Supersonic Boom Context and Concorde Limitations

• 2010 Seattle incident: F-15 Eagles broke sound barrier intercepting float plane during Obama visit
  • Boom strong enough to shake homes, heard as far as South Washington State
  • Caused surge in emergency services calls
• Concorde economic failure factors:
  • Sonic booms limited flight routes (banned over land)
  • Poor fuel economy vs Boeing 747: 50% more fuel consumption, 1/4 passenger capacity, half maximum range
  • Limited to transatlantic flights (couldn't cross Pacific)
  • High ticket prices despite first-class treatment
  • Officially retired 2003 after 27-year career

Boom Technology Company Overview

• Startup developing 45-passenger civilian supersonic transport
• Target speed: Mach 2.2
• Pricing comparable to business class tickets on regular airlines
• Focus on trans-oceanic flights due to existing supersonic land flight restrictions

Boom Route Plans and Pricing

• London to New York: 3 hours 15 minutes, $2,500
• San Francisco to Tokyo: 5.5 hours, $3,250 each way
• LA to Sydney: 6 hours 45 minutes, $3,500 each way
• Value proposition: early morning LA flight → Tokyo business meeting → back for kids' bedtime

Aircraft Development Program

• Two aircraft in development:
  • All-premium class airliner (main product)
  • XB-1: 1/3 scale two-seater demonstration aircraft
• XB-1 serves as test bed and proof of concept
• Modern advantages over Concorde era:
  • Advanced design software vs paper-based design
  • Computational analysis software (same-day testing vs days + thousands of dollars)
  • Carbon fiber reinforced plastics
  • Lightweight, perfectly shaped design for high-temperature supersonic flight

Fuel Efficiency Targets and Challenges

• Target: 30% increase in fuel efficiency vs Concorde
• Concorde baseline: 16.7L fuel per 100km per passenger
• Concorde capacity: ~100 passengers (25 rows, 4 seats each)
• Boom capacity: 45 passengers (individual window seats, aisle access)
• Challenge: fewer passengers makes 30% efficiency improvement more difficult

Delta Wing Design Features

• Extremely thin delta wing (triangular Greek letter shape)
• Essential for both subsonic and supersonic speeds
• Boom sweep angle: 70° vs Concorde's 55°
• Benefits:
  • Reduces coefficient of drag at transonic/supersonic speeds
  • Maintains thin aerodynamic profile
  • Short wingspan + long chord reduces structural wing load
  • Unique swirling vortices on upper surface provide considerable lift
  • Ground effect creates air cushion on landing

Area Rule and Fuselage Design

• Wave drag reduction through minimized cross-sectional area changes
• Boom narrows fuselage where it meets wing (Concorde didn't due to manufacturing costs)
• Area Rule: smooth cross-sectional area transitions reduce drag coefficient
• Chined fuselage maintains center of lift as speed increases
• Chine ridge (similar to SR-71) generates more lift at supersonic vs subsonic speeds

Engine Technology

• Variable geometry inlets for supersonic flight
• Digitally controlled movable surfaces shape shock waves for ideal compression
• Medium bypass turbofan engines vs Concorde's turbojet
• Concorde used turbojet (smaller frontal area, less drag)
• TU-144 Russian supersonic jet switched from turbofan to turbojet, gained significant efficiency
• Modern engines allow performance targets with turbofan + reduced takeoff/landing noise

Development Status and Investment

• Not concept plane - actual aircraft in development
• $33 million investment round closed March (previous year)
• 1/3 scale XB-1 flight tests planned for following year
• Successful tests could enable civilian supersonic flight reemergence