# Branson unveils supersonic jet faster than Concorde



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

Nicknamed the "Baby Boom", the XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator, which looks likes a mini Concorde, is expected to have its first test flight next year in Southern California. The airline tycoon has confirmed that Virgin has options to buy 10 of the recently revealed supersonic Boom jets, which will be capable of flying at 1,451mph - about 100mph faster than Concorde - and reaching New York from London in three and a half hours. 







http://news.sky.com/story/baby-boom-branson-unveils-supersonic-jet-faster-than-concorde-10659228






The subscale XB-1 'Baby Boom' jet (pictured top) is set to pave the way for the larger Boom Passenger Airliner (pictured bottom)


*XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR SPECS *
- Crew: Two (pilot + optional flight test engineer or passenger)

- Length: 68'

- Wingspan: 17'

- Maximum Takeoff Weight: 13,500 lb

- Powerplant: 3X General Electric J85-21, non-afterburning; proprietary variable-geometry intake and exhaust 

- Aerodynamics: Chine, refined delta wing with swept trailing edge

- Cruise: Mach 2.2 (1,451mph, 2,335 km/h) 

- Nose Temperature: 307°F (345°F on ISA+20 day) Range: > 1,000nmi



*BOOM PASSENGER AIRLINER SPECS *
- Crew: Two

- Length: 170', Wingspan: 60'

- Passengers: 45 standard (up to 55 in high density)

- Flight attendants: Up to 4

- Lavatories: 2 

- Powerplane: 3X non-afterburning medium bypass turbofan; proprietary variable geometry intake and exhaust

- Aerodynamics: Chine, refined delta wing with swept trailing edge Long Range

- Cruise: Mach 2.2 (1,451mph, 2,335 km/h) 

- Nose Temperature: 307°F (345°F on ISA+20 day) Maximum Design Route: 9,000nm (4,500nm unrefueled)


Bloomberg


----------



## Vario (Nov 16, 2016)

Wow looks fun to fly


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

I Now Expect Congress to Rescind the Ban on Supersonic Flight over / in USA Sovereign Air Space
Now there is a planned US Supersonic Passenger Carrier Aircraft.
Otherwise its a total waste of Time and it will suffer the Same Restrictions that the US Tried to Cripple Concord with ( because they could not Compete as they had no capable Aircraft of their OWN )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

Looking at the first picture, I thought "that's too small" and seeing the second picture, I thought "that's more like it."



dorsetknob said:


> I Now Expect Congress to Rescind the Ban on Supersonic Flight over / in USA Sovereign Air Space
> Now there is a planned US Supersonic Passenger Carrier Aircraft.
> Otherwise its a total waste of Time and it will suffer the Same Restrictions that the US Tried to Cripple Concord with ( because they could not Compete as they had no capable Aircraft of their OWN )


They will not.  Sonic booms sound a lot like gun shots which inevitable triggers emergency phone calls.  That limitation isn't going anywhere.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

Despite the ban, in May 1976 flights were allowed into Washington Dulles International Airport. When the Federal ban was lifted at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK),  New York City imposed its own ban. Nine months later, a Supreme Court ruling allowed flights into JFK.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

As long as they go supersonic over the ocean, it's not a problem.  The boom only occurs during acceleration.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The boom only occurs during acceleration.


As long as you fly supersonic the boom will follow you on the ground.

Source: visited Concorde in NYC last month 



Spoiler


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> because they could not Compete as they had no capable Aircraft of their OWN




the campaign to impose restrictions globally were initiated by a primary school teacher, conscientious objector and vegan from Letchworth, Hertfordshire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project


----------



## m1dg3t (Nov 16, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> As long as you fly supersonic the boom will follow you on the ground.
> 
> Source: visited Concorde in NYC last month
> 
> ...



Ya, not like you stop moving through the air once you accelerate


----------



## Nosada (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As long as they go supersonic over the ocean, it's not a problem.  The boom only occurs during acceleration.


