles.....

          1. Gary Stewart Silver badge

            Re: Petty

            Yeah, it does mean nautical miles. The guys(?) talking about nanometers were referencing their reproductive appendages. See, I can be funny too.

            1. Tim99 Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: Petty

              3 x 10^8 ?

            2. Jonathon Green
              Coat

              Re: Petty

              “ The guys(?) talking about nanometers were referencing their reproductive appendages.‘

              Measured with a manometer?

              1. that one in the corner Silver badge

                Re: Petty

                > Measured with a manometer?

                76 cm - well, one doesn't want to boast.

            3. that one in the corner Silver badge

              Re: Petty

              > The guys(?) talking about nanometers were referencing their reproductive appendages

              If you're going to react like that to commentards having fun with misspelt/ambiguous/daft wording then you really aren't going to be happy when someone wonders how much natural gas can be measured by a nano-meter.

        4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Petty

          It has a range of <1000nm

          Er, you do realise that the plane which flew this week is a ⅓-scale test version? With one seat?

          The actual production aircraft is designed to have 4500nm range and 60-80 seats.

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Petty

      Suspect the easiest way to achieve that will be to require it to land at a UK airport as a condition of using UK airspace. Naturally, like the Americans did initially that airport probably needs to be a bit out of the way and not Heathrow.

    3. Gary Stewart Silver badge

      Re: Petty

      They did it in the US too and for the exact same reason which I'm sure you already know. Losing that limitation is one of the reasons why there is interest from Boom and NASA in significantly reducing the sound wave pressure that hits the ground. Opening up overland super sonic flights would greatly increase revenue possibilities both in the US and Europe and might even lower ticket prices (not to worry, I won't be holding my breath on that one).

  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Well done to Boom

    Of course the real question is not "Did it do it" but "how loud was it while doing it" ?

    In theory less thrust spent making noise --> more thrust pushing it along --> smaller engines on the real thing.

    BTW the Firebee II drones over Vietnam were supersonic with a thrust level ~50% of launch weight (from a wing pylon on a Hercules) excluding a big-ass rocket booster to punch them through the sound barrier first.

    Not an option for a viable commercial biz jet.

    The joker in the pack for all of these concepts is the engine.

    Time will tell if Boom can sort out a viable unit. The trouble is AFAIK no one makes pure large(ish) turbojets any more, even those on the old Phantoms and Ardvarks were low bypass ratio turbofans.

    If successful they will have a true USP. X-->Y at > M1 with passenger > 1. Nothing exists in this space at this time.

    1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

      Re: Well done to Boom

      "how loud was it while doing it?"

      Where's the kaboom?

      1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: Well done to Boom

        Behind the plane. You'd only really wonder where it was if you were in the plane.

    2. Gary Stewart Silver badge

      Re: Well done to Boom

      I fairly certain that all jet engine makers that sell to military air force aircraft manufacturers around the world still make all kinds of jet engines. High bypass, low bypass, no bypass (OK maybe just a little), all of them.

    3. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: Well done to Boom

      This. I join John here in congratulating Boom, because this is a great step ahead, especially if, when the scale model hits M1.7, the bangs are negligible (or non-existing).

      The engine is indeed the important bit, and interestingly, none of the big names in this space are interested (at least officially and openly). The Overture will have engines from an obscure name, which ought to be interesting to watch.

      Looking forward to seeing more progress on this! :-)

      1. PerlyKing

        Re: Engines from an obscure name

        According to their press release the "obscure name" is Florida Turbine Technologies:

        Boom has selected Florida Turbine Technologies, a business unit of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as its engine design team. FTT has leading supersonic engine design expertise, including key engineers among the team responsible for the design of the F-119 and F-135 supersonic engines that power the F-22 and F-35.

        Obscure, but maybe not inexperienced.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    80 passengers?

    Has someone done the math on this? Assuming they get their 80 passenger version up and running, what price a ticket to make this economically viable? That's assuming it's even environmentally accepted as a means of transport: it'll be a tough assignment for a PR company to 'sell' this in many countries.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. JimmyPage
      FAIL

      Re: 80 passengers?

      From memory it took hypergalactic accounting to make Concorde profitable. And that was only by "forgetting" the untold billions spent on R&D.

      A little like claiming Apollo 11 cost "a few million" to get to the moon by doing the same.

      Let's not fool ourselves here. If this turns a profit, it will be because the Musks of this world are paying $100,000 a ticket.

