https://x.com/boomaero/status/1931078659290349930

It's time we finally put Boeings civil aviation division down for good, they've incurred too much damage to their reputation and it's clear the future is newer, quieter supersonic civil flights, and companies like Boom (terrible name for a civil aviation company by the way) should take their place.

>as long as aircraft don't produce an audible sonic boom on the ground
>company is called Boom Supersonic
How would they prevent this? And if that's possible then why was there a ban at all?

>>2042858 (OP)
Is that an AI pic or have they actually built the plane?

>>2042926
>How would they prevent this?
Short answer is clever design
Somewhat longer (but still relatively short) answer is that it's possible to direct the supersonic shockwave in such a way as to reflect it off of thicker layers of the lower atmosphere instead of allowing the shockwave to reach the ground.
> And if that's possible then why was there a ban at all?
The designers of Concord did not have the benefit of CAD. This has only been possible more recently thanks to advances in design and material science

>>2042928
Not sure about the aircraft in OPs pic but Boom Technology has already flown a proof-of-concept test aircraft, the Boom XB-1

>>2042926
>How would they prevent this?
Fly high af, you know what this means? Space planes in 2 more weeks

>>2042928
It's a 3D render not AI you trog.

>>2042929
Problem with that is different density atmospheric layers may reflect sound back down to Earth. This is actually used (inversely) to conceal subs from sonars.

>>2042926
They're just going to change the definition of "sonic boom" so that as long as it doesn't adversely affect one of trump's current personal friends, it's not considered a boom

>>2042858 (OP)
Non-Twitter links:

Existing ban on supersonic flight: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-I/section-91.817
>No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator in accordance with § 91.818.

Executive order lifting ban: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/leading-the-world-in-supersonic-flight/
>The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall take the necessary steps, including through rulemaking, to repeal the prohibition on overland supersonic flight in 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days of the date of this order and establish an interim noise-based certification standard, making any modifications to 14 CFR 91.818 as necessary, as consistent with applicable law.

>>2042870
Boom is an apt name for the company. It signifies what their shares will do once the main shareholders sell out after the hype dies and reality sets in.

ultra lights over cities when? I want to commute in a paramotor

Boeing should have bought Aerion when they went bankrupt.

>>2043029
Thought about this but even in a paramotor it would be pretty hard to find a reliable landing spot in a city without your paraglider getting caught in powerlines and shit. Maybe we should wait for civilian manned quadcopters to become more widely available

>>2042926
>why was there a ban at all?
Because Europe had supersonic passenger travel and the Americans finally discovered it a near 40 years later. It was purely protectionist for Boeing

>>2043926
This is a really dumb conspiracy theory for multiple reasons but people are going to believe it. The failed demonstration of the Tupolev Tu-144 at the Paris Airshow had already destroyed interest in Supersonic passenger airliners and actually caused the US to cancel its own supersonic airliner program, the Boeing 2707, so it was hardly an act of protectionism. Also, most order cancellations came from India, Maylasia, Iran, Lufthansa et al. Nobody wants to hear a sonic boom over their house

>>2043926
>It was purely protectionist for Boeing
That's probably part of it. It scared away customers from the Concorde, making it not profitable and thus eliminating a competitor to Boeing.

>>2044028
>The failed demonstration of the Tupolev Tu-144 at the Paris Airshow had already destroyed interest in Supersonic passenger airliners and actually caused the US to cancel its own supersonic airliner program
I doubt it since everyone knew that the Tupolev Tu-144 was a rushed copycat plane.

>>2042926
>why was there a ban at all?
USA conducted a test over Oklahoma City to quantify sonic boom effects and reactions. Public was OK with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests) but some grifters tried passing thunderstorm damage off as due to sonic booms. FAA refused to pay. Public got pissed and pushed for a ban.

I've lived under military supersonic flight paths. I've also lived in the midwest. Never had a sonic boom break a window. Had some thunder claps break windows. If you can live with thunder, sonic booms shouldn't be a problem. Other than psychologically. You know you'll never afford the expensive ticket and have to fly Dirt Bag airlines. You get pissed every time you hear one.

