Boom is bringing back commercial supersonic flight

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


woke : I don't think you should name an airline company "boom"

Anas Takiyudin : 1:45 "Synthetic Vision" fancy word for camera & LCD display

Xenormous : Nice but terrible name choice for a plane x)

Mark Jennings : Not sure about the name BOOM!! LOL

Marquis Charlemagne : "boom"? why are names getting overly simplified? where have the elegant names of premium services like concorde gone? :D

MrSkyl1ne : talking about Concorde and showing images of the Tupolev.... amateurs

NICHOLAS LANDOLINA : The reason it ran overseas from US to the UK is because people in the US didnt want supersonic booms over top of their housr

Marvincent Acuña : They showed a Tu-144 landing after the Concorde landing.

Gavin Li1117 : 4:21 isn't that the TU-144 NOT the Concorde?

KEEPMOVN : i smell terorrist jokes

Martin Lovasz : A great name for the company would be... CRASH: Concorde Replacement Aircraft Super Homage

Sacto1654 : I think what they're trying to build is essentially taking advantage of the latest knowledge in engine technology and aerodynamic design. During the 1990's, studies with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) using supercomputers showed that by carefully shaping the entire plane, you can mitigate the pressure wave buildup at supersonic speeds that causes the sonic boom in the first place. It may be now possible to fly at Mach 1.6 at 57,000 to 60,000 feet altitude with a sonic boom so low that it would be quieter than the rumble of a passing train at 1.5 km away, which may open the possibility of overland supersonic flights. Secondly, engine technology for supersonic flight have tremendously advanced since the 1960's Olympus 593 used on the Concorde. Using variable-cycle engines and engine technology developed originally for today's high-bypass modern jet engines, we can have a engine that in one mode will be as quiet as a high-bypass engine on takeoff and cycle to a different mode for supersonic flight with far more fuel efficiency than the Olympus 593. Note that I mentioned Mach 1.6. I believe a future supersonic civilian jet will be limited to Mach 1.6 top speed, for a number of reasons. First, it would allow the new jet engines to run with very little amount of reheat (afterburner) mode, which substantially cuts fuel consumption and engine noise, which mean allow transoceanic flights as far as Los Angeles to Beijing even with the majority of the flight at supersonic speeds. Secondly, structural heating would be far lower than on the Concorde, which means less need for expensive titanium and/or stainless structural parts and more use of composite materials, which would substantially cut the structural weight of the plane, also cutting fuel consumption. Finally, with only Mach 1.6 top speed, even with the carefully-shaped airplane design, the pressure wave buildup will be substantially lower than on the Concorde flying at Mach 2.0, making it possible to effectively eliminate the dreaded sonic boom.

QuebeC VR : I’m all for bring back the Concorde era but chances are it will come to the same fate Expensive as fuck to maintain and not to mention the fuel cost

Rowan Gontier : Ambitious and inspiring. Wonder why there haven't been more attempts.

Clifford Proctor : Great  idea but the biggest challenge is going to be the carrying of luggage, Hand luggage only? the aerodynamic shape of the vehicle with  fuel, and equipment is going to be interesting. But great job and wish this project the very best.

Jebediah Kerman : What a beautiful aircraft. Simply astonishing can't wait to see those in the Sky soon. I shall build this in KSP.

Sean Place : NY to London. Sub-sonic: $650 , 7 hours Super-sonic: $5,000, 3.5 hours That's still ridiculously expensive. But then again, the first many years of passenger aircraft also had extremely high prices. I hope Boom can pull it off, but I doubt we'll ever see a significant fleet of super-sonic passenger aircraft. They just burn too much fuel and need a lot of maintenance, especially to the paint.

Google User : It will never happen

Delta 8960 : 1:41 "Physically see the runway" You can't mentally or emotionally see the runway wtf.

ßaron : Still slower than the Concorde... It's insane what these guys were able to do in the 60's.

MS_ B : Is a good effort and I sincerely hope they succeed but naming it BOOM sound like a kid's toy.

Burns1993Joe : Concorde was 50 years ahead of you guys so don't slate it!

Jayden Jones : I can't wait for this thing

KAMOME : A long flight is terrible. If this plane makes a 14hrs flight to 7hrs, I'll buy the ticket even if it costs twice as much as conventional one.