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        The Olympus engines used by Concorde were also meant for the RAF's supersonic TSR-2 military aircraft, which got canned by the British Government father day in favour of the USA's F-111 (IIRC). They had a really expensive engine with nothing to put to on...

        "The TSR-2 was to be powered by two Bristol-Siddeley Olympus reheated turbojets, advanced variants of those used in the Avro Vulcan. The Olympus would be further developed and would power the supersonic Concorde."

        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

        1. collinsl Silver badge

          Re: 80 passengers?

          The Olympus was indeed used in Concorde, but as you said yourself it was used in the Vulcan and then went on to be a marine powerplant as well, powering many naval ships. It's also used as a gas turbine engine in powerplant applications, as well as a standby generator for nuclear power plants (to ensure they have electricity in the event of a grid failure to control the nuclear element still) and on oil rigs as a powerplant.

          So plenty of applications really, hardly "nothing to put it on" - it's not like someone would make a whole supersonic airliner based on an engine sitting around unused anyway. Plus, I thought Concorde development started before they canned TSR-2.

          1. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: 80 passengers?

            Yes, the Concorde project was well under way before TSR-2 was canned. The afterburning Olympus (By Bristol out of R-R1) was picked for Concorde due to it being the most powerful domestic engine available on either side of the channel and also was already being developed with super cruise capability in the TSR-2. Concorde & TSR-2 being both Government funded basically allowed pushing the latest military engine design into a commercial airliner to (a) save a vast pile of development cash and (b) make it a viable proposition only four years after the first transtlantic jet flights! (Comet-4 & 707 in 19582)

            You're also correct with the Marine & Static implementations, these were in parallel development with the aircraft engines because gas turbines can directly power anything previously using boiler+steam turbine sets plus they could go from cold start to full power in a fraction of the time.

            1 Bristol & SNECMA collaborated on Concorde engine development, before R-R bought out Bristol.

            2 Piston engined airliners were still carrying freight transatlantic in 1962.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        "And that was only by "forgetting" the untold billions spent on R&D."

        When working on a project that leads to a product/service, one has to analyze two things separately. There's the R&D and then there's the incremental cost of the product. With the Apollo program, there was a tremendous amount of basic research done (science) to be able to do the engineering. That science may not have wound up in the finished product, but still has an enormous amount of value on its own. Of course, there needs to be an ROI on the R&D, but that's different than the costing for the other half. It can even come to pass that the R&D leads to something that pays for all of it that is different than the intended product. The product still needs to earn a profit to keep doing it.

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge

          Re: 80 passengers?

          Indeed, You could argue the entire R&D effort since the 1800s was needed to provide the Apollo program starting point.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: 80 passengers?

            "Indeed, You could argue the entire R&D effort since the 1800s was needed to provide the Apollo program starting point."

            I love the "Connections" videos. Hampster did a series as well as the ones by James Burke. Engineering is mainly standing on the shoulders of those who came before. I learned that early on. There's no point in trying to create things from first principles if you can find something that's already going to fit the bill. Just file off the serial numbers and let the boss think you are really clever.

      3. that one in the corner Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        "the Musks of this world are paying $100,000 a ticket"

        What, you don't think Musk will be travelling for free on his transcontinental Starship?

        1. blackcat Silver badge

          Re: 80 passengers?

          Reminds me of The Marching Morons.

          https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: 80 passengers?

      >That's assuming it's even environmentally accepted as a means of transport:

      That's it's big advantage - by using more fuel you demonstrate that you aren't one of these woke liberal hippies. It's the airborne equivalent of rolling coal.

      1. Wellyboot Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: 80 passengers?

        That depends on where you draw the line. People are environmentally unacceptable, breathing out all that CO2 24 hours a day.

        It's the one with the built in KO2 rebreather.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 80 passengers?

      Assuming they get their 80 passenger version up and running, what price a ticket to make this economically viable?

      Boom claims the ticket costs will be at the same level as current business class, so ~$5000 for a transatlantic crossing. Time will tell...

      1. The Dogs Meevonks Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: 80 passengers?

        Only $5000... that's great if you don't mind only making it about a 3rd of the way across the Atlantic in their plane...

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: 80 passengers?

          It has 4800 miles range, that's easily New York to London.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: 80 passengers?

            "It has 4800 miles range, that's easily New York to London."

            Right now, the range is only a design goal. The reality is a single passenger craft with a significantly shorter flight distance.