Actually, the sonic boom is caused by the accumulation of sound waves by going faster than the speed of sound, and thus does not just happen at the moment you go from high subsonic to trans-sonic to supersonic. Wherever an airplane is going supersonic, you will hear absolutely nothing as it flies overhead, only to be bombarded with the sonic boom once its bow wave reaches you and the usual engine/flight sounds afterwards.






You also hit the nail on the head why supersonic will probably never be economically feasible again: if you build an airplane for supersonic speeds, it's going to be guzzling fuel at subsonic, not being able to go supersonic above land ruins its economy AND its speed advantage, not to mention makes it completely useless for about 90% of flights worldwide, as very few routes are predominantly over water.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The boom only occurs during acceleration.


ONE Boom To Startle them many to Follow 
Over the Flight path of a Supersonic Flight  there is A constant Stream of Booms  SEE 
*Nosada* POST ABOVE


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> As long as you fly supersonic the boom will follow you on the ground.
> 
> Source: visited Concorde in NYC last month
> 
> ...




fabulous pics.
 I had unrestricted access to aircraft at Heathrow when i worked there. I used to go and " have a little play" on Concorde on night shifts.....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

Learn something new everyday!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=86742




Mach number just changes the angle of the wave.  The faster, the lesser the degree of the angle.

All aircraft produce at least two pressure waves:

N-wave as it expands around the aircraft.
U-wave as it collapses around it filling the vacuum created by the moving mass.
They always join into one wave given enough distance.  Unless the aircraft is really close to the ground, really big, or manuvering, you'll only hear one boom.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They always join into one wave given enough distance. Unless the aircraft is really close to the ground, really big, or manuvering, you'll only hear one boom.




Yeh Really 
If you were to Travel in the Path following A supersonic Aircraft at a relativistic Speed So there is only a couple of miles Speed Difference
You Would hear a series of Booms Gradualy increasing in their delay / further apart/ (Due to doppler Shift ).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK posted a good video.  Only one of all of them had two booms (1:17).  That segment of the video isn't good enough to tell why.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

from wilki
There is a rise in pressure at the nose, decreasing steadily to a negative pressure at the tail, followed by a sudden return to normal pressure after the object passes. This "overpressure profile" is known as an N-wave because of its shape. The "boom" is experienced when there is a sudden change in pressure; therefore, an N-wave causes two booms – one when the initial pressure-rise reaches an observer, and another when the pressure returns to normal. This leads to a distinctive "double boom" from a supersonic aircraft. When the aircraft is maneuvering, the pressure distribution changes into different forms, with a characteristic U-wave shape.

Since the boom is being generated continually as long as the aircraft is supersonic, it fills out a narrow path on the ground following the aircraft's flight path, a bit like an unrolling red carpet, and hence known as the _boom carpet

so not one boom but a series_


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

No series, at most two (n-wave then u-wave), as it says.  Example:
http://www.military.com/video/space-technology/space-shuttles/double-sonic-boom/660621976001

Shuttle always did two because of its huge cross section at the tail (powerful U-wave).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

When i was a child Concorde used to fly over my area then head out over the south of the Irish sea, . Our windows would rattle TWICE in quick succession. We used to call it "the nine o'clock bang"


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No series, at most two (n-wave then u-wave), as it says. Example:


If that is the laughable Case Then Explain how people in the Boom footprint Several 100's to thousands  of miles apart hear a boom !!

And Don't Take the PISS by Saying its the Same Boom


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

we used to hear the boom from the New York flight about  12 minutes after it passed over us by which time it was about 120 miles away. If the wind was an easterly we wouldnt hear it at all.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 16, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> As long as you fly supersonic the boom will follow you on the ground.
> 
> Source: visited Concorde in NYC last month
> 
> ...


OMG you saw the concord at intrepid museum, I went 2 years ago and the concord was off limits. Overall the museum was a time waster for me. So many kids there ruining it for everyone, its like the museum was a play ground. They where touching this and that, running into restricted areas. I wanted to see the ship more but most of it is closed off. And some planes that I wanted to see also closed off. Biggest let down of a museum for me.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

The Concorde at Intrepid is probably the most interesting out of the whole fleet.

