The FAA has proposed a rulemaking to allow supersonic flight over the United States, rescinding the outright ban that went into effect in the 1970s.
The FAA isn’t trying to bring back Concorde and let it fly over land. It’s creating a path for aircraft that can prove they don’t create sonic booms on the ground to be legal to fly.
- Currently speeds above Mach 1 over land are simply illegal, regardless of whether there’s a sonic boom heard on the ground. That’s roughly a ban on flying over 761 miles per hour (at sea level).
- The FAA’s proposal would allow faster speeds if the FAA finds that pressure reaching the surface is no more than 0.11 pounds per square foot. That means allowing “boomless cruise” rather than full speed supersonic flight.
Credit: Boom Supersonic
The U.S. required special FAA authorization for civil aircraft flying Mach 1 inside the United States in 1973 to protect people on the ground from sonic booms. It wasn’t clear what a safe exposure was, and there was public backlash against the Boeing and Lockheed SST projects and Concorde. The FAA said that public reaction to sonic boom testing was senough to ban it, regardless of whether or not it was safe – that the burden should be on supersonic proponents to show it’s acceptable, not on the public to prove harm. (In fact, ‘showing it’s safe’ wouldn’t actually be enough in the face of an outright ban.)
The rule became tightened for Concorde in 1978: even aircraft flying supersonic outside U.S. airspace weren’t permitted to create booms that reached U.S. territory while arriving or departing from U.S. airports.
After the Boeing and Lockheed programs died, there was a move to ban Concorde. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey initially even blocked it until November 1977. The ban on supersonic protected incumbent airframe manufacturers. The FAA even says that Boeing met with them on the current rulemaking.
The current proposal replaces a speed-based air travel ban with a ground-impact rule. Currently, a “boomless” supersonic operation is illegal without a special authorization. Future rulemakings will still be needed for landing and takeoff noise and operating requirements and won’t come for several years. However, it becomes more possible to envision faster flying than subsonic across the country.
Credit: Boom Supersonic
This is a big boon to Boom, Hermeus, and other supersonic developers because there’s a clearer legal path to go beyond one-off test authorizations. However, it doesn’t overcome the core challenges to the business.
- Engines. Engine development is expensive (billions) and manufacturers haven’t been willing to invest. Boom is self-funding but doesn’t have enough financing. The new FAA rule would increase the size of the market to allow for more flights, which theorertically makes the investment case for an engine (marginally) better.
- Market size. Supersonic planes that can only fly at supersonic speeds over the ocean have a much smaller route map. If means you probably wouldn’t see one flying Los Angeles to London. But if it can legally fly faster than Mach 1 over land, even if not full speed, the case becomes somewhat better although routes are still limited (and routes where passenger demand is sufficient are limited).
- Route economics: Flying over land potentially increases aircraft utilization. Costs and complexity of a small fleet, with premium-heavy cabins (needed to make this work at all), engine reserves, and still dealing with noise limits limit the number of city pairs that could support this.
Credit: Boom Supersonic
The FAA rule increases the likelihood of testing, demonstration, and eventually limited overland supersonic flying becaue it won’t simply be illegal outside of specially-authorized test flights. It’s necessary to turn this into a real aircraft in passenger service, but it’s not enough. Airframe manufacturers need certification, an engine, noise standards, airports set up for them, and routes with enough premium demand. This change raises the odds that success could come about, but doesn’t guarantee it.
Still, it seems obviously true that any rule shouldn’t be a blanket ban but should be based on the actual effects of flight.
However, just because there’s a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking doesn’t mean we get to a final rule. The FAA must receive and consider comments before deciding to move forward. And while they take the position that this is excluded from National Environmental Policy Act constraints, that may be litigated.
Japan Airlines invested in Boom, and has a notional order. Both United Airlines and American have signed on in theory but these aren’t real commitments. It’s fun to think though that air travel could finally be as fast again as it was in the 1970s.
