Back to Squawk list
  • 24

Overture Takes Shape at Farnborough International Airshow

FARNBOROUGH, U.K. - Boom Supersonic announced three defining milestones — the production Overture supersonic airliner design reveal, a landmark alliance with Northrop Grumman to develop special mission variants for the U.S. Government and its allies, and three top-tier supplier agreements with Collins Aerospace, Eaton, and Safran Landing Systems. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Dean Brossman 8
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
William Smith 8
Carbon neutral.... Everyone knows that CO2 is plant food. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. Methane is more than 10 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. If you look at the the ups and down of the average climatic temperatures throughout history, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has always lagged behind the average temperatures by a significant amount of time. In other words, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect of the climatic change, not a cause. Fact is, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the greater the density of green plant life.

Remember this... CO2 + H2O + E = O2 + C6H12O6 (A formula you should remember from HS Freshman Biology class, assuming that you were even paying attention or were awake!)

Climate change as a result of CO2 or your carbon footprint is a fraud being perpetuated on you to tax you more.
John Nichols 1
Yes. Temperature leads CO2, it does not lag.

Utter fraud...
Tim Dyck 0
Can we stick to the topic at hand?
Jim Smirh 3
Still confused about the choice of the word "boom. 😳 I've never favorably connected that word to aviation, much less travel. Most people (especially pilots!) dislike things that go "boom"!!! 🤪
John Nichols 2
Anyone have some J58's for sale?Tricky start, needs special fuel, fuel flow like a 777, but hey, the technology is interesting.

What is PW selling for today?
linbb 3
Trying to figure out exactly where and how SAF fuel comes from and how much is avalible seems very tricky to figure out. Lots of words lots of never get to the exact point about the bottom line of how its better. One place says 10% better then there was a word used once in my short read about carbon offsets. That one statement says its smoke and mirrors.
Pete Marsh 3
SAF or Carbon neutral fuel is made by using giant powerful fans to draw in the atmosphere and run it over carbon dioxide scrubbers. Next hydrogen is collected and then both the CO2 and Hydrogen are combined and now you have a hydrocarbon. Once burned in an engine it adds nothing to the atmosphere that it didn’t take out , therefore its carbon neutral. Of course all of us ignores the enormous cost in electricity to make the stuff. Think of it it like a roll or coaster all the energy is spent just getting to the top of the hill. In order for the world to produce enough for this technology to be successful highly efficient carbon dioxide scrubbers have to be developed and engineered plus a a much Greater efficiency in Hydrogen extraction then is commonly used.. Also our electrical grid would have to undergo changes to it infrastructure or better yet stand-a-lone nuclear power plants to handle any kind of meaningful production. The plus side our present day distribution system can handle the fuel.
Mark Kortum 5
"There is no free lunch"
Tim Dyck 2
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was just biofuel.
Oh wait it is just biofuel…
David Ingram 1
The main air corridors are already loaded and they want to stick traffic doing twice the speed in there? They had better be able to go way higher. Going to give controllers headaches. Back to the days of "hope you have enough fuel".
bentwing60 1
That might be back to the wonderful days of the early Lear series, Jet Commode and Sabre 40. The only ones that really went a long way back then was the Junkstar, on account of they had slipper fuel tanks almost as large as the fuselage on the afore mentioned 'rookie need not apply to fly' airplanes!
Pete Marsh 1
Like Concord the ticket prices will be out of reach for all but the 1%ers. But hey! They can feel good about themselves at 1.7 time the speed of sound, not something I’d characterize as a leap forward.
Scottie Marable 1
As Americans we strive to be able to afford this type of travel. And yes, I will feel good about myself and technology at 1.7 times the speed of sound if I am able to fly on it..
avionik99 -1
Didn't we already have a supersonic passenger jet that nobody wanted in their airspace? Nobody wanted the boom in their neighborhood. What makes this one so different than the one that eventually completely failed?
mariofer 6
I would not say nobody. We had a supersonic passenger jet that the airlines didn't want because it was too expensive to operate and routes where incredible restricted due noise and other issues.
Dan Drimmie 0
exactly...the Boeing 2707.
Dean Brossman 12
First off, Concorde did not fail. It flew for 24+ years. It was not designed to cruise subsonic so it could not fly over the US. This one is designed to cruise subsonic and have supersonic capabilities. Concorde needed the afterburners to take off, so it could meet the noise requirements of today. So this aircraft is an advancement in technology.
avionik99 6
Unfortunately most of us will never be able to afford a ride on one. That would be a really cool flight.
flynrph 3
There are no commercial grade engines available for this paper project. It will take years and billions of dollars to develop a suitable engine. If this was currently a feasible project, Airbus (who has actual experience in this area) or Boeing would be working on something like this. This is not happening anytime soon.
John Nichols 1
Well, there is an engine.PW-J58....Sucks gas and needs ground start and slow fuel.

So don't pretend the technology is impossible.

They likely need to be dumbed down, to make something like this aircraft happen.

I think every Dick and Jane will fly a relic outer to work before supersonic makes economic sense.

Don't spend my tax dollars on this dream....
flynrph 1
Not impossible. Very expensive to bring it up to commercial reliability (on wing time), durability (reasonable TBO), and efficiency (whatever this would mean to a supersonic large aircraft). Throw tons of money at a problem and frequently they can be solved. Problem is... tons of money.
Dan Drimmie 0
They're not referring to the 'Concorde'...reference is to the Boeing 2707 which nobody wanted and was indeed a failure.
bentwing60 2
It, (the 2707), was never really offered, other than behind the curtain, and US air carriers rejected Concorde unequivocally as well.

There were only two major carriers flying them, ever, well three if you count the Harding Lawrence Braniff promo., DFW-Dulles meme, and that lasted one year and five months!

Success and failure, not unlike beauty, is in the eye or bias of the beholder or accountants!
mbrews -3
Well, count me as unimpressed with this PAPER AIRPLANE. You know, this Boom outfit which has NEVER built ANY aircraft whatsoever, sends out a press releases with pretty pictures. Any artist could do the same.

Call us back when this grows beyond a nerdy science project MERELY ON PAPER.

when you've actually flown an aircraft of any sort.
Mark Kortum 8
The electric light will never work!
Craig Ehler 9
Amen to that subtle, but well stated reply to the naysayers! Perhaps we should just keep prescribing to the ‘do-nothing bold and challenging’ mindset that took hold post 1960’s. Looking back to that decade of the 1960’s, man went from being earthbound to landing on the moon, from props to jumbo jets, and from subsonic to supersonic transports. In my humble opinion, the only reason this project (or any similar project like it) would fail is continuing to follow the naysaying status quo and never do anything bold since it is simply too hard, too political, too expensive, too… Back to the aforementioned decade of technological leaps, I look to the quote made by JFK (at the start of that decade): “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…”
Tim Dyck 3
Some great things came out of the 60s Too bad that spirit of advancing our society regardless of how hard it might be is lost today. We made it to the moon with slide rules and analog computers but today with all out technology many lack the desire to even build a commercial supersonic aircraft.
Tim Dyck 3
There were many failures before a viable one was developed. The same as any technology from your lightbulb to commercial supersonic air travel, there will be failures and setbacks but if you want success you have to be able to accept and learn from failures. We didn’t get to the moon in a paper airplane…


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.