>>2042929
CAD was not needed to figure out how to shape the sound wave (how it could be done was calculated in the 70's), i recommend nasa's free ebook if you want to learn more on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/quietingtheboom-ebook.pdf

>>2044028
The 1973 crash of the tu-144 caused the 1971 cancelation of the american SST? That's some interesting time travel conspiracy theory.

What happened was quite simple; boeing won the contract for the american SST by making the proposal with the best specifications and cutting edge technology, like all titanium airframe and variable geometry wings. When it came to actually build the thing, they suddenly realized that importing the vast amounts of titanium needed from the Soviet Union wasn't really possible (importing the amount needed for the blackbird had been difficult enough), and that the variable geometry mechanism was so heavy it made the plane less efficient at altitude and have less range than if it had simple delta wings. After years of redesigns and wasted money, it turned out that the prototype (2707-300) would have the performance and configuration (canards and double delta) of the north american proposal, made years earlier by the company that knew best what they were doing.

>>2045133
Well, sonic booms can break windows but you have to be flying REALLY close to the ground, in a way no supersonic transport ever would.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Kl7c2yU3g

>>2042926
>say the name of the company on the ground
>get fined by the FAA

>>2042858 (OP)
>trump dicksucking
Why though? This has been in the works for years, going back to Obama. Going to be interesting to see how badly this is derailed by the gutting of NASA. The whole key here is that it's only allowed if there isn't an audible sonic boom on the ground, which is a lot fucking harder than you'd think. Especially for an aircraft that also has to be commercially viable.
https://youtu.be/5MCETiKCLhc&t=54

>>2042858 (OP)
>boom
Why are these dweebs celebrating? They don't even have an engine.

>>2047049
Wasn't the North American proposal based off the Valkyrie? Figures it would've been the best design.

>>2047144
>They don't even have an engine.
Damn that's even more impressive, I guess the Boom XB-1 just flew using magic

>>2047151
>XB-1
The kludge job using a 1960's-era turbojet that needed to run afterburners to break supersonic? That's irrelevant to the commercial aircraft that they want to build.

General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Safran, and Pratt & Whittney told them to take a hike when they asked for a turbofan that could take them supersonic with dry thrust and not retarded fuel consumption. That's why they're trying to build an entirely novel engine for the Overture. If designing a new engine was too expensive for a $38 billion dollar company that's been making engines since the 1940s, then I have minimal expectation for Boom to con enough VC money to figure it out before they go bankrupt.

>>2047143
trump is president and ywnbaw

>>2042858 (OP)
Oh shit we gaan (supersonic).

>>2047160
a president follows the law. Trump is more like a god-king (that's not a good thing by the way).

>>2047173
yes it is

>>2047143
By the way, when will NASA fly it?
The X-59 was originally supposed to have its first flight three years ago, and be testing supersonic speeds by now.
Since then, they've been delaying the schedule for various reasons. Last year they said it would "make its first flight by the end of the year."
Are Americans a bunch of incompetents who can't even stick to their own schedules?

>>2047158
>General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Safran, and Pratt & Whittney told them to take a hike when they asked for a turbofan that could take them supersonic with dry thrust and not retarded fuel consumption.
Can a turbofan even generate a supersonic exhaust flow? My intuition tells me if it can, it would just be barely supersonic <M1.3 or so.

>>2048169
The speed of the exhaust increases the faster the plane flies, it's not a factor. The problem is that turbofans need to run at higher pressure ratios than the equivalent turbojets, meaning higher core temperatures. At higher speeds, the pressure ratio increases further, so you reach the temperature limit of the turbine even faster and engine management has to cut down the power - on military aircraft they simply put more fuel in the afterburner to compensate, but without one you have to use some very high quality materials...