    5. PCman999

      Re: 80 passengers?

      The low passenger count never gets proper attention in any Boom Overture article - journalism died a long time ago and most news today is just lress releases or propaganda - even the most obvious or basic who-what-where-when-why-how questions never get asked nor answered.

      While I don't understand why the Overture is designed for only ~80 instead of 300-400, the fact that it has more than 100 orders and the military sniffing around for a potential reaction force version, makes me hold back my criticism - obviously the airlines know what will work, right? And it's probably a given that the return of supersonic flight will still not include the average flyer.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        > and the military sniffing around for a potential reaction force version

        60 passengers that’s what 6~10 tonnes of payload, thinking of the Vulcan, that’s probably interchangeable with a bomb bay… shame about the range…

    6. fpx

      Re: 80 passengers?

      It's an engineering marvel that will never be economical to run.

      First, even if the ticket price were "just" 5k, there's a limited set of business and first class travelers willing to splurge on saving a bit on travel time. When you have the choice of 5 hours squeezed into a tight seat versus 10 hours in a fold-flat bed, and the ability to charge those extra 5 comfortable hours as overtime, what do you choose?

      Second, you are saving significant time only on non-stop flights, and there will be few of them. If you have to connect, most of the time saved evaporates. Now the total time is 8 hours instead of 10, for triple the price.

      Third, because of the factors above, only a few number of these jets will be built. Economies of scale will not apply, making the plane more expensive to build and run. All those airline options will evaporate when Boom will be unable to keep its promises -- just like Branson's pre-orders did.

      This jet will certainly find a niche as a toy for the super-rich, though. "Nyah, nyah, your puny Gulfstream can't even go supersonic!"

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        You assume those seats would be tight squeeze? What is your source?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 80 passengers?

          Have you seen the size of American business travellers' arses?

      2. CAPS LOCK

        Re: 80 passengers?

        " there's a limited set of business and first class travelers willing to splurge " - Don't forget that the people who fly on these kind of things are NEVER paying for their own ticket. It's usually the tax payer who is picking up the bill.

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: 80 passengers?

        "Third, because of the factors above, only a few number of these jets will be built. Economies of scale will not apply, making the plane more expensive to build and run."

        It also means that there won't be enough flights on the schedule. If you have to wait until Tues, it makes more sense to book and leave Monday morning on a non-stop flight and be there sooner if there's a time critical need to go in the first place. I've had the same issue with Amtrak trains. I'd rather take the train, but one departure a day arriving at my destination at 3am isn't likely going to work. If there are only 3 departures each week and they don't dovetail with the reason for my travel, I wind up spending more nights in a hotel and that can put the cost too far out of reach.

        A big reason for going fast is due to the need to be somewhere in a hurry and at short notice. I don't think that the comfort level is going to be anywhere near what can be had in business class on sub-sonic aircraft. The cabin is going to be tiny.

  5. iron

    > Concorde did indeed require billions of dollars in government funding

    No it didn't. It required £1.5 – 2.1 billion in Pounds Sterling and Francs, no smelly dollars involved.

  6. MachDiamond Silver badge

    With the arrival of the information and internet, the need for high speed trans-Atlantic crossings is way down. I never did get to fly on Concorde, but it was a bucket list item strictly for fun, not business. There's a big question surrounding whether there's enough people going for fun can support such a venture. If they don't fly everyday, it doesn't work well for business since the reason to use it would be to get somebody a long distance quickly. If that's not for a couple of days, they might as well go right away on something slower. Just like me, taking a supersonic flight might be a bucket list item for many and once it's crossed off, they'd be unlikely to go again.

    1. may_i Silver badge

      The closest I ever got to Concorde was when my flight was next in line to take off at Heathrow. Even inside our MD80, the noise as Concorde opened up her engines to take off was incredible. I was lucky enough to be on the correct side of the aeroplane to watch the take off as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I was at Donington Park at the Monsters Of Rock festival when it took off from East Midlands airport - virtually next door. It was impressively loud, even to a heavy metal fan.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          "It was impressively loud, even to a heavy metal fan."

          Posted AC after the admission of being a heavy metal fan?

      2. herman Silver badge

        The closest I ever got to a Concorde was when flew over slowly on a marketing trip in the 1970s. It was a beautiful plane to see flying.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      With the arrival of the information and internet, the need for high speed trans-Atlantic crossings is way down.