*G-BOAD* (210) first flew on 25 August 1976 from Filton. Repainted with Singapore Airlines livery on the port side and British Airways livery on the starboard for a joint service by the two airlines between Bahrain and Singapore International Airport at Paya Lebar for three months in 1977, and from 1979 to 1981. This aircraft also set the fastest Atlantic crossing by any Concorde on 7 February 1996, taking off from New York JFK and landing in London Heathrow 2 hours, 52 minutes, and 59 seconds later. It departed from Heathrow for the final time on 10 November 2003.
G-BOAD spent more time in the air than any other Concorde at 23,397 hours.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> If that is the laughable Case Then Explain how people in the Boom footprint Several 100's to thousands  of miles apart hear a boom !!
> 
> And Don't Take the PISS by Saying its the Same Boom


N-wave...U-wave...

The demonstrator in the OP will likely have a weak U-wave.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The Concorde at Intrepid is probably the most interesting out of the whole fleet.
> 
> *G-BOAD* (210) first flew on 25 August 1976 from Filton. Repainted with Singapore Airlines livery on the port side and British Airways livery on the starboard for a joint service by the two airlines between Bahrain and Singapore International Airport at Paya Lebar for three months in 1977, and from 1979 to 1981. This aircraft also set the fastest Atlantic crossing by any Concorde on 7 February 1996, taking off from New York JFK and landing in London Heathrow 2 hours, 52 minutes, and 59 seconds later. It departed from Heathrow for the final time on 10 November 2003.
> G-BOAD spent more time in the air than any other Concorde at 23,397 hours.


What about F-BTSC...the one that caught on fire and lead to the end of Concorde service?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What about F-BTSC...the one that went boom and lead to the end of Concorde service?



That wasnt interesting, it was tragic.

The accident was caused by debris off a different aircraft and up to that point it was the safest passenger aircraft type ever.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2016)

Fair enough.

Yeah, the DC-10 that took off before it was blamed for the damage to the Concorde.  It has no fatalities prior to that.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2016)

yotano211 said:


> OMG you saw the concord at intrepid museum, I went 2 years ago and the concord was off limits. Overall the museum was a time waster for me. So many kids there ruining it for everyone, its like the museum was a play ground. They where touching this and that, running into restricted areas. I wanted to see the ship more but most of it is closed off. And some planes that I wanted to see also closed off. Biggest let down of a museum for me.


We had a great time there, not too many people, but yes, some areas are locked off unfortunately. Concorde tour was excellent, Growler submarine was good but not as awesome as a USSR sub tour we had in Hamburg. The tour of the USS Hornet in Alameda SFO is a better carrier tour because of the veteran as guide there, at least back when I took it a few years ago. Space shuttle at Intrepid was not bad, still worth the money seeing it. Mixed feelings about the Star Trek Experience that's currently running, gf loved it though because she's new to Star Trek and becoming a fan


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> I Now Expect Congress to Rescind the Ban on Supersonic Flight over / in USA Sovereign Air Space
> Now there is a planned US Supersonic Passenger Carrier Aircraft.
> Otherwise its a total waste of Time and it will suffer the Same Restrictions that the US Tried to Cripple Concord with ( because they could not Compete as they had no capable Aircraft of their OWN )



LOL!


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> LOL!


Ha ha funny man   
And where are the Commercial Passenger jets of Concorde's Era   the US Flew at Supersonic Speed
Clue They were pipe Dreams and only made it to partial Mock ups

Sh*t Even the Russians Flew people and Cargo at supersonic Speed ( non Military )


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 17, 2016)

That's alright, there are plenty of capable aircraft in the US. 

If we're behind in commercial flight capabilities, I'll get over it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 17, 2016)

i read somewhere that a B - 58 was flown supersonic over some US cities as a trial....after that there was no way that overland supersonic flight would be allowed.

Edit
found it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

heres an incident in the UK
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...rd-over-peterborough-was-sonic-boom-1-6101729


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 17, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I read somewhere that a B - 58 was flown supersonic over some US cities as a trial....after that there was no way that overland supersonic flight would be allowed.
> 
> Edit
> found it
> ...


