Boom test flight: 'New Concorde' prototype jet breaks sound barrier
US company Boom has broken the sound barrier during a test flight of its prototype aircraft XB-1. The test opens the way for the first supersonic passenger jet since the British-French Concorde, which was retired in 2003.
https://news.sky.com/story/boom-superso ... r-13298306
Boom goes supersonic
That article really buries the lead.
The really important part of the achievement isn't even mentioned, that they were able to design an aircraft that breaks the sound barrier without the sonic boom reaching the ground.
The really important part of the achievement isn't even mentioned, that they were able to design an aircraft that breaks the sound barrier without the sonic boom reaching the ground.
I don't think they can do that. The plane (once certified) is only expected to be allowed to go supersonic "once over the ocean...."Blake wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:04 pm That article really buries the lead.
The really important part of the achievement isn't even mentioned, that they were able to design an aircraft that breaks the sound barrier without the sonic boom reaching the ground.
Boom Supersonic says XB-1 aircraft flew over Mach 1 with no audible sonic boom on the ground below
Part of the business case for Boom is providing supersonic domestic flights in the USA.
Part of the business case for Boom is providing supersonic domestic flights in the USA.
Good luck to themBlake wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:21 pm Boom Supersonic says XB-1 aircraft flew over Mach 1 with no audible sonic boom on the ground below
Part of the business case for Boom is providing supersonic domestic flights in the USA.

-
- Posts: 3398
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:37 am
Mach Cutoff is a genuine thing, but I understood it as being very dependent upon atmospheric conditions - things like temperature variations.
In that sense I'm not sure how reliable it would always be - you'd have to carefully select times, heights etc to make it work, which would be a significant consideration and constraint for commercial aviation. Years of US tech bro bullshit 'fake it until you make it' also make me sceptical, where they'll downplay difficulties. I also understood it to be not really much to do with the aircraft, more to do with the predictions of atmospheric conditions and the optimisations of flight to match these.
Saying that, even if limited in scope it would still be useful to curtail noise.
As an aside, when I first saw this I wondered why, if it's viable, were military aircraft not using it, given the clear tactical advances that would give.
In that sense I'm not sure how reliable it would always be - you'd have to carefully select times, heights etc to make it work, which would be a significant consideration and constraint for commercial aviation. Years of US tech bro bullshit 'fake it until you make it' also make me sceptical, where they'll downplay difficulties. I also understood it to be not really much to do with the aircraft, more to do with the predictions of atmospheric conditions and the optimisations of flight to match these.
Saying that, even if limited in scope it would still be useful to curtail noise.
As an aside, when I first saw this I wondered why, if it's viable, were military aircraft not using it, given the clear tactical advances that would give.
Yeah, science reporting in general is pretty terrible. It's either mainstream news sources that gloss over the technicalities because neither the journalists nor the readers actually understand the significance of the achievement or the challenges of what is being developed...or you get trade publications that fawn over the tech-bros' bullshit and dare not challenge them for fear of losing access in the future. So here we are.inactionman wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:40 pm Mach Cutoff is a genuine thing, but I understood it as being very dependent upon atmospheric conditions - things like temperature variations.
In that sense I'm not sure how reliable it would always be - you'd have to carefully select times, heights etc to make it work, which would be a significant consideration and constraint for commercial aviation. Years of US tech bro bullshit 'fake it until you make it' also make me sceptical, where they'll downplay difficulties. I also understood it to be not really much to do with the aircraft, more to do with the predictions of atmospheric conditions and the optimisations of flight to match these.
Saying that, even if limited in scope it would still be useful to curtail noise.
As an aside, when I first saw this I wondered why, if it's viable, were military aircraft not using it, given the clear tactical advances that would give.
I'm also skeptical about the commercial feasibility of this for the reasons you stated, but also for some of the reasons Concorde got canned. Supersonic travel is thirsty business.
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4682
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
Given the state of US air traffic control in this Brave New World, I suppose crashing into the ground at supersonic speeds at least gets it over with much more quickly.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:28 pmGood luck to themBlake wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:21 pm Boom Supersonic says XB-1 aircraft flew over Mach 1 with no audible sonic boom on the ground below
Part of the business case for Boom is providing supersonic domestic flights in the USA.![]()