Supersonic travel is making a comeback as newly developed aircraft breaks the sound barrier

[midian182]

What just happened? You might not be familiar with Boom Supersonic, but the startup has just set a notable world first: its XB-1 demonstrator became the first privately developed aircraft to break the sound barrier by reaching Mach 1.122, or 860.8 miles per hour. The achievement is a huge milestone toward the return of commercial supersonic flights, which stopped over 20 years ago.

Piloted by former US Navy aviator Tristan "Geppetto" Brandenburg, XB-1 took off from the Mojave Air and Space Port in California on Tuesday. It reached Mach 1.1 about 12 minutes later, staying at that speed for around four minutes. The aircraft broke the sound barrier a total of three times during its 33-minute flight. The speed of sound through air is 767 mph (Mach 1).

"A small band of talented and dedicated engineers has accomplished what previously took governments and billions of dollars," said Boom Supersonic's founder and chief executive, Blake Scholl.

XB-1 is a demonstrator prototype that's one-third the scale of a commercial aircraft Boom Supersonic is developing called Overture. The supersonic airliner is being designed to have a cruising speed of Mach 1.7 over water, a cruise altitude of 60,000 feet, a maximum speed of Mach 2.2 (1,687 mph), and carry around 55 passengers. It's expected to be able to fly between London and New York in three and a half hours.

Overture is also being designed to run on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which is produced from various renewable feedstocks such as used cooking oil and animal fats. It will be the first large commercial aircraft to operate at net-zero carbon.

XB-1's first successful test flight took place over the Mojave Desert in March 2024, when it reached a maximum altitude of 7,120 feet and a top speed of 246 knots (283 mph). There have been eleven more test flights since then, culminating in this week's world first.

Overture will feature some of the state-of-the-art technologies found in XB-1, including carbon-fiber composites, advanced avionics, digital stability augmentation, and supersonic intakes. The propulsion system, Symphony, will be different. Boom Supersonic is working with several partners on some elements, including the engine design and development.

American Airlines, United Airlines, and Japan Airlines have made a combined 130 pre-orders for Overture. Boom said 66 of the aircraft will be constructed every year at its "Superfactory" in Greensboro, North Carolina, and it hopes to start fulfilling the orders before 2030.

The last commercial supersonic aircraft, Concorde, was retired in 2003, at which time the fleet was over 25 years old. The high operating costs, declining passenger demand due to the huge ticket prices, and noise and environmental concerns played a big part in the decision. There were also safety concerns after the Air France Flight 4590 crash following a tire blowout on the runway at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport. All 113 people were killed and public confidence in Concorde's safety was lost.

Permalink to story:

Supersonic travel is making a comeback as newly developed aircraft breaks the sound barrier

 

[yRaz]

Super sonic travel is silly. At first, long plane rides were a problem because there was nothing to do. Now, we have phones, tablets, gaming handhelds to keep us entertained. There are sexy flight attendants to bring us drinks.

The seats in these will cost 10x what first class does. This is going to stop kids from kicking the back of your chair, that isn't the target market.

 

[Chris P]

That planes can fly at supersonic speed has been demonstrated for almost eighty years. This is a cash-burning start-up, akin to all the BEV companies that germinated a decade ago, and are starting to fall by the wayside. Not saying they won't make it, but this is about getting investors' attention, not some sort of major scientific and engineering breakthrough. Going from concept and early-stage prototype, to actual production is a challenge many don't rise to. Going from production to positive cash flow is the next hurdle.

 

[BobW635]

Uh, guys - the obstacle to previous supersonic travel is not the boom as much as the extra energy cost to go supersonic. Have not seen any numbers to suggest this craft will be significantly more efficient than the Concorde, especially at Mach 2.

 

[manowar51]

Whilst London to New York is the example given. What about travel times for other parts of the world? How quickly can I get to Tokyo from Portland or Seattle? Or how long does it take to get to London from the west coast? Assuming that the aircraft can't go supersonic whilst flying over land.

Oh and be prepared, these tickets are going to be like $15k+ each. There are more than enough wealthy customers who will pay these prices. I think it will be a good investment provided the craft really is safe and efficient.

 

[AnilD]

The biggest challenge for supersonic travel has always been balancing speed with cost and practicality. If Boom can solve what Concorde couldn’t—affordable operations, lower noise impact, and sustainability—they might actually bring supersonic flights into the mainstream instead of making it a luxury for the ultra-rich.