United States Military flights are exempted from this rule.
I grew up at Edwards AFB in the late 60's. (home of the  AF-flight test center) Sonic Booms were a way of life. We heard them almost every day. 
I was in elementary school on the day that the XB-70 crashed. That was a hell of a lot louder than any sonic boom I ever heard until  I heard Space Shuttle Columbia land out on Roger's Dry Lake bed. (also Edwards AFB) 
I was there to see it land, and I had helped to make it a reality as I was working for Rockwell International Space Division by then.
The loudest sonic boom I ever heard was when the Rockwell B-1 Bomber set its record-breaking supersonic flight across America. It went over the Antelope Valley with all four engines in full afterburner. It was a low-level pass that freaked out three cities at once.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 17, 2016)

There are explicit places where supersonic travel is permitted (like much of Nevada, a large chunk of California, and a testing corridor).  If you're not over water or over government property, it's generally prohibited.  Concorde only went super sonic over the Atlantic Ocean.

I think if you have a permit for super sonic aircraft, you can request maps from the FAA of where super sonic travel is permitted.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 17, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> United States Military flights are exempted from this rule.
> I grew up at Edwards AFB in the late 60's. (home of the  AF-flight test center) Sonic Booms were a way of life. We heard them almost every day.
> I was in elementary school on the day that the XB-70 crashed. That was a hell of a lot louder than any sonic boom I ever heard until  I heard Space Shuttle Columbia land out on Roger's Dry Lake bed. (also Edwards AFB)
> I was there to see it land, and I had helped to make it a reality as I was working for Rockwell International Space Division by then.
> The loudest sonic boom I ever heard was when the Rockwell B-1 Bomber set its record-breaking supersonic flight across America. It went over the Antelope Valley with all four engines in full afterburner. It was a low-level pass that freaked out three cities at once.




Brilliant. That has made me smile more than anything ive read all day.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 17, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> We had a great time there, not too many people, but yes, some areas are locked off unfortunately. Concorde tour was excellent, Growler submarine was good but not as awesome as a USSR sub tour we had in Hamburg. The tour of the USS Hornet in Alameda SFO is a better carrier tour because of the veteran as guide there, at least back when I took it a few years ago. Space shuttle at Intrepid was not bad, still worth the money seeing it. Mixed feelings about the Star Trek Experience that's currently running, gf loved it though because she's new to Star Trek and becoming a fan


I would go to the air force museum at 1100 Spaatz St, Dayton, OH 45431. I just went last month and couldnt see everything in 1 day. Its 4 buildings of pure awesomeness. Some of the rarest planes from WW2 are stored there.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 17, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> LOL!
> 
> View attachment 81170


Gosh how I miss Nellis AFB, they just had the Avaition Nation air show last weekend. The last show of the Thunder birds for the season.


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 17, 2016)

We're taking my youngest son and his girlfriend to *Udvar-Hazy* (part of the Smithsonian Air Museum) on the first weekend in December.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 17, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> We're taking my youngest son and his girlfriend to *Udvar-Hazy* (part of the Smithsonian Air Museum) on the first weekend in December.


Oh i think they have the enola gay there. I also went there 2 years ago but this see that part of the Smithsonian, it was outside of DC. I went to the Smithsonian in DC.


----------



## Leothelesser (Nov 17, 2016)

Watched Concord’s first flight into Sydney. I was on a destroyer on Sydney harbour just across from the Opera House.
The Opera House framed by the Harbour Bridge with the Concord just overhead and the tall buildings of Sydney either side. It was like a gleaming white space ship from a movie.


----------



## Nosada (Nov 17, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> And where are the Commercial Passenger jets of Concorde's Era the US Flew at Supersonic Speed


They were deemed fairly useless, and proven right. Air France and British Airways were happy to ground the Concorde, as it made them a net loss and was little more than a prestige project.

Also, the US built and flew an aircraft, the XB-70 Valkyrie, that was just as big, 50% heavier and 1.000km/h faster than Concorde, 5 whole years before either Concorde or Concordski flew for the first time. The complete pinnacle of supersonic flight is still the SR-71, which hasn't been equaled by anyone since, not even the US.