      That's not actually the case. Business travel is now back to levels greater than those pre-pandemic. That's why airports are saturated again, and airlines are desperate for more aircraft. The Boeing crisis is affecting them badly.

      1. that one in the corner Silver badge

        >> With the arrival of the information and internet, the need for high speed trans-Atlantic crossings is way down.

        > That's not actually the case.

        Well, yes, it is. More people than ever before have learnt how to take part in video calls and other collab-at-a-distance tools since 2019. So the need has, logically, lessened.

        > Business travel is now back to levels greater than those pre-pandemic.

        Well, there you spot the problem. Is that business travel *needed* or is it just *desired*?

        Back to the old question about whether you're sending execs out on jollies or troubleshooters out to fix messes due to bad decisions made by execs sitting around the pool with too many margaritas inside them.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          More people than ever before have learnt how to take part in video calls and other collab-at-a-distance tools since 2019. So the need has, logically, lessened.

          Not necessarily. Maybe those new collab tools have just replaced pure phone meetings? They certainly did for my work, but didn't have much effect on our business travel.

    3. ChrisC Silver badge

      Was fortunate enough to tick Concorde off my personal bucket list back in the 90's when it used to participate in the International Air Tattoo - departing mid-show to go do one of its "out and back" flights over the Bay of Biscay. Whilst the passenger cabin was full, and the galleys stocked to bursting point with food and drink so that we'd be able to experience the full in-flight service, the lack of any hold baggage made the take off performance even more sprightly than she was capable of - the relentless acceleration along the runway is unlike anything I've ever experienced on any other airliner, and once we started the climb, the combination of the continued acceleration and the angle of climb made it feel like I was lying flat on my back in the seat.

      After that, the bulk of the flight was notable mainly for just how un-notable it all felt - there we were cruising along serenely, munching down on a rather nice lunch, washed down with some rather nice champagne, with only the bulkhead indicator providing any clue that we were doing all of this at a speed faster than most people will ever get to travel at. That high up, with so little turbulence to contend with, and with the noisy bits of the engines so far towards the rear of the fuselage, it was a genuinely far smoother and quieter ride than I've had on anything other than perhaps a Dreamliner.

      So whilst I've never been in the sort of position work-wise or personally to have been able to manage anything more exotic than premium cattle class flights in terms of journeys where I was trying to get from A to B, and would therefore almost certainly never have flown Concorde on its normal routes even if it were still flying today, I count myself very fortunate to have joined the relatively exclusive ranks of people who did get to experience what it was like to fly the big white bird, and almost 30 years later it remains utterly unforgettable.

      1. druck Silver badge

        I'll always regret never going on one of those at the RIAT, it was £400 for a quick subsonic hop and £800 to go supersonic over the Bay of Biscay. It seemed a lot back then, until they announced that Concorde was being retired, then you realised it was ridiculously cheap for something which you would never be able to experience again, as all the transatlantic flights were fully booked up, regardless of cost.

        1. anothercynic Silver badge

          Ditto... I had several opportunities to experience Concorde betwixt Paris and New York thanks to a relationship I had with Air France, but silly hubris of youth, like "Concorde flies to New York, and I'd have to change there to fly to Chicago" stopped me from ever paying for a flight, even though it would've been a first class return by normal standards.

          It used to be enormous fun and a great thrill to arrive into CDG early enough to deplane and do the bus tour from one side of CDG to the other via the Concorde gate... watching her get prepped and then, around 25 minutes later, see her taxi to the runway and roar off towards New York. I kick myself every time I see the sad BA Concorde parked at the maintenance hangar at LHR. She deserves so much better than growing algae and lichen and moss on her skin, and then getting the occasional wash from some sympathetic BA engineers.

  7. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Don't get too excited

    The flight test was with a single seat test aircraft. Still a long way from a certified plane that can take passengers.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Our discipline and methodical approach

    "that made a safe and successful first supersonic flight possible."

    How very old fashioned.

  9. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    My opinion

    Why is there so much negativity on that here? Jokes fine, but it is a great achievement. And great first step.

    Concorde went out of usability, for one it was never profitable, and it was not safe enough. Add fuel prices and a few new technical requirements in there and you end up with a plane which was fine as a technical demonstration for two decades.

    Now they go again, with todays tech, with better fuel economy, with less noise too. The sonic boom of the XB-1 seems to be less than others, including Concorde, maybe they can get is even lower with future versions.

