Boom Supersonic and Rolls-Royce have entered into an engagement agreement to explore the pairing of a Rolls-Royce propulsion system with Overture, the aircraft being designed for affordable supersonic passenger flights.
The engagement will involve teams from Boom and Rolls-Royce collaborating in engine-airframe matching activities for Overture.
Your questions answered: Supersonic airliners
February 1957: The supersonic jet Fairey Delta 2
The teams will investigate whether an existing engine architecture can be adapted for supersonic flight, while Boom’s internal team continues to develop Overture’s airframe.
“We’ve had a series of valuable collaborations and co-locations with Rolls-Royce over the past years to lay the groundwork for this next phase of development,” said Blake Scholl, Boom founder and CEO. “We look forward to building on the progress and rapport that we’ve already built with our collaboration as we work to refine Overture’s design and bring sustainable supersonic transport to passenger travel.”
According to Boom, a key area of the engagement will see both companies address sustainability in Overture design and operations, ensuring that Overture is compatible with a net-zero carbon future.
“We share a strong interest in supersonic flight and in sustainability strategies for aviation with Boom,” said Simon Carlisle, Director of Strategy, Rolls-Royce. “We’re now building on our valuable experience in this space as well as our previous work together to further match and refine our engine technology for Boom’s Overture.”
In 2016 Boom unveiled the XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator, a one third subscale prototype of a supersonic passenger airliner that was designed to cruise at Mach 2.2.
Originally dubbed Baby Boom, the demonstrator aircraft is scheduled to be rolled out in October this year with test flights starting in 2021.
According to Boom’s website, Overture is ‘progressing through the conceptual design phase’. It adds that certification will involve five flight test aircraft with expected roll-out in 2025 and type certification completed in 2029. Once operational, Boom anticipate airlines being able to offer fares similar to today’s long-haul, business-class travel. Japan Airlines and Virgin Group are future Overture operators, with 30 aircraft on pre-order.
I am all for progress, but do we REALLY need supersonic aircraft? Justification for their need and impact on the climate and upper atmosphere first, as an example. Odd how we seem to have managed well enough so far without them. Ever heard of Global Warming? Now that IS real-and coming nearer….
So we can spread COVID-19 and future pandemics more quickly?
Probably not the best use of talented engineering time!
My dad worked on Concorde for British Airways, so it is fondly remembered in our family (did you know they had to freeze the fuel to get enough in to make it across the pond?) However, repeating what has gone before seems a bit of a missed opportunity. The sonic boom is always going to limit the market for flights, but the prime business route is always going to be Europe-America, which is mostly over water. Going up into space, going as fast as possible as far round the Earth as desired, then back to Terra Firma, is a 21st century engineering challenge worth addressing. London to Sydney in a couple of hours!
I am fed up with air travel stuck at 0.85 mach. However, I fear the Boom Overture, will be too small & too noisy.
All business class airlines tend to fail, as the super rich/global elite, tend to travel with minions. The elite want to travel up front in a business/first, lie flat bed, with their nannies, kids, PAs, drivers, etc back in economy. A new supersonic airliner needs to have fifty lie flat seats at the front, with 60 economy seats at the back.
Also, is sonic boom mitigation doable at Mach 2.2? Clever shaping should allow no boom to reach ground level, but that probably limits speeds to Mach 1.4-1.6.
Hydrogen could be the fuel to appease ecohysteria worries.
A hydrogen fuelled supersonic design study was done by Langley Research Center, Virginia, in 1974. It would have had a 3800 nm mile range + reserves & cruised at Mach 2.7.
The UK’s previous experience with Supersonic flight (Concorde) on its own says that this is a waste of time unless the USA runs it. However, to tie our hands by “sustainability and Greenhouse gases” when our competitors do not care about these factors means that the USA / China/Japan and Russia will develop sensible designs at a fraction of the cost of the constrained design. Would be better as a final year project for students than an investment!
In answer to John Fulcher I would ask whether we need aircraft at all. They are simply a way of getting places faster and, that being the case the faster the better. Boom and RR are promising a ecologically sustainable aircraft and if they can achieve that then they deserve our fulsome support. As for Brian’s comment the answer is much the same – can you really see it making a measurable difference to the speed of pandemic spread? It could even be argued that smaller, faster aircraft could reduce the spread! As for engineering talent, a few exciting leading-edge-of-technology projects are what we need to enthuse more future engineers and increase our knowledge of all things engineering.
Can’t help but agree with Richard Jenvey. Part of the demise of Concorde was political jealousy. It is bad that the first satellite was not from the US and bad that the first man to orbit the Earth was not American. They crippled Concorde too because it was not American. Nothing hateful about that, it’s what any powerful nation would do. That awful accident in France just put the lid on it. The ‘managed so far’ argument could be applied to steam trains or the automobile. Yes we can still get around on horses (don’t forget, a having a horse is like leaving your engine running. You can’t switch it off when you are not using it).
If we are to have engineers and scientists then we must support the ones we have. Kids won’t want an engineering education unless they can see it has a future. Whether Overture ever takes off depends on political and public support. If we don’t do it someone else will and then we may see a brain drain towards the country that does do it. I am sure we already lose good people who are looking for a career in space travel or whatever. Is the UK going to be just a feed university or are we going to have an industry that engages the talent of tomorrow?
The answer to that question is that if we are to become a feed university for greater nations then our universities will wither in time.
Build it, fly it, and let us see. I am confident that our future can remain bright if we want it to.
Bravo Boom and RR
OK, nobody else has got round to reading ‘Absolute zero’ (emissions, that is). It is written by engineers and related disciplinarians, outlining what needs to happen by 2050, as mandated by UK law (one of Theresa’s better ideas), Three of its expectationsaer:
• Aviation: There are no options for zero-emissions flight in the time available for action, so the industry faces a rapid contraction. Developments in electric flight may be relevant beyond 2050.
• Rail: The great efficiency of electric rail travel suggests a significant expansion of electric rail travel, domestically and internationally, is likely and would see high demand. The most efficient electric trains are aerodynamically efficient, like those designed for the highest speed operation today, but travelling at lower speeds.
• International freight: We currently have no non-emitting freight ships, so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power, and options to transfer to electric rail. This would require an enormous expansion in international rail capacity.
Can’t see a profitable role for supersonic aviation
Allwood, J. M., C. F. Dunant, R. C. Lupton, C. J. Cleaver, A. C. H. Serrenho, J. M. C. Azevedo, P. M. Horton, G. Clare, H. Low, I. Horrocks, J. Murray, J. Lin, J. M. Cullen, M. Ward, M. Salamati, T. Felin, T. Ibell, W. Zho and W. Hawkins (2019). Absolute zero. Cambridge, UK, UK FIRE.
Perhaps Boom will be a Unicorn company, using the economists’ definition that a unicorn is a privately held startup company valued at over $1 billion. (The term was coined by venture capitalist Aileen Lee, choosing the mythical animal to represent the statistical rarity of such successful ventures). I certainly see this project as probable as seeing unicorns flying by!
Looks more like a technology demonstration project. I think Mach 0.85 speed is enough unless you travelling Sydney to London route. With high fuel burn, will it make much sense?