>>2042926
Because the government is extremely gay and incompetent

>>2048176
Can't you just use an efficiency-tuned modern non-afterburning turbojet? Turbojets are much better than turbofans at supersonic speeds.

>>2048180
The cost of developing a brand new engine for that specific application alone would be unbearable for a startup, let alone the per unit cost of making engines by the dozens. Buying an already existing military engine was the only feaseable option sincd tge start.

>>2042858 (OP)
Does this mean the Concorde can finally come back?

>>2048242
There's nothing left to rebuild one. New designs only.

>>2042926
dumb nymbys got spooked by a tiny noise

>>2048165
>NASA
Is in the process of being completely gutted. The X-66 is confirmed dead and the X-59's delays look terminal as well. I wouldn't expect any aviation progress out of the United States for at least the next decade.

>>2048180
Turbojets have dogshit fuel consumption, which is the single largest factor affecting whether or not a plane is profitable to fly. There is basically no such thing as an "efficiency tuned turbojet" since they've stopped putting pure tubojets on planes decades ago. Even high-speed military fighters are flying low bypass turbo fans now and none of those engine are suitable for a commercial airliner. Boom also need to put four of them on each plane, so wringing every single bit of efficiency out of the engine is essential. As is, their airliner is expected to burn three times the fuel weight per passenger as subsonic airliners. Even more fuel costs are expected because they plan on only allowing it to fly with sustainable aircraft fuel, which is more expensive than normal jet A/A-1.

They *need* a turbofan and making a whole new commercial engine is almost a bigger task than building the rest of the plane. I would be real neato if they manage to pull it off, but I'm not expecting anything. The absolute best scenario I expect is a handful of janky prototypes too shitty for commercial operation. Most likely, they'll never actually have enough of an engine to even fly.

>>2048323
pilots get paid ~2k per flight? along with the copilot?

>>2048341
>median salary of US airline pilots is $226,600 per BLS in 2024
>per title 14 of the CFR, air crew are forbidden from working more than 1,400 flight hours per year
>$226,600 / 1,400 hours = 161.86 $/hr
>161.86 $/hr x 10hr = $1,618.60
Add in travel expenses, non-flying work, health insurance payments, and how ever much time they're sitting on standby. I thought it sounded like a lot too, but it looks like the numbers are reasonable.

>>2048380
>>2048341
You realize that "pay" and "compensation" are different things, right? Things like employer health care costs and matches to payroll taxes make compensation higher than what people get paid.

>>2048380
>>$226,600 / 1,400 hours = 161.86 $/hr
>>161.86 $/hr x 10hr = $1,618.60
It's a LOT more complicated than that, my dad is an airline pilot and he tells me about his contract stuff. It's fucking complicated, don't quote me on what I'm about to say because some of it is probably wrong, I just can't keep track of it all. Basically, there's "flying time" which is everything between the gate pushing back and parking at the destination gate, and that has a very high rate per hour. HOWEVER that doesn't count all the prep work pilots do like studying weather charts, airport maps, airplane walk-arounds, etc. BUT they get paid a bit for that now (though that's new). THEN there's another pay rate when they get stuck on the runway for bad weather or something. AND they're guaranteed a certain minimum for a "day of work" (don't ask me what exactly constitutes that, idfk). There's also layover time, I think there's some kind of allowance for food and hotels when you're hanging out in a city between flights, and I know there's different hotels depending on how long the layover is. And THAT doesn't even count "add-pay" when a pilot basically picks up a trip that another pilot dropped because sick, couldn't legally work that many hours, incoming plane broke down, etc.

Bottom line, pilots' salaries are FUCKING complicated.

>>2048394
>pilots' salaries
>salaries
They are hourly employees, not salaried.

>>2048396
You know what I mean.

>>2048394
>>2048387
And that's why the phrases "non-flying work" and "health insurance payments" were included in the same post you're replying to. Both of you are functionally illiterate and you should be embarrassed about being such abject failures. It's a single sentence, but somehow you wastes of genetic potential couldn't even parse that much writing.