    All that negativity here is, actually, unamerican. Even as a German I find this strange, 'cause 'muricans are definitely on the "You have this idea? Looks good! Great! Go for it! I hope it will be successful!" side.

    Or.... Is this just envy from non-muricans? (<- that will trigger tons of down votes, if not the first sentence triggered it already...)

    1. Gary Stewart Silver badge

      Re: My opinion

      Another possible advantage of the Boom aircraft is to be able to fly at supersonic speeds over the continental US due to the greatly reduced sound level of the sonic boom. This is something that the Concord was and never would be never able to do. And as far as I know it was not allowed to fly at supersonic speed anywhere over Europe either. NASA has an experimental aircraft that uses essentially the same methods, as I'm sure all of the consistent visitors to this site knows well. It is an interesting technology that will need a lot more testing to see if it can fulfill that possibility although I was also dismayed that no one word was said about the sonic boom's sound level.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        It wasn't supposed to fly supersonic over land in Europe, but did so over the sea, the Channel and the Bristol Channel. The people of South Wales and North Devon can attest.

    2. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: My opinion

      I notice it's a British thing. They have an excellent idea, then go "oh this is useless" and drop it. I've never understood that.

      So America has to take the idea and develop it, like the axial-flow jet engine itself, the catapult for aircraft carriers, the associated "meatball" landing system, etc etc.

      1. Ali Dodd

        Re: My opinion

        more that we have an excellent idea and either the US nicks it (Computers, Jet Engine, Radar, etc) or we have a great idea and are too short-sighted or for political reasons it gets the funding cut - Supersonic Flight, UK orbital rocketry (seriously the only country to put a working satellite into orbit and lose the ability ON THE SAME DAY??).

      2. blackcat Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        ""meatball" landing system"

        This was actually a British invention.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Goodhart

      3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        The economics and laws are different: getting funding for the MVP beloved of Silicon Valley is almost impossible in Europe and the idea of being able to scale up quickly to dominate the market doesn't make sense. And a safety-first culture tends to lead to overengineering before any product is launched, whereas US companies will often happily pay to see things crash and burn and equally as happily go bankrupt if claims against them stack up too much. They can walk away and start a new company immediately.

      4. 42656e4d203239 Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        >> the catapult for aircraft carriers

        Err technically, yes, anything up to the hydraulic cat. was invented by the good old US of A however it was us Brits who invented the steam catapult, as used by all sensible navies from the '50s until very recently.

        I guess the US Naval Institute knows what it is talking about..."Despite the leading role that U.S. naval aviation has played, the steam catapult was a British, not an American, invention"

      5. that one in the corner Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        > the axial-flow jet engine itself

        Hmm, anything to do with the UK admitting the US had a larger, and less war-damaged, industrial base available? So handed over all the work so far, after agreeing that we'd get back all the fixed & improvements?

        Which the Yanks strangely forgot to do.

        > So America has to take the idea

        Take. Good word.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: My opinion

          UK did focus on centrifugal flow jets because with the metallurgy available these could be made more reliable and longer time before self destructing. But it was Ohain that pioneered axial flow, in Nazi Germany.

          1. blackcat Silver badge

            Re: My opinion

            This.

            I believe the early German axial jets had a life barely into double digit hours before major overhaul was needed or, more commonly, total failure.

            The early British jets had a vastly longer design life.

            However I did love the little pull start petrol engine in the front of the early German engines.

    3. druck Silver badge

      Re: My opinion

      Concorde went out of usability, for one it was never profitable, and it was not safe enough.

      The British Airways Concordes did operate profitably pre-911. They were also very well maintained and very safe, unlike the Air France operation.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: My opinion

        It was unlucky for Air France that it was their aircraft that had a tyre destroyed by debris left on the runway. This was an accident waiting to happen and could have easily have been BA.

        The vulnerability of fuel tanks to high speed chunks of rubber existed on all Concordes, whether overweight or the conditions or not. Or with landing gear bogies correctly assembled.

        1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

          Re: My opinion

          That accident is why the paranoia level of any possible debris got EXTREMLY high. They prefer to have countless "possible debris" alarm, close the runway and check and find nothing than one which could cause such an accident again.

          At 300 km/h (or 180 mp/h?) anything is problematic, even a 1 inch screw. The Concorde accident was cause by a 43 cm by 3 cm piece 1.4 mm thick. No plane today could take that at 300 km/h. Only luck would decide how bad it would play out.