 

[BobHome]

Uh, nice non-tech article.
So it broke the sound barrier, many aircraft can do that--but don't for several reasons like the sonic boom. (I lived through those Booms in WI back in the day; our dishes made it through safely, but not so for several neighbors.)

So, what is the tech-side of this breakthrough???

 

[RudyBob]

This is great stuff.

 

[Northy]

This is great stuff.

Yeah I dig it too

 

[RudyBob]

Uh, guys - the obstacle to previous supersonic travel is not the boom as much as the extra energy cost to go supersonic. Have not seen any numbers to suggest this craft will be significantly more efficient than the Concorde, especially at Mach 2.

Good points both. It doesn't have to be more efficient that is of no consequence. This will be an event and as long as the service is top shelf it will be OK. It needs an endorsement. Say, Musk?

 

[RudyBob]

So, what is the tech-side of this breakthrough???

That's a good question

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Let's party like it's 1953 again folks.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

I like aircraft stuff, the need for speed.

 

[Megalomaniac]

The Concorde demonstrated all the reasons why Super Sonic Transport (SST) isn't feasible.

The high maintenance costs alone were a problem.
Economic inefficiency. It cost a ton of fuel per seat. A roundtrip across the Atlantic cost more than $13,000.
Development costs were so great that they could never be recovered from operations, and the aircraft was never financially profitable.
Concorde was smaller than it looked. It had a cramped, noisy, and expensive cabin without mdern amenities like monitors for each headrest.
On top of that, it wasn't allowed to fly on many routes due to the high noise it produced.

Take a good look at the 777, 777x and A350. That's the "future" of air travel for a long time to come.

Twin Jets that can perform to ETOPS requirements flying nonstop in between large cities.

I frequently take the Philippine Air, Asiana, JAL, ANA and Emirates business class nonstop between NYC and Asia/ Middle East - which even though expensive- still cost a fraction of an SST flight.

 

[RudyBob]

Let's party like it's 1953 again folks.

Sight seeing over the Grand Canyon?

 

[captaincranky]

The speed of sound through air is 767 mph (Mach 1).

Not quite. The speed of sound through air is 767 MPH (give or take) at sea level. The higher you fly, the slower sound travels. At 60,000 feet, the speed of sound is 660 MPH.

For the sake of argument, (it's the only reason I bother with the internet), are we saying that their mach statistics are based on sea level mach, or >pressure altitude< mach numbers?

Because mach 2.2 at 60,000 feet is really only about 1450 MPH.

I found this little tidbit to be very interesting:
"For example, the speed of sound at 30,000 feet is about 670 miles per hour, but an aircraft must travel at least 750 miles per hour (Mach 1.12, where Mach 1 equals the speed of sound) for a boom to be heard on the ground."

 

[jeffbert]

Learn something new (to me, anyway) every day!

 

[captaincranky]

So, what is the tech-side of this breakthrough???

The tech side, or the tech side you're interested in?

A cursory look at the air frame itself, reveals, design factors pulled from the SR-71. The fuselage chines being the most prominent. View from the side indicates an airfoil shape, so it's got a "lifting body", which is not really used in commercial passenger craft, but quite common in military jets.

So, the more common tubular shape of commercial aircraft has been eliminated, and replaced with features pulled from the Concorde, the XB-70, and as I stated earlier, the SR-71. The chines, as they attach to the same in the SR-71, were utilized to prevent fuselage flexing..

The choice of fuel is interesting, one might call it "politically correct". ostensibly to attract more reluctant investors. The SR-71's JP-7 could roughly be categorized as "gook", to combat the heat encountered in its tri-sonic flight regime.

The most striking thing is that the " "prototype" is pretty much an entirely different aircraft, from the proposed commercial release. The engine intakes are in an entirely different place, being move from top to bottom in the artist's rendering. The wing area appears to be significantly reduced from that of the Concorde. (Proportionately, not considering scale, or angle of view).

That's all I got from the simple side view of the (2) craft.

 

[captaincranky]

Good points both. It doesn't have to be more efficient that is of no consequence. This will be an event and as long as the service is top shelf it will be OK. It needs an endorsement. Say, Musk?

Musk would just buy into the company, then claim the whole thing was "his idea".