Boom’s supersonic plance will never fly. They don’t have an engine. In fact, they have abandoned pursuit of a supersonic plane to focus on the booming market for stationary turbines.
https://www.thechalkreport.com/post/splat-boom-supersonic-s-quiet-retreat-from-the-skies
Boom Supersonic has funding and testing at the same time via using their test engine to power AI data centers built by Crusoe. Innovative idea if it works out.
https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/ai-needs-more-power-than-the-grid-can-deliver-supersonic-tech-can-fix-that
The FAA should definitely move faster to make sure the rules are facts-based and driven by effects and not just outright bans.
Delta will wait until there’s a used Boom market to acquire aircraft.
Boom? You mean the company without a working supersonic engine? LOL.
1990: It is easy to tell who is an actual do’er and inventor and who just likes taking other people’s money and complaining about the “corporations”.
@1990: the Wright Flyer’s airframe was completed prior to completion of a new light weight engine to power it. Likewise, the JT9D engine design was finalized after completion of the 747-100 airframe for which it was designed. My concern isn’t that Overture’s engine design and testing is incomplete; it’s that the engine is being built by a company without substantial engine design experience (Boom itself) and it violates the old rule of “never hang a new engine on a new airframe”. Nevertheless, I believe Boom is a genuine effort and hope they suceed.
@Mark F: Nobody takes Boom seriously except ignorami who have a dream of supersonic flight untenured by reality. They don’t have an engine. End of story. That is why they have given up supersonic flight for the much more sensible idea of a stationary turbine for the booming (pun intended) data centre industry. Gio to the link I posted earlier (when Gary has cleared it).
@L3: Boom has raised over $1 billion in Series A and B rounds to date from very ignorant individuals and venture capital firms who somehow managed to accumulate great wealth despite their limited faculties.
“”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” (attributed to Gandhi)
@L3: Way to twist things into something they are not. Your perception of reality is not in fact reality.
@Mark F: F Read the article.
“Here is the math that doesn’t add up:
Boom’s Valuation: $1.5 Billion.
Cost to Develop a Modern Jet Engine: Approximately $10–$20 Billion.
”
You are a ” ignoramus who has a dream of supersonic flight untenured by reality”. You are ignorant because the facts are spoon-fed to you but you refuse to read them.
The latest raise (something like half the total raised) succeeded in raising $350m because it is NOT for your dream. It is for the stationary turbine to power data centers.
Again READ and LEARN. You have self-inflicted ignorance because, like a knowall teenager, you don’t.
@L3: Read about the background of the person who produces the Chalk Report. I’m sure he’s very intelligent and is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his expertise is wine. For example, $10B is the high end price of developing a supersonic engine for the military or a revolutionary narrow body commercial engine that will sell many thousands of copies if it achieves high enough fuel efficiency. Boom’s engine design appears to be a generally conventional mid-bypass turbofan that requires significant modification for the stresses of supersonic flight. Cost for new engines can reportedly run from $1B to $10B, so your estimate seems to be the worst case scenario.
Additionally there is no evidence to date that Boom is getting out of the supersonic aircraft business. Many companies multi-purpose their technology to increase their revenue stream.
More importantly, Chalk and you are making a fundemental error in thinking any new commercial aircraft producer can enter the market without government funding. The last one that made it’s own way was Douglas Aircraft in the 1930’s with the DC-3. Boeing and McDonnel were DoD in the WW2 era, Airbus was the EU, Bombardier the Canadian gov’t, Embraer was actually founded by the Brazilian government. China and Russia’s aircraft manufacturers are majority gov’t owned. Boom’s likely goal is to get far enough along on private funding for the US government to decide to “invest” through the DoD purchases and research support, tax credits, technology development grants, loans, etc. So far the DoD has expressed interest, but no significant dollars. Scott Kirby knows more about Boom’s chances than you, I, or Mr. Chalk, and he puts their odds at 50:50. I think that’s optimistic, but it’s short sighted to only focus on the hurdles and demean Boom’s efforts.
Supersonic airliners are a solution in search of a problem. For real-world scenarios, teleconferencing gets the job done faster and cheaper.
Thank you, @L3. By all means, @Common Sense, @Mark F should “invest” and prove us wrong. (But, like we each stated above, no engine, no plane, no company. Not hard.)
so where is China on all this?