EDIT: I did not know about that experiment in Oklahoma, no wonder overland SST never happened. I remember something comparable happen here in the EU when Concorde was allowed to go SS over land. Thousands of broken greenhouse glass plates.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 17, 2016)

Nosada said:


> They were deemed fairly useless, and proven right. Air France and British Airways were happy to ground the Concorde, as it made them a net loss and was little more than a prestige project.




Incorrect.

 In the 1970s the Uk and French governments continued to take a cut of any airline profits made, in the case of BA 80% of the profit was kept by the government, whilst the cost of buying the aircraft was covered by a loan offered by the government.

After posting large losses on their Concorde flights in the early 1980s, British Airways paid a flat sum of £16.5 million in 1984 to the UK government to buy their Concordes outright.

It has been estimated that BA made between £30-50 million profit per annum with Concorde. Things changed drastically after the French crash and 9/11.

https://theadaptivemarketer.com/2012/01/14/a-pricing-lesson-from-the-concorde/

I was told when i worked at Heathrow that Concorde needed 33 passengers per flight to break even.  I saw one New York flight depart with just one passenger onboard.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 17, 2016)

Australia Australia Australia needs these planes! (or bring back the concord) im sick of been stuck in a 747 or 380 for 13-15hrs (one time 19hrs), it just sux!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 17, 2016)




----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Nov 17, 2016)

pfft. any old Ford Pinto travels faster than this thing.


----------



## Nosada (Nov 17, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Concorde needed 33 passengers per flight to break even.


Break even on its running costs (33*7.000=230.000, sounds reasonable) perhaps. I can assure you Concorde never recouped its 1+ billion R&D cost, which was mostly carried by the taxpayers. I love Concorde as an airplane. As a concept however, it is about the most classist, elitist, trumpist (yes, that's a word now) thing ever. Taking a massive amount of taxpayer money for a project that will benefit no-one but a very elite class of people who very easily could afford this themselves just reeks of "prestige project".

And I have to ask, if the Concorde was so profitable, why didn't anyone take over? The Russians had theirs ready, just had to schedule the routes, but they didn't. The US has plenty of in-house knowledge on how to build a supersonic people carrier, but Boeing researched it and didn't see the point, just as they didn't see the point of building a superjumbo. They were right on both accounts. Since then I have seen at least 20 attempts at returning to SST, and all of them have been deemed economically unfeasible. Maybe someday in the future when they succeed in silencing the sonic boom and making supercruise somewhat less of a fuel-hog, but right now it is just not happening.

For the moment we'll have to make due with highly economical twin engines, and learn to live with 6 hour ocean crossings (or 12+ if you're walking upside down).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 17, 2016)

When the aircraft was developed and showcased around the world there was a very good chance it would be bought by many airlines. Orders were placed. Noise issues and overland routes caused big problems which is why, ultimately she flew on a limited number of routes. There were also many political reasons which prevented a decent global service.

As to why noone took over the service.
After the France disaster Concorde was taken out of service and premier customers had no choice other than to fly on conventional craft. There was a huge campaign by airlines such as Virgin Atlantic to entice BA passengers away  (i was working in Terminal 4 at the time and watched the story unfold). all the airlines started to provide a better service for first class passengers ( sleeper seats were introduced at that time). Then came a downturn in the global economy and 9/11 put the frighteners on a lot of first class passengers globally.

When Concorde returned to service the world had changed. She still made money from scheduled and pleasure trips however with so few aircraft in service it was hard for Air France and BA to maintain them with what are bespoke and limited quantity spare parts.


In summary
noise issues meant a restriction in services.
The Air France disaster put many people off flying her.
The delay in getting her back in service meant passengers went to other airlines (with inducements)
9/11
Downturn in global economy.

this wiki link will provide a lot of info but as you know first hand knowledge is a lot better ............i was actually there and attended meetings, I met Joan Collins at one of them and have a handwritten letter signed by one of the pilots addressed to my son which i will give him on his 18th birthday along with some other mementos i "picked up"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde


it isnt that SS flight is unprofitable it is because of the limited number of routes available. LA to Japan for example would be a massive money spinner.


