Good info, but in every instance where this video discussed turboprops, it showed a piston aircraft. Unfortunately, that makes much of the argument made in the video suspect. I'm not saying I disagree, but I wouldn't use it to argue my position either.

Considering that their business plan depends on it being quiet enough to be allowed to fly over land, "Boom" would seem to be the worst possible choice for a corporate name. It will still have a sonic boom that reaches the ground just (hopefully) a lesser one.

On interchange out of Texas with BA.

Strong rumors about Gulfstream working on one. They have filed some patent applications for shock wave mitigation that have been floating around the internet too.

I'm not sure about scaling up or the economics for major airlines, but I bet the ultra-rich folks will climb over each other to one one. Gulfstream did pretty well in the large-cabin market over the last decade during the downturn that affected the mid-cabin market.

Greensboro, NC selected as manufacturing site...


https://www.usnews.com/news/business...-in-n-carolina

It's been almost 5 years since this thread was made, and Boom hasn't even started on an engine design for this airplane.

Who cares about minor details like engines, when CGI renderings are a faster way to get orders and capital investments.

thought this was a green energy plane without engines?

if only we could look into the past at other supersonic operations and see why they failed. Oh wait, we can. Besides being expensive and loud, you also have the little problem of spare aircraft. If the plane has a maintenance issue you can just book them on the next subsonic flight to London. They paid to go fast. So operators were having to fly empty spares around. Makes it hard to make money and be green flying empty airplanes.

Color me skeptical.

I thought RR was working on the engines?