Could the Boom Overture have a Military Application?
'Boom' demonstrator has flown, with the military interested. They must have read Davef68's post!
https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-s...s-to-the-skies
https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-s...s-to-the-skies
Then I'll take another nap while they raise the many billions of dollars needed to put something into production.
I thought the issue Concorde had was that by flying at Mach 2, the military version would fly so fast that when firing missile or bullets, it would suffer the small misfortune of flying back into them and shooting itself down. Or so the joke went
'Boom' demonstrator has flown, with the military interested. They must have read Davef68's post!
https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-s...s-to-the-skies
https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-s...s-to-the-skies
It's worth noting that neither the demonstrator nor the Overture aircraft will utilise 'low boom' technologies currently being researched by NASA through their X59 program. Overture will be a 'traditonal' SST in the sense that it will boom.
The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.
The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.
The following users liked this post:
Given both ac have similar wings, though the Overture has the addition of a tailplane, what handling foibles would these be and how do they hope to eliminate them?
Or is just something to show prospective investors to trick them into thinking their money would be going into a viable concept?
The following users liked this post:
It's worth noting that neither the demonstrator nor the Overture aircraft will utilise 'low boom' technologies currently being researched by NASA through their X59 program. Overture will be a 'traditonal' SST in the sense that it will boom.
The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.
The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.
In contrast pretty much every time realworld civilian money is at risk on the table they realise that the outcome is M1.7 x 4,250 mile (i.e. goodly transatlantic/etc) and that to push further requires acceptance of very steep cost & technology increases and commensurate programme risk, without a commensurate civilian return reward.
It is quite fun to watch DARPA/etc struggling with this. Repeatedly.
If it's a 'proof of concept' prototype, what good is it if it doesn't address the show-stopping aspect of the 'boom'? After all, we've been building supersonic aircraft since the 1950s - the basic technology is well known and understood - so why go through all the trouble and cost of building a prototype if it doesn't demonstrate the technology that's consider new (and - most importantly - critical) to the success of the concept?
Or is just something to show prospective investors to trick them into thinking their money would be going into a viable concept?
Or is just something to show prospective investors to trick them into thinking their money would be going into a viable concept?
The following 4 users liked this post by Ohrly:
Oh, here we are. Had to ultimately searchtool for a thread discussing the XB-1 prototype firstflight
Now I see the reason for the underwhelming response of this kinda milestone. Really not anyone believe they will achieve some breakthrough advancement? Will it just be a rich peoples' toy at smaller scale, thus reducing the boom by some %?
Now I see the reason for the underwhelming response of this kinda milestone. Really not anyone believe they will achieve some breakthrough advancement? Will it just be a rich peoples' toy at smaller scale, thus reducing the boom by some %?
Probably mis-lead you by using the word "handling". Things like transferring fuel around the aircraft and thermal management of the airframe.
Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in, especially after the addition of a strake (running board) below and aft of the cockpit. (Don’t see one on Overture, perhaps they will add it later
)
"Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in,"
how long before they found you a desk in an office?
how long before they found you a desk in an office?
They never did, I worked on the models, getting them ready for the tunnel and helping out in the control room. Research and playing with planes, great fun for a young lad.
The following 3 users liked this post by Ninthace:
The following users liked this post:
"The real deal is meant to be powered by engines designed and built by Boom themselves."
Sure - of course you can design, build and certify a new supersonic engine for about £ 10 I understand................
Sure - of course you can design, build and certify a new supersonic engine for about £ 10 I understand................