Edit
it isnt just the sonic boom that caused the problems, Concorde was incredibly loud during take off.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 17, 2016)

Nosada said:


> "prestige project


Yes it was a joint Prestige Engineering project with the Aim of being a Commercial profitable service



Nosada said:


> The Russians had theirs ready, just had to schedule the routes, but they didn't


Russia Did introduce Commercial passenger and cargo routes and it did see Service
Their plane was not as safe or Reliable
In Russia only party elite got to use it not the paying plebs (it was way out of affordability for the Average Russian citizen)

Wilki
The Tu-144S went into service on 26 December 1975, flying mail and freight between Moscow and Alma-Ata in preparation for passenger services, which commenced on 1 November 1977.

The passenger service ran a semi-scheduled service until the first Tu-144D experienced an in-flight failure during a pre-delivery test flight, crash-landing on 23 May 1978 with two crew fatalities.[16] The Tu-144's 55th and last scheduled passenger flight occurred on 1 June 1978.

An Aeroflot freight-only service recommenced using the new production variant _Tu-144D_ ("D" for _Dal'nyaya_ – "long range")[17] aircraft on 23 June 1979, including longer routes from Moscow to Khabarovsk made possible by the more efficient Kolesov RD-36-51 turbojet engines, which also increased the maximum cruising speed to Mach 2.15.[18]

Including the 55 passenger flights, there were 102 scheduled flights before the cessation of commercial service.



Nosada said:


> or 12+ if you're walking upside down


Expect Drop Bears in the post for that coment


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 17, 2016)

Nosada said:


> (or 12+ if you're walking upside down).


We're all walking upside down on this planet, the only thing preventing us from falling in to the abyss of space is gravity.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 23, 2017)

Boom Supersonic says it has received $33million (£26million) in funding and was ready to build its XB-1 jet prototype.  XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator is due to take off on its first test flight later this year and could take passengers from London to New York in 3.5 hours

The company said the jet, which will cost more than $200 million (£160 million) to build, may carry passengers by the early 2020s. 
The subsonic flight test will be conducted near Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California in partnership with Virgin Galactic's The Spaceship Company. 

The prototype was unveiled in November at Centennial Airport in Denver.

The XB-1 is a technically representative ⅓-scale version of the future Boom Airliner. 








*BOOM PASSENGER AIRLINER SPECS *
- Crew: Two

- Length: 170 feet (52m)

- Wingspan: 60 feet (18m)

- Passengers: 45 standard (up to 55 in high density)

- Flight attendants: Up to 4

- Lavatories: 2 

- Powerplane: 3X non-afterburning medium bypass turbofan; proprietary variable geometry intake and exhaust

- Aerodynamics: Chine, refined delta wing with swept trailing edge Long Range

- Cruise: Mach 2.2 (1,451mph, 2,335 km/h) 

- Nose Temperature: 307°F (345°F on ISA+20 day)

Maximum Design Route: 4,500 nautical miles without refuel (8300km)


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Mar 23, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Boom Supersonic says it has received $33million (£26million) in funding and was ready to build its XB-1 jet prototype.  XB-1 Supersonic Demonstrator is due to take off on its first test flight later this year and could take passengers from London to New York in 3.5 hours
> 
> The company said the jet, which will cost more than $200 million (£160 million) to build, may carry passengers by the early 2020s.
> The subsonic flight test will be conducted near Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California in partnership with Virgin Galactic's The Spaceship Company.
> ...


whats the fuel capacity?


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 23, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> whats the fuel capacity?



Max flight time or range( + Reserve )

So whatever the FAA and others determine is need as an emergency reserve


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 23, 2017)

dorsetknob said:


> Max flight time or range( + Reserve )
> 
> So whatever the FAA and others determine is need as an emergency reserve




Under most regulations, and they dont differ much, the aircraft must carry enough fuel to reach its' intended destination, an alternative airstrip plus 45 minutes of flight time.


----------