Cruzer's World of Retro Wonders : This will be nice while we wait for Elon Musk's electric supersonic plane.

badlandskid : Fly it to Brazil and call it Boom Boom Airlines

Ryan Blower : i love how they used the Tupolev Tu-144 and called it the Concorde, these two planes are nothing alike.

Hdtomo : The sonic aircraft was banned in America AND THE WORLD BANNED IT BECAUSE OF SONIC ENGINES!!!!!!

Wunder Spieler : when it flies it does boom

jkidkiloveu bleh : We just need Elon musk to make one.....

a : engines from a cruise missle - engine werent designed to last more than a few hours

StackableGold : I want to fly this in fsx.

Reflections Observer : Likely it will still be affordable by small portion of population due to cost.

Stormforce VII : what is people's issue with the sonic boom? i live on a small island which would be ignored with regards to the noise pollution and remember hearing Concorde flying over head and it was barely noticeable, no where near as loud as living anywhere near an airport?

Ray Reeves : No addressing of the fact that one of the large reasons concorde failed was because of FAA restrictions on supersonic booms? Its in the name... window smashingingy loud booms. Doesnt seem like they have the type of funding you'd expect for an airline start up, reusing decade old missile engines, and the girl made it sound like she was pretty alone on the engineering aspect.

Zach Nehez : Why not use a scramjet!

Patrick Guinnane : nope...and a stupid name too

adamklam1 : "we have amazing innovations in technology that allows us to use synthetic vision"--- you mean u put a camera on the bottom... right?

akm saifullah : I don't know if it is a coincidence but I swear on my sister that I have drawn a same design plane! Like if you belive me!

Craig Duncan : Believe it when I see it in the air carrying passengers. Everyone (as in top governments) all attempted to do what later transpired to be only achieved by Britain & France. Not an easy task. USSR ultimately failed. US failed also. I believe several private companies also tried. Only Concorde flew- I rest my case.

Fermain Jackson : a bunch of politicians are gonna be in charge to ruin supersonic flight's project. there's a lot of idiots complaining already about that....

wilko_gaming : Everyone saying the Tu-144 is like the concord clearly has no knowledge of either aircraft and it’s capabilities. Saying that is an insult to the attention to detail that was considered throughout the development of Concorde

carl : supersonic... cough... flight... cough... is... cough... ILLEGAL.... cough... over cities... cough.

Emglen Shafa08 : Are the window Really's that big?

Mate Varszegi : i think it's bs all written over it. These guys will do what concorde and the russian engineer couldn't. Riiiight. I bet they don't even know how a turbojet even works. Even the name speaks for itself.

Peter Peterson : Mankind seems compelled to rush everything inc. time. Humans have developed a world in which they can be anywhere and do anything at a minute's notice yet they are still incredibly unhappy and unfulfilled. Time to re-experience the inner being.

Thread The Needle : i like how 99.9% of the comments are making fun of the aircraft manufacturers name. *wheezes seductively*

Dand AinTac : Like the Concorde, this may find a niche market for the wealthy. I don't see it ever being a mass market aircraft--even if Boom uses more efficient lighter-stronger materials and better engines than the Concorde. Here's why. Those same efficiencies in materials and engines can be used to make subsonic airliners more economical, and they will always be more economical than supersonic airliners. It's a matter of physics. So subsonic airliners will always be cheaper to fly, and flying supersonic is not enough of a speed advantage to make most passengers willing to pay a lot more.

Name Name : For all the people thinking it's gonna fail like the Concorde: Concorde was designed by hand without the power of computers, Concorde didn't have the materials we have today, and Concorde didn't have modern electronics and technology in the plane. This has the potential to be much better than the Concorde.

Adrian Nel : Very interesting stuff, but IMHO a limiting factor to commercial supersonic flight is the amount of time it takes to get through security, (board) the plane, load it, refuel, de-ice much time that any commercial flight is subject to and that supersonic flight will not be exempt from. On say for example a 12 hour journey [from your own bed to the destination hotel bed] post 911, how much of the 12 hours is actual flying time? Ergo, how much time could even halving the flying time (which would require more than doubling the average speed) actually achieve. Of course, a different story for private jets...PLEASE tell me logically and rationally if you feel differently. Thank you.