  10. Roland6 Silver badge

    > Concorde went out of usability, for one it was never profitable, and it was not safe enough.

    Until the Paris incident, which sealed its fate, Concorde had an excellent safety record.

    Concorde was operationally highly profitable, but like all things, it was wearing out and maintenance and replacement costs were going to exceed profits…

    Yes it is a scientific and engineering achievement to design an airframe (and engines) that reduces noise and increase efficiency, however, this is only a single seater version, Concorde from the outset was designed to carry 92 to 128 passengers (depending on seating configurations). Hence it is too early to say whether this will be significantly more fuel efficient and quieter. It is also too early to say what it will require operationally, which may preclude it from using many airports.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Also, is there any information on the higher maintenance costs of supersonic vehicles? My understanding is that pressure waves can stress even the most resilient of materials, but I'm happy to be corrected on this.

  11. Val1101

    Sonic Boom

    Can we assume there was no sonic boom?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sonic Boom

      No. Physics says that there will always be one. The trick is to smear it out to be less noticeable.

      1. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

        Re: Sonic Boom

        I know :D. The trick was even visible on NASA wind canal show-offs. At least for the NASA version of supersonic, not entirely sure about the XB-1 here. By making the nose even more spiky, and getting thinker in steps instead of one cone, the boom is "divided" it into multiple smaller booms. Which partly cancel out each other in math, but I cannot remember whether reality in tests followed that cancel-out math, would have to check again for the current status.

        (Why AC here? You are not wrong and added something useful)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sonic Boom

          (Why AC here? You are not wrong and added something useful)

          Who was that masked commentard?

  12. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

    LOL! Where have I seen THIS super-duper-ultra-secretive now-almost-30 year old supersonic aircraft design before? LOL HA HA!

    This is soooooo OOOOOOOOLD that I should eat a chocolate hat or three to calm my laughter!

    Nobody important uses these designs anymore for hypersonic planforms! We've moved on to Terahertz waveguide-based Electrotatics propulsion and GWASER-based propulsion systems these days! Why the heck would I need to use WINGS and JET ENGINES to fly anymore? We got MUCH BETTER technology than this antiquated hunk of 30+ year old junk!

    V

    1. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Nurse! Nurse! He's off his meds again!

      1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

        Here! I will give you a hint .... I have PHOTOS (one of which I took MYSELF with it's glorious high-rez photo hanging on my office wall!) of "The Green Lady" (i.e. a ZIP-fuel aka Boranes powered) Hypersonic aircraft flying since 1996. Then there is "Spearfisher" which is a 15,000 MPH (Mach 27) hypersonic running since 2003 in testing and in operation since 2006 --- Which just flew over France scaring air traffic control a few weeks ago on the way to various middle-east locales but mostly does the East Asia/Russia/NK/China recon run. There's is also the SR-75 aka "Senior Citizen" and "Brilliant Buzzard" aircraft which is the parasite spaceplane and giant XB-70-like carrier aircraft running since 1987 in testing and operational since 1989. And we have the now almost 50 year old design "The Pumpkin Seed" which is a flattened rugby ball shaped near-space plane having various engine type configurations and running operationally since the 1980's and in testing since the 1970's!

        Add in "The Silent Ones" Electrostatics, the GWASER-powered deep-dark-black triangles and "The Giant Flying Propane Tanks" and that is about $70+ Billion USD over 40 years worth of research and development at TS:SCI (SAP/CAP) levels of secrecy! Some of these I have ACTUAL PHOTOS of from my secretive expensive-alcohol-and-steak-infused internal sources and ME taking a few of the photos myself! So there! I was being sarcastic FOR A REASON! A lot these designs are 30+ years old and in OPERATION since the 1980's!

        V

  13. Dom 3

    Concorde costs and profitability

    Although development costs were never recovered, neither were they for the USA's own 1 billion dollar SST programme.

    OTOH once somebody at BA figured out they needed to charge more, not less, it ran at a nice profit:

    https://www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde

  14. tr7v8

    The thing is that Concord & TSR2 had a lot of peripheral learning. Not just the core technology. I worked at RAE Farnborough at the time when Structures had a Concord there to avoid the Comet issue. Just across the road was National Gas Turbine Establishment doing lead edge engine research.

    This is what the USA does using massive military spending trickle down into other industries.

    The Air France accident wouldn't have happened if they'd implemented the recommendation for fuel tank protection. Also if the FOD hadn't have been there in the first place.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like